Author Topic: "Organic" liturgical development  (Read 324 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,666
"Organic" liturgical development
« on: January 05, 2018, 10:41:54 AM »
(i.e., Liturgy as something that is completely disciplinary and can be abrogated or changed by anyone in an inorganic manner...

I've heard some variation of the above a bunch of times through the years, and I may have even asked this before, but I've never gotten a good answer.

1). What makes any change to the liturgy "organic" versus "inorganic"? The act of redaction or insertion is surgical no matter how you look at it. (If it's something like the ossification of some folk piety, who is to say — for example — that holding hands or using the Orans posture during the Our Father isn't a legitimate liturgical development?)

2). Who has the authority to write or modify a liturgy, should the need arise?

3). Should some hypothetical situation in which a liturgy needs to be abrogated or suppressed, who has the right?

All of these things have happened throughout our church history, and while the people involved are (mostly) considered venerable, at the time they were just people (err...hierarchs) in the slipstream of history.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,537
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2018, 04:18:36 PM »
Hopefully I'm connected to your point,  and I'm trying really hard not to make a response that isn't too meandering,  ponderous,  or bloviated.  If this is just specifically about liturgy disregard this post,  I don't think I can give a very good answer.  But if you're talking about something like organic vs inorganic development in general,  maybe I can take a stab as to what people are on about.


 I think one way to look at something like this would be questions like "are there different rules, are there different kinds of rules, do we have different relationships to various differing kind of rules,  what are the "rules for thinking about rules", what is the process of forming rules,  and things like that.

I think your use of the the word "surgical" is maybe part of the answer.   A surgeon deals with life,  not inorganic knowledge.    It's not the same way an engineer approaches a problem.   An engineer is going to base everything off of questioning things his mind can wrap around words,  most human activities don't work like that.... at least not in that pure a fashion.  An engineer is of a different trade than a physician.   He has all the knowledge he needs,  and all that knowledge is perfectly articulated and perfectly malleable to how he approaches the world.

If we were to take a question an engineer (representing inorganic knowledge) vs. a physician (representing organic knowledge): A "pure" engineering mind would be perfectly  reasonable to ask what should be a nonsensical question like "Why not just replace the word God with the word Moloch". This is clearly something that is incorrect,  but why?  I think one answer to that is because this is looking at things inorganically and what happened was the wrong mental tool was used.

 Anywho, to contrast:  A physician doesn't have the thought luxuries an engineer has as a physician has a different job and deals with different things.  if he runs into resistance from a patient he is trying to diagnose he may have to tell himself his mind is in the wrong area and he is barking up the wrong tree,  even if the complaints of his patient doesn't make any "rational sense" at the moment (in this case,  I'm trying to use that as an analogy for your phrase "ossification of folk piety").  Even if you think your right in a diagnosis,  the fact that your patient is resisting is a real factor, those subjective more complex and more inarticulate factors are going to way in a lot more than vs a "pure inorganic" approach.  In this way "folk piety" may actually be something, what that may be (including a red herring) who knows, but you have to take some notice of it as all these things are going to be bigger than any "pure knowledge" you actually have.  An engineer would be much quicker to write those things off as either accounted for variables,  or useless subjective data. A physician is using his mind to deal with changes, but he is under a completely different set of rules,  and is subject to a lot more complex phenomena.  The relationship he has to the world,  his knowledge, and the entire body of knowledge of the outside world is much different than the world of the engineer.  They're different trades,  and the approach and results from an approach is going to be different.

As far as what this has to do with the liturgy, and how it relates to your thoughts on it's development, I can't say much other than if people of good authority or in good standing say that there are a couple different approaches to dealing with these things there probably are.   And if people are using odd pieties or whatever as a crutch or bludgeon to preserve some narrow self interest, that's almost certainly true.   That goes with the territory.  Wishing to impose some change while disregarding any sign or symptom that stands in your way,  or resisting anything and everything that takes one out of one comfort zone are probably natural crutches and a Scylla and Charybdis of dealing with tensions that arise within any living communities.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 645
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2018, 04:53:18 PM »
1. I can only give you my answer of what I meant by inorganic and organic;

Generally, I would argue "organic" development refers to small, gradual changes in the Liturgy which tries to respect the Traditions of the Liturgy that came before it, such that if I were to walk into the same Liturgy 1000 years ago, I would recognize it as the same. Generally, the "organic" changes in the Liturgy are usually a result of cultural influences on the Liturgy, with only a couple of minor changes here or there in the aesthetics or a couple of the words, such that the Liturgy remains the same Liturgy as the old Liturgy. There must be an intent of preserving Tradition in order for there to be "organic" changes.

