“His Reign Shall Have No End” — and Weekly Roundup, October 24

There’s a LOT to cover this week. Yes, there’s some heavy content, but please don’t give up reading until you reach the Good News section, which is more ample than usual.

Retrieving a damaged subject

Just in time for the 100th celebration of the traditional feast of Christ the King, I’m delighted to announce my new book, His Reign Shall Have No End: Catholic Social Teaching for the Lionhearted, published by XIII Books, an imprint of Arouca Press.

Here’s the description:

His Reign Shall Have No End is a new introduction to Catholic Social Teaching (CST). Too often, this rich subject is reduced to a grab-bag of catechetical truisms and welfare policies driven by modern secular, egalitarian, and pluralist assumptions. In contrast, Dr. Kwasniewski traces CST back to the world-changing mystery of the Incarnation, whereby the Son of God became Head and Ruler of mankind in regard to natural and supernatural goods alike. For this reason, the kingship of Jesus Christ—a revealed truth given consummate formulation by Pope Pius XI in his 1925 encyclical Quas Primas—is nothing less than the master key to CST’s coherence; it is, more to the point, the essential condition for the flourishing of nations no less than the beatitude of individuals. Where this kingship is ignored or denied, individuals, families, whole societies decompose like a body deprived of a soul; wherever it is welcomed in faith, Christian life revives and Christendom stirs from slumber. To guide the reconquest, Divine Providence raised up Pope Leo XIII, unparalleled exponent of a profoundly Catholic response to the thorniest political and economic questions that confront the human race at a time of tremendous upheaval.

And here’s what some readers are saying about it:

Dr. C.C. Pecknold, Associate Professor of Theology, The Catholic University of America: “This is the best book on Catholic Social Teaching I have ever read! Not only does Dr. Kwasniewski give a true account of the Church’s perennial teaching on a range of central questions, he helps readers identify and skewer counterfeit versions of the Faith.”

Dr. Sebastian Morello, Wolfgang Smith Chair in Philosophy, St Mary’s University, London: “Whether it is the issue of property rights, or freedom of speech, or democratic processes and the rule of law, or any other issue that plagues contemporary political discourse, Kwasniewski demonstrates that the Lord’s Kingship is the ultimate answer, and that outside His Kingdom there is only chaos and confusion.”

Fr. William J. Slattery, author of Enchanted by Eternity: Recapturing the Wonder of the Catholic Worldview: “Peter Kwasniewski’s His Reign Shall Have No End is a work of superlative clarity. With a steady hand, he retrieves the Church’s perennial wisdom on the Kingship of Christ, carefully engaging with Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teaching while confronting the errors of secular liberalism.”

Alan Fimister, co-author of Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy: “Peter Kwasniewski is a meticulous cartographer and a bold explorer.… We should be grateful for his labours.”

James Kalb, author of The Tyranny of Liberalism and The Decomposition of Man: “This book is especially good on the great encyclicals of Leo XIII and kindred popes, on how these classical principles are reflected in the Church’s traditional life of prayer, and on the radical oppositions between Catholic social teaching and every current political movement.”

His Reign Shall Have No End (5.5” x 8.5”, 348 pp.) is available in paperback, hardcover, and ebook.

By special arrangement with the publisher, signed copies will be carried by Os Justi Press. Those who order it there will receive their books sometime in November, when the first shipment arrives from the printing press. (In a short time, too, the book will show up on Amazon sites around the world.)

Also, Pelican+ will release the ebook to its Premium members as of Saturday, October 25.

¡Viva Cristo Rey!

Sacred Music Conference

This weekend I’ll be in British Columbia. More specifically: Abbotsford (an hour southeast of Vancouver) this Saturday, October 25, giving two lectures—one on beauty in the traditional Latin Mass, and the other on beauty in sacred music. Joining me on the rostrum will be the abbot of Westminster Abbey, Right Rev. Alban Riley OSB. The day will begin with Solemn Mass. Looking forward to seeing old friends, and hoping to meet some readers as well!

An Explanation, Please?

In ten compact minutes, Fr. Robert McTeigue, SJ (one of the “good Jesuits”—they do exist!) devastatingly critiques Fr. David Carter’s messages to the faithful in Chattanooga justifying his bishop’s scorched-earth policy against the TLM and demonstrates the violent irrationality of this whole campaign, which targets not just a rite but also the faithful attached to it. Thank you, Fr. McTeigue, for your outstanding witness to the truth! (Fr. Z has the transcript here.)

Like Fr. McTeigue, I’m still mulling over Fr. Carter’s Pastoral Letter “Treasures New and Old: Unity in Faith Post-Traditionis Custodes” (a lengthier version of the homily he delivered on October 12). It strikes me as a crystal-clear summation of much that is wrong in the Church.

The basic message is this: blind obedience trumps all other goods. The bishop must obey the pope; the pastor must obey the bishop; the people must obey the pastor. No evaluation, no questions, no alternative. Like a cadaver; like a robot. No reference to the CONTENT of what is being demanded, or the RATIONALE for it, or the RIGHTS and DUTIES involved.

Yet these things are crucial components of moral acts — that is, properly human acts performed by rational and free agents.

What if a pope’s decree is discovered to be based on lies and/or rests on theological error (as we know is the case with Traditionis Custodes—see Diane Montagna, Fr. Reginald-Marie Rivoire, and Simon de Cyrène)? What if his decree violates divinely-given rights of bishops, clergy, and faithful? What if the shepherds are openly and gravely shirking objective obligations to those who are subordinate to them?

As I have argued in my little book True Obedience in the Church and in my big book Bound by Truth: Authority, Obedience, Tradition, and the Common Good, obedience is a good because it attaches a person to some greater good; it therefore rests upon the truth, not upon lies or errors, not upon wilful destruction of the common good (which gives authority its purpose to begin with).

The reason so many laity were offended by that October 12th homily is that they could sense, even if they didn’t have exact words for it, that the preacher was implicitly accusing them of having bad desires for bad things and was calling them to surrender to whatever their overlords dictate, even when it looks to any normal person like a form of spiritual abuse. The Lord, when setting the example of humility and all the other virtues, did not ask men to unplug their reason or kill their consciences.

Sadly, Fr. Carter is digging in his heels. The homily he gave on October 19, “The Hermeneutic of Continuity in a Time of Transition,” was, if anything, even worse than the Pastoral Letter. He seems to find it intolerable that traditionalists should hold the opinions they do; they must either surrender to the Novus Ordo in sackcloth and ashes, or suffer the consequences: exclusion, eradication, erasure.

So, let me be as clear as possible, enunciating what I would consider the positions of most of those who assist at the TLM:

• Yes, traditionalists do reject the reform as it was designed and enacted by the Consilium and approved by Paul VI. Nor is it schismatic to question that reform, provided bare sacramental validity is not denied.

• We think that this “reform” was in fact a deformation, an egregious violation of the tradition of the Church; and, to that extent, that the Holy Spirit was not behind it and could not be behind it.

• We believe that the bad fruits so much in abundance in the past 55 years are directly related to that “great betrayal,” which took the form of a new iconoclasm that arrogantly rejected centuries of faith in practice, exemplified in our greatest saints.

• We believe, from intimate personal experience, that the traditional rites were, and remain, perfectly fitted for their work in our souls and in our communities, and that any improvements needed can be obtained through education and better customs.

• We know that the documentary evidence demonstrates a massive departure in the reform of the 1960s from what the vast majority of Council fathers believed they had asked for. In this sense, it is notoriously false to slap an equal sign between Vatican II and the Bugnini rite. As to why bishops and religious superiors accepted it, we have plenty of evidence that they did so because they were ultramontanists, i.e., they thought they had no choice; and this was the foremost example of all that is wrong with hyperpapalism. Had a large number of dioceses and communities simply refused to change rites, the Vatican would have been forced to eat humble pie (as occurred with Fiducia Supplicans!), and something like Summorum Pontificum might have come out 30 years earlier.

• We are aware that the traditional Latin Mass would never have returned to churches around the world had it not been for laity and lower clergy who doggedly resisted the reform for decades and who will continue to do so today, wherever their allegiance is to the truth and not to the powerful. If the old rite is to make a comeback in this second renewed iconoclasm unleashed by Francis, it will have to fight for terrain just as it did in the first iconoclasm of the 1960s/70s.

I will stop here, because the number of errors in this new homily is legion. To put it briefly, it’s little more than a rehashing of the arguments of Cavadini, Healy, and Weinandy, which have already been refuted by the nine authors who contributed to the book Illusions of Reform.

The effect of anti-TLM decrees

A young man I know was thinking of moving to Knoxville—until the recent decision to cancel all TLMs in the diocese. He shared with me the letter he addressed to the bishop, which I think will resonate with many:

To His Excellency, the Most Rev. Beckman:

I am a young Catholic living in the western USA. I am recently married and my wife and I welcomed our first child into this world a few months ago. We had been thinking recently of moving to the Knoxville area.

However, one of our primary concerns as young Catholics is our ability to find good community and a nourishing parish life wherever we live. As faithful children of the Church, we desire to worship in the most traditional way—with the so-called Tridentine Mass or Latin Mass. It is the Mass of the saints and of the most glorious ages of the Church. It has been an important part of our personal faith for many years, and is of course the center of the Church’s sacramental life.

However, in a recent letter (Prot. N.: 2025-031LTR) you describe a plan to end all celebrations of the Latin Mass in your diocese this calendar year.

Nothing else you could have done would have made us less interested in bringing our young family to your diocese. Nothing else would have made us so uninterested in donating to your diocese or volunteering in it. The same is true for many of your faithful who feel hurt and despised by this decision.

