Trads - what's up with ya'll

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

What you are saying is clashing with my experience although it is limited just one Cathedral parish (with many priests). I read Catholics documents about the role of laity and they are definitely in a line with what you are saying. Yet, in both priests and laity I found that very attitude, that it is improper for a lay person to reprove the priests. In fact, the laity told me that "we just do not so that".

Well when it comes to doctrine or the functions directly within the pastor's authority, there is a right to reprove, but a lay-person should not just come out and publicly declare clergy to be in error on a non-dogmatic teaching, like how @fides' Jack recently asserted that Francis was wrong with respect to the death penalty. That's clearly out I think.

Generally, if a Catholic believes that a member of the clergy is in error, he is supposed to approach his superior in private to discuss the matter. If it can't be resolved there, then he should go up the chain of command in the church hierarchy. You aren't really allowed to get on TV or go on the internet and start declaring your popes and bishops to be in error. Clergy are to lead and the laity are to follow. And we are supposed to seriously consider the teaching and investigate whether it could be correct, before simply rejecting it outright because we believe that another conclusion is more probable. We are supposed to make a solid attempt at giving intellectual assent to the teaching, before rejecting it.

When it comes to a manifest sin (like a priest abusing a child) then I don't think there is a duty to attempt to handle it internally first (don't have the source for that offhand but I know I have seen it somewhere).

You can see that in the Church's teaching with respect to dissent by theologians, for example.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.

25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.

26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.

27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

And that's the practical way of going about it too, I think. In many more cases than not, it is going to be the lay-person who is in error and not the priest, as smart and all-knowing about Catholic faith and morality as we like to think that we are.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

a lay-person should not just come out and publicly declare clergy to be in error on a non-dogmatic teaching, like how @fides' Jack recently asserted that Francis was wrong with respect to the death penalty. That's clearly out I think.

Perhaps.  What if it's a doctrinal teaching, but not dogma?  Most of the deposit of faith is not dogma. 

It's possible I haven't thought it through enough.  I'll give it more thought.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Generally, if a Catholic believes that a member of the clergy is in error, he is supposed to approach his superior in private to discuss the matter.

Not possible with the pope, though.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

You aren't really allowed to get on TV or go on the internet and start declaring your popes and bishops to be in error.

Allowed?  Well, maybe frowned on.  Possibly sinful.  In this case, I think it's warranted.  Both on TV and on the internet.  People need to wake up.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

And we are supposed to seriously consider the teaching and investigate whether it could be correct, before simply rejecting it outright because we believe that another conclusion is more probable. We are supposed to make a solid attempt at giving intellectual assent to the teaching, before rejecting it.

I have done this in the case of the death penalty.  It's been a many-year-long-process for me.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

I agree wholeheartedly with this.  And I am perfectly willing to submit loyally to the teaching of the true magisterium.

 

2 hours ago, Peace said:

29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

Agreed.  There is no diminishment of a fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the magisterium.  At least not on my part.  I am ready to embark on more patient reflection if the situation should change.  In the case of the death penalty, that would require the pope to make an authoritative statement declaring the modified teaching to be the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.  I don't think Pope Francis will do that, it's just not his style.  

Nor am I relying on my own opinions for this.  I'm not spouting my own opinions in this matter, but the clear teaching passed down via various documents, teachings of the saints, etc...  

2 hours ago, Peace said:

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

Agreed.  But what happens if there is no responsible authority?  As is the case when it is the pope himself?  As I have said, and as it alludes to here, the pope IS supposed to be the final clarification of doctrinal issues.  If he refuses to answer questions, and remains silent, what then?  I don't know - do you?

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

I am certainly open to a deeper examination.  Bring in Tradition, and let's take a look, together!

2 hours ago, Peace said:

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

And that's the practical way of going about it too, I think. In many more cases than not, it is going to be the lay-person who is in error and not the priest, as smart and all-knowing about Catholic faith and morality as we like to think that we are.

Hear, hear!  Well said.

[Aloysius]

as far as the iconostasis goes, @Anastasiawe will have to agree to disagree.  if a liturgical reform movement in the east wants to tone down the iconostases, well they can do so if they wish; but I think many people experience it the way I describe.  to argue that people are just ok with it because they lack attachment, or don't want to be near to Christ on the altar, or something, I think is problematic.  perhaps it is a western esoteric to use the term "window"; but everything you said about what is truly present there but invisible fits totally in line with my experience when I go to eastern churches of what I feel totally connected to being truly present, but which I am engaged with and feeling more connected to through the iconostasis.  your example of putting an icon before Our Lord when he appeared in a visibly human body doesn't really fit--because all those things that are present on the altar are present invisibly so an icon can help us to see and feel their presence and to communicate with those invisible realities.  Christ himself comes visibly, but even that is in a form that appears as bread and wine; and in the East they do not emphasize the idea of looking at the Eucharist in adoration--Christ comes as bread and wine to be eaten, not placed in a monstrance and adored.  Now, you and I might love the western practice of adoration, but it is alien to the traditions of the Eastern Churches (probably also because of the leavened/unleavened bread issue; but I have heard it argued by the Orthodox that it is not the purpose of the Eucharist at all; I understand that within their tradition, though I'm very much a fan of adoration myself)--what is important about the Eucharistic Christ is not that the people SEE him in his Eucharistic form but that they receive him as nourishing spiritual food.  of course one worships Him on the altar from the mysterious time of the epiclesis until one receives him (in the West from the specific time of the words of institution), but there's no real tradition in the East about the Eucharist being about sight of the Eucharist; you can correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

now, of course if you wish to disagree with this interpretation as part of a movement of reform in the Eastern Churches, that is fine; but as a matter for laity who simply attend those churches, I think encouraging them to view the icons on the iconostasis this way during the liturgy would enhance their closeness to what is happening on the altar. 

i am aware of the mistranslation of 'writing'; though the use of that mistranslation has helped westerners distinguish between iconographic art and more innovative forms of representation art they're used to by giving it this different wording; as an analogy (rather than a claim that it's the correct or proper way to say painting an icon) it has some usefulness--as just like with writing an iconographer is not innovating but drawing from the anamnesis / memory of the church like a writer draws from the language and grammar of his language.  i am curious where the window analogy has come from, originally.  it shows up in the wikipedia article on iconostases without a source given.  I also found the analogy made heavily in this paper:

RTK_16_3_2017_T_Misijuk_The_multilayer_composition_of_an_iconostasis.pdf

and it seems the source given there is a book called The Icon: Window on the Kingdom written by Michel Quenot in 1991.  anyway, maybe looking at his sources in that book we could dig deeper to find the origins of this window analogy for the iconostasis.  in any event, it's an analogy many people find useful when attending liturgies at churches with iconostases.

I spent a lot of time with the Coptic Church who use cymbals during their joyful hymns; joy and excitement are not antithetical to the principles I am describing.  while the TLM has a reputation for being more solemn and subdued, a good Ressurexit sicut Dixit on Easter, for example, can be very energetic; or the Gloria being sung for the first time since lent as the bells are all rung and they go around the church removing the purple veils of passiontide--lots of energy and joy in that; albeit the culture of the people keeps them a bit more stoic in their demeanor than the Copts or the Ethiopians, often with just a big smile while they sing along but not much more spontaneity--but that's the roman idiosyncracy which when enculturating to some other cultures we can rely on some of the orthodox benchmarks to be ok with not being rigid about as a behavioral custom.

[Anastasia]

43 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

your example of putting an icon before Our Lord when he appeared in a visibly human body doesn't really fit--because all those things that are present on the altar are present invisibly so an icon can help us to see and feel their presence and to communicate with those invisible realities.

You miss the Orthodox understanding of a priest as an icon of Christ during the Eucharist. A priest becomes an icon and makes Christ visible. I was not advocating the removal of an iconostasis but not shutting the Altar Doors during the Eucharist is it is often done. The opened Doors provide a frame for the sight of the mystery with all the icons of the iconostasis grouped around that central sight. If the doors are shut the focus of the Liturgy is lost. My opinion is based not just on my liking but on my long experience of the work in the Church, discussion with the fellow Orthodox and also our knowledge of our history i.e. that that an iconostasis that obscures an altar entirely was quite a late (by the Orthodox measures) practice. That basically the whole "reform" - to keep the doors open, to read the prayers of Anaphora louder and to read the Gospel in a native language. Some priests do this and to many people the prayers of Anaphora came as a revelation which enriched their worship and appreciation of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. They are beautiful and even more than beautiful.

I am fine with "to agree to disagree" though.

In fact, because the opening and closing of the Doors have symbolic meaning attached to them it would  be good even just to live the curtain open! The closed Doors would not obscure the altar here. (But again, we are talking about something the eastern Orthodox priests, iconographers, theologians etc. have been discussing for ages)

I just want to show you a tiny modern Russian Orthodox church 

[Anastasia]

But anyway, with the discussion about an iconostasis we moved away from the “trad” thing in the Roman Catholic Church. While reading the discussion and also observing various issues in the Roman Catholic Church including the recent scandal, I realized something I have managed not to notice before: I substitute the lack of certain things in the Novus Ordo parish(es) with my “Orthodox luggage”. I mean that in the Orthodox Church the homilies are typically about sin, battle with the sinful passions (ascetics), some references to the Church Fathers are also common and the lives of the Saints are spoken about as an example. Unfortunately, I have never heard the Roman Catholic priests doing that but I had my “luggage” to compensate. Yet, if I came to worship with Roman Catholics without that luggage I would not know about those things, most likely. I am very grateful to the Roman Catholic Church for her mystics, especially Carmelites but again, I “dug them out” by myself, nobody told me about the rich mystical tradition within the Roman Catholic Church. It is sad. And the Carmelite spirituality, in my opinion, is the perfect antidote to the madness of our times. Perhaps those things are what more traditional Catholics wish for?

[Aloysius]

well actually we have been misunderstanding each other, because the Eastern liturgies I have been at consist of open doors and open veils during the majority of the liturgy.  I am most familiar with the Coptic Orthodox Liturgy and next with Eastern Catholic Liturgies; I have been to Eastern Orthodox liturgies as well, less frequently, but in my hazy memory I remember the door and veil being mostly open during them; but I wonder if I am just conflating that with other memories; I do know there are some prayers said with the doors and/or veil covered but I remember a lot of anaphoras with open doors and open veils--and I agree with you that should be the case.  my point was that to the extent that the rest of the iconostasis is somewhat obscuring even with the doors open, that obscuring effect should be seen like a window rather than a separation.

now the example you give is an extremely toned down iconostasis--one which I thought you were arguing should be the reform for all eastern churches.  considering the wreckovations done to beautiful altar rails and beautiful high altars in the heat of the moment of the Roman liturgical reforms, you can see why that might cause me some trepidation.  I don't think it need be as open as all that; though I have nothing against it (I once was at an outdoor Eastern Catholic liturgy where they placed just six icons that just marked out where the three doors would be in an ordinary iconostasis and I'm perfectly happy with that too--you get the option of whether to look at the priest or look at an icon to train your focus on invisible realities happening on the altar).  I just think when there are big ornate iconostases, then to the extent to which the vision is obscured even with an open door, the vision should not be seen as just obscured but amplified through the icon.

I agree with you that the doors and veil should be open to view the priest as an icon of Christ--framed by an iconostasis that somewhat obscures the vision in a physical sense but in every way it obscures it it is meant to focus the senses to what the invisible realities are--in the west we refer that to the priest being the alter Christus, we don't use the language of iconography but we basically mean a very similar thing; though many are probably still affected more by our post-reformation reflex to say "it's just a symbol bro" to protestant critiques rather than accept a certain spiritual reality in it as I think the proper doctrine should hold.

[rachael]

15 hours ago, MIKolbe said:

Women wearing pantaloons, without a veil, receiving communion in the hand, after lectoring and Extraordinary Minister-ing  Holy Communion...with an Ayn Rand book in her car.

 

(my contribution to this thread is complete)

You don't want to know what I've been up to.

 

 

Oh, wait. You already do.

