Author Topic: "Organic" liturgical development  (Read 1469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,239
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
"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

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,545
  • 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

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
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 »
I'm done.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • 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: 5,239
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
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

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
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 »
I'm done.

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,686
  • 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

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
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.
I'm done.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
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
I'm done.

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,890
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.
"Verily they that seek Thee, Lord, and keep the canons of Thy Holy Church shall never want any good thing.”
St. John the Merciful

"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

Offline Halik

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Fulda
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2018, 06:58:26 AM »
Inorganic looks like that:

https://gloria.tv/video/VmYMaMZuJ3wb3R2DvQVmtcfYn

From the "Katholikentag" in Germany. Please do yourself a favour and never do such a thing!  8) :o
“We adore You, O Christ, and we praise You, because by Your holy cross, You have redeemed the world."
(St. Francis of Assisi)

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,239
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2018, 10:43:42 AM »

Fair enough.

I'll respond when I have more time.

Never did this.

So I'll try to frame it this way: How was St. John's redaction of existing liturgies OK, but if someone in the 21st century wanted to do the same thing again — even respecting what has happened before — why would it be inorganic?
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

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,208
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2018, 11:20:00 AM »

Fair enough.

I'll respond when I have more time.

Never did this.

So I'll try to frame it this way: How was St. John's redaction of existing liturgies OK, but if someone in the 21st century wanted to do the same thing again — even respecting what has happened before — why would it be inorganic?

Maybe the hand of God on that work is something that we can only discern through the benefit of hindsight and all the Church today can do is try to be as cautious and circumspect as possible? Perhaps it could be compared to declaring a Council to have been Ecumenical or not?
I do stuff.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,193
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2018, 06:32:13 PM »

Fair enough.

I'll respond when I have more time.

Never did this.

So I'll try to frame it this way: How was St. John's redaction of existing liturgies OK, but if someone in the 21st century wanted to do the same thing again — even respecting what has happened before — why would it be inorganic?

I don’t think it neccessarily would be inorganic, provided the new liturgy was not contrary to Tradition.  Also, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom did not completely replace that of St. Basil or St. James or St. Mark (the latter two fell out of common EU use later).  In the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom, which shares the important bits with the Byzantine version, is one of several that remain in use.

For that matter, St. John based his liturgy on the common Antiochene liturgy, that of the Twelve Apostles, which also survives as an Anphora in the Syriac Orthodox Church.  The similiarities between the two are striking; St. John basically edited that liturgy and made it in some respects more impactful, I think.

A very large number of our 86 anaphoras are derivatives of an older anaphora.  Of the three EO liturgies, only the St. Basil liturgy is predominantly original; the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory being derived from an older Presanctified Liturgy of St. James, which was ultimately derived from the original Presanctified liturgy, the Signing of the Chalice, instituted by our Syriac St. Severus.

So if one strictly followed tradition, and especially if one merely reworked an existing liturgy, making conservative changes, that would be organic and acceptable.  A good real world example of an organic liturgical change would be the 1928 American BCP compared to the 1892, or the Rite One (traditional language) services in the 1979 BCP compared to the 1928 book.  Another very good example would be the reforms Pope Pius X made to the Roman Breviary and to the Missal, which were huge improvements, and not disruptive or opposed to tradition (he also went to great lengths to insist upon Gregorian chant or the traditional music of composers like Palestrina).
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,208
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2018, 06:41:59 PM »
But don't your definitions of "contrary to tradition" in these examples just boil down to "not to my taste?"
I do stuff.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,193
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2018, 04:07:36 AM »
But don't your definitions of "contrary to tradition" in these examples just boil down to "not to my taste?"

