“Let us simplify the picture once again. The core of this crisis consists in moving the center of being from God to man, from the vertical to the horizontal.” (Archimandrite Boniface Luykx, A Wider View of Vatican II: Memories & Analysis of a Council Consultor, p. 143)
In his recent interview with Michael Matt, Bishop Athanasius Schneider recommended A Wider View of Vatican II: Memories & Analysis of a Council Consultor, a book written by Archimandrite Boniface Luykx. Archimandrite Luykx was no Traditional Catholic, but his reflections are immensely valuable to us today because he clearly loved the Catholic Faith and was a Vatican II insider involved in almost all phases of drafting and implementing the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (CSL), Sacrosanctum Concilium. As discussed below, his diagnosis of the crisis in the Church is useful not only for its acute perception of problems associated with the Novus Ordo Mass but also because he offered those criticisms as one who had every reason to completely trust the Council and its fruits.
Before delving into the various profound observations that Archimandrite Luykx made about the crisis, it is worth noting a concept that plays a vital role throughout the book:
“This book will constantly apply the Aristotelian principle of cause and effect, showing how particular acts must elicit irresistible particular effects in this whole postconciliar drama.” (p. 13)
As a general matter, the book does indeed adhere to this standard of applying the principle of cause and effect. While this may not seem like a remarkable accomplishment, its real significance resides in the fact that he saw the problems with Vatican II even though he happened to believe that the Council was “truly the fruit of a Spirit-led growth in the Church, at a time when the Church was ripe for it” (p. 42). Because he had eyes to see and the courage to believe what he saw, his reflections harmonize with three key claims of Traditional Catholics: conservative warnings were correct; some Vatican II documents were man-centered and dangerously ambiguous; and the Novus Ordo Mass violates Vatican II’s basic requirements.
Conservative Warnings Were Correct
To grasp how difficult it must have been for Archimandrite Luykx to acknowledge that conservative warnings about the Council were correct, we can consider the way in which he praised a few of the theologians who were among the worst enemies of Traditional Catholicism:
“In France the Liturgical movement ran parallel with the Theological Movement, inspired by great theologians such as Jean Daniélou, SJ, Henri de Lubac, SJ, and Yves Congar, OP, who directed the renewal toward a return to sources.” (p. 28)
For Traditional Catholics, the “Aristotelian principle of cause and effect” tells us that we see problems flowing from the Council precisely because men like Daniélou, de Lubac, and Congar helped shape the ideas in its documents. Interestingly, Archimandrite Luykx even acknowledged that Congar had been censured prior to the Council:
“Some theologians went overboard in specific areas while remaining orthodox on the whole. Rome was forced to censure some writings of such men — Yves Congar’s [True and False Reform in the Church] and the words of Teilhard de Chardin come to mind — without rejecting the entirety of their work.” (p. 41)
Despite identifying this censure of Congar’s book — which is the same book Francis cited in his introduction of the Synod on Synodality as an attempt to create a “different church” — Archimandrite Luykx did not mention Pius XII’s Humani Generis, which condemned the ideas of de Lubac and Congar (without naming them). Again, this is not surprising but it does point to a handicap of those who are less inclined to attach real significance to the warnings of the pre-Vatican II popes. After all, so much of the important work of those popes consisted in teaching Catholics that errors such as Liberalism and Modernism would cause the evil effects that we see today. Thus, unless we understand the warnings of Pius XII and his predecessors, we are unlikely to grasp the real causes of the evils we see today.
Nonetheless, Archimandrite Luykx gave us a subtle indication that he understood the veracity of certain conservative warnings about errors that have proliferated in wake of the Council:
“Clergy who lived in Rome naturally exerted a special impact upon the Council’s decision-making processes. The popes of the Council watched carefully to ensure that the universal character of the Council be maintained and that it not become a ‘Roman affair.’ But the influence of those in Rome remained strong — and not always positive. For instance, both before and during the Council there was, mostly in the Curia and behind closed doors, a strong resistance to ‘that Council of John.’ Its four most active leaders were two cardinals, one of whom was President of the Preparatory Commission for Theology, and the two religious who worked for the Curia . . . These men worked relentlessly to prevent the Council, and then to sabotage it once it had begun. In retrospect, to their credit, I think they may have opposed the Council because they foresaw problems on the horizon.” (p. 46)
In this he was surely correct — those who opposed the Council’s work almost always did so because they had believed the warnings of the pre-Vatican II popes. Later in the book, Archimandrite Luykx defended these conservatives even more robustly:
“The conservatives rejected the Council as too progressive; the rebels rejected it as too conservative. I think the first group, who loved the Church, foresaw the disaster that lay ahead and wanted to spare the Church from it.” (p. 81)
Even though Archimandrite Luykx was not among these conservative opponents of the Council’s progressive work, he had the Faith and intellectual honesty to recognize the obvious merits of their positions. In certain respects, this makes the observations that follow even more persuasive than if he had been a Traditional Catholic.