[Aloysius]

anyway, enough of the as you say, Anastasia, I think the kinds of things you see lacking in homilies in the Roman Church today is part of things trads are craving.  for me, though, the liturgical tradition goes hand in hand with this;

I feel I can connect our little debate about iconostases to the spirit of the liturgy I am aiming at.  both of us seemed to be debating from within the spirit of the liturgy, neither side really suggesting radical innovation or adjusting to personal preferences.  in a proper liturgical debate like this, I think our discussion helps me map out a kind of typology of what the arguments within and without the spirit of the liturgy would be:

• 1. the hard antiquarian argument of "it was done like this at some point in history, or in the early church, and therefore we MUST return to doing it like this"... this line of argument was condemned in the Roman Church at some point, I forget when, probably counter-reformation times.
• 2. the soft antiquarian argument of "it was done like this at some point in history or in the early church, and therefore there's nothing that says we can't do it now!"--this was a popular vision of liturgical reformers during and after Vatican II I think.
• 3. the time-tested argument of "it's been done like this for so many centuries and has been working, we should keep the good things that have been working so long"--this is the more traddy argument;
  • a post Vatican II amendment of softer traddys might be "we can trim the fat of things that have accumulated during this time but don't change the core of things that are time-tested"--that softer 'traddy' argument is actually what some of the liturgical reformers of Vatican II thought would be the limits of what was done but it turned out many reformers went further, at first justifying it by point 2 but eventually justifying by point 4:
• 4. the adaptation argument--this is the one that's the first step of being likely to slip off the rails away from the spirit of the liturgy in my opinion, because it argues we have to adapt the liturgy to modern peoples, to different kinds of peoples, to different kinds of cultures; and if no limit is placed on that it's really about different strokes for different folks, different flavors for different taste-buds--which loses the sense of unity, permanence, connection through history, etc.  a good rule of thumb for a liturgical spirit is when one sees themselves as needing to adapt to the liturgy, not the liturgy needing to adapt to them.  it gets tricky here as I said because some enculturation can be good but it needs roots that reign it in--that's what I mean by proposing TLM and Eastern Orthodox liturgies as benchmarks to ground things and keep them in their longstanding apostolic roots.  you can add soft-antiquarian benchmarks to that if you wish; but I'm suspicious of those particularly because it's easy to take an historical tidbit out of context.
• 5. the innovation argument--really outside the spirit of the liturgy IMO-- anything goes as long as we're praising God, let everyone come in and contribute in their own unique way, let a thousand flowers blossom, it's everyone's personal preferences.  communion hymn?  why not kumbya!  liturgical dance throughout the eucharist prayer?  why not!  if it's new it's good!  ... ok I'm loosing my objectivity in my description of point 5 lol.  let's reformulate it more objectively: we can add anything at all to the liturgy as long as it is in praise of God.  to me even that formulation is wrong, though.  we need to adapt to the liturgy, not make the liturgy conform to our whims; let our creativity in praising God flourish outside the liturgy, sure, but don't set up this discontinuity within it.

in many ways Anastasia had point 2 arguments and I had point 3 arguments, and I think it was all well within the spirit of the liturgy.  you can see how easily point 4 arguments might tend to escape from the relative timelessness / permanence /it's not ours to do with as we wish spirit of the liturgy, however. 

tl;dr: man I become even more of a windbag than normal when you get me all worked up about liturgical issues lol.  these are some long posts!!  hope somebody out there reads at least part of them and gets something from them lol.  it's nice procrastination from other writing i'm supposed to be doing now lol.

[Anastasia]

42 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

in many ways Anastasia had point 2 arguments

Not exactly. My point is much simpler: everything in the Liturgy (an in any aspect of the Church's life) must be tested against “does it bring us closer to Christ? Is anything hiders that?” I am pro-keeping the liturgical riches but reordering them according to Christ, where they need to be reordered. For example, I am adamantly against swapping Church Slavonic with a modern Russian because it flattens the Byzantine hymns but I am pro- reading the Scriptures in Russian. I am pro-iconostasis but one which allows a view of the altar. I am pro-Anaphora prayed aloud but I am against “speeding up” the Liturgy via reading the prayers very fast, and so on. I am also against any drastic changes. 

I also would like to add that it is all good for me to say that Novus Ordo is fine when it is celebrated in solemn way but I cannot even imagine what it was for the Catholics, to wake up one day, come to the Churches and find everything different. To me it would be a shock. 