I don’t think so, rather, they boil down to “don’t rock the boat needlessly.”   The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (CHR) was, at least as far as its anaphora was concerned, an elegant revision of the ancient Anaphora of the Apostles (which is attested to in a second century fragment; the relationship between CHR and the Apostles liturgy is extremely obvious to anyone reading the texf).  St. Basil’s anaphoras are less immediately related to other existing texts, but the basic material in them is completely unsurprising.  If you had a congregation using, for instance, the St. James liturgy, migrate to ByzBAS, or an Egyptian congregation using the St. Mark liturgy migrate to EgBAS, no one would experience anything particularly disorienting.*

* In contrast, you may find the abbreviations used for the various liturgical texts in this post disconcerting; these are used in scholarly works on the subject such as The Eucharistic Liturgies by Bradshaw and Johnson; JAS refers to the Divine Liturgy of St. James, EgBAS, to the Egyptian recensions of the St. Basil liturgy, found in Greek and Coptic, ByzBAS to the Byzantine version of the same liturgy, and CHR to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

~

The main scope for making what Agabus calls an “inorganic change,” and what I would call “a change that annoys or infuriates the congregation” is when the order and form of worship are radically altered.  The Novus Ordo Missae features as one of its four anaphoras the old Roman Canon, but the changes made to the “Liturgy of the Word” (which included renaming it) were radical to the point of disorientation.

Closer to home, the Ruthenian Catholics have been greatly annoyed by the extremely modern and at times bizarre language used in a new service book which has come to be referred to as “the Teal Horror,” and I myself had an encounter with an unpopular translator of the Greek Orthodox liturgy, whose English language translations are awkward in the extreme.

Then we have the case of New Skete, whose liturgical reforms would probably cause a riot if attempted in the Orthodox hinterlands of Cyprus, Romania, Georgia or rural Pennsylvania.   However, isolated as they are in monastic seclusion, their experimentation is relatively harmless, but a good example of “inorganic” in practice.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,544
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2018, 02:56:10 PM »
I think it would be pretty hard to clearly say what is organic and what is not. A minor change with a straightforward practical purpose, like adding "by air" to the petition for travelers, is one thing. But for EO's, think of all the big hymns penned in the 8th and 9th centuries, which are now major elements of the main feasts, and how much the structure of the services would have changed to accommodate them. Even if these were introduced gradually, it must have been a bit disorienting.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,193
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #17 on: May 23, 2018, 03:25:46 PM »
I think it would be pretty hard to clearly say what is organic and what is not. A minor change with a straightforward practical purpose, like adding "by air" to the petition for travelers, is one thing. But for EO's, think of all the big hymns penned in the 8th and 9th centuries, which are now major elements of the main feasts, and how much the structure of the services would have changed to accommodate them. Even if these were introduced gradually, it must have been a bit disorienting.

Those hymns were first a part of the monastic usages, and not the Cathedral use; over time the so called Sabaite Typikon, developed at Mar Saba and at Studios, became popular among people who were exposed to it, and wound up taking over the smaller parishes, and I believe it had largely displaced the Cathedral Typikon at the Hagia Sophia when Constantinople fell to the Turks.  This was due to the great popularity of these hymns, which went into detail on the lives of the saints and martyrs and other theological content, among the laity. 

The literature suggests this move to the monastic typikon was really driven by the grassroots; it was not, like the Nikonian reforms in Russia, imposed from above, and this is doubtless why it did not trigger a schism. 

I think that this large change happened without great friction becomes particularly easy to understand when we recall that the Cathedral Rite was dominated by the Psalms and the Biblical Canticles, the literal Odes, as opposed to hymns derived from them thematically.  It would have been a bit like Anglican Mattins and Evensong, albeit with a different set of canticles (slightly).  The grandeur of the cathedral rite stemmed from the very large number of singers, deacons and priests involved in the service.

