"Because the Body of Christ, the Church, His Spouse, moves forward in time, inexorably, towards the culmination of time; the Judgement.
Those who seek to turn back the clock, to return to a time of imagined purity, are always left behind, widows and widowers of a dead culture."
I assume then that you would also condemn any attempts to turn the clock back by 1500 years?
And yet this was exactly the stated motivation of the post-conciliar reformers who gave us the "Pauline rite" which you say you prefer. Why is the attempt to turn the clock back by 1500 years meritorious, whereas the desire of Traditionalists to simply have the Mass in use a mere 40 years ago is so worthy of all your venom, bile and condemnation?
Your hatred of the Traditional Mass is both illogical and hypocritical when you try to set it in the context of "turning the clock back". I suppose you are also more Catholic than the Pope who has gone on record several times saying that the result of the post-conciliar attempts to turn the clock back has been a "banal on the spot product" which was "fabricated by committee"?
It would seem that the Pope's view of the new liturgy has much more in common with that of the SSPX than it does with yours!
One might go so far as to say diabolical.
And yet this was exactly the stated motivation of the post-conciliar reformers who gave us the "Pauline rite" which you say you prefer. Why is the attempt to turn the clock back by 1500 years meritorious, whereas the desire of Traditionalists to simply have the Mass in use a mere 40 years ago is so worthy of all your venom, bile and condemnation?
Excellent point.
I was going to respond, too, but after reading yours, I realized you said it all for me. Thanks.
My post had to do with the erroneous idea that restoring the old liturgy would be a panacea. I cited Trent to remind those tempted to embrace the idea I just noted that no Liturgy is a panacea.
Your hatred of the Traditional Mass is both illogical and hypocritical when you try to set it in the context of "turning the clock back". I suppose you are also more Catholic than the Pope who has gone on record several times saying that the result of the post-conciliar attempts to turn the clock back has been a "banal on the spot product" which was "fabricated by committee"?
I have no hatred of the old Liturgy. I was raised in the old Liturgy and I loved it. I still do. I love every Liturgy our Holy Mother Church has approved for use. As I say, I was raised in the old Liturgy. I have attended the Divine Liturgy of the Maronites. I have attended the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthians. I now, exclusively, attend the Pauline Rite. In my mind, all Liturgues/Services/Masses/Divine Liturgies etc are, in their essence, the action of Jesus offering Himself (a Priest and victim) to God on our behalf and so I consider that we have always had only one Mass, one Liturgy since the Last Supper; different Rites, yes; different Liturgies in which the Mass is anchored, yes. But only one Mass.
So, there is no way I would harbor hatred for any Mass. While it is true I prefer the Pauline Rite, if I were to attent the Indult I would feel perfectly at home and know the responses by heart. But I consider Mass in the vernacular to be a great blessing and right for our time.
One reason I stopped assisting at the Indult was my wife pointed out to me the rather haughty and self-righteous attitude which permeated the sermons of the Priest who offered the Indult. I really didn't want to face the matter but she was right. I began to listen more closely and it was clear he considered "us" more faithful and orthodox Catholics than "they" who accepted the Pauline Rite. Of course, I don't think that way and I found the atmosphere among the "theys" to be more Christian. I still have long-lasting friendships with those who exclusively attend the Indult and they are, to a man, men of character and charity and compassion. But clearly the Priest had an issue and that particular Indult tended to inculcate a Fortress "us" (traditionalist) Church vs a "them" (those like me who accepted Vatican Two and all the supposedly unorthodox approaces to Christians of other faiths) probably unorthodox attitude.
My current Pastor is brilliant, orthodox, inspiring and has converted literally hundreds of Christians and, at last count, 7 Jews.
As to my "venom, bile, and condemnation", I simply reject that characterization out of hand. There is no doubt I fulfill my Confirmational Duty to defend the Faith against those who, daily, attack it because it does not match their personal preferences, prejudices, and programs. I don't see the church returning to the 16th Century but I don't respond in that way because I reject or hate the Old Roman Missal. You conflate and confuse the issues into "hatred" I am afraid. And that is not up to your usually very high standards
I harbor no anomosity towards you. Just the opposite. I consider you to be right at the top of the Christians in here when it comes to knowledge of the Faith, intellect etc etc and I have learned a lot from you. And I pray, daily (it is part of my Rosary Intention) for the schism to be healed and I love and support the Indult. (I continue to send money to the FSSP. I have for years. I have met and spoken at length with Fr. Devillers). However,I do not expect the schism to be healed. That would take a miracle; thus the prayer.
