![DrKwasniewski's tweet photo. What a remarkable letter, in which we see, already in 1976, the entire trajectory of Ratzinger's thought that would culminate in the 2007 motu proprio Summorum pontificum, the 2011 instruction Universae Ecclesiae, and the 2020 decrees Quo Magis and Cum Sanctissima. Here was a man who thought things through carefully. And whatever disagreements one may have with certain assertions he makes, it is more than clear that he is right about the rupture and the need to free up the old missal, leaving the outcome to Divine Providence.
[Original typescript attached as images]
------------------------------------
University of Regensburg
14 December 1976
Esteemed Colleague [Wolfgang] Waldstein!
Thank you very much for your kind words. To get straight to the heart of the matter: In my opinion, we should strive to ensure that the old Missal may continue to be used by all priests, provided they recognize the legitimacy of the new Missal as well. The regulations, which will be necessary for the sake of order and to avoid confusion, should nevertheless be worded in such a way as to allow for extensive freedom in the use of the old Missal.
To clarify my position to you, I am enclosing with this letter a photocopy of the letter I wrote to Cardinal Volk on the day before the first Sunday of Lent regarding the matters concerning the Missal. Unfortunately, things had already progressed to the point where it was no longer possible to comply with my proposals that day, although Cardinal Volk himself apparently considered them correct.
In this context, it must be pointed out that the manner in which the new Missal was introduced deviates from previous ecclesiastical legal customs, such as those observed by Pius V during his reform of the Missal, where it was expressly stated that the Pope “nequaquam auferimus” [by no means takes away] a “consuetudo” [custom] that had been practiced uninterrupted for more than 200 years; accordingly, a slightly different type of liturgy remained in use, for example, in Cologne and Trier until the 18th century, in Milan until the Second Vatican Council, and likewise in the Dominican Order—and one could easily cite many more examples.
The “Missal of Pius V” was not a new missal at all, but merely a version of the existing Roman Missal that had been slightly revised based on the sources, and in that sense was simply another stage in a process that had been proceeding in a straight line since Hippolytus. For this reason, I find the terms “Tridentine Mass” and “Missal of Pius V” historically inaccurate and theologically disastrous.
The problem with the new Missal, by contrast, lies in the fact that it breaks away from this continuous history—which had been progressing steadily both before and after Pius V—and creates an entirely new book (albeit from old material), the introduction of which is accompanied by a type of prohibition of the previous form that is entirely foreign to the history of ecclesiastical law and liturgy. Based on my knowledge of the council debates and on a re-reading of the speeches delivered by the council fathers at that time, I can say with certainty that this was not intended [by them].
Admittedly, it is difficult to articulate and defend such a position today because it is all too easy to confuse it with Lefebvre’s position, which is in reality of an entirely different nature—a position that, in fact, must reject any growth and thus places itself in contradiction not only to Pius V but also to the Catholic principle of papal and episcopal authority in general.
For this reason, it seems important to me to emphasize the full legitimacy of the new Missal; on this basis, however, one can and must then advocate for a revision of the prohibitive approach that runs counter to tradition, thereby setting the course of development back on the right track. We can then leave it to the future to determine whether the “new Missal” will flow back into the old and merge with it to such an extent that it ultimately becomes merely a stage in its development—for the ossification of the old Missal would, in the long run, spell its demise; precisely for this reason, we must hope that it will once again be drawn into the living liturgical development.
I warmly return your Advent and Christmas wishes and send you my best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Joseph Ratzinger](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HN3Da5CXEAAAEj3.jpg)
![DrKwasniewski's tweet photo. What a remarkable letter, in which we see, already in 1976, the entire trajectory of Ratzinger's thought that would culminate in the 2007 motu proprio Summorum pontificum, the 2011 instruction Universae Ecclesiae, and the 2020 decrees Quo Magis and Cum Sanctissima. Here was a man who thought things through carefully. And whatever disagreements one may have with certain assertions he makes, it is more than clear that he is right about the rupture and the need to free up the old missal, leaving the outcome to Divine Providence.
[Original typescript attached as images]
------------------------------------
University of Regensburg
14 December 1976
Esteemed Colleague [Wolfgang] Waldstein!
Thank you very much for your kind words. To get straight to the heart of the matter: In my opinion, we should strive to ensure that the old Missal may continue to be used by all priests, provided they recognize the legitimacy of the new Missal as well. The regulations, which will be necessary for the sake of order and to avoid confusion, should nevertheless be worded in such a way as to allow for extensive freedom in the use of the old Missal.
