REVIEW – Peter Kwasniewski’s new book: Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: Why the Modern Age Needs the Mass of Ages

[OraLabora]

I agree.

Ed

I did not write what you are responding to.

 

[Tim_D]

You mean for nearly 2000 years Catholics were serving a Mass that didn’t feed them spiritually because it was in Latin? :ehh:

Did I say that? Perhaps you should also harass Pope Pius XII who lamented about the “mechanical” way that people practiced the faith.

The faithful no longer recognize the Mass as sacrificial. That’s a major change from the EF to the OF. I don’t know that everyone should be required to attend the EF in order to help them see the Mass as sacrificial. But it’s something the Church should address.

It’s there, it just takes effort to realize it. It would take even more effort if the Church was to reinstate the silent canon.

 

[Tim_D]

There is a simple solution. The book mentioned provides it. Going to Church is not going to some social gathering. I was there before and after Vatican II. Our responses to the priest during Mass were in Latin and we had the English translation on the same page. That was the reality. There is no “experience” as in going to a mall. We are in the House of God. The Mass is for prayer and worship, not novelty. It is not a variety show.

Cultures do not change because of the date on a calendar. I was there as people - the only ones who can change things - assaulted the Church from the outside and from within. It was a coordinated attack that took years to bring their ideas to the Catholic in the pew. It was poison. Churches are being renovated now. Why? Because statues, Communion/Altar rails, and other things were removed from Churches in the 1960s. Who did that and why? So, no, a return to reverence and knowing that in that small wafer is Jesus Christ Himself is what is needed. Not more novelty.

My parents came from two tiny villages in Europe.

I know, Ed. You state the same thing over and over without actually addressing the point.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You mean for nearly 2000 years Catholics were serving a Mass that didn’t feed them spiritually because it was in Latin? :ehh:

The faithful no longer recognize the Mass as sacrificial. That’s a major change from the EF to the OF. I don’t know that everyone should be required to attend the EF in order to help them see the Mass as sacrificial. But it’s something the Church should address.

That is absolutely false, that the faithful no longer recognise the Mass as sacrificial.

Frankly, looking at statements like this, I think the gracious allowances for the vetus ordo have not been helpful and are in need of being revisited.

The last ecumenical council decided that every aspect of the liturgy was in urgent need of being renewed and reformed.

The judgment made by the world’s bishops, gathered in council by the Holy Spirit, stands.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Today, Friday , we have very young school children joining the Mass. we were informed yesterday. Firstly so the Church yard would be a safe place - vehicle wise, for these littlies coming in and out of Mass. Secondly because Mass will no doubt be directed a bit towards these visitors.
Now my wonderful Vicar head of the place is taking the Mass. He is big on Theology. He will be explaining in little child language, what’s going on. Any 7yos will be quite up to date if paying attention. They will bring a little Mass book with them. Then raid all the adult mass books in the pews:koala:

So this got me thinking,

Jesus is present at every Mass.

Jesus is there if Mass is outside in the middle of the outback, on an international space station, under water in a sub,

And in every Mass, regardless if it’s said one way or another.

Jesus doesn’t pack up his bat n ball and say nah, no Consecration today, because the choir played modern hymns, aboriginal didge, the Priest was turned away from or towards, Mass was in Latin, Italian , Aussie, Brazilian hidden tribe language.

Jesus doesn’t pack up his bat n ball and say nah , no Consecration today because hats are on, off, dress is appropriate for 45degree C summer heat or minus 10’, astronauts are floating around a cabin, bats are flying around a hidden Mass cave.

Jesus doesn’t pack up his bat n ball and say nah, no Consecration today because Mass is full of people ( esp in the Jubilee Year of Mercy) who have no idea what to say, how to act, if they can or cant take communion, if they are drug or alcohol affected , if they are homeless unwashed sleeping outside. If they can’t read, talk, walk.

It’s really time to stop this and show solidarity. Stand together.

