I thoroughly enjoyed this post. When I was in a religious order of nuns I was told I was “rigid, “fanatical about Mary” and other such things. In hindsight I should have left early on when we began “natural rising” on some mornings which meant we did not pray the liturgy of the hours together. As novices and postulants we huddled together in a classroom to pray together until all dropped out except two of us. Then I was accused of “singular” friendship. I tell these stories because I have found Tradition and am so happy. Yes, there has been a huge rupture, two religions.
Ironic to see Southwark Cathedral (Church of England, although, of course, the building itself stolen by Henry VIII) in the image at the top of the post! Many of the glorious Tyburn martyrs were dragged past this building -- "as bridegrooms to their weddings" -- on their way to die.
I think it's possible that the split might deepen because many modern Catholic theologians have bad formation. They have given up rigour and logic for therapy and physics envy. If someone like de Chardin had a solid intellectual formation and still managed to present The Phenomenon of Man as a serious scientific treatise, then what of modern theologians?
You get Andrea Grillo and Pope Francis who believe that ad hominems against a few extremists are valid reasons for restricting the authentic Roman liturgy, and that dehumanising all who prefer said liturgy is responsible behaviour. You get German bishops who think that heteronormativity is dangerous. At best, this is counterproductive; at worst, this sort of incompetence is the precursor to atrocities.
I would be more open to accepting Grillo's views if the Papal Magisterium officially declares rupture rejecting Benedict XVI's principle of "what earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred". But I don't think this is possible.
The last time I checked, natural selection and mutation hasn't yet produced a "modern man" distinct from the specimen of Pope St Gregory the Great.
Another way of putting it, as it struck me when I first got acquainted with traditional Roman Catholic worship, is that we're not worshipping the same God. So the question "which religion?" follows from the even more concretely urgent question "which God?" The essential evil of false religions is that they worship false gods. It's still possible to believe in and worship the true (Christian) God at the Novus Ordo, but I suspect that usually that's not what happens in these latter days of the Christian Era.
Yes, the Holy Eucharist is always the Holy Eucharist; but are we ourselves approaching this august Mystery with the hushed reverence, lively fear of God, concentrated solemnity, and generous outpouring of beauty that we owe to the Sanctissimum?
For me and I'm strictly speaking for me I personally can go to the extraordinary form and ordinary form of the mass and describe what you said in your article.
Even if they were playing rock music guitars, whatever chanting Latin hymns, I will always have reverence.
I can't speak for others who love taking communion in the hand. I can only speak for myself how my interior life has changed.
Of course of course. But that's not interesting. God is omnipresent. (He doesn't 'go' to the TLM any more then he 'goes' to the NOM.) You can worship the true God anywhere. The more interesting point/question is whether it isn't true that by its own inherent tendencies, or more importantly by its de facto usual character (as concretely 'implemented'), the new mass directs worship to a new god.
I would never say that the God is different. In this, we are agreed. But I would say that the manner of worship is very different, and, as we see in the OT, God accepts some forms of worship and not others. He is very specific and jealous!
Inasmuch as elements of truth are present in all religions, there is something in all of them that can help lead us toward salvation; and this will be all the more true, the more one gets nearer to the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
Implying that somehow Novus Ordo Catholics are not “fully” part of the Catholic Church.? If so, please come and out and directly say that. Even though such a statement is not only incredibly divisive, but eerily smacks of Luther nailing things to doors.
It's not about whether or not the baptized are fully part of the Church. They are. It's a question of what they are given to believe and how they are given to worship. There can be serious defects in these areas, as has occurred at various points in Church history.
Thank you for clarifying your personal opinion but titling a post as you did implies otherwise and is divisive and misleading and confusing. Mediums like Substack function like a public square and there is a duty to be as careful as possible in wording in matters of faith.
A good summary of the situation that gets to the heart of the problem. And yes, it is essentially to religions/ two ideologies at war with each other !
I thoroughly enjoyed this post. When I was in a religious order of nuns I was told I was “rigid, “fanatical about Mary” and other such things. In hindsight I should have left early on when we began “natural rising” on some mornings which meant we did not pray the liturgy of the hours together. As novices and postulants we huddled together in a classroom to pray together until all dropped out except two of us. Then I was accused of “singular” friendship. I tell these stories because I have found Tradition and am so happy. Yes, there has been a huge rupture, two religions.
Ironic to see Southwark Cathedral (Church of England, although, of course, the building itself stolen by Henry VIII) in the image at the top of the post! Many of the glorious Tyburn martyrs were dragged past this building -- "as bridegrooms to their weddings" -- on their way to die.