It would seem that the Pope's view of the new liturgy has much more in common with that of the SSPX than it does with yours!
Certainly Pope Benedict is our sweet Jesus on earth (as St. Catherine of Sienna said about a Pope back in the day) and I consider us blessed to have him as Pope. When it comes to abuses in the Pauline Rite he and I are in perfect harmony. When it comes to the Pauline Rite and the New Missal, he and I are in perfct harmony.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy
Those who cling to the "Tridentine Missal" have a faulty view of the historical facts. Yet at the same time, the way in which the renewed Missal was presented is open to much criticism. We must say to the "Tridentines" that the Church’s liturgy is alive, like the Church herself, and is thus always involved in a process of maturing which exhibits greater and lesser changes. Four hundred years is far too young an age for the Catholic liturgy - because in fact it reaches right back to Christ and the apostles and has come down to us from that time in a single, constant process. The Missal can no more be mummified than the Church herself.
"Yet, with all its advantages, the new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual grown process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V had "produced" a Missal four hundred years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times. This loss of perspective is really disturbing.
"Although very few of those who express their uneasiness have a clear picture of these interrelated factors, there is an instinctive grasp of the fact that liturgy cannot be the result of Church regulations, let alone professional erudition, but, to be true to itself, must be the fruit of the Church’s life and vitality.
"Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents is 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.
end of quote<>
I have been alive since before Pope Pius XII died and I love all of the Popes (including Pius) we have had since him. I think we have been extraordinarily blessed with these amazing Popes. While I have witnessed other major denominations change doctrine and become radacalized and politicized I have seen our Holy Fathers guide us safely through troubled waters admist vast and enormous and radical changes. Thanks be to God we have a sweet Jesus on Earth like Pope Benedict, the man I prayed would suceed John Paul the Great. "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. [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: The Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy Ignatius Press, San Francisco, Ca, pgs. 86-87 (c. 1986)]
I know I've asked this question in different forms before on other threads, but have never felt that I've received a satisfactory answer: why isn't the Tridentine Mass available for use in the vernacular in the Catholic Church?
In Orthodoxy, liturgies in a form of the vernacular are very important, since it is felt that the full spiritual effect of the liturgical services comes with understanding of the words. I have a bit of a knack for languages and am reasonably well educated, but there is simply no way that I can pray in another language as well as I can in my own. I have no way of knowing, but I would suspect that Latin is only comparable to ecclesiastical Greek and Slavonic in terms of comprehendability by the faithful for, say, Italians and Spaniards.
I was recently browsing through the old 1950's St. Joseph Missal (in traditional English!) that sits on my shelf, and noticing how beautiful it is. There are a few things in the text of the mass itself that I would disagree with as an Orthodox Christian, especially differences in emphasis created by rubrics, but not much. I do *not* at all feel that way when I'm browsing through a N.O. "missalette" -- and it's not just because the music is abysmal!
Why, if the theology of the Tridentine Mass is still an accurate relection of Catholic belief (else why would it be allowed, and even officially encouraged?), is it not made one of the options for parishes to use in the vernacular? If there were problems with it, why wasn't it simply revised slightly to address those perceived problems and then translated into various vernacular languages?
If it is not acceptable theologically anymore, then why is it allowed in Latin? Ratzinger's writings clearly indicated that he felt (and feels) that liturgical reform was necessary, even though he also feels that it took a seriously wrong turn. The question is what he, as B16, will do about it. To me, as a liturgically-minded Orthodox Christian, the blindingly obvious starting point is *not* a return to the Tridentine Mass in Latin (except for those countries where comprehension levels would be high, with a little education), but rather the use of pre-Vatican II liturgical services in the vernacular -- then go from there in whatever reforms are felt to be necessary. But that is just a view from the outside.