Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
Re posting 1197:
Paddy Jones of the Pastoral Liturgy Institute mentions the follwoing in his article in the September 2006 number of Intercom:
“It is a matter of grave concern that there are several different positions on liturgy adopted today, characterised by a strong element disagreement, and some of which oppose the charter of reform given by Vatican II”.
What, might I ask, does he mean by this? Surely, he cannot be suggesting that it is a matter of grave concern [to himself presumably] that more than one theoretical position can be taken by a bona fide academic on an open liturgical point? If he does, then we are are facing the end of any form of liturgical science and research and we are staring at the advent of an academic totalitarianism that would even cause Enver Hoxha to blush. If our learned author is indeed postulating a monolithic liturgical establishment in which only what he has to say is to be taken as a genuine representation and interpretation of the liturgical renewal initiated by the Second Vatican Council, then we could possibly have serendipitously happened upon an embarrassing explanation for the fact that in its 40 years of existence the Institute for Pastoral Liturgy in Ireland has NOT yet produced a single liturgical textbook of any enduring significance.
Our over learned author must surely realize that even within the matrix of the liturgical principles outlined by Sacrosanctum Concilium and the subsequent post conciliar normative documents, there exists plenty of scope for adacemic research and for that healthy critical spirit needed in any academic enterprise?
Our author also mentions that some strong elements of disagreement in liturgical matters opposes “the charter of reform given by Vatican II”. Again it is not clear what, if anything, is intended by such a statement. The only people who publicly and explicitly reject Sacrosanctum Concilium are the Lefevrians – of whom there are not too many in Ireland and none was involved in the campaign conducted by the Friends of St. Colman’s Cathedral. Although he does not mention it, Fr. Jones should be aware that covert opposition to Sacrosanctum Concilium is to be found in a variety of places determined to hijack the Conciliar renewal of the liturgy and some of these would be at the polar opposite of the Lefevrian position. For example, a book has recently been published in Germany which makes reference to a liturgical institute which banned from its library shelves those books written by the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lest what he has to say about the renewal of the liturgy have an influence on its students. What are we to make of all that and those?