Good point! I was simply looking for a stark contrast between old and new.
It's a great photo and perfect for the post, although sadly, the difference is only one of appearance!
Well, the old church is, as you say, Catholic in essence, if not in current ownership (or theft).
I just switched over to Pelican, so please cancel here.
The only way I can cancel you is if I know your email address. You can send it to me via:
https://www.peterkwasniewski.com/contact
I think it's possible that the split might deepen because many modern Catholic theologians have bad formation. They have given up rigour and logic for therapy and physics envy. If someone like de Chardin had a solid intellectual formation and still managed to present The Phenomenon of Man as a serious scientific treatise, then what of modern theologians?
You get Andrea Grillo and Pope Francis who believe that ad hominems against a few extremists are valid reasons for restricting the authentic Roman liturgy, and that dehumanising all who prefer said liturgy is responsible behaviour. You get German bishops who think that heteronormativity is dangerous. At best, this is counterproductive; at worst, this sort of incompetence is the precursor to atrocities.
I would be more open to accepting Grillo's views if the Papal Magisterium officially declares rupture rejecting Benedict XVI's principle of "what earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred". But I don't think this is possible.
The last time I checked, natural selection and mutation hasn't yet produced a "modern man" distinct from the specimen of Pope St Gregory the Great.
Another way of putting it, as it struck me when I first got acquainted with traditional Roman Catholic worship, is that we're not worshipping the same God. So the question "which religion?" follows from the even more concretely urgent question "which God?" The essential evil of false religions is that they worship false gods. It's still possible to believe in and worship the true (Christian) God at the Novus Ordo, but I suspect that usually that's not what happens in these latter days of the Christian Era.
OK, so what you're saying is when I attend the TLM and I plan on attending this Sunday God will be pleased with me.
But when I attend daily mass in the NOM he is extremely angry and jealous with me?
He prefers Latin over English?
It's not so much about you as it is about the liturgical rites. I cannot explain all of it here in a comment box, but here are some items:
https://onepeterfive.com/is-the-mass-just-the-mass-2/
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/04/how-liturgical-forms-concretely-define.html
Yes, the Holy Eucharist is always the Holy Eucharist; but are we ourselves approaching this august Mystery with the hushed reverence, lively fear of God, concentrated solemnity, and generous outpouring of beauty that we owe to the Sanctissimum?
For me and I'm strictly speaking for me I personally can go to the extraordinary form and ordinary form of the mass and describe what you said in your article.
Even if they were playing rock music guitars, whatever chanting Latin hymns, I will always have reverence.
I can't speak for others who love taking communion in the hand. I can only speak for myself how my interior life has changed.
Of course you can worship the true God at the new mass. God does not just go to the TLM
Of course of course. But that's not interesting. God is omnipresent. (He doesn't 'go' to the TLM any more then he 'goes' to the NOM.) You can worship the true God anywhere. The more interesting point/question is whether it isn't true that by its own inherent tendencies, or more importantly by its de facto usual character (as concretely 'implemented'), the new mass directs worship to a new god.
That's hard no. I go to both the TLM and NOM. Go to a Hindu temple and start worshiping a new deity. You'll see the difference.
I would never say that the God is different. In this, we are agreed. But I would say that the manner of worship is very different, and, as we see in the OT, God accepts some forms of worship and not others. He is very specific and jealous!
Can it be both? I feel both are leading me to salvation from the abyss and helping others
Inasmuch as elements of truth are present in all religions, there is something in all of them that can help lead us toward salvation; and this will be all the more true, the more one gets nearer to the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
Implying that somehow Novus Ordo Catholics are not “fully” part of the Catholic Church.? If so, please come and out and directly say that. Even though such a statement is not only incredibly divisive, but eerily smacks of Luther nailing things to doors.
It's not about whether or not the baptized are fully part of the Church. They are. It's a question of what they are given to believe and how they are given to worship. There can be serious defects in these areas, as has occurred at various points in Church history.
Thank you for clarifying your personal opinion but titling a post as you did implies otherwise and is divisive and misleading and confusing. Mediums like Substack function like a public square and there is a duty to be as careful as possible in wording in matters of faith.
There is no religion. https://substack.com/home/post/p-184938874
A good summary of the situation that gets to the heart of the problem. And yes, it is essentially to religions/ two ideologies at war with each other !
With respect Father, I don’t think ideology and religion are the same thing. (thank God!)
Correct. However our ideology stems from the logical conclusions of our faith. Hence the reason for my statement.