Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

[Munda_cor_meum]

In a lecture given 24th October 1998, His Emminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has much to say about the post Vatican II Church. The entire contents of his address can be found here:
unavoce.org/tenyears.htm

If I can be so bold as to paraphrase, the gist of the lecture seems to be:

1. There is room in the Catholic Church for both the new Pauline rite and the traditional Tridentine rite.
2. The Church is better served by having a diversity of liturgies, and supporting both in no way compromises Church unity.
3. The unfortunate reality, however, is that often the difference between a liturgy celebrated faithfully according to the Missal of Paul VI and the reality of a vernacular liturgy is enormous.
4. Unchecked creativity, brought about by adherence to neither the letter or the intent of the Council, caused the mystery and the sacred to disappear.
5. On the other hand, celebration of the old liturgy had strayed too far into a private individualism, and that communication between priest and people was insufficient.

Now (and I am sure this will make the Cardinal sleep better at night!), I really have to agree with his assesment. Many here will not agree. There are some that believe that there is no room for both . What do you think?

 

[MrS]

Munda cor meum:

In a lecture given 24th October 1998, His Emminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has much to say about the post Vatican II Church. The entire contents of his address can be found here:
unavoce.org/tenyears.htm

If I can be so bold as to paraphrase, the gist of the lecture seems to be:

1. There is room in the Catholic Church for both the new Pauline rite and the traditional Tridentine rite.
2. The Church is better served by having a diversity of liturgies, and supporting both in no way compromises Church unity.
3. The unfortunate reality, however, is that often the difference between a liturgy celebrated faithfully according to the Missal of Paul VI and the reality of a vernacular liturgy is enormous.
4. Unchecked creativity, brought about by adherence to neither the letter or the intent of the Council, caused the mystery and the sacred to disappear.
5. On the other hand, celebration of the old liturgy had strayed too far into a private individualism, and that communication between priest and people was insufficient.

Now (and I am sure this will make the Cardinal sleep better at night!), I really have to agree with his assesment. Many here will not agree. There are some that believe that there is no room for both . What do you think?

I too would agree… but add to #5 that the reason it strayed was not the fault of the old liturgy, but the fault of the priests who were expressing their form of unchecked creativity. IMHO

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I agree…I’ve always believed this. I just don’t want devotees of the TLM to disparge the Mass of Paul VI, to say that it is invalid, illicit, etc.

 

[bear06]

I agree with this wholeheartedly!

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

JKirkLVNV:

I agree…I’ve always believed this. I just don’t want devotees of the TLM to disparge the Mass of Paul VI, to say that it is invalid, illicit, etc.

Sadly, I must count myself among those who “disparaged the Mass of Paul VI” What I have found though, is that all of the things that I find offensive, and yes, even sacreligeous, are not supposed to be part of the New Mass in the first place!

I still question the wisdom of Vatican II, not on theological grounds, but on human psycological grounds. Of course, I have no training or particular expertise in either field so take that for what it is worth.

In any case, I think it is important to distinguish between “What I saw at Church last Sunday” and the Mass of Paul VI.

 

[oat_soda]

i started reading the biography on JPII and i says when as a priest/bishop in Poland he was interested in the liturgical movement of the time which encouraged the laity to follow more closely in the missal, dialouge masses where the people would respond with the servers, and the entire faithful would sing and learn gregorian chant. I think this is the “true” liturgical movement which was the goal of VII.

how this turned into a mass facing the people with, banal vernacular folk music, communion in hand, no altar rails, no latin, and horrible icel translations is beyond me. obviously the vatican was far too lax on these problems but it seems things are turning around for the better. they are experimenting with a normative mass said in latin ad orientem (using high altar) with gregorian chant and insense in my parish. they normally have different priests come in to celebrate it.

 

[space_ghost]

Nepoleon once told Pope Pius VII that he would destroy the Catholic Church… the popes reply was “that the priest have been trying to do just that for the last 1800 years and have not succeeded and neither would he…” (not the exact wording)…

Be not afraid… I will be with you till the end of time…

 

[Meggie]

Good old cardinal Ratzy sounds like he finally has things straight

 

[CrusaderNY]

Well it is wonderful that the Cardinal says these things, but how about hopping a good old 747 over to the US of A and sit in on a few of these elephant masses, or youth masses, or just visit any Traditional site and they can provide you with a mountain full of abuses as they watch and watch and build their case, and it is why their pews are getting filled up and ours are empying out to the Trads and other denominational churches. Mysister started attending some sort of church which is very liberal, I dont think it is Protestant.I asked her how the heck could she leave the Catholic church and she said that the mass is really not much different and she gets “nothing out of the Mass anymore”, so she might as well go to a place that her friends are going.

It used to be a thing of Pride to walk to Mass in your Sunday Suit and garb, with your missal in one hand, as my mother and father did. but now it is like, hey just stop in after the beach in your flip flops, all are welcome, the same signs I see as I drive down the road by the Protestant churches, “Come on In, all are Welcome”.

 

[katherine2]

CrusaderNY:

just visit any Traditional site and they can provide you with a mountain full of abuses as they watch and watch

This is why we don’t need the indult Mass. All these neo-trads spend all of their time at someone else’s church making notes of alleged abuses.

It used to be a thing of Pride to walk to Mass in your Sunday Suit and garb, with your missal in one hand, as my mother and father did.

Of course, with your grandparents, the Missal was denied to the laity by the conservatives.

but now it is like, hey just stop in after the beach in your flip flops, all are welcome, the same signs I see as I drive down the road by the Protestant churches, “Come on In, all are Welcome”.

Yeah. Whose idea was it to welcome everyone to the Catholic Church? :whacky:

 

[katherine2]

oat soda:

i started reading the biography on JPII and i says when as a priest/bishop in Poland he was interested in the liturgical movement of the time which encouraged the laity to follow more closely in the missal, dialouge masses where the people would respond with the servers, and the entire faithful would sing and learn gregorian chant. I think this is the “true” liturgical movement which was the goal of VII.

how this turned into a mass facing the people with, banal vernacular folk music, communion in hand, no altar rails, no latin, and horrible icel translations is beyond me. .

I’m not sure I agree with your woes regarding certain aspects of the liturgical renewal, ut you might want to re-read you rown post carefully. Maybe part of the problem of the unhappiness of today’s conservatives is that yeasterday’s conservatives were AWOL from the pre-counciliar Liturgical Movement. Maybe if the conservatives of yeasterday had no tbeen so indifferent to the liturgy and instead had joined up in the Liturgical Movement, the Church could have benefited from their contributions.

Maybe, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[katolik]

katherine2:

I’m not sure I agree with your woes regarding certain aspects of the liturgical renewal, ut you might want to re-read you rown post carefully. Maybe part of the problem of the unhappiness of today’s conservatives is that yeasterday’s conservatives were AWOL from the pre-counciliar Liturgical Movement. Maybe if the conservatives of yeasterday had no tbeen so indifferent to the liturgy and instead had joined up in the Liturgical Movement, the Church could have benefited from their contributions.

Maybe, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Katherine:
The Liturgical Movement of the past was conservative. Read Dom Gueranger’s book The Liturgical Year . Abp.Bugnini and his cohorts were the opposite of this. Your Jesuit friends at Georgetown were nothing but modernists. No one would ever insult the holy Sacrament of Confession to prove his point. They were not the true Liturgical Movement.

Please back up what you are saying with soem facts.

 

[katherine2]

katolik:

Katherine:
The Liturgical Movement of the past was conservative.

I was around before the Council. I was an advocate of the Liturgical Movement. No one every called me or the others a conservative. We were all considered progressive (or the curious name “advanced Catholics” – I never fully understood what that meant).

You want to retroactively claim the Liturgical Movement as your own, fine. But there is a difference between saying we should have gotten off the train a stop earlier than saying we should never have ridden the train at all.

Most of today’s neo-trads don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

 

[katolik]

katherine2:

I was around before the Council. I was an advocate of the Liturgical Movement. No one every called me or the others a conservative. We were all considered progressive (or the curious name “advanced Catholics” – I never fully understood what that meant).

You want to retroactively claim the Liturgical Movement as your own, fine. But there is a difference between saying we should have gotten off the train a stop earlier than saying we should never have ridden the train at all.

Most of today’s neo-trads don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

So what was your “liturgical renewal”? I seriusly want to know. Did you take time to learn the neumes of Gregorian chant? Did you learn to speak Latin?

