A very good analysis of today's liturgical situation:
...As mentioned before, the speaker said we should never think that a
certain set of preferences (“A, B, C”) is better than another set of
preferences (“X, Y, Z”), if both are permitted. But what if it is
possible for us to know that A, B, C really is better than
X, Y, Z — significantly better? Better because more aligned with the
expressions and needs of human nature as understood by psychology,
sociology, and anthropology? Better because more in keeping with
millennia of Catholic tradition? Better because closer to what Holy
Mother Church actually recommends? If one is convinced, on solid
grounds, that A, B, C is superior to X, Y, Z, and that the very health
and fruitfulness of the Church depend on adhering to the former and
phasing out the latter, it may even be a sin not to pray and work for the widespread acceptance of the one and the downfall of the other.
It is claimed that saying and acting on such convictions promotes
“tribalism.” But the reality is far otherwise. The Protestants have
split into a thousand sects because they abandoned the unity of signs —
the signs of papacy, sacrament, liturgy, sacred art. This is what
happens to Catholics today, inasmuch as they, too, abandon the Church’s
tradition in favor of pluralism, optionitis, and false inculturation.
Unity of sign has given way to pluralism of style. The pluralist does
not say: “the Church always acted thus,” but “it is up to you to find
and choose the way that works best for you.”
This is nothing other than a subtle form of the dictatorship of
relativism, under which one is never permitted to say A, B, C is better
than X, Y, Z, for fear of offending someone by insisting on forgotten
truths. Reason’s natural and noble work of discernment and judgment is
compromised by politeness masquerading as charity, fideism pretending to
be obedience, and laxity dressed up as humility....
Not for nothing did Pius X re-state that "mind AND heart" formula (vis-a-vis sacred music.) If it ain't both, it's not right; it's not 'the fullness'.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment