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
I attend the Novus Ordo five or six days a week. I attend the TLM two or three times a month. I have a foot in both camps. I was just trying to make light. My apologies if I my post was offensive.
I don't think this is the case. He envisioned a hybrid rite where far more of the TLM would be grafted into the Novus Ordo, especially ad orientem for the priest. He accomplished very little of what he hoped and what is desperately needful in this regard. Read his books on the liturgy.