Father Joseph Ratzinger
#1
I read many posts how Traditional friendly  Pope Benedict is, I believe he has a more than nostaglic interest in the Latin Mass but let's be honest if there was no SSPX and Traditional movement would Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict have missed the Latin Mass enough to fight for it's return. Please be honest
Reply
#2
Had the SSPX not existed the TLM would have survived. God always preserves a remnant. There were many priests, none SSPX which fought against the NO Mass. Anyone of them He could have used as His instrument. There are still priests which are underground, one posts here.

tim
Reply
#3
In 2000, while Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger wrote The Spirit of the Liturgy a book very critical of the way that liturgy is approached in the post-conciliar Church.  While he did not reject the Council's teaching, he thinks this teaching has been so widely and seriously misunderstood that the work of renewal still remains to be done. (This theme is echoed in his recent speech at the Eucharistic Conference.)  

He clearly believes that something is very wrong with the current state of liturgy.  In the book he uses the word "deplorable" to describe it.  He comes across as feeling strongly on the subject. The TLM acts as an antidote for many of the problems he identifies in modern liturgy, so it seems likely that he values it for its own sake, not merely as a bargaining piece to placate traditional Catholics.
Reply
#4
(06-23-2012, 04:35 PM)JayneK Wrote: In 2000, while Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger wrote The Spirit of the Liturgy a book very critical of the way that liturgy is approached in the post-conciliar Church.  While he did not reject the Council's teaching, he thinks this teaching has been so widely and seriously misunderstood that the work of renewal still remains to be done. (This theme is echoed in his recent speech at the Eucharistic Conference.)  

He clearly believes that something is very wrong with the current state of liturgy.  In the book he uses the word "deplorable" to describe it.  He comes across as feeling strongly on the subject. The TLM acts as an antidote for many of the problems he identifies in modern liturgy, so it seems likely that he values it for its own sake, not merely as a bargaining piece to placate traditional Catholics.

But he always supports the concept of the new rite.  I do not think he would have fought for the TLM (which was the OP's question) but perhaps merely used it as a template to patch up the Novus Ordo.  This shows an interest in the TLM but only insofar as it can be used by what he sees as the truly important liturgy of our time, the new rite.
Reply
#5
Even in that case, considering all of Pope Benedict's criticisms of liturgy by committee, I don't think it's impossible to see him bringing the TLM back for the purposes of "mutual enrichment," which I assume he imagines to be a much more organic process. 
Reply
#6
(06-23-2012, 05:08 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 04:35 PM)JayneK Wrote: In 2000, while Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger wrote The Spirit of the Liturgy a book very critical of the way that liturgy is approached in the post-conciliar Church.  While he did not reject the Council's teaching, he thinks this teaching has been so widely and seriously misunderstood that the work of renewal still remains to be done. (This theme is echoed in his recent speech at the Eucharistic Conference.)  

He clearly believes that something is very wrong with the current state of liturgy.  In the book he uses the word "deplorable" to describe it.  He comes across as feeling strongly on the subject. The TLM acts as an antidote for many of the problems he identifies in modern liturgy, so it seems likely that he values it for its own sake, not merely as a bargaining piece to placate traditional Catholics.

But he always supports the concept of the new rite.  I do not think he would have fought for the TLM (which was the OP's question) but perhaps merely used it as a template to patch up the Novus Ordo.  This shows an interest in the TLM but only insofar as it can be used by what he sees as the truly important liturgy of our time, the new rite.

I would have to agree with Walty here. My impression is that he would prefer the new rite but that it be said reverently (sorta like they do on EWTN). I don't think he would fight for the TLM. He doesn't really FIGHT for it now if you think about it. He just allows it as one of two options. I think that if there were no SSPX he wouldn't care much at all. Except to use some examples from it to try to make the new rite look Catholic. After all its been 5 years since the Motu Proprio and he hasn't even celebrated it. I would think if he gave a fig about it, in that amount of time, he would have celebrated it publicly at least once.
Reply
#7
(06-23-2012, 05:08 PM)Walty Wrote: But he always supports the concept of the new rite.  I do not think he would have fought for the TLM (which was the OP's question) but perhaps merely used it as a template to patch up the Novus Ordo.  This shows an interest in the TLM but only insofar as it can be used by what he sees as the truly important liturgy of our time, the new rite.

I agree that he does not object to a new rite in principle, but he sure doesn't like the one we ended up with.  I get the impression he would like to scrap it and start over.  I'm not sure if this would have been enough on its own to get him to fight for the TLM, but I don't see it as out of the question.

In reality, he had both his liturgical concerns and his pastoral concerns for the needs of traditional Catholics so he had two reasons to fight for it.
Reply
#8
(06-23-2012, 05:21 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:08 PM)Walty Wrote: But he always supports the concept of the new rite.  I do not think he would have fought for the TLM (which was the OP's question) but perhaps merely used it as a template to patch up the Novus Ordo.  This shows an interest in the TLM but only insofar as it can be used by what he sees as the truly important liturgy of our time, the new rite.

I agree that he does not object to a new rite in principle, but he sure doesn't like the one we ended up with.  I get the impression he would like to scrap it and start over.  I'm not sure if this would have been enough on its own to get him to fight for the TLM, but I don't see it as out of the question.

In reality, he had both his liturgical concerns and his pastoral concerns for the needs of traditional Catholics so he had two reasons to fight for it.

But, here, again, we have the age-old traddy/neo-Catholic problem:
Something went awry in the 1960s and 1970s.  How do we fix it?  Do we work with what we have, or scrap it and go back to tradition?

The trad says we scrap it and go back to tradition.

The neo-Catholic says it can be salvaged and just done better.  We haven't just implemented it right.

One is wrong.
Reply
#9
(06-23-2012, 05:21 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:08 PM)Walty Wrote: But he always supports the concept of the new rite.  I do not think he would have fought for the TLM (which was the OP's question) but perhaps merely used it as a template to patch up the Novus Ordo.  This shows an interest in the TLM but only insofar as it can be used by what he sees as the truly important liturgy of our time, the new rite.

I agree that he does not object to a new rite in principle, but he sure doesn't like the one we ended up with.  I get the impression he would like to scrap it and start over.  I'm not sure if this would have been enough on its own to get him to fight for the TLM, but I don't see it as out of the question.

In reality, he had both his liturgical concerns and his pastoral concerns for the needs of traditional Catholics so he had two reasons to fight for it.

It's obvious that he prefers a new, progressive rite over the TLM, thus he sees something wanting and insufficient in the TLM.
Reply
#10
I never can understand how learned liturgical theologians (the conservative ones) can even place the Novus Ordo besides the Latin Mass as equals. It's like dining on filet mignon vs Burger King. You can't tell me they get the insights from the Novus Ordo like they did for the Latin Mass.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)