Posted on 09/14/2014 9:31:31 AM PDT by marshmallow
In the post-Summorum world, the ancient Roman Rite can no longer be considered forbidden, dubious, marginal, or obsolete. It enjoys equal rights of citizenship with the Novus Ordo: two forms of the Roman Riteone called Ordinary because most recently promulgated and more widely used, the other called Extraordinary, the usus antiquior, deserving respect for its venerable usewith each able to be freely celebrated by any priest of the Roman Rite, no special permission needed. One would think that, as a gesture of reconciliation at the heart of the Church, the two forms would be flourishing side by side, with Catholics everywhere privileged to experience both of them offered reverently and beautifully.
But this is still far from the reality, and, sadly, there are still far too many bishops and priests who oppose the traditional Mass, tether it with burdensome conditions, or resort to power politics to ensure that its supporters are duly warned and penalized for their rash embrace of our Catholic heritage.
As we commemorate today the seventh anniversary of the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, whose provisions went into effect on September 14, 2007, it will be both edifying and sobering to consider the meaning Joseph Ratzinger himself attached to opposition to the traditional Mass. What does it mean when someone opposes this Mass, or those who celebrate it, or those who cherish it as a form of prayer dear to them?
In the book-length interview Salt of the Earth, published in 1997, Ratzinger said:
I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. Its 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........
(Excerpt) Read more at newliturgicalmovement.org ...
I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. Its 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? Wont it proscribe tomorrow what it prescribes today? (176-177)
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)
Bookmarking for later study.
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.
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 ;-)
:o)
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
The denotation of your words means one thing, but the connotation another.
“It might not be very perceptive on their part, but it aint 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
==============================================
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.
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
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'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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.