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)]
Oops, forgot to ping you to post #44
* Ut oh, another job of poor editing by me
My post had to do with the erroneous idea that restoring the old liturgy would be a panacea.
I agree, it is not a cure-all. But it would be a giant step in the direction of understanding the traditional faith and consequently, catechesis.
I have no hatred of the old Liturgy.
I have not sensed any hatred coming from you, sorry if others get that impression.
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.
I do not doubt it. If you draw no distinction between the two liturgies then of course there is no reason for an us/them dichotomy. However, the traditionalists have been given the shaft since Vatican II for no reason and with a cavalier disregard by the "progressives". They don't have to be haughty, they won the battle. The NO liturgy is everywhere the norm and one struggles to find an indult or resigns themselves to the SSPX or worse. Where is the charity in the Church for the traditionalist? They feel persecuted because they are. The church occasionally will pay them lip service but her heart is far from them.
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.
Again, I do not understand you equating the 1962 missal with the 1500's. I suppose it is this rhetoric that may lead some to believe that you are being contemptuous of your more traditional brethren.
This is not to pile on, but I want to revisit this problem of the haughty indult priest whose uncharity drove you to the N.O. I'm sure there must be many such. But we both know the corresponding disdain that's at least as common on the N.O. side of the equation -- more probably, since most diocesan indult priests also celebrate the N.O. routinely and can't disparage it without making fools and hyprocrites of themselves -- yet I don't sense that for that reason you'll be ricocheting back into the old rite anytime soon.
This is not to charge you with hypocrisy; you are entitled to your preference of whatever licit rite is available to you. But maybe it can't hurt to observe that the Church gets a great deal of her work done by silly fools, and that unlike protestants, Catholics are keenly aware that their liturgy is about a great deal more than the charm and learning of its ministers. In your choice of rite, I encourage you to discern some ecclesial or sacramental impulse larger than the self-regarding and spiritually risky stance of purely personal criteria, whether positive ("they have a great organist") or negative ("that priest is a jerk").