>>>Pope Paul VI did not indicate that he thought that the liturgy had been invented or reinvented<<<
He could hardly say that, now, could he? In any case, the state of liturgical studies in the Latin Church (indeed, in the Eastern Churches as well) in the early 1960s could best be called primitive, and the state of liturgical knowledge among the hierarchy (particularly the Western hierarchy) rudimentary at best. Remember that the study of liturgy in the West had been reduced to rubricism, and those who studied liturgy seriously (like Louis Bouyer) were considered "queer" (in the original sense of the word)and not likely to have fruitful ecclesiastical careers. Which is why the Council relied so heavily on pareti, some of whom were quite good, and others not so good.
>>>In fact, when he promulgated the missal, he wrote, "No one should think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has been suddenly accomplished. The progress of liturgical science in the last four centuries has certainly prepared the way.<<<
More like the previous fifty years. From Trent to the beginning of the 20th century, there was practically NO serious study of liturgy in the West (or in the East, for that matter).
>>>After the Council of Trent, the study "of ancient manuscripts in the Vatican library and elsewhere," as St. Pius V indicated in the apostolic constitution
Quo primum, helped greatly n the correction of the Roman Missal.<<<
As scholarly studies of the work of the Tridentine reform commission have demonstrated, they actually did nothing of the kind. They lacked the texts, they lacked the critical methods, and above all, they lacked the proper mental perspective to do what they set out to do (returning the Latin rite to its patristic roots), so that in the end, all they did was to codify wholesale the liturgical practices of the late renaissance Latin Church--the good and the bad and the indifferent--and then seal the whole thing in amber for four centuries.
>>>Since then, however, other ancient sources have been discovered and published, and liturgical formulas of the Eastern Church have been studied.<<<
Which has nothing to do with the state of the Latin liturgy. I don't like articifial grafting across liturgical traditions, whether it is the East borrowing from the West, or the West borrowing from the East. In any case, Archimandrite Serge Kelleher pretty much demolished the notion that the new Latin liturgy owes much at all to the Eastern Churches (see his essay "What Ever Happened to the Liturgical Movement?", in Eastern Churches Journal).
>>>Many wish that these doctrinal and spiritual reches no be hidden in libraries, but be brought to light to illumine and nourish the minds and spirit of Christians." (Apostolic Constitution: Promulgation of the Roman Missal Revised by Decree of The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council Paragraph 4)<<<
Fine and dandy, but it has little to do with what the Liturgical Commission actually did. If Trent failed for one reason, Vatican II was just as great a failure, but for its own set of reasons.
>>>The words used to describe the process at the time of the promulgation and in the intervening time in the teaching documents of the Roman Church about liturgical renewal and the Missal are significant, I think. The words are consistently restore, renew, and, as above, revise. To my knowledge, the words invent and reinvent are not used.<<<
Words, schmords. Talk is cheap. Look at what they DID.
>>>What determines the objectivity of scholars?<<<
Shall we go all deconstructionist now?
>>>It seems to me that the best that a scholar can do is propose that such and that can be supported by the evidence.<<<
Precisely. And after having done so, a consensus emerges which allows us to come to an understanding of how the truth appears--at least until further evidence emerges.
>>>Certainly they have to begin with the primary sources. What scholars have done so and have concluded that the work of the renewal of the Liturgy was to construct an artifact?<<<
Well, there was the entire liturgical movement of the first half of the 20th century. And I think it highly significant that a good many of the leading members of that movement turned their back on what the Council promulgated, ostensibly in their name. More recently, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr. Aidan Nichols and a number of other mainstream Latin theologians have decried the artificiality of the new liturgy and its radical separation from the organic Latin liturgical tradition.
>>>The writings of Paul VI above and any other authoritative teaching document state the opposite.<<<
When a teaching document makes statements that can be tested against objective facts (which is to say, when it is not dealing with a matter of faith, that cannot be so tested), and is found inconsistent with those facts, then the teaching document is defective, and either must be amended or discarded.
>>>There appears to be no evidence in them that constructing an artifact, as opposed to enabling organic development was the work in progress.<<<
Whenever you have a radical discontinuity between what was and what presently is, then there is a break in Tradition, and whatever you have is by definition an artifact, something devised by the hand of man (usually a small group of men)and not the evolutionary movement of the Body. Since the promulgation of the new missal, there has been relatively little that could be called "organic development".
>>>A careful reading of the pertinent documents, indicates that the revised Roman Missal was seen as developing from the faith life of the Roman Church.<<<
One must therefore consider whether it succeeded in its declared goal.
>>>Would it not have been considerably resisted by some initially simply because it involved change in sacred practices no matter where the change began?<<<
That depends entirely on how extensive the change, the amount of pastoral preparation beforehand, and the manner in which the changes are introduced. As is usually the case with the Western Church, yesterday they did one thing, the following day they did something radically different, and nobody told anybody anything. That most of the clergy were liturgically illiterate (meaning that they had little or no training in liturgics outside of following the rubrics)made things worse, for you had people implementing things that they themselves did not understand. Think "New Math".
>>>Isn't change in Churches as we know them officially promulgated by those who have the responsibility to engage in guiding the Churches, i.e those at the top?<<<
No, not usually. At least in the Christian East, there has been only one attempt to impose widespread liturgical change from the top down, and that was the Nikonian Reform of the mid-17th century; we all know how well that worked. More usually, though, liturgical changes in the East begin in specific local communities, usually monasteries, and spread through the perambulations of monks and pilgrims, gradually gaining wider acceptance. If something worked well, it was adopted universally. Sometimes specific elements or hymns were introduced by a major patron (e.g., Justinian's "Only Begotten Son"), but usually things changed very gradually (e.g., the supercession of the kontakion by the canon form of hymnology). Some changes were pastoral (e.g., the break in the Cherubikon to allow the chanting of the commemorations), but usually that meant dropping something else in the interest of time and practicality (so that the Psalm verses of which the Cherubikon was but the refrain disappeared without a trace--as did the verses associated with the Trisagion). Basically, liturgical development is a sausage, not something one wants to see up close and personal.
It should also be noted that the very notion of a typical edition of a liturgy was unknown prior to the invention of printing, and that even in the West, there was a great variety of liturgies, and local variations within each. And that was probably a Good Thing.
>>>The great majority of those who are members of the Roman Church worship using the revised Liturgy without resistance. Doesn't that suggest that the approach worked?<<<
Not really. Their liturgical mindset hasn't changed much, and since most of the current members of the Latin Church have known no other form of liturgy, there isn't any real opportunity for them to shop and compare, is there?
>>>[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
"Did I mention that the music is apalling, the language banal, and the sense of grandeur nonexistant? Oh, just an oversight on my part, I guess."
Not true at most of the Liturgies I participate in. Opinion is opinion and must be respected however presented.<<<
However, generally true. But then, the state of Roman Catholic liturgical music in this country has been apalling from the beginning. I don't suppose that anyone here recognizes that the normative form of the Mass one that is sung or chanted in its entirety? How many have ever attended, seen, or even heard of a sung Mass in their lifetimes (concert Mass suites don't count)?
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
"I wonder how much is the Mass, and how much is John Paul II, Superstar"
>>>Maybe the young have been catechized better than we thought?<<<
I don't think so. I suspect that it's really the Pope's personal charisma, which of course is a reflection of the man's great spirituality and holiness (something for which the young hunger).
>>>Maybe they know it's Jesus's Sacrifice and want to share the celebration with the Pope who asks them to visit with him. Couldn't we give them the benefit and not doubt their ability to distinguish one from the other?<<<
No.
>>>[QUOTE] Originally posted by Stuart K
"Why would he choose to do that, particularly as in its present form the Tridentine Mass violates most if not all of the principles of liturgy set out in Sacrosanctum Concilium?"
Actually the question is not irrelevant.
The Tridentine Rite is a legitimate rite of worship in the Roman Church. Given what Paul VI said, the Revised Roman Missal is a development of the Tridentine Missal of Paul V. The Work of the People is accomplished using either rite.<<<
The work of the people can hardly be accomplished using a rite in which anything the people do or say is irrelevant. According to the rubrics, the priest MUST say everything, even those parts that belong to the people. Ergo, the people are an irrelevancy at a Tridentine Mass, which is why the most common form before the Council was the Low Mass, during which the people had to content themselves with singing liturgically irrelevant hymns or performing private devotions. It was for precisely that reason that the Liturgy was reformed (however imperfectly), and the survival of the old form is a matter of economy, not good liturgy. Now, if one of the indult groups like the FSSP would undertake a serious reform of the Tridentine Rite to bring it into conformity with the principles of Sacrosanctum Concilium, that would be a worthy endeavor, and at that time I think it would be entirely proper for the Pope to celebrate that form in public. In fact, were such an unlikely development to occur I think it could become the basis of further liturgical renewal within the Latin Church (something along this line has been suggested by Aidan Nichols). Being the advocate of Tradition that I am, I would also like to see restoration of the other traditional Western rites (Gallic, Sarum, etc.) and the reform and wider celebration of those that still survive (Ambrosian and Mozerabic). I think, in line with Aidan Nichols, that the new Missal, precisely because of its lack of firm traditional roots and essentially stripped-down form, could serve quite well as the basis for new rites in non-European cultures.
>>>Actually the Roman Church didn't change.<<<
Of course. It never changes, and it's never wrong (even when it doesn't get something right).
>>>It was the Roman Church which was Tridentine Church and which is post-concilliar Church. Analyzing in these terms, there is clear irony, no?<<<
Are you implying that these entities are fundamentally identical?
>>>[b]It was the Tridentine Church along with our Eastern and Oriental Sister Churches which initiated the Council.<<<
I thought it was John XXIII, against the resistance of most of the Curia and a large proportion of the episcopate.
>>>It was the same Tridentine Church with her Sister Churches in Council which brought about the renewal.<<<
There were no "Sister Churches" prior to the renewal, only "Rites of the Roman Catholic Church", lacking ecclesial identity and permitted to celebrate its liturgies by dispensation. It was principally the courageous action of a handful of Melkite bishops that changed this situation.
>>>It is the post-conciliar church which exhibits the change in attitudes and teachings and practices which are both cause and result of the renewal.
Is that organic development or what?
<<<
It may be, and it may not be. Much depends on how well the teachings of the Council are actually "received" by the entire Body of Christ. The record is uneven (whatever happened, for instance, to the Council's call for the development of a "theology of the laity"?) and in some cases, attitudes have not changed at anything but a superficial level.
I also remind you that not all organic development is healthy--a cancer is organic, but it can kill the organism in which it grows.
