Does God design some souls to be more sensitive to liturgy?

[Rykell]

Marsha Adams:

My spiritual director once spoke to me of two types of people. He used terms that I have long since forgotten, but the gist of it was that there are those who find it easier to worship in richly appointed surroundings - stain glass windows, beautiful statutes, etc. - because these things elevate their minds to God. Others find it easier to worship in much plainer surroundings - a small room with nothing but a prie dieu and a cross on the wall, for instance - because there are no distractions. He said that the latter was indicative of a more advanced spirituality.

Dear Marsha,

I had such a joyful moment as I read your message, for your wisdom is beyond the elementary growth of many who are still on the journey towards perfection!

It seemed a good time to share some thoughts also from St. John of the Cross’s Ascent of Mt. Carmel by Kiernan Kavanaugh:

[Book III, Ch. 41.1

Spiritual persons incur many kinds of interior and exterior harm by their desire to get sensible delight from the use of devotional objects. As the interior harm, one will never reach inward recollection of spirit which consists in passing beyond all these sensory delights, making the soul forget them, entering into the living temple of spiritual recollection and acquiring solid virtue. With regard to the exterior harm, a person will be rendered incapable of praying everywhere, but will be able to pray only in those places suited to his taste, and thus be frequently wanting in prayer. As the saying runs, he knows no other book than that of his own village. *

The fervor and joy they find in their spiritual practices is merely sensible, and they have never made any effort to reach spiritual recollection through denial of their wills and submission to the suffering of discomforts. Consequently, as often as they see a seemingly devotional place, or way, or state of life adapted to their dispostion and inclination, they immediately leave what they have and follow after it.

Ch. 42.2 When a person therefore prays in a beautiful site, he should endeavor to be interiorly with God and forget the place, as though he were not there at all. For when people wander about looking for delight and gratification from a particular site, they are in search, as we said, for sensory recreation and spiritual instability more than spiritual tranquility.*

[Dark Night of the Soul, Spiritual Avarice, Bk. I, Ch 3]

What I condemn in this is possessivenes of heart and attachment to the number, workmanship, and overdecoration of these objects. For this attachment is contrary to poverty of spirit which is intent only upon the substance of devotion. Since true devotion comes from the heart and looks only to the truth and substance represented by spiritual objects, and since everything else is imperfect attachment and possessiveness, any appetite for these things must be uprooted if some degree of perfection is to be reached.

I’m reminded of the scriptures where the first ones to receive news of the Incarnation were lowly shepherds out in barren fields keeping silent watch, not to the wealthy in ornately decorated homes. Multitudes of angels sang “Glory to God in the Highest!” under the night sky.

With St. John, I believe there can be much inordinate, personal, sensual attachment to having liturgies the way we knew them of old, rather than humble submission to the Spirit who brings us to more simplicity. Maybe it is the Dark Night of the Church, purifying Her rites and separating wheat from the chaff? The very grumbling that many demonstrate is proof to me that there is a lack of spiritual poverty.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I’m not sure whether or no a plainer sanctuary is indicative of a more “advanced” spirituality, but since the vast majority of Catholics are probably not advanced as St. Francis, they urgently need the incense, the statues, and the stained glass to help them. It’s simply a tragedy that this uglification took place. I think that proper worship should be done with the whole body as well as the soul, and that the experience of the senses – the smell of the incense, the sight of the altar, the sound of singing – is necessary. Let the more contemplative worship in a plainer, side chapel, but let’s not give meat to those who need milk first!

Augustinian:

Don’t get me wrong. I love the incense, stained glass, and statutes. I love being surrounded by the sense of the sacred. I hate worshipping in churches that look more protestant than Catholic. My only point was that the initial question: “Does God design some souls to be more sensitive to liturgy?” may be the wrong question. It may not be design, but growth.

Marsha

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Dear Marsha,

I had such a joyful moment as I read your message, for your wisdom is beyond the elementary growth of many who are still on the journey towards perfection!

