Can There Be a Reform of the Reform?

1P5: Why the “Reform of the Reform” Is Doomed by Peter Kwasniewski

Why are there still liturgically minded people defending the Novus Ordo or promoting its “redemption” through Ratzingerian improvements?

Only now are some younger men becoming bishops; thus we see examples like Thomas Daly or Alexander Sample, both of whom sponsored liturgical conferences, which I think are aimed at an enrichment of both forms of the Roman rite. There are also probably many bishops like Joseph Strickland, who prefer the OF but allow their priests to study and celebrate the EF, and perhaps introduce some enrichment into the OF. But many dioceses still have the old guard in positions of power, though many have retired in recent years and will continue to retire, while others have the next generation of "progressives" in charge. So, ask the question again in 5 years, and maybe things won't seem so bleak, at least with respect to liturgical praxis.

Let's break down the second claim.

Is the Novus Ordo “adequate” or “good enough”? That is never the way the Church has thought about divine worship. God deserves all that we can give, the best, the holiest, the purest, the noblest — but even more than that, He has a right to receive back from us that which He Himself has inspired among us over many centuries of liturgical prayer. The liturgy developed in depth and amplitude over many centuries under His beneficent divine causality, by His providential care for the Mystical Body. We therefore owe it to Him in justice to make use of the gifts He has given us. To strip away much of the content of our liturgy that nourished countless Christians and then offer Him a weird combination of reinterpreted bits of antiquity combined with rootless novelties is at best a surprising way to beseech His continued blessings and, at worst, an insult to His generosity and kindness.

1. Would all ecclesial traditions of the Church Universal agree as to what worship is, if they even use the word? Let us assume that there is universal agreement among all ecclesial traditions about the necessity of divine worship and the Eucharist is primarily a form of worship. Would they agree on this claim?

"God deserves all that we can give, the best, the holiest, the purest, the noblest — but even more than that, He has a right to receive back from us that which He Himself has inspired among us over many centuries of liturgical prayer."

That seems to me to be a Latin explanation of things, especially if it is a matter of "justice," but Aquinass does not speak of ius with respect to God but fas, because what we can do in response to God can never equal what God has done for us. According to this line of reasoning, even the Thomistic virtue of "religio," which is allied to justice but not identical to justice, is a question of fas.

Well, perhaps this can be retained if "justice" is being used analogically or improperly. Fine. We should give and use our best because we have received those gifts from God, and we owe it to Him both for adoration and praise and also for thanksgiving.

2. "The liturgy developed in depth and amplitude over many centuries under His beneficent divine causality, by His providential care for the Mystical Body. "

This is a questionable historical claim, and relies upon assumptions which are not self-evident nor do I think they can be defended from Tradition. Could it be the case that God instead tolerates practices that are not so beneficial, or even brings good out of evil? A prime example: the separation of Baptism and Confirmation. There are probably other counter-examples that can be cited from the history of the patriarchate of Rome. While Kwasniewski is right to protest against reform by "experts," academics or bureaucrats, what of the elimination of local variety of uses in the name of uniformity and homogeneity? (Or a less serious example, there is the influence of monastic practice on cathedral or parish practice, something which we might accept right away given our esteem of monastics but should we have criteria by which to judge whether it is appropriate to adopt such customs or whether a cathedral or parish custom should be emphasized or take precedence instead?) We believe in Divine Providence but Divine Providence does not eliminate sin, especially the abuse of authority, and the consequences of sin nor does it prevent those consequences from being venerated as "tradition."

Kwasniewski also presumes that the development that did take place in the patriarchate of Rome was organic up to a certain point. This I have reason to dispute, and have done so elsewhere and will do so again below.

3. "To strip away much of the content of our liturgy that nourished countless Christians and then offer Him a weird combination of reinterpreted bits of antiquity combined with rootless novelties is at best a surprising way to beseech His continued blessings and, at worst, an insult to His generosity and kindness."

This only follows if we accept 2.

First and foremost, it harms the cause by reinforcing one of the basic errors of the Novus Ordo: that instead of the content and manner of worship being predetermined by a tradition to which all are equally subject, it requires repeated, deliberate, and somewhat arbitrary determinations on the part of the celebrant.

Some are more subject than others, especially when the language is directly intelligible to only a few. How can the people receive if they do not understand what they are receiving? How can they decide whether to receive or not, and the sensus fidelium be exercised? What texts or reforms were introduced in accordance with an understanding of the liturgy based upon second millenium Latin theologoumena? Progressives are just as wrong if they believe that no one may have legitimate objections to the prayers they compose or accept, as if they are the sole arbiters of what is Christian or "Catholic." Progressives are not the sole arbiters or depositories of the sensus fidelium. If the faithful protest against changes in their liturgy, what measures can they take to ensure their voices are heard?

How are innovation or restoration to be differentiated? We have seen how one opinion about the Eucharist as sacrifice has been used to characterize the Pauline Missal as being "Protestant" when it may actually be the case that there is a better opinion about what constitutes sacrifice, one that is found in other ecclesial traditions of the Church Universal. Maybe the Protestants had a point! But Latin triumphalists will never admit this.

