“Dr. Kwasniewski’s latest book will present challenges both to those who agree with him and to those who disagree with him. For those who agree with him, his evidence and arguments ask, ‘Can you see your way to embrace all of the implications of this book?’ For those who disagree, his evidence and arguments ask, ‘State for the record your superior evidence and the arguments that justify your disagreement.’ Dr. Kwasniewski has produced a volume that demands a verdict. Agree or disagree with this work as you see fit—but it cannot with integrity be dismissed or ignored.”
—FR. ROBERT MCTEIGUE, S.J., host of The Catholic Current via the Station of the Cross Catholic Media Network; author of Real Philosophy for Real People and Christendom Lost and Found
This comment, from the dust cover, is directly on target. Dr. K has made a case. If you disagree, you have to refute what he wrote.
If it is Thursday, or any day of the week, don’t get caught napping because Dr. K might have another book.
This time its:
Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn’t Broken and the New Mass Can’t Be Fixed by Peter A. Kwasniewski
RELEASES 26 FEBRUARY 10% off
You can pre-order from Angelico press. I’ll have other links for you as well as they become available.
Here is the table of contents.
I’ve been spot reading according to topics that catch my eye in the ToC.
However, it’s good to start at the beginning, since that is where good writers front load important concepts, helpful for reading the rest of the world.
In the Preface he lays out what he trying to do (my emphases and comments throughout):
As the subtitle of this book indicates, we are concerned here with two major issues: the soundness of the inherited Roman rite of the Mass, and the unsoundness of the new rite of Paul VI. Going, in a sense, from the more known (the fiasco of the new rite) to what is less known (the perfection of the old), the first part of this book will address the new Mass and the second part, the traditional Mass. Part I will explain why a ‘reform of the reform” is not possible without altogether deconstructing the modern rite and, in a sense, trying to re-engineer the goods of the old rite out of materials poorly suited to or incapable of such a transformation; [Again and again I have heard well-meaning priests say that what is needed is the Novus Ordo with elements of the Vetus Ordo. That ignores the vast question that instantly looms: If the Novus Ordo is to be “improved” with elements of the Vetus, why not just use the Vetus and cut out the confused middle?] that smells and bells can only cover up, not correct, the enormous problems embedded in the new rite, since these problems are genetic and not cosmetic in nature; and that even the quest for a “reverent celebration”—assuming it is not obstructed by hostile forces [Has anyone heard lately of bishops forbidding kneeling to receive Communion?] — involves serious spiritual dangers for both clergy and faithful. As for Part II, it is not this book’s purpose to demonstrate in detail all the glories and perfections of the traditional rite and to respond to the arguments people never cease to hurl against it; this I have done in several other works, notably
Turned Around: Replying to the Most Common Objections Against the Traditional Latin Mass (TAN Books, 2,014). Here, I will concentrate on how proposals to reform the old rite as well as pastoral experiments undertaken in our times to ‘improve” it or to ‘make it more relevant to the people” are contrary to the genius of the rite and disruptive to the communities that celebrate it, and, moreover, that the old rite has sufficient built-in “flexibility” to make itself at home in a great diversity of situations. The key aspect over which there is control is the ars celebrandi, that is, the manner in which the old rite is offered; and in that regard, I will indeed argue that we must take pains to celebrate it well,….
In short, Dr. K argues that the Novus Ordo is flawed to the point that it shouldn’t be used and that the Vetus Ordo (the term I prefer) has always been flexible and able to accomplish what the Novus Ordo was allegedly intended to do.
I maintain that one thing that we have gained from our time in the wilderness is an appreciation of the fact that there are people in the pews, and there is a knock on effect on them by how the priest celebrates Holy Mass. This is one dimension of the polyvalent catch-phrase I often use: “We are our rites!”
Also, in the Preface, and this point merits more than mention in a footnote. This echoes my frequent observation about how some people of a certain age, who lived in those iconic and halcyon days of change and rebellion against authority, are trigged by the sight of a biretta and become more tyrannical than the fictitious tyrants they fought against in their youth:
The bitterness, resentment, and anger of elderly clergy and religious towards the revival of traditional Catholicism in our day is at least partially connected with the psychological abuse visited upon them in the sixties, when they were coerced into conformity with a new paradigm that was presented as an unrepealable replacement of the Tridentine inheritance. When they see young people now happily taking hold of these things again as if the trauma of the conciliar and postconciliar period had never happened and as if their own sufferings were in vain), it must be like salt and vinegar in the wounds. One should not overlook, as well, the Stockholm syndrome. See Peter Kwasniewski, Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico Press).
The growing desire for the Vetus Ordo and other expressions of traditional Catholicism must be a constant reminder of their failed experiments and, thus, possibly, wasted years.
In Dr. K’s part about Sacrosanctum Concilium, I note especially these points.
