|
Post by ralfy on May 29, 2023 3:23:13 GMT
That nostalgia is based on what one reads or views from traditional vbloggers, etc., and then throw in frustration over modernism. It also helps when one shows Norman Rockwell-type paintings and old photos in memes with captions similar to "We used to be a proper country" and things like that, if not mention that things were better, cheaper, nicer, etc., before.
That's why younger ones are enthralled when they hear Latin, the Gregorian chant, and so forth. Reminds me of earlier examples I gave in other threads: Clark Grisworld in _European Vacation_ visiting the top of the Eiffel Tower for the first time, and being so enthralled with Paris wants to "paint something," Emma Bovary enthralled in a Church, thrown in the lovely silence and spirituality of the "whole thing," and some of my pals talking about participating in an Russian Orthodox Divine Liturgy once.
I mention these because I experience it sometimes.
Funny you should mention Norman Rockwell. Here's a print that I found among my household items, and I plan to put it on the wall in my home chapel that I'm retrofitting. I was also reflecting just today on the state-of-the art care that my mother received recently in response to a medical emergency. If this had been even 30 years ago, when such technology didn't exist, she probably would not have survived. She came through the emergency with only minimal lasting damage due to prompt intervention, and, again, the care made possibly by new technology. So, no, I don't look back wistfully on the state of medical care 30-50 years ago. As to Latin and Gregorian chant, I don't think it's that alone, that keeps people coming back. It's more than that. Emma Bovary-like superficiality doesn't plant deep roots. I have known families who adhered to the TLM for decades, and they don't stick with it because of aesthetics or romanticism.
Best not to go off-topic, but if you insist: what's considered in terms of health care isn't just the quality but the cost. The implication is that one should see this nostalgic disease in the same manner.
About Latin and Gregorian chants, that's not the only thing that's old.
If families who adhere to the EF for decades don't stick to it for reasons involving aesthetic and romanticism, then what? Every point you gave across multiple threads refers to one or the other.
Finally, all families by default adhered to the EF for decades, and yet most now moved to the OF, and from what I remember want to stay with it, plus the Bible and even Catechism translated into languages that they understand. I gave reasons in various threads.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 29, 2023 4:10:55 GMT
Funny you should mention Norman Rockwell. Here's a print that I found among my household items, and I plan to put it on the wall in my home chapel that I'm retrofitting. I was also reflecting just today on the state-of-the art care that my mother received recently in response to a medical emergency. If this had been even 30 years ago, when such technology didn't exist, she probably would not have survived. She came through the emergency with only minimal lasting damage due to prompt intervention, and, again, the care made possibly by new technology. So, no, I don't look back wistfully on the state of medical care 30-50 years ago. As to Latin and Gregorian chant, I don't think it's that alone, that keeps people coming back. It's more than that. Emma Bovary-like superficiality doesn't plant deep roots. I have known families who adhered to the TLM for decades, and they don't stick with it because of aesthetics or romanticism.
Best not to go off-topic, but if you insist: what's considered in terms of health care isn't just the quality but the cost. The implication is that one should see this nostalgic disease in the same manner.
About Latin and Gregorian chants, that's not the only thing that's old.
If families who adhere to the EF for decades don't stick to it for reasons involving aesthetic and romanticism, then what? Every point you gave across multiple threads refers to one or the other.
Finally, all families by default adhered to the EF for decades, and yet most now moved to the OF, and from what I remember want to stay with it, plus the Bible and even Catechism translated into languages that they understand. I gave reasons in various threads.
My point here was that not all past times deserve to be looked back at with longing and wistfulness, as though "older is always better". There is a certain stripe of mindless nostalgic that basically lives in a bubble of reminisces over times past, lives in a time warp of sorts, and I invite such folks to consider that, in some ways, the modern world is better than the past. (To be fair, in some ways it is not.) Modern medical care saves lives that would have been lost in earlier times, because the technology didn't exist to save them. My grandmother (my mother's mother) died at a fairly young age from similar conditions to what my mother has. If today's technology didn't exist, my mother might well have died years ago. I'm glad the technology exists, and when it comes to medical science, I far prefer the present to the past. Families who adhere to the EF do so for various reasons. It's not just aestheticism and romanticism. That wouldn't keep people coming back for years. Speaking only for myself, while I find the deeper theology inspiring, in the end, it's a question of peace of soul. I sense this to some extent at the Novus Ordo, but at the TLM, it's like the difference between an opened fire hydrant and a faucet. I am fully confident that many besides myself would describe it similarly. We don't challenge people who prefer the Novus Ordo to explain just what it is that they find there, and to justify it in some way, why challenge TLM adherents to render an account of why this Mass brings them to greater peace and holiness?
