Father Joseph Ratzinger
#11
(06-23-2012, 05:25 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(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.

I am not at all sure that the Pope thinks the NO can be salvaged.  He seems to think it is pretty fundamentally flawed.  What he seems to think is salvageable is Sacrosanctum Concilium the conciliar document on liturgy.  He is not rejecting its principles of liturgical renewal.  
Reply
#12
(06-23-2012, 05:35 PM)salus Wrote: 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.

They are progressives and want a progressive Mass.  They are immensely intelligent and are more aware than any of us of all the nuanced differences between the two (and the theological implications).  They want a different faith, and thus a different Mass.
Reply
#13
(06-23-2012, 05:31 PM)Walty Wrote: It's obvious that he prefers a new, progressive rite over the TLM, thus he sees something wanting and insufficient in the TLM.

Here is a metaphor he uses in Spirit of the Liturgy that shows how he views the traditional and new rites:

Quote:We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.

Reply
#14
(06-23-2012, 05:44 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:31 PM)Walty Wrote: It's obvious that he prefers a new, progressive rite over the TLM, thus he sees something wanting and insufficient in the TLM.

Here is a metaphor he uses in Spirit of the Liturgy that shows how he views the traditional and new rites:

Quote:We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.

If the Mass is changed or replaced then that means that those who changed it and supported that change thought there was something wrong with the Mass itself.  If the probably was merely the faithful's understanding of and participation in the Mass then catechesis would be the correct fix.



Reply
#15
(06-23-2012, 05:49 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:44 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:31 PM)Walty Wrote: It's obvious that he prefers a new, progressive rite over the TLM, thus he sees something wanting and insufficient in the TLM.

Here is a metaphor he uses in Spirit of the Liturgy that shows how he views the traditional and new rites:

Quote:We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.

If the Mass is changed or replaced then that means that those who changed it and supported that change thought there was something wrong with the Mass itself.  If the probably was merely the faithful's understanding of and participation in the Mass then catechesis would be the correct fix.

But what he is saying with this metaphor is that problem was not the Mass itself but in the faithful's understanding of it.  He is disagreeing with you about the fix for this problem.
Reply
#16
(06-23-2012, 05:53 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:49 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:44 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:31 PM)Walty Wrote: It's obvious that he prefers a new, progressive rite over the TLM, thus he sees something wanting and insufficient in the TLM.

Here is a metaphor he uses in Spirit of the Liturgy that shows how he views the traditional and new rites:

Quote:We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.

If the Mass is changed or replaced then that means that those who changed it and supported that change thought there was something wrong with the Mass itself.  If the probably was merely the faithful's understanding of and participation in the Mass then catechesis would be the correct fix.

But what he is saying with this metaphor is that problem was not the Mass itself but in the faithful's understanding of it.  He is disagreeing with you about the fix for this problem.

But that's my point.  If the problem is with the faithful then the faithful should be changed and not the Mass.  And yet his pontificate has not shown a return to the TLM as the ordinary or only form of the Roman rite.  In fact, it hasn't even been shown a preference.  The new rite, created, according to him, because of problems amongst the faithful, is still, again according to him, the "ordinary form" and the Mass that he works with and celebrates in public.

That doesn't make any sense.
Reply
#17
(06-23-2012, 05:37 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:35 PM)salus Wrote: 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.

They are progressives and want a progressive Mass.  They are immensely intelligent and are more aware than any of us of all the nuanced differences between the two (and the theological implications).  They want a different faith, and thus a different Mass.

Exactly its their way of ushering in the Ecumenical global Church. They know well what Martin Luther is rumored to have said "destroy the Mass and you will destroy the Roman Church"
Reply
#18
(06-23-2012, 05:56 PM)Walty Wrote: But that's my point.  If the problem is with the faithful then the faithful should be changed and not the Mass.  And yet his pontificate has not shown a return to the TLM as the ordinary or only form of the Roman rite.  In fact, it hasn't even been shown a preference.  The new rite, created, according to him, because of problems amongst the faithful, is still, again according to him, the "ordinary form" and the Mass that he works with and celebrates in public.

That doesn't make any sense.

I suspect he considers more than what is theoretically the better liturgy.  He is the  Pastor of the whole Church and has a lot of factors to balance.  While many people on FE would be happy if tomorrow he simply abrogated the NO and made the TLM the only Roman rite, this does not seem a prudent course of action.
Reply
#19
(06-23-2012, 06:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-23-2012, 05:56 PM)Walty Wrote: But that's my point.  If the problem is with the faithful then the faithful should be changed and not the Mass.  And yet his pontificate has not shown a return to the TLM as the ordinary or only form of the Roman rite.  In fact, it hasn't even been shown a preference.  The new rite, created, according to him, because of problems amongst the faithful, is still, again according to him, the "ordinary form" and the Mass that he works with and celebrates in public.

That doesn't make any sense.

I suspect he considers more than what is theoretically the better liturgy.  He is the  Pastor of the whole Church and has a lot of factors to balance.  While many people on FE would be happy if tomorrow he simply abrogated the NO and made the TLM the only Roman rite, this does not seem a prudent course of action.

Sob Story

They did that with the real Mass without any scruples. You gotta cut the cancer out before it grows.
Reply
#20
(06-23-2012, 06:03 PM)JayneK Wrote: While many people on FE would be happy if tomorrow he simply abrogated the NO and made the TLM the only Roman rite, this does not seem a prudent course of action.

Even if the NO were abrogated, things will never be as they were before. If the NOM goes away, the TLM will be very different. It will have aspects of the new Mass in it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)