QUOTE]

Rykell:

Those were the words of my spiritual director, not mine. Though I will share something that happened to me several years ago. I was a member of a parish that commissioned an artist to carve a large crucifix from wood to be hung over the altar. The result was a corpus that looked entirely too robust (almost chubby) for someone suffering on the cross. To add insult to injury, the face of the corpus to my perception looked a lot like the pastor which I found off putting. I couldn’t bear to look at this crucifix hanging over the altar, it bothered and distracted me. So I took to actively work at focusing on the tabernacle rather than the altar before mass. It was a difficult exercise since always before whatever parish I was attending I would focus on the crucifix. When it became an ingrained habit, however, if effected my spiritual life wonderfully because it drew me ever closer to the resurrected eucharistic Lord.

Marsha

 

[leonie]

Wow. Thanks for all the food for thought.

Several posters have said that at certain points in their journey, beautiful surroundings and more elaborate liturgy have been more important.

At the same time, the point has been made that Churches and liturgies aren’t to feed us, they are made to offer worship to God. So, beautiful is important in that sense.

Of course, I agree with both points.

And the point has been made that it is not necessarily beauty that some souls are hungry for, but proper liturgy–to honor God in obedience to His Church and to preserve the tradition that we are guarding for future Catholics.

Liturgy is very important.

I think Marsha Adams is right. It is more of where a soul is on his journey than a particular inner design. And, journeys of the soul are never linear.

Thanks. I’d like to hear more discussion if anyone has any more points to offer.

 

[JButky]

Several posters have said that at certain points in their journey, beautiful surroundings and more elaborate liturgy have been more important.

At the same time, the point has been made that Churches and liturgies aren’t to feed us, they are made to offer worship to God. So, beautiful is important in that sense.

Or, is it a matter of formation? Are some of us not well trained or conditioned to expect beautiful liturgy? Are we dumbed down?

The Human condition automatically demonstrates that people are in various stages of “developing spirituality” We also know from Scripture that we each have differing gifts. A truly advanced spirituality can accept both the opulent as well as the stark surroundings. But that is not the point. Surroundings do not make the Liturgy. I would also disagree that Liturgy does not “feed” us. In the omnipresent Eucharistic sense, it obviously does, but it also affects us in many more ways spiritually as an outpouring of grace.

It is because the Liturgy feeds us in this manner that the style is irrelevent. The style must always be proper however to “nourish” us correctly to that end and so the Church has always governed what is proper for the liturgy and has let style evolve but not without instruction for that evolution. If it is not proper, it is more difficult for that to happen, though not impossible. (We really are like sheep and must be led and cared for!)

Christ has always instructed us in proper worship, and He has sent the Holy Spirit and His Church to continue that as He Himself is also present physically in the Eucharist.

Decorum teaches respect. If one does not learn from the models given to us for respect, it is very difficult to develop a healthy spirituality, AKA a “fear of the Lord”. And so it is fundamental to have proper Liturgy, because it comes from the Lord. To choose to not abide by that is succumbing to our fallen nature which has obvious detrimental effects because it opposes our Lord.

The Liturgy however is sufficient to nourish all levels of spirituality, irregardless of one’s sensitivity. The more we are able to abide by God’s rules in His greatest gift, the more we choose to grow in His grace.

This Past Sunday’s Gospel reminds me a little of this…Whoever causes one of these little ones to sin…(Mark 9) And it also even reflects different styles, and allows those that are Proper to God’s will.

Joe B

 

[DustinsDad]

…seemed a good time to share some thoughts also from St. John of the Cross’s Ascent of Mt. Carmel by Kiernan Kavanaugh:…

You are twisting St. John - he is describing authentic Catholic use of art and beauty to draw us in to the the contemplation of things Divine, and not the attachment to “things” for “things’ sake”…simple as that.

To try to use his words to defend the ransacking of our churches and cathedrals that has taken place over the last several years is ludicrous - and is more in line with the dreaded “Spirit of Vatican II” rather than Vatican II itself…it’s a hijacked* partial* truth used to twist constant Catholic teaching that has been with us for 2000 years and counting.