Some Vatican II Documents Were Man-Centered and Dangerously Ambiguous
As we know from painful experience, many of the most ardent defenders of Vatican II absolutely refuse to consider any suggestion that the Council’s documents might have been flawed. Through the grace of God, though, Archimandrite Luykx did not share this obstinacy:
“The language used in the sixteen primary Council documents varies significantly between the two groups mentioned above. In general, the God-centered documents, especially CSL [Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy], were written in clear, unambiguous, theological and practical language. Many of the man-centered documents, on the other hand, contain unclear, ambiguous, ostentatious wording that made them ripe for misinterpretation . . . .” (p. 64)
It is not merely a matter of unlearned men misinterpreting the Council’s documents — as Archimandrite Luykx wrote, the issue is that some of the documents “contain unclear, ambiguous, ostentatious wording that made them ripe for misinterpretation.” They are, in this very real way, fundamentally flawed.
But Archimandrite Luykx’s observation about some of the documents being “man-centered” is even more damning. By definition, our religion must be God-centered. Only Satan and the Church’s other enemies would argue that there should be a man-centered focus in any of the Church’s teachings. This was obvious to Archimandrite Luykx, and he understood the evil effects of the man-centered orientation:
“Once this man-centeredness was entrenched, it was easy to throw God out altogether. Into this vacuum moved the egalitarian relativism of strident feminism; then came pagan inculturation that adapted everything to the measure of man, not God. Finally the New Age entered, as the new religion in which man becomes his own god. Only one element remained to follow: anger and hatred, with accompanying bitterness and spiritual violence.” (pp. 148-149)
This is what we see now. When the ostensible leaders of the religion established by God to lead souls to Him instead focus on man, this is what happens. The only answer, as Archimandrite Luykx emphasized at various points in his book, is to return to God:
“I said it before but will repeat it here: we must return to God, especially the gospel and the Sermon on the Mount. Turning to God means conversion, and conversion is a question of grace, which is conditional, a fruit of sacrificial prayer.” (p. 173)
Traditional Catholics agree with this call to conversion and would add that we must also return to God’s unadulterated Catholic Faith.
It is simply a matter of common sense that this clear language from Vatican II means that the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate development, but those opponents of the Tridentine Mass who eschew common sense like the plague always find some way to argue otherwise.
The Novus Ordo Mass Violates Vatican II’s Basic Requirements
The main focus of Archimandrite Luykx’s book relates to his work in connection with the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy (CSL). As we saw above, he asserted that the CSL was God-centered and unambiguous. For him, this made it all the more disappointing that the fruits of CSL were so bad:
“Loyal and orthodox liturgists were perhaps the most disappointed by the new Missal. They knew that perfection and unanimity are impossible, but they also knew there is quite a distance between a particular opinion and a mediocre result which comes from constantly compromising on essentials. They immediately recognized that the Novus Ordo exceeded all measure of compromise. Moreover, they were critically aware of this fact: the Novus Ordo is not faithful to CSL but goes substantially beyond the parameters which CSL set for the reform of the Mass rite.” (p. 98)
Thus, according to an expert who helped draft the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Novus Ordo Mass is not faithful to Vatican II. In a few instances, Archimandrite Luykx cited Article 23 from CSL as the clear guidance that had been violated in the creation of the Novus Ordo:
“That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”
It is simply a matter of common sense that this clear language from Vatican II means that the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate development, but those opponents of the Tridentine Mass who eschew common sense like the plague always find some way to argue otherwise. As such, these words from Archimandrite Luykx, a true expert and insider, are all the more important:
“The organic continuity of the Western liturgical tradition from the Fathers to the present takes precedence over all adaptation: any ‘new form’ must grow organically out of the existing ones without a real break or discontinuity, as Article 23 states. A break with true Tradition is always a disaster for the piety of the faithful and often for the liturgy itself. Hence there is no provision for creating a new Mass, a new liturgical year, a new Divine Office, etc.” (p. 76)
So the “disaster of piety” has been caused by the Novus Ordo Mass’s break with true Tradition, which occurred in clear violation of Vatican II itself.
Is there hope that Leo XIV might eventually reach similar conclusions, even if only about the Mass? It seems unlikely at this point, but none of us have any need to place bets on that — the outcome is dependent upon Divine Providence and Leo XIV’s cooperation with God’s grace.
Elsewhere, Archimandrite Luykx pinned the blame for this disastrous failure, at least in part, on Paul VI’s ecumenical desires to please the Protestants:
- “Not all the clergy and faithful were eagerly awaiting the Roman Missal; some were actually dreading it. Why? In part because they had heard that Paul VI had asked the collaboration of five Protestant theologians, including even some who did not believe in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist or the Real Presence. One of Pope Paul’s queries of these Protestants had been whether or not the planned Mass rite, the Novus Ordo, would bring the Catholic Church closer to her Protestant brethren. It is asserted that the Protestants’ unanimous ‘yes’ tipped the scale toward its final introduction.” (p. 99)
- “The great German liturgist, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, has clearly shown what I have experienced and written here: the Novus Ordo is manifestly contrary to the intent of CSL, and would not have been approved by the Council Fathers. Rather, it was forced upon the Western Church by the order of Pope Paul VI to assure the goodwill of our Protestant brethren.” (p. 111)
Traditional Catholics have long shared this view that the changes were made to placate Protestants. Whatever the cause, though, most of Archimandrite Luykx’s extensive criticisms of the Novus Ordo related to its man-centeredness:
“The steamroller of man-centered horizontalism (as opposed to God-centered verticalism) has flattened all liturgical forms after Vatican II, but its main victim is the Novus Ordo. Its creators made a grievous mistake by pushing a ‘return to simplicity’ to the point of impoverishing the ritual and destroying the sense of celebration and mystery.” (p. 104)
An observer who is completely ignorant of Catholicism could generally discern this by comparing the Traditional Latin Mass to an ordinary Novus Ordo Mass: one focuses on God, and the other on man. Archimandrite Luykx even went so far as to say that those who favor the Novus Ordo consider the Traditional Latin Mass’s focus on God to be “outdated and boring”:
“A theological flaw is at the base of this change [of the altar facing the people] and of the whole new liturgy: the notion that liturgy is the ‘work of the people’ and hence horizontal… In this notion, celebration is a horizontal gathering of the people around the altar; hence ‘eye contact’ between priest and faithful is essential. Prayer to God, and an attitude of being totally oriented toward God in adoration and praise, is considered outdated and boring. This weakening or even destruction of the vertical dimension has become perhaps the basic counterfeit of the new liturgy as well as the undoing of the true Church. One might say that therein lies the original sin of the new liturgy and the corruption of what the Council had intended.” (p. 111)
So this is the cause of so much destruction. And here is how Archimandrite Luykx described the effects of the Novus Ordo and other failures of Vatican II:
“From this death of the Sacred in worship flows the death of respect for authority, truth, and beauty, with the resultant breakup of families and a proliferation of evils in society. In general, the respect for life dies, as is seen in the acceptance of abortion and euthanasia and all kinds of violence. These evils originate, ultimately, from the death of reverence, especially in its origins in worship. When reverence is gone, all worship becomes only horizontal entertainment, a social party. Here again the poor, the little ones, are the victims, since the obvious reality of life as flowing out of God in worship is taken away from them by ‘experts’ and dissenters.” (pp. 119-120)
Traditional Catholics naturally agree with almost all of this, largely because our pre-conceived notions do not bind us to assuming that Vatican II’s bad fruits must be good. It is refreshing to see that Archimandrite Luykx — a serious and honest Catholic who was not himself a Traditional Catholic — could reach the same conclusions.
May God grant Catholics the grace to charitably insist on the unadulterated truth, and Leo XIV the grace to follow Archimandrite Luykx’s example in humbly opening his eyes to the real problems facing the Church and world.
Is there hope that Leo XIV might eventually reach similar conclusions, even if only about the Mass? It seems unlikely at this point, but none of us have any need to place bets on that — the outcome is essentially infinitely more dependent upon Divine Providence and Leo XIV’s cooperation with God’s grace than anything we can do personally. However, it is our task to do what we can to wake people up to the real nature of the crisis. To that end, it is worth recalling the words of Leo XIII, as Archimandrite Luykx did in his book:
“From whence do I get the courage to try to wake up these leaders and denounce the conspiracy? I am humbly convinced that the times have become too serious and decisive to waste time even asking this question. Besides, the great Pope Leo XIII answered it in 1890, at the moment when the enemies of the Church began their agenda that has reached its climax in our days. I urge the reader to ponder his wisdom: ‘To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind.’” (p. 11)
May God grant Catholics the grace to charitably insist on the unadulterated truth, and Leo XIV the grace to follow Archimandrite Luykx’s example in humbly opening his eyes to the real problems facing the Church and world. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
