The so-called Tridentine Mass is that rite of Mass promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in his 1570 declaration Quo Primum. In promulgating this rite, St. Pius V was following the directives of the Council of Trent (the Latin word for Trent is "Tridentum" -- that's where the name comes from), which hoped to better maintain Church unity through a uniform practice of worship. Nevertheless, St. Pius V allowed the co-existence of a few other rites (e.g., the Dominican, Ambrosian, Carthusian, Oriental, etc.) because they had been in continuous use for over 200 years.
The rite of Mass that St. Pius V applied to the whole Church was actually the rite of Mass as then celebrated in the Diocese of Rome. In fact, in all its essentials, it was the way that Mass was celebrated in Rome by the 4th Century. Therefore, it is better to call it the "Classical Mass" rather than the "Tridentine Mass," since its pre-dates the Council of Trent by many centuries.
In October of 1962, the Fathers of Vatican Council II re-examined the rite of Mass in response to long-standing criticisms of some of the complexities that had come to mark Catholic rituals over the centuries. The Fathers suggested that some minor changes be made to the rite of Mass, and that some vernacular language could be used in place of Latin if pastoral reasons so indicated.
The rite of Mass produced by Pope Paul VI's Consilium in 1969 bore little or no resemblance to the Mass envisioned by the Fathers of Vatican Council II. In essence, while the Vatican II Fathers had endorsed the idea of organic (i.e., slow, well-considered) changes naturally following the progress of previous developments in the rite, Pope Paul's Consilium produced an entirely new rite out of whole cloth. Worse yet, this new rite was created by a committee of bureaucrats.
Recent statements by confidantes of Paul VI suggest that he intended his new rite as an ecumencial sop to the most radical of Protestants. But, of course, the Prots weren't interested in window-dressing -- they wanted doctrinal change, and, even under Paul VI, they weren't gonna get it. The gates of hell won't prevail. Rather than satisfying the most radical of Protestants, Pope Paul seems only to have satisfied the most bourgeois of bourgeois Catholics, since the "New Rite," in all its bland, non-threatening comfort poses no intellectual or spiritual challenge to even the most indolent of the couch potato set.
Even non-Catholic artists and intellectuals were incensed with the New Rite, seeing in it a triumph of mediocrity over beauty. To compare the Classical Rite with the New Rite is to compare the Pantheon with a suburban strip mall.
The validity of the New Rite cannot be questioned -- after Paul VI heeded Cardinal Ottaviani's intervention that in its original Consilum-produced form, it was doctrinally unsound. On the other hand, the manner in which the New Rite was imposed on the Church and the outrageous mistranslations of presently used vernacular texts from the Latin are two of the great scandals of Christian history. And while Archbishop Lefebvre certainly should not have consecrated new bishops and provoked a schism, the brutal, dishonest, and back-stabbing treatment he received from both Vatican functionaries and the French bishops certainly mitigates his moral culpability.
In sum, the New Rite can be likened to a tragic pregnancy. In its conception, the New Rite is like a Down's Syndrome baby. In its imposition on the Catholic world, it is like a disastrously malpractice-ridden breech delivery. With the exception of those rare places where it is more-or-less celebrated according to the rules, the New Mass is like a Down's Syndrome child with several neurological palsies secondary to a problem delivery.
"With the exception of those rare places where it is more-or-less celebrated according to the rules..."
and assume that many of us are in parishes where the Novus Ordo is done correctly OR where we constantly and tirelessly lobby to correct the errors that exist in our parishes. (I have fallen intoboth categories during the last 5 years.) Otherwise you end up criticizing those who are actually on your side (people like me).
What a strange and incomprehensible statement!
Since when is liturgical celebration supposed to be "challenging"?
the New Mass is like a Down's Syndrome child with several neurological palsies secondary to a problem delivery.
Another bit of blather that makes no sense.
You best stop using Down's Syndrome as an insult; some mother whose child has it might punch you in the nose.
I have not been able to verify a related story that appeared in the Catholic press some years ago. In any event, after Mother Teresa had given an address, she was supposedly asked "What is the greatest tragedy in the world today?" The questioner, who was expecting an answer like "abortion" or "hunger," was somewhat surprised to hear the response, "the greatest tragedy in the world today is Communion in the hand." As I said, I haven't been able to verify the story, but I can definitely believe that a saint might say something like that.
This sounds like something an SSPXer would attribute to Mother Teresa.
It's not true, of course. She said "abortion" in response to the question, but, hey, anything that serves the SSPX cause is OK, right?
Even putting lies in Mother Teresa's mouth.
You wanna say "abortion", I know, but just don't have the cajones to withstand the hell you'd catch if you did.
If the manner in which you express your contempt for the Novus Ordo is reflective of the SSPX in general, it's best that you stay right where you are.
You're just full of smears today, aren't you?
Who are these "confidants" (I suspect there aren't any) and could you provide links to their statements?
Or did you just make this up?