One related change I was interested to read about, was how Litanies originated as processional chants, sung during processions from the Hagia Sophia to other churches in Constantinople, in the Byzantine Rite, and I believe in a similiar manner in the Western Rite, where interestingly the Anglo Catholic priest Percy Dearmer suggests in his Parson’s Handbook singing the Anglican Litany in the course of a procession around the church, which might feature the stations of the cross, and which would be led and timed by the Verger.  I don’t think any Eastern liturgical rite has an office comparable to Verger.   It is easy to see however, given the exhausting nature of procesions between churches, and the likeability of the litany as a musical genre, that one would desire on more than special occasions, how it came to be something sung in place, at least in the East.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,579
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #18 on: May 23, 2018, 04:09:24 PM »
What has New Skete done?
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 529
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2018, 04:51:27 PM »
Another very good example would be the reforms Pope Pius X made to the Roman Breviary and to the Missal, which were huge improvements, and not disruptive or opposed to tradition (he also went to great lengths to insist upon Gregorian chant or the traditional music of composers like Palestrina).

The reforms of Pope Pius X were more extensive and disruptive than generally supposed and violate immemorial tradition in a few respects. The Missal was not affected nearly as much as the Breviary, so the laity barely noticed. The changes went beyond rearranging the psalms, though the disruptions are connected with that change.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,193
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2018, 07:40:00 PM »
Another very good example would be the reforms Pope Pius X made to the Roman Breviary and to the Missal, which were huge improvements, and not disruptive or opposed to tradition (he also went to great lengths to insist upon Gregorian chant or the traditional music of composers like Palestrina).

The reforms of Pope Pius X were more extensive and disruptive than generally supposed and violate immemorial tradition in a few respects. The Missal was not affected nearly as much as the Breviary, so the laity barely noticed. The changes went beyond rearranging the psalms, though the disruptions are connected with that change.

The changes did not affect the Breviary of the Benedictine Rite, or most of the other liturgical rites.  It simply reorganized the Roman Breviary so that it was less of a chaotic, confusing mess.  I am not aware of any groups who seriously object to the reforms of St. Pius X; St. Pius XII on the other hand tore the living heart out of the Roman Rite by ruining the Paschal Triduum and removing all ancient similiarity between the Triduum and the Byzantine Holy Week services.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 529
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2018, 09:26:51 PM »
Another very good example would be the reforms Pope Pius X made to the Roman Breviary and to the Missal, which were huge improvements, and not disruptive or opposed to tradition (he also went to great lengths to insist upon Gregorian chant or the traditional music of composers like Palestrina).

The reforms of Pope Pius X were more extensive and disruptive than generally supposed and violate immemorial tradition in a few respects. The Missal was not affected nearly as much as the Breviary, so the laity barely noticed. The changes went beyond rearranging the psalms, though the disruptions are connected with that change.

The changes did not affect the Breviary of the Benedictine Rite, or most of the other liturgical rites.  It simply reorganized the Roman Breviary so that it was less of a chaotic, confusing mess.  I am not aware of any groups who seriously object to the reforms of St. Pius X; St. Pius XII on the other hand tore the living heart out of the Roman Rite by ruining the Paschal Triduum and removing all ancient similiarity between the Triduum and the Byzantine Holy Week services.

That is because all of these groups have no living memory of the pre-Pius X rite. I don't know if I would say I "seriously object" to it, either; however, it is not fair to say it was Pius XII (not canonized) who set the wrecking ball in motion – Pius X's reforms, while perhaps less extensive, did introduce the idea in a striking way that the Pope is the master of the liturgy. It may have only affected the Roman Rite, but it broke certain continuities it had with other Western rites. I am familiar with the details of that reform, having used its rubrics personally for years in the past. Though it did do some helpful things, it introduced several disturbances.

In its favor, it moved several devotional feasts off of Sundays to restore the Sunday Office and prohibited new feasts being fixed to Sundays. It made most of the psalms be recited more often, though it very rarely actually restores the "weekly psalter" it is supposed to have done. Under these rubrics, the weekly psalter is only said 8-9 times a year. The excessive number of suffrages at Lauds and Vespers were reigned in. Transfers became much fewer in number, though it did not fix the imbalance of new saint's feasts being more highly ranked than older ones.

