I am reminded of the famous statement of Jaroslav Pelikan:" Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." It's the difference between worshipping traditionally and worshipping tradition.
a. "I went on to write several other pieces (here and here, and several more on this Substack) defending Latin Mass and trads": unfortunately, I don't think the "oh the TLM is great for the autistic losers who can't really socialise in the real world" is *that* charitable.
b. "I mentioned ethnic parishes/Masses as an alternative way to tap into tradition—a tradition that’s living and organic, and not stale and artificial." - but I don't actually see any argument as to *why* one is "living and organic", and the other "stale and artificial", other than your say-so.
Further: when I discuss the history of my diocese at my TLM, the older people there talk about the wreckage after Vatican II: how the beautiful altar in our Cathedral was smashed up, to make way for the bland modernist new design. Their beloved tradition was destroyed. Is it "stale and artificial" that they have their old form of the faith renewed?
c. "It is alive, vibrant, and full of faith and devotion. Really, you can see the depth of piety on the faces of the people wrapped around the block at 11:30 pm in the freezing cold" - as you can see in the TLM I attend. It is ordinary people in a pretty bleak part of the world who live lives of quiet devotion. Old married couples; young families with lots of children; the odd autistic loser like myself. But it's a community which helps nurture my faith.
d. "(CL, Neocats, Focolare, Sant’Egidio) are both doctrinally orthodox and very lively, missionary, and communal." - suspect theology and garbage liturgy. Sorry, no.
boom: “Reactionary discourse that fails to develop into a more nuanced engagement morphs it into its mirror opposite; different on the surface, but the same in essence.”
I am reminded of the famous statement of Jaroslav Pelikan:" Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." It's the difference between worshipping traditionally and worshipping tradition.
A few thoughts:
a. "I went on to write several other pieces (here and here, and several more on this Substack) defending Latin Mass and trads": unfortunately, I don't think the "oh the TLM is great for the autistic losers who can't really socialise in the real world" is *that* charitable.
b. "I mentioned ethnic parishes/Masses as an alternative way to tap into tradition—a tradition that’s living and organic, and not stale and artificial." - but I don't actually see any argument as to *why* one is "living and organic", and the other "stale and artificial", other than your say-so.
Further: when I discuss the history of my diocese at my TLM, the older people there talk about the wreckage after Vatican II: how the beautiful altar in our Cathedral was smashed up, to make way for the bland modernist new design. Their beloved tradition was destroyed. Is it "stale and artificial" that they have their old form of the faith renewed?
c. "It is alive, vibrant, and full of faith and devotion. Really, you can see the depth of piety on the faces of the people wrapped around the block at 11:30 pm in the freezing cold" - as you can see in the TLM I attend. It is ordinary people in a pretty bleak part of the world who live lives of quiet devotion. Old married couples; young families with lots of children; the odd autistic loser like myself. But it's a community which helps nurture my faith.
d. "(CL, Neocats, Focolare, Sant’Egidio) are both doctrinally orthodox and very lively, missionary, and communal." - suspect theology and garbage liturgy. Sorry, no.
Actually the second NCR piece was more sensitive and charitable, and actually explained a lot of the draw. So I retract my first comment.
boom: “Reactionary discourse that fails to develop into a more nuanced engagement morphs it into its mirror opposite; different on the surface, but the same in essence.”