Why the New Mass? Why not Tridentine Mass in vernacular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Saxum said:
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The liturgical changes were far too sudden and pained many Catholics who were unprepared.

I agree that the liturgy was in need of slight reform but I believe Ordinary Form went too far too fast. One gets the impression that the consilium on the liturgy embraced novelty for novelty’s sake. Their changes represented a rupture in the organic development of the Roman Rite; and now we have many parishes with impoverished celebrations and terrible music and little reverence for Our Lord in his most vulnerable state - the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
It was more than they were simply “too sudden.” The implementation was very poorly coordinated. There was horrible communication amongst the clergy. They themselves were not trained and really had no clue about was going on. There was also the issue about timing and what was going on in the world. Just as 2011 was a better time to implement change then today would be, 1975 might have been a lot better than 1970.

The rest of your posting seems to be an attack on the OF Mass in favor of the EF Mass with no basis in fact. Those sorts of comments (e.g. “just go back to the older mass”) impeded making progress with the OF implementation and refinement.

I hope you’ll realize at some point that a properly celebrated EF Mass is not “better” in any way than a properly celebrated OF Mass. You might prefer the EF Mass to the OF Mass – nothing wrong with that, but to imply the EF is superior (or inferior) to the OF is out-and-out false.
 
Last edited:
The stated goal was to make it more appealing to the modern world. Six Protestant ministers helped write it to appeal to Protestants. It diluted the faith to be less Catholic.

We have translations of the Traditional Latin Mass in the Missals in many languages. I asked why it couldn’t be said from the Missals and was told that Latin is the official language of the church, sacred to the church, and a dead language that never changes. Latin preserves the meaning.
 
Duesenberg said:
properly celebrated OF Mass
Click to expand...
What exactly is this? All the OF Masses I’ve attended follow the GIRM, which I presume is proper. There may be a lot of adlibbing and creativity but technically they don’t contradict the GIRM. In my mind it’s hard not to have a licit OF Mass.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
What exactly is this? All the OF Masses I’ve attended follow the GIRM, which I presume is proper. There may be a lot of adlibbing and creativity but technically they don’t contradict the GIRM. In my mind it’s hard not to have a licit OF Mass.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no sale. The OF Mass does not allow more “adlibbing (sic) and creativity” than the EF Mass. More options in one Mass, absolutely, more “adlibbing (sic) and creativity”? Nope.
 
RoseofMary1 said:
The stated goal was to make it more appealing to the modern world. Six Protestant ministers helped write it to appeal to Protestants. It diluted the faith to be less Catholic.

We have translations of the Traditional Latin Mass in the Missals in many languages. I asked why it couldn’t be said from the Missals and was told that Latin is the official language of the church, sacred to the church, and a dead language that never changes. Latin preserves the meaning.
Click to expand...
More Ottaviani fiction, aye? In any event I truly hope you don’t subscribe to the nonsense that the EF Mass is somehow “better” than the OF Mass. It’s not.
 
RoseofMary1 said:
Just your opinion.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not just my opinion. It’s fact. The Church has never said any different.

You’re absolutely, unequivocally, 100% wrong to imply the EF Mass is somehow “better” than the OF Mass. I encourage you to talk to an expert about this – either here on the “Ask an Apologist”, on CA’s call-in show, or a trusted member of the clergy.
 
Last edited:
I have heard from the best, and I would encourage you to listen to the warnings of our lady in approved apparitions where she warned against “the suicide of altering the liturgy.”

When the Mass is altered again into an “ecumenical Mass,” will people just follow?
 
Last edited:
RoseofMary1 said:
I have heard from the best, and I would encourage you to listen to the warnings of our lady in approved apparitions where she warned against “the suicide of altering the liturgy.”

When the Mass is altered again into an “ecumenical Mass,” will people just follow?
Click to expand...
Oh, my, my, my… 😲
 
That’s not the way it works. If the bishop allows it, it is “proper” enough. New Mass, new rules.

I don’t like it either, but it is what it is.
 
Duesenberg said:
No, it’s not just my opinion. It’s fact. The Church has never said any different.
Click to expand...
It is your opinion. People are permitted to express their liturgical preferences, and that’s why the Church has always permitted liturgical diversity.
 
