Promulgation of the new Liturgy

[qfnol31]

Okay, I fixed this.


I found reference to this quote on Catholic Culture, and since they seemed to support it, I looked it up (bought the book). What are your thoughts on the following:


The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. I welcomed the fact that now we had a binding liturgical text after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy. But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal. The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the [i]Missale Romanum[/i] them being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries. Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a "Missal of Pius V", created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature. The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of liturgical "reforms". It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. The split in the Church occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most incisive manifestation in the changes of the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too, one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what was still Catholic and what was no longer Catholic.
In this confusing situation, which had become possible by the failure to produce unified liturgical legislation and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the pope decided that now the [i]Missale Romanum[/i]--the missal of the city of Rome--was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could not demonstrate its liturgy to be at least two hundred years old. Wherever the existing liturgy was that old, it could be preserved because its Catholic character would then be assured. In this case, we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prhibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. [color=red]It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.[/color]
But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liurgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has cause us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recogize the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every "community" must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer igve us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life. [color=red]A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church.[/color] I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of [i]etsi Deus non daretur:[/i] in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself an activity that is utteryly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emmerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds--partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. [color=red]This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.[/color]


--Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977 -- La mia vita: Ricordi (1927-1977)
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Taken with his other works, this doesn't go against the Novus Ordo, but rather supports it.

Edited October 5, 2004 by qfnol31

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 5 2004, 06:38 PM']
Taken with his other works, this doesn't go against the Novus Ordo, but rather supports it. [/quote]
No, taken with his other works this does not support the Novus Ordo. You need to read more of his other works, and perhaps this one again if you think it supports the Novus Ordo. What it does do is support A REFORM, but not the reform that took place.

[qfnol31]

I've read about 20 of his other works. Ratzinger supports the Novus Ordo. He may not support how it overtook the old one, but he does support the fact that it is the Mass of the Church. This article sticks out most:

[url="http://www.fssp.org/en/annivratz.htm"]FSSP 10 year anniversary[/url]

Ed: wrong link.

Edited October 6, 2004 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

[quote]Such fears and anxieties must stop! If the unity of the faith and the unicity of the mystery appear clearly in the two forms of celebration, this can only be a reason for all to rejoice and thank God. In so far as we believe, live and act on these motives, we can also persuade the bishops that the presence of the ancient liturgy does not disorder or injure the unity of their diocese, but rather it is a gift destined to build up the Body of Christ of which we are all servants.[/quote]

From the link above.

[cmotherofpirl]

Since this is not a debate I am moving it.

[qfnol31]

That's cool with me.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 5 2004, 09:09 PM'] Since this is not a debate I am moving it. [/quote]
hehe, we'll see. i might have to move it back