How the next Pope can heal divisions...

One of the challenges facing the next Pope, regardless as to who it is, will be in healing the cultural divide between the unfortunate wings of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who is seen as a favorite to become the next Pope, has spoken of one of the more unfortunate divides in the Church over the Tridentine Mass. There is gossip about him that he intends to further restrict it, but I am actually not entirely certain about that. He seems to even take a more sympathetic stance toward the French regarding Traditionis Custodes. Although it's hard to tell what Parolin's exact views are in the midst of the gossip and banter, I think the divide among Catholics regarding Old Rites and New Rites is going to continue unless something is done.

Traditionis Custodes, on face value, doesn't ban the Tridentine Mass, though many Bishops maliciously took it that way. Here is where I'll say things that Traditionalists are not going to like, but they need to understand. I do not believe that Traditionis Custodes was ever intended to phase out the Tridentine Mass at all, but was meant to build bridges between those in the Church who refused to attend the Novus Ordo and preferred the Tridentine Mass with those who only looked at the Novus Ordo as the true expression of Vatican II. One thing neglected among Catholics and often difficult to grasp is the hermeneutics of continuity. The hermeneutics of continuity is the Church's official doctrine regarding the interpretation of Vatican II with the continuity of the Church as it existed before Vatican II. If one reads works such as Michael Davies's The Liturgical Revolution or Alcuin Reid's Organic Liturgy, one will find that the reform of the Western liturgy actually predates Vatican II. The only Missal we got from Vatican II was the 1962 Roman Missal, and Eastern Catholics were ordered to return to their traditions.

Far from being an anti-Traditionalist Council, Vatican II encapsulated the pastoral process of prior years leading up to its culmination. Today, you won't see many Catholics fasting from midnight before they receive Holy Communion in the morning, let alone six hours prior to receiving Holy Communion as is a recommended abbreviated Eucharistic fast in the East. You can thank the Ven. Pius XII for shortening the Eucharistic fast, not Vatican II! And that, I don't think, is understood when we talk about Vatican II's liturgical reforms. They predated Vatican II. Far from being a Council that changed the direction of the Western Church, Vatican II further propelled the Western Church on liturgical reform. But some reform is too much. That is where Traditionalists have a point.

The problem in the Church, is not that there are two expressions of the Western Rite. The problem is one group insisting that only one version of that expression was valid. The next Pope is going to have to address this issue with the same hermeneutics of continuity that his predecessors used. Far from phasing out the Tridentine Mass, it must be noted from Traditionis Custodes, that Francis actually wanted the Tridentine Mass continued. But he wanted the Tridentine Mass continued in the spirit of continuity with the Novus Ordo. This was also Pope John Paul II's and Pope Benedict XVI's vision as well. Such position is also maintained by Cardinal Sarah, whom Traditionalists are very enthused with. But many who attend the Tridentine Mass refuse to see the Novus Ordo as valid. Which is why Francis went to great lengths to ensure that those who continued celebrating the Tridentine Mass would also see the Novus Ordo as valid. In order to continue Francis's legacy, the next Pope will have to further help Traditionalists see the Novus Ordo as bearing continuity with the ancient Church.

But how is that to be done? With the general direction the Novus Ordo is going, things have to change in the Novus Ordo. Let's be realistic, Traditionalists are going to continue looking at the Novus Ordo with skepticism if bishops and priests continue to castigate those who receive on the tongue or in the mouth despite the Church's instruction. Traditionalists are never going to see the Novus Ordo as respectful to God if the charismatic dancing continues to be done and EHMCs remain as numerous as they do and the priests continue to appear as if they're just having a conversation with the congregation. Traditionalists would come to accept the Novus Ordo if it included more incense, was done ad orientem, and with much more Gregorian chant as Musicam sacram argues for and commends. Far from being anti-traditional, much of the abuses that we see in the Novus Ordo, the Church already does consider as being in opposition with the spirit of Vatican II that these people claim to follow. And the next Pope will have to further address these deficiencies. In that way, bringing Novus Ordo attendees to respect the ancient customs of the Church and Tridentine Mass attendees to respect the New Mass of St. Paul VI. I don't think any Traditionalists have issues with the Ordinariate, after all.

The next Pope, in bringing together Traditionalists, Novus Ordo attendees, and the Ordinariate, will be fulfilling not only the legacy of Pope Francis, but will also be fulfilling the hermeneutics of continuity of Vatican II, honoring the ancient Traditions of the Church, and building bridges in the Church Universal. Also, he would not be giving cause for anxiety to Eastern Rite Catholics who might be more inclined to wonder that if the Pope can abrogate a Western liturgy, can he then abrogate an Eastern liturgy? Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, a Novus Ordo, reconstructed and enforced to include more Gregorian chant, incense, and ad orientem posturing of the priests, is both what is encouraged and what is the expectation of Vatican II. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, the 1962 Roman Missal was produced by that Council. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, the Ordinariate is just the fruitful outcome of a theologically corrected once-Protestant liturgy. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, a return to Tradition was called for. The next Pope's biggest task will be in implementing what those reforms actually looked like. Easing Traditionalists into accepting not the Novus Ordo as they have perceived it, but as the Church perceived it. In doing so, Traditionalists would come to accept the Novus Ordo, also allowing for easing of restrictions against the Tridentine Mass and a greater harmony of continuity to exist in the Church. I pray the next Pope can actually do what the Church needs, and not further continue divisions by ignoring the plights of the Traditionalists.

Internet rad-trads

So the past few years, when COVID mandate policies forced us into isolation, I delved heavily into the darkness of social media. I would not like to go back to those mandates for any reason whatsoever. I do not think those mandates have created a healthier society, but a society that doesn't know how to interact with each other and have appropriate interactions with one another. We have become eroded as a society where we are willing to exclude one another. That's what people did centuries ago. And I think more appalling to list among those types of people is the Traditionalist Catholics. Catholics in general, but Traditionalist Catholics to be specific. I have noticed in many places Catholic culture is, overall, eroded by social media presence.

When I first learned about "rad-trads", I presumed that people were generalizing all Traditionalist Catholics. Let me be clear, they are not. One of my dearest friends that I acquired from social media went by the moniker "JMF" and was deeply a Traditionalist Catholic. She even brought up criticism of the rad-trads as well. Specifically the rad-trads who are demanding that everyone become chicken farmers. I am aware of more Traditionalist Catholics that have critiqued this position too. Rather than honest reflection, JMF was heavily repudiated and decided to close her Twitter/X account as a result. She was even chided at as not being "Trad".

Based on my few years of interaction with Traditionalist Catholics on Twitter/X, one major takeaway I have is that they confuse their radical traditionalism with orthodoxy. When you first hear criticism of the "rad-trads" online, you might be tempted to think that all Traditionalist Catholics are being condemned. So did I. Traditionalist Catholics just want to be able to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass and honor God the way the saints did. That's not an issue at all. But the "rad-trads" are those who push it completely over the edge. When Pope Francis came out swinging at the "rad-trads" as being rigid, a lot of Traditionalist Catholics were rightly offended and upset about it. But if you are a Traditionalist Catholic like myself, and you see that "rad-trad" group in operation, you begin to understand his point.

I should be clear, most Traditionalist Catholics are Western Rite. I am Melkite. But I think any Catholic who affirms the continuity Tradition and sees Tradition as the basis of orthodoxy is a Traditionalist Catholic. Not to mention, any Catholic who desires the survival of the Traditional Latin Mass in the West is a Traditionalist. Yes, I believe the Novus Ordo Mass is also valid, even if major reform is needed in order to bring it back to the rubrics, but if done properly, there really isn't a need to conflict the TLM with the NO at any rate and the disobedient heretics are those who think the NO replaces the TLM. I have seen more disobedience to their proper ecclesiastical authorities from many of these neo-Catholics who run media places like Where Peter Is and National Catholic Reporter than other spots. National Catholic Reporter was required years ago to remove the word "Catholic" from its name by their own bishop. Yet they'll somehow blast orthodox Catholics as not obeying their bishop? So to be clear, there is nothing wrong with Traditionalist Catholicism in its orthodoxy.

The problem is with a certain group of Traditionalist Catholics who are more than just "orthodox", but are rigid. You might have noticed a lot of posts on the internet contending that Pope Francis was a supporter of abortion, or who communes Nancy Pelosi despite her excommunication. And yet both of these positions couldn't be any farther from the truth! Do you know what each member of the House of Commons looks like, you American? Hey, who's the President of Romania? And yet you expect the Pope, who is originally from Argentina, who is the Head of State of Vatican City, one of the tiniest countries in the world, to know everyone and everything about the entire makeup of the U.S. Congress? Absurd! The Pope has condemned abortion on numerous occasions and there has been no statement from the Pope that has hinted at overturning the excommunication of Nancy Pelosi. On the contrary, the Pope has even indicated in the past that the individual bishops of the United States are to have their authority to excommunicate politicians who support heretical social policies excommunicated.