However, the pope introduced several novelties. He introduced the idea of splitting up psalms into the Roman Rite, apparently under the influence of the (technically illicit in many cases) Gallican psalters; this practice is completely foreign to the history of the Roman Rite, which historically only divided Psalm 118. The novel arrangement of the Psalter replaced the arrangement that had obtained in Rome since time immemorial. Most people are aware of that, but don't consider that this required completely recasting the Antiphonarium, as around half of the antiphons of the Roman Sunday and ferial offices were no longer relevant, and were replaced with new compositions. The principle of the Hours and Compline being fixed was destroyed, the connection between feasts and certain psalms was weakened, the daily recitation of Psalm 50 at Lauds on ferias was ended, the daily recitation of Psalms 148-150 was ended (and these were even broken up and never recited together in his reform). This last also affected Holy Week and the Officium Defunctorum (Office for the Dead) – Pius XII didn't make the first changes to Holy Week.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,193
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2018, 11:42:16 PM »
Another very good example would be the reforms Pope Pius X made to the Roman Breviary and to the Missal, which were huge improvements, and not disruptive or opposed to tradition (he also went to great lengths to insist upon Gregorian chant or the traditional music of composers like Palestrina).

The reforms of Pope Pius X were more extensive and disruptive than generally supposed and violate immemorial tradition in a few respects. The Missal was not affected nearly as much as the Breviary, so the laity barely noticed. The changes went beyond rearranging the psalms, though the disruptions are connected with that change.

The changes did not affect the Breviary of the Benedictine Rite, or most of the other liturgical rites.  It simply reorganized the Roman Breviary so that it was less of a chaotic, confusing mess.  I am not aware of any groups who seriously object to the reforms of St. Pius X; St. Pius XII on the other hand tore the living heart out of the Roman Rite by ruining the Paschal Triduum and removing all ancient similiarity between the Triduum and the Byzantine Holy Week services.

That is because all of these groups have no living memory of the pre-Pius X rite. I don't know if I would say I "seriously object" to it, either; however, it is not fair to say it was Pius XII (not canonized) who set the wrecking ball in motion – Pius X's reforms, while perhaps less extensive, did introduce the idea in a striking way that the Pope is the master of the liturgy. It may have only affected the Roman Rite, but it broke certain continuities it had with other Western rites. I am familiar with the details of that reform, having used its rubrics personally for years in the past. Though it did do some helpful things, it introduced several disturbances.

In its favor, it moved several devotional feasts off of Sundays to restore the Sunday Office and prohibited new feasts being fixed to Sundays. It made most of the psalms be recited more often, though it very rarely actually restores the "weekly psalter" it is supposed to have done. Under these rubrics, the weekly psalter is only said 8-9 times a year. The excessive number of suffrages at Lauds and Vespers were reigned in. Transfers became much fewer in number, though it did not fix the imbalance of new saint's feasts being more highly ranked than older ones.

However, the pope introduced several novelties. He introduced the idea of splitting up psalms into the Roman Rite, apparently under the influence of the (technically illicit in many cases) Gallican psalters; this practice is completely foreign to the history of the Roman Rite, which historically only divided Psalm 118. The novel arrangement of the Psalter replaced the arrangement that had obtained in Rome since time immemorial. Most people are aware of that, but don't consider that this required completely recasting the Antiphonarium, as around half of the antiphons of the Roman Sunday and ferial offices were no longer relevant, and were replaced with new compositions. The principle of the Hours and Compline being fixed was destroyed, the connection between feasts and certain psalms was weakened, the daily recitation of Psalm 50 at Lauds on ferias was ended, the daily recitation of Psalms 148-150 was ended (and these were even broken up and never recited together in his reform). This last also affected Holy Week and the Officium Defunctorum (Office for the Dead) – Pius XII didn't make the first changes to Holy Week.

