From Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (The Spirit of the Liturgy, 81-82)
“For the Liturgy of the Word is about speaking and responding, and so a face-to-face exchange between proclaimer and hearer makes sense. [...] On the other hand, a common turning to the east during the EP remains essential. [...]
“Haussling has leveled several objections at these ideas of mine. [...] These ideas are alleged to be a romanticism for the old ways, a misguided longing for the past. It is said to be odd that I should speak only of Christian antiquity and pass over the succeeding centuries. Coming as it does from a liturgical scholar, this objection is quite remarkable. As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only antiquity as a source, and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent.
“And so one ends up with dubious reconstructions of the most ancient practice, fluctuating criteria, and never-ending suggestions for reform, which lead ultimately to the disintegration of the liturgy that has evolved in a living way. On the other hand, it is important and necessary to see that we cannot take as our norm the ancient in itself and as such, nor must we automatically write off later developments as alien to the original form of the liturgy. There can be a thoroughly living kind of development in which a seed at the origin of something ripens and bears fruit.”
3 comments:
I think The Spirit of the Liturgy would make a very good adult ed class, and ought to be required for all catechists, and committee persons.
I think The Spirit of the Liturgy should be a required read in seminary liturgy classes, except of course traddie seminaries where it isn't needed.
"As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only antiquity as a source, and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent." Ain't that the truth?!
Furthermore, there are many things that have been shoved down our throats with the "early Roman Church did it" whine that, in fact, the "early Roman Church" did not practice. Case in point: versus populum celebration. Ever find a freestanding altar in the catacombs? Don't think so :)
The second paragraph captures a lot. I am susceptible to people who would want to worship as the ancients did. After all they were often in the presence of Saints, some even of the Son. Yet these same people were often pagan converts who did not create their worship out of thin air, but instead adapted their pagan rituals to their new faith. Additionally, they were often working from an epiphany, not always from a fully reasoned understanding, such as that could ever be.
This theme often returns to me: that the folk masses are authentic, yet are the products of childish understanding whereas the EF is the result of people who have come, over varied paths, to understand that they cannot comprehend the Almighty and are humble enough in His presence to give the finest and most refined they have, and know it is not remotely enough.
Post a Comment