I call you to remember the words of the 22nd session of the Council of Trent:

CHAPTER V.
On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

…

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
Further, if you have any doubt about what the Catholic Church things about beauty in the House of God, look no further than St. Peter’s. For that matter, have you seen Mother Angelica’s Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament? Quoting from the website:
…The interior of the chapel evokes a sense of the sacred. From the inlaid marble floors to the vaulted ceilings; from the pristine sanctuary to the inspiring stained-glass windows, every detail of the Temple leads the soul to contemplate the transcendent beauty of God. The Temple was designed to be as beautiful as possible, befitting the infinite dignity of God. As Mary Magdalene delighted our Lord by anointing His feet with “very costly ointment” (John 12:3-8), so may this Temple inspire all who visit to give their utmost to God.
Perhaps Mother Angelica isn’t as spiritually advanced as the new modern architects would like, perhaps the Vatican isn’t either…wouldn’t some of them like to get their hands on such things merely to dispense with them (and anything that looks to “catholic”)!

Old battle, old excuse…been going on since Judas complained about the waste of the oil quoted above.

…Maybe it is the Dark Night of the Church, purifying Her rites and separating wheat from the chaff? The very grumbling that many demonstrate is proof to me that there is a lack of spiritual poverty.

Or perhaps it’s zeal for the Glory of God.

DustinsDad

 

[Rykell]

Dear Dustin’s Dad:

If you are interested in a more current source of information on aesthetics than John of the Cross, this document from the Vatican may be one to consider. Incidentally, have you studied St. John’s works to know authoritatively of what he speaks? Some who have would disagree wholeheartedly with you.

2.2**.**

• The noble simplicity of love *

The Gospels describe the human and concrete gestures of Jesus: he walks, he blesses, he touches, he heals, he mixes saliva and mud, he raises his eyes to heaven, he breaks the bread, he takes the cup. These are the gestures repeated in the celebration of the sacraments. But it was above all on the night of his passion that Jesus taught us the gestures that we too must perform. He is our master of liturgical education. His art consists in setting forth the essential in a few simple things. The meaning of the liturgy is revealed only through simplicity and sobriety. «He always loved those who were his own in the world. When the time came for him to be glorified by you his heavenly Father; he showed the depth of his love. While they were at supper he took bread, said the blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to his disciples saying …]. In the same way, he took the cup, filled with wine. He gave you thanks, and giving the cup to his disciples, said …]

What is it that made this act of the Lord so beautiful? The way the room was arranged? The way the table was prepared? Fine table linen? Certainly these things bring out its beauty, like a frame which enhances the beauty of a picture. Yet the real beauty lies in Jesus’ act of redeeming love: «he showed the depth of his love… he took bread». Here lies the beauty of his gesture.

Repeating this action of Christ, and recognizing in it her Lord’s love, the Church finds it beautiful. The liturgy’s aesthetic value, its beauty, depends primarily therefore not on art, but on the paschal mystery of love. If art is to collaborate with the liturgy it needs to be evangelised by love. The beauty of a Eucharistic celebration essentially depends not on the beauty of architecture, icons, decoration, songs, vestments, choreography and colours, but above all on the ability to reveal the gesture of love performed by Jesus. Through the gestures, words and prayers of the liturgy we strive to repeat and render visible the gestures, prayers and words of the Lord Jesus. This is what the Lord commanded: “Do this in memory of me.”

The style of our liturgy should be simple and austere, as was the style of Jesus. In our celebrations, according to the Council Fathers, we must master of the art of «noble simplicity» (SC 34).

 

[canadianlife]

I know I always feel when I attend a Novus Ordo that something is missing.

From a young age, even when I was an altar boy at Novus Ordo Masses, I loved the incense and the occaisional Latin hymns, and the beautiful artwork.

The only Novus Ordo Mass I felt “right” in was one I was at a few months ago that had the Ordinaries in Latin (Gregorian Chant with an Organ!), incense, traditional vestments, a communion rail, and a properly placed altar.