 

[oat_soda]

Maybe, you have no one to blame but yourself.

i wasn’t even alive then. i grew up in the 80s and 90s. the liturgical movement started with St. Pius X call for gregorian chant as proper in the Roman Rite.

Gregorian chant has a special place. The Second Vatican Council recognized that “being specially suited to the Roman Liturgy”[17] it should be given, other things being equal, pride of place in liturgical services sung in Latin[18]. St Pius X pointed out that the Church had “inherited it from the Fathers of the Church”, that she has “jealously guarded [it] for centuries in her liturgical codices” and still “proposes it to the faithful” as her own, considering it “the supreme model of sacred music”[19]. Thus, Gregorian chant continues also today to be an element of unity in the Roman Liturgy. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20031203_musica-sacra_en.html

so there is good reason that gregorian chant is to be fostered and all catholic faithful should be able to sing those parts in latin which pertain to them.

the problem is the vatican’s documents can be interpreted in a wide manner. it is ultimately up to the bishops decide the limits and extent of gregorian chant and latin in the liturgy. but it is clear that the church wants some element of latin in the liturgy, and gregorian chant should have “pride of place” or be the norm.

i’m glad that more of the younger catholics desire our latin liturgical traditions. we want all that the church has to offer.

 

[smn]

katherine2:

Of course, with your grandparents, the Missal was denied to the laity by the conservatives.

Would you be so kind as to provide a reference for this claim?

Scott

 

[Franciscum]

MrS:

I too would agree… but add to #5 that the reason it strayed was not the fault of the old liturgy, but the fault of the priests who were expressing their form of unchecked creativity. IMHO

No way.

It strayed because many of the so-called “Traditionalists” push what they believe is “best” versus what the Church actually directs.

Just another nasty source of liturgical abuse.

 

[Pandora]

Katherine you keep saying that Catholics were denied missals but I have both my maternal grandparents childhood missals as well as my grandmothers wedding missal and there missals for daily Mass that go back to 1908 and are in English and Latin. My granparent’s grew up fairly poor but yet they had misals so precious that they have been saved. Now my grandfather was the first to break with the old Catholic tradition of being a Democrat and he was a conservative. Still he had 4 old missals the oldest going back to 1908. My Mother said they weren’t encouraged to read the bible like other Christains are but it was never forbidden. Both my maternal and paternal granparents had bibles in their homes and my paternal grandfather knew his by heart. He could give any Baptist a run for his money quoting chapter and verse. We also had a bible in the house both childrens and a old Jerusalem bible. I can say I have never seen my father read one. For a man that loves history he has no interest, go figure.
So I don’t understand all this you couldn’t have a missal or read the bible stuff. My grandparents were hardly renegades of their day. Also most of the people I attend Church with at the TLM have either parents old missals or grandparents. I guess they were all disobedient according to you.
Kathy

 

[Pandora]

Oh as to Ratzinger I agree with most of what he says but he just isn’t conservative enough for me. But who is!
Kathy

 

[katolik]

Pandora:

Katherine you keep saying that Catholics were denied missals but I have both my maternal grandparents childhood missals as well as my grandmothers wedding missal and there missals for daily Mass that go back to 1908 and are in English and Latin. My granparent’s grew up fairly poor but yet they had misals so precious that they have been saved. Now my grandfather was the first to break with the old Catholic tradition of being a Democrat and he was a conservative. Still he had 4 old missals the oldest going back to 1908. My Mother said they weren’t encouraged to read the bible like other Christains are but it was never forbidden. Both my maternal and paternal granparents had bibles in their homes and my paternal grandfather knew his by heart. He could give any Baptist a run for his money quoting chapter and verse. We also had a bible in the house both childrens and a old Jerusalem bible. I can say I have never seen my father read one. For a man that loves history he has no interest, go figure.
So I don’t understand all this you couldn’t have a missal or read the bible stuff. My grandparents were hardly renegades of their day. Also most of the people I attend Church with at the TLM have either parents old missals or grandparents. I guess they were all disobedient according to you.
Kathy

I’ve said the same thing to Katherine, the same thing. I personally use a 1938 Polish-Latin missal. She doesn’t listen and just shuts us out.