What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

That quote from Ratzinger in full:

I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden, and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent. Can it be trusted any more about anything else? Won’t it proscribe tomorrow what it prescribes today? (176-177)

http://taylormarshall.com/2013/01/eleven-great-quotes-from-pope-benedict.html

Ratzinger on the Liturgical Reformers Creating a ‘Fabrication, Banal Product’
The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)

Ratzinger on Those Who Appreciate the Latin Mass being Wrongly Treated Like ‘Lepers’

“For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 [the older Latin Mass] should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her at present if things are that way?” (Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000)

Ratzinger on the Degeneration of Liturgy and ‘Liturgical Fabricators’

“[W]e have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims. Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the ‘doing’ becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.” (Cardinal Ratzinger’s preface to the French translation of Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, 1992).

Ratzinger on the ‘Disintegration of the Liturgy’

“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977)

Ratzinger against ‘Homemade Liturgy’

“It is also worth observing here that the ‘creativity’ involved in manufactured liturgies has a very restricted scope. It is poor indeed compared with the wealth of the received liturgy in its hundreds and thousands of years of history. Unfortunately, the originators of homemade liturgies are slower to become aware of this than the participants…” (Feast of Faith p. 67-68)

Ratzinger on the Latin Mass as the ‘Holiest and Highest Possession’

“I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.” (Ratzinger Salt of the Earth (1997)

Ratzinger on the Danger of Creative “Presiders” at the Mass

In reality what happened was that an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest — the “presider”, as they now prefer to call him — becomes the real point of reference for the whole Liturgy. Everything depends on him. We have to see him, to respond to him, to be involved in what he is doing. His creativity sustains the whole thing.

Ratzinger on the Danger of ‘Creative Planning of the Liturgy’

Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the “creative” planning of the Liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, “make a contribution of their own”. Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a “pre-determined pattern”. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)

Ratzinger on Why the Priest Should Not Face the People During Mass

The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is locked into itself. The common turning toward the East was not a “celebration toward the wall”; it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people”: the priest himself was not regarded as so important. For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian Liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord”. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)

Ratzinger on the Priest and People Facing the Same Direction

On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)

Ratzinger on the ‘Absurd Phenomenon’ of Replacing the Crucifix with the Priest

Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord? (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)

Bookmarking for later study.

Well, of course, Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was right when he said that "a community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden." Of course, that approach undermines the Church.

Sadly, however, Ratzinger was kind of missing the point. The priests and bishops (including a few at the very top) who oppose the Tridentine Rite don't really care if they're undermining the Church, that's pretty much their modus operandi. In a sense, their opposition to the traditional Latin Mass is perfectly rational. The Mass contradicts everything they stand for: their modernism, their apostasy, their neo-Protestant liberalism.

I get the sense that traditional mass haters think the people involved are all about gaining power and putting women back in their place.
There is no sense of understanding that some people simply find the traditional mass a more prayerful and holy event.

People are going to keep talking past each other on this, no doubt.

Dear Brian,

It depends on what is meant by “Opposition to the Traditional Mass” means.

Some folks just don't prefer the old rite. Is that “opposition”?

sitetest

The traditional Latin Mass is hated because it goes againt the Protestantizatioṇ (pace the fundies) of the Church which many Modernist bishops and wannabe theologians assumed was a slam dunk back in the 60s and 70s. To too many of them Vatican II was an excuse to make the Church over into an Episcopalian/Methodist meeting house. The Catholic Church had before that showed no signs of dying out like the mainline Protestant churches. The modernist bishops craved to catch up with the dying churches.

It depends on what is meant by “Opposition to the Traditional Mass” means.
Some folks just don't prefer the old rite. Is that “opposition”?
sitetest

Preference is NOT opposition. I don't ever see how ANYONE could mistake the two. I love BOTH Masses because they are God's great gift to us.
WHY would ANY Christian cavil over the two? It's UN-CHRISTIAN of them to do so
*****In BOTH Masses we are allowed the IMMENSE privilege and gift to be able to CONSUME the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Who CARES what "rite" is used?

