Tradition is for the Young

  • Thread starter Thread starter CradleRC58
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How wonderful!

The author makes a great point when he says
The youth don’t have the baggage of the “liturgy wars.” They were there simply because they appreciate and are drawn to the beauty, transcendence, and antiquity of the Extraordinary Form as part of the Church’s large treasury of liturgical expression.
Click to expand...
It certainly starts that way. There are definitely some who do engage in the liturgy wars. They were either raised by liturgy warriors or they experienced a lot of hostility for wanting to attend the EF frequently.
 
I think it’s great that so many young people attended these Masses for the conference.

Maybe someone could help answer a question I have about this article. It was written by a seminarian so I’m not sure why he would include this one word in his description of the traditional liturgy. I assume he means the EF Mass by the term “traditional liturgy”.
In a secular world that is noisy, individualistic, and uncertain, young people are drawn to the beauty, certainty, and transcendence of traditional liturgy.
Click to expand...
I noticed the word “certainty” is in context as being opposed to the uncertainty of the secular world. But the word is describing “traditional liturgy” not just the liturgy. So my question is, why is he using the word “certainty” to describe “traditional liturgy”? Why the “traditional” caveat. Is he leaving out the ordinary form Mass?

I know we can’t read the author’s mind. But if anyone can help that would be nice.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
why is he using the word “certainty” to describe “traditional liturgy”? Why the “traditional” caveat. Is he leaving out the ordinary form Mass?
Click to expand...
I (might have) got a post flagged for stating something similar to this on another topic, so bear with me…

If I were to give my best guess as to what the author means by “certainty” it would be “theological precision”.
While I won’t argue about the validity or liceity of the Novus Ordo Missæ, it certainly seems true from my viewpoint that the new missal leaves a lot to be desired theologically. The classic example is that certain Anglican groups have had no trouble utilising the Mass of Paul VI for their worship services - because the language describing eg the sacrifice of the Mass has been toned down. The TLM has a strong focus on the multiple themes of the Mass, including the sacrifice at Calvary AND the Heavenly Banquet.

On the other hand I think a lot of TLM adherents would argue that people get too many reassurances in the Mass of Paul VI, so I’m pretty certain that’s not what the author was getting at.
 
When most people refer to the “traditional liturgy”, they’re usually referring to the EF (aka TLM/Tridentine/Vetus Ordo Missae) Mass, revised and promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, which he declared was to be “in perpetuity” (Quo Primum). The OF (aka New Mass/Mass of Paul VI/Novus Ordo Missae) was published in 1970.

I have an old Latin Missal (1925!). When PJPII died, I followed the Mass on EWTN with the old Latin Missal. A few prayers were the same; many were either missing altogether or modified.

I’m Ukrainian Greek Catholic but can appreciate the concerns of those who love the EF.

In my opinion, the RCC needs to rediscover and appreciate its own Tradition. These young people love the EF and their voices should be heard. I have one coworker who is of the VII generation and is dead-set against the EF. I could give her an entire library full of books on the EF/TLM and it wouldn’t do any good. 😦
 
1Lord1Faith said:
I noticed the word “certainty” is in context as being opposed to the uncertainty of the secular world. But the word is describing “traditional liturgy” not just the liturgy. So my question is, why is he using the word “certainty” to describe “traditional liturgy”? Why the “traditional” caveat. Is he leaving out the ordinary form Mass?
Click to expand...
I took that to be in reference to the stability of the rubrics for TLM and its hundreds of years of use as compared to the OF which is a young liturgy and one with an abundance of “options” such that we both could attend an OF mass and have two entirely different experiences.
 
That’s what I thought as well – certainty meaning “predictability”. When I go to EF, I don’t have to try to guess which Mass is going to have cringey music, things left out, amped up music that literally hurts my ears, I’m not going to have to avert my eyes from the laity wearing heaven-knows-what in the sanctuary… need I go on? 🤣
 
My EF is full of young people and young families,

Our aged and very wonderful Bishop and Dominican Priest that take it are both quite perplexed at its growth rate.
 
