Reasons for skipping Mass

[Stella]

A well known traditionalist commentator (Peter Kwasniewski) has unearthed and old moral text of the Church from 1929 to justify traditionalists not having to go to Mass in the Ordinary form if they are unable to attend an EF Mass.

Peter K.jpg

Peter K1.jpg

What do people think of this?

[peregrinator]

What do people think of this?

I think the way Kwasniewski is using it is wrong. Anyway, he didn't "unearth" it - it's from a well-known pre-V2 moral theology book (Jone/Adelman) intended for confessors.

Now it could be that this priest or that one celebrates Mass in such a way that it brings spiritual harm - and one can justify avoiding those Masses - but that's not intrinsic to the Paul VI Missal. And I would not want to come before Our Lord's judgment seat with the excuse that the Mass offered by 99% of Roman Rite priests in the world is so spiritually harmful that I could not bring myself to assist at it. That the Paul VI Missal belongs to a separate, non-Roman Rite (we might call it the "Bugnini Rite"), and we have been unjustly deprived of our liturgical heritage, is not an excuse - if you're a Roman-Rite Catholic, and live in a place where only the Rite of St. John Chrysostom is offered, you must still attend it to meet your Sunday obligation.

[peregrinator]

The traditionalist movement still hasn't recovered from Michael Davies' untimely death (2004) in my opinion.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It depends on the claim he is making. If the claim is that the NO is inferior, and if the claim is true, it's still not inflicting spiritual harm. It's just not doing all that it can do.

If he gets so upset at a NO Mass that he is irreverent, at least internally, that could be spiritually harmful, but then he is under an obligation to attempt to address his attitude.

I don't see away to use this as a blanket reason never to attend a NO Mass and be happy about it.

[Stella]

Now it could be that this priest or that one celebrates Mass in such a way that it brings spiritual harm - and one can justify avoiding those Masses - but that's not intrinsic to the Paul VI Missal. And I would not want to come before Our Lord's judgment seat with the excuse that the Mass offered by 99% of Roman Rite priests in the world is so spiritually harmful that I could not bring myself to assist at it. That the Paul VI Missal belongs to a separate, non-Roman Rite (we might call it the "Bugnini Rite"), and we have been unjustly deprived of our liturgical heritage, is not an excuse - if you're a Roman-Rite Catholic, and live in a place where only the Rite of St. John Chrysostom is offered, you must still attend it to meet your Sunday obligation.

My concern with giving this 'out' to tlm Catholics of the next generation is its potential to be abused and destroy their faith. Without having done work in discernment of Spirits and understood consolations and desolations, people are likely to assess 'spiritual harm' as something they just don't like. Kwasniewski has just recently joined Twitter/X and is already being shared widely among traditionalists. It's a bit of a worry.

[Stella]

It depends on the claim he is making. If the claim is that the NO is inferior, and if the claim is true, it's still not inflicting spiritual harm. It's just not doing all that it can do.

If he gets so upset at a NO Mass that he is irreverent, at least internally, that could be spiritually harmful, but then he is under an obligation to attempt to address his attitude.

I don't see away to use this as a blanket reason never to attend a NO Mass and be happy about it.

Kwasniewski is still moving his goal posts at this point. Two years ago, a month before Traditionis Custodes came, he said in Crisis Magazine "Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church. I know that it’s painful for many good Catholics to admit that it is a corrupt and corrosive document, but we must judge the tree by its fruits." Since TC I believe he is on the edge of declaring the Ordinary Form illegitimate.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I don't follow the ins and outs of traditionalism, so I couldn't say where he has been or where he's going.

[peregrinator]

Kwasniewski is still moving his goal posts at this point. Two years ago, a month before Traditionis Custodes came, he said in Crisis Magazine "Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church. I know that it’s painful for many good Catholics to admit that it is a corrupt and corrosive document, but we must judge the tree by its fruits."

Well I do think it's clear in hindsight that SC has issues. And the fruits of the liturgical "reform" have been very bad. Of course one might counter that the Novus ordo doesn't exactly adhere to the guidelines laid out in SC, but the Pope disagrees.

Since TC I believe he is on the edge of declaring the Ordinary Form illegitimate.

The Pope's cruel and arbitrary restrictions on the traditional Mass have sent more than one person off the deep end. ETA: I expect to see more of this sort of thing in the future as hearts are hardened on both "sides".

[Stella]

Kwasniewski is still moving his goal posts at this point. Two years ago, a month before Traditionis Custodes came, he said in Crisis Magazine "Sacrosanctum Concilium is not only not a safe document, it was the greatest Trojan Horse ever introduced into the Church. I know that it’s painful for many good Catholics to admit that it is a corrupt and corrosive document, but we must judge the tree by its fruits."

Well I do think it's clear in hindsight that SC has issues. And the fruits of the liturgical "reform" have been very bad. Of course one might counter that the Novus ordo doesn't exactly adhere to the guidelines laid out in SC, but the Pope disagrees.

I have to disagree with you there. In his letter accompanying TC, Pope Francis acknowledged that abuses have occurred.

“[…] I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.

"[…] I ask you to be vigilant in ensuring that every liturgy be celebrated with decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican Council II, without the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses. Seminarians and new priests should be formed in the faithful observance of the prescriptions of the Missal and liturgical books, in which is reflected the liturgical reform willed by Vatican Council II.”

Since TC I believe he is on the edge of declaring the Ordinary Form illegitimate.

The Pope's cruel and arbitrary restrictions on the traditional Mass have sent more than one person off the deep end. ETA: I expect to see more of this sort of thing in the future as hearts are hardened on both "sides".

People have been going off the deep end since way back with Lefebvre so yes I expect it'll keep happening into the future.

[zeno]

People have been going off the deep end since way back with Lefebvre

Could you please explain what you mean by that?

[Stella]

People have been going off the deep end since way back with Lefebvre

Could you please explain what you mean by that?

I was just referring to the issues surrounding Lefebvre's rejection of the reforms of Vatican II. Mgr. Sapienza released a transcript of meetings between Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI in 2018 revealing the fiery nature of those disagreements.

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/9083/w ... anti-pope-

[peregrinator]

Well I do think it's clear in hindsight that SC has issues. And the fruits of the liturgical "reform" have been very bad. Of course one might counter that the Novus ordo doesn't exactly adhere to the guidelines laid out in SC, but the Pope disagrees.

I have to disagree with you there. In his letter accompanying TC, Pope Francis acknowledged that abuses have occurred.

That's not what I meant - I wasn't referring to "abuses". I mean that the Paul VI Missal in many places does not adhere to SC's guidelines (e.g., the retention of Latin, the desire that any changes be organic, etc.), but the Pope claims that it does (hence his references to the liturgical reform of V2).

[peregrinator]

I was just referring to the issues surrounding Lefebvre's rejection of the reforms of Vatican II. Mgr. Sapienza released a transcript of meetings between Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI in 2018 revealing the fiery nature of those disagreements.

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/9083/w ... anti-pope-

Ah I see that Paul VI used the same argument that the Francis apparat uses today!

Nevertheless, Paul told the archbishop that he had “judged the Pope as unfaithful to the faith of which he is supreme guarantor,”

The Pope as the supreme guarantor of the faith is a duty of the Pope, not an attribute - it's the Pope's duty to uphold the faith and he can fail in it, just as Popes have done in the past (Honorius is probably the most egregious example).