I was young and really appreciated the liturgical reforms. But the oldest two in my family received real religious instruction in our Catholic schools while the rest of them got 12 years of Jesus loves you.
I was young and really appreciated the liturgical reforms. But the oldest two in my family received real religious instruction in our Catholic schools while the rest of them got 12 years of Jesus loves you.
I have a theory. And it's only a theory. Many of those in your generation liked the reform because first, you experienced the traditional rite in a time in which it had lost it's vigor and had become somewhat ossified in practice. The reforms as implemented were implemented by people of your generation for people of your generation. But because the new rite was largely cut off from the tradition, it doesn't have the ability to speak to the generations that followed. It now needs to be recreated for each new generation.
This is an oversimplification of course. In reality there was a massive falling away in the immediate aftermath of the council. The reforms obviously didn't speak to your whole generation. And it's true that some younger people experience the new rite with joy. What's undeniable in my mind is that it hasn't lived up to its promises. And in my opinion, it never will. Until that's generally accepted, there will be suffering
The reforms were implemented by members of my parents' generation, not mine. And the reason why they were necessary was that ossified is polite. I used my missal to see if I could read the Latin I did not understand faster than the priest could say it. People prayed the rosary instead of paying attention except when the altar bells rang. I am part of the generation which followed. And I would argue that it does have the ability to speak to future generations when it is said as it should be said. There was a massive falling off before the council which the council was called to try to rectify.
A local book club here in Kentucky is reading Set Apart by Fr. Mike Schmitz. In it he writes about a man from China who was tortured for three weeks to get him to renounce his faith which he refused to do. Then they gave up and released him. When he came to the US he was delighted to find he could worship daily and did so with joy. However, he then discovered that the more he worked the better off he was in this world and he gradually left the practice of the faith to work. So I suspect that the underlying problem with the faith both before and after Vatican II is the secular world we live in.
I do not question the need for reform. Only the method and content. It's undeniable in my experience that people your age are largely happy and resistant to any reform of the reform type stuff. Of course it's not 100%, but I've seen it for too long and at at too many places not to be fully convinced of it. The NO is meaningful to you.The opposite is true of my generation.
The theory part is that the way the reforms were undertaken largely cut them off from the tradition and therefore made for a situation where constant innovation was necessary to keep them relevant
Just what do you mean by people my age? I was a child when the original reforms happened. The last reforms were in the 2010s. And I find it amusing that you think you can speak for your entire generation.
If you were a kid when the reforms happened you are around my parents age. They see the world similar to you. Especially my mom interestingly enough. This is an observation, not a criticism. I'm quite fond of my parents
Where did you get the crazy idea that I think I speak for my entire generation? I'm talking about my experience. There's a reason why younger priests tend to be more traditional. There's a reason why more traditional communities tend towards being younger. These things that many many have commented on aren't made up.
My theory is not that very common observation. My theory is the why.
"The NO is meaningful to you. The opposite is true of my generation." That sounds to me like you are trying to speak for your entire generation. I recently moved from an area with both NO and FSSP parishes. I attended the NO parish. I have an older than me friend who prefers the FSSP. Since I didn't go there I don't know what their average ages are. I know she had a son and his family in one of the parishes and a daughter and her family in the other. The parish I attended was full of young parents with lots of children. I have no idea of the local FSSP parish. I don't have a lot of patience with stereotypes of other people based on age or race or any other irrelevant personal characteristics.
Please go reread the thread before making a caricature of what I said. It's impossible to speak with full specificity in everything you say.
The ironic thing about how this conversation has proceeded is how closely it aligns with my previous experience trying to talk to people older than me about liturgy. You'll notice that there's been absolutely nothing said about the point I was making. All you've done is question the premise. This is the very reason I stopped talking about it and just decided it was time to move on from my typical liturgy parish. Nobody who had influence (the priest and older parishioners with money) were interested in it, and I was loathe to be "that guy" that the priest wanted to avoid.
This despite the fact that it's simply undeniable that younger priests and families tend towards more traditional liturgy as compared to older generations. And the younger you are the more traditional you're likely to be. No this isn't an absolute, but it's certainly a trend or a tendency. Isn't this something worth exploring instead of explaining away?
And you never addressed the point by Fr. Mike Schmitz, not a member of my generation, that the underlying problem the faith has in this country is secularism not liturgy.
You are presuming that there is something wrong with the NO, which the Catholic Church has approved for use in worship. The early Church didn't worship the way people did in the Middle Ages, and there were different rites with somewhat different liturgies throughout time. But the Church has always kept the Eucharist at the center of its worship and always will. Christ promised He would always be with His Church until the end of time. He does that in the Eucharist and whether it's NO or TLM or the service the former deaconess described to Pliny under torture or what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians, it's the same because it's Jesus's body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine. That's what counts, that's what matters. As long as that is happening and one acknowledges that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is re-presented on the altar, the exact way one gets there is unimportant provided it has been approved by the Church and is done in union with her.
