Iacobus,
There is beauty and then there is beauty. Yes, I used the term in a subjective manner, as one which perception depends on individual’s esthetics - as such it can be misleading or direct one’s attention to secondary aspects. But the same subjective esthetics can draw us closer to particular celebration, and perhaps only then, when we get enough soaked in it, we (with the help of Grace) can perceive its eternal beauty.

Much though I adore and cherish the Catholic Encyclopedia, I could find you in a heartbeat any number of Eastern Catholics who would instantly claim superior dignity and beauty for their rites. In my own experience, there is a shocking daily durability to the eastern divine liturgies — they are far more grand in “daily” form than even the old Rite, which — let us be honest — does not fulfill its richness when celebrated as a low Mass, whereas the eastern liturgies entirely lack such a “low” form. I have not see a pontifical eastern liturgy, but I should like to do so! They are strange to this very western soul, still, after assisting at many of them — but I would not be quite so eager to pass judgment upon them.

Even that folksy Catholic Encyclopaedia admits as much in its article on the Roman Rite:

That it has advantages possessed by no other — the most archaic antiquity, unequalled dignity, beauty, and the practical convenience of being comparatively short in its services — will not be denied by any one who knows it and the other ancient liturgies.

This all reminds me of a discussion that Iosephus and I had upon a time, concerning those wonderfully pious souls who unfortunately find no beauty in traditional artistic or liturgical forms. Such people are obsessed by the guitar, or the drum, or the frenzied “praise and worship” hymn. Such a predilection is certainly not sinful, but it can be dangerous when one’s tastes are contrary to the tastes of the Church.

you are right on spot. Eastern rites are not inferior to TLM. Well, we can certainly set individual preferences here, although based solely on one’s spirituality, views on “participation”, esthetics or personality of the attendant. We can find as many shades of those as one wishes, all in line with tradition(s). (Note that I leave out NO from considerations here, the rite that I gradually came to dislike on more serious grounds, well understood in this forum).
By no means intending to irate staunch protagonists of Latin liturgical tradition, I have to confess for the sake of clarity, that I do not find TLM attractive (for lack of better word), as opposed to Byzantine Divine Liturgy. But that’s all it is - a _preference_, not a judgement of dignity, sacramental efficiency, theological soundness, or mystagogy, nor just being the only right way of worship.

Again, why do the Eastern forms of the Eucharistic liturgy seem defective, relative to the gold standard of MPV?

These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.

From ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM

So when I spoke of the eastern liturgies, I was comparing them to the Missal of St. Pius V, that Hannibal Bugnini’s craftsmanship.

How did you come to the conclusion that “the Eastern forms of the Eucharistic liturgy are not as suited, in all respects, to the worship of God [...], (and) they appear defective, [...] good but not all there”?
My take on that would be rather that the only thing the Eastern Divine Liturgies can be compared to on the West are the very Missae of Latin traditional rites (Roman ‘62 and other), not NO. Not at all.

I just happy to see that the reins have been pulled back a little bit.

I understand what you’re saying about St. Thomas. I do think it’s the case, though, that you would also have to accuse the Eastern rite of being evil, if the force of your argument really came down against the Novus Ordo.

I don’t know what you think, but I think that we can say that the various Eastern rites are not quite the beautiful and proper worship which the Mass of St. Pius V is. They are fine, as far as it goes, but the old Latin rite captures even better the theology of the Church with regard to the Holy Sacrifice.

Yet the Church has always permitted a diversity of rites. They are not evil, they are quite good, in fact. What is defective in the situation about which we speak is that we have moved from something which was very good (the old rite) to something which is not so hot. And it appears even worse when we consider the richness we had before.

It’s not all about the Mass, though. As any Society bishop would say, the real issue is the theology of various things (the Mass, ecumenism, ecclesiology) since the Council. The new Mass was the tool used by the modernists and Free Masons to shatter the human elements of the Church from within. Forget the new form of the Mass! think alone of what the loss of the Jesuit order to the modernists has done to the Church!

But the new Mass, by being a constant presence, exerts a more awful effect upon the laity. So we are especially worried about it.

Yet what can we do? If we break our unity with the Holy Father, we are in a precarious position as Catholics. I say nothing more. I do not judge the bishops of the Society; I do not judge those who would only go to Society chapels; for I agree with them in nearly all respects.

But as a convert, as a former Lutheran, I can’t, I do not want to judge the Roman Pontiff. Many bad things were done and said under the reign of JPII, but he did not repudiate the Faith. Nor will Ratzinger. The Church is indefectible.

Why did this punishment come upon us? I do not know. But at least those of us on this forum have an appreciate for the Mass which we may not have had otherwise. We savor every bit and piece, every word of the Mass of St. Pius V. I hardly know if that justifies what has happened during the past forty years, but it’s something of a consolation during this time.

And I think that good things are on the horizon for the old Mass. The Society continues to grow; the FSSP is growing; the Institute is growing. And that rate of growth will only increase as the many, many children which today’s old rite Catholics have had begin to embark upon their own adult lives.

God’s will be done, but it would be nice to live to see the Faith exerting again that influence which it did during the 1950s and early 1960s when Americans were coming into the Church in unprecedented numbers.

So Viva, no need here to argue about the old Mass and the new Mass. None of the contributors on this blog would ever frequent the new rite Mass if they thought it could be helped. And if there is a disagreement on that point, I respect your position, but it’s not one which I conscience I can take.

http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word122305.htm#five

Thank you for your comments. We all know how much we owe to The Archbishop.