Do you realize that your are estranging the future of the Church, that is, the youth? All my friends are devotees of the Latin Mass; everywhere I go in the US (and in Europe), Latin Mass parishes are filled to bursting while Novus Ordo parishes decline. This is not an accident. But you refuse to look and listen for the reasons as to why this is the case.

Please reconsider your decision. If you desire your diocese to wither and die, so be it. We will find a bishop that knows and loves what “earlier generations held sacred.” Not just earlier generations—our generation.

Do what you will, but reap the consequences. Your office of bishop commands respect but also raises the stakes: every decision you make attracts or repels souls from God. I can assure you that this one is turning people away from the light they desire to find in your churches.

A mother sent me the following lamentation about the situation of the faithful in another diocese:

I thought I’d share with you the current emotional state of our TLM community in the aftermath of the restrictions. Our congregation was decimated to 1/3 of its size. Attending the Sunday Latin NO is like having to choke down synthetic meat after we’ve been used to eating prime rib. We’re on something like the 329th Sunday in ordinary time, or whatever. Nobody likes it. Even though it has all the traditional trappings, it still feels like an imitation. It’s the spirit of the thing. It’s a strange feeling to try to be grateful for what we know is actually second-best.

We’ve largely lost the drive to build the Kingdom of Christ through the great work of restoration because we are no longer able to do that through helping offer exposure to the ancient rite in all its regal glory. It’s an absolute spiritual violence to force us to go back to an inferior worship of God, especially after everything we’ve been through.

A side-note: people often feel uncomfortable with this language of “second-best” and “synthetic” and “inferior.” But if you take time to compare the rites, the language is entirely justified. For a short presentation of the superiority of the traditional Order of Mass over that of Paul VI’s modern rite, see Matt Gasper’s “Is a Reverent Novus Ordo Just as Good?” While the externals of the new and old rites are frequently also very different, traditionalists are concerned above all with the “flesh and bones” of the rite, to which the clothing and ornamentation are secondary. Much more would need to be said to fill out Gasper’s argument, e.g., one would need to look at the content of the prayers, the readings, the antiphons, the rubrics; and yet, even a simple textual comparison is already eye-opening.

Now back to the letter:

Almost 15 years ago we began with a simple low Mass, no music, and a handful of people in attendance every Sunday. We prayed, sacrificed, fought battles, studied, learned chant, spent many hours practicing, and were given a supportive pastor. Our Lord planted a beautiful orchard that was really beginning to bear fruit. Over time, souls converted, lives were changed, seeds were planted in the hearts of our children. Our Blessed Mother was with us every step of the way blasting open every door that was slammed shut. Everything we did was for the glory of God and the sanctification of His people. But our biggest motivation to keep going every time it got tough was for our children. It was all for them.

Now, many souls are hungry for the Latin Mass and they will be vehemently denied no matter how many letters we write. I find myself asking Our Lord, “What was it all for? What’s our purpose now?” It’s not just the pain of total rejection and having our very hearts taken right out of us, but also the bitter loss of celebrating all of the glorious feast days of the traditional calendar and honoring Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the saints in the highest form of worship on their proper days as it should be. The loss of the Requiem Mass, Rorate, Candlemas, having to have a dumbed-down Palm Sunday, Corpus Christi, and so on… What about Catholicism? We want it all back. Nothing but the very best for Almighty God!

Our only recourse is to retreat into prayer and to try to practice patience and trust. But it’s very hard. We’re defeated, jaded, and despondent. Why couldn’t they just leave us in peace in our tiny corner of the Church? They move on with their lives of luxury and we’re left to clean up the wreckage of our children’s confusion and pain.

I know that Our Lady will have her Triumph one day.

And she sent me a little picture drawn by her youngest daughter during the last TLM at their parish — a glimpse of how the crackdown affects the little ones who are especially beloved to Our Lord:

Bishops who do this to their people will suffer in the afterlife for every broken heart, every tear and sigh, every shattered confidence in the Church’s maternal care.

Miguel Escrivá of Infovaticana explains why there cannot be justification for taking a step as indiscriminate and damaging to the common good as suppressing the TLM and depriving the faithful of access to it: “It is not the Rite that divides, but the exclusion: Let us judge it by its fruits.” This article is an eloquent statement of the case in favor of Summorum Pontificum and against Traditionis Custodes. Highly recommended to read and to share Likewise, Amy Welborn’s “United we stand? Kneel? Chant?”

Raymond Arroyo and Fr. Gerald Murray tackle the “Latin Mass Purge and the War on Tradition” in a half-hour episode of the Prayerful Posse:

Newspapers continue to cover the topic, some better than others. The Daily Hampshire Gazette should be commended for its article “Old rite, new generation: The Latin Mass finds new life in region.” Certainly better than the Washington Post’s “Traditionalists push Pope Leo to resurrect the Latin Mass.” But all of this media attention is helpful, because often unbelieving bishops can be stopped by nothing except bad publicity.

Uneducated clergy

Sometimes one can only cringe when listening to priests talk about liturgy, papal authority, Vatican II, and so forth. It’s as if they’ve never bothered to do the heavy lifting required to be able to deal intelligently with such subjects.

A case in point was a recent interview conducted by Larry Chapp (whom I respect a great deal) with Fr. Blake Britton. Tradition & Sanity contributor Anthony Jones reported as follows on Facebook—and I share his comments because they are of broad interest to my readers here, who will often encounter similar errors:

There were some great moments in this interview, but overall I was disheartened by Fr. Britton’s approach to tradition, obedience, and history, where he appeared to be quite sloppy in several instances.

For instance, at 56:17 he said: “Now in the long term, who knows? Who knows if there’s an ultimate suppression of all liturgical expressions and the introduction, like Pius V did, of an entirely new Missal? Maybe eventually a pope just gets to the point where he’s like, ‘Okay, everybody—like what Pius V did with all the Missals, in the medieval period with the Council of Trent—you know what? Everything is suppressed. If you don’t do it, you’re excommunicated. Here’s your new Missal whether you like it or not.’”

Fr. Britton said that Pius V introduced “an entirely new Missal,” which is just plain false. As Ratzinger wrote in Feast of Faith, “The Council of Trent did not ‘make’ a liturgy. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing, either, as the Missal of Pius V. The Missal which appeared in 1570 by order of Pius V differed only in tiny details from the first printed edition of the Roman Missal of about a hundred years earlier. Basically the reform of Pius V was only concerned with eliminating certain late medieval accretions and the various mistakes and misprints which had crept in…. The new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V had ‘produced’ a Missal four hundred years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times. This loss of perspective is really disturbing.”

Furthermore, Pius V did not suppress everything aside from the 1570 Roman Missal, as Fr. Britton suggested. On the contrary, as Joseph Shaw explains in his excellent article on the topic, “St Pius V allowed all Missals which had existed for more than 200 years to continue in use.”

As the Ordinariate priest Fr. Hunwicke (RIP) elaborates, “He ORDERED such old rites to be continued. Nequaquam auferimus were his words ... auferimus means ‘we take away,’ nequaquam means ‘not at all.’ What he did allow was his own new 1570 Edition to be brought into use if a bishop and his entire Chapter agreed.” That was an extremely high bar, which placed priority on the traditional rites already in existence.

To be fair, I think this kind of sloppiness is not limited to partisans of the reform. It is also prevalent among several writers of the traditionalist bent. I think it deserves to be called out wherever it’s found, in a spirit of charity.

And while Fr. Britton’s book is to be commended for his attempt to ward off claims that Vatican II contains explicit error, I found the section on liturgy to be extremely disappointing. Several claims were not reflective of the truth or ignored historical realities. For example, on page 42 of the book he states, regarding Sacrosanctum Concilium: “The council fathers shaped their commentary on the liturgy with edifying reflections on tradition and scripture. In doing so, the council reveals how its teachings are in continuity with the Catholic faith while simultaneously placing its reforms within a larger theological framework.”

Although there is some truth to this, no mention is made of the fact that the copious footnotes tying Sacrosanctum Concilium to previous magisterial texts were deleted in the final version of the document, importantly removing these particular indicators of continuity. That seems like a pretty significant fact about the document that deserves to be mentioned in this section of the book. Instead, a purely positive image of Sacrosanctum Concilium is portrayed.

One more example of a problematic passage: on the very next page (43), some people’s practice of praying the rosary during mass is mentioned as exemplifying the laity’s lack of participation in the liturgy, which supposedly indicates that “a reform of the liturgy was much needed.” Praying the rosary during mass is thus treated by the author as an inherently bad thing to do, even though Pope Pius XII endorsed praying the rosary during the Mass in 1947 as a viable means of participation in the mass: “The needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, no. 108).

The fact that Fr. Britton ignores Pius XII’s words on liturgical participation (as found in one of the 20th century’s most important magisterial texts) is especially odd considering only two paragraphs earlier he praises the same pope’s actions regarding the liturgy, calling him a “saintly pope” (42). He is obviously aware of Pius XII’s liturgical legacy, but he directly contradicts him a few sentences after praising him. This means Fr. Britton is either ignorant of this passage from Mediator Dei (which is concerning) or intentionally presents an understanding of liturgical participation that contradicts it, with no explanation (which is equally troubling).

For these reasons, I typically encourage people interested in these topics to read Joseph Shaw’s book instead: The Liturgy, the Family, and the Crisis of Modernity, particularly chapters 3 & 4, which offer a much more level-headed approach to understanding Sacrosanctum Concilium, liturgical reform, and liturgical participation.

To listen to a priest who knows his stuff, here’s an interview with Fr. John Perricone and Catholic Unscripted:

Speaking of the uneducated

Mike Lewis, at Where Saltpeter Is, offers a full-blown defense of the Knoxville model as “the way forward.” (Forward... to what, exactly?)

Lewis positively shivers with delight as he relates the heavy-handed tactics of the rector:

Fr. Carter then reminded his parishioners of the problem that TC is meant to address, stating, “The error of the traditionalist movement is that it rejects the authentic magisterium of the Second Vatican Council and the reform of the liturgy that followed. This obstinate refusal to submit to the bishops and pope united in council is the essence of schism.”

A few quick points in rejoinder:

1. Since the Council did not actually create the Novus Ordo, and its provisions allowed for a number of realizations (including the rather conservative one that the council fathers had in mind, as documentation shows—I’ve written about this extensively and so have others), how exactly is it “refusal to submit to a council” to critique the radical reform that came out years later, and to prefer a liturgy that was far closer to what the bishops actually celebrated all four years at Vatican II? Does this mean Cardinal Ratzinger was obstinate for critiquing the Novus Ordo as a rupture?

2. More to the point: When are we going to hear about the refusal of the vast majority of Catholics to follow the ordinary universal Magisterium on the intrinsic immorality of contraception? Or any number of teachings in Vatican II itself that are routinely rejected by mainstream Catholics and progresssive theologians? Or a whole host of teachings from the past that have more inherent authority than Vatican II’s pastoral decrees? (Many authors have pointed this out, but the observation falls on deaf ears.)

3. As noted by Amy Welborn, if this is all about UNITY, could someone explain where the unity of the Novus Ordo is? Or whether anyone really cares about its unity? All you have to do is read the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum to see how few Novus Ordos correspond to liturgical law. In reality, the unity of the Novus Ordo consists solely in NOT BEING THAT THING.

Again, and again, what they say it’s about isn’t what it’s really about. What it’s about is rejection of the traditional Faith as expressed in the doctrines, morals, and rites of tradition.

Once you realize this, the whole situation comes into focus. You begin to understand, for example, why narcissistic sexual offender Fr. Rupnik is still “in communion” and “in good standing” and continues to preach retreats, whereas a priest whose conscience tells him he can no longer distribute communion in the hand will be canceled, all his pay taken away, and possibly even “laicized” (as if that penalty would have one ounce of validity under such circumstances).

While we’re at it, another example of uneducated commentary is Terrence Sweeney’s latest in America (or, as Fr. Z likes to write, Amerika) magazine: “Pope Leo’s Latin Mass Problem,” one more dumb article advocating a jug of chant, a loaf of Latin, and a bit of ad orientem. They really think we are as superficial as that. Stuff like this causes brain-cell loss. Read at your own risk. (Here’s the article without the paywall: https://archive.is/fqGnc.)

Good News in the Church

FSSP receives bigger church in Scranton

Courtesy of Fr. Z, who asks the obvious question:

I received a note that a FSSP TLM personal parish in the Diocese of Scranton has been given a lovely church for their use, St. Lucy.... I did a little searching for images of St. Lucy’s in Scranton. It looks like a huge place and quite suited. It has its roots in the massive influx of Italian (legal) immigrants back in the day. Do I sense here, perhaps, the heavenly intercession of the late, great, “Extraordinary Ordinary”, Bishop Robert C. Morlino… born in Scranton…?

Here’s a look inside this lovely church:

Fr. Z continues:

AGAIN…. it is to be asked… If Scranton… why not Charlotte? Why not Knoxville? Why not Monterey? Why not Detroit? If I were a member of the faithful in those places I’d be asking… WHY there and not HERE?

This is indeed exactly the question that must be asked. I’m reminded of the situation after Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans, where, if you lived in one diocese or country, the “remarried” couldn’t receive communion or a gay couple couldn’t get a blessing, while in the neighboring diocese or country, they could. I’m sorry, but this is stupid, a fracturing of Catholic unity in truth, and worthy only of Anglicanism, not Catholicism.

(Speaking of the Anglicans: “Half the Anglican World Breaks Away Over Church of England’s Progressive Turn.”)

Cleveland TLMs approved to continue

In a sense, this is good news:

The Diocese of Cleveland has confirmed that the Vatican has granted permission for the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass at two diocesan churches for a further two years. The extension applies to St Mary’s Church on South Main Street in Akron and St Stephen’s in Cleveland, both of which had previously been granted limited approval to continue celebrating the liturgy according to the 1962 Roman Missal.

In an email to the Catholic Herald, Nancy Fishburne, Head of Communications for the diocese, said: “Yes, the Holy See granted a two-year extension of permission for the two remaining diocesan celebrations of the Latin Mass within the Diocese of Cleveland.” Reports of the extension began circulating among parishioners after Sunday Mass, prompting quiet relief among the faithful who have attended the traditional liturgies for many years.

