|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 6, 2023 17:19:58 GMT
www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/whats-behind-the-fight-between-pope-francis-and-the-latin-mass-movementYet another intelligent, fair-minded article from an "establishment" secular publication. When you think about it, there really aren't that many people who don't want the faithful to have the Traditional Latin Mass. Certainly no one outside the Church begrudges it. And within the Church, the only people who are really opposed, are progressivist members of the hierarchy. Sadly, they are now in command at many levels. In the meantime, TLM adherents remain what they are, and will continue to do so. Put it this way, how many are there, who are saying "you know, we need to rethink this whole TLM thing, this is bad for us, it's making us Gnostic and Neo-Pelagian, we're suffering from a nostalgic disease, maybe we'd better just give it up and start going to the Novus Ordo"? How many congregations have just voluntarily disbanded and abandoned the TLM? And history shows that when you oppress people, you just strengthen their resolve. Examples abound.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Aug 7, 2023 10:55:37 GMT
It's a nostalgic disease because it's irrational. It's not for those who grew up with it, which is Pope Benedict XVI's point.
Given that, the only fight involves those afflicted with such a disease and themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 7, 2023 16:51:40 GMT
It's a nostalgic disease because it's irrational. It's not for those who grew up with it, which is Pope Benedict XVI's point. Given that, the only fight involves those afflicted with such a disease and themselves. Just to make sure I understand, it's a "nostalgic disease" for those who didn't grow up with it, but it's not a "nostalgic disease" for those who did grow up with it. Is that right? There is no "nostalgic disease". Francis is just ranting against the TLM because it attracts an element that threatens his progressivist vision of what he wants the Church to be. This is merely his opinion, and a jaundiced one at that. Personal opinions of Popes do not rise to the level of doctrine or dogma binding upon the faithful. And how do you keep people from raising their children in the TLM, and "growing up with it" themselves? If Francis wants to put traditionalists into a hermetic bubble and quarantine them from the rest of the Church, seems kind of divisive, but that's fine with me. I'll just seek out such a "bubble" myself. So will others. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Aug 7, 2023 23:49:27 GMT
It's a nostalgic disease because it's irrational. It's not for those who grew up with it, which is Pope Benedict XVI's point. Given that, the only fight involves those afflicted with such a disease and themselves. Just to make sure I understand, it's a "nostalgic disease" for those who didn't grow up with it, but it's not a "nostalgic disease" for those who did grow up with it. Is that right? There is no "nostalgic disease". Francis is just ranting against the TLM because it attracts an element that threatens his progressivist vision of what he wants the Church to be. This is merely his opinion, and a jaundiced one at that. Personal opinions of Popes do not rise to the level of doctrine or dogma binding upon the faithful. And how do you keep people from raising their children in the TLM, and "growing up with it" themselves? If Francis wants to put traditionalists into a hermetic bubble and quarantine them from the rest of the Church, seems kind of divisive, but that's fine with me. I'll just seek out such a "bubble" myself. So will others.
"Nostalgic disease" is based on imagining that the past was much better than the present, and the past in this case refers to the following:
- Europe and North America;
- the EF and Latin, as well as Gregorian chants, but with vernacular translations on the margins and the sermon in the vernacular language because most people don't understand Latin;
- Communion in the mouth, communion rails, and priests facing the altar;
- the Bible in archaic English (including references to the Holy Ghost) or other vernacular languages because most people don't understand Latin;
- the Baltimore catechism, if not something earlier, and in the vernacular because most people don't understand Latin;
- modest clothing, veils, elaborate Churches, baroque ornamentation, etc;
and so on. This is then mixed with political thinking, e.g., one is conservative and traditional and one's opponents are liberal, progressive, and modern.
It's like a North American Church from the 1950s, if not earlier, trying to imagine that it's part of a long, lost European tradition, and reacting strongly to secularism that's been growing since the 1960s, with blame laid not on the world but on progressive clergy and laypersons.
The disease culminates in some unspoken belief that if one creates a bubble of Latin, Gregorian chants, and feelings of splendor, peace, beauty, and sacredness, then the bad man will go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 8, 2023 0:05:59 GMT
Just to make sure I understand, it's a "nostalgic disease" for those who didn't grow up with it, but it's not a "nostalgic disease" for those who did grow up with it. Is that right? There is no "nostalgic disease". Francis is just ranting against the TLM because it attracts an element that threatens his progressivist vision of what he wants the Church to be. This is merely his opinion, and a jaundiced one at that. Personal opinions of Popes do not rise to the level of doctrine or dogma binding upon the faithful. And how do you keep people from raising their children in the TLM, and "growing up with it" themselves? If Francis wants to put traditionalists into a hermetic bubble and quarantine them from the rest of the Church, seems kind of divisive, but that's fine with me. I'll just seek out such a "bubble" myself. So will others.
"Nostalgic disease" is based on imagining that the past was much better than the present, and the past in this case refers to the following:
- Europe and North America;
- the EF and Latin, as well as Gregorian chants, but with vernacular translations on the margins and the sermon in the vernacular language because most people don't understand Latin;
- Communion in the mouth, communion rails, and priests facing the altar;
- the Bible in archaic English (including references to the Holy Ghost) or other vernacular languages because most people don't understand Latin;
- the Baltimore catechism, if not something earlier, and in the vernacular because most people don't understand Latin;
- modest clothing, veils, elaborate Churches, baroque ornamentation, etc;
and so on. This is then mixed with political thinking, e.g., one is conservative and traditional and one's opponents are liberal, progressive, and modern.
It's like a North American Church from the 1950s, if not earlier, trying to imagine that it's part of a long, lost European tradition, and reacting strongly to secularism that's been growing since the 1960s, with blame laid not on the world but on progressive clergy and laypersons.
The disease culminates in some unspoken belief that if one creates a bubble of Latin, Gregorian chants, and feelings of splendor, peace, beauty, and sacredness, then the bad man will go away.
For most of what you say, guilty as charged. You say all of this like it's a bad thing. ("Modest clothing"... as opposed to what?) The corollary of what you say is that "we must never believe that any past era was 'much better' than the present". In actual fact, it would be an eclectic type of thing. Some things in the past were better, even much better, than their counterparts today. Some things were much worse. People will legitimately differ on which things fall into which category. And looking back to the "early Church" for this or that (which might be better described as "finding things I like from the early Church", I don't think anyone wants to go back to severe penances and such) is "looking to the past" in the extreme. Is there any possibility that practices became more refined and better over time? That we "progressed" to something better that shouldn't be summarily dismissed? The "political thinking" part is a bit more tricky, at least for me. I can't speak for the others, but I support many things in the secular realm that many would call "liberal" --- universal tax-funded health care, universal free education, providing affordable (or even free) basic housing (as they do in Finland) so that no one is homeless except by choice, and even some kind of reparations to reimburse African Americans for labor (and freedom) stolen from their ancestors and for which they still suffer to this day, and I am trying to find every reason in the world to vote for kind-of-liberal-kind-of-not Robert F Kennedy Jr in the 2024 elections if he runs against Trump. As the TLM gathers more adherents, not all of them are going to be warmed-over John Birchers or MAGA Republicans. (And, yes, under my "plan", taxes would be much higher. So be it.) Some people like things from the past. Not everyone wakes up in the morning and says "what's the current thing today, tell me, so I can embrace it and be 'up with the times'?". I like classical music myself, and what little TV I watch, is mostly old reruns, my mother and I watched I Love Lucy this morning while having breakfast. And as to Europe and North America, last time I checked, that's where people all over the world want to go. Word's getting out. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Aug 13, 2023 13:03:28 GMT
"Nostalgic disease" is based on imagining that the past was much better than the present, and the past in this case refers to the following:
- Europe and North America;
- the EF and Latin, as well as Gregorian chants, but with vernacular translations on the margins and the sermon in the vernacular language because most people don't understand Latin;
- Communion in the mouth, communion rails, and priests facing the altar;
- the Bible in archaic English (including references to the Holy Ghost) or other vernacular languages because most people don't understand Latin;
- the Baltimore catechism, if not something earlier, and in the vernacular because most people don't understand Latin;
- modest clothing, veils, elaborate Churches, baroque ornamentation, etc;
and so on. This is then mixed with political thinking, e.g., one is conservative and traditional and one's opponents are liberal, progressive, and modern.
It's like a North American Church from the 1950s, if not earlier, trying to imagine that it's part of a long, lost European tradition, and reacting strongly to secularism that's been growing since the 1960s, with blame laid not on the world but on progressive clergy and laypersons.
The disease culminates in some unspoken belief that if one creates a bubble of Latin, Gregorian chants, and feelings of splendor, peace, beauty, and sacredness, then the bad man will go away.
For most of what you say, guilty as charged. You say all of this like it's a bad thing. ("Modest clothing"... as opposed to what?) The corollary of what you say is that "we must never believe that any past era was 'much better' than the present". In actual fact, it would be an eclectic type of thing. Some things in the past were better, even much better, than their counterparts today. Some things were much worse. People will legitimately differ on which things fall into which category. And looking back to the "early Church" for this or that (which might be better described as "finding things I like from the early Church", I don't think anyone wants to go back to severe penances and such) is "looking to the past" in the extreme. Is there any possibility that practices became more refined and better over time? That we "progressed" to something better that shouldn't be summarily dismissed? The "political thinking" part is a bit more tricky, at least for me. I can't speak for the others, but I support many things in the secular realm that many would call "liberal" --- universal tax-funded health care, universal free education, providing affordable (or even free) basic housing (as they do in Finland) so that no one is homeless except by choice, and even some kind of reparations to reimburse African Americans for labor (and freedom) stolen from their ancestors and for which they still suffer to this day, and I am trying to find every reason in the world to vote for kind-of-liberal-kind-of-not Robert F Kennedy Jr in the 2024 elections if he runs against Trump. As the TLM gathers more adherents, not all of them are going to be warmed-over John Birchers or MAGA Republicans. (And, yes, under my "plan", taxes would be much higher. So be it.) Some people like things from the past. Not everyone wakes up in the morning and says "what's the current thing today, tell me, so I can embrace it and be 'up with the times'?". I like classical music myself, and what little TV I watch, is mostly old reruns, my mother and I watched I Love Lucy this morning while having breakfast. And as to Europe and North America, last time I checked, that's where people all over the world want to go. Word's getting out.
They went back to the early Church not for purposes of nostalgia or because they wanted to be liberal but because what the early Church did made sense: people understood the vernacular, so that's what they used. The Holy Spirit gave the apostles the gift of tongues so that they could spread the Word of God to those who spoke different languages.
That's why for the same reason Latin was used, with things like the Gallican Liturgy translated into Latin because most didn't understand Syriac-Greek. After that, the Bible itself, which was translated into Latin because more didn't understand Greek, was then translated into then-modern English, and after that the English was modernized because many didn't understand archaic English, and so on.
Lastly, about people wanting to go to Europe and North America, Latin is not the vernacular languages in those places. In addition, many are going there because these areas face population aging and need young people from poor countries to work as nurses, caregivers, etc.
And they're bringing with them the languages and cultural artifacts of their countries.
|
|
