Thanks again Dr K for your always welcome weekly roundup. May I ask if you have written here specifically on the question of whether the post-Conciliar Catholic Church is a new religion?Sometimes it feels that way, not just liturgically, but in everyday questions of faith and morals.
I'd be interested in reading if you and other Catholic scholars believe that the Church has broken away from it's moorings and is no longer the same religion of its fathers, or perhaps instead believe the Church is of the same religion but desperately sick and a shadow of its remit?
Perhaps another way to ask this is as follows: If Catholicism and Protestantism are different religions with shared roots (like Judaism and Catholicism), can we say that the pre-Conciliar Church and the post-Conciliar Churches are different religions sharing the same roots?
Your question is a pointed one, which I address in a few places in my book "The Once and Future Roman Rite" (sometimes directly, sometimes obliquely):
"The Church Fathers see Christianity as a social and hierarchical religion in which certain men—the Apostles and their successors—have been entrusted with dogmas, liturgical practices, and moral judgments that are intended to be passed on faithfully from one generation to the next." (p. 5)
"A Catholic apologist may have the entire Summa memorized, but if he is not praying in continuity with the way Saint Thomas did, he is very likely not to believe and live the same religion Saint Thomas believed and lived." (p. 7, note 7)
"Inasmuch as the Mass is the most perfect expression of our holy Faith and its truths, this comparison of texts [of the missals] brought home to me how different is the religion expressed in and presented by the new Mass from the religion expressed in and presented by the old Mass. They overlap to some degree, but they are not the same. The lex orandi is the lex credendi, so if you make enough changes to the one, you will inevitably change the other." (p. 49)
"'Religion' here is being used in the older scholastic sense, according to which it names a virtue—indeed, the highest moral virtue by which we give honor to God through external words, actions, and signs." (p. 49, note 33)
"It is not the same phenomenon; it is not the same idea (in Newman’s sense of the word “idea”); it is not the expression of the same worldview; indeed, it is not the same religion, if we take the word in the strict meaning of the virtue by which we give honor to God through external words, actions, and signs." (p. 92, in the context of a thought-experiment about Byzantine liturgy)
"So many and such great novelties have all the appearances of a new religion, and a new religion could only be a false religion." (p. 175)
"The liturgy is the 'home' of the Faith. It is the primary canon that measures all canons, the most authoritative utterance of revelation, the primordial catechism that contains and passes on our holy religion." (p. 335)
I think it is important to make two qualifications.
1. "Religion" for me, following Aquinas, names a moral virtue that expresses worship of God in external words and actions. In this sense it is clear that the old and new rites largely do not overlap and therefore the exercise of religion is different in each case.
2. "Religion" for most moderns names a system of beliefs and rituals. In regard to beliefs, there is still a lot of overlap between the old and new "versions" of Catholicism. For example, the new Catechism and Catechism of Trent probably overlap 80%. But in regard to rituals and practices, there is very little in common.
So I think it is important to make some kind of distinction: "In a sense, Catholicism remains one religion; but in another, more practical, and often more obvious sense, it has been fractured, with the new religion looking, sounding, feeling, and being different, even at odds with, the traditional one."
If we don't make this distinction, I think we run the risk of seeing nothing but a total separation or rupture, which I think is not true. The situation is much messier.
Okay, thanks, this is exactly what I'm looking for. For better or for worse, the dominant temperament that God has gifted to me is that of melancholic. This has its merits and rough edges, insofar and relevant to this discussion, one which steers towards seeking the definitive and often unnuanced holy grail of the black and white answer to the question at large. Often compounded by a common barnacle of the melancholic - scrupulosity- this can be somewhat a hindrance, perhaps best imagined as Buridan’s Ass, caught between the NO and the TLM, especially at times where the latter is unavailable.
More likely all of us may be pictorially best served by walking the metaphorical razor sharp ridge between a sharp drop on one side to destitute derelict, or on the other side, a precipitous plunge to schism.
It's actually a wonder how many and more seem to be taking the narrow way over the easier options.
I agree: a razor's edge. And it has ever been thus in periods of crisis and controversy. Some people blithely say "the Church has always been in crisis." As one who has studied a lot of history, I respectfully disagree. While no age has been utterly at peace and blissful (that's heaven), there HAVE been long stretches of history where most Catholics could live a normal Catholic life without fuss. And that's what I consider to be an age without notable crisis FOR THE LAITY, apart from whatever personal temptations, trials, and tragedies they must endure, as all of us must.
But in a state of pervasive crisis like today, everyone has to choose sides; there are matters we cannot evade. Black and white answers will be few and far between. Hard decisions will have to be made.
Have you written in detail about Pius X's reform of the Divine Office? If so, could you direct me to where? If not, I think this would be a very interesting topic for this substack.
I understand there were issues with the calendar that Pius X wanted to address, however I do not understand why all of the other changes (for example, the re-distribution of the Psalms) were made.
No, this is not something I've gone into extensively, although I do explain the general problem Pius X was facing, in chapter 12 of my book "The Once and Future Roman Rite."
Thank you, Dr. Kwasniewski! The NLM articles are precisely what I was looking for. I also just read your comments on the subject from "The Once and Future Roman Rite" and they are very interesting.
Semi-liturgical question... Dr. K, I remember that, a few months ago, you posted something on your Facebook page about AI and a question about (and I may have this quotation wrong), "the liturgical significance of silver shoe buckles." I got the impression that the subject matter of the photograph was a joke, but I have been wondering ever since if buckled shoes do, in fact, have a special meaning to them? So many things have significance in traditional Catholicism that I'm no longer surprised when little things like these keep popping out from behind every tree.
I might have been making a bit of a joke, to say we shouldn't overemphasize a detail of haberdashery like the style of shoe. In fact, only bishops (and, a fortiori, cardinals) ever had "formal" liturgical shoes, called sandals or buskins; they came in the liturgical colors and were made of silk and other fine materials like that. Lower clergy wore buckled shoes because, well, every man was wearing buckled shoes - they were the finest you could get. It would not be appropriate for a cleric to wear clogs, leather work shoes, or slippers! Today, the buckled shoe is somewhat like a preference for a cape, a cappello romano (saturno), or a snuffbox. Nothing wrong with it, but neither should it be given undue weight. I *will* say that clergy should be careful to wear shoes that don't look like black sneakers or trainers or casual loafers.
Interesting! Thank you for all those details! I'd love to be able to see a bishop wearing the shoes you mentioned someday. And I agree with you that, even if such an item shouldn't be given excessive importance, the kind of shoes a priest wears still are important in the sense that they be appropriate. I will admit I am quite fond of buckled shoes, but then I also like capes and everything else old-fashioned...
Please pray for the soul of Mr. John Dorsey, who passed away this morning, on the 180th anniversary of the dedication of our beloved St. Alphonsus Church in Baltimore.
I'll have a look at the linked video tomorrow night, but it sounds right up my street. The English language is very poetic.
Regarding the treatment of the divine, etc. in writing and expounding history: Berdyaev's "The Meaning of History" has some stimulating thoughts along those lines.
Thanks again Dr K for your always welcome weekly roundup. May I ask if you have written here specifically on the question of whether the post-Conciliar Catholic Church is a new religion?Sometimes it feels that way, not just liturgically, but in everyday questions of faith and morals.
I'd be interested in reading if you and other Catholic scholars believe that the Church has broken away from it's moorings and is no longer the same religion of its fathers, or perhaps instead believe the Church is of the same religion but desperately sick and a shadow of its remit?
Perhaps another way to ask this is as follows: If Catholicism and Protestantism are different religions with shared roots (like Judaism and Catholicism), can we say that the pre-Conciliar Church and the post-Conciliar Churches are different religions sharing the same roots?
Your question is a pointed one, which I address in a few places in my book "The Once and Future Roman Rite" (sometimes directly, sometimes obliquely):
"The Church Fathers see Christianity as a social and hierarchical religion in which certain men—the Apostles and their successors—have been entrusted with dogmas, liturgical practices, and moral judgments that are intended to be passed on faithfully from one generation to the next." (p. 5)
"A Catholic apologist may have the entire Summa memorized, but if he is not praying in continuity with the way Saint Thomas did, he is very likely not to believe and live the same religion Saint Thomas believed and lived." (p. 7, note 7)
"Inasmuch as the Mass is the most perfect expression of our holy Faith and its truths, this comparison of texts [of the missals] brought home to me how different is the religion expressed in and presented by the new Mass from the religion expressed in and presented by the old Mass. They overlap to some degree, but they are not the same. The lex orandi is the lex credendi, so if you make enough changes to the one, you will inevitably change the other." (p. 49)
"'Religion' here is being used in the older scholastic sense, according to which it names a virtue—indeed, the highest moral virtue by which we give honor to God through external words, actions, and signs." (p. 49, note 33)
"It is not the same phenomenon; it is not the same idea (in Newman’s sense of the word “idea”); it is not the expression of the same worldview; indeed, it is not the same religion, if we take the word in the strict meaning of the virtue by which we give honor to God through external words, actions, and signs." (p. 92, in the context of a thought-experiment about Byzantine liturgy)
"So many and such great novelties have all the appearances of a new religion, and a new religion could only be a false religion." (p. 175)
"The liturgy is the 'home' of the Faith. It is the primary canon that measures all canons, the most authoritative utterance of revelation, the primordial catechism that contains and passes on our holy religion." (p. 335)
I think it is important to make two qualifications.
1. "Religion" for me, following Aquinas, names a moral virtue that expresses worship of God in external words and actions. In this sense it is clear that the old and new rites largely do not overlap and therefore the exercise of religion is different in each case.
2. "Religion" for most moderns names a system of beliefs and rituals. In regard to beliefs, there is still a lot of overlap between the old and new "versions" of Catholicism. For example, the new Catechism and Catechism of Trent probably overlap 80%. But in regard to rituals and practices, there is very little in common.
So I think it is important to make some kind of distinction: "In a sense, Catholicism remains one religion; but in another, more practical, and often more obvious sense, it has been fractured, with the new religion looking, sounding, feeling, and being different, even at odds with, the traditional one."
If we don't make this distinction, I think we run the risk of seeing nothing but a total separation or rupture, which I think is not true. The situation is much messier.
Okay, thanks, this is exactly what I'm looking for. For better or for worse, the dominant temperament that God has gifted to me is that of melancholic. This has its merits and rough edges, insofar and relevant to this discussion, one which steers towards seeking the definitive and often unnuanced holy grail of the black and white answer to the question at large. Often compounded by a common barnacle of the melancholic - scrupulosity- this can be somewhat a hindrance, perhaps best imagined as Buridan’s Ass, caught between the NO and the TLM, especially at times where the latter is unavailable.
More likely all of us may be pictorially best served by walking the metaphorical razor sharp ridge between a sharp drop on one side to destitute derelict, or on the other side, a precipitous plunge to schism.
It's actually a wonder how many and more seem to be taking the narrow way over the easier options.
I agree: a razor's edge. And it has ever been thus in periods of crisis and controversy. Some people blithely say "the Church has always been in crisis." As one who has studied a lot of history, I respectfully disagree. While no age has been utterly at peace and blissful (that's heaven), there HAVE been long stretches of history where most Catholics could live a normal Catholic life without fuss. And that's what I consider to be an age without notable crisis FOR THE LAITY, apart from whatever personal temptations, trials, and tragedies they must endure, as all of us must.
But in a state of pervasive crisis like today, everyone has to choose sides; there are matters we cannot evade. Black and white answers will be few and far between. Hard decisions will have to be made.
Dr. Kwasniewski,
Have you written in detail about Pius X's reform of the Divine Office? If so, could you direct me to where? If not, I think this would be a very interesting topic for this substack.
I understand there were issues with the calendar that Pius X wanted to address, however I do not understand why all of the other changes (for example, the re-distribution of the Psalms) were made.
Thank you.
No, this is not something I've gone into extensively, although I do explain the general problem Pius X was facing, in chapter 12 of my book "The Once and Future Roman Rite."
https://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-Roman-Rite-Traditional/dp/1505126622/
However, Gregory DiPippo has done a pretty thorough series over at NLM:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/10/compendium-of-reforms-of-roman-breviary.html
Thank you, Dr. Kwasniewski! The NLM articles are precisely what I was looking for. I also just read your comments on the subject from "The Once and Future Roman Rite" and they are very interesting.
The “Spiritual History of the English Language” looks really interesting. Thanks for sharing!
Yes, I think very highly of this book.
https://osjustipress.com/products/the-spiritual-history-of-english
Semi-liturgical question... Dr. K, I remember that, a few months ago, you posted something on your Facebook page about AI and a question about (and I may have this quotation wrong), "the liturgical significance of silver shoe buckles." I got the impression that the subject matter of the photograph was a joke, but I have been wondering ever since if buckled shoes do, in fact, have a special meaning to them? So many things have significance in traditional Catholicism that I'm no longer surprised when little things like these keep popping out from behind every tree.
I might have been making a bit of a joke, to say we shouldn't overemphasize a detail of haberdashery like the style of shoe. In fact, only bishops (and, a fortiori, cardinals) ever had "formal" liturgical shoes, called sandals or buskins; they came in the liturgical colors and were made of silk and other fine materials like that. Lower clergy wore buckled shoes because, well, every man was wearing buckled shoes - they were the finest you could get. It would not be appropriate for a cleric to wear clogs, leather work shoes, or slippers! Today, the buckled shoe is somewhat like a preference for a cape, a cappello romano (saturno), or a snuffbox. Nothing wrong with it, but neither should it be given undue weight. I *will* say that clergy should be careful to wear shoes that don't look like black sneakers or trainers or casual loafers.
Interesting! Thank you for all those details! I'd love to be able to see a bishop wearing the shoes you mentioned someday. And I agree with you that, even if such an item shouldn't be given excessive importance, the kind of shoes a priest wears still are important in the sense that they be appropriate. I will admit I am quite fond of buckled shoes, but then I also like capes and everything else old-fashioned...
Please pray for the soul of Mr. John Dorsey, who passed away this morning, on the 180th anniversary of the dedication of our beloved St. Alphonsus Church in Baltimore.
I'll have a look at the linked video tomorrow night, but it sounds right up my street. The English language is very poetic.
Regarding the treatment of the divine, etc. in writing and expounding history: Berdyaev's "The Meaning of History" has some stimulating thoughts along those lines.