The only way around this problem would be if the celebrant made a private vow “always to do the better thing” — that is, to choose always and only what is either traditional or closer to tradition — e.g., always saying “the Lord be with you” and “Kyrie eleison,” always using the Roman Canon, always standing ad orientem, always giving Communion on the tongue, and so forth. However, this would create a world of difficulties for his conscience: what is the better thing in this or that case? Discernments and decisions would still have to be made, sometimes on the spur of the moment, that are foreign to the spirit of the liturgy, which implies receipt of a gift and adherence to a rule. Attempting to act upon such a vow would, sooner or later, trigger some of the parishioners, inaugurating a series of unwelcome phone calls or letters from the local chancery.

Kwasniewski emphasizes that one should receive a tradition, be regulated by it, and  live it, rather than be forced to make decisions about how to best be traditional. Uniformity for a diocese is not enough; it must be for the whole patriarchate. For the Pauline Missal, there is the GIRM.  Is it possible to enforce celebrate the OF according to the GIRM?  How exactly is this going to be accomplished when Rome is vetting the bishops?

Is it possible to incorporate a more traditional ars celebrandi into the GIRM? Bishop Peter Elliot and Benedict XVI  think so, while others may disagree. What other sorts of "mutual enrichment" are possible for the OF and the EF? I don't think that always using the Roman Canon and always standing ad orientem are burdens to the presbyter's conscience that Kwasniewski makes them out to be. Perhaps Kwasniewski is correct about individual presbyters using suppressed or excluded prayers within the OF -- this is not something they should be doing. What if bishops were to give permission? If Kwasniewski is concerned that this is still counter to papal authority, then what if the pope were to give bishops the option to enrich the OF in  this manner? Bishops could then let individual presbyters, in consultation with themselves, make informed and sufficiently justified choices and educate their flocks accordingly, and see what comes of it. Could there not be a return to the pre-Trent variety of local rites as a solution? Sure, any positive reforms could possibly be swept away once a presbyter is transferred, but then we are taking about an institutional problem again. Why should presbyters (or bishops) be transferred so frequently, if at all?

But such tinkering would most likely still be objectionable to Latin traditionalists as experimentation and allowing too much variety that is opposed to "tradition" and "receiving the tradition" and "being subject to tradition." Given the objections and conditions that Latin traditionalists would give, it is difficult to see how any sort of gradual reform of the reform would be possible, unless a pope were to gradually mandate changes to the OF for everyone.

Even if, after many decades, something more like the Tridentine rite could be reassembled within the context of the Novus Ordo, would it not have been simpler, safer, and better for the faithful and for the priest to have taken up the gold standard from the start and left aside a rite so defective? Why pursue the ROTR if each step brings us closer to the authentic liturgy we already had and still have?

Kwasniewski would prefer to have a reimposition of the EF on everyone--there must be uniformity and it must be the EF. Indeed, probably for the majority of Latin traditionalists the only reform that is a possible is a complete reset of the entire patriarchate to some older version of the Roman Missal. Benedict XVI would disagree with this course of action, and I think the prudential reasons that Benedict would give are correct. It may be that the best compromise that is possible at this time is Summorum Pontificum. Let the OF and EF coexist, let pastors catechize the faithful, let there be "mutual enrichment," and see what happens and what is sustainable by the power of the Holy Spirit.

While Benedict did not offer the possibility of having some version of the EF be translated into a hieratic form of the vernacular language of the people (with a modified liturgical calendar), that could be a future option (which ideally would eventually replace the Pauline Missal). I suspect, though, many Latin traditionalists would be opposed to this, for fear of losing some of their number to this third option. (Hence a reason for the hostility from some Latin traditionalists to the Anglican ordinariates.)


I think the better-informed of Latin traditionalists would agree the Pauline Missal (and the other actions of Bugnini's Consilium under Pius XII) was an even worse instance of a top-down reform by a patriarchate that was too centralized and weighed down by institutional inertia than the reform of Pius V. Ultimately, there can be no proper reform to the Roman rite without proper ecclesial reform -- the institutional problems of the Latin churches are the source of many other problems. (This most Latin traditionalists would not concede.) What else should we expect from a patriarchate that tolerates ordained ministers having such a wide range of opinion about liturgy and many other issues? As it is, we probably cannot wipe the Pauline Missal away from the entire patriarchate of Rome without  negative pastoral consequences. Even if the majority of Latins are physically present at Sunday Mass without being attentive to the liturgical texts and therefore do to not have much spiritual or intellectual or emotional attachment to the Pauline Missal, such a drastic change would probably still need to be announced and could not be done secretly.

If there is time remaining to the Latin churches, some sort of introduction of a hieratic translation of some version of the EF missal as a replacement of the Pauline Missal could take place in individual parishes if the bishop of a local church approves and the people are properly prepared beforehand. Even if Latin traditionalists were to support such an option, more likely than not they would be opposed to any additional changes being made to the Missal as such changes would not be "organic."



While Pope Francis may not think the Latin traditionalists are the future of the patriarchate, so long as they are left alone, their communities will continue to exist, even if some decide to leave if a better alternative comes into being. And regardless of the arguments by Latin traditionalists for preserving the liturgical use of Latin for everyone, there will probably remain many people who prefer a liturgy in a language they can understand, especially peoples who do not speak Romance languages, regardless of what texts or Missals are being used.