As any reading of the Pope's liturgical logic will show, the "reform of the reform" is all about the beauty of holiness, without which ritual externals are not much more than cosmetic. The holiness of worship is at the heart of the true renewal that the Second Vatican Council intended when it spoke of the liturgy as the "source and summit" of redeemed life. Without a full dedication of mind and heart, the reform of the liturgy would quickly degenerate into a vain aestheticism little different from the aesthetic movement which marked the decay of the Victorian age.Another post that offers a good example of what the New Liturgical Movement intends is this one from May 20: Measuring and Implementing the Reform of the Reform with practical advice on how to get the altars back against the wall and the priests' backs facing the congregation once more.
There are Christian denominations that have gradually cloaked their abandonment of Gospel truths in outward ceremonials which become a kind of fancy dress paganism. A defect in some of the recent liturgical innovations has been an exaggerated emphasis on affective piety as a substitute for objective sacrifice. The sturdy language of the traditional texts assumed that the "ex opere operato" fact of the Sacrifice of the Mass will issue from and lead to an evangelical expression of this Sacrifice in the dedication of the worshipers to Christ's commission: to proclaim the Gospel and manifest the Faith in works of mercy.
I think one way to get this across is for the liturgical calendar to embrace the many new saints who have lived the Eucharistic life in the challenges of modern conceits. Otherwise the sacred tradition will only be an indulgence of nostalgia.
The group is a far cry from the baptismal theology we so treasure. Is this reforming the reform an RC phenomenon? There is certainly the Prayer Book Society within Anglicanism, but is there any sense that they are gaining traction as, for example, Latin Mass proponents have within the Roman Catholic Church?
6 comments:
If you want an antidote for the "reform of the reform" bilge, see here.
I'm at a loss to understand why the position of the priest is considered to be so important. Is s/he the most valuable person in the room, or something? Why is it of seemingly no interest at all which way everybody else faces?
Just curious.
It's feels like the issue is that the rejection of Modernism which is part of this new century, sometimes called post-modernism, allows one to pick and choose which era of the past to go back to and when there to pick and choose which elements one will use. There is is Anglo-Catholicism here on the East Coast a mindset which says we are free to choose a ceremonial which speaks to us, regardless of what it says about the community gathered for worship.
Part of the reaction to the Novus Ordo is fatigue from sustained change in our world, but I think a lot of it is people growing tired of poorly planned and executed music and ceremonial. Contrast the "dignity" of that photo with what we all see in some Roman parishes today.
bls,
I know that some congregations have also considered which way everybody faces. Oe example is found in the Open article linked from this blog that goes into liturgucal changes at St. Paul's Chapel.
In my own congregation we worship in the round part of the year photos here. Changing which way everybody faces is also considered and also matters. But so often both architecture and tradition prevent that conversation from taking place.
"Changing which way everybody faces is also considered and also matters. But so often both architecture and tradition prevent that conversation from taking place."
I'm interested in knowing exactly why these "changes" are considered to be necessary - particularly in cases in which, as you suggest, the architecture prevents it. If such changes cannot occur, then is the worship considered invalid?
What exactly is the goal? And why is the physical position of the people involved considered to be more important than what actually happens during worship? Why does the way people stand or sit or kneel need to be "considered" by somebody else?
I don't get it. Why the need to make everybody do the same thing, as Ron Miller's comment implies? One reason I'm an Episcopalian is because it's not the Catholic Church and we don't all have to do things the same way, as determined by somebody else. If Anglo-Catholics want to do their worship in a certain way, why is this considered to be "wrong" by people who aren't even members of the parish?
Post a Comment