You all realise if the law goes through in Aus re seal of confession, internationally the Sacrament seal must be changed, or

We all risk having our Priests thrown in jail. No more Priests = no more Mass.

This division is exactly as predicted. It’s a way to destroy the Church. And from reading threads like this, it’s right on track.

You guys think you are immune? You are not.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

And quite frankly,

To say Mass needs to be restored or revitalised to a sense of Sacred is a great blasphemy against the Presence of Jesus in any Mass anywhere.

The problem is not with the sacredness of Jesus in the Mass, its with those attending, and their lack of understanding that when Mass is celebrated, Jesus is present, Mass is Sacred.

Anyone want to dispute this? Or argue against it?

 

[Tim_D]

The problem is not with the sacredness of Jesus in the Mass, its with those attending, and their lack of understanding that when Mass is celebrated, Jesus is present, Mass is Sacred.

Well said.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That is absolutely false, that the faithful no longer recognise the Mass as sacrificial.

Frankly, looking at statements like this, I think the gracious allowances for the vetus ordo have not been helpful and are in need of being revisited.

The last ecumenical council decided that every aspect of the liturgy was in urgent need of being renewed and reformed.

The judgment made by the world’s bishops, gathered in council by the Holy Spirit, stands.

Dear Father:

The ‘gracious allowances’ part confuses me. If the vetus ordo was never abrogated, how could it be ‘allowed’ any more than the novus ordo is ‘allowed’?

 

[27lw]

That is absolutely false, that the faithful no longer recognise the Mass as sacrificial.

What, you can say with 100% certainty, everywhere in the world, that the faithful still see the Mass as sacrificial? I’m glad you can speak for the entire population of the world’s Catholics.

Frankly, looking at statements like this, I think the gracious allowances for the vetus ordo have not been helpful and are in need of being revisited.

The last ecumenical council decided that every aspect of the liturgy was in urgent need of being renewed and reformed.
The judgment made by the world’s bishops, gathered in council by the Holy Spirit, stands.

The judgment may stand, but judging by the fruits of the council, the execution was not so good. But then, you know my feelings. I suppose we can agree to disagree.

 

[gracepoole]

That is absolutely false, that the faithful no longer recognise the Mass as sacrificial.

My apologies, Father. I didn’t mean to sound offensive in my claim. It’s rooted in my own personal experience. I legitimately had no clue that the Mass was sacrificial until I was close to 40 years old. I had been catechized during 12+ years of Catholic schooling, I had religious in my close family, and yet I really didn’t know. I’m willing to bet that most if not all of my classmates also didn’t know. It was never emphasized in any context. And if this were our experience, I don’t think it’s crazy to think it was typical for many Catholic schoolchildren in the US.

Frankly, looking at statements like this, I think the gracious allowances for the vetus ordo have not been helpful and are in need of being revisited.

I, too, and struggling to understand your meaning here for the same reason mentioned by another poster.

The last ecumenical council decided that every aspect of the liturgy was in urgent need of being renewed and reformed.

The judgment made by the world’s bishops, gathered in council by the Holy Spirit, stands.

What is meant here by “every aspect of the liturgy”?

 

[JimG]

Just going by my own memories, it seems that every aspect of the liturgy was indeed reformed after Vatican II, usually more than once, and some reforms were more successful than others. I think that the first ICEL translation of the Mass into English may have subtly contributed to losing the apprehension of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. That translation has since been superceded.

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

“arbitrary deformations”

Ed

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Dear Father:

The ‘gracious allowances’ part confuses me. If the vetus ordo was never abrogated, how could it be ‘allowed’ any more than the novus ordo is ‘allowed’?

Well for those of us who remember the transition to the new missal in 1969 and those who were there in 1984, we remember what was because we lived it.

In 1969, there was not an option to simply continue to use the 1962 missal, save by a truly exceptional permission such as for a sight impaired priest, which could happen.

