Clarifications on the Reign of Novelty: A Letter Exchange with a Friendly Critic

Humble Pie, Weekly Edition - A Preliminary Note

Writing (and the same is true of recording) offers a lot of opportunities for making mistakes, nor is that surprising, since a typical article is made up of thousands of words, maybe tens of thousands of characters, and so much can go wrong between the mind, the eye, the hand, and the voice!

So it was with last Friday’s post, where I entitled my section of reviews “DR. K’S QUARTET,” then went on to say I couldn’t limit myself to fewer than five books, and then went on to review… only three titles! Plus, I also said that my comments would be briefer than Julian’s — and they turned out longer! Is this the sad legacy of a schoolchild who flunked basic arithmetic? No, it’s just a case of someone who ran out of time to re-read the post before doing an interview with Inside the Vatican followed by a publicity meeting with TAN Books (excuses, excuses…). Anyway, sorry about the mixed-up math. Now, to the day’s feature article! — PAK

Preface

In August, I published a four-article series entitled “The Reign of Novelty and the Sins of the Times: Why the Novus Ordo Is Solely Modern in Content.” (You can find the links to all four parts in the last part.)

I received quite a bit of mail on this series, most of it positive, but some of it critical. And I welcome such critical responses, as long as they are made with good will and in pursuit of the truth in friendship. One of my best friends and best critics sent me a letter whose comments made me realize that I may have given quite the wrong impression on certain very important issues. As a result, it seems both fitting and just that I should share our correspondence with readers who may have similar concerns.

As always, I welcome your comments, to which I will make a point of responding.

Photo by Laura Brain (source)

Letter 1

Dear Peter,

I followed with interest your lecture, “The Reign of Novelty and the Sins of the Times.” In the first three installments, your arguments struck me as sound and well-developed. However, the last installment concerns me greatly. I can see why you say that this lecture is going to be very important for your life: if I reached those conclusions, I would cease to be Catholic.

Here’s how I understand your position. The post-Vatican II Consilium and Pope Paul VI considered the entire tradition as at their disposal, to do with what they would, and as a result everything that came out of their deliberations is thoroughly modern and constitutes a rejection of the very principle of tradition, even in those instances where it is materially similar to or the same as what came before. Instituting a liturgy that constitutes a rejection of the very principle of tradition is illicit, and therefore the Novus Ordo and all its accompanying rites are illicit. Celebrating an illicit Mass and other illicit sacraments does not fulfil one’s duty of worship toward God. Failure to fulfill one’s duty of worship toward God results in being abandoned by God’s grace, and this leads to the tremendous defeat the Church is experiencing in our time.

My initial discomfort with your argument and conclusions could be put this way.