Original German Document
(see below) courtesy of I.A.F.
University of Regensburg
14 December 1976Esteemed 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
