4 June 2018


I commend an article at New Liturgical Movement in which Dr Peter Kwasniewski argues that the Classical Roman Rite and the Classical Byzantine Rite [and one might add other rites from further East] have a commonality which the Novus Ordo lacks.

I am reminded of how the former Patriarch of Moskow welcomed Summorum Pontificum on the grounds that when East and West properly respect their own rites, they grow closer in their Common Ancient Traditions.

In the Novus Ordo, every single euchological formula in the classical Roman Rite has either been eliminated or modified or, when allowed to survive, has only been tolerated because it is considered to be in accordance with the transient and already out-dated assumptions of the 1960s.

The rupture of the 1960s can be paralleled only in the ruptures of the 'Reformation'.

BTW: I have heard on a grapevine [but not seen its text] that the Eparch in Britain for the Syro-Malabar Rite has preached a fine homily on the Liturgy as the organ of Tradition and of magisterial teaching.


Unknown said...

Here is the article online.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Chesterton avers that the youngest students ought not be subjected to the latest educational innovations and theories but, rather, be taught the oldest things. If only that advice had been adopted by our betters.

When it comes to our Church, though, egoism rules and the powerful prelate, polemicist, or propagandist of any particular epoch will boast he has found this, that. or the other thing that will set right what was then putatively currently wrong.

It is all so irksome, tiresome, and depressing.

ABS wishes these bastids would stick to ruining their own lives and souls and leave him the hell alone so he could worship like his Father and Grandfather and their Fathers and Grandfathers.

It is a sick and twisted form of revolution that results in a Pope or Bishop forbidding his sheep to worship as did their progenitors because that is a public admission that the historic and traditional worship of the Catholic Church was wrong and there is no amount of bright bilious bull shitting that can cover up that dangerous dung.

Adam 12 said...

Further in this regard, I think one of the reasons for fracture in the Anglican communion has been the revision of the prayer book to suit regional tastes of the various national component churches. Of course, in the process, the U.S. Episcopal church has put itself in the forefront of redefining all the classical sacraments to suit the cultural zeitgeist.

Patrick Sheridan said...

I fail to see why you commend this unscholarly twaddle, father. Kwasniewski doesn’t even define "usus antiquior." If, as his article implies (albeit not in the pictures), he means the liturgical books of 1962, then, as an Orthodox Christian in the Byzantine Tradition, I utterly repudiate the comparison. In fact, I take the opposite view and would argue that the Novus Ordo, in both its textual and ritual integrity (as opposed to a typical parish celebration), has much more in common with the Byzantine Rite than the fragmented mess of 1962, and even at times with what went before (Communion under both kinds, for example). Two things stick in my craw about this article. First, the spurious principle “of hierarchy.” I presume this is a round-about way of criticising Paul VI’s abolition of the minor orders, or perhaps the tradition of concelebration? Otherwise I thought it was pretty generally known that priests perform the roles of Deacons and Subdeacons in the Roman Rite, and that laymen act as Masters of Ceremonies. Does he have no objection to this bizarre praxis? If not, why not? The other thing is if, as he complains, there is too much leeway given for diversity in the Novus Ordo, and you have priests doing the absolute minimum, can he really attribute blame to the liturgical books themselves? Or is that rather symptomatic of a chronic lack of integrity among the clergy? Surely the kind of legal positivism which he seems to prefer has been the bane of the Roman Rite for centuries? And this is the principal irony of his entire position. He complains about “committees of avant-garde experts,” and yet since the Council of Trent the Roman liturgy was regulated under the jurisdiction of a centralised committee, chaired by the Pope!

As for HH the late Patriarch, I regret that he ever made that statement and can only imagine that he was badly advised.

Unknown said...

Very much hoping that Peter Kwasniewski is following this thread and preparing a response to the Patrick's comment. Patrick, I think you could have exercised a little self restraint in your first sentence; your unnecessary rudeness undermines the rest of your comment.

Randolph Crane said...

I do not always agree with Kwasniewski, but on this occasion, I do.
One can see similarities between NO and Byzantine liturgy, as well as one can see similarities between TLM and Byzantine liturgy. Both are strong, but I still think the TLM similarities are stronger.
The similarities the NO has are there because they were enforced by the Consilium. The new creation and re-invention of the Roman Rite was supposed to be a hybrid of all existing rites (or at least the best of them), and thus many Byzantine and Eastern elements were introduced that were not there previously. The similarities are artificial. I could invent my own little rite, and it could be a perfect copy of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Of course, the similarities would be strong. But my phantasy rite wouldn't be the Roman Rite.
The ancient Roman Rite has far more in common with the other rites, out of the reasons Kwasniewski proposes.

Patrick, I think you judge the Roman Rite by Byzantine standards, which is not a good idea. We could turn this whole ordeal around, and mark out the deficiencies ofthe Byzantine Rite from a Roman Rite perspective. Rather, one should acknowledge both rites as what they are: different rites with a different history, and maybe even a different theological pointe.

However, you are erring concerning the Council of Trent. The subsequent Popes did not regulate liturgy via a committee (and I hope you also aren't talking about the SCR...), and certainly not in a way how it was done after Vatican II. That is, historically speaking, false. Liturgy in the West was handled differently than in the East, that much is clear. But after Trent, the existing liturgy, which grew organically from the time of the Apostles (we mustn't forget the Roman Rite is the most ancient rite of all), was revised in order to make it more uniform. The revisions made were minimal, and basically, the liturgical books from after Trent, were the same as from before Trent.

I also wouldn't accuse Kwasniewski of positivism. As far as I can see, the Professor has rejected such a position multiple times, and he openly complains about the positivism of the NO.

Donna Bethell said...

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, speaking at the Latin Mass Conference in Monterey, California, in February, made the point about the similarities between the rupture of the Protestant Reformation and the implementation of the Novus Ordo. He provided a detailed analysis by quoting at length from Dom Prosper GuĂ©ranger, “The Anti-Liturgical Heresy.” Liturgical Institutions, Chap.XIV.

The Bishop's talk was published in the Winter/Spring 2018 edition of Latin Mass magazine.

Peter Kwasniewski said...

Mr. Crane has perfectly captured my argument. Each rite has its own historical-theological integrity and should be judged accordingly. One finds that rites of apostolic derivation have a surprising amount of overlap (as I articulated in the form of ten principles), whereas the Novus Ordo sharply diverges from these things. Even the very fact that a divergent celebration is POSSIBLE according to the rubrics, thought not REQUIRED, is, as Mosebach points out, an indictment of the rite.

As for Mr. Sheridan's intemperate tirade, I see nothing that requires a response, except that we agree that 1962 is a bit of a mess -- but that is only because it was already being deformed under the influence of the greasier elements of the Liturgical Movement. The pre-Pacellian Holy Week, for example, is as glorious a series of liturgies as anything the Orthodox East can boast, whereas its Pistoian successor is a sad hackjob.