All this confusion and doctrinal innovation is allowed at Mass for Longenecker and Kwasniewski and they do not complain.They want to affirm the doctrines of the Left even when they are heretical

Monday, January 07, 2019

Twelve Reasons Not to Prefer the Novus Ordo: A Reply to Fr. Longenecker

Peter Kwasniewski (Continued)


Comprising the usual bromides on behalf of the Novus Ordo, none of which stands up to critical scrutiny, Fr. Longenecker’s article is yet another restatement of the neoconservative party line that “the postconciliar Church is fundamentally sound, ladies and gentlemen, so keep moving along.” Those who are going to defend the monumental rupture that is the Novus Ordo are going to have to find much better arguments than the ones proffered to us by Fr. Longenecker.
Lionel: The theology of the Novus Ordo Mass of Fr. Longnecker and Mass in Latin which Prof. Peter Kwasniewki defends, is irrational, heretical and non traditional.
The fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but their irrational interpretation of the Council.
For me the Conciliar Church affirms Feeneyite EENS, the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the possibility of proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King, for those who want to do so.
________________________

It is a classic straw man to claim, as Fr. Longenecker does at the start of his article, that “there are some who seem to think every problem in the church and the world can be laid at the door of the dreaded Novus Ordo.” I have never read any traditionalist author who thinks this or says it. Yes, we all think the Novus Ordo is a rupture with Catholic tradition and a disaster in the life of the Church, but we are well aware that it does not exist in a vacuum. Other problems regularly pointed out include modernism, consequentialism, hyperpapalism, feminism, the homosexual clerical power caste, the liberal separation of Church and State – indeed, the list is lengthy. All of these problems are, sooner or later, connected with one another. The liturgical reform is the “poster child” of the revolution that has divorced today’s Catholic mainstream from the Catholicism of all ages, but behind every poster is a propaganda office and an ideology.

Lionel: The root of the problem is confusing what is invisible as being visible. Then with this new reality, interpreting magisterial documents, especially Vatican Council II.

The result is modernisn,consequentialism, the theology for the liberal separation of Church and State, the new ecumenism, the new concept of Church, mission with Protestants...

__________________________________

The traditional liturgy has taught me that my likes and dislikes do not and should not have any effect on the Mass. Rather, it is the Mass, preexisting in its solidity and density, that shapes my loves and hatreds, in accord with what it shows me, impresses on me, leads me to understand after a long apprenticeship. It was the same way with the disciples and Jesus. He was not as they expected He would be, but He did not bend to the likes and dislikes of zealots, Pharisees, tax-collectors, or fishermen. He patiently but authoritatively made them conform to Him.

I can understand a priest wishing to believe that the liturgy he has been given by “the Church” may be simply accepted as it is, no worries, no bones about it. But the Lord is extending a special mercy to us during this seismic reign of Pope Francis: the opportunity to wake up to the dangers of an exaggerated ultramontanism that prompts Catholics to swallow whatsoever a reckless pope wants to shove down their throats, even when it runs against the papacy’s ministry of receiving, preserving, and defending tradition.
Lionel: The false theology and philosophy which is at the basis of a new  understanding of ecclesiology is heretical. It was also promoted during the pontificate of Pope Benedict.
Summorum Pontificum came with the false ecclesiology.
______________________________________

This new year of grace is an invitation to rediscover, or renew our appreciation for, the inheritance we have received as Catholics. One place to begin might be a different list from the one we have critiqued: “Ten Reasons to Attend the Traditional Latin Mass.”


Lionel: Kwasniewski and Longenecker do not deny that they have rejected the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and they attend/offer Holy Mass.
They do not deny that invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to EENS. So the Catechisms are a rupture with the past ecclesiology for them. Vatican Council II is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX for them.
The Syllabus of Errors is a rupture with the Catechism of Pope Pius X for them etc, etc.
All this confusion and doctrinal innovation is allowed at  Mass for them and they do not complain.They  want to affirm the doctrines of the Left  even when they are heretical.-Lionel Andrades

 http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/01/ten-reasons-not-to-prefer-novus-ordo.html#more

Fr.Dwight Longenecker and Peter Kwasniewski offer/ attend Holy Mass by reinterpreting Magisterial documents with a false premise .Then with this public heresy they condone sacrilege

Monday, January 07, 2019

Ten Reasons Not to Prefer the Novus Ordo: A Reply to Fr. Longenecker

Peter Kwasniewski

Fr. Longenecker has written some fine books and articles. Years ago, I enjoyed and benefited from his book on St. Benedict and St. Thérèse of Lisieux, and his recent book on the historical veracity of the Magi is interesting.

 

Lionel: Fr.Dwight Longenecker and Peter Kwasniewski offer/ attend Holy Mass  by reinterpreting Magisterial documents with a false premise .Then with this public heresy they condone  sacrilege.

There will be no denial from them. They agree that they interpret invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as being visible exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).There is no denial from them since they do not want to affirm EENS like the Magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century.

_____________________________________

It would appear that in matters liturgical, however, Fr. Longenecker is out of his depth. 

 Lionel: They both are out of their depth on matters doctrinal and theological when they assume unknown cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I are known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.They mix up what is invisible as being visible and what is subjective as being objective.

They assume unknown cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are known exceptions to EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return. So Vatican Council II is interpreted as a rupture with Tradition. With all this heresy, now known in public, they offer/attend Holy Mass.

_____________________________________

Each claim he puts forward in his article “Twelve Things I Like about the Novus Ordo Mass” can be and has been refuted in the ample literature written on the subject, of which he appears to be ignorant. Indeed, the article betrays minimal knowledge of the history, process, and content of the liturgical reform (as, for instance, well documented in this biography of Annibale Bugnini) and of the contrasting richness of the traditional Mass.