TheMortenBay said:
If I were to give my best guess as to what the author means by “certainty” it would be “theological precision”.
While I won’t argue about the validity or liceity of the Novus Ordo Missæ, it certainly seems true from my viewpoint that the new missal leaves a lot to be desired theologically.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s what the article is getting at. I tend to agree with mrsdizzyd and LLD that it’s more a case of knowing what you are going to experience from a standpoint of music, ritual, etc when you arrive at the traditional Mass. When you attend an OF, you could end up with everything from a fairly traditional presentation with organ music, “Smells and bells” to a very modern guitar-driven quasi-charismatic experience. I’ve even seen churches trying to mix it up so there’s “something for everyone”.

I find the word “certainty” troubling as whether the author meant it that way or not, it makes it sound like it’s somehow uncertain that you’re getting a “real Mass” when you attend the OF.
 
Last edited:
TheMortenBay said:
The classic example is that certain Anglican groups have had no trouble utilising the Mass of Paul VI for their worship services - because the language describing eg the sacrifice of the Mass has been toned down.
Click to expand...
True story (this is 20+ years ago): A friend from college asked me if I could go with him to his friend’s wedding. (To the best of my knowledge, neither the bride nor the groom were Catholic.) I told him I’d go but couldn’t participate. He was fine with that so we went to the wedding which was in a Lutheran place of worship. When the minister started the service I was shocked - it was exactly the same as the OF Mass from the RC church near me! 😱 IOW, the minister was using the OF aka NOM.

A gentleman from my Ukrainian Greek Catholic church (he’s now deceased - eternal memory!) had given me information about +Bugnini, the Consilium and how the NO came to be. I thought it was interesting historically but didn’t think much of it. After attending that wedding, I realized he was right.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
I noticed the word “certainty” is in context as being opposed to the uncertainty of the secular world
Click to expand...
I think he is referring to the detachment from the mundane world we live in once the Mass begins.

Just guessing.
 
I think these youth are awesome and hopefully are an inspiration for all Catholics.
 
I had a similar experience when attending a United Church of Christ service with a friend back in 2004. In fact, it was NICER than the Mass at the Catholic Church (and the Catholic church in town was a pleasant, orthodox parish) --but instead of the guitar player who sang off key and wore jeans and flannel, the UCC had an organist, Bach was played, the choir wore robes and sang 4 parts, they had the penitential rite, Gloria, Creed, the Eucharistic Prayer after the bringing of the gifts sounded a LOT like Eucharistic Prayer 2, etc. I was staggered.
 
It was. . . but then the minister decided that that particular parish would become LBT-friendly. Apparently in the UCC individual ministers, who get appointed by–or dismissed from–the members of the parish, can choose to be known as more or less ‘traditional’. It had seemed the parish was going on the more traditional side with its liturgy and then wham all heck broke loose. Quite a few people left the parish for good. Later the minister left and a couple have come and gone. Unfortunately the parish hasn’t yet recovered. Most of the people who stayed want to be more progressive but they just don’t have the numbers to really DO anything now. Many of the people who left found other worship homes where they are happy, and so probably we’ll have about 20 years or so while the mostly 50-something crowd there NOW die off, and the by then 30-50 something crowd of former children of the people who left and some of their parents come back in and start over.

Same thing happened in the Episcopal Church; it got very very progressive; a lot of people quietly stopped going. The people who go now tend to have coalesced into a group which has some ‘progressive’ elements and some ‘traditional’ ones and they always had a tradition for being extremely polite to begin with which helped keep them from the kind of angry breaks that went on in the UCC.

The Catholic Church had gotten extremely screwy in the 1980s and 1990s but thankfully was rescued around 2000 and has become steadily more traditional and orthodox over the years --and now it is BOOMING.

In that town, anyway, it seems that the more authentic a church is. . .true to its own ‘self’ if you will --the better it is doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top