For example, we can look at the contemporary Greek Orthodox liturgy and compare it to what we know about the Liturgy of John Chrysostom in the 6th-7th century Byzantine Empire - For example, the shiny patterned Greek phelonion (with maybe even iconography on the phelonion) we see today with the button up Greek stole, along with the contemporary Byzantine iconography we see today, as well as contemporary Greek chanting would not be the same.

The Byzantine iconography that we have from the 6th century is very distinct from iconography that we see now - at least from Saint Catherine's Monastery, the famous Jesus Christ Pantocrator icon, Saint Peter icon, and couple of Theotokos icons we have there suggests that if there wasn't a different style of artwork that was more realistic, than there was certainly a wider variety that is distinct from the iconography we have now. The vestments were very plain with Western style chasubles, similar to contemporary Western vestments, the stole - if not developed by the 6th century, certainly originated as a two piece object, like the Western style - and finally, the iconstasis that we know of in Orthodox Churches did not exist in the 6th century, with the iconstasis growing from a Templon - or a barrier between the nave and the Sacraments on the altar. The Greek chants we know of have, at the very least, had some Arabic influence, such that the chants we know today wouldn't exactly be the same, and - finally - the words from the 6th century have some changes here and there. A lot of these developments, like the iconostasis, grew from pragmatism.

In fact, even before that, the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom was created using the Christian Traditions of his area before him, respecting the authentic Liturgical practices in his area. Saint Gregory did the same in the West.

These changes I view are that of "organic" liturgical development.

We can argue that - although the Tridentine Mass is problematic with introducing unOrthodox elements, like unleavened bread, the Filioque, serving only one "species" of the Eucharist, pipe organs, and Renaissance imagery - there is still clearly an intent of preserving tradition in Rome up until Vatican II. Likewise, the Gregorian chants we know of aren't the same as the old Gregorian chants (which we can assume sounded very similar, but clearly the Renaissance influenced the way they sounded), the Biretta we are accustomed to seeing in the Tridentine Mass wasn't around in the 600s, nor was the "6 candle" setup that we are used to seeing in the Tridentine Mass. The Biretta we see came as a development from the skullcap, the biretta being more of a symbol of authority in Western European culture; the skullcap itself was a development which came from clergy covering their tonsured bald heads during winter time.
Likewise, the shiny fiddleback chasubles or shiny gothic chasubles were developed, too - with the 1st millennium Church, like Constantinople, using very plain vestments. Even pre-schism, Roman artwork saw tons of development, from Romanesque artwork to Byzantine artwork to Gothic artwork.

Nonetheless, when we look at the Tridentine Mass despite these changes, we can still see authentic Christian worship in their liturgy - we can see fundamental elements such as censing the altar and the people, kissing the altar, Christian chanting, facing the altar with similar hand motions to Orthodox worship, etc.

With this liturgical continuity, under some Old Catholic groups, the Orthodox Church has allowed the liturgy to remain practiced with some required changes to be completely Orthodox in content under the Orthodox Liturgy of Saint Gregory (because it grew from the authentic Liturgy of Saint Gregory).

Now, we can compare this to Vatican II, in which the entire liturgy of the Tridentine Mass was simply discarded and rewritten from scratch, with fundamental changes to the manner of which Mass is performed - with the priest facing the people, allowing up-beat musical-instrument playing songs to be played, Eucharistic ministers and communion on the hand, and the removal of incense, no more kissing the altar and no more silence, no more chanting, no more reverence, and the removal of key ideas of the Roman Catholic faith - most prayers / chants to the Saints were flat out removed or abrogated, the words identifying the Eucharist as the Sacrifice were removed, and the Novus Ordo was created with help from Protestant theologians, with an infamous picture of Paul VI and those said theologians.

Jean Guitton, who was very close friends with Pope Paul VI, said the following about the Novus Ordo: "The intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy – but what is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord's Supper...there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass."

