It is indeed a rash man who writes a word of caution when it comes to what Dr. Lamont advances but the fact the trad mass developed as it has is not without aspects (and more than aspects) that can be contended against, and ABS is rash....
Over at the estimable blog of Rad Trad, he has picked-up an observation made about pews by Fr Rutler and expanded upon it to question the development that abandoned processions etc and a similar contention against the way the Mass developed can be found in "The Shape of the Liturgy," by Dix who observes that where once Mass was done, it is now spoken/heard, all of which is to write that all of these matters have not been settled (certainly not by the sspx's claim that their use of a transitional missal represents the Mass of all times) which is a good thing.
Assisting at at the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom can be a real eye-opener and idea generator.
It is indeed a rash man who writes a word of caution when it comes to what Dr. Lamont advances but the fact the trad mass developed as it has is not without aspects (and more than aspects) that can be contended against, and ABS is rash....
ReplyDeleteOver at the estimable blog of Rad Trad, he has picked-up an observation made about pews by Fr Rutler and expanded upon it to question the development that abandoned processions etc and a similar contention against the way the Mass developed can be found in "The Shape of the Liturgy," by Dix who observes that where once Mass was done, it is now spoken/heard, all of which is to write that all of these matters have not been settled (certainly not by the sspx's claim that their use of a transitional missal represents the Mass of all times) which is a good thing.
Assisting at at the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom can be a real eye-opener and idea generator.