I don’t think it’s a sin against charity to argue whether “Gather us in” or “Laetare Jerusalem” should be sung as mass begins on 3/30/25.
We have 50 years of experience to demonstrate the effects of the two different kinds of religion that the two pieces of music represent. I think it would be un-charitable and dangerous to my children’s spiritual future to not pursue this argument.

Also, our Catholic unity is in our creeds and our reception of the Eucharist. Where does it say we can’t argue within the confines of our shared unity?

I am saddened that there seemed to be a moment where a certain rubicon was crossed, and charity appeared to become scant. Hopefully we can continue to engage in conversation whilst reintroducing more of that foundational principle.

In any case, I really don't like the line of reasoning where, once someone takes a stand on one thing, they are expected to also take stands on others. "If you're such a fan of ____, then where were you when we were decrying _____?!?!" sort of thing.

There has been a cultural death of speciality and the reverence it genuinely deserves. Not all opinions are equal. (As I have joked to parishioners before, you should trust your cardiologist's opinion about your heart more than mine, and you should trust my opinion about music more than his!)

I think it's OK that someone like Prof. K argues in favor of the restoration of the Old Rite, while others make the case for an improved Novus Ordo. There is room for both positions to coexist. And, ultimately, I believe both are good. (At least insofar as one can desire that the old rite be liberated and allowed to freely coexist, and this does not have to be to the detriment of the NO.) It is also a simple fact that, until such a time as one rite or the other is officially abrogated, the need for both to flourish and be done reverently and beautifully will never cease. I am absolutely sympathetic to the old rite, and I would be perfectly at ease if we all went back to it 100% of the time tomorrow. That said, that's not our reality, and we need to continue to labor in the trenches to improve the situation as best we can, wherever we are, for the Glory of God and the sanctification of His faithful.

We also need to not fall prey to the fallacy that you cannot agree with someone's general premise unless you agree on all the details. Perhaps you don't like one or two of the finer points of Prof. K's opinions. Does that mean he should be written off wholesale? No, it does not. The same goes for opposing opinions. This modern cultural trend of "sound bites" being lobbed as fodder for cancellation is not healthy. Similarly, I do not think an entire organization (CMAA / NLM) should be condemned because of the opinions of one contributor.

If this conversation has borne any reality out, it is that there is legitimate room for disagreement (and, I daresay, confusion) regarding these matters. The authentic magisterium will have to clarify these things for us. In the meantime, we can each only do the best we can do. At a minimum, let's continue to support each other while we do it, and not presuppose any ill-will on the part of those who hold the opposite opinions.

I won’t laugh even if I may feel that it’s not my favorite (SIR knows why, it’s fine, he ribs me all the time, richly deserved each time).

@ProfKwasniewski

I've been meaning to reply to your comments for awhile now, and this is the first time in awhile I've had the time to put a proper rebuttal together.

What I find most interesting in some of the comments here is the complete lack of openness to reevaluating the liturgical reform based on what we now know, both about its original proponents (who were not above dishonesty and riddled with faulty scholarship) and about its effects after several decades. I suppose this is what ideology looks like: as with the Soviets, it could never be Marxism at fault but only the regressive elements of the past that have not yet been fully purged.

I have made a thorough case for the restoration of the Roman Rite and the rejection of the "banal on the spot fabrication" of liturgists from the 1960s. This case should be judged on its own merits rather than dismissed out of hand. That's how the progressives work, by always attributing bad motives, hidden psychological defects, secret ambitions, or what have you. No, actually, one can disagree with prudential decisions made in or for the Age of Aquarius.

I'm taken aback by your approach here, which straw mans the arguments you are replying to, rebuts the straw mans with ad hominem, and to top it all off, sprinkles in some post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I will now describe in detail the fallacious qualities of the text quoted above.

The following statements are at best straw men of the views of anyone on this forum:

What I find most interesting in some of the comments here is the complete lack of openness to reevaluating the liturgical reform based on what we now know

No, actually, one can disagree with prudential decisions made in or for the Age of Aquarius

These are straw men because no one participating in this discussion, thinks that the prudential decisions of the reformers are beyond being questioned or re-evaluated. When evaluating the liturgical reform, we need to distinguish between several layers of authority:
1. Statements of Sacrosanctum Concilium that are theological in character
2. Statements of Sacrosanctum Concilium that are prudential in character
3. Decisions of the committee that put together the Novus Ordo
4. Decisions made "in the spirit of Vatican II", that were called for neither by Vatican II, nor by the committee, nor by any other edict of the Vatican.

Now, Sacrosanctum Concilium does not contain any new infallible doctrines. Nevertheless, Code of Canon Law, Canon 752 applies to non-infallible doctrines:

While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

It is therefore impossible to reevaluate the doctrines in Sacrosanctum Concilium without engaging in dissenting theology. Changing any of these doctrines would require another Ecumenical council or a doctrinally authoritative teaching from the Pope.