When it came to the permissions of 1984, I held one of the indults for a period of time which allowed me to offer Mass in the vetus ordo for the sake of those who had petitioned for it. I did it in obedience to the bishop, who determined I was the one to execute this pastoral charge because of my background.

To be perfectly clear: Having been part of the liturgical movement, it was certainly against my preference. I was in complete agreement with the Council Fathers that the liturgy of those years was in the most urgent need of complete renewal.

Only an indult made it possible to use the vetus ordo. The matter was quite well explained in Quattuor abhinc annos:

Most Rev. Excellency:

Four years ago, by order of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, the bishops of the whole Church were invited to present a report:

—concerning the way in. which the priests and faithful of their dioceses had received the Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI in accordance with the decisions of the Second Vatican Council

—concerning the difficulties arising in the implementation of the liturgical reform;

—concerning possible resistance that may have arisen.

The result of the consultation was sent to all the bishops (cf. Notitiae, n. 185 December 1981). On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called “Tridentine” rite was almost completely solved.

Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:

a) That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.

c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.

e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.

This concession, indicative of the common Father’s solicitude for all his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities.

I am pleased to avail myself of this occasion to express to Your Excellency my sentiments of deep esteem.

Yours devotedly in the Lord

Augustin Mayer, Pro-Prefect

Virgilio Noe, Secretary​

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What is meant here by “every aspect of the liturgy”?

Is this a serious question? Have you read Sacrosanctum Concilium?

Even the Council Fathers choices of expression address points of import to them:

1 “The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy”

11 “Pastors of souls must…realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects”

14 “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else”

15-19 mandates changes on how liturgy is taught in seminaries and religious formation houses

21 "For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community"

25 “The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task”

30 “To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes”

31 “The revision of the liturgical books must carefully attend to the provision of rubrics also for the people’s parts”

34 The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation

36 “…since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended”

40 “In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed”

43 “Zeal for the promotion and restoration of the liturgy is rightly held to be a sign of the providential dispositions of God in our time, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church. It is today a distinguishing mark of the Church’s life, indeed of the whole tenor of contemporary religious thought and action”

48 “Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators”

50 "The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified /…/ elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored"

55 “That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended”

56 "The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation

62 “With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today”

64-65 The method for admission to the Church is to be reformed

66-69 All rites of baptism are to be revised…adults, children, for the already baptised

71 Confirmation is in need of revision. Blessed Paul VI will change the sacramental form as part of what is mandated

72 The sacrament of penance needs revision

73-75 “Extreme unction” is more fittingly called “Anointing of the sick.” This sacrament and pastoral care for the sick and dying is to be revised

76 The ceremonies and texts for the Sacrament of Orders needs to be revised

77 “The marriage rite now found in the Roman Ritual is to be revised and enriched”

79 “The sacramentals are to undergo a revision which takes into account the primary principle of enabling the faithful to participate intelligently, actively, and easily; the circumstances of our own days must also be considered”

“Let provision be made that some sacramentals, at least in special circumstances and at the discretion of the ordinary, may be administered by qualified lay persons”

80 Rites regarding consecrated life are to be revised

83-101 The Divine Office is to undergo radical and extensive reform

102-111 The liturgical year is to be revised and reformed

112-121 Music is in need of reform and revision

122-129 Decrees concerning sacred art and sacred furnishings

130 “It is fitting that the use of pontificals be reserved to those ecclesiastical persons who have episcopal rank or some particular jurisdiction”

 

[gracepoole]

Is this a serious question?

Why the sarcasm? I wasn’t rude to you, Father. I wasn’t even attempting to be. I asked a simple question, largely because certainly some things about the liturgy didn’t change and shouldn’t change (transubstantiation, for example).

I’m about to go to a funeral Mass for my uncle. I am sad that I’m about to experience such sorrow after experiencing negativity from a priest here. Particularly one I’ve always respected.