Saxum said:
It is your opinion. People are permitted to express their liturgical preferences, and that’s why the Church has always permitted liturgical diversity.
Click to expand...
No. Is it proper to say something like “I prefer the EF Mass over the OF Mass”? Sure. But to suggest the EF Mass is somehow “better” than the OF Mass is just silly. It’s also divisive. Making the claim that it’s “better” is one of the reasons it will never catch on in large numbers again.
 
The Traditional Mass is inherently more pleasing to God. It’s focus is on worshiping God (Not the community). It is more resembles what Jesus Himself instituted. There is more veneration for the Eucharist (Kneeling, receiving from the hand of the priest, etc.). There are no crumbs all over the church being trampled from communion in the hand. It is said in Latin, which is a dead language that doesn’t change, so the meaning doesn’t change and is a language consecrated to the church, etc., etc., etc.
 
RoseofMary1 said:
The Traditional Mass is inherently more pleasing to God. It’s focus is on worshiping God (Not the community). It is more resembles what Jesus Himself instituted. There is more veneration for the Eucharist (Kneeling, receiving from the hand of the priest, etc.). There are no crumbs all over the church being trampled from communion in the hand. It is said in Latin, which is a dead language that doesn’t change, so the meaning doesn’t change and is a language consecrated to the church, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...
What you’re suggesting above is not only false, it’s silly. Particularly the part about the EF Mass being “more pleasing to God.” That’s just off the rails.
 
Last edited:
RoseofMary1 said:
Again, your opinion.
Click to expand...
No. You make ridiculous, unfounded comments like “the Traditional Mass is inherently more pleasing to God” and it’s not merely my opinion that they are silly and unsupported by the Catholic Church.

Please show us something official from the Catholic Church that backs up your personal belief.
 
Show me something official that discounts the points I made. Show me something official that backs up your opinion that they are all equally the same? Are those new masses where people socialize all during the Mass are as pleasing to God as the Mass Jesus and his Apostles instituted. You will have to educate yourself as you will not listen to anyone else.
 
Duesenberg said:
Making the claim that it’s “better” is one of the reasons it will never catch on in large numbers again.
Click to expand...
I think this is where you are wrong. I have the statistics for my diocese and they CLEARLY show a massive decline that began with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Some might claim that I’m guilty of the fallacy ex post facto ergo propter hoc but the decline and the event perfectly coincide. Secular news outlets at the time also commented on the mass exodus of Catholics. Therefore, quantitative and qualitative evidence proves that the near abolition of the Traditional Mass was a significant cause of the decline in the practice of the Faith.

The Catholic word loved the EF Mass; they knew the EF Mass; they wanted the EF Mass. But the Mass was taken from them. A liturgical revolution was imposed upon them. The Traditional Mass was illegally suppressed - suppressed as it continues to be today. Nobody can deny the Traditional Mass continues to be surpressed by liberals in power. Do you doubt this? Visit your local parish and see if the Traditional Mass is given equal status with the New Mass. Visit your local Catholic School and see if the Traditional Mass is celebrated on a regular basis; and ask the children if they’ve even heard of the Traditional Mass. Invariably, the answer to these questions will be in the negative.

It could even be argued that the old CAF silenced the real debate on the Traditional Mass v the New Mass. This also contributed to the obfuscation of the truth concerning the liturgical reforms and the relative merits of the Masses contributed to the ignorance that has been manufactured and imposed upon the laity.

The Traditional Mass has been illegally suppressed and sidelined to the extent that most Catholics are unaware of its existence. Despite this concerted campaign of suppression, the Lord has saved the Traditional Mass. Despite ideological opposition by those in authority, the Traditional Mass still produces vocations - and that is why it WILL catch on in large numbers again. It will catch on in large numbers because ‘the kids are Old Rite’ as a recent article said; and these kids are becoming traditional priests.
 
Last edited:
RoseofMary1 said:
Show me something official that discounts the points I made. Show me something official that backs up your opinion that they are all equally the same? Are those new masses where people socialize all during the Mass are as pleasing to God as the Mass Jesus and his Apostles instituted. You will have to educate yourself as you will not listen to anyone else.
Click to expand...
Oh, no, no, no. That’s not how this works. You made the absurd claim that “The Traditional Mass is inherently more pleasing to God.” It’s up to you to back your claim up.

Please show us something official from the Catholic Church that backs up your personal belief.
 
No, no, no, you made outlandish claims. I gave reasons. You obviously won’t listen to any of the evidence, so why be given pearls?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top