To clarify my position to you, I am enclosing with this letter a photocopy of the letter I wrote to Cardinal Volk on the day before the first Sunday of Lent regarding the matters concerning the Missal. Unfortunately, things had already progressed to the point where it was no longer possible to comply with my proposals that day, although Cardinal Volk himself apparently considered them correct.
In this context, it must be pointed out that the manner in which the new Missal was introduced deviates from previous ecclesiastical legal customs, such as those observed by Pius V during his reform of the Missal, where it was expressly stated that the Pope “nequaquam auferimus” [by no means takes away] a “consuetudo” [custom] that had been practiced uninterrupted for more than 200 years; accordingly, a slightly different type of liturgy remained in use, for example, in Cologne and Trier until the 18th century, in Milan until the Second Vatican Council, and likewise in the Dominican Order—and one could easily cite many more examples.
The “Missal of Pius V” was not a new missal at all, but merely a version of the existing Roman Missal that had been slightly revised based on the sources, and in that sense was simply another stage in a process that had been proceeding in a straight line since Hippolytus. For this reason, I find the terms “Tridentine Mass” and “Missal of Pius V” historically inaccurate and theologically disastrous.
The problem with the new Missal, by contrast, lies in the fact that it breaks away from this continuous history—which had been progressing steadily both before and after Pius V—and creates an entirely new book (albeit from old material), the introduction of which is accompanied by a type of prohibition of the previous form that is entirely foreign to the history of ecclesiastical law and liturgy. Based on my knowledge of the council debates and on a re-reading of the speeches delivered by the council fathers at that time, I can say with certainty that this was not intended [by them].
Admittedly, it is difficult to articulate and defend such a position today because it is all too easy to confuse it with Lefebvre’s position, which is in reality of an entirely different nature—a position that, in fact, must reject any growth and thus places itself in contradiction not only to Pius V but also to the Catholic principle of papal and episcopal authority in general.
For this reason, it seems important to me to emphasize the full legitimacy of the new Missal; on this basis, however, one can and must then advocate for a revision of the prohibitive approach that runs counter to tradition, thereby setting the course of development back on the right track. We can then leave it to the future to determine whether the “new Missal” will flow back into the old and merge with it to such an extent that it ultimately becomes merely a stage in its development—for the ossification of the old Missal would, in the long run, spell its demise; precisely for this reason, we must hope that it will once again be drawn into the living liturgical development.
I warmly return your Advent and Christmas wishes and send you my best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Joseph Ratzinger](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HN3Da5AX0AAQqUD.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Perfect Mugwagwa FRM
@PERFECTMUGWAGWA
Author of the Books "Scripture Alone or the Word of God Alone" and "Justification by faith and sanctification".
Banket, Zimbabwe
Joined February 2011
121 Following
38 Followers
1.3K Posts
@TaylorRMarshall There is no crisis
@TD_Barrett @IncredPapist_ The idea that people were coerced to hold the true beliefs, its a failure to grasp the topic at and lie about the history of the other centuries of the Catholic Church.
@PaulDel38395510 @IncredPapist_ @josephlikesX @biemelneus Which Pope ever taught that you can torture people into being Catholics?
Who to follow
The Duke🐐🤴
@bj_tanaka25
Just another guy. ThatGuy. Peace ✌
Shihan Samson Muripo 師範. サムソン. ムリポ
@MuripoSam
World Kyokushin Karate Champion 2019🥋 First African World Kyokushin Karate Champion in 2009 🥋 6th Dan Black Belt 🥋. https://t.co/GgKlJnNRCJ
St. Marys The Mount
@marys_mount
A Catholic Church is great for its welcoming, people and design feel you to get closer to God. Thanks be to God
@MattGaspers @FrMichaelMary My opinion is that the SSPX needs the bishops because the ones they had are getting old and had only remained with two, they waited about 40 years to have other bishops, there is some prudence in this and besides there have many souls to take care of.
@M_P_Hazell The GIRM Is also wrong, it should read, gave permission for some vernacular to be used in some circumstances?
@GospelOnX You can believe, hope and love whilst on the cross. That is everything you need to do to be saved. What is your idea of works without love?
@MJKelleyII Its in the word Deuterocanonical what you missed in your post. Using your logic, 2nd Peter, Jude, James, Revelations, Hebrews, 2nd and 3rd John are not inspired as they NT Deuterocanonicals
What a remarkable letter, in which we see, already in 1976, the entire trajectory of Ratzinger's thought that would culminate in the 2007 motu proprio Summorum pontificum, the 2011 instruction Universae Ecclesiae, and the 2020 decrees Quo Magis and Cum Sanctissima. Here was a man who thought things through carefully. And whatever disagreements one may have with certain assertions he makes, it is more than clear that he is right about the rupture and the need to free up the old missal, leaving the outcome to Divine Providence.
[Original typescript attached as images]
------------------------------------
University of Regensburg
14 December 1976
Esteemed Colleague [Wolfgang] Waldstein!
Thank you very much for your kind words. To get straight to the heart of the matter: In my opinion, we should strive to ensure that the old Missal may continue to be used by all priests, provided they recognize the legitimacy of the new Missal as well. The regulations, which will be necessary for the sake of order and to avoid confusion, should nevertheless be worded in such a way as to allow for extensive freedom in the use of the old Missal.
To clarify my position to you, I am enclosing with this letter a photocopy of the letter I wrote to Cardinal Volk on the day before the first Sunday of Lent regarding the matters concerning the Missal. Unfortunately, things had already progressed to the point where it was no longer possible to comply with my proposals that day, although Cardinal Volk himself apparently considered them correct.
In this context, it must be pointed out that the manner in which the new Missal was introduced deviates from previous ecclesiastical legal customs, such as those observed by Pius V during his reform of the Missal, where it was expressly stated that the Pope “nequaquam auferimus” [by no means takes away] a “consuetudo” [custom] that had been practiced uninterrupted for more than 200 years; accordingly, a slightly different type of liturgy remained in use, for example, in Cologne and Trier until the 18th century, in Milan until the Second Vatican Council, and likewise in the Dominican Order—and one could easily cite many more examples.
The “Missal of Pius V” was not a new missal at all, but merely a version of the existing Roman Missal that had been slightly revised based on the sources, and in that sense was simply another stage in a process that had been proceeding in a straight line since Hippolytus. For this reason, I find the terms “Tridentine Mass” and “Missal of Pius V” historically inaccurate and theologically disastrous.
The problem with the new Missal, by contrast, lies in the fact that it breaks away from this continuous history—which had been progressing steadily both before and after Pius V—and creates an entirely new book (albeit from old material), the introduction of which is accompanied by a type of prohibition of the previous form that is entirely foreign to the history of ecclesiastical law and liturgy. Based on my knowledge of the council debates and on a re-reading of the speeches delivered by the council fathers at that time, I can say with certainty that this was not intended [by them].
Admittedly, it is difficult to articulate and defend such a position today because it is all too easy to confuse it with Lefebvre’s position, which is in reality of an entirely different nature—a position that, in fact, must reject any growth and thus places itself in contradiction not only to Pius V but also to the Catholic principle of papal and episcopal authority in general.
For this reason, it seems important to me to emphasize the full legitimacy of the new Missal; on this basis, however, one can and must then advocate for a revision of the prohibitive approach that runs counter to tradition, thereby setting the course of development back on the right track. We can then leave it to the future to determine whether the “new Missal” will flow back into the old and merge with it to such an extent that it ultimately becomes merely a stage in its development—for the ossification of the old Missal would, in the long run, spell its demise; precisely for this reason, we must hope that it will once again be drawn into the living liturgical development.
I warmly return your Advent and Christmas wishes and send you my best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Joseph Ratzinger
![DrKwasniewski's tweet photo. What a remarkable letter, in which we see, already in 1976, the entire trajectory of Ratzinger's thought that would culminate in the 2007 motu proprio Summorum pontificum, the 2011 instruction Universae Ecclesiae, and the 2020 decrees Quo Magis and Cum Sanctissima. Here was a man who thought things through carefully. And whatever disagreements one may have with certain assertions he makes, it is more than clear that he is right about the rupture and the need to free up the old missal, leaving the outcome to Divine Providence.
[Original typescript attached as images]
------------------------------------
University of Regensburg
14 December 1976
Esteemed Colleague [Wolfgang] Waldstein!
Thank you very much for your kind words. To get straight to the heart of the matter: In my opinion, we should strive to ensure that the old Missal may continue to be used by all priests, provided they recognize the legitimacy of the new Missal as well. The regulations, which will be necessary for the sake of order and to avoid confusion, should nevertheless be worded in such a way as to allow for extensive freedom in the use of the old Missal.
