Tuesday, September 15, 2020


Press title for full article from Rorate Caeli:

“Two ‘Forms’ of the Roman Rite: Liturgical Fact or Canonical Fiat?” — Full Text of Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s Norwalk Lecture

...What, then, belongs to the “personality,” the identity or inner core, of the Roman rite?

I propose at least nine crucial elements: (1) the Roman Canon; (2) the use of Latin; (3) Gregorian chant; (4) the lectionary; (5) the calendar; (6) the Offertory; (7) the ad orientem stance; (8) parallelism of liturgical action; (9) the separate communion of the priest. The first six are, in content, specific to the Roman rite, although all traditional rites, Eastern and Western, have their own analogous versions of them; while the last three of these elements, which describe not so much content as manner of worship—eastward orientation, parallelism of action, and the separate communion of the priest—are found in all traditional liturgical rites. These three deserve to be included here because they, too, sharply distinguish the Roman rite from its modern impostor...

My comments:

I personally think that it is wrong headed  to call the Ordinary Form of the Mass a "modern imposter" and it is not helpful to write this if we are to get more bishops on board who are willing to make sure that the Ordinary Form is not celebrated in such an illicit way to make it an "imposter." In other words, making sure priests "do the red and read the black."

I would say, given the development in the liturgy since Vatican II which is approved by the Magisterium of the Church, this is what constitutes the Roman or Latin Rite with two expressions, the "normative" and the "extraordinary":

1. The Canon (or Eucharistic Prayer)
2. The use of Latin or the Vernacular
3. Gregorian Chant, Polyphony or other suitable chants such as Anglican Chant or more modern idioms
4. The Lectionary
5. The Offertory
6. Ad orientem with the celebrant facing the crucifix place on or above the altar
7. The calendar
8. The seperate Communion of the priest celebrant

I intentionally leave out "the parallelism of liturgical action" as I am not sure what this means other than the choir singing at the Mass while the priest says quietly the parts they sing as though a "Low Mass". This need not be instrinic to the EF High or Solemn High Mass. Of course there is no parallelism in the Low Mass and the Diaogue Mass of the late 1950's with the 1955 Missal. 

And speaking of the Low Mass in the Extraordinary Form, there is no Gregorian Chant.

If we are to follow the Magisterium of Pope Benedict as enunciated in Summorum Pontificum and the additional letter accompanying it from His Holiness, Pope Benedict called for mutual enrichment. 
In that case, Pope Benedict already allowed the reading the Scriptures in the vernacular at an EF Low Mass and certainly these could be chanted in the vernacular at a Sung Mass with proper ecclesiatical approbation. 

And certainly in a Sung Mass in the EF the priest could join the choir in chanting their parts if simpler forms of Gregorian Chant are used and in fact, this happens in many parishes today where the EF Mass is celebrated. 

In terms of the "seperate Communion for the priest" while the "useless" repitition of the "Lord I am not worthy" is eliminated in the OF Mass, the priest in both the EF and OF must receive Holy Communion first and in both the priest is required to receive both the consecrated Host and Consecrated Wine. 

I think it boarders on the absurd to make the Lectionary in either form a matter of ideology. I prefer the Gradual to the Responsorial Psalm, but that is a matter of taste. I prefer an "epistle, Gradual and Gospel" compared to an additional "first" reading. But Scripture is Scripture and a more lavish use of Scripture in the new lectionary is not a breach but an organic development. 

As it concerns the OF Mass, mutual enrichment means making sure the Order of the Mass is the same, propers are said or chanted, the older Offertory is an option and PATFOTA are an option. In fact the model of this mutual enrichment along with a calendar more like the EF Mass is the Ordinariate's "Divine Worship, the Missal." It explicitly allows for ad orientem in the classic sense and kneeling for Holy Communion which would be a welcomed purification of the OF Mass and a return to Tradition from Novelty. 


Anonymous said...

