My thoughts: Reflections on Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s presentation, “What’s Really Required for a “Eucharistic Revival: Rethinking How We Approach the Holy Eucharist” 9 December 2022 Sacred Heart Church, Savannah, Georgia
The premise on which Dr. Kwasniewski’s talk seems to me to be: The changes in the liturgy are the cause of the problems we face in the Church today. Returning to the liturgies of the past will bring about the changes in the Church that are needed. My comments: Kwasniewski looks at the Church in isolation from the larger society. This is a fundamental error. It is a misdiagnosis of the problem and, therefore, he presents a significantly flawed prescription for the remedy. Although the Church is in the world but not of it, we are necessarily impacted and influenced by what goes on around us. This is both good and bad. The problems we face in the Church today are same problems that are being encountered by 1) society at large, 2) civic social service organizations, 3) fraternal organizations, and, most significantly, 4) many other mainline denominations. The influence of the world, when Kwasniewski likes it, he admires. Much of our art and architecture, our language and the rituals, were adapted from the secular culture. Latin was used not because it was somehow ordained by God, but because it was the language of the literate/educated which included most of the clergy. The papal court was adapted from the practices of the secular monarchs. Kwasniewski’s error is in thinking that there is an exclusively INTERNAL cause to the decline in attendance and subsequent decline in acceptance or belief in Catholic doctrines. He seems to think that if we had changed nothing in the liturgy, we would have been entirely capable of rejecting any and all influences from the secular world. Inasmuch as these declines are seen across the board in American society, and inasmuch as the changes in our liturgy cannot have resulted in the declines in Protestant denominations, social service organizations, or fraternal organizations, his assertions that the changes are the reason for the problems and a return to previous liturgies will fix the problems is well off the mark.
Father Kavanaugh said..."Returning to the liturgies of the past will bring about the changes in the Church that are needed."
Father Kavanaugh, did Peter Kwasniewski state the year to which he wishes to return in regard to the Liturgy? He has denounced Popes Venerable Pius XII's, as well as Saint Pius X's, liturgical reforms.
Therefore, to what year must we return the Roman Liturgy?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas.
Peter Kwasniewski: "Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church. I know that it’s painful for many good Catholics to admit that it is a corrupt and corrosive document, but we must judge the tree by its fruits."
Pope Saint John Paul II: "The Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium is the expression of the unanimous voice of the College of Bishops gathered around the Successor of Peter and with the help of the Spirit of Truth promised by the Lord Jesus."
"Indeed, in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the first fruit of the Second Vatican Council, that "great grace bestowed on the Church in the 20th century", the Holy Spirit spoke to the Church, ceaselessly guiding the disciples of the Lord "into all the truth."
My own perspective is that the TLM should have been allowed to flourish as it was but with more involvement of bishops (who should know how to celebrate it) and pastors of parishes to keep the ecclesial union of the laity closely linked to the bishop and the pope. BTW, this should happen too in every Catholic parish with whatever form of the Mass is celebrated and extremes in ecclesial nonsense, especially modern silliness like that at St. Sabina’s in Chicago, should be suppressed. Eventually, with both forms celebrated and new Missal, actually faithful to what Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium requested, meaning the current reformed missal would not be recognized by SC, should come forward, more TLM in character, but with as much vernacular as possible or better yet, the exclusive use of the Roman Canon in Latin with its traditional rubrics.
Hate to disagree with St. John Paul it was not unanimous but 4 bishops voted against SS - history has proven this tiny number of bishops to be prophetic
I am unsure as to what year Peter Kwasniewski demands that we must return liturgically.
The Church, of course, will not accommodate such nonsense. But he will continue as a liturgical warmonger.
Is there any way to satisfy Kwasniewski in regard to liturgy?
-- He has denounced the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
-- He denounced Summorum Pontificum...which he claimed that Pope Benedict XVI had packed with "lies" to accomplish that which Kwasniewski has deemed impossible: That is, the peaceful coexistence of the TLM, as well as Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
-- He has denounced Pope Venerable Pius XII's liturgical reforms.
-- He denounced Pope Venerable Pius XII as a Pontiff who had inflicted "violence" upon the Roman Liturgy.
-- He has denounced Pope Saint Pius X's liturgical reforms.
Mark, the pastor of Sacred Heart arranged and approved of his lecture and invited his entire parish and others in the diocese to attend. It is part of the listening Church Pope Francis desires where many different points of view are voiced, questions asked and consensus gained. Sacred Heart has a Spanish Mass, Modern English Mass and a Folk Mass in additional to the TLM each Sunday. And it works in that parish where ideologies about the TLM or the MRM are not pronounced in anyway whatsoever. That was my experience too at St. Joseph Church in Macon and St. Anne Church in Richmond Hill. Progressive parishes, like these three, are the way to go.
mark - Kawsniewski's lecture was titled, "“What’s Really Required for a ‘Eucharistic Revival’: Rethinking How We Approach the Holy Eucharist”. As I understand him, there is not Revival possible without a return to the pre-1962 liturgies in toto.