And that's just one example of rigidity. There are numerous examples of rigidity that can be captured. There is a movement dedicated to the position that suits and ties must be worn in Church. I respect the position that one dresses up for God. But modesty and respect are not necessarily about showiness. Of course, there is nothing wrong with wearing a suit and a tie, but to mandate it as a requirement for all of your churchmen is rigid! Likewise, the war on jeans in church is one of the most ridiculous discussions ever. Why is there so much effort against the wearing of jeans? Are jeans disrespectful to wear? Are they immodest? Or are they just less than slacks? And if it's the last one (which it is), maybe that's not a good war to wage. The fact that there are many rad-trads like this shows the Pope's criticisms of "Traditionalists" (rad-trads) as rigid are actually quite valid.

In the recent past, I once was chided at by a rad-trad for stating that all sexual sin was intrinsically disordered. The charge was that I "diminished the sin of homosexuality". The funny thing is that his charge against me diminished all sexual sins that weren't homosexuality. There is apparently categorization of sins by the "sins that cry out to Heaven" and the "seven deadly sins". That's besides the point. The problem is that both Byzantine moral theology and Latin moral theology are accepted orthodoxies in the Catholic Church. Latin moral theology tends to rank one sin as worse than another sin while Byzantine moral theology ranks one sin as leading to the same damnation as all the other sin. But this is what's most important. What we are looking at is categorization. The sins that cry out to Heaven and the seven deadly sins are sin categories, not individual sins. But is a "rad-trad" really going to call out defrauding workers? You don't see that from the "rad-trads" at all. Further, when you are ranking homosexuality as worse than coercing someone into sexual intercourse with you, there is something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning.

Many other examples of "rad-trad-ism" can be pointed out. But I think if one's interactions with Traditionalist Catholics on the internet is limited to the Fish Eaters forum, one does not come across this segment of Traditionalist Catholicism. Vox Clamatis has historically done a quality job preventing dissemination of conspiracy theories (like the notion that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy) because there has been tremendous backlash against "rad-trads" who have rightfully been seen as conspiracy theorists. If your only interaction with Traditionalist Catholics online has been in a forum like that, you might see a lot of in-fighting and squabbling among us Traditionalists one week, but then the next week, we're all brothers again. Hopefully, we can bring that forum back to life again. Right now, it's down. But it's important to point out that people are not talking about those people when they criticize "rad-trads". They are not talking about JMF when they criticize Traditionalist Catholics.

St. Hedwig, Duchess of Silesia

St. Hedwig,
Duchess and widow

Hedwig was born to Bertold III and his wife Agnes. These were the grandparents of St. Elizabeth of Hungary. Hedwig was therefore the Aunt of St. Elizabeth of Hungary. She had three sisters and four brothers. Her sister Agnes was married to Philip Augustus, King of France; her sister Gertrude was married to Andrew, King of Hungary, and her third sister was the Abbess of Lutzingen in Franconia. Her brothers Bertold and Elebert were bishops of Aquileia and Bamberg respectively, and her brothers Henry and Otho divided up their father's principalities and became renowned generals. Hedwig was placed in the monastery of Lutzingen at a very young age where she would begin her studies. At age 12, she would be married to Henry, Duke of Silesia. Hedwig bore him six children: sons Henry, Conrad, and Boleslas, and daughters Agnes, Sophia, and Gertrude.

In 1233, the nobility of Poland expelled their Duke Ladislas, and conferred upon Henry the principalities. Always bearing in humility, Hedwig pleaded to her husband not to accept the offer, but it was to no avail and Henry gathered an army and took possession of the lands. From that point on, he was known as the Duke of Poland. He desired to leave his dominions to his second son, Conrad, but Hedwig supported that the oldest should hold the inheritance. This unfortunate disagreement between the Duchess and her husband led to the two sons clashing in military combat. Henry would prevail and Conrad would perish. This became one of the crosses that the Duchess would have to bear throughout her life.

She and her husband founded numerous monasteries including the Augustinian nunnery of Naumberg on the Bober which was later transferred to Sagan, the Cistercian monastery of Heinrichau, the priory of the Augustinian Canons at Kamenz, the Dominicans were brought to Bunzlau and Breslau, the Franciscans to Goldberg and later to Krossen, and the Templars would establish a house at Klein-Oels. In addition, she and her husband founded the monastery of the Cistercian nuns at Trebnitz where she spent most of her time doing many penances. The Hospital of the Holy Ghost at Breslau was founded by her husband and she would spend much time serving the leper women in the hospital in Neumarkt.

Her daughters Agnes and Sophia would die in infancy. Her son Boleslas would also die at an early age as well. She would carry the burden of child loss for most of her life but in all things, she looked to God and she desired to fulfill what was pleasing to God. Even in her marriage, she only carried out her penances to the extent that her husband would allow as she believed that the marital life was what God had called her to and wives are to honor their husbands. Seeing his wife so pious and devout, Henry would be more than willing to allow her to carry out her penances, and he too would find himself attired as a monastic within his royal courts. The two would make a pledge of virginity after their sixth child, and after being tonsured, Henry never once shaved his beard. For this, he was known as Henry the Bearded.

She would fast regularly throughout the year, only breaking such fasts on Sundays and Holy Days. She would kneel in Church on the stone floor without any mat between her knees and the ground. She would wear a hair cloth underneath her dress and would wear simple clothes. She taught her husband and her maids many prayers. She would even walk barefoot in the Winter to the Church, her feet bleeding on the way, yet the saint seemed unaffected by the cold while her maids, who were dressed more fittingly for the weather, would suffer greatly from the harsh weather as they made their way to Mass.

She would serve the poor and needy, and made the monastery of Trebnitz a place for orphans and young girls to receive their dowries. She had with her 13 impoverished people who would symbolize Christ and His Apostles for her. She would make certain they were fed with all sorts of meats and foods before she even gave herself her own refection. She did all of this out of her pure love for God and nothing falling short. She even showed sympathy for prisoners asking their sentences to be commuted. When the Lesko the White had died, he would be succeeded by his infant son, Boleslas V with his mother Grzymislawa as regent. Boleslas V would later marry St. Cunegund but he and his mother and his sister Salome would be taken into captivity by Conrad, Duke of Masovia, and brother of the late King. Henry wished to settle this with Conrad but Conrad took him captive. Hedwig expressed her desire to Conrad to see her husband in good health again. Conrad refused. And as her son Henry was about to assemble an army, Hedwig took matters into her own hands and traversed all the way to see the Duke. The Duke, upon seeing her, relented immediately and gave up her husband. In 1233, the people of Cracow and Sadomir would revolt against the tyranny of the Duke and Grzymislawa and her son entrusted themselves to the care of the Duke and Duchess of Silesia.

In 1238, Henry fell ill and died. All of the people mourned the Duke's repose but the widow remained the only one with a dry eye. Hedwig proclaimed, "Would you oppose the will of God? Our lives are his. We ought to find our comfort in whatever he is pleased to ordain, whether as to our own death, or as to that of our friends." All of her life, she always sought the will of God. Whether in marriage or in the loss of her children, or now in widowhood. She embraced all things as being wholly intended by the will of God and gave herself up to where God had placed her. She would now take the habit at the Cistercian Abbey of Trebnitz which she herself had built and live the remainder of her days in subjection to her daughter.

Anne of Bohemia,
widow of Henry II

She would witness the death of her son, Henry II, not long after. The Tartars were on the move through Russia and Bulgaria, and were now coming into Hungary and Poland. They had destroyed the city of Cracow, leaving only the Church of St. Andrew standing. They laid siege on Silesia which was protected by its walls and the prayers of St. Ceslas. The Duke raised an army and pushed them back but he was killed in the battle. His corpse was carried back to be interred in the convent of the Franciscans in Legnitz. His wife Anne and had retired with her mother-in-law at the fortress of Chrosne. Hedwig, seeing her daughter-in-law distraught, counseled her to accept the will of God.

“God hath disposed of my son as it hath pleased him. We ought to have no other will than his.” Then, lifting up her eyes to heaven, she prayed as follows: “I thank you, my God, for having given me such a son, who always loved and honored me, and never gave me the least occasion of displeasure. To see him alive was my great joy; yet I feel a still greater pleasure in seeing him, by such a death, deserve to be forever united to you in the kingdom of your glory. Oh, my God, with my whole heart, I commend to you his dear soul.” (St. Hedwiges, or Avoice, Duchess of Poland, W.)

