Posted on 07/23/2025 2:36:57 PM PDT by ebb tide
If we are well past the days when it was common for faithful Catholics to become unhinged at the very suggestion of “fixing” the Missal of Paul VI, we must admit that is in large part due to the influence of those calling for a reform of the reform—obviously including a pope, several curial cardinals and such organs of so-called “mainstream” orthodoxy as Ignatius Press and Adoremus Bulletin.
Some who favor this project, perhaps most, see it merely as a pragmatic way to enable ordinary parish Masses to approach as closely to the Tridentine Mass as might be viable in the relatively near future—perhaps by eliminating some of the least traditional options, perhaps by allowing as options some elements of the historic Roman missal. If that were all there is to the project, we could wish it well and go about our business.
The problem is that leading advocates of it—individual writers, periodicals, liturgical institutes, conferences and so on—tend not to see it as a (hopefully temporary) pursuit of what they consider the best viable option. They consider that “reforming it” is a way to “finally” implement a “true reform” which would boil down to a hybrid liturgy.
I stress this difference because it is a key point in Peter Kwasniewski’s Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn’t Broken and the New Mass Can’t be Fixed. Readers of the book—particularly its opponents—will need to distinguish Kwasniewski’s substantive criticisms of the principles and specifics of the “reform” from the conclusions he draws from them. Some will be appalled at his argument that the new Mass is “inherently flawed” (in some sense) because of what it contains as well as because of what it leaves out, that Catholics “should” (in some sense) try to avoid the new Mass when reasonably possible (allowing scope for conscience and prudential judgment) and that the Tridentine Mass must be restored.
But it would also be coherent to accept his substantive criticisms and believe it optimal for the Tridentine Mass to eventually be restored as normative while concluding that after more than half a century the new Mass is sufficiently (if minimally) acceptable enough for the average Catholic. This would lead to treating the matter as academic and leaving the new Mass in place in order to avoid doing more harm than good.
What is crucial is for the Tridentine Mass—not some “true reform”—to be viewed as the gold standard. Opponents of Kwasniewski’s conclusions cannot reasonably use them as a strawman for attacking his substantive criticisms of the changes under Paul VI.
Neither can a strawman reasonably be made of Kwasniewski’s criticisms of changes made by Pope Pius XII, particularly changes to Holy Week. Logically, the matter has no bearing on the validity of his arguments about the later overhaul of the entire liturgy. As a matter of historical fact, erroneous principles began to influence changes to the Mass when agitators obtained permission for the Dialogue Mass—unobjectionable in itself—from Pope Pius XI in the 1920s.
The irony is that challenging Pius XII’s Holy Week changes rose to prominence as part of a “moderate” critique of liturgical changes made by Paul VI—which attempted to be “balanced” – both embracing and critiquing some of the changes on either side of Vatican II – and avoided addressing erroneous principles in favor of a one-sided focus on organic development.
Close the Workshop refutes many of those principles. A good number of its arguments really only apply to the new Mass as is—sometimes in its official texts, sometimes in the practical reality of its use—and would be accepted by proponents of a “true reform.” Many others are excellent critiques of elements of the new Mass such a reform would preserve, including the new lectionary, general intercessions and offertory processions.
Kwasniewski’s defenses of elements of the Tridentine Mass that a “true reform” would not restore are just as penetrating and—if only because less commonly made—perhaps more interesting. No doubt the one that some will find most jarring is his case for preserving Latin for the readings, which he makes on the quite correct grounds that these are themselves acts of worship and not merely instructional.
I particularly appreciated his defense of the priest reciting the entirety of the Gloria and Creed at High Mass and then waiting while the choir sings them on the grounds that this practice preserves a place for the individual focus on God prominent in Low Mass together with the music, ceremonial and more communal emphasis of a High Mass. His arguing for the whispered canon on the grounds that it not only allows a degree of interior focus (which is harder to preserve when such a long prayer is said audibly) but also facilitates the ability to engage in whatever form of prayer—reading the liturgical texts, mental prayer or some appropriate devotion—is another much-needed defense of traditional piety.
If it is true that some reason could always be found for restoring any particular practice and that there is no strict need to restore each advocated by Kwasniewski, there is a solidity to his reasoning absent from the “reform of the reform” school. Again and again, the “reformist” position wrongly emphasizes accessibility (i.e. the vernacular or the audible canon) and verbal comprehension, is excessively focused on didacticism and is more interested in praying collectively than in each person finding his own way to adore God. Put bluntly, “reformists” are pointed in the same erroneous direction as those who created the new liturgy while arguing that it went too far.
Kwasniewski bases his case for restoring a multiplicity of seemingly little things on the very real need to restore correct priorities. Even what I consider his exaggerated emphasis on music and high ceremonial serves this necessary purpose. Combined with periods of silence and whispered prayers, traditional sacred music and high ceremonial can provide people with a variety of ways to adore God (one through the liturgical words, another through watching the ceremonies, another through the atmosphere created by the music, another through mental prayer) and prevent an overly didactic (or autodidactic) focus.
A more unique point is Kwasniewski’s defense of the “ite missa est” preceding the final benediction. “Reformists” hold that the reversal of this—combined with removal of the Last Gospel—is more sensible and harmonious since it puts the “ite missa est” and the response to it at the very end of Mass. Kwasniewski argues that the traditional placement is more sensible because the “ite missa est” announces that the integrity of the sacrifice has been completed, while the benediction imparts grace following that completion.
The contrast mirrors that between classicism and naturalism in art and architecture. Classicist artists painting the crucifixion will deviate from an accurate depiction if this is necessary for creating an “internally harmonious whole.” Naturalists will try to accurately depict it even if some “inner harmony” is lost. A classicist architect who needs to build a baptistry jutting out of one side of the church will insist on having something jut out on the other side for the sake of symmetry—then proceed to find something to fill the space. A “naturalist architect”—for lack of a better term—will build the necessary baptistry and be content with an asymmetrical church.
Historically, liturgical reform has followed naturalistic principles. Particular things were added here or there because there was a specific reason to have them (i.e. giving a blessing after the integrity of the sacrifice has been complete), without concern for the artificial harmony of the classicist. “Reform of the reform” theories tend to be more interested in fitting parts of the liturgy into an artificially harmonious whole than in having each part where it is for the sake of some intelligible purpose.
A last key point made by Kwasniewski is that the very idea of pursuing a “true reform” contributes to treating the liturgy as a “permanent workshop” in which scholars, pseudo-scholars and activists are constantly making or remaking the liturgy in an effort to “perfect” this or that—rather than simply accepting tradition as a given. The one qualification I would make is that reforming the reform for a different purpose—that of gradually restoring elements of the Tridentine Mass as steps towards it full restoration—would not create the same problem.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.