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on May 30, 2023 3:46:13 GMT
Best not to go off-topic, but if you insist: what's considered in terms of health care isn't just the quality but the cost. The implication is that one should see this nostalgic disease in the same manner.
About Latin and Gregorian chants, that's not the only thing that's old.
If families who adhere to the EF for decades don't stick to it for reasons involving aesthetic and romanticism, then what? Every point you gave across multiple threads refers to one or the other.
Finally, all families by default adhered to the EF for decades, and yet most now moved to the OF, and from what I remember want to stay with it, plus the Bible and even Catechism translated into languages that they understand. I gave reasons in various threads.
My point here was that not all past times deserve to be looked back at with longing and wistfulness, as though "older is always better". There is a certain stripe of mindless nostalgic that basically lives in a bubble of reminisces over times past, lives in a time warp of sorts, and I invite such folks to consider that, in some ways, the modern world is better than the past. (To be fair, in some ways it is not.) Modern medical care saves lives that would have been lost in earlier times, because the technology didn't exist to save them. My grandmother (my mother's mother) died at a fairly young age from similar conditions to what my mother has. If today's technology didn't exist, my mother might well have died years ago. I'm glad the technology exists, and when it comes to medical science, I far prefer the present to the past. Families who adhere to the EF do so for various reasons. It's not just aestheticism and romanticism. That wouldn't keep people coming back for years. Speaking only for myself, while I find the deeper theology inspiring, in the end, it's a question of peace of soul. I sense this to some extent at the Novus Ordo, but at the TLM, it's like the difference between an opened fire hydrant and a faucet. I am fully confident that many besides myself would describe it similarly. We don't challenge people who prefer the Novus Ordo to explain just what it is that they find there, and to justify it in some way, why challenge TLM adherents to render an account of why this Mass brings them to greater peace and holiness?
I think that was Pope Francis' point and the meaning of "nostalgic disease."
Meanwhile, consider that in light of health care: poorer but cheaper, and now better but more expensive.
I think references to "deeper theology" and "peace of soul" are part of romanticism.
About reasons for the OF, Pope Benedict explains that in his works. The article was shared multiple times in various threads in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on May 30, 2023 4:07:24 GMT
My point here was that not all past times deserve to be looked back at with longing and wistfulness, as though "older is always better". There is a certain stripe of mindless nostalgic that basically lives in a bubble of reminisces over times past, lives in a time warp of sorts, and I invite such folks to consider that, in some ways, the modern world is better than the past. (To be fair, in some ways it is not.) Modern medical care saves lives that would have been lost in earlier times, because the technology didn't exist to save them. My grandmother (my mother's mother) died at a fairly young age from similar conditions to what my mother has. If today's technology didn't exist, my mother might well have died years ago. I'm glad the technology exists, and when it comes to medical science, I far prefer the present to the past. Families who adhere to the EF do so for various reasons. It's not just aestheticism and romanticism. That wouldn't keep people coming back for years. Speaking only for myself, while I find the deeper theology inspiring, in the end, it's a question of peace of soul. I sense this to some extent at the Novus Ordo, but at the TLM, it's like the difference between an opened fire hydrant and a faucet. I am fully confident that many besides myself would describe it similarly. We don't challenge people who prefer the Novus Ordo to explain just what it is that they find there, and to justify it in some way, why challenge TLM adherents to render an account of why this Mass brings them to greater peace and holiness?
I think that was Pope Francis' point and the meaning of "nostalgic disease."
Meanwhile, consider that in light of health care: poorer but cheaper, and now better but more expensive.
I think references to "deeper theology" and "peace of soul" are part of romanticism.
About reasons for the OF, Pope Benedict explains that in his works. The article was shared multiple times in various threads in this forum.
"Peace of soul" is subjective. I wouldn't call it "romanticism", but if you would, that's your call. I can see how a person with a communalistic mentality, a "people person", perhaps from a culture where people live in each other's pockets and all have close ties of ethnicity, kinship, and even shared hardship, would come away from the Novus Ordo with "warm fuzzies" because it helped them to feel so united with everyone around them, that they "felt the love", whereas the TLM could leave them feeling sterile and bereft. People are different, even cultures are different. "Deeper theology" is merely stating the fact. The Novus Ordo is stripped down, with a few add-ins such as the additional Scripture readings (which could, I will concede, have some "deep theology" of their own) and a mutated Jewish baraka in place of the Suscipe Sancte Pater.I invite the reader to compare the two missals side by side, and see which one is deeper and more elaborated: www.latinmassschedule.com/Resources/A%20COMPARISON%20between%20the%20old%20and%20new%20liturgy.pdf
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 2, 2023 2:35:41 GMT
I think that was Pope Francis' point and the meaning of "nostalgic disease."