Without getting into the subject matter of which you write, Father, those pictures capture a lot. For me, the second picture, the black and white, shows the order of the Mass and a firmness of Faith. The picture of the First Communicants "concelebrating" is really sad. That is still kind of the norm today. In my few encounters with younger priests, they have been brought up in a Church filled with aberrations. Many of them would not know how to make a mass more solemn or dignified.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I post the photos deliberately to show the problem with how the OF Mass is celebrated today. I could have, but didn't, post a photo at an attempt at inculturation in Australia where a half-naked indigenous man there does a kind of pagan dance during Mass as others look on not prayerfully in any way, but in amusement and as a curiosity. That's a big problem when that kind of inculturation is allowed into the Mass. Can that dance and vesture be allowed in a Catholic Church. I am no expert on what it signified or how it was Christianized, but maybe in some kind of popular devotion, but not the Mass.
But my point is that bishops have to tighten up on how the OF Mass is celebrated and we who love the EF Mass and the OF Mass celebrated well and in continuity with the EF Mass shoot ourselves in the foot by alienating the pope and bishops by promoting an entirely unrealistic desire to get rid of the OF for the EF. THAT SIMPLY WILL NOT HAPPEN. BE REAL!

If I were pope and I am not, will not be, cannot be, I would insist that every priest in the Latin Rite know how to celebrate the EF Mass and that all parishioners in the world be able to experience it. But they must also be able to celebrate the OF Mass and in continuity with the EF. The more bishops and priests and deacons who know how to celebrate the EF Mass, the better will the OF Mass be celebrated and an organic devlopment of it will take place.

Pierre said...

Anonymous at 7:46,

Please don’t sell the young priests short because they are far more traditional in their “ars celebrandi” than older priests. My parish and the one closest to me, have pastors in their early 30s who wear the cassock and celebrate the EF once a week and these are diocesan parishes. When celebrating the OF on Sunday, the Confiteor and the Roman Canon are used, there are bells, no girl servers, and usually a Greek Kyrie and Latin chant Sanctus and Agnus Dei are sung. They both wear beautiful vestments with the maniple!

John Nolan said...

Dr Kwasniewski's article needs to be read in full and it is not necessary to concur with all his arguments. However, even if one takes the text and rubrics of the Novus Ordo Missae at face value and in the original Latin, it is clear that it is not the Roman Rite as previously understood, as Gelineau made clear in 1967 when he said that the Roman Rite 'as we know it' had been destroyed - and he was one of the architects of its destruction.

Pope Benedict's legal fiction of two forms of a single rite is precisely that - a legal fiction. Liturgical scholars (as opposed to so-called 'liturgists') have long accepted that we are talking about two distinct rites.

It is quite possible, using the options available in the Novus Ordo, to celebrate it in such a way that it closely resembles the classic Roman Rite: in Latin, ad apsidem, and (if sung) using the Graduale Propers, and praying the Roman Canon. The Solemn Mass I attended last Sunday had all of these, plus deacon and 'subdeacon' and preceded by the old form of the Asperges. But conformity to the new Lectionary and calendar (which affects the Propers), plus rubrical differences, made it distinctively Novus Ordo.

Are we doing justice to the Novus Ordo in celebrating it in such a way? After all, one can avail oneself of the classic Roman Rite without any compromises. I can visualize a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in the vernacular and versus populum, but reverently sung using the missal chants and simple chant-based settings of the Propers and people's Ordinary which encouraged the people to join in (no hymns or prima-donna 'cantors'). I wouldn't be looking for the Roman Rite, but would see this as authentically Catholic. And it would not exclude the use of Latin where appropriate.

Perhaps some of the reformers saw this as a solution to the 'Low Mass problem'. But, ironically, you are far more likely to find an EF Low Mass than an OF Mass so celebrated. A missed opportunity?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The entire article is scholarly and certainly points to the hermeneutic of rupture as it concerns Vatican II, the most visible element being the liturgy of the Church. But my point is that if we want to move forward with a more disciplined approach to the Ordinary Form, which Pope Benedict indeed said was "contrived" that we can't do it by poking in the eye the very ones who are needed to carry it forward in an institutional way, the pope and the bishops, along with priests and deacons.

Instead of calling it a "modern imposter" and the term "imposter" is not an appropriate word to gain converts to one's point of view, why not use the words Pope Benedict used, with a bit of embellishment: "creatively contrived"?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

As well, I do think it was a mistake to do away with the three/four grades of the EF Mass, low, sung (with its variations) and Solemn Sung. If we still had those gradations, I think there would have been more OF Low Masses on Sunday. But the four hymn sandwich was so denigrated after the council that most felt if you are going to sing at Mass why not sing the Mass rather than hymns?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom Marcus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Nolan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark Thomas said...

What a dreadful, anti-Catholic article!

Peter Kwasniewski espoused a good deal of nonsense via his lecture/article in question.

