Read on Twitter
This article is making the rounds and I have SUBSTANTIAL issues with it.
Let me begin by saying i recognize and affirm the incarnational aspect of our faith. It is largely “an in person event”.
But these are the issues I find with the article: https://twitter.com/phillawler/status/1248328541307047937
Let me begin by saying i recognize and affirm the incarnational aspect of our faith. It is largely “an in person event”.
But these are the issues I find with the article: https://twitter.com/phillawler/status/1248328541307047937
1) it claims that televised and streamed Masses “aren’t real”. These are substantive claims! But there’s ZERO justification for it. It may be true, I am open to being convinced, but there not even a hint at a discussion of the metaphysics of technology.
I would argue that the purpose of streamed Masses is primarily to communicate. If we understand it as a form of communication, then it can foster prayer at home, while keeping up the sense that this isn’t the ideal.
2) “it fosters a diminished belief in the real presence and the elderly especially will feel that watching it on tv meets their obligation.” Again: substantive claim with zero data. I don’t know about others, but if anything my parishioners have watched more and it’s...
Built up a desire to go even to weekday Mass when this is all over! I haven’t heard a single person say “well this is the same”.
Absolutely we need to be careful that the observing of Mass online doesn’t allow it to become a spectator sport. Absolutely this can change our...
Absolutely we need to be careful that the observing of Mass online doesn’t allow it to become a spectator sport. Absolutely this can change our...
Attitudes towards the Mass. the thing is: I’m not seeing it. I’m seeing the opposite.
I think, too, we have to take seriously the fact that Rome has embraced modern forms of communications to broadcast liturgy from day one.
She recognizes that this doesn’t replace.
I think, too, we have to take seriously the fact that Rome has embraced modern forms of communications to broadcast liturgy from day one.
She recognizes that this doesn’t replace.
Rather, Rome recognizes it as a means of COMMUNICATION. This is the framework the discussion needs to surround itself with. If we see it as communication rather than a replacement for our own personal prayer, a communication to AID us in prayer, then this is good.
Another fruit is how many lapses and agnostic and atheistic people have tuned in for online streams and it’s started discussions. This is a great tool to communicate the Mass to those who normally wouldn’t set foot in a church. And it’s a help to those who are homebound.
No one, and I mean no one, sees this as a way to replace the normal way of attending Mass. streams will lessen once churches are open again. And yes, we need to have a strong discussion about the relationship of the liturgy with technology
But we should take solace in the fact that the Church has been embracing this for decades now. And that should give us some sense that this is not a great evil. Of course not everyone needs to join in. But for those who desire it: I’ve seen only good. End.
Lawler didn’t write the article, just as an FYI
