Monasticism was/is a social institution (by which the Church has carried out the work of Christian acculturation).
The liturgy is itself a work of art. Just remember that: it is artistic and it is art. In fact, it is the most elaborate art ever created by man. It is the anonymous work of many centuries of growth. It is the archetype towards which art strives to ascend. It is our common social act: our literature, poetry and drama.
In this photo is seen one of the first and most creative achievements of the new Christian culture which has grown through the centuries. The monks took the artistic inheritance of the Roman-Hellenistic culture and served the liturgy with it.
This is the Benedictine calendar. The greatest loss of the so-called liturgial renewal of the sixties was the loss of these calendars. The liturgical calendar of the Latin rite should never have been reformed (they used the word "renewed") during the postconciliar years. It was a big mistake which had complicated implications most seen in (now formerly) Catholic countries.
How is what the Council mandated & the Liturgical changes since the Council any different than what those Benedictines did? They took their contemporary secular realties & used them to the glory of God. Making the Liturgy speak to various peoples & times (inculturation) is what the Second Vatican Council decreed. But now, some want to go back to the pre-Council Liturgy because its old? I fail to see how what those Benedictines did is so different from what has been done in the Liturgy after the Council?
ReplyDeleteWorld revolution.
ReplyDelete