I have a question about this line that you quote from SC:
'Holy Mother Church, “in faithful obedience to tradition…holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity [and] wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way” (SC 4)'
What did they mean exactly by "all lawfully acknowledged rites" and how does one understand the term 'lawfully'. I ask this for a specific reason. Namely because half a century earlier Pius X had abrogated at least for the clergy the use of the ancient Roman Psalter whose use was based on a tradition that is so old that even the hills don't remember who organized the Psalms in this manner - though doubtless it was no product of any clerical commission.
My own personal position is that, although the Council of Trent had given control over the Breviary to the Roman Pontiff, that Pius X had no right to do that because there is no record that the source of this Psalter was the Roman Pontiff. We don't know where it came from. And if it did not come from the Roman Pontiff then the Roman Pontiff has no right to abrogate it. I think that the same argument can successfully be made for the Mass although the fact that the Mass requires the presence of a priest and the fact that priests are so tied into the clerical hierarchy that is making all of these illicit decisions creates numerous problems of its own.
I agree with you that a certain legalism has replaced the principle of tradition. In a healthy Catholic ecosystem, both tradition is respect AND the hierarchy regulates the use of it, within certain practical limits. Pius X, as laudable as he is, did flex the ultramontane muscles of absolute papal authority to do something that none of his predecessors had ever dared to do, namely, to fundamentally revamp an inherited liturgy (the breviary's cursus psalmorum). That is why later on Pius XII and Paul VI were able to refer back to Pius X as a forerunner or justification for their own moves, even though I think we can safely say that what they did was even more egregious than what he did. So, this is the mess we are living in: runaway papal authority, top-down imposition, bureaucratic regulation, and the loss of any sense of the importance of tradition as such in the continuity of the lex orandi and lex credendi.
You're right - is a 'both and' sort of thing. As the Office of the Aug 1 Feast of Saint Peter in Chains that John XXIII curiously decided to get rid of (and to me seems highly relevant to our own time) Peter does indeed have the authority to bind and loose on earth and it can be safely I think conceded that there is a necessity from time to time for him to improvise to a certain extent to meet the challenge of a certain epoch - especially when he is clearly responding to what the faithful clearly and undeniably both need and desire.
That being said that authority was not given to him to banish things that have been in place for a couple dozen lifetimes and have proven themselves to be highly beneficial in the lives of Christians, forming a countless number of saints, in order to make room for his personal creations that no one ever asked for.
My personal favourite is that Catholics who like the old rite are rigid and intolerant but preventing them from attending the old rite by pushing them out of churches and to the margins of the Catholic Church is neither rigid nor intolerant but an act of benevolence and tolerance.
I realize that the Pope uses the term 'rigid' far too often but can anyone cite a specific example of when he actually called those attached to the old Rite 'rigid'?
Homo Sapiens is capable of logical thought, but most avoid it.
Some were never taught to develop that faculty, many avoid it at all cost.
Our educational system and popular environment discourages it and, for those daring to do so anyways, limits it to sciences and math, with 'fences' and penalties of all sort if exercised outside of these arenas, specially for philosophy and metaphysics.
Rather than illustrations of the logical principle of non-contradiction, I think what we have here are forms of contradiction more precisely identified as lying, or misrepresenting the truth.
This is the type of article that does more damage than good by twisting the truth and committing the sin of omission. My favorite is the attack on expanding the use of the Word of God in the Mass (not by a little but by a factor of 4) - the argument is that by allowing the faithful to hear more of the Word of God proclaimed to them that they are no longer able to remember it as it is not repeated enough. The author also laments the loss of the Psalms when we get a full exposure to all the Psalms as a result of the new Lectionary. Finally, the author laments the loss of repetition of the Gospel of John at the end of every Mass. It is clearly one of the most important (stressing Christ’s eternity and divinity) passages in the Gospel written as it was to directly confront Christopogical heresies of the age. However the adage, “familiarity breeds contempt,” is true for a reason. When you hear the same thing over and over again you cease to hear it and it becomes trivialized. As for the loss of so many great prayers please do not forget how many of those great prayers are repetitive (Do we really need to repeat the confetti or?). I love all 7 of the major rites of the Catholic Church and the approved forms of each. If we wanted to go back to the oldest and most traditional we would all be celebrating the Syrian rite. Don’t try to justify your love for a rite by twisting the truth and omitting it completely where it serves you. That’s how one gets the impression that devotes of the extraordinary form are “rigid” and exhibit an aura of superiority. Devotees of the extraordinary form should be cringing when reading this article.
Thank you for sharing your reactions. I think if you do some more homework, you will see that your claims are inaccurate.
