I hoped to critique both extremes of liturgical views, unfortunately, with a few words and not much nuance; forgive me for crassness.
The TLM ought to be loved on its own merits, but so also the Ordinary Form. I believe it is toxic to love to TLM and distain the OF, and to take on a sectarian attitude. I am suspicious of those who uncriti…
I hoped to critique both extremes of liturgical views, unfortunately, with a few words and not much nuance; forgive me for crassness.
The TLM ought to be loved on its own merits, but so also the Ordinary Form. I believe it is toxic to love to TLM and distain the OF, and to take on a sectarian attitude. I am suspicious of those who uncritically look down on the OF and with haughtiness exalt the TLM, and I base this judgment from real encounters with people, not mere virtual encounters. I am weary of young adults, whose parents only knew the OF, who take on strong liturgical opinions without discerning reflection, nor knowing history, and have a resentment for being deprived of the TLM.
The apparent discontinuity ought to be reconciled in the hearts and minds of Catholics. I have found benefit from a strong Hermeneutic of Continuity, understanding Church history, sacramental theology, and ecclesiology. As mentioned above, I agree that a Reform of the OF comes through the TLM, not around it. This is why I love both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite.
Crassness forgiven, I appreciate you understanding what I'm saying too. It irritated me when Pope Francis said similar things about attachment to the TLM, and it persists as an annoying thing to hear whenever it's repeated.
I agree with your other statements. TC seems to have only furthered the divide and fostered a growing "remnant" mentality in the short term. In the long run, we'll see what happens, but the continued existence(and growth?) of sedevacantism should serve as a sign that such a heavy handed approach won't produce the supposed intended effects.
There are young adults (and older ones) who resent being deprived of the TLM, who need to learn about forgiveness and circumspection.
But I don't think looking down on the 2002 missale romanum is nearly as big an abuse of the NO, as the people who minister at it (whether priest or lay) without regard for the rubrics or texts. To reform the NO, start cleaving to what it is, and liberally applying Sacrosanctum Concilium. No reference to the TLM required thus far.
I've heard this objection before, and it feels a bit like someone who routinely and badly abuses a close family member, becoming furious when an out-of-state cousin is rude to that family member.
I hoped to critique both extremes of liturgical views, unfortunately, with a few words and not much nuance; forgive me for crassness.
The TLM ought to be loved on its own merits, but so also the Ordinary Form. I believe it is toxic to love to TLM and distain the OF, and to take on a sectarian attitude. I am suspicious of those who uncritically look down on the OF and with haughtiness exalt the TLM, and I base this judgment from real encounters with people, not mere virtual encounters. I am weary of young adults, whose parents only knew the OF, who take on strong liturgical opinions without discerning reflection, nor knowing history, and have a resentment for being deprived of the TLM.
The apparent discontinuity ought to be reconciled in the hearts and minds of Catholics. I have found benefit from a strong Hermeneutic of Continuity, understanding Church history, sacramental theology, and ecclesiology. As mentioned above, I agree that a Reform of the OF comes through the TLM, not around it. This is why I love both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite.
Crassness forgiven, I appreciate you understanding what I'm saying too. It irritated me when Pope Francis said similar things about attachment to the TLM, and it persists as an annoying thing to hear whenever it's repeated.
I agree with your other statements. TC seems to have only furthered the divide and fostered a growing "remnant" mentality in the short term. In the long run, we'll see what happens, but the continued existence(and growth?) of sedevacantism should serve as a sign that such a heavy handed approach won't produce the supposed intended effects.
There are young adults (and older ones) who resent being deprived of the TLM, who need to learn about forgiveness and circumspection.
But I don't think looking down on the 2002 missale romanum is nearly as big an abuse of the NO, as the people who minister at it (whether priest or lay) without regard for the rubrics or texts. To reform the NO, start cleaving to what it is, and liberally applying Sacrosanctum Concilium. No reference to the TLM required thus far.
I've heard this objection before, and it feels a bit like someone who routinely and badly abuses a close family member, becoming furious when an out-of-state cousin is rude to that family member.