"The destruction of the Sacred is the deepest assault on man’s dignity in his thinking and living." That begs the question of how much Paul VI's "reform" has contributed to the cultural rot of the West today. There may be a good reason why contemporary "Catholic" politicians are among the worst of the worst. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
Agreed. "Corruptio optimi pessima." The corruption of the best is the worst. One sees it with the Jesuits in particular, but also with the Catholic Church on earth as a whole.
Many thanks Dr K for sharing these profound insights. The more we can magnify these voices (including your own) the more we win hearts and minds to a truer and more faithful Catholicism, that is just over the horizon (and not over the rainbow!)
I've seen the notion in conservative Catholic circles of celebrating the Novus Ordo "the way the Church meant it to be celebrated." In other words, glorifying unicorn NO Masses as representative of the Church's true liturgical vision, contrasted against the average NO full of overt banality and sacrilege. Some assert a proper NO Mass is supposed to contain Latin and chant, smells and bells, a spirit of reverence and tradition, etc.
The problem with these claims, as these Fr. Luykx, excerpts show, is that they contradict the documented testimony of the liturgical reformers and their contemporaries. The more one reads of the Consilium members' (auto)biographies, of Paul VI's public statements at the time, and of the extensive commentary from the NO's earliest proponents, the more apparent it becomes that the unicorn NO is a deviation from the reformers' vision, not a fulfillment of it.
If non-traditionalists want to keep arguing for the fittingness and authenticity of the Novus Ordo "properly" celebrated, they should explain why their vision for a proper liturgy deviates so heavily from the men who actually created the Novus Ordo.
This is one of the major themes of my latest book: "Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn’t Broken and the New Mass Can’t Be Fixed"
Put it this way: the NO was designed to be celebrated in all sorts of ways; but the preferential way to celebrate it is the way of rupture, in the vernacular, with vernacular songs, versus populum, etc. Paul VI made that unambiguously clear in his (infamous) March 1965 and November 1969 audiences.
According to that framework, it seems the unicorn NO, at best, can only be presented as one valid option out of many. To present it as the true or proper version of Mass makes its proponents extremely susceptible to the "dogmatizing personal preference" critique often leveled at traditionalists.
Once again, exactly right. And for that reason, I say that the charge of "aestheticism" only applies to NO users who traditionalize it with smells and bells, because these things are CHOSEN for it, whereas they are REQUIRED for the Latin Mass according to the rubrics for Low, High, or Solemn Mass.
This is the strangest presentation! Never once does anyone speak of what pleases God or what displeases Him. And, of course, mention should be made of the consequences of displeasing Him in the most important matter of Worship! And what happens when we please God. Does anyone here care?
It seems to me that Luykx's basic critique is that the liturgy does not represent God accurately and immerse the faithful in His mystery, for His glory and their sanctification.
But he is talking mainly about what makes a ritual vertical or horizontal. I think he's presuming that God wants to be worshiped and wants man to be sanctified - these two things are what please Him, because He is deserving of all praise, and we are in need of His grace.
You should turn this excerpt into a Facebook meme:
Bishops should not require repeated beseeching as though being asked for a harmful privilege; in fact, episcopal refusal to permit celebration of the Tridentine Mass would be a painful abuse of power. (114–15)
Aren't the Scriptures all about what pleases God and what displeases Him? ...And the consequences. We should meditate every day, and the meditation should end with a resolution to please God more in ways inspired by the Scriptural meditation. Is that not so? You miss the entire point of your reflections on the history of liturgy if you are not used to meditating on what the past teaches us about God's Will and on the Four Last Things... And You still miss the point if you do not have love of God--- and your neighbor for the sake of God. Our God has revealed Himself and how He must be worshiped. Our God has revealed what He does when there is only one man among millions who worships Him as He has revealed He must be worshiped.
He has revealed to us how he treats people who refuse to worship Him rightly. You have been talking as if we should worship ourselves and do what we think is best for man without Fear Of the Lord.
Respectfully, I do not think you have understood this post, or any of my posts on liturgy, since your description does not apply to them; rather the opposite.
Sorting through some books and literature today, I came across: "Work of Human Hands." That is what many people think these days: that the Mass is supposed to be the "work of human hands."
"The destruction of the Sacred is the deepest assault on man’s dignity in his thinking and living." That begs the question of how much Paul VI's "reform" has contributed to the cultural rot of the West today. There may be a good reason why contemporary "Catholic" politicians are among the worst of the worst. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
Agreed. "Corruptio optimi pessima." The corruption of the best is the worst. One sees it with the Jesuits in particular, but also with the Catholic Church on earth as a whole.