============================

I went on a tour of eastern Europe and went to a Roman Catholic Mass in Serbia. The ONLY words I understood in the homily the Serb priest gave were "Jesu Christos."
THAT was good enough for me.
I've been to Masses all over this planet. The priests at the Christmas Eve Mass in Cairo spoke a little Arabic, French, German ... and the Lord's prayer was in ENGLISH. Yay, I could pray along.

I didn't need it to be in English to recognize EVERY SINGLE event at that Mass. I've been to THOUSANDS of Masses over my life and the IMPORTANT part, the changing of bread and wine, was there. WHAT else did I need?

THAT is the BEAUTY of our sacred Mass: it's the same at every Mass on the planet. I can only THANK our good Lord for allowing me to be baptized as a Catholic.

============================

Preference: a greater liking for one alternative over another or others. "a preference for long walks and tennis over jogging" synonyms: liking, partiality, predilection, proclivity, fondness, taste, inclination, leaning, bias, bent, penchant, predisposition

============================
Opposition: resistance or dissent, expressed in action or argument. "there was considerable opposition to the proposal" synonyms: resistance, hostility, antagonism, enmity, antipathy, objection, dissent, disapproval, criticism, demurral

bookmark

**I didn’t need it to be in English to recognize EVERY SINGLE event at that Mass. I’ve been to THOUSANDS of Masses over my life and the IMPORTANT part, the changing of bread and wine, was there. WHAT else did I need?

THAT is the BEAUTY of our sacred Mass: it’s the same at every Mass on the planet. I can only THANK our good Lord for allowing me to be baptized as a Catholic. **

Bumpus ad infinitum.

The bishop in the next diocese over coerced a Benedictine Abby into ceasing the celebration of the TLM in their crypt chapel once a month on a week day back in the early days of Summorum. That is “opposition.”

It took almost 5 years, but Rome finally forced the bishop to respect the just aspirations of the faithful and offer a regular weekly TLM in his diocese. They now offer one mass in that diocese on Sundays at 2:00.

Some people just don’t prefer the old rite. That is not “opposition.”

It might not be very perceptive on their part, but it ain’t opposition ;-)

Bumpus ad infinitum.

:o)

Dear cloudmountain,

You are relatively new here. I am not. I remember folks who departed from FR long before you ever arrived here who were rather hostile toward people who didn't warmly embrace the old rite, but rather, while preferring the old rite, had a live-and-let-live attitude about the whole thing.

I'm not sure there are many left here, but there were some folks who bordered on condemning the new rite as not even valid, and its adherents as bad Catholics.

For a significant number of traditionalists, preferring the new rite = opposing the old rite.

sitetest

Dear Brian,

The denotation of your words means one thing, but the connotation another.

“It might not be very perceptive on their part, but it ain’t opposition ;-)”

So those who prefer the new rite are not, in your view, opposed to the old rite, but are just stupid.

Brian, you're a foot doctor. You know you only have two feet. Try not to shoot 'em both.

sitetest

Dear cloudmountain,
You are relatively new here. I am not. I remember folks who departed from FR long before you ever arrived here who were rather hostile toward people who didn't warmly embrace the old rite, but rather, while preferring the old rite, had a live-and-let-live attitude about the whole thing.
I'm not sure there are many left here, but there were some folks who bordered on condemning the new rite as not even valid, and its adherents as bad Catholics.
For a significant number of traditionalists, preferring the new rite = opposing the old rite.
sitetest

==============================================

I was here YEARS ago too, not too long after 1996 when it got started. My husband taught me how to use the computer in 1980 when computers first got off the ground. I had to use it in my job a LOT and got tired of working on it and was delighted to find a site that didn't require WORK.

I left this site for almost seven years because of family illnesses and deaths. They BROKE my heart and took the wind completely out of my sails for a L-O-N-G time.

It's been 15 months now since those deaths and I am beginning to feel a bit better. So I have been back on the FR for some months.

Nothing much has changed.

As for old versus new rite...we STILL get to take in the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of God. The Mass has changed more than once over the last 2000 years...and so what? What BETTER way to start my day?

We still get to hear the epistles of St. Paul and the WORD OF GOD through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John THEN take in the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of God.
I learned my habit of DAILY MASS in Saudi Arabia, with the blessing of my boss, Mohammad Hussein. But, that's another story. Priests, reverends and a vicar were NOT allowed in Saudi Arabia, but they called the men "special teachers" so we Catholics DID have daily Mass, in a large room in the center clubhouse.

I STILL go to daily Mass. How could I miss it? At least now I don't have to go to 6:30 A.M. Mass since I am retired and can go to daily 9:00 A.M. Mass! Life is good.

God bless you and yours.

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?

“Some folks just don’t prefer the old rite. . .”

SEE POST 7.
Yeah, mostly anti-Catholic Protestants, organized athiests, Muslims (of course), and some Jews. Not that they dislike Catholic people, but the Catholic Church challenges their beliefs and practices (and vice versa). Conflict Forever!

And at your post 13:
“For a significant number of traditionalists, preferring the new rite = opposing the old rite.”

If you wish to understand the old vs.new Mass, get a copy of a Latin-English missal, used to follow the traditional Latin Mass, and the booklet used in the new Mass. Compare the prayers prayed. The difference is profound. Back in 1969 it seemed fresh and new, like putting a man on the moon! That and other changes have injured the health of the Church, quite nearly to the point of crisis.

Some people like the new Mass because it’s easier to sit and listen (if only the music could be a little bit better). Following in the missal is, some think, trouble and bother, and the new Mass is a welcome departure. There’s laughter, applause, novelty, and not so much heavy God stuff.

Dear cloudmountain,

For whatever reasons, you seem to have missed the import of my original question for Brian.

The conversations between folks about the new vs. the old rites were often quite bitter and acrimonious, with many advocates of the old rite hostile toward those who preferred the new, even toward those who had a live-and-let-live attitude.

That's what my question was about.

sitetest

Dear Brian,

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

Dear Daffy,

I've actually done a side-by-side comparison of the old rite to the new rite. I'm not particularly willing to re-hash old FR intra-Catholic liturgical wars. If you wish to see the substance of those fights, FR has extensive archives. This is me saying, “I'm not getting drawn into that debate, having had it many times, over and over, years ago.”

But for informational sake, to my eye, the two rites looked more alike than not-alike, especially given an improved translation for the Latin typical edition of the new rite. Anyone who wishes to criticize the previous translation is on the money, in my view.

For at least some folks, the old rite would be improved if the priest were to speak it aloud, so that everyone in the congregation could hear it, and then the congregation would be able to answer the responses. Perhaps that is done in some places.

I haven't ever gone to an old rite Mass in recent years. Obviously, I was born before the new rite came out, but even there, when I was very little, the Mass I remember was what I surmise was called a “dialogue Mass,” and it was the old rite in the vernacular. I remember vividly the change when I was 9 or 10 from the old rite in the vernacular to the new rite in the vernacular. Did not like it.

But myself, I'd prefer the new rite, even the unreformed, poor translation, to a Mass where I can't hear what's going on.

My older son has been to the old rite on a few occasions. He was looking forward to it, as he is actually fluent in spoken (as well as written) Latin. He didn't realize that the priest prays most of the Mass sotto voce, and thus, he was unable to hear much of anything, which, of course, makes it a little more difficult to know just what's going on.

So, all theological reasoning aside, one may prefer the new rite merely for the fact that one may prefer to actually hear the Mass as it goes, even if it's in a language that one doesn't understand, although I'm betting that any faithful Catholic who attended the Mass in any particular language on a regular basis, upon hearing the Mass many times, would come to understand most of it.

In any event, you confirm my suspicion superabundantly. You describe those who prefer the new rite as “anti-Catholic Protestants, organized atheists, Muslims (of course) and some Jews.”

No mention that some folks might prefer it because it's regularly celebrated OUT LOUD.

By the way, I doubt that there are many serious Muslims who would prefer the Mass, new rite or old. I went to Mass yesterday, and we invoked the Trinity, called God our Father, affirmed the deity of Jesus, heard about the crucifixion, heard the priest talk about the gifts of bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus. All these are anathema to serious Muslims. To Jews, as well, although I don't know any Jews who are running around chopping people's heads off for refusing to renounce these beliefs.

Anyway, I will make a mental note: Many adherents to the old rite still view those who prefer the new rite as their enemies, as insufficiently-Catholic, and even as stupid.

Got it.

sitetest