Let us walk through Fr. Longenecker’s Twelve Things (printed in boldface).

1. It’s accessible. Having the liturgy in the vernacular helps it to be understood by the people. How can that be a bad thing?

It is characteristic of the rationalism of the liturgical movement (based on its Enlightenment precursors) to prioritize verbal comprehension over a more synthetic and holistic understanding of the mystery of faith, which draws on all the senses and appeals to the heart as well as the intellect. The use of Latin, in addition to being simply what the Western Church did for over 1,500 years, creates for worshipers a numinous and sacral atmosphere that invites meditation and adoration.

Lionel: However for 1500 years Catholics at Mass meditated on how there is exclusive salvation in Jesus and His Mystical Body the Church. They did not separate Jesus from exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They did not separate membership in the Church from entry into Heaven.They did not offer/attend the Tridentine Rite Mass as a rupture with the necessity of being a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.

Now Kwaniseki and Longenecker deny exclusive salvation in the Church.They deny it in public.They also project BOD,BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 , GS 22 etc as exceptions.They agree with me.

So when they deny Feeneyite EENS with a bad premise, they also change the meaning of the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed and the Athanasius Creed. This would be first class heresy for 1500 years. They would not be allowed to attend Holy Mass without a recantation.

But they could not care less. Since at Holy Mass and in their writings, they have to be politically correct with the Left, which  generally represent Satan. Mass.

__________________________

Moreover, seeking the goal of easy intelligibility led the reformers to dumb down much of the content of the Mass so that it might not be “too hard.” What is the heavy price we pay for the all too obvious “accessibility” of the Novus Ordo? Superficiality and boredom. It’s so accessible that it “fails to grip,” as P.G. Wodehouse would say. This is why we have a new self-help genre on getting over one’s boredom with Mass and various faddish movements like LifeTeen for pumping up the Novus Ordo. In contrast, the traditional Latin Mass is steep, craggy, and sublime, offering the worshiper the kind of challenge that befits his rational dignity and supernatural destiny, and opening up an endless vista of new discoveries in the age-old prayers and gestures.

Lionel: I attend the Novus Ordo and Latin Mass and I am not bored at either.

_________________________

Finally, no literate person is incapable of using a daily missal, where all the antiphons, prayers, and readings may be found in vernacular translations – but without any attempt at an “official” translation of the impossible-to-translate ancient Latin texts, thus avoiding the intractable battles over what “style” and “register” of vernacular should be used in the liturgy. The major prayers of the Mass are fixed and repeated from week to week, so it is not difficult to follow them, as one can see from wee lads and lasses who do this at the traditional Latin Mass.

Lionel: They are there at the Latin Mass(, which is not the Traditional Latin Mass) with a new ecclesiology, new theology, new evangelisation etc,.Otherwise they would not have permission to attend/offer this Latin Mass.Pope Francis encourages the Latin Mass and so do the bishops.

 __________________

 2. It’s flexible. We’re supposed to honor Latin as the language of our church and it is easy enough to integrate a little or a lot of Latin into th e Novus Ordo Mass. It is also flexible musically. You don’t have to use Haagan Daz, hootenany and soft rock music. Learn Gregorian chant and polyphony. It fits.

The idea that a liturgy should be a matter of “picking and choosing” among options is foreign to the historical development of Christian liturgy in East and West, which has always been toward greater definition, consistency, and stability of liturgical texts, chants, and ceremonies. A liturgy is a ritual action in which the actors lose their idiosyncratic individuality and adopt a persona that befits the mysteries enacted. The clergy should come across not as the ones steering and coloring the enterprise, but as stewards of a treasure they receive and place humbly before the people; the people, for their part, find it easier to pray when the liturgy is not a moving target, but one can enter again and again into the same sacred routine. This intrinsic quality of good liturgy is absent from the Novus Ordo by design.

Lionel:  I would attend the Latin Mass offered by the late Mons. Ignacio Barreiro in Rome.He was not willing to affirm Feeneyite EENS like St. Ignatious or Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas....He was protecting his career. 

So the liturgy was there but he was not allowed to express the traditional ecclesiology of the Church as for example in the 16th century. This was not the Tridentine Rite Mass of the past.

Then I would attend the Latin Mass offered by the FSSP priests in Rome after Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum. Again they were afraid to affirm EENS according to the past Catechisms.They would not answer questions from a Catholic about the strict interpretation of EENS.They would not provide their telephone number with a pamphlet citing Dominus Iesus and the CDF Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis sj. They were afraid.
So there were the vestments and  rituals but the traditional faith was missing.

____________________________

Concretely, what does this flexibility end up looking like? We can choose the Roman Canon, that which defines the Roman Rite, or a Eucharistic Prayer patterned after a pseudo-anaphora written by pseudo-Hippolytus and finished on a napkin in Trastevere. We can have the chant that grew up for a thousand years with the rite, or some sentimental piano tune by an ex-Jesuit. We can have Mass facing East in accord with apostolic tradition (as St. Basil and others testify), or we can try our luck with the novel “closed circle” approach of versus populum. We can have people line up for communion in the hand like customers queuing for bus tickets, scattering fragments of the Body of Christ hither and yon, or place the Lord on the tongue of believers kneeling in a posture of adoration.  All this great flexibility! The devil delights in it, since it usually plays in his favor...

Lionel: The new doctrines with heretical conclusions could also be attributed to the flexibility of Mass in Latin.-Lionel Andrades

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/01/ten-reasons-not-to-prefer-novus-ordo.html#more