Let’s start with this:
On the whole, Sacrosanctum Concilium is marred by two errors: the rationalist assumption that things must always be easily understood by us, [This has been my constant observation for some 30 years now!] and the neo-Pelagian implication that we—or rather, the pope and his favored commission—are the primary architects of our worship, the ones who can build a better liturgy by our own efforts, even as post-World War H statesmen flattered themselves into thinking they could build a better world under the benevolent guidance of the United Nations.
Let’s tie that together with this:
This ancient tradition, like so many others, was abandoned in the 196os as part of the “extreme makeover” of the Church’s worship by committees that invented what they thought the world now needed, and suppressed what they thought it had outgrown. That is completely contrary to the way the liturgy has always been treated: as an inheritance to be proudly maintained and jealously protected. How could such a thing have happened? A purge and fabrication of this magnitude arose from the belief that Modern Man is essentially different from his predecessors, to such an extent that what past generations possessed and made use of can no longer be assumed profitable to modern people. This belief, as false as the day is long, dovetailed with the mania for system and method characteristic of modern times: with enough taxpayer dollars and enough government committees, we can build a better world—or, in this case, with enough “experts” backed by conciliar and papal muscle, we can build a better worship.
Yes, this puts a finger on a big part of the disaster that has resulted in sacred worship and our Catholic identity. It is also at the core of the antinomianism which is rampant (except when the powerful want to punish or suppress – and then they don’t use proper procedure by violate law right and left and in between).
Sound familiar? “We are no longer like peasants or slaves who have to grovel before a king. We are grown up Easter People who should stand for Communion and receive the Host like adults, rather than subservient children from a patronizing master.”
Contrast that with the left’s hyperpapalism, papalotry. “When the Pope says something, you must obey perinde ac cadaver! Never question. Just grovel and obey.”
Dr. K concludes this section with a helpful, hopeful truth:
“As St. Thomas Aquinas argues, following St. Augustine and other Church Fathers, God would not permit an evil unless He wills to bring forth from it a greater good.”
Like Tolkien’s “eucatastrophe”. Like the felix culpa.
I could go at this book like this section by section. Just get and read it.
Loading ...
I hate the vibe this book gives off, [The vibe of the book you haven’t touched or read? o{];¬) ] and think it comes dangerously close to the kind of personalising rhetoric we hate from Francis. Sorry, but “can you see the implications” is way too manipulative.
I love the vetus order and completely agree with the many points Dr Kwasniewski makes in its favour. But the novus order doesn’t need to be “fixed”, it is a rite approved by the pope as an implementation of a Council, the idea that the Holy Spirit is not acting in it is preposterous. So the idea that we need to refute arguments against it is frankly contemptible. If Dr K is correct (and he may well be) it will decline by itself, and pot stirring books seem only to puff some people’s pride and pique others’ resentment.
I tend to think that more info is a good thing. If that is “pot stirring”, then so be it.
14. Too Many Saints – Too Many Intersessors ?
Those darn pesky Intercessors .
Is that like- Too Many Signs of the Cross ?
13 Just say No to ’65 — and ’62
That’s one reason why I won’t be bothering to read the book, or indeed anything else by Dr K .
Now a chapter on why Sarum is superior to 1570 would be another matter ;-)
Just because a thing is done by the hierarchy (like, say, bringing in a manufactured rite of Mass), doesn’t mean that the hierarchy has been guided by the Holy Spirit in doing it. The hierarchy, and even the Pope, can reject the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to do their own thing just as easily as anyone else can.
And what never gets explained is why an artificially-created rite that is less than 60 years old deserves the same level of veneration as the centuries-old rite that preceded it.
I agree with a lot of what Dr K says. But I disagree with his argument that there is no benefit to a “reverent celebration” of the Mass in the Novus Ordo.
The use of Latin, incense, Sanctus bells, and a reverent ars celebrandi in general are explicitly not contrary to the rubrics, nor a waste of effort. They are not merely cosmetic extras.
He goes too far, in disdaining the efforts of many priests and lay people to celebrate Mass revererently if it is not in the old rite.
He does nothing to acknowledge the real accomplishments of those who have labored long and well in the vineyard, maintaining reverence and correcting errors in the celebration of Mass. He argues that we should return to the 1962 ritual, or to prior rituals. Fine. Make the argument. But he goes beyond that, belittling efforts to celebrate the Novus Ordo well. He makes his “perfect” the enemy of the good.
I sometimes don’t like Dr. K’s tone or method, but this comment is just impossible:
But the novus order doesn’t need to be “fixed”, it is a rite approved by the pope as an implementation of a Council,
But so too was the Vetus Ordo: it was a rite approved by (many) popes, and particularly by Pope St. Pius V following the directives of a Council. So, by that logic, it too could not possibly need to be fixed.?! Yet another Council declared that it needed reform. So: an approved rite can need reform.
Also, the Novus Ordo was implemented after the Council, but in concrete details it failed to BE the reform demanded by the Council, because the committee expressly repudiated the norms the Council laid down for the reform. The mere fact that it came after the Council isn’t proof that it was what the Council asked for.
the idea that the Holy Spirit is not acting in it is preposterous.
