Father Joseph Ratzinger
#31
(06-23-2012, 05:37 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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.  

He's been Pope for over seven years.  Pope John XXIII called a council.  Pope Paul VI ushered in the bastard rite. 

What has B16 done?  Approved of the NeocatWay.

He hasn't touched the liturgy (and no, the new translation isn't his - it's from 2002).  If he sees ANYTHING wrong with the status quo, he's taking his time with it. 

Time, I presume, he doesn't have, if he really does think the NO is flawed. 

But, I'll keep letting him build the Church back "brick by brick" as the "Pope of Christian Unity".  Eye-roll
Reply
#32
(06-23-2012, 05:53 PM)JayneK Wrote: 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 actually, the Liturgical Movement thought that the problem was the faithful's understanding (or lack thereof) of the Mass, and therefore the solution was to change the Mass itself.

This is logical. If some movie producers find, after a private screening, that people do not care for their newest movie, even if they as industry experts know it's good, they do not start preparing pamphlets explaining the backstory of the movie or why the special effects are impressive; instead, they go back and make some changes to the movie itself. The Liturgical Movement sought to do the same thing with the liturgy, and in their zeal to make people better understand it, what they did was take all the mystery out of it and therefore destroy it.

Anyway, I couldn't quite follow the fresco metaphor... what I could make out of it disagrees with your (JayneK's) interpretation. I thought he meant that as the centuries passed the liturgy got loaded with unnecessary extras that obscured its splendor, for example, all those rigid instructions on the priest's gestures, which blinds the priest, or the practice of praying the rosary during the Mass, which blinds the people. Those practices were the "whitewash" that needed to be cleaned up to restore the beauty beneath. Ironically, of course, the only ones who whitewashed any beautiful frescoes were the Liturgical Movement reformers themselves.

I do think that although he does believe that the liturgy had grown stale and needed renewal, the pope does not like the principle of liturgy-by-committee. He must therefore not be terribly fond of the NO, but if change itself was disastrous in the 60's/70's, it might result in outright schism these days, and Pope Benedict happens to not want that.


(06-23-2012, 10:21 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: What has B16 done? 

I don't know. There's this thing called Summorum Pontificum. If it hadn't been for that document I'm sure we wouldn't have the TLM back where I'm from.

Didn't the pope restore the prayers for Jewish conversion to the Good Friday services? I've read of some liberals foaming at the mouth for that. They really dislike him - that surely signals something.
Reply
#33
Vetus, to answer your statement from earlier, I think that for Pope Benedict, the Council mass is at the end of a slow process. He definitely sees all of these things as parts of slow processes. He even said that the business of rushing was at least partly to blame for the NO that emerged, so he wants to take everything slowly.
Reply
#34
(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. 

Of course, but the Modernist solution is to change the Church to the world (not the other way around) in the name of bringing the world to the Church (cf. Mortalium Animos), which is exactly the approach we see being implemented by the Novus Ordo (new worship [i.e. new liturgy, sacramental rites], new doctrine [i.e. new theology, new council, new philosophical principles], and new discipline [i.e. code of canon law]). Just like the new ecumenism's inversion of the processional order of charity from truth, it inverts the order established by God through His Church in order to destroy Her.
Reply
#35
(06-24-2012, 01:12 AM)INPEFESS 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. 

Of course, but the Modernist solution is to change the Church to the world (not the other way around) in the name of bringing the world to the Church (cf. Mortalium Animos), which is exactly the approach we see being implemented by the Novus Ordo (new worship [i.e. new liturgy, sacramental rites], new doctrine [i.e. new theology, new council, new philosophical principles], and new discipline [i.e. code of canon law]). Just like the new ecumenism's inversion of the processional order of charity from truth, it inverts the order established by God through His Church in order to destroy Her.

Well said, INP.

I'm getting sick of people making excuses for the prelates of the Church.  If they felt so strongly about some of these issues then they would have done something about it.  Collegiality and  tolerance be damned.  Pius X, who lead well enough to be considered a saint, didn't mess around with this sort of stuff.  He did everything in his power as Vicar of Christ to find the sources of confusion and heresy and to root them out with any just means necessary.

Enough excuses while souls perish.
Reply
#36
Yes.
Reply
#37
m.PR,
He didn't "restore"any prayers for the Jews, but rather watered down a prayer that was already watered down.

People make excuses for the clergy of the church day in and day out.  How long till people realize they don't give a DAMN about doctrine, the Faith, or the Church? 

If the pope was a trad our trad leaning he would give.us. More than.a useless document like SP., considering how many bishops routinely ignore it.

It is sad.

Also, on phone.  Pardon typos.   
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)