New Mass vs. Traditional Latin Mass

I got an email that said:

My question is on going to Mass and which one to choose? I mean I have been studying both and find that for the richness and history of the Extraordinary Mass (Traditional Mass) is what one would go to.  I ... find that the Ordinary Mass (new mass) ...not rendering Glory to God like the Extraordinary Mass does. (talking, playing, hugging etc.) ...seems like a social event instead of giving Glory to God ... God really is in the bread. ... I would be on my knees crawling up there to worship him instead of shaking peoples hands. ... why do they take the bread in their hands when their hands are dirty.

People get very passionate on every side of this discussion, and that makes sense, since there is nothing in this world more important than the Mass.

There are no doubt some problems with the new Mass. Many traditionalists blame most of our recent Church problems on the new Mass, followed by a disdain for Vatican II. The old Mass is beautiful, biblical and reverent. The Pope has recently asked Bishops around the world to make it available wherever there is significant interest from congregations.

Many of the things complained about in the email above above are abuses of the new Mass rather than the new Mass itself. I totally agree that any Mass can be irreverent, if abused.The Vatican recently put out an long pastoral document to bishops regarding current abuses of the Mass and the Eucharist.

I think it's important to remember that the Latin Traditional Mass does not date back to the apostles but rather to about 5th- 7th century. At that time it was the "new" Mass, and there were people who wanted to continue what they were doing. Here is a section of the Catholic Encyclopedia. It discusses the "radical" changes to the original Mass (described by St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century) that occurred between the 5th - 7th Century. This article was written around 1910 before the new Mass of Vat II.

This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass , the Canon. The modifications in the earlier part, the smaller number of lessons, the omission of the prayers for and expulsion of the catechumens, of the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory and so on, ... That the order of the prayers that make up the Canon is a cardinal difficulty is admitted by every one. The old attempts to justify their present order by symbolic or mystic reasons have now been given up. The Roman Canon as it stands is recognized as a problem of great difficulty. It differs fundamentally from the Anaphora of any Eastern rite and from the Gallican Canon ... Cagin's idea is that all that must be reversed, the Gallican Rite has no connection at all with Antioch or any Eastern Liturgy ; it is in its origin the same rite as the Roman . Rome changed this earlier form about the sixth or seventh century ...Then came the Lord's Prayer with its embolism , of which the "Nobis quoque" was a part. The two Mementos were originally before the Preface ... at Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration , and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our "Supplices" prayer ... We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon" (Euch. u. Bussakr., 86). (source here.)

The Magisterium had the authority to change the Mass then, and it had the authority at Vatican II.

What about the Vernacular? Why did they change from Latin to many languages?

When the Traditional Latin form of the Mass took shape in the 5-7th centuries, Latin was a well know language but people don't speak Latin anymore. That in itself is not a reason to go to the vernacular, but it certainly was weighed in the decision.

I think it is biblical for the Mass to be in the vernacular (in the language of the local people). When the Holy Spirit landed on the apostles in the upper room on the first day of pentecost, which is the birth of the Church, they went and preached in many different languages, the languages of the people (Acts 2:4).

In the old days, before Vatican II, many people would sit through the entire Mass doing the Rosary and not paying attention to what was going on at the altar, because they didn't understand Latin. I love the Rosary, but not during Mass.

The new Mass has more participation from lay people who now do the 1st and 2nd readings.

The Priest facing the Congregation

I like it when the Priest holds up the Eucharist. With the priest facing us we can see the Body of Christ during that important moment directly after the consecration, rather than it being hidden behind the priest, and only seeing the back of the priest when he holds up the Eucharist facing the Tabernacle on the back wall.

Fr. Mark Goring, Companions of the Cross, Ottawa, Canada.

I like music that is more modern, but that is a personal preference, rather than anything particularly liturgical. The Vatican is encouraging Gregorian music.

The biggest reason I prefer the New Mass, is that it was initiated by the Magisterium at Vatican II, and I think it is important to honour the authority of any Church Council. Vatican II made a pronouncement and I honour the council, which I believe is the Holy Spirit speaking to the people through the council.

What about communion in the hand?

Regarding Communion on the hand, that was never the intention of the New Mass. That is an artifact of North American society, not the New Mass. It is permitted to take communion on the hand but the Church never recommended it. I take it on the tongue. However, it is much more important that we have a clean heart than clean hands when taking the Eucharist. Jesus said that in his parable about ritual cleaning. (Mark 7:5)

What about the hand shaking during the period around the consecration?

The greeting and hand shaking during communion was never meant to turn into a big party. Recently, the Vatican has given explicit instructions to priests not to leave the sanctuary during the handshakes and not let it be too long or energetic. But it is nice to meet people, because the Eucharist is not only the transubstantiated Christ, but it is also the people of God, the body of Christ.

Changes to the New Mass are coming

The Church has had 50 years to see the new Mass in action, and it acknowledges that there are some improvements coming so that people are more reverent. Perhaps the handshaking will be one of the things that will be removed or moved away from the Consecration.  There will be more Latin, and more chanting, and the English translation will better follow the original Latin language.

I prefer the new Mass even though I think there are some problems with it, which are also acknowledged by the Vatican. But I didn't grow up in the old environment. I have no nostalgia about the days of youth. My story is here.

Biblical references for the Mass are here
Click here for the full text of the Mass
The Latin Mass is here