Hedwig would teach her daughter-in-law much in the areas of humility and Anne would learn from her mother-in-law's sufferings to accept and grow in the will of God, putting all things into the hands of the Lord. God honored Hedwig with the gift of miracles and she would even cure a blind nun of Trebnitz. Her daughter-in-law was venerated as a saint in Poland too but never formally canonized. St. Hedwig's Feast Day is October 17.*

See also,

A.B.C. Dunbar, Dictionary of Saintly Women

*I rarely write about Western Saints after the first millennium because I am canonically Melkite but if I see an interesting royal saint or even just an interesting Western Saint, I'll definitely try to write about them.

The Organic Development of the Liturgy, by Alcuin Reid

I just completed this book and thought it was a well-thought-out historical assessment of the issues concerning liturgical development in the Latin Mass. Alcuin Reid begins his historical assessment with the Middle Ages and progresses through the Liturgical Movement to the moments leading up to the liturgical revolution of Vatican II. He finishes his book there not wanting to make too controversial an assessment on the subject of the issues regarding the fall-out of the still controversial Council. As a Byzantine Catholic, I was intrigued by what he writes about and also a little baffled about how the Latin Mass develops compared to how the Byzantine liturgy develops. Reid also discusses what constitutes a legitimate development and legitimate change in liturgical practice in contrast to what constitutes an invalid change in liturgical development. That the liturgy has changed over the years can be seen throughout the history of the Divine liturgy, both in the East and in the West. I approach this book as a Greek Catholic.

There was call for reforms of the liturgy during the Protestant Reformation and that was when Cardinal Quignonez suggested certain changes in the liturgy. A significant portion of the first part of the book deals with Quignonez's efforts to change the liturgy with a discussion as to their legitimacy. The key in Reid's assessments is to investigate whether a change can be deemed organic or artificial. For instance, a practice could develop among the people which is deemed beneficial to the Divine liturgy and that would constitute a valid liturgical development that is organic, not imposed, contributes to the growth of the liturgy. It could also arise from a pastoral necessity. Quignonez's liturgical changes did not succeed in this. They were artificial, provided no benefit overall to the development of the liturgy or enhancement to the Mass, and were detrimental to the growth of the liturgy.

Throughout this work, Reid emphasizes the character of the liturgy as one like unto that of a garden. A garden, as it grows, will need pruning, and it will need direction in its growth. It will need water and sunlight, and the plants that are beneficial to the growth of the garden. The growth is tended by humans, this is the pastoral care that is involved. Pastoral necessities is another key point in determining the legitimacy of the organic nature of the liturgical development. If something is deemed to be pastorally detrimental to the Church, then the pastoral care needs to be taken to weed the garden and make certain the practice does not change. This prevents the arising of liturgical abuses to spread throughout the liturgical garden.

One of the things condemned by Alcuin Reid in the liturgical development is the desire for liturgical antiquarianism. It is the idea of trying to seek out what the most ancient usage of the liturgy was and insisting that the most ancient practice of the liturgy is the best. This is problematic because as the liturgy develops overtime, certain abuses cannot be allowed to stand. Further, certain liturgical practices that have been abolished were usually deemed harmful to the faith and substance of the liturgy. One practice I've read about is the usage of the deacons' hands to form an altar for the priest. Nobody would insist that it would be beneficial to go back to such a practice. Or the house churches that the early Christians gathered in is another issue that comes to mind. No one would insist that we ought to continue the practice of gathering in our own homes as opposed to a church that can gather more of us together on a given Sunday. Such desire for liturgical antiquarianism often times leads to the clinging onto of harmful traditions, though it may seem sound at first. Ironically, it is also very Protestant as it was the Protestant doctrine to dig through and try to find the most ancient form and practice of the faith, wasn't it?

Alcuin Reid seems to be a strong Traditionalist, favoring the Traditional Latin Mass. He speaks negatively of the vernacularisation of the liturgy. One thing that I have always found convincing in the arguments of the Latins for the Traditional Latin Mass is the argument against the vernacularisation of the liturgy. Many Easterners assume that the vernacular liturgy is an inherent part of Eastern spirituality, but the language of Church Slavonic became bound to us through a natural process to unite the Slavic peoples together. The vernacular ends up dividing us. It is no wonder when the Orthodox abandoned the usage of Church Slavonic in the Divine liturgy that they started to divide themselves along the lines of ethnophyletism. I have never been convinced of the insistence upon the vernacular among the East. That said, there is one major issue I point out.

Despite all of this, I find that Alcuin Reid's assessment of the organic development of the liturgy is wanting in one key area. There seems to be so much allowance of pruning in the Traditional Latin Mass that there is a danger for Traditionalists to fall into a trap of favoring the ideas of the bare minimum over and above all else. It is one divergence between East and West. In the Byzantine rite, when we find a hymn we like, we typically tend to throw it into our liturgy and build upon it. The Byzantine liturgy is an organic growth that flourishes on its own without a gardener. Whereas the Traditional Latin Mass prunes out what it determines bad growth or excess growth and contains the plant artificially. Both are capable of being beautiful in their own rights. For instance, a sycamore tree isn't going to gain much from the excess pruning. There comes a time when the tree simply must be left to be and contribute to the domain of the forest. It is an entirely natural growth. But if you are tending a garden, you need to prune back the plants so they don't cover so much area as to present themselves ugly and unattractive. Catholics should be grateful that both liturgies are accepted in our Holy Tradition.

W.H.O. to rename COVID-19 in honor of esteemed immunologist Anthony Fauci

This morning, the W.H.O. announced that it will be renaming COVID-19 in honor of the esteemed immunologist Anthony Fauci. COVID-19, which is called that as an abbreviation of "corona virus disease 2019" because it emerged from Wuhan, China in the year 2019 after the U.S. government released it onto the wet market from the lab in Wuhan, China funded by Fauci's gain of function research, is the disease caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus.

"It just wasn't a really catchy name for a disease. I mean we have bird flu, swine flu, Lou Gehrig's disease, the Spanish flu, etc. We needed a better name for it."

Dr. Tedros said when he was asked for comment on the name change.

The W.H.O. which has honored the work of the esteemed immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose research funds may have indeed funded the origin of the novel corona virus disease in the first place, has made the decision to name the disease instead after him. From here on out, COVID-19 will now be know as "Anthony Fauci disease". He sometimes spells his name with an "x" in it but the spelling for the disease will be kept without the "x".

"I am honored to finally have accomplished something. I have bungled AIDS/HIV for years, I have murdered dogs in experiments that didn't benefit anyone, and now I finally have an accomplishment to tell my grandkids. Your grandfather is a disease! I mean, I have been sick for over a year too as proof by the fact that I wear a mask too! And now it's cemented in history. I am a disease. There is now an Anthony Fauci disease and I am he!"

Anthony Fauci said as he might have smiled, it was difficult to tell since he was wearing a boot stamping on a human face forever on his face.

"I think now that there is a vaccine out there, we will certainly see that Anthony Fauci disease will continue to get worse and worse so it is important everyone get our vaccine so that money can be funneled into our company and face severe restrictions if you don't."

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said leaving Moderna, Johnson&Johnson, and Astrazeneca furious that there was this Pfizer-privilege being granted by the federal government and frantically working to gouge prices and shovel bribes to the State.

The W.H.O. re-emphasized that vaccinated individuals infected with asymptomatic Anthony Fauci disease cannot possibly spread it and continued to heap blame on the unvaccinated who, even if they don't have Anthony Fauci disease, can still spread it. They further reassured that the vaccinated must continue to perpetually fear the unvaccinated. They also reached out to the Pope to pressure the heathen unvaccinated Catholics that they are betraying their own Catholic faith by refusing to reject the infallibly declared Mass of the Ages in favor of the Novus Ordo that they are violating charity by not receiving the vaccine. The Pope will soon declare vaccination against Anthony Fauci disease a sacramental pre-requisite to baptism. Joe Biden continues to administer Holy Eucharist in the Vatican.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - Always Forward, Never Back

Kwasniewski's last chapter is a summation of the rest of the work he has written. He explains how much of it has been his personal experience. In my summary, I have also added my own personal thoughts as both a Traditionalist and a Greek Catholic. I am sympathetic toward the Tridentine movement because when I see the harm that the West has done to itself, I can only begin to fathom what the harm the West could do to the East. I entered into the Eastern tradition because the East has historically been known to resist both change and development in Liturgy and theology. Though the East has certainly grown the Liturgy and appropriately cultivated adding flowers here and there. St. Pulcheria and her brother Theodosius II gave us the "Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal" hymn of the Trisagion, the Holy Emperor Justinian the Great gave us the "Only Begotten" hymn, the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Nicholas Chrysoverges and wrote down the hymn "It is Truly Meet", and Patriarch Nektarios of Aegina gave us the hymn "O Virgin Pure". For the East, when liturgical changes occurred, we added them. There was no clinging to a pseudo-antiquarianism as with these Novus Ordo proponents. That is appropriate for Tradition because when a seed is planted, it grows into a flower. It's supposed to. It's not supposed to be cut back down and de-rooted to an extent it becomes a seed again or mutated into something that it's not supposed to be. That's anti-traditional.

