Here’s my two cents …
The Tridentine Mass was never banned. However, it was no longer the
normative Mass of the Latin Church after Vatican II. Was liturgical reform necessary? See my answer below.
For now, it ought to be understood that prior to Vatican II, the Latin Church could only celebrate the Mass with the
editio typica of the *Missale Romanum *(first printed edition was 1474),unless one had an indult to do otherwise. As revisions to the
Missale Romanum occurred, they were declared by the Roman Pontiff to be the
editio typica and all were obliged to celebrate according to the
editio typica, unless one had an indult to do otherwise.
Prior to the invention of the printing press, and up to the time of the Council of Trent, there was a wide variety in the Latin liturgy. Under the heading "
Varity of Missals", the 1909
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Missal
Although the “Missale secundum consuetudinem Romanae curiae” obtained great vogue and was destined eventually to be officially adopted and to supplant all others, throughout the
Middle Ages every province, indeed almost every diocese, had its local use, and while the Canon of the Mass was everywhere the same, the prayers in the “Ordo Missae”, and still more the “Proprium Sanctorum” and the “Proprium de Tempore”, were apt to differ widely in the service books.
The article above goes on to state that the local uses gave way to uniformity for two reasons: 1) advantage of uniformity, 2) primacy of Roman authority.
In the military, we call this “unity of command.” It has it’s advantages toward unit cohesion. But there are also disadvantages. The advantages come at a cost to plurality of ideas and expression.
The post-Trent Church no doubt believed it was time to have greater unity of command, Church cohesion, but at the cost of plurality of liturgy. Throughout most of the Church’s history, however, there was a plurality of liturgies.
Although the post-Trent Church reduced the pluarlity of liturgies in the Latin Church, it was not an strictly an elimination of liturgical plurality, as there were indults allowed even then, on quite a limited basis.
Vatican II continued the policy of restricting the diversity of liturgy in the Latin Church. They promulgated a revised edition to the
Missale Romanum, and decree that the Pauline revision shall be the *edition typica. *Thus, as with after Trent, Vatican II allowed indults but only on a limited basis.
I tend to agree with Cardinal Ratzinger that there’s room in the Latin Church for a plurality of liturgical expression.
**Was liturgical reform necessary? **
I think of the Tridentine Liturgy as “solid food,” when what the Church needed, after decades of modernism, was “milk.”
Even prior to Vatican II it became appearant that modernism was shifting the philosophical viewpoint of unbelievers as well as the taught Church. The Church must, by its very mission, speak to unbelievers
where they are. St. Paul, for example, quoted from Greek thinkers to evangelize the Greeks. The Church must alway express the same immutable truth in ways that can resonate with modern ears. The truth does not change. But those who need to hear the truth, unfortunately, keep changing. Thus, the expression of that truth cannot forever remain the same.
As a catechist, I understand that Summa Theologica is better than other texts, but a new convert is not ready for it. Thus, perhaps a Catholic Answers tract, while less meaty, is more digestable.
If the large majority within the Church cannot digest solid food, it is imprudent to continue to normatively force feed people on that which they are not likely to digest. Instead, it may be more prudent to feed them the “milk” of the Pauline Mass.
I believe that the Tridentine Mass ought to be available and celebrated in every diocese. However, the huge parish that I frequent just wouldn’t “get it” if they celebrated that Mass, they just couldn’t digest it. I believe that’s precisely WHY that FSSP Mass is tiny Church that is half filled.