PS So, to be very clear, my approach is not about "reform" but about the return of the misplaced symbols for example and so on so we would not have people bowing down before the gifts (unconsecrated) but forgetting somehow to prostrate themselves before the Cup with Christ in it, thanks to the obscured Anaphora. I actually do not mind bowing to the first but it pains me to see how the Sacrifice passes almost unnoticed in many places.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Anastasia

[Aloysius]

fair enough.  you invoked point 2 arguments a couple times by saying the iconostasis wasn't always that way.

but that question of does it bring us closer to Christ can have a problematic opening for point 5 arguments.  many many things could bring us closer to Christ; i'll tell you right now, big props to @dUSt and the team, massmatics Volume 1 --some fine vintage Catholic hip hop--brought me closer to Christ.  but it's not liturgical.

https://phatmass.bandcamp.com/track/school-of-the-eucharist-ft-fr-stan-fortuna

of course I know from the attitudes you have expressed it's not at all your intention to go to point 5; does it bring us closer to Christ seems to be built within a limiting factor / benchmark of that point 3 and a half above (with a bit of a different perspective I'm not sure where to fit in my typology haha--my typology is focused on where the limiting factors are to any impulse--so your phrasing about re-ordering symbols to the right way seems to be an impulse that does need some kind of benchmark to limit how and in what ways it keeps it liturgical rather than just any other kind of non-liturgical worship of Christ)--trim the fat of anything that's been added but keep what is good and connects us to Christ.

https://phatmass.bandcamp.com/track/chillin-on-a-sunday-unknown

[I am adding a soundtrack to this thread to break phatmass's apparent image as a board of rigid traddys lol]

[Anastasia]

37 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

but that question of does it bring us closer to Christ can have a problematic opening for point 5 arguments. 

Yes, I had the same thought while typing those very words. I have no solution for that, for the Roman Catholic Church because when I write "Christ as the only measure", "what brings us closer to Him" I think as an Orthodox i.e. one who feel like... throwing up, to put it mildly when I hear the type of music you posted being applied to the Liturgy. We just don't do that, we have that sense - without rules or laws we somehow sense that it is wrong, not appropriate. Hip-hop does not suit worship, why - I can write pages about that but only when I speak to Catholics.

Yet I have never heard the proponents of p.4 and 5 speaking of Christ. They typically speak of themselves, "I want", and about "what our Church can give to the world" - quite stunning really, the Church has Christ to give.

I am at loss here Aloysius because every next exchange uncovers for me something quite unthinkable, that something obvious (for one within the Tradition) must be explained and argued for, somehow. The very fact that I understand all that "trads" mean (not that I agree with absolutely everything) may mean that "more traditional Catholics" and Orthodox are simply within the Tradition and others - not. 

I am sure the attitude, of looking up to God and His Church and also a sense of me being not "me-me-me" but a part of the whole people of God, generations plays a huge role in it. Within my Church I can say "if we open the curtain during the Anaphora it will bring us closer to Christ because we will be able to participate more fully" and not be afraid that someone may use my words for... something else.

I am sorry if someone is upset with my reaction to hip-hop (if I named it correctly) but it is a very mild reaction for an Orthodox (if anyone would try to play that in our churches he would be thrown out even if he was a priest). I think all boils down to the loss of a scale; God either not present in those experiments or He is being pushed aside. When one feels oneself as very tiny and sinful before God the desire to experiment with the Liturgy somehow disappears I think. So again, the issue is expanding, involving sin, passions, humility etc. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Anastasia

[Anastasia]

54 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

many many things could bring us closer to Christ; i'll tell you right now, big props to @dUSt and the team, massmatics Volume 1 --some fine vintage Catholic hip hop--brought me closer to Christ.  but it's not liturgical.

Sorry, I miss the fact that it is brought you close to Christ. Please be sure that my wild reaction was due to imagining it to be a part of the Liturgy, not to the music itself.

But then, sorry, I do not understand the issue: we can use "what brings us closer to Christ" as a measure but, since we are speaking about the Liturgy obviously that "something" must be liturgical. But again, I am speaking as someone for whom it is self-evident and who used to that sitaution.

