TLM vs. NO in latin and ad orientem

Sacrosanctum Concilium was not referring to the Novus Ordo since it was issued many years before the Novus Ordo was promulgated.

Nice post Sir James !!!

I don’t think you can legitimately invoke infallibility with regard to the order of Mass; I’d say that falls under customs and discipline - that is, they’re subject to change as the Church sees fit.

In the Eastern Catholic rite, we’ve been facing the east for centuries and using the local language. I tend to prefer the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom to the Novus Ordo simply because I feel LED in worship by the priest - which, IMHO, is the way it should be.

The prayers in the Mass, particularly the offertory are different for one. The things eliminated from the Mass in 1970 showed Catholic Doctrine unambiguously, the priest’s actions were totally controlled by the rubrics.

You really have to study WHY the Tridentine Mass, and why we feel it should have never ever been replaced with what we have now. There is much to learn.

As Archbishop Lefebvre said, “We would rather have the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular with a good translation and facing the people rather than the Novus Ordo in Latin and facing the altar.”


I asked this on another thread, but out of curiosity where is it stated that the TLM must be offered ‘versus apsidem’ *?

*or ‘ad orientum’ if the church is aligned toward the East.

I asked this on another thread, but out of curiosity where is it stated that the TLM must be offered ‘versus apsidem’ *?

*or ‘ad orientum’ if the church is aligned toward the East.

That may be true but I highly doubt that the promulgation of the 1969 Missale Romanum negated or completely ignored Sacrosanctum Concilium. The 1969 Missale Romanum, having been written after Sacrosanctum Concilium, would have been written with it in mind.

Last night I read a short article on the rubrics and I don’t see why they would, or indeed should, be ignored for the 1969 Missale Romanum.

The NO in Latin with the altar facing the right way still doesnt solve the problems with the text of the NO itself. True, an NO celebrated this way is quite a lot more reverant then most NOs, but some of the big problems lie in the text itself. The NO text is a creation, unlike the Tridentine which is an organic development of the first Masses of the Early Church.

Had the letter of Vatican II been followed, we would still have an organic development.

May I pose a reciprocal question? … Back in the days when the Seminaries and convents were full, Catholic Education was affordable because the Nuns and Brothers taught the classe, Church’s were well attended every Sunday, Confessionals were actually used more than 15 minutes on Saturday at 3:45 before a Saturday mass that didn’t exist, … etc. etc… when the Catholic Church was in full bloom… Who was calling for changes to be made?

Since the changes, mass attendance has dropped, Seminaries closed, Catholic school tuition has skyrocketed, Priest shortages have opened the doors for liberals to demand married priests, women priests, gay priest… no priests… and whatever.

If I’m driving on vacation to the Beach and I have a map that I’ve used in the past that has always gotten me to the Beach, but I decide to try a new route and all of a sudden I find myself in the Rocky Mountains… I just might be “keen” on getting the map back out and going back to the original driving plans. Call me crazy.

TraddyDaddy what you said above seems to ignore the recent developments in Western civilizations at the time. I’m not positive on the statistics but I think it would be fair to say that developing countries aren’t suffering anything like what the West is while using the “new route”. I’ll check this when I get home to verify it just to be certain.

The “new route” may be a catalyst for what you said above but I highly doubt it’s the cause.

Aureole, here is a website with extensive statistics regarding the situation in the church since the 1960’s…

Now, I’m not blaming this on just the new mass. Modernism in general is to be blamed. This started creeping in to some of our seminaries in the early 60’s. My family used to be the care takers of our little country mission church. Mom still remembers the seminarians coming in for meals that she would prepair for them and listening to them talk about the “new” theology. She would actually have to stand there and explain to them that what they were talking about went against what she had always been taught was the Roman Catholic position.

No this was not spontaneous at Vatican II and it wasn’t a grassroots effort on the part of the people. We’ve been had and the numbers don’t lie.

As far as the third world country’s supplying priests, that’s a whole 'nother issue caused by what the modernists call “enculturation”. It remains to be seen if this is really going to be that wonderful of a thing. The few that I’ve heard speak, unfortunately, had such thick accents, you could’nt understand a word they said: which is why we supposedly had to get rid of latin… go figure.

Thanks for the link TraddyDaddy, I hadn’t realized how terrible the years have been to the U.S. Church. Seeing the statistics is almost startling.

I agree with everything you just mentioned, though I’m looking forward to more Third World priests. I’ve experienced some of the accents first hand and it can be quite confusing at times (Especially since I struggle with accents), but I’m finding that what they’re saying is holy and wonderfully Catholic. For example Cardinal Arinze, while I sometimes struggle with his accent (Because I’m just poor with accents), gives some of the holiest Catholic talks.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit