I was talking about this the other day with my brother. I really don’t see any good reason why the Church changed the Mass. They say that it was changed so that the people would know better what was being said and listen, but it has led to mass ignorance about what the Mass is. The Church spent 1900 years developing the liturgy to where it was. There was never a time when they just took the mass tossed what they had and wrote something knew. This is what has happened in the last 40 years. This flies right in the face of tradition. It seems that they put themselves above tradition and what thousands of saints have thought to be perfect. They all of a sudden said one day the Church has made mistakes with the Mass so we must change it. Pope Benedict in his book Spirit of the Liturgy put it in the way that they were trying to white wash it and wash away the excess. How can anyone presume to think they are able to change the Liturgy? That is impious(or a lack of humility) at best and error at the worst. How can anyone have the audacity to say that all of Catholic history was in error but I am correct(That is what they say when they completely change the Liturgy and everything that has any reference to it)?
They completely deemphasized some important things in favor of some other things. They have brought in music that is horrible and impious to be sung in Mass. It seems like they have effectively droped the Latin part of the Church in the middle of the desert and now they will be wandering trying to find what is good liturgy. They destroyed the essence of the Liturgy.
I am not SSPX or a sedevacantist. I accept VII and I accept the new order of the Mass but I find it severely deficient compared to the old order. But I am a person who can’t stand the fact that it changed. As I said above it is a denial of tradition. The new order of the mass would be acceptable if it developed out of a different tradition. In other words there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the it as assumption grotto says it but it was a poor movie considering that the mass had developed in a different direction for the past 1900.
What do you guys think? Please don’t give me any false history by saying that the old Mass was created by the council of Trent or Pope Pius V. Even if that were true it would still be impious on the part of the modern Church to just drop it and pick something else up instead. It is false though; the old mass developed out of the Galican rite from the fifth century which was probably a development from the eastern liturgies. Gregory the Great then helped to develop it. The council of Trent was not a big thing in the development of the Liturgy.
Can anyone give me a good reason for the liturgy being changed? Why was it a good idea? Why not just translate what they had to English?