Comparison of the Traditional Latin Mass with the Missal of 1969.

[ProVobis]

If memory serves me correctly, the Council of Trent debated over whether or not to translate the Missal into Chinese for the sake of evangelizing China. It was decided not to at the time because it was felt that it wasn’t the most opportune moment.

I have not heard that. Thousands of vernaculars and dialects have been used to evangelize since Pentecost.

The Council of Trent, to counter the Reformation, wished to standardize the Mass as much as possible, in one language when possible. It didn’t condemn the liturgy in vulgar tongues, but it did condemn having the vulgar tongues everywhere. As the same time, it encouraged explaining the Mass as much as possible. Literal translations often fail to do this, IMO.

 

[ProVobis]

As to the sacrificial nature of the Mass, that has most certainly NOT been reduced in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Just because the current Form does not see the need to repeat the word “sacrifice” over and over, does not mean that the sacrificial element has been down-played or lost.

True, but had there not have been an attempted rewrite of the definition of the Mass, the sacrificial nature probably wouldn’t have been an issue today, IMO.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is a very factual and informative look at the vast differences between the two Rites being used at present in the Latin Church:
verbum1.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-tlm-is-extrinsically-superior-to.html

There is only one rite being used in the Latin Church.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Pitting the two forms of the Latin Rite is against the rules.

CLOSED