Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
Home › Forums › Ireland › reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches › Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
Some on this thread ought to wake up to the fact that there is a legitimate, current and scholarly conversation taking place within the church on the nature and practice of the liturgy. In particular, the question on the position of the priest at the altar has been highlighted by the public reception given by the new Sri Lankan Secretary of Divine Worship to the italian edition of Michael Lang’s book Turning Towards The Lord. I note that today the same Archbishop has made pretty acute observations on the radicalism and experimentalism that has seeped in the liturgy after the Council. There is a view gathering strength that a return to the ad orientem position of the celebrant during the eucharistic prayer would more fully exemplify and symbolize the full, conscious and active participation of the faithful and therefore conform the liturgy more truthfully to the spirit of the council.
It is the modernists of the 60’s and 70’s who now find themselves recast by events as conservatives. This is exemplified by the reaction of, say, Bishop Trautmann in America to the very mild corrective to the vernacular texts of the ordinary. He’s worried that the people will, after 30 years of the current version, be upset, confused and angry at the rupture in their routine. His ideological predecessors didn’t have a mind to similar concerns between 1964-70.
A measured response to the current climate and new pontificate would be to hang on and see what results are produced and not to fight the irrelevant and fatuous debates of the 60’s & 70’s. It is clear that the renewal needs recalibration, to be reset according to an hermeneutic of continuity with the Church’s sublime Tradition. People who characterize others who take hope in these murmurings are not, in general, Tridentine fundamentalists or haters of the modern liturgy. This straw man argument is a sign of fear and a symptom of dishonesty and hypocrisy. Politicised communitarianism, a wilful distortion of the council documents, will no longer be permitted to be the prime criterion by which liturgy and the architecture that envelopes it is judged.
In this time of transition the prudent make themselves themselves via caution.