This is a failure to distinguish: the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS acting, at all times and in all cases. Sometimes an event occurs because the Spirit makes it happen, but other times it (sin) happens in spite of God’s will, because God’s will permits sin and other bad things to happen. (Sin is never God’s doing, but it happens under God’s will because His plan accounts for it.) That something happens in the Church is not evidence that it was not sin or error. The committee’s proposed mass that they offered up to Paul VI had grave problems with it, that he felt forced to change. It had other problems which Paul apparently felt weren’t bad enough to block. The official implementation was clumsy. The runaway unofficial implementation took liberties never approved and clearly in violation of all norms. The idea that the Holy Spirit wanted and inspired men to flout the explicit directives of the Council, law and rubrics is what is preposterous.
There is an article at Rorate Caeli today titled “Cristina Campo — and The World of Tradition”, by Roberto de Mattei. It has this unforgettable line that she wrote in 1966:
“The spark of conversion can be struck by a single perfect liturgical gesture.”
What, exactly, is “the guidance of the Holy Spirit”, and therefore, the rejection thereof?
It bears a lot of similarity to the various fads among health/well-being fanatics, that try to shutdown struggling people with insinuations they “aren’t trying hard enough”, or “clearly need an extra-strict diet”, “not thinking positively enough”, etc. It passes all blame onto the complainant for having a problem in the first place, rather than addressing the issue they’re experiencing.
Is everyone supposed to just think the same thing, and if they don’t, they’re rejecting the Holy Spirit? (Sounds a bit like the “Spirit of V2” stuff we keep hearing about). Should there be clear and unmistakable signs? A path that is more easily trodden? A whisper in the ear? Could all of this be just as easily confused as the work of the forces of evil?
To “ex seaxe”:
What are you objecting to? That I critique the 1962 missal and favor the pre-55? I would think a Sarum supporter would be all in favor of that. And, by the way, I mention Sarum favorably too.
To “haydn seeker”:
You write: <>
Would it make any difference to you if Joseph Ratzinger questioned the idea that the Holy Spirit picks popes, guides Councils, and rubber-stamps committees? Or that we have more than a few priests, bishops, and cardinals saying that the Novus Ordo can be improved, even in its texts and rubrics — i.e., has problems that need to be “fixed”?
I don’t think it can be fixed, but it’s not presumptuous to see that it would need a lot of fixing to become what worship ought to be, as the Catholic Church has offered it across the centuries.
For more, read:
https://onepeterfive.com/games-holy-spirit/
As a reply to @ex seaxe above, the 1962 missal includes the post 1955 changes that were the beginning of the “tinkeritis” that brought us the Novus Ordo, brought about by Fr. Annibal Bugnini himself. But I am sure the book will do a better job of explaining this.
I try to do the Lauds and Vespers of the daily office each day and I recently switched from the 1962 to the 1954 version and found a wealth of prayers that had been cut out by the 1955 changes, such as additional octaves, Marian prayers at the end of the office etc.
Does he have anything to say about the Divine Office?
@haydn seeker
I have not read this book. I have read other things this dr K, and share the feeling.
Welcome Prof Kwasniewski to join this conversation.
@Fr. Reader, @haydn seeker
I share the same sentiment.
The table of contents reads rather inflammatory, and if the opening move is to liken Sacrosanctum Concilium to a trojan horse, which puts this in dangerous waters from the get-go. Say what you will about what weird things done afterwards, but have some humiliy when challenging an Ecumenical Council. As it goes, we had more Arian heretic bishops after Nicea than beforehand, and it took about 100 years for things to settle down. We are just about 60 years in at this point. Writing it off now is rather premature.
Not that I think the 1955 reforms were all good ideas (i.e. losing Hallowe’en, and setting it adrift in the 20th century, kinda screwed that day up permanently), but the state of things in pre-1955 had plenty of ‘nobody knows why we do this anymore’ problems (e.g. an Easter Vigil nobody attended), which I think greatly contributed to ‘The Purge” later on in the 60’s/70’s.
ProfKwasniewski will know the view of Fortescue, elliptically expressed as ‘ALTHOUGH High Mass, historically, is the original rite, …’, (Ceremonies …), while really thinking ‘whatever beauty interest or historic value, or dignity, the Roman rite ever had has been utterly destroyed by [the current rubricists] …’, (private letter to Stanley Morison).
And of Abp Lefebre’s view on ’65 – ‘There was something to reform and to rediscover. … these are so many good reforms that give back to that part of the Mass its true finality.’ ( Itinéraires vol 95 July-August 1965 )
These are expressions of conservative views which I share. — I would however like to see the French original of the piece in Itinéraires .
Call me an extremist. I would love to see the next Pope come out onto the balcony at St. Peter’s with the Documents of Vatican II and light them on fire.. Next declare the they are expanding the Prison Cells in the Vatican because We are expecting many new arrivals.
A good start.