Kwasniewski summarizes then, in what way, the Mass points to the future while encompassing both Tradition and the present.

"1. Our Eucharistic worship signifies Christ as a past reality, since He has already come into the World as the Word-made-flesh and has accomplished plentiful redemption. This may be called  the principle of tradition, or the handing down of that which is already given: hoc facite in meam commorationem.

2. The Mass signifies Christ as a present reality, the One who irrupts into our time and space in the miracle of transubstantiation, taking the gifts we give Him here and now and changing them into Himself. ...

3. The Mass signifies Christ as one who, having come, and being in our midst, is awaited in His glorious coming to judge the living and the dead and to bring to completion the whole of history and the entire cosmos, from prime matter to the loftiest seraphim." (279-280)

This is the three-fold nature of Christ. He is the one who was, is, and always shall be. He is the one who is ever-existent, eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is where the Mass is oriented to point us toward. Anything less simply isn't Catholic.

There is a tremendous push-back against the traditional liturgy in the West as covered by the previous chapters of Kwasniewski's Noble Beauty. Kwasniewski defends the position in this last chapter why we need the traditional Mass. He asserts, with Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, that "if we desire an increase in priestly and religious vocations, if we seek conversions to the Faith, we need 'hard-identity Catholicism'" (284). This is the summarization of everything that has culminated in the pages of these works. We can have a Catholic identity or we can refuse a Catholic identity and look like the world. But what is it we are converting to when the Catholic creed simply just reiterates the talking points of the world? I had a discussion a while back with a parishioner who made statements masked in theological nuances which sounded more like the re-hashed claims of the New Age spiritual movement and secular humanist doctrines than what I've read in the writings of the saints. I made the point that at my baptism, I renounced Satan and all of his works and the works of this world. I renounced secular humanism which I once held to. I renounced the New Age cult rubbish that my mom reads. What is it I exactly converted to if I must hold this garbage still in order to be an orthodox Catholic? Conversion requires a change in heart. If there is no significant difference between being a Catholic Christian and a worldly human being, then what point is there in becoming a Catholic? This is what our Novus Ordo friends seem to fail to see because they live in the garbage dump of individualism masked as anti-liberalism. They live in an American-centered tradition, not a Catholic Tradition. The Liturgy is our Catholic identity.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: An Homage to Our Lady

This chapter of the book really only makes sense in light of the Western liturgy. Some contend that the Church has lost its masculine touch. If anything, the Church has lost its feminine touch and has embraced this effeminate masculinity that is so degrading it might as well be barbaric and bland. This is the Protestant abuse of the Novus Ordo. But proper reflection on Our Lady is something that is brought to our attention by the Tridentine Mass. Peter Kwasniewski talks about his devotion to the rosary in this second to last chapter of the book. How does the Mass compare to the rosary in his perspective? Although I pray the rosary, it isn't generally considered an Eastern devotion so for someone reading this book as a Greek Catholic, this is the chapter that makes the least sense to me in favor of the Tridentine Mass but it certainly makes a strong case for it from a Western perspective.

The purpose of the rosary is repetitive meditation that intends to lead us inward toward the mystery of God. In the East, we have repetition too. We pray "Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner!" We pray that constantly. We make certain it is constantly on our lips and ingrained into our hearts. When it comes to critics of the Tridentine Mass, they hate the repetition of prayers that occur within it. Why do they hate it so much? Repetition is a key to remembering things, to grafting things into the mind. That is why repetition is so important. When it comes to a song, we hear the chorus over and over again so that by the end of the song, the chorus is ingrained into our heads. This is why music can be such a bad influence on us. If we are hearing toxic sludge, our mind is repetitively filled with toxic sludge. The Apostle Paul calls us to think on the things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, yielding kindness, these things think upon. Repetition is a mental meditative tactic to turn our minds toward what is important.

Thus, repetitive prayers in Mass are far from being tedious, they are what cements our minds to bask in the glory of God. They train our minds to be elevated toward holy things. This is why the prayers of the rosary are repeated. They also call us toward mystery. They call us toward participation in the Life of Jesus. When we go through the rosary, we start with the Annunciation. This is the beginning of the earthly Life of Jesus. This is the beginning of his humanity and our godliness. This is the point in which man and God become one inside the Virgin. As we go through the mysteries, we finally end up at the coronation. The Virgin Mary is both a type of the Church as a type of the Ark of the Covenant. She is both the Church and the Ark of the Covenant. We enter into the Virgin Mary's life because we are the Church as well. At the end of our life with God on Earth, we are called up into death with Him so that we are then raised from the dead and we become crowned with the glory of Heaven. This is how the rosary is much like the Mass.

Kwasniewski reflects on three things that if we are to forget about them, will result in the collapse of Catholic theology. Reverence for the Fathers and Doctors, reverence for the sacredness of the liturgy, and reverence for the Christian society these things seek to build. With the modern liturgical revolution, all three of these things are lost and stripped away. I don't imagine it possible to have the Tridentine Mass with the theology of Pope Francis. In fact, many of these recent Popes sound rather foreign when one becomes basked in an Eastern perspective, but Kwasniewski does speak from a Western perspective. But the Tradition, overall, encapsulates so much of the lives of the saints that it is impossible to revere them while not thinking that something is missing currently. We have seen how lack of reverence for the saints has been something that the Novus Ordo has produced. Thus, to embrace their theology, one cannot refuse to worship as they did.

Reverence for the sacredness of the liturgy has become optional these days. The more extraordinary ministers, the more the Eucharist seems to be degraded. I remember the treasurer at the Anglican Mission I went to telling me how some of these Traditionalist Catholics don't think that their own brethren even believe in the Eucharistic theology of the Church any more the way the body of Our Lord is handled. How can one be so casual about Our Lord's body and yet still profess the belief in transubstantiation? It doesn't make sense. If one believes what they are fed is truly divine, then one must treat it as God. If one treats God so poorly thinking that it's just a wafer or even just any other normal object, then reverence for the holiness of the Tradition is lost.

Reverence for the Christian society that our fathers sought to build has been lost. In today's Church, the theology has been so consumed with focusing on the dignity of man and the rights' of man, one wonders if man has become God too soon. It really does look that way given the attitude and current theological trends of the clergy. I have seen more clergy this past year standing up for democratic values and condemning even the classical values of the ancient traditions in favor of democratic values. Whether they are doing this for money or not is uncertain but it really seems to be the former. Since when does the Church stand for democratic values? Never. At least not until now. The overwhelming trend in the Church has not been toward the glorification and promotion of Christendom, far from it. The trend in the Church has been toward the glorification of man, man's rights, and man's free will. This is an idolatrous form of humanism.

All three of these have been lost. Is it any wonder why the liturgy has been crumbling apart, the Church is rife with scandals and schisms, or that ravenous wolves have taken the place of shepherds? May we all recollect on who we are. May we all wake up from this amnesia. May we look backwards so that we may look forwards. O Lady and Theotokos, Ever-Virgin Mary, pray for us!

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - The Peace of Low Mass and the Glory of High Mass

In this chapter, Peter Kwasniewski discusses the most notable differences between low Mass and high Mass. When I had first heard of these words, I was confused by the terminology thinking that a low Mass was a Novus Ordo Mass. It's not. A low Mass is a Mass where the prayer is done without chanting. Whereas the high Mass is done with chanting. This chapter of Kwasniewski's is a matter of meditation. He shares his personal observances and how they apply. I feel similarly in my experiences with the Divine Liturgy as well. Though I have never been to a Tridentine Mass as I refuse to attend a parish where a sketchy Mass has been observed, I have experienced both chanting and non-chanting liturgies. I have noticed that many of things Kwasniewski meditates on, I can relate to here as well.

For instance, in the low Mass, where no chanting is done, the prayers bring us to a state of silence. We observe our own silence with God and we are confronted with the noise of our thoughts. We are attuned to the reality that God is not to be found in the clamoring noisiness of life, the earthquake or the wind or the fire, but in the soft whisper. We are brought to a sense of aloneness where we are not truly alone but find ourselves instead with the angels, looking at our Creator, and observing together the saints who look longingly toward the Creator. God becomes our only desire. There is a self-emptying taking place. This is where the soul is led to in silence because it now sees that it must do battle against its thoughts. It is in thought where sin initially blossoms. We cannot always control our thoughts but we can control our actions. It is in the silence where we are forced to confront our thoughts and the confrontation against thoughts leads to the self-emptying.