Of course, in this regard, Kwasniewski places himself outside of progressive main line thinking in the Church, that progressive parishes can celebrate a variety of forms of the Mass to include the TLM and that this is true Eucharistic Revival. Certainly, though, Kwasniewski places himself outside of Pope Benedict’s thinking, where both forms of the Mass, TLM and MRM exert mutual gravitational pull on each other leading to a new Roman Missal and true Eucharistic Revival. Aspect of the TLM applied to the MRM of course will lead to a true Eucharistic Revival—the Benedictine altar arrangement, even when celebrating toward the nave, kneeling for Holy Communion and what Pope Francis recently reiterated, silence before and after Mass in the nave of the Church. These three things, aspects of the TLM will lead to a true Eucharistic Revival among other aspect that the MRM exerts in a positive way.
"...progressive parishes can celebrate a variety of forms of the Mass to include the TLM and that this is true Eucharistic Revival.
I don't think that celebrating various rites or forms of rites constitutes Eucharistic Revival.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald, you seem to fall into Kwasniewski's error in thinking that making minor (how candles are arranged on the altar) adjustments or major (return to pre-1962 liturgies completely) reversals is going to bring about reform in the belief and behavior of Catholics.
Lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of liturgical prayer includes its externals and finery, as well as the direction of prayer and traditions associated with the liturgy. Surely you will want to withdraw your nixing of the law of prayer is the law of belief.
Always amusing to hear from the priest heavily invested in the liturgical failure who will not explain why only about 30% of those who bother to go to the Novus Ordo believe in the Real Presence. Kind of like listening to the Germans on what constitutes Catholicism. He’s The Mark Thomas of the clerical class
16 comments:
3,2,1…arrival of cut and paste man with a barrage of non sequiturs but no reasoned analysis
I attended, out of curiosity, this presentation.
My thoughts: Reflections on Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s presentation, “What’s Really Required for a “Eucharistic Revival: Rethinking How We Approach the Holy Eucharist” 9 December 2022 Sacred Heart Church, Savannah, Georgia
The premise on which Dr. Kwasniewski’s talk seems to me to be:
The changes in the liturgy are the cause of the problems we face in the Church today. Returning to the liturgies of the past will bring about the changes in the Church that are needed.
My comments:
Kwasniewski looks at the Church in isolation from the larger society. This is a fundamental error. It is a misdiagnosis of the problem and, therefore, he presents a significantly flawed prescription for the remedy.
Although the Church is in the world but not of it, we are necessarily impacted and influenced by what goes on around us. This is both good and bad. The problems we face in the Church today are same problems that are being encountered by 1) society at large, 2) civic social service organizations, 3) fraternal organizations, and, most significantly, 4) many other mainline denominations.
The influence of the world, when Kwasniewski likes it, he admires. Much of our art and architecture, our language and the rituals, were adapted from the secular culture. Latin was used not because it was somehow ordained by God, but because it was the language of the literate/educated which included most of the clergy. The papal court was adapted from the practices of the secular monarchs. Kwasniewski’s error is in thinking that there is an exclusively INTERNAL cause to the decline in attendance and subsequent decline in acceptance or belief in Catholic doctrines. He seems to think that if we had changed nothing in the liturgy, we would have been entirely capable of rejecting any and all influences from the secular world.
Inasmuch as these declines are seen across the board in American society, and inasmuch as the changes in our liturgy cannot have resulted in the declines in Protestant denominations, social service organizations, or fraternal organizations, his assertions that the changes are the reason for the problems and a return to previous liturgies will fix the problems is well off the mark.
Fr K,
The same old song and dance that the sentient do not buy
Father Kavanaugh said..."Returning to the liturgies of the past will bring about the changes in the Church that are needed."
Father Kavanaugh, did Peter Kwasniewski state the year to which he wishes to return in regard to the Liturgy? He has denounced Popes Venerable Pius XII's, as well as Saint Pius X's, liturgical reforms.
Therefore, to what year must we return the Roman Liturgy?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas.
Peter Kwasniewski: "Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church. I know that it’s painful for many good Catholics to admit that it is a corrupt and corrosive document, but we must judge the tree by its fruits."
