Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Liturgy, Beauty, Beholder's Eye, etc.
The New Liturgical Movement blog has a post on "Beauty is of the Essence of Liturgy," reprinted from the Fruit of Contemplation blog. Natch, I had to put in my two cents' worth.
Shawn from NLM responded to my post:
Still, one thing you can say in such cases, even when done not well, its objectivity at least helped prevent some of the problems we have today in the liturgy, and at very least it maintained its theocentricity.
I'm not ready to concede the 1970 Missal isn't theocentric. A Catholic would be obliged morally to presume it is. Masses of either era have particular problems with local clergy or people, and there are doubtless stumbling blocks within each rite. Most of today's problems are rehashes of yesterday's unsolved problems. As I posted there,
In a way, those who celebrated the reformed rite poorly are persisting in a groundless trust in pre-conciliar rubricism.
- Just change the Mass and it will all be fine.
- Just follow the directions faithfully and it will all be fine.
But come now Todd, I know of various liberal liturgists (by no means fans of the old rite) who will admit that the revolutionary liturgical changes that swept through did do damage to the faithful and resulted in losses.
Sure. But that doesn't mean the changes weren't justified. The implementation was indeed poor in many respects. But that's what we have: flawed human beings who live in our neighborhood doing liturgy in a flawed way.
It doesn't mean that liturgical reform is somehow not appropriate or even unnecessary, but it does say something about why the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had always gone by the tried and true method of organic liturgical development.
Not always. First, organic development wasn't a strongly articulated conciliar principle. The post-Trent Church pretty much ignored it. Second, the Church has often just gone the route of suppression, rather than development.
As for music, that the Church has identified particular forms as having a prominence is a matter of textual record and fact of course. This ought to be taken seriously. As for modern forms, what needs to be looked at it what the Church has decreed in their regard.
I originally addressed the point of beauty in the liturgy. What the Church decrees is not always the most beautiful, though admittedly beauty can be something of a personal taste. Taking beauty alone, neither the organ nor plainsong have any particular advantage over any other instrument or genre. If we're talking beauty as the very best of ourselves than we can put into artistic expression in the praise of God, then indeed, the Church is wise to permit a wide range of styles and instruments.
But let's not kid ourselves that beauty is the number one argument for many prelates. Personally, I think it should be one of many. But the distinction is in the give-and-take between various factors: faithfulness, catechetical weight, local ability & minimum standards, and culture among others.