I have been to many Anglican Masses and most of them have been of the low Mass. It is here, that the only noise that permeates seems to be the priest's prayers, the chirping of birds, and the woodpecker. I am confronted with my thoughts. Early in the morning, if I have not slept well, I am confronted with the temptation of wanting to fall asleep. I am forced to confront myself. This self-confrontation leads the cult of self-worship and humanistic individualism to an uncomfortable position in their livelihoods. This is why most of the opponents of the Tridentine Mass typically also favor some form of humanistic liberalism. They want no desire to bring their thoughts inward or to meditate upon their own fallenness. The Novus Ordo brings them comfort and they desire not to break from their comfort zone. The Novus Ordo has left the Catholic faith with a dead meditative practice.

I also notice the same when in the Ukrainian Catholic parish I visit on occasion. Sometimes, when they have no cantor, they cannot have a liturgy as is typical, but must do it without chanting. There is again that confrontation with the self. Even as I follow along with the liturgy, my senses are brought inward and I confront the thoughts I have had this week. I bring myself toward conviction. I stand as a condemned man in need of the grace I will be offered by the blood of my Lord. It is the desire for God's grace that ultimately is lost by the noisiness, the hustle and bustle, of the world that we are living in. It is the confrontation with the self, the realization that the self is not to be worshiped but handed over to God and offered as sacrifice, that is what the Novus Ordo cult of self-worship opposes.

On the other hand, the high Mass, which is chanted, invites the soul to enter into the communion of all saints. It shows that the soul is not isolated on an island but enters into the chorus of angels. Salvation is not something that occurs by one's own will power, though it is worked out in fear and trembling at an individual level, this must happen within the communion of those who have handed down tradition. Tradition is not what we have of our own but instead is handed down to us. To annul tradition is to embrace the most radical form of individualism. In the liturgy, we enter the chorus of angels, of saints, of those who came before us in the faith, and enter into the communion with our brethren. I remember writing a note to my godmother back in January wishing to leave the liturgy and asking if I could do so. She wrote a note back saying that if I need to I may but I would miss communion with Christ and with my brethren.

There is on the one hand, silence. A silence that forces one to confront the noise of the mind. That is a low Mass. And on the other hand, there is a form of loudness, not noise, but loudness which calls the mind to communion with God and with angels, saints, and the entirety of the Church. Though I have not been to a Tridentine Mass, I find the livestreams of Tridentine Mass services to be beneficial for exploration and I have found the high Mass to be extremely beautiful. It is everything I know of what the liturgy really ought to be. In the Byzantine rite, we regularly chant our liturgies. It is in the sole exception of the Ukrainian Catholic parish where I've noticed that a non-chanted liturgy has occurred. In many Orthodox churches too, the law requires that all liturgies be chanted. This is because it provides a loudness that elevates and frees the soul from being a prisoner of its own thoughts and recalls the mind to God. God is supremely loud and superbly quiet as the Crazy Church Lady testifies.

In my experience as an Anglican, I have also been to the high Mass where the liturgy is chanted and hymns are exuberantly sung during different intervals. These liturgies are much longer but there is an inherent beauty that is elaborated by the length. Once again, the soul finds itself confronted with its individual thoughts but rather remaining enslaved to them fighting its own battle, the high Mass is where the soul is allowed to elevate itself to the thoughts of the angels and saints. There are more bombastic liturgies and much more mellow liturgies too. The liturgies, in essence, are without mood. The tone reflects only the level and type of angelic joy that one is brought to. I find Russian chant to be most beautiful. The Slavonic tone is far more mellow the Arab tone of my Melkite parish. The Gregorian chant is incredibly beautiful too. But there is benefit from the Arab tone. All of these elevate the soul to untold communal levels of joy. If we liked every single part of the liturgy though, then it would be of our own creation and we would never be saved.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - A Feast of All Saints

What do you think of when you experience the liturgy? Do you consider yourself as an individual Catholic in a body of Catholics? Do you consider that this is a liturgy that was attended by this particular saint? Do you consider that the saints celebrated in a very similar fashion? Or do you not consider yourself tied to their past tradition at all? I always tell people to look to the saints for guidance. Let those who dwell in Heaven be your guides. Of course, this is difficult considering the modern canonization process has benefited liberal Popes who have abandoned Church tradition, so I'll be more specific. Look to the past before the Church tradition was vehemently changed. Before Vatican II, look to those saints. Before the 20th century, look to those saints. Before the first millennium, look to those saints. As Eastern Catholics, the Synod of St. Petersburg in 1917 countered much of the damage caused by the Synod of Zamość in 1720. Vatican II did to the West what the Synod of Zamość did to the East. It ridded the Catholic World of most of the cult of saints, it changed dates and times, and it altered and corrupted the Divine Liturgy of All Ages. When this happened to the Eastern Catholics in 1720, it was spiritually damaging to them. While some Latin adoptions proved beneficial, there must be a place and time for all of them. Our Rite is not the Western Rite, after all. Likewise, the West must value the purity of its own traditions.

Bp. Athanasius Schneider mentioned in Christus Vincit how John XXIII threw out St. Philomena from the Roman Martyrology. St. Philomena was a martyr whose tomb was discovered in the 19th century. When her tomb was discovered, a cultus immediately was formed around her name. St. Philomena was soon canonized upon the discovery of her tomb. But this matters not for the Novus Ordo Mass. In many ways, the Novus Ordo has decided that it can determine who is and who is not a saint and then enforce it upon the whole Church. Not only this but the Novus Ordo has decided for itself when it can celebrate Feast Days. Certain saints have seen their Feast Days combined with other saints. While some saints do have combined Feast Days with other saints, these are often due to the eminent standing of the saints and because they also have their own unique Feast Day. Peter Kwasniewski contends that this is a way in which the Novus Ordo has sought to dampen the emphasis that the saints have.

One stand-out thing about the Novus Ordo is how it frequently moves and altars the Feast Days of the saints during Lent. One prominent example is with the Feast Day of the Annunciation. There is an inherent symbolism in the Feast Day of the Annunciation being on March 25. This is the Feast Day that celebrates Our Lord's beginning and Our Lady's humble acceptance to be the vessel through whom Our Lord is to be born. December 25 is Our Lord's Nativity. Nine months is a perfect gestation period for a human being. But if this Feast Day is moved outside of Lent when it falls on Good Friday, Palm Sunday, or Easter, as the West has been doing so since Vatican II, then you would logically have to change the date of Christmas for how can Our Lord, being perfect human and perfect God, have a less-than-perfect gestation?

The remembrance of the saints calls us to two things. It calls us to the historic tradition which we celebrate when we attend Church and it calls us to remember their penitence and to join them in penance. To move the saints out of Lenten services as the Novus Ordo does is to undermine what Lent is about. In fact, Lent is a preparation season for Pascha. It prepares us to join into the communion of the saints. How can we be preparing to join in communion with the saints if we aren't remembering them during our Lenten services? Further, we see their asceticism and their penance on display for us in their lives and we are called to emulation of them. The Novus Ordo has given us a broken tradition by booting them out. Rather, the Novus Ordo has broken tradition by booting the saints out, from Thomas Aquinas to Our Lady!

Finally, the Church as a whole is a communion of the saints! We are in full communion with the saints of the past as much as we are in full communion with the saints of today. Part of that communion is to recall what liturgy those saints attended. It was not the Novus Ordo. If anything, we shouldn't focus on building up a "New Mass" but rather re-establishing old rites. The West was diverse in its rites much like the East. The saints attended all sorts of rites such as Coptic rites, Byzantine rites, Mozarabic rites, Gallican rites, and Celtic rites. If we say the Tridentine must change, then we open the door to allowing other rites to change. To say the Tridentine rite is to be done away with, altered, or changed, is heresy. When this is the liturgy that so many Western saints attended, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Rita of Cascia, Thomas à Kempis, etc., to do away with it is to declare oneself out of communion with those saints and out of communion with the courts of God. Part of the Tradition we inherit from the saints is their Liturgy. This is why it is important for Easterners to reflect on the lives of Eastern saints and why Westerners have to reflect on the lives of Western saints. Together, we reflect on the lives of all saints. We are a Church of all saints and the Divine Liturgy is the Feast of All Saints. All the time, every day.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - The Usus Antiquior Enables Active Participation