(1) Regarding the lectionary, there are of course arguments in favor of expanding the number of readings (even the old rite once had more, and I have publicly said it would have been good to have a gentle increase that respected the historic lectionary we inherited from the first millennium), but there are also numerous arguments against the particular way the new lectionary works. I go into these matters in greater detail here:
(2) As a matter of fact, no lectionary has ever included all of the psalms (neither the old nor the new lectionary does); but the old Divine Office (Roman Breviary) did include all 150 psalms, whereas the new Liturgy of the Hours omits several whole psalms and many psalm verses, as demonstrated here:
(3) Concerning repetition, it seems you have not yet understood how ritual works. The repetition of certain prayers or phrases is meant to have a long-term formative effect on the memory and imagination, and thus on the intellect, informing it from within. One passes from an initial surprise at new information, to perhaps a period of "water off a duck's back," to a final period of deep appreciation. That is certainly how it has been for me, listening to the Prologue for 30 years. The repeated Confiteors also have a deep theological foundation and spiritual purpose. You can read more about this here:
I should note in passing that if you were right about "famiilarity breeds contempt," there would be a lot of contempt among Byzantines, who chant "Lord have mercy" dozens and dozens of times every Divine Liturgy. :-)
If you are seeking the truth about the "major rites of the Catholic Church," you will take a bit of time to study these links, as I believe they will enrich your perspectives on all of them. You may still disagree with me, but at least you will be doing so on a firmer factual foundation.
When people said Bugnini was a mason and clerics said he was worse, no one said what the worse was.
I can only think demoniacal possession. Why isn’t anyone saying what this was .
If he was possessed, then why would anyone accept a mass originated by a demonically possesses priest? People say this mass was responsible for the corruption and dissolution of the monastic orders.
So much about Vatican II, Bugnini, the Novus Ordo mass and modernism has been revealed publicly in the last 5 years. Isn’t it time to reveal Bugnini’s hidden faults to save our Katin mass, restore our liturgies , tradition and deal with the Midernust heresy?
I think it is worse than possession which is permitted by God for some good and reduces culpability. The possessed is not morally responsible for the demon’s acts. Rather it is a willful and freely chosen malicious human act to do what was evil, that is, attempt to destroy the Mass and so the Church.
Let us make the Church more Catholic by jettisoning all that is truly Catholic and make it Protestant.
Like many of the saints of old, thanks be to God for those rigid in their faith
I have a question about this line that you quote from SC:
'Holy Mother Church, “in faithful obedience to tradition…holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity [and] wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way” (SC 4)'
What did they mean exactly by "all lawfully acknowledged rites" and how does one understand the term 'lawfully'. I ask this for a specific reason. Namely because half a century earlier Pius X had abrogated at least for the clergy the use of the ancient Roman Psalter whose use was based on a tradition that is so old that even the hills don't remember who organized the Psalms in this manner - though doubtless it was no product of any clerical commission.
My own personal position is that, although the Council of Trent had given control over the Breviary to the Roman Pontiff, that Pius X had no right to do that because there is no record that the source of this Psalter was the Roman Pontiff. We don't know where it came from. And if it did not come from the Roman Pontiff then the Roman Pontiff has no right to abrogate it. I think that the same argument can successfully be made for the Mass although the fact that the Mass requires the presence of a priest and the fact that priests are so tied into the clerical hierarchy that is making all of these illicit decisions creates numerous problems of its own.
I agree with you that a certain legalism has replaced the principle of tradition. In a healthy Catholic ecosystem, both tradition is respect AND the hierarchy regulates the use of it, within certain practical limits. Pius X, as laudable as he is, did flex the ultramontane muscles of absolute papal authority to do something that none of his predecessors had ever dared to do, namely, to fundamentally revamp an inherited liturgy (the breviary's cursus psalmorum). That is why later on Pius XII and Paul VI were able to refer back to Pius X as a forerunner or justification for their own moves, even though I think we can safely say that what they did was even more egregious than what he did. So, this is the mess we are living in: runaway papal authority, top-down imposition, bureaucratic regulation, and the loss of any sense of the importance of tradition as such in the continuity of the lex orandi and lex credendi.
You're right - is a 'both and' sort of thing. As the Office of the Aug 1 Feast of Saint Peter in Chains that John XXIII curiously decided to get rid of (and to me seems highly relevant to our own time) Peter does indeed have the authority to bind and loose on earth and it can be safely I think conceded that there is a necessity from time to time for him to improvise to a certain extent to meet the challenge of a certain epoch - especially when he is clearly responding to what the faithful clearly and undeniably both need and desire.
That being said that authority was not given to him to banish things that have been in place for a couple dozen lifetimes and have proven themselves to be highly beneficial in the lives of Christians, forming a countless number of saints, in order to make room for his personal creations that no one ever asked for.