You have great taste
You rock!
Even though you’re from Ontario (hey, it could be worse, you could be from Toronto )

 

[DustinsDad]

If you are interested in a more current source of information on aesthetics than John of the Cross, this document from the Vatican may be one to consider.

I see absolutely *nothing *in the document using St. John of the Cross as a source or reference. The document is discussing some of the changes in pontifical “liturgical celebrations”…and I have seen modern pontifical liturgical celebrations, and I have seen the inside of St. Peter’s Basillica, and I still see all those “catholic” things whose removal you are using St. John of the Cross to promote and defend. So unless you want to say that the Vatican itself is not spiritually “advanced”, you may want to reconsider your position. It is not good to twist portions of a 15th century saint’s writings to defend some of the novelties and abuses that have been thrust upon 20th century Catholics.

St. John of the Cross, Pray For Us!

Incidentally, have you studied St. John’s works to know authoritatively of what he speaks?

If you mean have I studied St. John of the Cross in depth at the mercy of a secularized and modernized and ecumenized American Catholic School system - then no, I’m afraid I haven’t. I’m just your average run of the mill lowly faithful Catholic laymen who knows enough about the faith to see when someone is misrepresenting it.

So while I probably don’t have any authority to speak of such things in your eyes, l’ll only hearken you to listen to the Church. And since it seems you didn’t want to comment on the Council of Trent’s declarations previously given, I’ll provide you with just a few passages from the current Catechism:
CCC 1161 All the signs in the liturgical celebrations are related to Christ: as are sacred images of the holy Mother of God and of the saints as well. They truly signify Christ, who is glorified in them. They make manifest the "cloud of witnesses"29 who continue to participate in the salvation of the world and to whom we are united, above all in sacramental celebrations. Through their icons, it is man “in the image of God,” finally transfigured "into his likeness,"30 who is revealed to our faith. So too are the angels, who also are recapitulated in Christ:

Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on streets.31

CCC 1162 "The beauty of the images moves me to contemplation, as a meadow delights the eyes and subtly infuses the soul with the glory of God."32 Similarly, the contemplation of sacred icons, united with meditation on the Word of God and the singing of liturgical hymns, enters into the harmony of the signs of celebration so that the mystery celebrated is imprinted in the heart’s memory and is then expressed in the new life of the faithful.

Rykell:

Some who have

would disagree wholeheartedly with you.

Obviously. I’m glad I have 2000 years of constant Catholic teaching and tradition on my side. Whew!!!

DustinsDad

 

[Rykell]

I’m glad I have 2000 years of constant Catholic teaching and tradition on my side. Whew!!!

Me, too DustinsDad, I’m glad you are not like the rest of “those.” Maybe you could say a prayer for me, a sinner.

 

[leonie]

I’m a little dismayed that my musings on the differences in people’s tolerances and desires for things liturgical has turned into an another debate on liturgy.



It just seems to me that those who are intensely concerned with liturgy sometimes seem overbearing to those who don’t seem to have the same intensity.

And, conversely, those who aren’t as indignant as some over matters of liturgy don’t seem to understand the former. They dismiss them as liturgical fanatics.

So, I thought perhaps that if each “side” understood that God is calling us to different spiritualities (not one superior over another) it might help us to have better discussions.

But, I’m not sure now that this premise is valid. I’m kind of thinking that so much depends on one’s education and spiritual journey that it’s too complicated to say that God has put some kind of special sensitivity in some.

That’s as clear as mud, isn’t it?

 

[MikeDunphy]

I’m glad I have 2000 years of constant Catholic teaching and tradition on my side. Whew!!!

Very comical, Rykell. So you are hinting that you will go home justified, while DustinsDad will not. How confident are you that you have assigned the roles of publican and Pharisee correctly in this amusing little vignette which you have set up?

leonie it was a good thought, no matter how it worked out.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Excellent points, DustinsDad, and couldn’t agree more with the quote from the Council of Trent. I also understand that St. John of the Cross was a very good spiritual counselor and realized that each soul is different. Thus I would find it hard to believe that he would, say, take a prayer card image away from a Catholic and toss it in order to lead them to a greater level of contemplation.