When we talk about the active participation of the laity in Mass, are we talking about the institution of extraordinary ministers of the sacraments or are we talking about the way we pray during Mass? Are we praying as a collective group of Catholics, in a mass act of public worship, or are we talking about having equal rights to serve the sacraments? It seems with the Novus Ordo, we have become all about "equal rights". But when has the Church ever supported "equal rights"? I have seen the Church become progressively more and more democratic and progressively more and more about equality to the extent that it has become less of a Church and more of a political party that bears the name "Catholic Church". I have seen deacons, priests, and bishops become sell-outs to the spirit of liberal democracy and abandon any other political system that has been favorable to the Church throughout the centuries. What I see when I look at the politicization of our Church is not a "de-politicized" Eucharist but a rather heavily politicized Eucharist that equates democratic values in human society with official Church doctrine. This is the "active participation" that has become of the Novus Ordo. It is lousy and inept and spiritually damaging to the Church. It's not that the Church needs reform. I did not enter the Church to reform it, after all. I entered into the Church to be a churchmen. What I will say is that this spirit of democratic ideology has no place in the Church, it is not the Church. To state, as I did in my last entry, that our clergy need to seek to abolish the Novus Ordo, is not my pinning up of the 95 Theses as the heretic Martin Luther did. It is my observation that the Novus Ordo has become an obstacle in the prayer life of the Church. Frankly, if we're going to make all of Pope Francis the Heretic's encyclicals dogmatic, even as they change Church teaching, we need to embrace the fact that Quod Primum is also explicit dogma and remember that any one among us who even sets foot in a Novus Ordo parish is frankly not even a Catholic, they've been automatically excommunicated.

What we need is consistency and the Neo-Catholics have become inconsistent vermin that occupy the Church like rats do a hotel. What we do to rats is exterminate them. Like rats, there is no other group that needs more systematic extermination from the Church than Neo-Catholics. They are probably worse than the more obvious heretics like Alexandria Occasio-Cortez, Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, or Joe Biden. These are the kind of heretics that still insist they possess a formal communion with the more obvious heretics by the mere fact that "authority" hasn't properly pronounced them excommunicated nor declared them excommunicated so we must "obediently submit" to authority even though authority is scandalizing us by allowing us to believe we are in a "true communion" with false Catholics. Neo-Catholics, as I have said before, seem more intent on conserving the problems that the liberals have created in the name of authority which they see as rooted in piety but is rooted in a fervent rejection of tradition and a fervent repudiation of Catholic theology throughout the centuries. Neo-Catholics have gone along with this democratic spirit and have greatly done aid in conserving the democratic spirit that has crept into the Novus Ordo liturgy.

Kwasniewski addresses the issue of active participation. What is meant by the issue of active participation as he understands it, is not the implementation of more lay ministers of the sacraments but the participation of prayer. We see in the traditional rites, there is a greater call for the spirit to engage in prayer as the body is taken through the motions of prayer. In the East, we practice bows, we cross ourselves, we stand, we raise our arms. Any one who has been to a more ancient traditional liturgy also knows that in the West, they kneel, they stand, they cross themselves, they go through these motions because the body is inherently connected to the spirit. Unlike the Platonic philosophy where the soul is a slave to the body in a dualistic combat between soul and body, the body is an earthen vessel for the soul and its service is to assist the soul in attaining to heavenly things. Hence, the body is put through these ascetical disciplines.

Further, the laity become engaged in a communal form of worship that exceeds the spirit of individualism in the Novus Ordo. In the Novus Ordo, the laity have the option of receiving Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand. In the traditional rites, that is not an option. The Novus Ordo stresses option and choice as has been talked about. This entails not active participation but individual participation. The traditional rites stress the communal form of worship that when we see one brother kneeling, that is because either he is not as familiar with the rite, or we're all supposed to kneel in reverence at that moment with him. In the Byzantine rite, we all fall face to the ground during our Presanctified Liturgy. This is how we participate in the Liturgy. Active participation is not about having more laity serve the sacraments nor about having more laity go their own way in the liturgy. The Divine Liturgy is not a democracy. The Catholic Church has no place in either its liturgy or in its theology for the democratic ideology that the Novus Ordo heretics are attempting to fuse into its worship and tradition. That we even consider this a discussion when Church teaching has been unambiguous and instead defend a Pope who has been anything but unambiguous at best is an appalling circumstance that the Church has been placed in.

I suppose critics of Kwasniewski could state here that "active participation" does not entail the communal worship and I would contend with them stating that the worship in the liturgy is public, therefore the active participation must be a public service to the Church, ergo, not about individuality. The public worship of the Church calls us to abandon our individuality and enter into communion with God. That is active participation. We cannot come into communion with God if we are looking at our own selves and only concerned with our own wishes in the participation. Participation in holy worship is about deification. We are not divine in our own right but made divine by God. If we are going to allow him to accomplish this act of deification, we need to abandon ourselves and embrace a more active participation in public worship. The Novus Ordo centers the worship on man and away from God.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - Laying Our Foundation on Solid Rock

One problem that has come as a result of the liturgical malformation is how we have all ended up becoming "experts" of the liturgy rather than  simply accepting the simplistic nature of the liturgy as a gift from Heaven (Noble Beauty, 169-170). This is caused by the bouncing back and forth from different Masses. As has already been noted, the Novus Ordo does not fix itself into a set rubric. So when one looks at a liturgy, they are more attuned to the abuses in a particular Novus Ordo liturgy. They have less of an appreciation for the beauty of Mass. The focus becomes more about how the Mass has been celebrated and it opposes the concept of the Mass as a gift from Heaven. It's not that Kwasniewski sees thinking liturgically as a bad thing but rather the focus away from the liturgical and heavenly beauty of the Mass is what is the bad thing and that has led us into this liturgical competitiveness among both Westerners and Easterners.

One thing I've noticed in my own journey in the Eastern rites is that there is a mode of liturgical elitism that crops up among the more supposedly "pious" Eastern rite Catholics. They look at their liturgy not as equal to that of the Traditional Latin Rite but as superior to the Latin rites all together. But that's not the duty of the Eastern rites. The duty of the Eastern rites is to call the Latins to a traditional and liturgical frame of reference, not to annihilate the West and coerce it to adopt Eastern rite practices as universal. I have noted far more differences and discrepancies between the Eastern rites and the Novus Ordo that even Eastern rite proponents would like to admit. We have become fixated more on the exterior modes of celebration ourselves. We've been no better than the West on this issue.

Kwasniewski's chapter here also takes a swipe at the emphasis on socializing at church. Socializing is a core part of many Novus Ordo churches. Is it not essential that we develop and grow with other Catholic families though? It certainly is but socializing is not the reason one attends Mass. We work out our own salvation through fear and trembling after all. How are we doing this if we are constantly fixated on socializing? And a coffee hour can be a very good thing and can even be used as a window to offer opportunities to inquire but even when I was an Anglican, the priest would remind us that we do not attend church for the coffee hour afterward or for the people but to make ourselves ready for God, to receive the holy Eucharist in the Mass. If focus is placed solely on socializing, then we begin to lose focus on the Eucharistic mysteries. Lately, my socializing after Vespers and the Divine Liturgy has been reduced to praying with my godfather and saying "I love you" to my godmother. Those three words I found she needed to hear too during Lent when I saw her face light up with relief.

Kwasniewski writes of the liturgical tradition, "it is God's gift to us, it comes before us and goes beyond us, we did not generate and we cannot, of ourselves, guarantee it." (182) Is that not our Eastern attitude toward our Divine Liturgy? Is that not how we are meant to think about our liturgical tradition? Something that is handed down to us as a gift that is not our own? Yes, that is our Eastern attitude. When we talk about Easternizing the West, we are contributing to the great damage to liturgical theology in the West, the same damage when the West talks about Latinizing us. And let's put it simply, if the West is going to "Latinize" us (and they shouldn't), then shouldn't we be concerned about the damage they have done to their own liturgy. If they can suicide their own tradition, they can murder our traditions. Alice von Hildebrand has this to say about the Latin Mass:

"The devil hates the ancient Mass. He hates it because it is the most perfect reformulation of all the teachings of the Church. It was my husband who gave me this insight about the Mass. The problem that ushered in the present crisis was not the traditional Mass. The problem was that priests who offered it had already lost the sense of the supernatural and the transcendent. They rushed through the prayers, they mumbled and didn't enunciate them. That is a sign that they had brought to the Mass their growing secularism. The ancient Mass does not abide irreverence and that is why so many priests were just as happy to see it go." (183-184)

The Novus Ordo has invited in an era of liturgical elitism on all sides unhealthy for the Church. This is not the fault of the ancient liturgies as this spirit is not nearly as grand as it may have been in the first millennium and especially not the second millennium. This spirit of liturgical elitism has been ushered in by the Novus Ordo's arrogant assault on the tradition of the Church which is an assault on the Church itself. Our clergy need to address this and they need to seek the total abolishment of the Novus Ordo before it spreads its errors throughout the rest of the Church.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - Formed in the Spirit and Power of the Liturgy

Here, Kwasniewski challenges the terminology of extraordinary being applied to the Tridentine Mass (Noble Beauty, 145). When one considers the Church's existence prior to Vatican II and the corrupted Mass (if you can call them that) formats of Paul VI, the terminology used to refer to the ancient and Old Mass as "extraordinary" is baffling at best, misleading at minimum, and an outright deception at worse. The Catholic Church has had its roots in both East and West, this is true, but the Catholic Church, since the Middle Ages, has primarily been Western. Thus, Western liturgical expressions have been the norm as they existed in the Celtic and English rites, the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite, and in the Tridentine rite, the Mass of Gregory the Great. Incidentally, in the Byzantine rite, our presanctified liturgy is attributed to Gregory Dialogous, the one who in the West, is called St. Gregory the Great. He is particularly called this as he is known for his dialogues, but that is an aside point. The fact that Catholics need to deal with is that the Tridentine Mass attributed to him is by no means an "extraordinary" Mass as there is no "extraordinary" time in the Church's liturgical year in opposition to a manufactured "ordinary" time. Indeed, the Tridentine Mass, especially after Quod Primum, was the dominant Mass of the Western Church and the Catholic Church, being Western held that as the dominant Mass. It was supposed to be that what would remain extraordinary were the more ancient rites and liturgical traditions.

One principle confusion that has emerged as this dupe about the Tridentine Mass being "extraordinary" are the growing numbers of extraordinary ministers of the holy Eucharist. First, no lay person should ever touch the Eucharist. This is for sanctified hands to touch only. And the Byzantine rite would never do this, so another difference for those counting. Second, if these are deemed "extraordinary" then what the Novus Ordo proponents are really doing is being deceitful in how they apply the term "extraordinary". They apply it one way to the Tridentine Mass as an act to belittle it and another way to these ministers of the holy Eucharist in order to enhance their occupation. The Novus Ordo proponents, have, in a way, politicized not only the Eucharist but also the term "extraordinary"! And as Kwasniewski points out, the growing number of these ministers was supposed to be few, not many, according to even the precepts of the Second Vatican Council, but here again, the Novus Ordo doesn't show itself as concerned with preserving any liturgical tradition or even the tradition of the Church. Neo-Catholics generally preserve the Novus Ordo because Neo-Catholics have always preserved the changes that the liberals have made to Church teaching. They'll insist that they won't accept fundamental changes, yet the goalposts of what constitutes a fundamental change for them don't seem to stop moving. Maybe it's time we hit them back hard and rebuke them for moving those goalposts?

Although Benedict XVI was by no means perfect, and I certainly don't concur with some of his private judgments, one thing Benedict XVI has to be commended for is his clamp-down on the liturgical malforms and his criticisms of seminaries to meet the requirements of Latin instruction prescribed by canon law (152). If Benedict XVI was not critiquing the Novus Ordo for its lack of liturgical formation, it's difficult to imagine what he was critiquing. It astonishes me how in the West there seems to be almost a universal lack of liturgical formation in both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass. In my own rite, we use the liturgy in order to open discussions about the nature of God and the sacraments. The liturgy becomes a holy mystagogy in this way. Something that would secure the Tridentine Mass is the tradition of mystagogy as the liturgy ought to become central in the life of the Christian. Kwasniewski touches on this theme numerous times in his work here. In fact, reading Kwasniewski's work, I was inspired by how liturgically-centered his theology is and if one changes a few words in select passages, Kwasniewski himself could almost be mistaken as an Eastern liturgist. He certainly is influenced by a Byzantine Catholic as he mentions the Byzantine Catholic theologian Michael Martin in his introduction.

And finally, the buzz-saw that the Novus Ordo proponents of Vatican II run into. The laity are entitled, by Vatican II, to the full spiritual benefits of the Church in its liturgy and sacraments (165). If there isn't a reason to make the Tridentine Mass ordinary again, I don't know what there is. But especially looking at this past year, we have seen Novus Ordo "bishops" who have rejected the plain Catholic teaching in its dogmatic theology and legal code. We have seen "bishops" effectively apostatizing. Some have refused to marry parishioners. Some have refused to give the sacraments. Some have even refused communion to Catholics who wish to respect Our Lord by receiving it on the tongue calling such humble Catholics arrogant and lacking humility for their very own humility. It is a disgusting position for the Catholic faithful to be in. We are entitled to the full benefit of the Church's service in both its liturgy and the sacraments. If our bishops say that we cannot attend Liturgy but we want to attend Liturgy, our bishops cannot tell us "no" or that it's for "health reasons" as they have done while still remaining themselves Catholics. If we request it reasonably, they cannot tell us "no" and shew us out the door. They would cease being Catholics themselves as they have a duty to defend the Catholic faith. There should have never been a Church shutdown. If the Catholic faithful want to attend the Tridentine Mass, then the bishops have a duty to make this widespread and available. If the faithful want to attend the Tridentine Mass more than once a week, the bishops must make it available more than once a week.

Thus, the battle for liturgical formation in the Church may not be easy but it is a battle that can be won. As more Catholics see the spiritual dryness of the Novus Ordo, the Tridentine Mass has to allow itself to become a holy mystagogy. It is the holy mystagogy that draws Westerners to the East, it will be the holy mystagogy that draws the Novus Ordo proponents to the Tridentine Mass. This mystagogy has been lacking in the West and it simply is inapplicable in the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo doesn't place a center spotlight on the liturgy. If anything, the Novus Ordo places a center spotlight on choice and the radical deformation of the liturgy. In order for liturgical restoration to be seen, we need the introduction of mystagogy to the West. That is how there will be true liturgical formation. Things such as the vernacular are exterior visuals. Really, the vernacular is the only similarity I have been finding in reading about the Novus Ordo and the liturgical destruction of the West with the Byzantine rite and yet my church's previous archbishop praised the accomplishments of the West in reclaiming a more "Eastern" tradition on this basis. I am failing to see where this "Eastern" influence in the Novus Ordo is though and I can only think that Easterners are failing to see the destruction that our sister Church in the West has been succumbing to from this "liturgy". An introduction of mystagogy to the Tridentine Mass would lead the West to a more Eastern understanding of the liturgy. Such with the emissaries of St. Vladimir of Kyiv. There was a difference between how the German Christians worshiped and the Greek Christians worshiped. The latter was more involved with the liturgy, even though at this time, there would have been barely any difference between the two liturgies.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - Different Visions, Contrary Paths

In this chapter, Peter Kwasniewski looks at the liturgical emphasis made by the Jesuits and the Benedictines. It developed in the early twentieth century that the Benedictines placed a heavy emphasis on the centrality of the liturgy in the spiritual growth and theology of the Church's life. The Jesuits, on the other hand, placed more of an emphasis on the intellectual growth with the liturgy being merely just a tool useful for spiritual growth. In the last section, I talked about this unfortunate side effect of scholasticism. The Benedictines insisted on the primacy of the liturgy in the life of the Church while the Jesuits insisted on a re-envisioning of the liturgy to a mode of private devotion. These two came into fusion at the Vatican II Council "as if new Jesuit wine had been poured into old Benedictine wineskins" (Noble Beauty, 118). It is in this chapter that Kwasniewski also seems to depart from any mask of sympathy he may hold toward Vatican II.

The Benedictines certainly hold a more fundamentally correct view, however, like the Jesuits, they also abandoned the liturgy of the ancient rite. They favored the concept of the private character of the Novus Ordo. Some people may think in reading this that I attack the Novus Ordo too much but when fully considered, there is a very limited sense in which the Novus Ordo can accurately be deemed a Catholic Mass. Certainly, if emphasis is placed on reverence and these formats are not made optional, it may be able to be deemed a Catholic Mass and a vernacular translation of the Old Mass, but if these are left optional, the Novus Ordo fails to merit anything of Catholic value. The centrality of the liturgy in Catholic life though is not optional. Lex credendi lex orandi! is the old dogma and the old dogma will remain. Liturgy is not distinct from our theology and prayer is not distinct from our belief. This disconnect between the two brought upon by the Jesuit strain of theology in the Church's life was a blunder. How could the two have been so blatantly disconnected and the liturgy allowed to become objectified like this?

There is a desire among proponents of the Novus Ordo to retrace back to "antiquity" and claim the tradition in antiquity once again. But this leads them to a selective mode of antiquarianism. They want their cake and eat it too. Kwasniewski notes how the great liturgical theologian, Dom Prosper Guéranger saw in these heretical and schismatic movements always a burning desire to retrace their own claims to antiquity. (124) Of course, there was no validity in it and what was always neglected was the organic nature of certain developments and growths. St. Vincent of Lérins comments much on how doctrine appropriately develops. But what we often see instead of a love for antiquity is a rejection and a repudiation of orthodoxy that leads to a selection of what we want to believe about antiquity and what we do not want to believe about antiquity. How many Novus Ordo proponents view the mandate for women to wear headcoverings as effective? How many Novus Ordo proponents would wash their hands before receiving the Eucharist? How many Novus Ordo proponents would actually go back to practicing baptisms by full immersion with the catechumen in the nude? The fact of the matter is not many of them.

Was Protestantism not started by a man who desired to bring Catholicism all the way back to the Scriptural era? Yes! We see that antiquarianism does not actually have roots in Catholicism but rather has its roots in the spirit of Martin Luther. The arch-heretic desired to find what the original Christians taught and found himself inside his Bible. Not coming to the conclusions even of the Bible, Martin Luther sought that Christians root themselves in the authority of Scripture alone. This of course led to a problem soon as more Protestant denominations began to spring up which Luther himself never intended but it was too late for Luther. The damage to the Western Christian tradition was already done, there was no way to end it. Eventually, Luther's doctrine found proponents in the Anabaptists who took it to the most literal level of all of the Protestant Christians at the time. They believed that all men could accurately understand the Scriptures and could effectively be their own authoritative pastors. But it was the antiquarian approach of Luther's that still retains dominance among Protestantism and liberal Christianity today. Even the ones claiming the most progressive standing are backwards and behind.

And here, Kwasniewski notes that the liturgy does undergo organic development in terms of its pruning. Like a tree when it grows in your yard needs its branches clipped on a regular basis. The garden needs to be weeded. The liturgy is growing like a tree. The Church has planted the seed of its faith in the liturgy and the necessary actions are to ascertain it grows properly by pruning the plant, making certain weeds are not growing, keeping the plant centered. If this does not occur, the plant will not grow properly. The garden will not flourish well. Overgrowth will occur. This pruning of the plant is not to show that there is an artificiality in the plant or even an artificial growth in the liturgy, but rather it shows that the liturgy is guided by the Church throughout the years, it undergoes no mutations turning it into a new plant like the Novus Ordo, and it shows that the Church has a spiritual garden in its liturgy. The liturgy is the life of the Church, it is the spiritual garden of the Church, and it is the prayer of the Church. The Church is all about the liturgy, and its theology is in the liturgy. Many proponents of the Novus Ordo deny this and they subsequently anathematize the Church in the process.

Kwasniewski states, "we retain the Roman liturgical tradition out of humility and not out of pride" (133) which could not be better well put. Too often, the Traditionalist Catholics are accused of acting in a spirit of pride by the false Novus Ordo Catholics. That they ought to accept the new liturgical changes, the private devotion in the "Mass" and the mutations done to tradition or they are not acting in obedience. But the Church is more than just obedience to a particular Pope at a given time. If we were to play that game, we could pit Popes against each other. The Church, instead, is the whole of the liturgical tradition and the liturgical garden that it has been planted in. No one can be acting in a spirit of pride by giving up their own selves in the liturgy as the Traditionalists who attend the ancient liturgies of the East and West do. Who can be acting in a spirit of pride are the ones who attend the liturgies because it's their preference, it's their way to connect with God, it's their private devotion. And these people are typically found in the Novus Ordo, not with the Tridentines.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - Urgent Care for Sick Church

When one looks backward at the Old Liturgical Movement, unless they knew better, one would be tempted to categorize the proponents as traditionalists in the modern sense that term is used. Their desire was to get people to know about the liturgy. They wanted people to understand what was going in the liturgy. Of course, this ultimately led to a complete undivinization of the liturgy. Kwasniewski talks about how the saints knew that asceticism was to be practiced in the mystical life (Noble Beauty, 93). Here is a glaring problem with the Novus Ordo. When one looks at the Novus Ordo, many of the fasts are taken out. There is no pre-Lenten season of Septuagesima, no daily Lenten fasting (Byzantines practice daily Lenten fasting, another commonality we have with the Tridentine Rite, and another difference with the Novus Ordo), and no abstinence on Fridays. Many of these rules were already being adjusted prior but they certainly paved way for what was to come in the Liturgical malform.

Kwasniewski states, "[t]he real crisis of Catholicism at the time of Council was not located in its mysteries, rituals, or symbols, which are enduring and life-giving, but in lack of devotion to them on part of many of the clergy, which begot a lack of desire to lead the faithful into a better understanding of them (97). As mentioned, we see the deteriorating devotion prior to the Council so many Neo-Catholics have attempted to remove blame from Vatican II by referencing those. But we can see that Vatican II did nothing to fix the lack of devotion which is what a Council is supposed to do. So let's cool our jets and stop slabbing off onto people the idea that Vatican II made massive achievements and was by any means a holy Council. If it was a holy Council, it would have reversed the direction the Church was careening on. It did not. Councils are instituted to correct error. Vatican II adopted error. It cannot be held that the faithful are bound to the full tenants of Vatican II since the faithful can never be bound to error.

This lack of devotion is obvious enough in the adjustments to the fasting regulations. Before, it was mandatory to fast up to six hours prior to receiving the Eucharist. This was adjusted under Pius XII to one hour. Even a more traditionalist Pope like the Ven. Pius XII certainly committed error on this legal issue. A Pope can commit error on laws not pertaining to the faith and since dioceses are allowed to be stricter, one cannot insist that the faithful were ever necessarily bound to following this new obligation which was actually a diminishment of the prior obligation. But here we already see a culling of the asceticism that goes along with the mystical life. We cannot have a mystical life by indulging ourselves in food. A mystical life is impeded by the lack of asceticism in our lives and it is helped and aided along by asceticism. When there are no ascetics, the mystical life is devoid of meaning. Hence why the New Age can get us no where. And yet we see New Age concepts being brought in on a constant basis into the life and theology of the Church. We see this with the teaching on human dignity, religious liberty, and the liberty of conscience. These things had no existence prior to the Second Vatican Council.

Clearly, this is not all the fault of the Council but the Council had the responsibility to culling the lack of devotion. The Council had the responsibility of engendering new devotion to the Catholic faith. These things, the Council did not do. As a result, we see the "Mass" being turned into a clown show by stooges. Heretics have strutted themselves into the Church and claimed seats of power which do not properly belong to them (if you are ever turned away from the Holy Eucharist by "Fr." James Martin, remember that you were graciously excommunicated from heresy by divine fiat). How has this happened if Vatican II is truly a holy Council? We may be tempted to say the implementation of the Council was "misunderstood" but that would insist that the implementation of the Council's clear-cut theology was laid out firmly against this madness. It is not. It seems to be the clear-cut meaning is in favor of this madness. Unlike with the Council of Nicaea which denounced in unequivocal terms the heresy of Arianism, we don't see that from Vatican II. We instead have people in the Church who now think that the only thing about Church theology and liturgy that matters is Vatican II.

Kwasniewski concludes, "The Liturgical Movement prior to the Council lamented the fact that Catholics, generally speaking, did not possess an intimate knowledge of their liturgy or cherish a particularly intense desire to live 'under the sign' of liturgical seasons and feasts." (108) This is a primary difference between the East and West. The West did not have a means of fully explaining the liturgy to people. It should have nevertheless made the effort. But the rise of scholasticism made the focus of the West on the paper theology of the Church rather than the essence of the liturgy. While Quod Primum made this effort, we see this mentality in the West still today. Because the liturgy was never fully explained to people, people began to think of the liturgy as something that could be changed, even ignoring the dogmatically binding statements of Quod Primum which binds all Catholics to the affirmation of the Tridentine Mass as the ordinary Mass for Catholics (yes, my rite is an extraordinary exception, but as it was older than 200 years at the time Quod Primum was written is stil an acceptable practice for Catholics), and thinking that liturgical expressions are only optional outward expressions of the interior faith. The faith, under this assault from this type of scholasticism, has been reduced to creedal affirmations.

Unlike in the East which has been greatly supplemented by the works of St. John Chrysostom, St. Germanos of Constantinople, and St. Nicholas Cabasilas, the West has not made the focus or core of their theology the liturgy. In the East, when asked a theological question, we turn straight to the liturgy and make a clear statement of what the faith is. The West does not have that. The West has been under the chains of the scholastic influence for quite some time. This in no way is meant to denounce the scholastic philosophy as a theological system but rather to propose a correction to the scholastic philosophy in that it should not find itself disconnected from the liturgical expression. If the scholastic method found itself reconnected to liturgical expression, there would be no doubt a firm a denunciation of all heresies and a full affirmation of orthodox Catholicism throughout the world. Until then, there is need to stop the further malforms that are being brought into the Church by the liberals through their Neo-Catholic dupes.