He is a liturgical warmonger...a destructive force within the Church.

In regard to the anti-Novus Ordo liturgical war that the right-wing has waged for decades, Peter Kwansniewski has demonstrated, as he's done on many occasions, that he is a warmonger.

He is not a liturgical peacemaker.

Example: He labeled the Novus Ordo an "imposter." That is an horrific label for the Holy Mass of the Ordinary Form of the one Roman Rite.

He has rejected the beautiful liturgical peace plan — the peaceful coexistence of the Novus Ordo and TLM — that Pope Benedict XVI had established.

Peter Kwasniewski repeated throughout his lecture the notion that the Novus Ordo is a fake, false Mass that must be destroyed...that must be taken from the tens of millions of holy Catholics who love said Mass.

Example: Toward the end of his lecture/article, he declared:

"The Church today suffers from heart disease..She needs a heart transplant — but instead of getting a different heart, she needs to get rid of the artificial mechanical heart installed by her ill-informed doctors..."

The Novus Ordo has boomed in holy fashion throughout Africa and Asia. The Novus Ordo there has packed the pews and seminaries. But Peter Kwasniewski has desired said Mass' destruction.

Also, regardless as to his hatred of the Novus Ordo, millions of holy Catholics throughout the West love the Novus Ordo.

But as has been the case with dissenters throughout Church history, Holy Mother Church erred...whereas Peter Kwasniewski is correct.

He trumps the Magisterium.

Again, note as to how he labeled our holy Popes and Churchmen who participated in the Novus Ordo liturgical reform as "ill-informed doctors" who "transplanted" an "artificial mechanical heart" within the Body of Christ.

Those are the words of a liturgical warmonger...a mutineer.

Conversely, our very own Father McDonald is a liturgical peacemaker...a great example as to why clergy, as well as each Catholic, should adhered to Pope Benedict XVI's beautiful liturgical peace plan.

Father McDonald offers the Novus Ordo, and TLM. He treats the OF and EF with respect and dignity.

Father McDonald thinks and acts in line with Holy Mother Church.

Father McDonald, as well as priests who stand with him, feed spiritually God's children who are attached to the Novus Ordo. That applies also to God's children who are attached to the TLM.

Father McDonald, and those, clergy and otherwise, who stand with him, are liturgical peacemakers...they are the way forward for the (Latin) Church.

Peter Kwasniewski, in turn, can only offer war and mutiny against Holy Mother Church.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Peter A. Kwasniewski acknowledged something that many "traditionalists" have refused to do.

That is, Peter Kwasniewski referenced the role that Pope Venerable Pius XII played in the liturgical reform...or as Peter Kwasniewski has it, the destruction of the Roman Liturgy.

That is important for several reasons.

But first, Peter Kwasniewski, for example, said of Pope Venerable Pius XII's role in the supposed destruction of the Roman Liturgy:

-- Pope Venerable Pius XII helped "mutilate" the liturgical calendar. Peter Kwasniewski declared that the calendar:

"...had always been preserved until various reforms of the twentieth century mutilated the calendar almost past recognition, beginning with the abolition of most of the octaves and vigils by Pius XII in 1955..."

-- Peter Kwasniewski claimed also:

"Although still whispered rather than proclaimed out loud, this negative assessment is becoming more widespread among thoughtful Catholics...Summorum Pontificum has set in motion a reform, the logical principles of which will lead back before the time of Pacelli and Bugnini."

Peter Kwasniewski has shattered the "traditionalist" narrative — unless one believes that Pope Venerable Pius II was a modernist/"conspirator" in the liturgical reform — that Pope Saint Paul VI, in league with "modernists" at Vatican II, concocted a liturgical reform designed to destroy the Roman Liturgy.

Again, Pope Venerable Pius XII, years prior to Pope Saint Paul VI's reign, as well as Vatican II, had initiated destructive reforms of the Roman Liturgy, based upon claims by Peter Kwasniewski.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Popes Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Francis belonged/belong to, and presided/preside over a "false religion," according to Peter Kwasniewski.


Peter Kwasniewski's lecture/article is a disaster for "traditional" Catholics.

Imagine bishops and pastors who are on the fence as to whether they should work with the "traditional" Catholic movement.

