*Argueable. As a Cardinal, Ratzinger had this to say
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy
Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents in concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.
In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.
IMO, there wasn't a radical break.
Also, the great Liturgical historian (whom Pope Benedict praises highly), Fr. Joseph A. Jungmann, SJ, noted It is not the fact of antiquity that makes liturgical customs valuable, but their fulness of content and their expressive value. Even newer ceremonies, like the priest's blessing at the end of Mass, can possess a great beauty.
As an Orthodox Christian, I also believe that liturgy must be in a liturgical dialect close enough to the vernacular that it can be a natural language of prayer with minimal effort. To me, the Latin mass falls flat on its face on those grounds. Native Italian or Spanish-speakers, maybe. Irish, Germans, Americans.... Chinese?
*Agreed. That is also my personal opinion.
This sets up a real class-system, in terms of who can really learn, memorize, and digest the services. There have been times when liturgical languages with no relation to the native languages have been imposed in the Orthodox world: Greek imposed for a time in Arabic-speaking countries and in Bulgaria under the Ottomans, Slavonic being standard-issue in Romania for a time. It didn't have good spiritual effects.
*Agreed. That is one reason I posted the directions of the 17th Century S.C. which, note, followed Trent and Quo Primum, the "proof text" so many of my brethren cite to "prove" the Pauline Rite and a vernacular Liturgy is anathema to God.
Reading a libretto and becoming familiar with a foreign language just isn't the same. This move to the vernacular was something very positive about Vat II for Catholics. I can only regret that for some reason that English tranlations use a very tin-eared version of the language, and seemingly deliberately mistranslated certain things.
* I'll admit it was a big change for me, at first. Now, I can feel comfort in either the Indult or the Pauline Rite but the many converts I know prefer the vernacular. IMO, so do the vast majority of my fellow pew denizens
As an Orthodox Christian, not only the words must be part of an unbroken tradition, but also liturgical action (e.g. is the priest facing the same direction that Christian priests faced for 2 millenia?), vestments, iconography, chant traditions, architecture... must be part of an unbroken tradition. Again, what I see in N.O. parishes on these scores is sorely lacking. There were radical changes and breaks after Vatican II that really had no precedent.
*Amen, brother. Amen that is except for a few things. Jungmann, In one case, in fact, we are told of a direct interference by a German ruler in the shaping of the liturgy of Rome; when Henry II came to the Eternal City for his imperial coronation in 1014, he asked as a favor that at Rome also the Credo be sung at Mass as long was the case in the North.
What is interesting is that in the attempt to make the Mass more "accessible," it seems to have actually been made more complex -- so many choices, so many options, so many variations on liturgical action at the discretion of the priest. There should be one core text of the Liturgy, with the only variations being the propers of the feasts and seasons.
* I am semi-serious when I say liturgical regulations should be reduced in size so as to fit on an index card but that assumes Seminary training in authentic liturgy in a Diocese with an orthodox Bishop who really does Teach, Rule, and Sanctify. (It also assumes a Missal/Missals aproved by Rome) IMO, the Bishop should have near plenipotentiary power when it comes to the Liturgy but I know that is an opinion both private and isolated.
Anyway, those are my observations from the outside. I think that from what I have read of B16's writings, he would favor a traditionally served mass in good vernacular, with a text based on that of the Tridentine, but reformed according to the lights of Vatican II. His writings certainly indicate that he would dearly love to turn around and face the right direction when serving... But he of course understands that one radical upheaval in a generation is probably one too many, and adding another wouldn't necessarily be good. I suspect he will little by little lead by example.
*Agreed. Thanks for the response. You and Mr. K are treasures.
"You and Mr. K are treasures."
Which of course is why my aunts in the old country call me "Xriso mou" My golden one! :)
Treasures, huh? Very kind indeed!
We may have been over this ground before, but the way I read Ratzinger's comments is in this light: he seems to be pointing out that because the N.O. was presented as something new, it gave license for all sorts of abuses. It gave the impression that liturgy could be created out of whole cloth -- the logical conclusion that many took this to seems to have been, "well, it's all been changed anyway, so my own pet changes won't hurt a thing and will actually be in the spirit of things." He seems to be saying that if the N.O. had been presented differently, there would have been fewer abuses.
It could be that Ratzinger thinks that all of the N.O. options are equally good, but I doubt it. My suspicion is that in practice he uses N.O. options that are most closely drawn from the "real" liturgical tradition of Christendom, as opposed to those that are obvious new compositions. But I'm just guessing.
Other things that Ratzinger has written have indicated that he thought that there was a radical break, and that he disapproves. As a good and obedient Catholic, he of course is not going to say that what was put out by earlier popes was flat-out wrong. But there is a difference between saying that something is "not wrong" and saying that it is good.
If you had the opportunity to attend a Tridentine Mass served in Anglo-Catholic fashion, as HC mentioned that he had, elsewhere in this thread -- which would be just a straight translation into good English, using traditional rubrics -- I think you would see that there has been a rather significant break. I fully understand that the N.O. had papal approval, therefore by definition it is acceptable -- but just because two liturgies are both "officially approved" does not mean that both are equally in the liturgical tradition.
What I seem to see (again, as an outsider looking in) here on FR with many N.O. defenders, is a sort of perverse pride in just how much liturgical nonsense and ugliness one's Catholic loyalty allows one to be able to stand. The better a Catholic you are, the more you can take! :-) I know that you were being tongue in cheek when elsewhere on this thread you said you wouldn't mind a clown mass -- that you were just grateful to have access to a mass, but I couldn't help thinking that this was a very interesting statement.
I can't imagine saying that about the Divine Liturgy, quite frankly, and not just because I am (yes, I admit it) hard to please. Yes, I swallow hard and remind myself that a poorly served Liturgy is still the Liturgy (I'd have to think back to try to remember when that last happened), and that the communion I receive is still the Body and Blood of Christ -- but given a choice, I would avoid the experience and seek out a Liturgy that is served traditionally and well.
Part of this is perhaps a difference in how Orthodox think about the Liturgy as opposed to how Catholics have tended to think about the Mass, though. For many Catholics, it seems to be a utilitarian thing, where the words of institution are all that is really necessary, and the rest is window-dressing that can be changed at will. The Orthodox seem to tend to think more "holistically" about the Liturgy... I think that book that came out years ago, "Why Catholics Can't Sing" talked some about this utilitarian strain of thought...