Further, it is one thing to move beyond the images and statues to contemplation (we are supposed to go beyond them to the heavenly reality they represent), it is quite another thing to remove those images and statues and seriously believe you’re helping the spiritual life of the average Catholic.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I have found from experience that there are some souls who are more sensitive to the liturgy and place more weight on it. For instance, sometimes I hear something to the effect that the liturgy doesn’t really matter (as long as it’s done properly), as the liturgy is a secondary, small “t” tradition. And to that I tend to think that someone may as well tell me that catechesis just isn’t that important (as long as it’s not heretical) since it is not the Faith itself.

I think artistic souls (I’m not saying I’m one) have one of the most difficult times with the new liturgy. If I hear that the new liturgy (as commonly experienced today and not as a near-duplicate of the Old Mass) is just as beautiful or reverent as the old liturgy (as long as the rubrics are done correctly), then to me it is pretty much the equivalent of someone walking up to me and telling me that really, Britney Spears’ music is just as good as Mozart’s. It’s really all personal preference.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

One reason for a lack of sensitivity to the liturgy, at least in the U.S., may be that we are not raised in a culture noted for its beauty. If one, for instance, is raised with great music, great art, great literature, there will be a greater chance that he will be able to discern more mediocre forms of art. I think it’s noteworthy that in England Evelyn Waugh (author of Brideshead Revisited) disliked the new liturgy immensely. See,

“A Bitter Trial: Evelyn Waugh and John Carmel Cardinal Heenan on the Liturgical Changes”.

Available from St. Michael’s Abbey here (at the top of the page):

http://www.theabbeyshop.com/ProductTree.php?CategoryID=48&PPP=&SP=0

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I must also note what became known as the “Agatha Christie Indult.” In the late 1960’s, various artists from around the world signed a petition to Pope Paul VI asking him not to abolish the Old Rite and to at least let it survive alongside the New. Here is the petition:

“If some senseless decree were to order the total or partial destruction of basilicas or cathedrals, then obviously it would be the educated - whatever their personal beliefs - who would rise up in horror to oppose such a possibility. Now the fact is that basilicas and cathedrals were built so as to celebrate a rite which, until a few months ago, constituted a living tradition. We are referring to the Roman Catholic Mass. Yet, according to the latest information in Rome, there is a plan to obliterate that Mass by the end of the current year. One of the axioms of contemporary publicity, religious as well as secular, is that modern man in general, and intellectuals in particular, have become intolerant of all forms of tradition and are anxious to suppress them and put something else in their place. But, like many other affirmations of our publicity machines, this axiom is false. Today, as in times gone by, educated people are in the vanguard where recognition of the value of tradition in concerned, and are the first to raise the alarm when it is threatened. We are not at this moment considering the religious or spiritual experience of millions of individuals. The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts - not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians. In the materialistic and technocratic civilisation that is increasingly threatening the life of mind and spirit in its original creative expression - the word - it seems particularly inhuman to deprive man of word-forms in one of their most grandiose manifestations. The signatories of this appeal, which is entirely ecumenical and non-political, have been drawn from every branch of modern culture in Europe and elsewhere. They wish to call to the attention of the Holy See, the appalling responsibility it would incur in the history of the human spirit were it to refuse to allow the Traditional Mass to survive, even though this survival took place side by side with other liturgical reforms.”

One can see the names of the signatories here:

latin-mass-society.org/themil.htm

It became called the “Agatha Christie Indult” because apparently Pope Paul VI saw her name on the petition and she was one of his favorite authors and he granted an indult to England (since Cardinal Heenan had presented the petition).

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

One person who I think has written very well on the topic of the liturgy is Dietrich von Hildebrand. I would consider him an artistic soul. Here is “The Case for the Latin Mass”:

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

Peter Kreeft also wrote an article which bears on this subject.

