Agapewolf, your argument details the organic growth of the Mass; however, the LifeTeen Mass doesn’t fall under that organic growth.
Furthermore, LifeTeen is based on the founder’s idiosyncracies and personal tastes and his perceived notion that he must “improve” the Mass. Read this passage from a speech Cardinal Arinze made in 2005:
The Second Vatican Council is not ambiguous: “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established”. Then the Council adds the warning: “Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority”. (SC 22)
These rulings are not a sign of lack of respect for anyone. They follow from the fact that the liturgy is a celebration of the universal Church. “The prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people as well as of all present. And the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church”. (SC 33)
***From these considerations it follows that a do-it-yourself attitude is not acceptable in the public worship of the Church. It does damage to the Church’s worship and to the faith of the people. The people of God have the right that the liturgy be celebrated as the Church wants it. (cf RS 12) The mysteries of Christ should not be celebrated as personal taste or whim may indicate. ***“The ‘treasure’ is too important and precious to risk impoverishment or compromise through forms of experimentation or practices introduced without a careful review on the part of ecclesiastical authorities”. (EE 51)
Certainly the youth have the right “that the liturgy be celebrated as the Church wants it.” But, when novelties and idiosyncracies are introduced, therein lies the problem. These do not constitute organic growth. They make up something else that may be a part of the so-called spirit of the Second Vatican Council, but are very far from what the documents actually say.
Now, you may have instances of success, but, based on what I have read throughout these threads, LifeTeen carries with it some significant problems. You have a great devotion to your program, but, you need to step back and look at the whole picture.
For example, you say that the kids have stopped gathering around the altar as soon as the founder issued his letter (although as late as 2006, there was a parish in Georgia that was touting this kind of LifeTeen liturgical activity in their bulletin; a parish in Houston was also promoting this in their LifeTeen webpage). However, you never explained what percepitated his writing the letter in the first place. The letter states that now they are following the (new 2000) GIRM. However, having read the previous GIRM for the Missal of Paul VI, there was nothing in the rubrics, much less the document itself, that indicates that what LifeTeen was doing was in conformity with it in the first place.
Furthermore, the founder writes that the young people will be disappointed with the changes. However, how can they be disappointed if what they were doing was against the norms in the first place? The kids are not at fault if the ones in charge were encouraging this disregard for the rubrics.
These are very real issues and problems that plague LifeTeen. Now, out of fairness, the movement is not the only one with their share of questionable liturgical activities. I have repeatedly cited the NeoCatechumenal movement and their issues because it’s the same song, different verse. They claimed that John Paul II gave them permission to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in their own way (and misled many priests into having to celebrate this particular liturgy in a way that bothered and troubled them–yes, I have been to one such Mass and it was most disturbing, with several violations of RS all over the place). However, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments indicated that no indult had been offered, much less given.
Yet, when Pope Benedict XVI read them the riot act and gave them two years to cease and desist, the movement’s leader took the Holy Father’s actions as a mere suggestion. Now that the window of opportunity is closed, I am curious to see if they are obeying the Holy Father or if it’s still business as usual. Mind you, Benedict didn’t question their catechesis; it was the way that they were handling the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that was most troubling. That is why I see some parallels between this movement and LifeTeen.