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 a…
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.
Sigh - well thanks for the exchange. This proceeded exactly as I expected. I'm talking about a very real thing I see happening right around me, and you're talking about 6th century Pseudo-Dionysius. My observations aren't unique or novel in any way. MANY MANY people are noticing these trends with younger people. You can say it's not a real thing, but it won't change. Actually it will change, but it's going to be a generational thing. It's a sad thing to say, but there's almost no point in the conversation anymore, which is why I've stopped having it.
I'll just make one comment about authority. Of course authority matter, but keep in mind that authority exercised arbitrarily can easily be changed arbitrarily.
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.
Sigh - well thanks for the exchange. This proceeded exactly as I expected. I'm talking about a very real thing I see happening right around me, and you're talking about 6th century Pseudo-Dionysius. My observations aren't unique or novel in any way. MANY MANY people are noticing these trends with younger people. You can say it's not a real thing, but it won't change. Actually it will change, but it's going to be a generational thing. It's a sad thing to say, but there's almost no point in the conversation anymore, which is why I've stopped having it.
I'll just make one comment about authority. Of course authority matter, but keep in mind that authority exercised arbitrarily can easily be changed arbitrarily.