The Politics of Architecture:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9611/opinion/kreeft.html

 

[JButky]

It just seems to me that those who are intensely concerned with liturgy sometimes seem overbearing to those who don’t seem to have the same intensity.

And, conversely, those who aren’t as indignant as some over matters of liturgy don’t seem to understand the former. They dismiss them as liturgical fanatics.

So, I thought perhaps that if each “side” understood that God is calling us to different spiritualities (not one superior over another) it might help us to have better discussions.

But, I’m not sure now that this premise is valid…

I would tend to agree that your premise is probably not valid. Your observation is probably correct, however, although we are given different spiritual gifts, talking about the feelings about liturgy and what’s really proper to it are separate things.

Denial of our carnal desires helps us to approach the humility required to grow spiritually. These desires and gifts do not govern what is proper, but should allow us to battle against our inherent failings to struggle with what is proper.

There is only one Catholic spirituality to which we struggle to apply our unique Spiritual gifts. It is only our carnal desires that get in the way of that. That’s why we have the Church to guide us into the proper way and to walk down that difficult, narrow road and hopefully enter the gate.

The only reason we have “sides” taken is because we lack humility in varying capacities to seek real truth.

Joe B

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I’m a little dismayed that my musings on the differences in people’s tolerances and desires for things liturgical has turned into an another debate on liturgy.



It just seems to me that those who are intensely concerned with liturgy sometimes seem overbearing to those who don’t seem to have the same intensity.

And, conversely, those who aren’t as indignant as some over matters of liturgy don’t seem to understand the former. They dismiss them as liturgical fanatics.

So, I thought perhaps that if each “side” understood that God is calling us to different spiritualities (not one superior over another) it might help us to have better discussions.

But, I’m not sure now that this premise is valid. I’m kind of thinking that so much depends on one’s education and spiritual journey that it’s too complicated to say that God has put some kind of special sensitivity in some.

That’s as clear as mud, isn’t it?

Leonie:

If you study the Old Testament, you will see curious things. For example, Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu got drunk and offered incense inappropriately. God struck them down in the tabernacle, forbade Aaron to morn them and made a rule that priests couldn’t drink. Here’s another example, David did not bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem on the shoulders of the Levites as God had ordained it should be. Uzziah (?) thought it was going to fall as it swayed in the cart it was being transported in. Touching the Ark was widely known to be forbidden, but Uzziah reached out and touched it. God struck him down. It seems to me that God does take proper liturgy very seriously, particularly as it effects the Mass.

Marsha

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Liturgy is often a divisive issue among devout Catholics. I’ve often wondered if some people’s souls have been designed to be more sensitive to liturgy. It makes sense to me since some people in general seem to need more beauty around them.

Or, is it a matter of formation? Are some of us not well trained or conditioned to expect beautiful liturgy? Are we dumbed down?

I can only speak from a Protestant childhood, but my experience among Cs and Ps alike (who have each undergone certain changes in architecture and prevailing worship styles) is this: EXTREMELY BROADLY SPEAKING–yes, yes, exceptions abound–I find that older people who grew up in ornate churches and traditional liturgies tend to underappreciate them, or to oppose them in the same sense in which a teenage may oppose his parents’ values. AGAIN, BROADLY SPEAKING, among Christians who grew up after the stripping-down of cathedral and liturgy, there’s a tendency to regret a past richness that one was never allowed to experience personally, like heirlooms that one’s parents threw away to make a “clean start” for themselves, posterity be damned.

Now, perhaps the latter group wouldn’t appreciate such things any better had they been permitted to grow up among them. But when you grow up in churches that resemble stripped-down auditoriums, and when the language you hear is informed by the “Spirit of V2” or is the dulcet Amway-ese of evangelical Christianity, a fellow becomes downright starved for beauty, and is tempted to resent his immediate predecessors’ judgment that he’d be better off without it. The fevered contemporaneity of much Christian worship seems like aggression not only against one’s grandfathers, but against one’s grandchildren. The “simple austerity” that many Christians chose for themselves looks different to their successors who never knew its converse.