Meanwhile, consider that in light of health care: poorer but cheaper, and now better but more expensive.
I think references to "deeper theology" and "peace of soul" are part of romanticism.
About reasons for the OF, Pope Benedict explains that in his works. The article was shared multiple times in various threads in this forum.
"Peace of soul" is subjective. I wouldn't call it "romanticism", but if you would, that's your call. I can see how a person with a communalistic mentality, a "people person", perhaps from a culture where people live in each other's pockets and all have close ties of ethnicity, kinship, and even shared hardship, would come away from the Novus Ordo with "warm fuzzies" because it helped them to feel so united with everyone around them, that they "felt the love", whereas the TLM could leave them feeling sterile and bereft. People are different, even cultures are different. "Deeper theology" is merely stating the fact. The Novus Ordo is stripped down, with a few add-ins such as the additional Scripture readings (which could, I will concede, have some "deep theology" of their own) and a mutated Jewish baraka in place of the Suscipe Sancte Pater.I invite the reader to compare the two missals side by side, and see which one is deeper and more elaborated: www.latinmassschedule.com/Resources/A%20COMPARISON%20between%20the%20old%20and%20new%20liturgy.pdf
According to Pope Benedict XVI, the Church has had that "communalistic mentality" from the beginning, and the OF based on practices that are as ancient as the Church. That was explained to you several times across different threads.
In short, what you think is part of "people persons," "warm fuzzies," and "felt the love" is actually not modern and not even limited to people who live in late capitalist industrialized countries. They are as old as the Church itself.
What about "deeper theology"? The Church existed long before that, and continues to exist not only with "stripped down" works but "add-ins" that are part of the EF and liturgies before the EF.
Altogether, all of these points plus insistence on what's "deeper" and "more elaborated" is what I mean by aestheticism and romanticism, and part of what Pope Francis means by a "nostalgic disease." It's a weird insistence that the EF and Latin, plus older translations of the Bible and even older versions of the Catechism, are not only traditional but even superior. It's ignorant of the fact that it itself is a product of modernism (the Renaissance was actually considered modern).
Your last point says it all even as Pope Benedict XVI insists otherwise by arguing that they're one and the same rite, which is ironically the reason why he allowed for the EF.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 2, 2023 5:10:41 GMT
"Peace of soul" is subjective. I wouldn't call it "romanticism", but if you would, that's your call. I can see how a person with a communalistic mentality, a "people person", perhaps from a culture where people live in each other's pockets and all have close ties of ethnicity, kinship, and even shared hardship, would come away from the Novus Ordo with "warm fuzzies" because it helped them to feel so united with everyone around them, that they "felt the love", whereas the TLM could leave them feeling sterile and bereft. People are different, even cultures are different. "Deeper theology" is merely stating the fact. The Novus Ordo is stripped down, with a few add-ins such as the additional Scripture readings (which could, I will concede, have some "deep theology" of their own) and a mutated Jewish baraka in place of the Suscipe Sancte Pater.I invite the reader to compare the two missals side by side, and see which one is deeper and more elaborated: www.latinmassschedule.com/Resources/A%20COMPARISON%20between%20the%20old%20and%20new%20liturgy.pdf
According to Pope Benedict XVI, the Church has had that "communalistic mentality" from the beginning, and the OF based on practices that are as ancient as the Church. That was explained to you several times across different threads.
In short, what you think is part of "people persons," "warm fuzzies," and "felt the love" is actually not modern and not even limited to people who live in late capitalist industrialized countries. They are as old as the Church itself.
What about "deeper theology"? The Church existed long before that, and continues to exist not only with "stripped down" works but "add-ins" that are part of the EF and liturgies before the EF.
Altogether, all of these points plus insistence on what's "deeper" and "more elaborated" is what I mean by aestheticism and romanticism, and part of what Pope Francis means by a "nostalgic disease." It's a weird insistence that the EF and Latin, plus older translations of the Bible and even older versions of the Catechism, are not only traditional but even superior. It's ignorant of the fact that it itself is a product of modernism (the Renaissance was actually considered modern).
Your last point says it all even as Pope Benedict XVI insists otherwise by arguing that they're one and the same rite, which is ironically the reason why he allowed for the EF.
I know what Pope Benedict said, and I know what you have, as you put it, "explained... several times". I simply do not agree, at least not totally, with either you or with Benedict on the matter of the OF versus the EF, and how the OF was imposed. There is no question of dissent from Catholic doctrine or dogma here. We could go back and forth on all of this over and over again, and the disagreement would still remain. I do not agree that the EF should have been suppressed, nor do I agree with the extent to which the OF departed from the EF. Aspects of communalism and of inculturation could have been introduced without changing the missal itself at all --- we were getting there with the Dialogue Mass, and if the EF had been translated into the vernacular, with perhaps optional additional readings inserted into the EF Liturgy of the Word (while leaving the existing Epistle and Gospel intact), that should have satisfied any perceived need for greater communal participation. (For Quo primum purists, these additional readings could have been treated as an interruption of the Mass. And the priest could also read from Scripture during the homily.) If people in Africa show reverence by clapping immediately after the consecration, that is fine, that would have required no change to the missal itself. I just use that as one example of inculturation that does no violence to the missal. Your assessment of "aestheticism" and "romanticism", as well as Pope Francis's characterizing of adherence to the TLM as a "nostalgic disease", are merely your opinion and his opinion respectively. Again, no question of doctrine or dogma is involved. Not every utterance of a Pope must be accepted without reserve by the faithful. As he becomes more and more desperate to rein in a traditionalist movement that he himself admits is growing (much to his chagrin), he is having to find more and more reasons to object to it, hence indietrismo as well as baseless charges of Gnosticism. He might want to consider it as Gamaliel did, "if it is of God", as Cardinal Sarah described: liturgyguy.com/2017/09/15/card-sarah-defends-young-catholics-attracted-to-the-old-mass/To use another "off-topic" (but it isn't) medical analogy, aspirin works, we really don't know how it works, but it does. So just as we are well-advised to let aspirin "do its do", perhaps Pope Francis should consider just letting the TLM "do its do", producing all those vocations, inspiring young people to seek it out, they meet, they marry, they have large families, people discover it, some would be hard-pressed to tell you precisely why they prefer it, but still, they're there, they're increasing in holiness... so why get rid of something that is working? Again, Pope Francis himself admits that it is growing. "But just in the West", one could say? Maybe we're so bad that we need stronger medicine (there's that analogy again!). Something to ponder.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jun 3, 2023 3:01:46 GMT
According to Pope Benedict XVI, the Church has had that "communalistic mentality" from the beginning, and the OF based on practices that are as ancient as the Church. That was explained to you several times across different threads.
In short, what you think is part of "people persons," "warm fuzzies," and "felt the love" is actually not modern and not even limited to people who live in late capitalist industrialized countries. They are as old as the Church itself.
What about "deeper theology"? The Church existed long before that, and continues to exist not only with "stripped down" works but "add-ins" that are part of the EF and liturgies before the EF.
Altogether, all of these points plus insistence on what's "deeper" and "more elaborated" is what I mean by aestheticism and romanticism, and part of what Pope Francis means by a "nostalgic disease." It's a weird insistence that the EF and Latin, plus older translations of the Bible and even older versions of the Catechism, are not only traditional but even superior. It's ignorant of the fact that it itself is a product of modernism (the Renaissance was actually considered modern).
Your last point says it all even as Pope Benedict XVI insists otherwise by arguing that they're one and the same rite, which is ironically the reason why he allowed for the EF.
I know what Pope Benedict said, and I know what you have, as you put it, "explained... several times". I simply do not agree, at least not totally, with either you or with Benedict on the matter of the OF versus the EF, and how the OF was imposed. There is no question of dissent from Catholic doctrine or dogma here. We could go back and forth on all of this over and over again, and the disagreement would still remain. I do not agree that the EF should have been suppressed, nor do I agree with the extent to which the OF departed from the EF. Aspects of communalism and of inculturation could have been introduced without changing the missal itself at all --- we were getting there with the Dialogue Mass, and if the EF had been translated into the vernacular, with perhaps optional additional readings inserted into the EF Liturgy of the Word (while leaving the existing Epistle and Gospel intact), that should have satisfied any perceived need for greater communal participation. (For Quo primum purists, these additional readings could have been treated as an interruption of the Mass. And the priest could also read from Scripture during the homily.) If people in Africa show reverence by clapping immediately after the consecration, that is fine, that would have required no change to the missal itself. I just use that as one example of inculturation that does no violence to the missal. Your assessment of "aestheticism" and "romanticism", as well as Pope Francis's characterizing of adherence to the TLM as a "nostalgic disease", are merely your opinion and his opinion respectively. Again, no question of doctrine or dogma is involved. Not every utterance of a Pope must be accepted without reserve by the faithful. As he becomes more and more desperate to rein in a traditionalist movement that he himself admits is growing (much to his chagrin), he is having to find more and more reasons to object to it, hence indietrismo as well as baseless charges of Gnosticism. He might want to consider it as Gamaliel did, "if it is of God", as Cardinal Sarah described: liturgyguy.com/2017/09/15/card-sarah-defends-young-catholics-attracted-to-the-old-mass/To use another "off-topic" (but it isn't) medical analogy, aspirin works, we really don't know how it works, but it does. So just as we are well-advised to let aspirin "do its do", perhaps Pope Francis should consider just letting the TLM "do its do", producing all those vocations, inspiring young people to seek it out, they meet, they marry, they have large families, people discover it, some would be hard-pressed to tell you precisely why they prefer it, but still, they're there, they're increasing in holiness... so why get rid of something that is working? Again, Pope Francis himself admits that it is growing. "But just in the West", one could say? Maybe we're so bad that we need stronger medicine (there's that analogy again!). Something to ponder.
Unlike Pope Benedict XVI, I'm not an expert on the matter, so I have to accept his conclusion about both being the same rite. I don't think I can accept a counter-argument from an anon in an online discussion.
About restricting the EF, I'm also not an expert on the matter, so I have to accept what the Vatican says about it. AFAIK, the legal reasons are sound. In contrast are aesthetic and romantic views, which I already pointed out earlier are not equal to legal reasons.
That's why the only reason why we're going back and forth with this that what you give are essentially aesthetic and romantic views. Hence, a reliance on analogies, personal anecdotes, etc.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jun 3, 2023 16:49:20 GMT
I know what Pope Benedict said, and I know what you have, as you put it, "explained... several times". I simply do not agree, at least not totally, with either you or with Benedict on the matter of the OF versus the EF, and how the OF was imposed. There is no question of dissent from Catholic doctrine or dogma here. We could go back and forth on all of this over and over again, and the disagreement would still remain. I do not agree that the EF should have been suppressed, nor do I agree with the extent to which the OF departed from the EF. Aspects of communalism and of inculturation could have been introduced without changing the missal itself at all --- we were getting there with the Dialogue Mass, and if the EF had been translated into the vernacular, with perhaps optional additional readings inserted into the EF Liturgy of the Word (while leaving the existing Epistle and Gospel intact), that should have satisfied any perceived need for greater communal participation. (For Quo primum purists, these additional readings could have been treated as an interruption of the Mass. And the priest could also read from Scripture during the homily.) If people in Africa show reverence by clapping immediately after the consecration, that is fine, that would have required no change to the missal itself. I just use that as one example of inculturation that does no violence to the missal. Your assessment of "aestheticism" and "romanticism", as well as Pope Francis's characterizing of adherence to the TLM as a "nostalgic disease", are merely your opinion and his opinion respectively. Again, no question of doctrine or dogma is involved. Not every utterance of a Pope must be accepted without reserve by the faithful. As he becomes more and more desperate to rein in a traditionalist movement that he himself admits is growing (much to his chagrin), he is having to find more and more reasons to object to it, hence indietrismo as well as baseless charges of Gnosticism. He might want to consider it as Gamaliel did, "if it is of God", as Cardinal Sarah described: liturgyguy.com/2017/09/15/card-sarah-defends-young-catholics-attracted-to-the-old-mass/To use another "off-topic" (but it isn't) medical analogy, aspirin works, we really don't know how it works, but it does. So just as we are well-advised to let aspirin "do its do", perhaps Pope Francis should consider just letting the TLM "do its do", producing all those vocations, inspiring young people to seek it out, they meet, they marry, they have large families, people discover it, some would be hard-pressed to tell you precisely why they prefer it, but still, they're there, they're increasing in holiness... so why get rid of something that is working? Again, Pope Francis himself admits that it is growing. "But just in the West", one could say? Maybe we're so bad that we need stronger medicine (there's that analogy again!). Something to ponder.
Unlike Pope Benedict XVI, I'm not an expert on the matter, so I have to accept his conclusion about both being the same rite. I don't think I can accept a counter-argument from an anon in an online discussion.
About restricting the EF, I'm also not an expert on the matter, so I have to accept what the Vatican says about it. AFAIK, the legal reasons are sound. In contrast are aesthetic and romantic views, which I already pointed out earlier are not equal to legal reasons.
That's why the only reason why we're going back and forth with this that what you give are essentially aesthetic and romantic views. Hence, a reliance on analogies, personal anecdotes, etc.
Then the discussion has probably run its course, and I thank you for the charitable, gentlemanly exchange.
|
|