[Aloysius]

fair enough.  the Roman Church is, at its core, a bit more systematic and rules-based about things; it is one of the big differences between the East and the West, but it's a difference in matter of discipline and culture.  my typology here is for the sake of discussion, anyway, among people trying to understand where that line should go.  the East at present doesn't really need such an explicit examination of its limiting principles, because it has not done what the West has done in terms of a massive liturgical reform that opened a lot of floodgates.  I have a feeling from your viewpoint that if the East did something similar to what the West has done in its liturgies, you'd probably become some kind of Eastern Traddy haha.

the big problematic in my view is between things that would bring us closer to Christ which are non-liturgical and things that would bring us closer to Christ which are liturgical; but it's a very systematic western way of organizing the issue, to be fair.  but the unruly roman Catholics really need some systematizing, as we can all see how far they sometimes go without it

the Catholic rap I post is meant to be the main common denominator we, us four main participants

 

have all agreed on as non-liturgical music that does praise Christ and can be good in a non-liturgical setting.  well, to be fair I haven't asked everyone's opinion on whether it is good in a non-liturgical setting, I imagine Fides' Jack might not like it even non-liturgically lol; not sure your opinion either haha, but it's all a matter of taste.  but that's neither here nor there, we all agree that even when it has good lyrics it's not liturgical.  but that's the line I'm interested in exploring--it's a line that opens up particularly in the post liturgical reform Catholic Church because of the point 4 arguments of adaptation and enculturation.  those point 4 arguments are pretty alien to an Eastern Orthodox view of their liturgy, however.  but once they're accepted even a little bit, a limiting principle needs to be negotiated.

anyway, I have very much appreciated your perspective on the matter.  the East tends to scoff at western systematizing and offer in its stead a kind of mysterious holistic package--but the west is too used to being held together by systematized principles to be able to work that way; both versions have similar principles at heart, similar senses of tradition and the spirit of the liturgy, just different mechanisms in which they get embodied,

I think, however.  that's kind of part of that mysterious spirit of the liturgy benchmark i appeal to.  within that kind of holistic view there are implicit limiting principles you just apply without thinking; limiting principles that keep people generally in the mindset of "I must adapt to the liturgy, the liturgy is not meant to adapt to me".

 

14 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

Sorry, I miss the fact that it is brought you close to Christ. Please be sure that my wild reaction was due to imagining it to be a part of the Liturgy, not to the music itself.

no worries, that's the whole point of the example.  it's something that can bring people closer to Christ in some contexts but which should NOT be used in the liturgy.  that's always been phatmass's official position, despite the confusing name--phatmass hip hop, not meant for use at mass even though mass is in the name lol-- I am saying there are other things like that out there, some of which ARE presently being used in Roman Catholic liturgies.  when I argue against them I'm not saying they can't bring people closer to Christ, but that they should be done in a non-liturgical setting.  The genre called "Praise and Worship" music is something I draw that line about also, it's a more poignant example because it is something that there are Roman Catholic Liturgies presently organized around.  and people would defend that by saying it's bringing people closer to Christ, helping them worship, etc; the Catholic rap example is about setting the precedent that there are things that could bring people closer to Christ that wouldn't be good liturgically.

[Peace]

@Aloysius @Anastasia

Hijack away! I am honored.

[fides' Jack]

7 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I also would like to add that it is all good for me to say that Novus Ordo is fine when it is celebrated in solemn way but I cannot even imagine what it was for the Catholics, to wake up one day, come to the Churches and find everything different. To me it would be a shock. 

I often wonder about this, too.  For me, it was a similar shock, but had the difference that I woke up one day and went to Church where everyone else was already familiar with the changes and had long ago accepted them.  But man, what a shock it must've been when it was brand new for everyone.  I know there was some pushback a bit later on when groups started splintering off (SSPX, then SSPV, and some smaller, unrelated, doing-their-own-thing groups, too).  I wonder how many other people had some misgivings about it before they accepted it, and how many just went with it and accepted it because they trusted the Church, and how many just accepted it because they liked the changes...

5 hours ago, Aloysius said:

I imagine Fides' Jack might not like it even non-liturgically lol

You got that right. 

I don't see rap as music.  I do see a distinction between rap and hip-hop, and sometimes hip-hop might fall into the music category.

I have a hard time with just Christian music, though, even outside of the liturgy.  I tried getting into it a little bit when I was dating my wife initially, because she doesn't listen to much secular music.

When I was younger I was much more into music, in general.  But even then, I always said that I didn't like Christian, Country, and (c)Rap.  I try to avoid that line now, because it's a bit disrespectful, and I at least try to be respectful of people (not necessarily ideas).