Any of them in his right mind would be horrified at the Satanic, anti-Church nonsense...the unmistakable mutiny against God and His Holy Church...that Peter Kwasniewski, a supposed Traditional Catholic Movement key player, "scholar," and top-notch thinker unleashed via Mr. Kwasniewski's destructive lecture/article in question.

Here is just one of the many Satanic, horrific, anti-Catholic claims found within mutineer Peter Kwasniewski's lecture:

"What we have seen in the past six decades is a clumsy revival of the medieval Joachimite heresy...The new age ecumenically and interreligiously “moves beyond” commandments and Christendom and traditional divine worship.

"With Paul VI’s liturgical reform, we move beyond the inherited liturgical tradition; with John Paul II’s Assisi meetings, we move beyond the absolute difference between the true religion and false religions; with Francis’s Amoris Laetitia, we move beyond the rigid confines of the Decalogue and the Gospels.

"So many and such great novelties amount to a new religion, and a new religion is a false religion."

Do you have that?

Popes...oh, sorry. Peter Kwasniewski refused to identify as "Pope," Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Francis. In addition, Peter Kwasniewski refused to identify Popes Paul VI, and John Paul II as "Saints."

Throughout his lecture, Peter Kwasniewski referred to several Popes, including Pope Benedict XVI as "Pope." But again, he refused in the above to refer to Popes Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Francis as "Pope."


Again, Peter Kwasniewski claimed that Popes Saint Paul VI, Pope Saint John Paul II, and Francis preside/presided over "a new religion, and a new religion is a false religion."

Note also the dishonest manner in which Peter Kwasniewski refused to place Benedict XVI with Popes Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Francis.

Pope Benedict XVI presided over the same Church...promoted Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, Asissi III, during which he permitted a voodoo witch doctor to chant a prayer to a strange god, the Ecumenical Movement, Interreligious dialogue, etc. as the above Popes.

However, in dishonest, Satanic fashion, Peter Kwasniewski's lecture employed Pope Benedict XVI, as well as quotes from Pope Benedict XVI, to attempt to "prove" Kwasniewski's unorthodox declarations.

But then, that is Peter Kwasniewski. A leader within the "traditional" Catholic Movement.

In regard to possibly working with the "Traditional" Catholic Movement, any on-the-fence bishop or pastor would be horrified by that horrific fact.

Peter Kwasniewski, via his Satanic comments and mutiny in question, gives "traditional" Catholics a very bad, horrific image.


Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Fr McDonald

Dr Kwasniewski has commented on this blog, so it can be assumed that he reads it, at least occasionally. Now to disagree with him is one thing, although few of his critics have anything like his erudition.

However, to defame and calumniate him in the way that Mark Thomas does is not only disgraceful but probably actionable. The fact that MT is clearly as mad as a box of frogs may excuse his ravings, but what purpose does it serve to publish them?

In the eighteenth century well-to-do persons would pay to visit Bedlam in order to gawp at the lunatics (see Hogarth's famous print of 1735). Posting MT's comments does not help him and turns the rest of us into voyeurs.

Tom Marcus said...

John: Best analysis yet of our MT problem. The most merciful thing Father could do is stop posting his comments.

John Nolan said...

Two years ago Peter Kwasniewski was in England for a lecture tour which included the launch of his latest book and the world première of his Mass 'Rex in Aeternum'. I caught up with him in Oxford where he lectured on the Roman Canon and led the chant schola (in which I sang) for a High Mass at the church of St Gregory and St Augustine. (The parish priest, Fr Saward, is well-known on both sides of the Atlantic and is a married former Anglican. He is responsible for the English translation of Ratzinger's 'Spirit of the Liturgy'.)

Most of the Oxford Catholic clergy were there, including Fr Hunwicke whom MT would castigate as 'Satanic'.

As far as I know, they are all a) orthodox and b) sane. Mark Thomas is neither.

Barry said...

"Probably actionable"

Erudite people - and they know who they are and will tell you in no uncertain terms who they are - know that this is nonsense.

For a comment to be actionable in this case, a limited-purpose public individual, Dr. Kwasniewski, would have to show that the person he accuses has knowingly made statements that are demonstrably false, according to the standard rules of admissable evidence.

I would like to see the evidence that an attorney would present to show the absence of Satanic influence.

John Nolan said...

Well, 'Barry', whoever you are (no doubt a troll handle based on 'bar') you are no lawyer - you cannot even spell 'admissible' - but as a priest you surely know about calumny and detraction, even if you are unsure of what constitutes defamation.