None of the criticisms you’ve posed concerning these reforms meet the threshold of relevance implied by “inorganic” brutal revisionism such as Vatican II.  They are trivialities, or in some cases, arguably not valid criticisms at all (I think dropping Psalms 148-150 from daily recitation was probably an improvement).  In contrast, the improvements made by Pope Pius X were substantial and meaningful, particularly when coupled with his instruction favoring Gregorian chant and traditional music, which marked a point of departure from the decadent masses of various post Baroque composers such as Haydn, whose music is frankly excessive and distracting from prayer (Mozart did a slightly better job with his Missa Brevis, but other masses of his were even worse.   And Bruckner, et al, just wrote massive liturgical annoyances almost as bad as the popular music one might encounter at a Novus Ordo mass today).

The Gallican Rite by the way was in no sense illicit, since it predated Trent by 200 years, although it must be remembered that the Tridentine Rite, like the Dominican Rite and the old Cathusian Rite, represents a fusion of Roman and Gallican influence.  The Old Roman rite is completely dead, and the closest things to the old Gallican Rite can be found in the Mozarabic missal and the Ambrosian divine office.  The old Roman Rite was radically simple; the Roman church was the most conservative member of the Pentarchy, and there is some reason to believe, from the remarks of St. Ambrose, that it used only monotone chanting in the fourth century (low masses were chanted in monotone until the 10th IIRC).

A book you would probably enjoy greatly given your interest in it is The Genius of the Roman Rite, which is available on iBooks and Kindle.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 529
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2018, 12:05:25 AM »
None of the criticisms you’ve posed concerning these reforms meet the threshold of relevance implied by “inorganic” brutal revisionism such as Vatican II.  They are trivialities, or in some cases, arguably not valid criticisms at all (I think dropping Psalms 148-150 from daily recitation was probably an improvement).

Agree to disagree on them being "trivialities"; they are of differing importance. I never said they were as extreme as what happened at Vatican II, but they did set a precedent for the Pope to remake the liturgy. No pope had never done anything like it before – probably no coincidence it had never happened until after Vatican I.

Quote
The Gallican Rite by the way was in no sense illicit, since it predated Trent by 200 years, although it must be remembered that the Tridentine Rite, like the Dominican Rite and the old Cathusian Rite, represents a fusion of Roman and Gallican influence.

When I said "Gallican psalters," I wasn't referring to the historic Gallican Rite - sorry for lack of clarity. I'm referring to post-Tridentine diocesan breviaries; they contravene the orders in Quod a nobis (Pius V's bull promulgating the Tridentine breviary) in that they were created after Trent, most in the 17th century, some up to the eve of Vatican I.

Quote
A book you would probably enjoy greatly given your interest in it is The Genius of the Roman Rite, which is available on iBooks and Kindle.

Thanks, that looks interesting. I've actually stopped reading about the Roman Rite because it does nothing for me anymore but produce headaches.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2018, 12:05:35 AM by MalpanaGiwargis »
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,193
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2018, 03:02:51 AM »
Quote
Agree to disagree on them being "trivialities"; they are of differing importance. I never said they were as extreme as what happened at Vatican II, but they did set a precedent for the Pope to remake the liturgy. No pope had never done anything like it before – probably no coincidence it had never happened until after Vatican I.

This slippery slope argument has the potential to persuade, but alas, its aspirations are dashed against the insurmountable barrier of history by the unambiguous precedent set for Pius X’s actions by a large number of Patristic bishops and archbishops of diverse places, including Rome.  Archbishop Victor made Latin the liturgical language of the Roman church, a huge departure, which also draws a line between the Greek speaking Western fathers of the first and second centuries, such as St. Irenaeus, and the predominantly Latin speaking fathers starting with Tertullian.

Archbishop Hippolytus, an antipope who was reconciled with the church and is venerated as a saint owing to his martyrdom, may have composed the Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition.  Or he may not have; it might not even have been a Roman anaphora, but it still deserves mention.