I was young and really appreciated the liturgical reforms. But the oldest two in my family received real religious instruction in our Catholic schools while the rest of them got 12 years of Jesus loves you.
I have a theory. And it's only a theory. Many of those in your generation liked the reform because first, you experienced the traditional rite in a time in which it had lost it's vigor and had become somewhat ossified in practice. The reforms as implemented were implemented by people of your generation for people of your generation. But because the new rite was largely cut off from the tradition, it doesn't have the ability to speak to the generations that followed. It now needs to be recreated for each new generation.
This is an oversimplification of course. In reality there was a massive falling away in the immediate aftermath of the council. The reforms obviously didn't speak to your whole generation. And it's true that some younger people experience the new rite with joy. What's undeniable in my mind is that it hasn't lived up to its promises. And in my opinion, it never will. Until that's generally accepted, there will be suffering
The reforms were implemented by members of my parents' generation, not mine. And the reason why they were necessary was that ossified is polite. I used my missal to see if I could read the Latin I did not understand faster than the priest could say it. People prayed the rosary instead of paying attention except when the altar bells rang. I am part of the generation which followed. And I would argue that it does have the ability to speak to future generations when it is said as it should be said. There was a massive falling off before the council which the council was called to try to rectify.
A local book club here in Kentucky is reading Set Apart by Fr. Mike Schmitz. In it he writes about a man from China who was tortured for three weeks to get him to renounce his faith which he refused to do. Then they gave up and released him. When he came to the US he was delighted to find he could worship daily and did so with joy. However, he then discovered that the more he worked the better off he was in this world and he gradually left the practice of the faith to work. So I suspect that the underlying problem with the faith both before and after Vatican II is the secular world we live in.
I do not question the need for reform. Only the method and content. It's undeniable in my experience that people your age are largely happy and resistant to any reform of the reform type stuff. Of course it's not 100%, but I've seen it for too long and at at too many places not to be fully convinced of it. The NO is meaningful to you.The opposite is true of my generation.
The theory part is that the way the reforms were undertaken largely cut them off from the tradition and therefore made for a situation where constant innovation was necessary to keep them relevant
Just what do you mean by people my age? I was a child when the original reforms happened. The last reforms were in the 2010s. And I find it amusing that you think you can speak for your entire generation.
If you were a kid when the reforms happened you are around my parents age. They see the world similar to you. Especially my mom interestingly enough. This is an observation, not a criticism. I'm quite fond of my parents
Where did you get the crazy idea that I think I speak for my entire generation? I'm talking about my experience. There's a reason why younger priests tend to be more traditional. There's a reason why more traditional communities tend towards being younger. These things that many many have commented on aren't made up.
My theory is not that very common observation. My theory is the why.
"The NO is meaningful to you. The opposite is true of my generation." That sounds to me like you are trying to speak for your entire generation. I recently moved from an area with both NO and FSSP parishes. I attended the NO parish. I have an older than me friend who prefers the FSSP. Since I didn't go there I don't know what their average ages are. I know she had a son and his family in one of the parishes and a daughter and her family in the other. The parish I attended was full of young parents with lots of children. I have no idea of the local FSSP parish. I don't have a lot of patience with stereotypes of other people based on age or race or any other irrelevant personal characteristics.
Please go reread the thread before making a caricature of what I said. It's impossible to speak with full specificity in everything you say.
The ironic thing about how this conversation has proceeded is how closely it aligns with my previous experience trying to talk to people older than me about liturgy. You'll notice that there's been absolutely nothing said about the point I was making. All you've done is question the premise. This is the very reason I stopped talking about it and just decided it was time to move on from my typical liturgy parish. Nobody who had influence (the priest and older parishioners with money) were interested in it, and I was loathe to be "that guy" that the priest wanted to avoid.
This despite the fact that it's simply undeniable that younger priests and families tend towards more traditional liturgy as compared to older generations. And the younger you are the more traditional you're likely to be. No this isn't an absolute, but it's certainly a trend or a tendency. Isn't this something worth exploring instead of explaining away?
And you never addressed the point by Fr. Mike Schmitz, not a member of my generation, that the underlying problem the faith has in this country is secularism not liturgy.
With all due respect you've avoided addressing what I said for about 5 comments and now you want me to address something that's a different topic?
You are presuming that there is something wrong with the NO, which the Catholic Church has approved for use in worship. The early Church didn't worship the way people did in the Middle Ages, and there were different rites with somewhat different liturgies throughout time. But the Church has always kept the Eucharist at the center of its worship and always will. Christ promised He would always be with His Church until the end of time. He does that in the Eucharist and whether it's NO or TLM or the service the former deaconess described to Pliny under torture or what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians, it's the same because it's Jesus's body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine. That's what counts, that's what matters. As long as that is happening and one acknowledges that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is re-presented on the altar, the exact way one gets there is unimportant provided it has been approved by the Church and is done in union with her.