We love, without restraint of humility, our tastes and preferences - no matter what, if anything, informs them. And we have cultivated a doubt of expert opinion - all the better, of course, for indulging our own tastes, and maintaining great self-esteem no matter how ignorant we objectively are.


It's been awhile since we have had a good discussion, djs...

This is true, but often dissent is precisely a means for defending the higher good - St. John Chrysostom spent most of his life in this way.

I don't think anyone here is doubting expert opinion; rather make the process a bit more transparent. When even clergy are in the dark who will be compelled to follow these prescriptions, the precondition of mistrust will be inherent even if unintended.

Your earlier comments about liturgical texts not being actually written by the laity are in many ways valid. But liturgical uses that were not accepted by the laos in a larger context have fallen into disuetude.

And we should not forget, albeit a severe example, of the disaster with the Old Rite in Russia, as well as the amply documented liturgical disasters in the Roman Church of the last 35 years. Let us take history into account as well as the sensus fidelium. The end result will be much greater trust and respect for the hierarchy.

Dear Father Deacon Diak:

I have already specifically stipulated to the wisdom of your ideas here, and include your comment that there is a great deal of untapped expertise in the laity. So the idea of a broader review is great.

But it must also be accepted that, as with your reg reviews, not every comment will be a reasonable one, not every suggestion will be accepted, and not every one will get a specific reply. My guess is that the most unreasonable commentors (the few) will leave the experience even more annoyed: why bother to have us write out our opinions if you didn't accept them? Even so, a broader review will be worth it to develop a better sense that this is for the body.

ps If a Chrysostom came along I suspect that I would also not be including any dissent that he gave as uniformed or inchoate whining.

Agreed and well said.

djs,

I suspect that you are correct as well, including your comment about Chrysostom. That is why I suggested a six month limit on the review. We have far bigger fish to fry than this new translation but a six month review may set a new pattern for the Church. Today we run into far too many examples of people who don't seem to care if the Church esists beyond them. Some are beyond being tired of having no active role in the Church. Some never had an active role because they were never given one and so don't care one way or another. This brief examination may inspire SOME to take a new path which will lead to a more positive Church.

Then again, I may be overly naive.

Dan Lauffer

BTW This isn't to say their aren't several who are very active and champing at the bit to be even more so.