This is "inorganic" because the entire Mass does not originate from a Traditional source - the Tridentine Mass grew from Saint Peter in Rome to Saint Gregory the Great all the way up to the Great Schism, were it continued to grow outside the Church to Trent to the 19th century up until Vatican II. In Vatican II, there is no "intent" to preserve tradition. Rather, this entire growth was thrown out the window for something subpar in the hopes that the Catholics and Protestants could get along.



It obviously didn't really work, even if the intent of accommodation was backwards in the first place.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 04:59:01 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,813
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2018, 05:27:10 PM »
(i.e., Liturgy as something that is completely disciplinary and can be abrogated or changed by anyone in an inorganic manner...

I've heard some variation of the above a bunch of times through the years, and I may have even asked this before, but I've never gotten a good answer.

1). What makes any change to the liturgy "organic" versus "inorganic"? The act of redaction or insertion is surgical no matter how you look at it. (If it's something like the ossification of some folk piety, who is to say — for example — that holding hands or using the Orans posture during the Our Father isn't a legitimate liturgical development?)

2). Who has the authority to write or modify a liturgy, should the need arise?

3). Should some hypothetical situation in which a liturgy needs to be abrogated or suppressed, who has the right?

All of these things have happened throughout our church history, and while the people involved are (mostly) considered venerable, at the time they were just people (err...hierarchs) in the slipstream of history.

I'm just going to point out two aspects of pious human experience that are rapidly becoming lost to the way we think about this (or a lot of other things): first, the nature of a static but sustained work, i.e., of generations laboring in an inherited work in an inherited way without the folly of imagination or innovation -- such was all worthwhile human endeavor for centuries; second, the fact that the Holy Spirit is a real person and a real presence. As soon as these aspects are lost to a population's experience, then their endeavors are abandoned to the destructiveness of skeptical, hubristic modern "creativity."
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,666
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2018, 05:54:03 PM »
1. I can only give you my answer of what I meant by inorganic and organic;

Generally, I would argue "organic" development refers to small, gradual changes in the Liturgy which tries to respect the Traditions of the Liturgy that came before it, such that if I were to walk into the same Liturgy 1000 years ago, I would recognize it as the same. Generally, the "organic" changes in the Liturgy are usually a result of cultural influences on the Liturgy, with only a couple of minor changes here or there in the aesthetics or a couple of the words, such that the Liturgy remains the same Liturgy as the old Liturgy. There must be an intent of preserving Tradition in order for there to be "organic" changes.

For example, we can look at the contemporary Greek Orthodox liturgy and compare it to what we know about the Liturgy of John Chrysostom in the 6th-7th century Byzantine Empire - For example, the shiny patterned Greek phelonion (with maybe even iconography on the phelonion) we see today with the button up Greek stole, along with the contemporary Byzantine iconography we see today, as well as contemporary Greek chanting would not be the same.

The Byzantine iconography that we have from the 6th century is very distinct from iconography that we see now - at least from Saint Catherine's Monastery, the famous Jesus Christ Pantocrator icon, Saint Peter icon, and couple of Theotokos icons we have there suggests that if there wasn't a different style of artwork that was more realistic, than there was certainly a wider variety that is distinct from the iconography we have now. The vestments were very plain with Western style chasubles, similar to contemporary Western vestments, the stole - if not developed by the 6th century, certainly originated as a two piece object, like the Western style - and finally, the iconstasis that we know of in Orthodox Churches did not exist in the 6th century, with the iconstasis growing from a Templon - or a barrier between the nave and the Sacraments on the altar. The Greek chants we know of have, at the very least, had some Arabic influence, such that the chants we know today wouldn't exactly be the same, and - finally - the words from the 6th century have some changes here and there. A lot of these developments, like the iconostasis, grew from pragmatism.

In fact, even before that, the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom was created using the Christian Traditions of his area before him, respecting the authentic Liturgical practices in his area. Saint Gregory did the same in the West.

These changes I view are that of "organic" liturgical development.