To clarify my position to you, I am enclosing with this letter a photocopy of the letter I wrote to Cardinal Volk on the day before the first Sunday of Lent regarding the matters concerning the Missal. Unfortunately, things had already progressed to the point where it was no longer possible to comply with my proposals that day, although Cardinal Volk himself apparently considered them correct.
In this context, it must be pointed out that the manner in which the new Missal was introduced deviates from previous ecclesiastical legal customs, such as those observed by Pius V during his reform of the Missal, where it was expressly stated that the Pope “nequaquam auferimus” [by no means takes away] a “consuetudo” [custom] that had been practiced uninterrupted for more than 200 years; accordingly, a slightly different type of liturgy remained in use, for example, in Cologne and Trier until the 18th century, in Milan until the Second Vatican Council, and likewise in the Dominican Order—and one could easily cite many more examples.
The “Missal of Pius V” was not a new missal at all, but merely a version of the existing Roman Missal that had been slightly revised based on the sources, and in that sense was simply another stage in a process that had been proceeding in a straight line since Hippolytus. For this reason, I find the terms “Tridentine Mass” and “Missal of Pius V” historically inaccurate and theologically disastrous.
The problem with the new Missal, by contrast, lies in the fact that it breaks away from this continuous history—which had been progressing steadily both before and after Pius V—and creates an entirely new book (albeit from old material), the introduction of which is accompanied by a type of prohibition of the previous form that is entirely foreign to the history of ecclesiastical law and liturgy. Based on my knowledge of the council debates and on a re-reading of the speeches delivered by the council fathers at that time, I can say with certainty that this was not intended [by them].
Admittedly, it is difficult to articulate and defend such a position today because it is all too easy to confuse it with Lefebvre’s position, which is in reality of an entirely different nature—a position that, in fact, must reject any growth and thus places itself in contradiction not only to Pius V but also to the Catholic principle of papal and episcopal authority in general.
For this reason, it seems important to me to emphasize the full legitimacy of the new Missal; on this basis, however, one can and must then advocate for a revision of the prohibitive approach that runs counter to tradition, thereby setting the course of development back on the right track. We can then leave it to the future to determine whether the “new Missal” will flow back into the old and merge with it to such an extent that it ultimately becomes merely a stage in its development—for the ossification of the old Missal would, in the long run, spell its demise; precisely for this reason, we must hope that it will once again be drawn into the living liturgical development.
I warmly return your Advent and Christmas wishes and send you my best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Joseph Ratzinger](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HN3Da5CXsAARDpA.jpg)
@poperespecter1 Is that the highest law of the Church?
@CTrefugees The liturgy evolved from a sacrifice to a meal and gathering about fun
The challenges of the postconciliar era are not all about the rubrics and prayers of the Mass. One of the worst liturgical habits of the last several decades was making the Mass depend on the priest’s personality. Many priests were formed that way in seminary, with practicum classes emphasizing connection, active participation, and eye contact.
One priest is folksy, another comic, and yet another determined to be “relatable.” The faithful could go from one parish to another and encounter markedly different celebrations.
That harmed the Church, but it also harmed priests. Extroverted men who enjoyed this could easily harden into a signature style and identity within only a few years. Quiet and introverted men were made to feel that reverence and fidelity were not enough—that they also had to “work the room.”
The rite carries the priest and the people. Even the Novus Ordo can. The priest does not need to manufacture an experience for the faithful or perform a personality.
His task is simpler and greater: to celebrate what the Church has given him, and to let Christ remain at the center.
@Xtopher_Uzo So in short the response was the world is becoming worldly and let us also make our Churches worldly
@sitsio The SSPX says the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and Rome is its earthly head with one of the roles to confirm his brethren in Faith.
@sitsio So that is the wrong question you are asking the SSPX. They know where the Church is. The question is does Rome know where the Church is because Vatican 2 seems to suggest that it subsists and you are saying otherwise
@sitsio So only the Current Popes can judge what is Tradition? What should I do when previous Popes already judged the same things in the opposite direction of the current Popes?
@Xtopher_Uzo https://t.co/AuR3G2BmxG
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
VALDYY
Seen from Indonesia
brenda gon
Seen from Guatemala
Farasat Ali「☄️G☄️」nexyai.io|CryplexAI|Solix
Seen from United States
🍣 
Seen from United States
thich quay len trai
Seen from Vietnam
Miku
Pussy Gaping
Seen from Pakistan
小涵baby
Seen from United States
Im_Apoloo
Seen from United States
Vũ
Seen from Vietnam
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
113.9M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
89.7M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.1M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
72.9M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
65.9M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
62.8M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers