50 Years of Effete and Infertile Liturgical Culture Is Enough

  • Thread starter Thread starter tafan2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When in Rome.

This man is insulting the parishioners and the pastor of this church that he visited. I’m certain he doesn’t realize that is what he is doing.
 
I hope he feels better, having got that off his chest.

As he leaves the church, may the revolving door not strike him from behind.
 
Every criticism he makes is valid. Yes, his his wording and tone is harsh, yet even that reflects the thoughts and emotions (frustration, sadness, even anger at times) many of us experience when we have such banal liturgies forced upon us. So-called liturgists who force these types of masses on us have no consideration for us.
I am fortunate to regularly attend parishes who celebrate the liturgy without most of these problems (although two out of three of the churches have the horrible archetecture) he laments. When I travel, I have the same feeling as he: how unlucky will I get at this parish?
 
In his final paragraph he writes:
There is only one thing to do: for the future of the Church, we must build again, drawing on those cultural accomplishments that are timeless, in the service of Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, in saecula saeculorum.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see more elaboration how to build again. Building is a brick by brick project–we can’t simply time-travel back to a previous era.
 
Fair enough, but to start building, we need to know what the problems are, especially the root of the problem. He explains that very well towards the end of the essay.
 
How incredibly uncharitable. He acts as if he knows all their thoughts.
 
Effete? Banal? I work in publishing as a book editor. Such words are uncommon except among certain classes of people. Anyone who doesn’t like the Liturgy should write to the Vatican.
 
A vile article, filled with uncharitable assumptions and a lot of “it’s all about me” attitude.
 
My point? Humility. A lack of humility and a mind attuned to thinking a certain way as opposed to speaking/writing simply, plainly. The author of the article slapped the Church with a velvet glove but a slap it was. I consider myself fortunate to have known great minds but there must be that humility or great minds become separated from the people and are only comfortable with others of like mind.
 
But what you and the author see as “horrible “ architecture, for example, someone else sees as the beauty of simplicity.
Where he finds this liturgy “banal,” someone else may find God.

Someone who is old enough to remember pre-Vatican II Masses could easily have written something equally uncharitable about many of those liturgical experiences (People reading and not paying attention, priest mumbling prayers, dreary organ music). So much ch if our experience depends on personal preference, and on the attitude we bring into the church with us on Sunday.
 
The church architecture that he describes sounds like my church.

So I am probably that lady at the piano.

I don’t have thick enough skin to be able to handle this.

I would like to challenge the gentleman who wrote this to SAY HIS NASTY STUFF DIRECTLY TO THE PIANIST instead of sneaking home and tearing her apart behind her back like the sissy coward that he obviously is!!!
 
CilladeRoma said:
A vile article, filled with uncharitable assumptions and a lot of “it’s all about me” attitude.
Click to expand...
Case in point:
"“When I entered, the priest was stationed in the vestibule, ready to greet people on their way in—and perhaps offer to carry their luggage. I do not want to be greeted on my way in.”
Well, boo-hoo.
 
JulianN said:
But what you and the author see as “horrible “ architecture, for example, someone else sees as the beauty of simplicity.
Click to expand...
But you are wrong. I happen to believe we should not be building churches as if they were designed 200 years ago. I believe that a modern Church of Noble simplicity can be built and be beautiful, there have been several built in our diocese the last 10-15 years which accomplished that quite nicely. But the Churches built in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s almost all failed, miserably. There is nothing simple or beautiful about many of them.
The reason why so many Catholics only see beauty in old, traditional churches is a over-reaction, yet very understandable reaction, to the monstrosities built 20-40 years ago.
 
tafan2 said:
But you are wrong
Click to expand...
No, not wrong, just a different opinion.

I, myself, prefer a simpler church without a lot of “stuff”, as I find it distracting.
Some find they need churches that are filled with sacred art because it helps them focus, for me they are distracting.

So again, your statement and the vile article you posted are merely opinions, and ones that are not shared by everyone.
 
tafan2 said:
Every criticism he makes is valid.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. If he presented it in a rational way, maybe it would have been a valid piece. But his overload of snark, and making fun of everyone and everything, makes it not worth consideration.
Really, if a “liberal” made up sarcastic parish names, you’d probably be up in arms about the disrespect shown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top