Of more importance, in the fourth century we have St. Basil of Caesarea composing two versions of his famous liturgy, EgBAS, following the Alexandrian liturgical customs, and ByzBAS, presumably following those of Cappadocia, and looking much like an Antiochene anaphora.  And speaking of Antioch, we have St. John Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, wielding equal power and dignity to the Roman archbishop, rewrite and institute in Constantinople a liturgy derived from the Antiochene Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, but with many refinements and adaptations, reflecting his God-given oratorial skill.  His friend, Theodore of Mopsuestia, also composed a liturgy, which remains in use with the Assyrian Church of the East, and which is quite different from earlier East Syriac anaphoras.

Then, in the fifth century, his critic par excellence, Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria imposes an anathema on the use of “Christotokos” in order to suppress the nauseating heresy of Nestorius, and meanwhile also has the Alexandrian liturgy translated into Coptic.  St. Frumentius and a group of Syrian monks had previously translated various Alexandrian and Antiochene liturgical materials into Geez.

In the following decades, St. Severus of Antioch would write the hymn Ho Monoges, which Emperor St. Justinian would order inserted into the Second Antiphon of the Byzantine liturgy in one of several failed attempts at reconciliation.  St. Severus also introduced The Signing of the Chalice, which as far as I am aware is the original presanctified liturgy.

At the end of the sixth century, Pope St. Gregory the Great developed the Byzantine presanctified liturgy then in use into the one we have today, for both the benefit of Rome and Constantinople.  Indeed, until 1955, the wording of the central portion Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday in the Roman Church and the Byzantine Presanctified Liturgies held in Lent and the first three days of Holy Week was basically the same, the main difference being what was sung in the Byzantine liturgy tended to be read silently by the Roman clergy.

Additionally, Pope St. Gregory also introduced huge improvements to the music of the Roman Church, with Gregorian Chant still bearing his name.  This eight tone system put the music of Rome on a par with that of the Ambrosian Rite in Milan and the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, and the Byzantine Rite.

Speaking of St. Ambrose, as I mentioned earlier, he introduced antiphonal singing “in the manner of the Greeks” during a two week lock-in vigil in one of his parishes at risk of being taken over by the Arians, lest his flock would not “perish in soulless monotony,” which might well not be a metaphor for boredom but an allusion to the monotone chant the Roman church once used for Low Masses, and possibly, for everything else.

The antiphonal idea of two alternating choirs furthermore came from no less a man than St. Ignatius the Martyr, the Third Patriarch of Antioch after St. Peter, who had a dream in which God was being hymned by two choirs of angels, and who immediately took this divine inspiration and used it as the basis for organizing music in his Patriarchate, an event of monumental liturgical significance.

Compared to these heroic acts of liturgical formation and reformation in the first millenium, the modest adjustments and musical housekeeping of Pope Pius X almost seem to fade into the background of rubrical obscurities, next to dusty old copies of the Directorum Anglicanorum and Ritual Notes.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,251
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2018, 09:28:39 PM »
Inorganic looks like that:

https://gloria.tv/video/VmYMaMZuJ3wb3R2DvQVmtcfYn

From the "Katholikentag" in Germany. Please do yourself a favour and never do such a thing!  8) :o
AAARGH, MY EYES, MY EYES! :o
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,193
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2018, 10:57:52 AM »
Inorganic looks like that:

https://gloria.tv/video/VmYMaMZuJ3wb3R2DvQVmtcfYn

From the "Katholikentag" in Germany. Please do yourself a favour and never do such a thing!  8) :o
AAARGH, MY EYES, MY EYES! :o

No kidding.  I wonder if some “liturgical dancers” are actually just trolling.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 10:58:21 AM by Alpha60 »
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,251
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2018, 08:26:17 PM »
AAARGH, MY EYES, MY EYES! :o

No kidding.  I wonder if some “liturgical dancers” are actually just trolling.

That's got to be it, liturgical trolls is a better description of such fools on both sides of the altar.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,193
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: "Organic" liturgical development
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2018, 11:57:27 PM »
AAARGH, MY EYES, MY EYES! :o

No kidding.  I wonder if some “liturgical dancers” are actually just trolling.

That's got to be it, liturgical trolls is a better description of such fools on both sides of the altar.

I was thinking Poe’s Law could apply.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.