But it must be candidly admitted that this talk of “permission” to worship in the most venerable rite of Christendom, which held sway for over 1,600 years of its ever-maturing life, is rather ridiculous. Plus, as I said above, how chaotic can things become? The TLM is spared in some places, but nuked in others. Much more needs to be done to restore rightful citizenship to the old rite and the faithful who are nourished by it. A future pope needs to define once and for all that this liturgy is the proper rite of the Roman Church and anathematize all attempts to banish it.

Pontifical Liturgies in Rome

Edward Pentin reports in the National Catholic Register:

Despite continuing suppression of the traditional liturgy — which appears to be concentrated in some dioceses of the United States — four cardinals and an archbishop are to celebrate five traditional pontifical liturgies in Rome and the U.S. over the next month.

Just a reminder that, however bad things are today, you would NEVER have seen anything like this for at least the first 20 years after Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo. While this kind of thing does not remove or mitigate the sting of local communities deprived of the TLM, it is a sign of a new openness and confidence at higher levels and in very public settings, which usually does have a trickle-down effect, if not as quickly as we would like.

Pontifical Masses in England

Bishop Marian Eleganti will visit England for a week-long program of liturgies and other events marking the Latin Mass Society’s sixtieth anniversary — to be precise, four pontifical Masses (three solemn, one low), in a variety of locations. You know what this means: there’s openness to his coming, and to this liturgy, in all the dioceses he’ll be visiting. One more sign that, while the TLM is attacked in some places, it is welcome in others; and the latter will more and more be the case as the older generations depart.

(On the difference between Catholicism and its postconciliar simulacrum, read Mark Nowakowski’s “Leo XIV and the Post-Francis Thaw.” Along the same lines, I’d recommend James Green’s latest, which makes for very interesting reading: “The Bishops’ War: Control of the Terrain is Only Part of Full Spectrum Dominance.”)

A couple of decades ago, pontifical Masses were extremely rare. They are still very special occasions, but the number of them has greatly increased. And to do a pontifical, you need a bishop (or other prelate) to offer it, and you need the permission of the local ordinary (if he’s not the one doing it). So, for every pontifical celebrated, you can usually count on at least two bishops standing behind it.

Pontifical Mass in Philadelphia

Cardinal Müller will be offering a Solemn Pontifical Mass at Our Lady of Lourdes, Philadelphia, on November 2.

Le Barroux to the rescue

In last week’s roundup, I reported on the happy news of a dying Trappist monastery being given new life by a contingent of monks from the flourishing traditional Benedictine monastery of Le Barroux. An informative article on this transition has now appeared at the European Conservative.

New tonsured clerics for the FSSP

Sixteen new tonsured members were added to the Fraternity of St. Peter in the Wigratzbad seminary. Sparks of faith and hope for a Western Europe plunged into a new Dark Ages. The Nebraska seminary also held its tonsure ceremony on the same day.

The Sisters Adorers continue to grow

This is the female contemplative branch of the Institute of Christ the King. Truly: Deo gratias. The photograph was taken at the clothing ceremony in Naples.

Institute obtains major property

This is one of the most dazzling upgrades I’ve ever seen for a traditionalist parish:

Rejoice with us in this historic moment for Old St. Patrick Oratory and the Institute of Christ the King! By God’s Providence, the Institute has acquired the beautifully maintained Old Public Library Building, consisting of over 60,000 square feet right next to the Oratory. This provides space so greatly needed for classes, offices, conferences, and parish life. This $3.4 million purchase, made possible through generous benefactors and friendly loans, marks the beginning of Old St. Patrick Oratory’s Hall to Holiness campaign: a five-year, $5 million effort to repay the loan, improve parking and courtyards, and transform the new building into a vibrant center for Catholic education, formation, and community.

Chanting the Mysteries

For those who’d like to chant the mysteries of the Rosary in Latin, I’ve recorded the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries for Pelican+, using psalm tones, antiphons, and traditional melodies. Good for a long drive to or from work, the nearest TLM, a road trip, etc. Also a great way to memorize prayers in Latin (since singing makes them go into the memory many times faster than reciting) and to learn various psalm tones.

Liturgical Lessons

Dr. Foley commentary

The profound commentary by Dr. Foley on the Roman Canon continues.

The end of his “Unde et memores” paragraph particularly caught my attention, where we learn about what it means for the priest to make signs of blessing toward the consecrated host and chalice, something the short-sighted liturgical reformers objected to (and, in fact, stripped out of the Novus Ordo, along with most of the other signs of the cross that make the old rite a continual mnemonic of the Passion).

In the article on the “Supra quae propitio” we read:

A marvelous aspect of this prayer is that it recapitulates, in a way, all of sacred history, and enfolds this narrative into the Paschal mystery. Somehow, the Passion of the Christ builds on and consummates all of the good sacrifices made before Him from the beginning of time to the present day. We, in turn, like dwarves on the shoulders of giants, benefit from this last and perfect and ongoing sacrifice. Three figures are named from this sacred history: Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek.

Once again, it is absolutely marvelous to see the subtlety and intricacy of the Roman Canon, in which every word is chosen with care and a mere phrase unfolds theological vistas.

Cupich strikes out again

I almost give the man credit for trying, after failing so many times. He’s like a batter who never connects with the ball. Cupich’s latest foray into the Liturgy Wars takes the form of an article published in the News section of the Vatican website (groan), where he argues that “liturgy of and for the poor” is the lens through which the Council and the liturgical reform should be seen. Well, you gotta grant him this much: the results were rather impoverished! Over at his blog, Fr. Z does a superlative fisking of Cupich’s article. It’s a masterclass in how to respond to the pro-Novus Ordo bilge that you so often see. The summary:

Cupich’s article is a piece of rhetorical flattery about social-causes cloaked in liturgical language. It falls apart under scrutiny. He skews the Council’s texts and intents, conflates liturgical simplicity with socio-economic symbolism, caricatures the historical liturgy as “imperial,” and inverts the finality of the Eucharist from worship to social action. He forces liturgy to become an instrument of solidarity rather than exalting it as the sacrificial worship of the living God. The result? A Church celebrated for being of the poor, but one that risks being poor of mystery.

If the poor truly deserve the fullness of the faith, they will find it not in truncated assemblies of social justice, but in the solemn beauty of the Mass. Cupich seems to treat beauty (a transcendental with truth) as non-essential. Liturgy is thus reduced to social engineering. On the other hand the poor deserve the radiant splendor of Christ, sacramentally manifested in sacred liturgical worship in which they are free to participate and benefit from interiorly. What they do not need is a watered-down social-justice aesthetic meant to comfort the middle-class conscience.

Moreover, what is Cupich’s motive here, other than the obvious. Is it to pit one Pope against other Popes? In that case, we can review what other Popes have said about tradition and solemn liturgical worship.

Read the rest there.

Another Eucharistic encyclical? No, please

With all due respect to the author of this piece (“Dear Pope Leo: We Need an Encyclical on the Eucharist”), so full of edifying quotations and reflections, we do not need another encyclical on the Eucharist. Paul VI’s Mysterium Fidei, John Paul II’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum Caritatis ALL clearly affirm the Real Presence.

What is needed is the restoration of the Latin West’s preeminent Eucharistic liturgy, the Traditional Roman Rite, which cries out Real Presence in its every word and gesture.

Msgr. Escriva stayed faithful to the TLM

Michael Warren Davis fantasizes about Msgr. Escriva’s supposed temptation to become Orthodox.

In the course of his article he makes the huge blunder of saying that it was “no small concession” to Escriva to let him continue with the TLM. In truth, Paul VI made an exception for all elderly priests who would be saying Mass without a congregation. It was, in its own way, still deeply insulting (“Yes, you can keep using the missal you’ve been praying for decades, as long as no one is around and the door’s locked!”), but this exception really existed, and Davis seems unaware of it. (You can read about this in the article “Two Unpastoral Indults: A Protestation of Non-Gratitude.”) This crack in the door was one reason, among many, that the old rite never ceased to be offered in the world, keeping up the thread of continuity with its ancient roots, down to the present.

More generally, the ecclesiological triumphalism in Davis is unwarranted by any sober examination of the state of Orthodoxy, outside of the bubbles of (usually American) Orthobros. I, for one, don’t think there’s any cause for Catholic triumphalism, either. Everyone is hurting in different ways.

It’s worth mentioning that a rumor’s going around that Pope Leo XIV is about to bust up Opus Dei into three different groups, dissolving its status as a personal prelature. Time will tell whether and to what extent these rumors have truth behind them.

Realism about +Lefebvre

I agree 95% with this analysis and urge everyone to read it: “Hypothetically, What if Lefebvre Had Caved?”

The 5% where I disagree is the paragraph on sacred music. There was always a minority of Catholics, even in the Novus Ordo world, who loved chant and polyphony and pushed hard for it (Schuler, Skeris, the CMAA, etc.). These people and their organizations were not initially favorable to retaining or returning to the TLM, but over time, with the Ratzingerian thaw, added the TLM to their overall program.

However, the other 95% seems on-point, and should make anyone think twice before criticizing Lefebvre/SSPX.

Modern Man revisited

Writes Darrick Taylor in “Pope Leo and the Death Penalty Charade”:

I do not mean to impugn the motives of honest opponents of the death penalty in saying this. John Paul II and many others who came of age in Europe during the first half of the 20th century and its attendant traumas cite the horrors of that era as having informed their opposition, and many sincerely are repulsed by the idea of taking a person’s life in light of the devastation men have visited upon each other in the modern era. This is understandable and, in some ways, admirable.

The problem with such good souls (I know a few) is that they use the same logic to make their case that proponents of any number of heresies use: the modern world is so different from what preceded it, society has changed so much, our experiences are so different from that of our ancestors (there are numerous variations on this theme) that the Church must change or alter its teaching on (fill in the blank).

Note that this is EXACTLY the same argument by which Paul VI justified his imposition of the Modern Rite on Catholics, taking away their Roman Rite. Modern Man blah blah blah. It’s nonsense from top to bottom. Either human nature remains the same, and its basic aptitudes, needs, and obligations remain the same, or we have given up the foundations of all coherent philosophy and particularly of morals.

Other matters of interest

The Church is Roman in her essence

In this long anticipated Part 2 (see Ep. 19 for Part 1), Catholic theologian and historian Dr. Alan Fimister defends this provocative assertion: the Church founded by Jesus Christ is Roman, in some mysterious sense prophesied in the Old and fulfilled in the New Testament. The implications are astounding, not only in terms of how we understand the past, but the present, as well as the future history of the world.

(By the way, before anyone grabs his keyboard to write an angry message, “Roman” in this context does NOT mean simply Western, Latin, or European. After all, the Byzantine Empire called itself Roman and its citizens Romans well into the second millennium. Let Fimister and Charles have a chance to explain what they are getting at.)

True aristocracy

Robert Lazu Kmita, “An Aristocratic Convert: Blessed Prince Vladimir Ghika”:

The profound notion implied by the word “aristocracy” (from Ancient Greek ἀριστοκρατίᾱ—aristokratíā) is rarely grasped by minds infected by historical revisionism in its authentic, original meaning. Strictly speaking, the etymology of the word is highly significant: “the power of the virtuous,” “the power of the good.” In other words, an aristocrat is a person who lives a virtuous life. This ideal is clearly expressed in both pagan—especially Greek and Roman—and Judeo-Christian cultures. Actually, for the Christian Tradition our Lord Jesus Christ can be seen as the ultimate aristocrat and the perfect virtuous man: for He is truly the absolute King of the universe and of all Christians.

In a similar category can be placed Kmita’s article “Blessed Emperor Charles I, Archduke Eduard Habsburg of Austria, and the Secret of a Happy Marriage.” Beautiful and inspiring. Thanks be to God for the life, virtues, and witness of Karl and Zita! May He be glorified in His saints and may we follow them faithfully.

The evil of usury

Imitating his predecessor Leo XIII, Pope Leo XIV spoke recently against usury as a crime of exploitation, saying it corrupts the human heart and enslaves the poor. David Hunt’s book Something for Nothing? An Explanation and Defence of the Scholastic Position on Usury does the philosophical heavy lifting to support that traditional teaching. A timely and important book!

Immigration

Edward Feser, as usual, brings reason to emotional subjects: “A Catholic Defense of Enforcing Immigration Laws.”

Time to update Orwell’s 1984

At European Conservative:

President Lula da Silva’s Brazil has taken another step towards totalitarianism with the launch of a massive platform designed to streamline the prosecution of those who criticize LGBT ideology. With Orwellian irony, it has been called the ‘Platform of Respect.’... The persecution of ordinary citizens on behalf of the LGBT movement will be funded by the state—that is, by the taxpayers being targeted.

Stop using this label

I’ve been thinking vaguely along these lines for a while but T&S contributor John Mac Ghlionn has put the matter in razor-sharp lines at Crisis Magazine: “Why All Catholics Must Reject the ‘Judeo-Christian’ Label.”

“Why is Philippine Catholicism so cringey?”

It is a deceptively simple question whose answer takes us on an in-depth exploration of Philippine history, identity, and pop culture, with especial emphasis on the Philippine “variety shows,” which Didacus [pen name] argues are a template for understanding Catholicism in the Philippines.

Mitsui’s latest chapbook

Not only is Daniel Mitsui one of our finest sacred artists, he is an outstanding poet as well, as we can see in his The Gustable God. The poems in this book are intriguing—their wordplay is clever, their messages are profound, the lines very musical. Highly recommended. My copy is sitting on the little table next to my reading chair where I’ve been enjoying it recently.

Tithing opportunities

In addition to the aforementioned ICKSP project “Hall to Holiness” in Kansas City:

If you enjoy and benefit from OnePeterFive, please consider making a donation in honor of Christ the King and His faithful servants Blessed Karl and Servant of God Zita.

Behold: the Benedictines of Mary novitiate. How talented and how delightful! One of the few congregations of women religious that is expanding and bursting at the seams. Contribute if you can.

I know this was a long roundup, and if you’ve made it all the way to the end, congratulations and thank you!

To Christ the King be honor, empire, and glory, for ever and ever, amen.