Sacrosanctum Concilium contains numerous doctrines and/or statements closely tied to doctrine, such teachings about human anthropology that are consequences of doctrinal teachings. Some examples of such statements in Sacrosanctum Concilium include:

14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

As for examples from category two, the following statement from Sacrosanctum Concilium appears to me to be only at the level of prudential judgement, which calls for the revision of the Lectionary:

51. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.

In category three, we deal with situations were the committee rewrote prayers from whole cloth, made vast changes to the liturgical calendar, suppressed the Octave of Pentecost, so on and so forth. Also, the introduction of contradictory language into the Roman Missal as to whether ad orientem or versus populum is preferred.

In category four, we deal with such issues as modernist church architecture, guitar masses, and communion in the hand.

So again, Peter, when you make sweeping statements like

What I find most interesting in some of the comments here is the complete lack of openness to reevaluating the liturgical reform based on what we now know

and

No, actually, one can disagree with prudential decisions made in or for the Age of Aquarius

, you are straw manning the fact that many of the people on this forum are devout, obedient Catholics who assent to the teaching of our magesterium. Given that unless Pope Leo XIV participates on this forum, none of us are going to have any realistic opportunity to foment a change in the doctrine or official discipline of the Church, I personally see nothing to be gained by "reevaluating" either the doctrinal or disciplinary content of Sacroscantum Concilium.

I have made a thorough case for the restoration of the Roman Rite and the rejection of the "banal on the spot fabrication" of liturgists from the 1960s. This case should be judged on its own merits rather than dismissed out of hand.

Here's the case:

(1) https://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-Roman-Rite-Traditional/dp/1505126622/
(2) https://www.amazon.com/Bound-Truth-Authority-Obedience-Tradition/dp/1621389626/
(3) https://www.amazon.com/Close-Workshop-Mass-Broken-Fixed/dp/B0DYF7QJJ4/

Refute it if you can. If you answer is, "I don't need to bother, because you're a dissenter," you're begging the question in the name of an ultramontanism that looks pretty foolish at this point in history.

Let's start by being more specific. The problem is that you specifically dissent from the doctrinal content of a super high authority document, Sacrosanctum Concilium, from our most recent ecumenical council, Vatican II. From my understanding of the arguments you have published in your books as well as in articles in publications such as 1P5, you specifically dissent from the following aspects of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In dissent of this, you argue to the contrary that the Church is obedient to tradition and that the Church lacks the authority change tradition, which you define to be any longstandig aspect of the Roman Rite. Your arguments about obedience to tradition furthermore reject the traditional distinction between "Sacred Tradition" which is revealed by Christ and thus irreformable, and specific practices of the church, the lower case t "tradition", that I have never seen any theologian other than yourself argue can not be changed.

30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

In dissent of this teaching, you have publicly argued that fully conscious and active participation is equally well achieved by silently reading along in the missal. You have defended this view by referencing the older expression that the laity go to "hear" the Mass. Your dissent from this teaching in my view unintentionally dissents from the Church's teaching on human anthropology, which places and important emphasis on the unity of the body and the soul. It follows from the Church's view of human anthropology that we express our fullest worship when our bodies are fully engaged in the worship. External and internal participation are not opposed to each other, rather, they together direct the full human person in the most active form of worship God made us to do!

(1) https://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-Roman-Rite-Traditional/dp/1505126622/
(2) https://www.amazon.com/Bound-Truth-Authority-Obedience-Tradition/dp/1621389626/
(3) https://www.amazon.com/Close-Workshop-Mass-Broken-Fixed/dp/B0DYF7QJJ4/

The last book title you sent here is "Close the Workshop: Why the Old Mass Isn’t Broken and the New Mass Can’t Be Fixed." Section 1, Part 1 of this book is titled "Sacrosanctum Concilium: The Ultimate Trojan Horse." Within this book you argue against having the readings in the vernacular, and even suggest rejecting the 1962 TLM in favor of the 1955.

In taking such a position, you dissent from every single reason that Sacrosanctum Concilium said the Mass should be revised, both doctrinal and prudential.

All this is to say, it isn't simply a problem that you are dissenting, but that you are dissenting from matters of very high authority. You justify this dissent with extremely weak evidence and logical fallacy. Peter, I've been reading your writings on websites such as 1P5 for a long time, and on the whole, I don't think your arguments are cogent. Without the premise that the Church must be "obedient to tradition", I think your entire line of reasoning falls, and without employing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, I think your project lacks motivation.

I believe we all have the ability to significantly improve the Novus Ordo liturgy in our own local communities simply by showing up. Volunteer for a choir, for a liturgy committee, take a part time job at a small parish, give generously - you'll find that slowing but surely, you have a voice and a stake in your local liturgy. I think that there is so much more to be gained from this than by retreating to liturgical safe spaces where we don't have to interact with people who don't agree with us.

Oh gosh no

Tell me more!

I substantially disagree with this in particular.

I believe we all have the ability to significantly improve the Novus Ordo liturgy in our own local communities simply by showing up. Volunteer for a choir, for a liturgy committee, take a part time job at a small parish, give generously - you'll find that slowing but surely, you have a voice and a stake in your local liturgy. I think that there is so much more to be gained from this than by retreating to liturgical safe spaces where we don't have to interact with people who don't agree with us.

It needs only very little comment. One should do the best with what they have, trad music jobs are not the best, and there aren’t enough anyway. But for those of us who are not professionals — no. I’m done wasting my time trying to improve things.

f I were to re-write that, I'd not use the word "all." I think there are some situations where the leadership is committed to "Spirit of Vatican II" ideology and there's not much you can do about it, and I support going elsewhere when that's the case. On the other hand, I think that by far the majority of parishes in the USA have a liturgy you can influence by being involved in the parish and acquiring political capital.

I think that the trad movement often punches below its weight in parish settings, relative to its percentage of the whole, because idealism gets in the way of coalition building, getting people to like you, and figuring out what goals are immediately feasible. I think that choosing to self-segregate into destination trad parishes, whether they be Novus Ordo or TLM, exacerbates this. All that being said, by all means go somewhere better if you find your current environment to be spiritually unhealthy.

At best this is naivety and at worst lying to self and others.

There is no “bridge” from one rite to the other. Pope Francis finally blatantly admitted the true reality in his motu TC. That is as clear and official as it can ever be stated. End of conversation.

One rite will ultimately replace the other, history will right the ship and I will bet you we all know which rite will be abolished in the end.

In dissent of this, you argue to the contrary that the Church is obedient to tradition and that the Church lacks the authority change tradition, which you define to be any longstandig aspect of the Roman Rite. Your arguments about obedience to tradition furthermore reject the traditional distinction between "Sacred Tradition" which is revealed by Christ and thus irreformable, and specific practices of the church, the lower case t "tradition", that I have never seen any theologian other than yourself argue can not be changed.

Gamber expressed clear doubts about whether the Apostolic See has authority to so thoroughly and actively change the Roman rite in the way it did with the missal of '69. I think he bases this mostly on the fact that the scope was historically unheard of. I don't think it's a common opinion but at least one pre-eminent liturgical scholar has held it.

I appreciate your arguments, in particular the defense of SC. I hope Dr. Kwasniewski replies.

It’s vibes (or rather trying to make the vibes good…)

No, it doesn’t, because it still has a lot more support from the hierarchy and from wealthy donors than what we do. This is not always the case, but it often is, and pastors can get away with it.

It’s not defeatist. Our Lord says to shake the dust off our feet.

I don’t even know how to respond to the rest of it, as if many of us haven’t been in the trenches already or if, you know, we don’t try to convince people. Goodness, man, what are you even saying? That we’re engaging in bad faith and maliciously???

I fear for the various parish liturgical committee members, writ large, and their blue-haired chairpersons--whither their power and inestimable wisdom?

The lack of transparency doesn’t help if someone is intent on getting rid of you; people may be stupid in some areas, and they might not be able to articulate why the hymnal is bad in their eyes, but they know what it means. It’s a minority rule, in the other direction, in other words.

But even in trad parishes you sometimes have to do these things that we find a little unpleasant or squeamish.

Anyway, I don’t know: I’m certainly aware of a lot of things (sometimes that people are cruel but won’t be upfront either, sometimes that they don’t care but won’t get in my way, they just aren’t great allies…that they do care and are on my side!) and how that you have to be able to play to win. But I’m relatively more social. Yet that doesn’t translate necessarily to success either (in general, I’m not gonna speak about my own situations right now). And what works once does not always work twice even for the same person.

Chant_Suprematist:
Thank you for "lability".
That's a new one for me or perhaps over the many years, I had forgotten it.

I also made this (anecdotal) experience.
During lockdowns our DOM introduced singing propers (by himself) and kept this practice afterwards; Itroit+verses was instead of the entrance hymn, Communio in addition, i.e. when commuion was distributet to the altar servers and also the choir, while the choir sang (again) as usual after receiving.
But neither the pastor nor the DOM himself ever explained why this was a good idea, and except for our handful of trads, no one understood the merits of this change.
My wife even refused to listen to my attempts for an explanation, because she wanted the pastor or the DOM to do so; the latter, rather than explaining things to the choir during rehearsel, invited her privately for a cup of tea instead (which she refused).
Needless to say, shortly after we got a new pastor, the introit was gone and entrance hymn was back...
Same for the coffee after Mass in the back of the church (which even came back before the new pastor came).

Of course in an ideal world, liturgical improvements would be self explaining.
People would be attracted by good liturgy and chose to go to church on Sunday en masse by themselves.
In the real world, some catechesis might be necessary.

... and the result is that still next no one here understands what propers are; and why it was a good thing to use them (while it lasted). Missed opportunity indeed.