Why was the Mass changed?

Sorry if this question has been asked before. :o

Why was the Tridentine Latin Mass changed to what it is today? Was there something wrong with it? It seems with most Catholics I know today that visiting the old Mass is like a treat. :confused:

According to what I remember being taught about it, the latin mass was not changed, but rather it simply became less popular due to statements issued at Vatican II. That council encouraged (so I am told) Catholics to feel free to perform the mass in their native languages, e.g. English. Other changes were encouraged, as well, including having the priest face the congregation instead of the wall (where the altar was). This was done at least in part so that the laity could feel more involved, instead of just bystanders at an incomprehensible spectacle. Having a weekly Eucharist was also encouraged.

Of course, Latin mass can still be found in plenty of cathedrals. I used to live just a few blocks from a Latin rite cathedral, in fact. But it was boring as all get-out, so I attended the English mass instead.

Let’s not forget, the Mass was never changed. It is only the presentation of the Mass in the vernacular. I was sad at first, being so accustomed to the Latin. But now I much prefer it being said in English. I believe it has brought us closer to God. And being a lector, it is such an honor to read the Word of God, which we could never do before.

The Latin liturgy is sacred and beautiful and I don’t find it boring. The missal has the English alongside the Latin, so one need only look there to find the English translation. The Latin rite is still celebrated in many parts of the world, especially in places where there are people of diverse nationalities. In the larger cities and parishes one can generally find both the extraordinary form as well as the English, so just choose the one that is more meaningful for you. Some of the prayers said in the vernacular will be changed in late 2011 to present a more accurate translation of the Latin to English. Some will not like this and others will embrace it.

Actually, the Mass was changed. I still have some old Latin-English missals of the Tridentine Rite. When I heard that the Mass was to be said in English, I was happy, because I had been accustomed to reading the English from the Missal as the priest celebrated Mass. And I wanted to hear the priest recite the English just as it was in my Missal.

But the new Missal was not the same. The language had been whittled of its grandeur into something more (purposely) “spare.” It was something I can only call ICEL English.

And the Tridentine rite was suppressed. It was only resurrected some decades by popular demand.

The Mass, in fact, changed. It was not merely translated. See this Latin–English Ordinary of the Old Mass, and compare it to what you see and hear in the New Mass. Not only have the prayers been changed, but things have been added and removed. (Added: a second epistle; the “prayers of the faithful”; a general “sign of peace”. Removed: the 42nd Psalm before ascending the altar; many of the prayers of the offertory and Roman Canon were altered substantially; the ablutions; the Last Gospel.) And this doesn’t include all the proper parts of the Mass (the introit, the collect, etc.), which were likewise completely reformulated.

Moreover, the only difference is not that the Old Mass is said in Latin and that the New Mass is said in the vernacular. The New Mass may be celebrated in Latin; in fact, it was anticipated by the Council that it would be, for the most part, with only certain parts said in the vernacular.

No, a new order of Mass was created after Vatican II.

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