We can argue that - although the Tridentine Mass is problematic with introducing unOrthodox elements, like unleavened bread, the Filioque, serving only one "species" of the Eucharist, pipe organs, and Renaissance imagery - there is still clearly an intent of preserving tradition in Rome up until Vatican II. Likewise, the Gregorian chants we know of aren't the same as the old Gregorian chants (which we can assume sounded very similar, but clearly the Renaissance influenced the way they sounded), the Biretta we are accustomed to seeing in the Tridentine Mass wasn't around in the 600s, nor was the "6 candle" setup that we are used to seeing in the Tridentine Mass. The Biretta we see came as a development from the skullcap, the biretta being more of a symbol of authority in Western European culture; the skullcap itself was a development which came from clergy covering their tonsured bald heads during winter time.
Likewise, the shiny fiddleback chasubles or shiny gothic chasubles were developed, too - with the 1st millennium Church, like Constantinople, using very plain vestments. Even pre-schism, Roman artwork saw tons of development, from Romanesque artwork to Byzantine artwork to Gothic artwork.

Nonetheless, when we look at the Tridentine Mass despite these changes, we can still see authentic Christian worship in their liturgy - we can see fundamental elements such as censing the altar and the people, kissing the altar, Christian chanting, facing the altar with similar hand motions to Orthodox worship, etc.

With this liturgical continuity, under some Old Catholic groups, the Orthodox Church has allowed the liturgy to remain practiced with some required changes to be completely Orthodox in content under the Orthodox Liturgy of Saint Gregory (because it grew from the authentic Liturgy of Saint Gregory).

Now, we can compare this to Vatican II, in which the entire liturgy of the Tridentine Mass was simply discarded and rewritten from scratch, with fundamental changes to the manner of which Mass is performed - with the priest facing the people, allowing up-beat musical-instrument playing songs to be played, Eucharistic ministers and communion on the hand, and the removal of incense, no more kissing the altar and no more silence, no more chanting, no more reverence, and the removal of key ideas of the Roman Catholic faith - most prayers / chants to the Saints were flat out removed or abrogated, the words identifying the Eucharist as the Sacrifice were removed, and the Novus Ordo was created with help from Protestant theologians, with an infamous picture of Paul VI and those said theologians.

Jean Guitton, who was very close friends with Pope Paul VI, said the following about the Novus Ordo: "The intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy – but what is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord's Supper...there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass."

This is "inorganic" because the entire Mass does not originate from a Traditional source - the Tridentine Mass grew from Saint Peter in Rome to Saint Gregory the Great all the way up to the Great Schism, were it continued to grow outside the Church to Trent to the 19th century up until Vatican II. In Vatican II, there is no "intent" to preserve tradition. Rather, this entire growth was thrown out the window for something subpar in the hopes that the Catholics and Protestants could get along.



It obviously didn't really work, even if the intent of accommodation was backwards in the first place.

Fair enough.

I'll respond when I have more time.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 645
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2018, 06:53:24 PM »

Fair enough.

I'll respond when I have more time.
Keep in mind as well that I certainly question some of the decisions that have been made in terms of Liturgy in both East and West even pre-schism; we have lost authentic and ancient Celtic, English, Gallician, Mozarabic, Antiochian, and Alexandrian Liturgical Traditions because of a desire of homogeneity from Rome in the West, mandating Roman practice, and the Byzantine Empire in the East, mandating Byzantine practice in the East. I tend to think that these things happened from pride, considering how powerful both the Byzantine Empire and Rome became. Heck, even post-schism, the desire for homogeneity in Russia created the Old-Believers schism - and while I don't see that much of a difference between the practices, I think the Old-Believers' practices are cool (although I don't think their schism was justified).

Saint Gregory the Great wanted Ireland and England to retain their own liturgical customs, and Saint Cuthbert was even expelled for wanting to practice Traditional Irish Monasticism; and both Saint Tikhon and Saint John Maximovitch seemed to be all for a Western Rite Orthodoxy. I tend to be of the opinion that Saint Theodosius of Kiev when he railed against a lot of Latin customs (some, like not naming kids after Saints, I think is justified; others not, like blessed salt) was mistaken and Saint Wilfrid simply made mistakes about wanting Roman homogeneity in England and Ireland (justified in terms of adopting the Julian Paschal Calendar however).

I think that this is what makes Orthodoxy so wonderful - unity in diversity.

But it isn't the most important thing - as long as we have authentic Christian worship in the Church and are able to have a proper relationship with God, respecting the Ancient Traditions of the Saints and Apostles, we are good to go.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 07:04:11 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Online augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,497
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2018, 07:23:39 PM »
1. I can only give you my answer of what I meant by inorganic and organic;

Generally, I would argue "organic" development refers to small, gradual changes in the Liturgy which tries to respect the Traditions of the Liturgy that came before it, such that if I were to walk into the same Liturgy 1000 years ago, I would recognize it as the same. Generally, the "organic" changes in the Liturgy are usually a result of cultural influences on the Liturgy, with only a couple of minor changes here or there in the aesthetics or a couple of the words, such that the Liturgy remains the same Liturgy as the old Liturgy. There must be an intent of preserving Tradition in order for there to be "organic" changes.

