In 1998 Ignatius Press published Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977 by Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith. Cardinal Ratzinger is to Pope John Paul II what the holy and humble Cardinal Merry de Val was to Pope St. Pius X: his right hand man in the preservation and teaching of Church Doctrine. His position is one of the two most powerful in the Vatican next to the Pope, the other being Secretary of State.
Cardinal Ratzinger has become, in recent years, more outspoken regarding the failures of the post- Vatican II liturgy and has called for a reform of the reform. He has also begun celebrating the Traditional Mass more often for Catholics who desire it. In the fall of 1998 at the 10th anniversary celebration of Ecclesia Dei in Rome, he participated in a panel discussion seen on the video "Pilgrimage", available in our chapter library. With permission from Ignatius Press, from Milestones, pp. 146-149 we have this holy and premier theologian’s words to ponder.
Cardinal Ratzinger on the Roman Liturgy
edited by Barbara A. Schoeneberger
"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 Missale Romanum then 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 Missale Romanum –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 prohibition 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. 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.
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 liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused 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 recognize 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 give 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.
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. 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 etsi Deus non daretur: 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 utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges 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. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council."
To purchase this book contact Ignatius Press: 1-800-651-153, ignatuis.com
In Rome on October 24, 1998 during the 10th anniversary celebration of the "Ecclesia Dei" indult Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say:
"…The Council [Vatican II] itself did not reform the liturgical books but rather ordered their revision. To that end it laid down some fundamental rules. Primarily, the Council defined what liturgy is and this definition gives valid criteria for every liturgical celebration. If one wishes to scorn these essential rules and to put aside the normae generales which are found at numbers 34 to 36 of the Constitution "De Sacra Liturgia" – then one violates obedience to the Council! One must judge liturgical celebrations, whether they be according to the old or the new liturgical books, based on these criteria. It is good to remember here what Cardinal Newman realized when he said that the Church in all her history has never abolished or defended orthodox liturgical forms, forms which express the true faith, which would be totally foreign to the spirit of the Church. An orthodox liturgy, a liturgy which expounds the true faith, is never a compilation drawn up according to the pragmatic criteria of diverse ceremonies, of which one can dispose positively and arbitrarily – this way today, that way tomorrow. The orthodox forms of a rite are living realities born of the dialogue of love between the Church and her Lord. The are the expressions of the life of the Church where the faith, the prayer and the very life of generations is condensed and where at the same time the action of God and the response of man are brought together in a fixed manner. If the subject which has borne certain rites historically disappears or if the subject is transplanted into another environment, these rites can perish. The authority of the Church can define and limit the use of rites in different historical situations. She never defends them purely and simply! The Council, therefore, ordered a reform of the liturgical books but it never forbade the previous books…
There is, unfortunately, a tendency amongst some modern liturgists to develop the ideas of the Council in one direction. One overturns the intentions of the Council, acting in this way. The role of the priest is reduced by some to the purely functional. The fact that the entire Body of Christ is the subject of the liturgy is often deformed to the point where the local community becomes the self-sufficient subject of the liturgy and it allots the various roles. There also exists a dangerous tendency to minimize the sacrificial nature of the mass and to make the mystery and the sacred disappear under the so-called imperative pretext of making oneself more easily understood. Finally, one notices the tendency to fragment the liturgy and the unilateral emphasizing of its communitarian character by giving the assembly the power to decide about the celebration…
This is why it is so important to obey the essential criteria of the constitution on the Liturgy, which I cited above, even if one celebrates according to the Ancient Missal. At the moment when this liturgy truly touches the faithful by its beauty and depth, then it will be alive, and there will be no irreconcilable opposition with the new liturgy – provided that these criteria are truly applied as the Council wished…
So my dear friends, I would like to encourage you not to lose patience, to remain confident, and to exercise in the liturgy the necessary courage to bear witness for the Lord in our times."
Finally, in Salt of the Earth (Ignatius Press, ©1997) we have Cardinal Ratzinger saying:
"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It’s 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." XXX