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.…
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.
This still doesn't address what I originally said - at least not directly or in the way you probably intended. My theory is about why younger generations feels less and less attached to the NO (especially as it's commonly celebrated) and more and more desirous of traditional liturgy. Is that something worth trying to understand? You've gone from denying it (or at least questioning it as a premise) to now suggesting rite itself isn't all that important.
It almost seems like you're saying the forms don't really matter at all...which is odd but quite frankly that's exactly the feel you get at a lot of parishes. That none of it really matters all that much as long as the Eucharist is present. That cuts both ways. First, your statement that I presume something wrong with the NO doesn't really make sense in this context. How could something be wrong or deficient if it doesn't matter? If it doesn't really matter then why not just do what people want? Why not have literal clown masses as long as you get around to a valid consecration of some sort? I'm sure you would think that a terrible thing to do, but on what basis would you reject it? Or further, why not go back to 1950s TLM? That Mass had valid consecration too. I suspect I'm going to be hearing an argument from authority next...
Not surprisingly I reject this whole line of reasoning. The form of the rite DOES matter. It's attachment, or lack thereof, to the tradition handed on does matter. The way the rite forms you and predisposes you to the reality of the sacrament does matter. Young people WANT something that matters. This is how you're responding to my theory in a way you perhaps didn't intend.
I do not agree that younger generations are more and more desirous of the traditional liturgy and less and less attached to the NO. The forms matter in that they must be performed in accordance with what the Catholic Church requires, whatever that happens to be. The Church herself is infallible although her members are not. Of course you are going to hear an argument from authority here just as you did in the previous letter.
The TLM is based on the pseudepigraphic writings of Pseudo-Dionysius which were faked in the 6th century. We know that's approximately when they were written because it uses the Council of Chalcedon's description of Jesus's nature, and if such a thing had actually been written by a disciple of St. Paul the Church would not have spent over a century arguing about it. That's where the basis for the TLM came from. Pseudo history. Reread 1 Corinthians 10-11. What Paul is describing is not TLM and sounds like it is a lot more like the NO.
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.
This still doesn't address what I originally said - at least not directly or in the way you probably intended. My theory is about why younger generations feels less and less attached to the NO (especially as it's commonly celebrated) and more and more desirous of traditional liturgy. Is that something worth trying to understand? You've gone from denying it (or at least questioning it as a premise) to now suggesting rite itself isn't all that important.
It almost seems like you're saying the forms don't really matter at all...which is odd but quite frankly that's exactly the feel you get at a lot of parishes. That none of it really matters all that much as long as the Eucharist is present. That cuts both ways. First, your statement that I presume something wrong with the NO doesn't really make sense in this context. How could something be wrong or deficient if it doesn't matter? If it doesn't really matter then why not just do what people want? Why not have literal clown masses as long as you get around to a valid consecration of some sort? I'm sure you would think that a terrible thing to do, but on what basis would you reject it? Or further, why not go back to 1950s TLM? That Mass had valid consecration too. I suspect I'm going to be hearing an argument from authority next...
Not surprisingly I reject this whole line of reasoning. The form of the rite DOES matter. It's attachment, or lack thereof, to the tradition handed on does matter. The way the rite forms you and predisposes you to the reality of the sacrament does matter. Young people WANT something that matters. This is how you're responding to my theory in a way you perhaps didn't intend.
I do not agree that younger generations are more and more desirous of the traditional liturgy and less and less attached to the NO. The forms matter in that they must be performed in accordance with what the Catholic Church requires, whatever that happens to be. The Church herself is infallible although her members are not. Of course you are going to hear an argument from authority here just as you did in the previous letter.
The TLM is based on the pseudepigraphic writings of Pseudo-Dionysius which were faked in the 6th century. We know that's approximately when they were written because it uses the Council of Chalcedon's description of Jesus's nature, and if such a thing had actually been written by a disciple of St. Paul the Church would not have spent over a century arguing about it. That's where the basis for the TLM came from. Pseudo history. Reread 1 Corinthians 10-11. What Paul is describing is not TLM and sounds like it is a lot more like the NO.