I’ll try not to try to be humorous in the future, ok?
See my first post in this thread. It’s obvious that even Cardinal Ratzinger saw the new mass as deficient. That’s the context of my subsequent post to you.
Was Ratzinger shooting himself in both feet with those strongly worded statements? No, I don’t think so either.
So why question lay people simply because they agree with Cardinal Ratzinger?
Be humorous; humor is a good thing. But if I ask, do folks in Set A still look down upon folks in Set B, it's a little tricky if you respond, as someone from Set A, with a put-down of the folks in Set B. I'd be careful about doing that in person (where, if it is my intention, I might be able to communicate self-mocking irony). Not sure I'd even attempt it via this medium.
If Cardinal Ratzinger were explicitly remarking on the stupidity of folks who prefer the new rite to the old, he'd have completely shot off three or feet.
Noting the imperfections of something doesn't mean that those who prefer it are imperceptive. It means the thing is not perfect. Note that Pope Benedict did not make the old rite the Ordinary Rite and the new rite the extraordinary. The new rite retained pride of place.
As well, Pope Benedict has reformed the new rite since he said those words about the new rite's defects. I would imagine that since he was the supreme legislator of the Church, he likely remediated many (most? all?) those defects he had in mind. Thus, his comments about the new rite and its defects are probably not quite as true as when he made them.
“So why question lay people simply because they agree with Cardinal Ratzinger?”
Because implying that folks who prefer the new rite are stupid isn't “agree[ing] with Cardinal Ratzinger.”
sitetest