For example, we can look at the contemporary Greek Orthodox liturgy and compare it to what we know about the Liturgy of John Chrysostom in the 6th-7th century Byzantine Empire - For example, the shiny patterned Greek phelonion (with maybe even iconography on the phelonion) we see today with the button up Greek stole, along with the contemporary Byzantine iconography we see today, as well as contemporary Greek chanting would not be the same.

The Byzantine iconography that we have from the 6th century is very distinct from iconography that we see now - at least from Saint Catherine's Monastery, the famous Jesus Christ Pantocrator icon, Saint Peter icon, and couple of Theotokos icons we have there suggests that if there wasn't a different style of artwork that was more realistic, than there was certainly a wider variety that is distinct from the iconography we have now. The vestments were very plain with Western style chasubles, similar to contemporary Western vestments, the stole - if not developed by the 6th century, certainly originated as a two piece object, like the Western style - and finally, the iconstasis that we know of in Orthodox Churches did not exist in the 6th century, with the iconstasis growing from a Templon - or a barrier between the nave and the Sacraments on the altar. The Greek chants we know of have, at the very least, had some Arabic influence, such that the chants we know today wouldn't exactly be the same, and - finally - the words from the 6th century have some changes here and there. A lot of these developments, like the iconostasis, grew from pragmatism.

In fact, even before that, the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom was created using the Christian Traditions of his area before him, respecting the authentic Liturgical practices in his area. Saint Gregory did the same in the West.

These changes I view are that of "organic" liturgical development.

We can argue that - although the Tridentine Mass is problematic with introducing unOrthodox elements, like unleavened bread, the Filioque, serving only one "species" of the Eucharist, pipe organs, and Renaissance imagery - there is still clearly an intent of preserving tradition in Rome up until Vatican II. Likewise, the Gregorian chants we know of aren't the same as the old Gregorian chants (which we can assume sounded very similar, but clearly the Renaissance influenced the way they sounded), the Biretta we are accustomed to seeing in the Tridentine Mass wasn't around in the 600s, nor was the "6 candle" setup that we are used to seeing in the Tridentine Mass. The Biretta we see came as a development from the skullcap, the biretta being more of a symbol of authority in Western European culture; the skullcap itself was a development which came from clergy covering their tonsured bald heads during winter time.
Likewise, the shiny fiddleback chasubles or shiny gothic chasubles were developed, too - with the 1st millennium Church, like Constantinople, using very plain vestments. Even pre-schism, Roman artwork saw tons of development, from Romanesque artwork to Byzantine artwork to Gothic artwork.

Nonetheless, when we look at the Tridentine Mass despite these changes, we can still see authentic Christian worship in their liturgy - we can see fundamental elements such as censing the altar and the people, kissing the altar, Christian chanting, facing the altar with similar hand motions to Orthodox worship, etc.

With this liturgical continuity, under some Old Catholic groups, the Orthodox Church has allowed the liturgy to remain practiced with some required changes to be completely Orthodox in content under the Orthodox Liturgy of Saint Gregory (because it grew from the authentic Liturgy of Saint Gregory).

Now, we can compare this to Vatican II, in which the entire liturgy of the Tridentine Mass was simply discarded and rewritten from scratch, with fundamental changes to the manner of which Mass is performed - with the priest facing the people, allowing up-beat musical-instrument playing songs to be played, Eucharistic ministers and communion on the hand, and the removal of incense, no more kissing the altar and no more silence, no more chanting, no more reverence, and the removal of key ideas of the Roman Catholic faith - most prayers / chants to the Saints were flat out removed or abrogated, the words identifying the Eucharist as the Sacrifice were removed, and the Novus Ordo was created with help from Protestant theologians, with an infamous picture of Paul VI and those said theologians.

Jean Guitton, who was very close friends with Pope Paul VI, said the following about the Novus Ordo: "The intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy – but what is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord's Supper...there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass."

This is "inorganic" because the entire Mass does not originate from a Traditional source - the Tridentine Mass grew from Saint Peter in Rome to Saint Gregory the Great all the way up to the Great Schism, were it continued to grow outside the Church to Trent to the 19th century up until Vatican II. In Vatican II, there is no "intent" to preserve tradition. Rather, this entire growth was thrown out the window for something subpar in the hopes that the Catholics and Protestants could get along.



It obviously didn't really work, even if the intent of accommodation was backwards in the first place.
so you just parroted what William said already. It's organic though , Thats How We have 2 extra synoptic Gospels .
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 645
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2018, 07:26:30 PM »
Quote
so you just parroted what William said already. It's organic though , Thats How We have 2 extra synoptic Gospels .

I started writing that HWOT before William posted the comment.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 645
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2018, 12:10:19 AM »
(i.e., Liturgy as something that is completely disciplinary and can be abrogated or changed by anyone in an inorganic manner...

I've heard some variation of the above a bunch of times through the years, and I may have even asked this before, but I've never gotten a good answer.

1). What makes any change to the liturgy "organic" versus "inorganic"? The act of redaction or insertion is surgical no matter how you look at it. (If it's something like the ossification of some folk piety, who is to say — for example — that holding hands or using the Orans posture during the Our Father isn't a legitimate liturgical development?)

2). Who has the authority to write or modify a liturgy, should the need arise?

3). Should some hypothetical situation in which a liturgy needs to be abrogated or suppressed, who has the right?

All of these things have happened throughout our church history, and while the people involved are (mostly) considered venerable, at the time they were just people (err...hierarchs) in the slipstream of history.

I'm just going to point out two aspects of pious human experience that are rapidly becoming lost to the way we think about this (or a lot of other things): first, the nature of a static but sustained work, i.e., of generations laboring in an inherited work in an inherited way without the folly of imagination or innovation -- such was all worthwhile human endeavor for centuries; second, the fact that the Holy Spirit is a real person and a real presence. As soon as these aspects are lost to a population's experience, then their endeavors are abandoned to the destructiveness of skeptical, hubristic modern "creativity."

+1
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Online Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,628
  • Faith: Holy Phanar
  • Jurisdiction: God’s Own Archdiocese
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2018, 04:25:00 AM »
(i.e., Liturgy as something that is completely disciplinary and can be abrogated or changed by anyone in an inorganic manner...

I've heard some variation of the above a bunch of times through the years, and I may have even asked this before, but I've never gotten a good answer.

1). What makes any change to the liturgy "organic" versus "inorganic"? The act of redaction or insertion is surgical no matter how you look at it. (If it's something like the ossification of some folk piety, who is to say — for example — that holding hands or using the Orans posture during the Our Father isn't a legitimate liturgical development?)

2). Who has the authority to write or modify a liturgy, should the need arise?

3). Should some hypothetical situation in which a liturgy needs to be abrogated or suppressed, who has the right?

All of these things have happened throughout our church history, and while the people involved are (mostly) considered venerable, at the time they were just people (err...hierarchs) in the slipstream of history.

I'm just going to point out two aspects of pious human experience that are rapidly becoming lost to the way we think about this (or a lot of other things): first, the nature of a static but sustained work, i.e., of generations laboring in an inherited work in an inherited way without the folly of imagination or innovation -- such was all worthwhile human endeavor for centuries; second, the fact that the Holy Spirit is a real person and a real presence. As soon as these aspects are lost to a population's experience, then their endeavors are abandoned to the destructiveness of skeptical, hubristic modern "creativity."
I very much agree with you here, Porter.

Forgetting the Holy Spirit has also led to the very bizarre phenomenon where we are perfectly comfortable with God guiding history for the Hebrews, then suddenly losing interest after Acts, except perhaps at a few councils, whereupon He will pick up again sometime in the distant future as everything is suddenly “wrapped up.” In the meantime, He acts individually, but not on a greater scale, and any perceived suggestion of something more than this is quietly or humorously dismissed as superstitious. I see this even among Orthodox, but I think testimony from the Prophet Daniel, to the Apostles, to the Apocalypse, to the perception of the saints of all times each indicate very much otherwise.
Quote
For our impious, godless, and faithless rulers, the persecutors of our holy Faith and Fatherland, the members of our parliament who hate and wrong us, and for their repentance, let us pray to the Lord.
--Petition, Kalavrytan Rite

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4