My personal favourite is that Catholics who like the old rite are rigid and intolerant but preventing them from attending the old rite by pushing them out of churches and to the margins of the Catholic Church is neither rigid nor intolerant but an act of benevolence and tolerance.
I realize that the Pope uses the term 'rigid' far too often but can anyone cite a specific example of when he actually called those attached to the old Rite 'rigid'?
Homo Sapiens is capable of logical thought, but most avoid it.
Some were never taught to develop that faculty, many avoid it at all cost.
Our educational system and popular environment discourages it and, for those daring to do so anyways, limits it to sciences and math, with 'fences' and penalties of all sort if exercised outside of these arenas, specially for philosophy and metaphysics.
Rather than illustrations of the logical principle of non-contradiction, I think what we have here are forms of contradiction more precisely identified as lying, or misrepresenting the truth.
This is the type of article that does more damage than good by twisting the truth and committing the sin of omission. My favorite is the attack on expanding the use of the Word of God in the Mass (not by a little but by a factor of 4) - the argument is that by allowing the faithful to hear more of the Word of God proclaimed to them that they are no longer able to remember it as it is not repeated enough. The author also laments the loss of the Psalms when we get a full exposure to all the Psalms as a result of the new Lectionary. Finally, the author laments the loss of repetition of the Gospel of John at the end of every Mass. It is clearly one of the most important (stressing Christ’s eternity and divinity) passages in the Gospel written as it was to directly confront Christopogical heresies of the age. However the adage, “familiarity breeds contempt,” is true for a reason. When you hear the same thing over and over again you cease to hear it and it becomes trivialized. As for the loss of so many great prayers please do not forget how many of those great prayers are repetitive (Do we really need to repeat the confetti or?). I love all 7 of the major rites of the Catholic Church and the approved forms of each. If we wanted to go back to the oldest and most traditional we would all be celebrating the Syrian rite. Don’t try to justify your love for a rite by twisting the truth and omitting it completely where it serves you. That’s how one gets the impression that devotes of the extraordinary form are “rigid” and exhibit an aura of superiority. Devotees of the extraordinary form should be cringing when reading this article.
Dear Chris,
Thank you for sharing your reactions. I think if you do some more homework, you will see that your claims are inaccurate.
(1) Regarding the lectionary, there are of course arguments in favor of expanding the number of readings (even the old rite once had more, and I have publicly said it would have been good to have a gentle increase that respected the historic lectionary we inherited from the first millennium), but there are also numerous arguments against the particular way the new lectionary works. I go into these matters in greater detail here:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/03/full-text-of-dr-kwasniewskis-talk-on.html
(2) As a matter of fact, no lectionary has ever included all of the psalms (neither the old nor the new lectionary does); but the old Divine Office (Roman Breviary) did include all 150 psalms, whereas the new Liturgy of the Hours omits several whole psalms and many psalm verses, as demonstrated here:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-omission-of-difficult-psalms-and.html
(3) Concerning repetition, it seems you have not yet understood how ritual works. The repetition of certain prayers or phrases is meant to have a long-term formative effect on the memory and imagination, and thus on the intellect, informing it from within. One passes from an initial surprise at new information, to perhaps a period of "water off a duck's back," to a final period of deep appreciation. That is certainly how it has been for me, listening to the Prologue for 30 years. The repeated Confiteors also have a deep theological foundation and spiritual purpose. You can read more about this here:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-benefits-and-beauties-of-liturgical.html
I should note in passing that if you were right about "famiilarity breeds contempt," there would be a lot of contempt among Byzantines, who chant "Lord have mercy" dozens and dozens of times every Divine Liturgy. :-)
If you are seeking the truth about the "major rites of the Catholic Church," you will take a bit of time to study these links, as I believe they will enrich your perspectives on all of them. You may still disagree with me, but at least you will be doing so on a firmer factual foundation.
God bless you!
You don't have a support or 'contact us' so I'm going this route; I signed up for 1yr. I need a receipt for my $80
Thank you for signing up. You can write to me at professorkwasniewski (at) gmail.com.
Dr. You are very busy. My question.
When people said Bugnini was a mason and clerics said he was worse, no one said what the worse was.
I can only think demoniacal possession. Why isn’t anyone saying what this was .
If he was possessed, then why would anyone accept a mass originated by a demonically possesses priest? People say this mass was responsible for the corruption and dissolution of the monastic orders.
So much about Vatican II, Bugnini, the Novus Ordo mass and modernism has been revealed publicly in the last 5 years. Isn’t it time to reveal Bugnini’s hidden faults to save our Katin mass, restore our liturgies , tradition and deal with the Midernust heresy?
Thank you
I think it is worse than possession which is permitted by God for some good and reduces culpability. The possessed is not morally responsible for the demon’s acts. Rather it is a willful and freely chosen malicious human act to do what was evil, that is, attempt to destroy the Mass and so the Church.