Close the Workshop

Close the Workshop: How the Old Mass isn’t Broken and the New Mass can’t be Fixed

By Peter A. Kwasniewski

431 Pages 

Angelico Press, Brooklyn, NY 2025

Peter Kwasniewski has said that Close the Workshop completes and summarizes his vast written labors for the Traditional Mass.  I can only agree with him on this! Kwasniewski approaches the Traditional Mass (“TLM”) as a writer, theologian, philosopher, musician, organizer, editor and activist on behalf of Catholic tradition.  Accordingly, Close the Workshop deals with both the theory and practice of the TLM. 

One word of warning to the reader; Close the Workshop is not the product of a would-be ecclesiastical politician, attempting to win the favor of Church authorities. The author is passionate and forthright,  unafraid of ruffling the feathers of the hierarchy. This substantial book is directed to those who love the TLM and want to find  a resource to help them understand, defend, explain and celebrate the TLM.

The author’s uncompromising position is evident from the full title of this book. Kwasniewski acknowledges that the TLM and the Novus Ordo stand in direct contrast to each other and spells it out in great detail.  And Kwasniewski frankly argues for the superiority of the TLM over the Novus Ordo. Further,  he disputes any need for ‘mutual enrichment” of the two liturgies. The TLM does not need enrichment from the Novus Ordo;  the importation into the Novus Ordo of elements of a prior liturgical tradition contradicts the liturgical principles of the new rite (such as the exclusive emphasis on the verbal communication of content, or the priority placed on the spontaneity of the “presider” ). 

In my immediate vicinity a good illustration can be found of this fundamental divergence in practice between the two liturgical forms. Not too far from where I live is a “conservative “ parish devoted to the Novus Ordo but  incorporating traditional artistic and musical elements. Then, there is a second church that regularly celebrates a most complete Solemn TLM.  In the former church,  members of the congregation discuss how each priest celebrates the Mass, and whose “style”  is more congenial to them. In the second, the TLM remains the same, even though that church over the last 20 years has seen it celebrated by three pastors with radically different personalities. 1)

Close the Workshop repudiates the modern compulsion to constantly change or “update” the liturgy.  This urge first arose out of the liturgical movement, reached a climax in the era of Paul VI and Bugnini and continues unabated today in the Novus Ordo. ( see recently, for example, the “Amazonian” rite,  the “Mayan” rite, a potential change to the method of determining the date of Easter) 

Close the Workshop is especially timely today, when certain of the clergy, previously inclined to the TLM but unable to stand up to the persecution of Traditionis Custodes, have resurrected the ”Reform of the Reform” as a supposedly viable alternative to the TLM. This seems incredible, given the condemnation of such practices (and the use of the very term) by Francis, and the explicit attacks on all elements of prior Catholic tradition made by the late Pope’s most devoted followers: Cupich, Grillo, Weisenburger, Martin etc. As Kwasniewski points out,  “Reform of the Reform” seeks to placate the Church establishment by introducing forms which that same establishment condemns. 

Conclusions similar to Kwasniewski’s were already implicit in Martin Mosebach’s seminal 2001 Heresy of Formlessness. The first book review published on this blog pointed out that, in this work, Mosebach portrayed the TLM not as an option for gratifying the subjective aesthetic or nostalgic feelings of a few, but as an objective necessity, even a universal requirement for the Church.2)  And, during his 2007 visit to the U.S. presenting that book, Mosebach expressly rejected suggestions from the audience to restart tinkering with the TLM.  He stated that what is needed is liturgical consolidation,  not another wave of change.

 But since those days there have been many years of practical experience with the TLM as it developed after Summorum Pontificum. Many studies have been published which analyze the liturgical texts and music and elucidate their history (including the relation of the Novus Ordo to the documents of the Council and the actions of Paul VI),  These works make possible a more detailed understanding of each liturgical form and of the scope of the changes the Novus Ordo introduced.  Close the Workshop draws on the author’s extensive participation in these developments. 

The late Pope Francis and his close liturgical associates would also agree with the view that the TLM and the Novus Ordo reflect different theologies and should remain separated. In contrast to Kwasniewski, of course, they view the TLM as the defective product of a superseded past. And their words and policies make clear that the TLM (and all cultural aspects associated with it) should not be allowed to contaminate the Novus Ordo.  As a technique of harassment, however, Novus Ordo forms on occasion have been imposed upon the celebration of  the TLM. Kwasniewski devotes a special chapter to the “hybridization” threat. (“The  Liturgical Rollercoaster”)

The second half of Close the Workshop is primarily devoted to practical responses to specific issues of the TLM today.  Some chapters answer specific objections to the TLM and traditionalism. Suggestions for “improvements” to the TLM are considered at length and rejected. Kwasniewski then offers practical advice on celebrating the TLM. He even has a few words of advice (and comfort)to those who feel they can only celebrate the Novus Ordo whle incorporating  elements of tradition. For, although that practice somewhat contradicts the thesis of this book, the author understands the need for guidance in this area. Moreover, Kwasniewski does discuss suggestions for improving  the celebration of the TLM (“Modest Proposals for Improving Low Mass”).

Is it not strange? – the TLM, as it is frequently celebrated today, actually comes closer than the monotonous chaos of the Novus Ordo to realizing some key concepts of the Council (insofar as these had any real meaning and were not merely a code word for overthrowing the historic culture of the Church). For example, ecumenism. The Byzantine divine liturgy has strongly influenced the liturgical sensibilities of so many traditionalists. Kwasniewski himself has extensive direct experience of the Byzantine rite and its music. The TLM,  as a bridge to understanding the Divine Liturgy, can serve as a link with the Orthodox. And as for active participation, the intensity of the devotion of a congregation at a Solemn TLM has always amazed and inspired me. And that devotion rests on a solid understanding of the texts and participation in the music,  where appropriate. These are real achievements – and Peter Kwasniewski’s book is an invaluable resource for deepening that devotion and understanding.

1. My thanks to Stuart J. Chessman for these observations
2. Echecs, Cedric, “A Review of Mosebach’s Heresy of Formlessness“ (The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny, 8/22/2007; originally published in www.catholicreform.org 9/20/2003.)