“The distraction (and horror) of celebrant and people constantly looking into each other’s eyes.” Love this comment. The “horror”. Good one.
Many thanks Dr K for sharing these profound insights. The more we can magnify these voices (including your own) the more we win hearts and minds to a truer and more faithful Catholicism, that is just over the horizon (and not over the rainbow!)
I've seen the notion in conservative Catholic circles of celebrating the Novus Ordo "the way the Church meant it to be celebrated." In other words, glorifying unicorn NO Masses as representative of the Church's true liturgical vision, contrasted against the average NO full of overt banality and sacrilege. Some assert a proper NO Mass is supposed to contain Latin and chant, smells and bells, a spirit of reverence and tradition, etc.
The problem with these claims, as these Fr. Luykx, excerpts show, is that they contradict the documented testimony of the liturgical reformers and their contemporaries. The more one reads of the Consilium members' (auto)biographies, of Paul VI's public statements at the time, and of the extensive commentary from the NO's earliest proponents, the more apparent it becomes that the unicorn NO is a deviation from the reformers' vision, not a fulfillment of it.
If non-traditionalists want to keep arguing for the fittingness and authenticity of the Novus Ordo "properly" celebrated, they should explain why their vision for a proper liturgy deviates so heavily from the men who actually created the Novus Ordo.
EXACTLY! EXACTLY! EXACTLY!
This is one of the major themes of my latest book: "Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn’t Broken and the New Mass Can’t Be Fixed"
Put it this way: the NO was designed to be celebrated in all sorts of ways; but the preferential way to celebrate it is the way of rupture, in the vernacular, with vernacular songs, versus populum, etc. Paul VI made that unambiguously clear in his (infamous) March 1965 and November 1969 audiences.
https://osjustipress.com/products/close-the-workshop
https://www.amazon.com/Close-Workshop-Mass-Broken-Fixed/dp/B0DYF7QJJ4/
According to that framework, it seems the unicorn NO, at best, can only be presented as one valid option out of many. To present it as the true or proper version of Mass makes its proponents extremely susceptible to the "dogmatizing personal preference" critique often leveled at traditionalists.
Once again, exactly right. And for that reason, I say that the charge of "aestheticism" only applies to NO users who traditionalize it with smells and bells, because these things are CHOSEN for it, whereas they are REQUIRED for the Latin Mass according to the rubrics for Low, High, or Solemn Mass.
This is the strangest presentation! Never once does anyone speak of what pleases God or what displeases Him. And, of course, mention should be made of the consequences of displeasing Him in the most important matter of Worship! And what happens when we please God. Does anyone here care?
Can you tell me a little more of what you mean?
It seems to me that Luykx's basic critique is that the liturgy does not represent God accurately and immerse the faithful in His mystery, for His glory and their sanctification.
But he is talking mainly about what makes a ritual vertical or horizontal. I think he's presuming that God wants to be worshiped and wants man to be sanctified - these two things are what please Him, because He is deserving of all praise, and we are in need of His grace.
Excellent article, Dr. K.!
You should turn this excerpt into a Facebook meme:
Bishops should not require repeated beseeching as though being asked for a harmful privilege; in fact, episcopal refusal to permit celebration of the Tridentine Mass would be a painful abuse of power. (114–15)
Every RC bishop needs to see it imo.
Aren't the Scriptures all about what pleases God and what displeases Him? ...And the consequences. We should meditate every day, and the meditation should end with a resolution to please God more in ways inspired by the Scriptural meditation. Is that not so? You miss the entire point of your reflections on the history of liturgy if you are not used to meditating on what the past teaches us about God's Will and on the Four Last Things... And You still miss the point if you do not have love of God--- and your neighbor for the sake of God. Our God has revealed Himself and how He must be worshiped. Our God has revealed what He does when there is only one man among millions who worships Him as He has revealed He must be worshiped.
He has revealed to us how he treats people who refuse to worship Him rightly. You have been talking as if we should worship ourselves and do what we think is best for man without Fear Of the Lord.
Respectfully, I do not think you have understood this post, or any of my posts on liturgy, since your description does not apply to them; rather the opposite.
Sorting through some books and literature today, I came across: "Work of Human Hands." That is what many people think these days: that the Mass is supposed to be the "work of human hands."