Dumb Question...
Certain Traditionalists often point out that the old form of the Roman Rite is superior to the new form (the "Novus Ordo") in Theological aspects of how we worship God.
The reply many give is that this is the result of nasty people hijacking the NO and that if it were to be done as it ought to have been it would indeed be a proper move Liturgically.
A counter-argument sometimes given by some of the more adamant critics of the NO is that that simply hasn't happened and isn't going to. Some Traditionalists do plan on the restoration of the Liturgy in the NO as the long-term goal, but quite a few sound perfectly ready to abandon it.
Yet they also argue that people are going to eventually be drawn to the old form because of its being better. They must either argue this or else be arguing that the Liturgy is a lost cause.
Well, which is it? Are people incapable of appreciating these Theological aspect of Liturgy or are they not? You can't have it both ways. If people are going to appreciate the old form and be drawn back to it, won't they then be capable of appreciating a fixed-up-to-be-right new form?
The only trouble is, well, fixing the new form up in the first place and who has not just the appreciation but also the extensive knowledge to get it fixed up. These Traditionalists claim to have enough of this knowledge to know for certain that the old form currently is better; why don't they just do it? Is the hierarchy around here (in the US, say) screening out Traditionalists from the major Liturgical jobs? If so, the Traditionalists need to spend less time complaining about us and more time complaining about the disdain of our portion of the hierarchy, or better yet asking higher up in the hierarchy to help out. Mind you, I mean those that spend more time complaining about the NO than trying to help fix it in the first place.
Still, I wish I could get some answers on this.
The reply many give is that this is the result of nasty people hijacking the NO and that if it were to be done as it ought to have been it would indeed be a proper move Liturgically.
A counter-argument sometimes given by some of the more adamant critics of the NO is that that simply hasn't happened and isn't going to. Some Traditionalists do plan on the restoration of the Liturgy in the NO as the long-term goal, but quite a few sound perfectly ready to abandon it.
Yet they also argue that people are going to eventually be drawn to the old form because of its being better. They must either argue this or else be arguing that the Liturgy is a lost cause.
Well, which is it? Are people incapable of appreciating these Theological aspect of Liturgy or are they not? You can't have it both ways. If people are going to appreciate the old form and be drawn back to it, won't they then be capable of appreciating a fixed-up-to-be-right new form?
The only trouble is, well, fixing the new form up in the first place and who has not just the appreciation but also the extensive knowledge to get it fixed up. These Traditionalists claim to have enough of this knowledge to know for certain that the old form currently is better; why don't they just do it? Is the hierarchy around here (in the US, say) screening out Traditionalists from the major Liturgical jobs? If so, the Traditionalists need to spend less time complaining about us and more time complaining about the disdain of our portion of the hierarchy, or better yet asking higher up in the hierarchy to help out. Mind you, I mean those that spend more time complaining about the NO than trying to help fix it in the first place.
Still, I wish I could get some answers on this.
Labels: Common Nonsense, Wondrous Tradition
posted by Shakespeare's Cobbler at 11/29/2007 08:40:00 AM
2 Comments:
Mmm. I don't think that I'm the ideal traditionalist for reply to this.
See, I have been to many great Novus Ordo masses (some in latin!), and I've only been to one real traditional, pre-Vatican II mass. It was one of the greatest experiences in my life...but anyway.
I think that traditionalism should not be a criticized attack on the new because it can't be as good as the old. Why can't it? Essentially, the thing that changed was that the faithful were more involved, which is certainly a good thing.
My traditionalism could probably be better described as a preservatism - I want to make sure that the traditional mass survives because it so clearly preserves what I call the "glory and majesty" of Mother Church.
Well, anyway, of course you're RIGHT, Scott. :P Traditionalism and charism need not be in opposition. But that doesn't mean that the older rites should be sacrificed for an even traditionalistic NO mass.
~Ambrose
That's not what I was saying anyway; I was saying the Traditionalists who claim the Novus Ordo can never be made right such that it is as good as the Old Order as far as I can tell are either being inconsistent or else think the Liturgy as a whole is a lost cause. I am absolutely in favor, though, of retaining the Old Order.
Post a Comment
<< Home