Now that we’ve discussed how customs arise in liturgical history, let’s turn to the principles by which they’re evaluated (in their pre-canonical period). This post takes some of the debate in the comment threads as examples of how these conversations normally go in the process of evaluation.
My reading tastes fluctuate between church and non-church things. Sometimes I’m looking for links between them.
Is it good to make only a few copies available for those who truly can’t hear?
What kind of community can “introduce” a liturgical custom, and how does the process look? A few notes from ritual studies that may help in understanding the wedding mandatum.
At the Fall General Assembly of the USCCB, the conference’s Committee on Divine Worship is expected to bring forward five liturgical matters for a vote.
It’s a shame that Bishop Tobin called the recent extraordinary synod “Protestant.”
Is it a benign form of inculturation to the modern consumer culture of the West that we offer different liturgies for different tastes, or is this something that should be resisted?
After the vows, the couple washed each other’s feet, and then the feet of their new in-laws.
When I first thought about what I have been reading lately, what came to mind is the undergraduate essays and papers I have been plowing through—more on them at another time.
Liturgical reform is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante’s improvisation. It is a law.