INITIAL REFLECTIONS ON THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY, Edition I

[Piov 2431]

Issued by the Archbishop of Jorenus

 

 

INITIAL REFLECTIONS ON THE REFORM OF THE LITURGY:

REPOSITIONING RUSKAN CANONISM, Edition I.

 

10th of Vzmey and Hyff, 356 E.S.

---

Va ve Edlervik i ve Lendyy, 

 

Pursuant to my role as the premier theological advisor to the High Pontiff, and after receiving commission by His Holiness to inquire on the theological plausibility of liturgical reform throughout our Church, I seek to share my initial reflections in a series of letters. I shall begin with my own archdiocesan community, the faithful people in the North. I seek to share my reflections on this undertaking, the process that I anticipate our clergy will assume, and the future direction on the life of the Holy Mother Church in our archdiocese. Following two recent documents: my minor bull initiating the Northern Liturgical Reform Commission and a dossier that I submitted to the Bishop’s Diet convened by Pontiff Owyn III on advice of Cardinal Pelagius, I will reiterate the mission to “increase cultural relevance” and how we may fulfill it.

 

The Commission’s Charge

Certainly, for any and all liturgical reform, only a commendable commission sanctioned by the Holy See can oversee this work. The spirit of this reform is collaborative in nature, requiring the minds of many clergy in our archdiocese to contribute to our final drafts. To hold faithfully to the notion that “The purpose of mass is the spiritual fraternity and public piety of the faithful”, I believe that we must hold fidelity to the sacred traditions of our faith while also returning to various forms of spiritual exercise most intimate to our northern flock. In so doing, veneration of our Highlandic saints recognized universally throughout the epoch of human history permits us to revive our spiritual consciousness and closeness to the piety of our ancestral fathers and mothers. I am of the belief that each liturgical celebration requires a special commemoration of these saints so as to draw in the faithful to understand that holiness is not a lofty calling but a universal one. 

 

The Nature of Reform

Our new missal should reflect sacred language that incorporates elements of Naumarian, namely the naming of priests, the gestures of the mass, and elements that incorporate the beauty of creation. Inasmuch as we celebrate our liturgies in the tabernacles of holiness in the structures of our churches, we must also appreciate the natural elements of our mortal lives. Our missal, then, should instill an appreciation of the Creator’s world and a sanctification of space in the primordial elements of existence (the land, water bodies) so as to renew our collective commitment to be stewards of the bounties that God reminds us in the Scroll of Virtue.

 

I believe that our commission should be attentive to what I deem the “great” and “lesser” traditions. To clarify, these terms do not signify that one is superior to another. Rather, they denote two important dimensions of faith. The “great” tradition consists of the finer, theological, and often academic points of the faith often discussed by prelates. It is the intellectual foundation of the Church, Her mission, and Her rationale for evangelization. The “lesser” tradition consists of the daily practices of all the faithful, clergy and laity alike. It is the popular devotion and true breath of the life of the Canonist community. As such, both elements are necessarily in tandem. Now, to return to the direction of the commission, I advise that we embark on looking through history and tradition through these systems. 

 

There remains important precedence for such a rite in our modern institutional Church. The roots of Ruskan Orthodoxy compel us to visit the days of the Exalted Siegmund and over three centuries of popular practice. However, the Anarchy Period during the mid-Johannian Dynasty saw the politicization of Ruskan Orthodoxy as the religion of rebellion and lost favor with both the greater and lesser traditions. However, it is notable to recall the institution of a Ruskan Canonist Rite by High Pontiff Saint Sixtus IV in 1573 and the reaffirmation of Ruskan Orthodoxy in 1673 by High Pontiff Siegmund I. We must recall the popular stories of saints during the high eras of Ruskan Orthodoxy, the sacred architecture of Ruskan Canonist churches, the clerical practices of these traditions, and the intellectual character of movements such as Lendianism (or Sigmundic Canonism) for their cultural aesthetic. 

 

Spiritual Life in the Future

Certainly today, there is a burgeoning consensus among the laity for a revisitation to the cultural roots of the greater and lesser traditions of a distinct “Highlandic” (to which I use loosely to give deference to our Norlandic neighbors) Canonism. Even among our clergy, this enthusiasm has sparked a renewal to return to the sacred patrimony of prophetic revelation and the saints who have come before us. As for the possible effects of our work, we must conclude our commission with a final draft of a missal that diligently reflects our fidelity to culture, history, and tradition. It is my personal hope that future clergy will use our new missal with great reverence of the past and in due honor for the sacred. Liturgy is indeed the true core of religious community. I believe that with this reinvigoration of faith in the Archdiocese of Jorenus, we can serve as a model of reform that renders our church’s ministry responsive in other diocesan regions across the land. It shall in fact fulfill what my brother Cardinal Albarosa sought to achieve—increase cultural relevance.

 

 

With fidelity and love,

 

His Eminence, Benedict Cardinal Jorenus, O.W.F.

Archbishop of Jorenus, Titular Bishop of Kalden

Pontifical Secretary