M
mosher
Guest
I think that this has to do with the theory behind the Novus Ordo. Remember according to theory the Tridentine Mass was not thrown out. Rather the Novus Ordo is the Tridentine Mass. The Novus Ordo is supposed to only be a revision of the Missale Romanum. Granted it is a dramatic change but an organic outgrowth none the less. I think it is for this reason that at some level there is a different way of looking at the Tridentine Liturgy as opposed to some of the innovations that have happened. While the innovations seem to be modifications of the current liturgy a return to a previous Missal would not conform to liturgical tradition.You know what I find to be really sad about the whole issue of Life Teen Masses and Neocatechumanl Masses and Charismatic Masses and all the other innovative Masses and groups that we have these days? They can all be celebrated just about anywhere that a Priest is willing and available. None of them normally bear much resemblence to the Pauline Rite Mass except in bits and pieces and they all incorporate elements that the Pauline Rite rubrics don’t call for. They are all permitted in the great spirit of inclusiveness and making everyone feel welcome. You know modern ways of imaging God and all.
Yet the Traditional Rite that served the Church for so long, that created so many Saints and laid the groundwork so that these other Rites can even exist, is treated in most places like an unwelcome stepchild, shunted off to a corner where hopefully no one will notice and maybe just maybe one day go away forever. It is ridiculed, put down, satirized and spoken of in the most denigrating terms you can imagine on other forums and even on this one, yet that treatment it is generally accepted and is apparently considered OK and allowable.
Why is that? Something just doesn’t seem right about the whole situation. It really doesn’t.
However, if it is shown (which I think it has) that the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Liturgy are in fact two different and distinct forms of liturgy then the above reasoning does not hold water.