Pope Saint John Paul II: "The Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium is the expression of the unanimous voice of the College of Bishops gathered around the Successor of Peter and with the help of the Spirit of Truth promised by the Lord Jesus."
"Indeed, in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the first fruit of the Second Vatican Council, that "great grace bestowed on the Church in the 20th century", the Holy Spirit spoke to the Church, ceaselessly guiding the disciples of the Lord "into all the truth."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
mark - I don't recall that he mentioned a specific date.
My own perspective is that the TLM should have been allowed to flourish as it was but with more involvement of bishops (who should know how to celebrate it) and pastors of parishes to keep the ecclesial union of the laity closely linked to the bishop and the pope. BTW, this should happen too in every Catholic parish with whatever form of the Mass is celebrated and extremes in ecclesial nonsense, especially modern silliness like that at St. Sabina’s in Chicago, should be suppressed. Eventually, with both forms celebrated and new Missal, actually faithful to what Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium requested, meaning the current reformed missal would not be recognized by SC, should come forward, more TLM in character, but with as much vernacular as possible or better yet, the exclusive use of the Roman Canon in Latin with its traditional rubrics.
Hate to disagree with St. John Paul it was not unanimous but 4 bishops voted against SS - history has proven this tiny number of bishops to be prophetic
Father Kavanaugh, thank you for your reply.
I am unsure as to what year Peter Kwasniewski demands that we must return liturgically.
The Church, of course, will not accommodate such nonsense. But he will continue as a liturgical warmonger.
Is there any way to satisfy Kwasniewski in regard to liturgy?
-- He has denounced the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
-- He denounced Summorum Pontificum...which he claimed that Pope Benedict XVI had packed with "lies" to accomplish that which Kwasniewski has deemed impossible: That is, the peaceful coexistence of the TLM, as well as Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
-- He has denounced Pope Venerable Pius XII's liturgical reforms.
-- He denounced Pope Venerable Pius XII as a Pontiff who had inflicted "violence" upon the Roman Liturgy.
-- He has denounced Pope Saint Pius X's liturgical reforms.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father Kavanaugh, do you know as to whether Peter Kwasniewski's lecture had been sponsored by the parish's TLM community?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the Novus Ordo has been a flop other than on the planet you live on
Mark, the pastor of Sacred Heart arranged and approved of his lecture and invited his entire parish and others in the diocese to attend. It is part of the listening Church Pope Francis desires where many different points of view are voiced, questions asked and consensus gained. Sacred Heart has a Spanish Mass, Modern English Mass and a Folk Mass in additional to the TLM each Sunday. And it works in that parish where ideologies about the TLM or the MRM are not pronounced in anyway whatsoever. That was my experience too at St. Joseph Church in Macon and St. Anne Church in Richmond Hill. Progressive parishes, like these three, are the way to go.
mark - Kawsniewski's lecture was titled, "“What’s Really Required for a ‘Eucharistic Revival’: Rethinking How We Approach the Holy Eucharist”. As I understand him, there is not Revival possible without a return to the pre-1962 liturgies in toto.
Of course, in this regard, Kwasniewski places himself outside of progressive main line thinking in the Church, that progressive parishes can celebrate a variety of forms of the Mass to include the TLM and that this is true Eucharistic Revival. Certainly, though, Kwasniewski places himself outside of Pope Benedict’s thinking, where both forms of the Mass, TLM and MRM exert mutual gravitational pull on each other leading to a new Roman Missal and true Eucharistic Revival. Aspect of the TLM applied to the MRM of course will lead to a true Eucharistic Revival—the Benedictine altar arrangement, even when celebrating toward the nave, kneeling for Holy Communion and what Pope Francis recently reiterated, silence before and after Mass in the nave of the Church. These three things, aspects of the TLM will lead to a true Eucharistic Revival among other aspect that the MRM exerts in a positive way.
"...progressive parishes can celebrate a variety of forms of the Mass to include the TLM and that this is true Eucharistic Revival.
I don't think that celebrating various rites or forms of rites constitutes Eucharistic Revival.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald, you seem to fall into Kwasniewski's error in thinking that making minor (how candles are arranged on the altar) adjustments or major (return to pre-1962 liturgies completely) reversals is going to bring about reform in the belief and behavior of Catholics.
Lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of liturgical prayer includes its externals and finery, as well as the direction of prayer and traditions associated with the liturgy. Surely you will want to withdraw your nixing of the law of prayer is the law of belief.
Always amusing to hear from the priest heavily invested in the liturgical failure who will not explain why only about 30% of those who bother to go to the Novus Ordo believe in the Real Presence. Kind of like listening to the Germans on what constitutes Catholicism. He’s The Mark Thomas of the clerical class
Post a Comment