Note to a friend who has never attended the traditional, Latin Roman Rite Mass:
You should go to a Latin Mass. Actually, first you should 'google' a comparison between the Novus Ordo Missae and the traditional Roman Rite. The traditional Roman Rite is called, informally, "traditional" because it came from tradition in the Church. St. Francis of Assisi loved this rite from Rome so much that he had to go to Rome to ask for permission to be able to use it. He obtained permission for his order, and priests that would celebrate it with them. It then became codified. Then in 1969, thanks to a Freemason named, Bugnini, they made a Mass partly from the tradition, but removed those signs of solemnity that offended our "absent brethren" (Protestants), and replaced it with an emphasis on the people rather than God and his transcendence, replacing the focus from the very, essential nature of the mass: Christ's sacrifice. I am not putting the Novus Ordo down: It it is what the men of the council openly admitted to doing as this was their aim.
I'm not sure how successful their endeavor was, though, in terms of attracting Protestants,. I think Protestants just rather attend their own communities, rather than a Catholic Mass that had adopted their early practices during the Reformation.
The reason for the Latin, by the way, which is only a liturgical Latin (which was never spoken as a common Latin) was because the Church recognized early on that it was for the entire world. Since languages are different and reflect customs, ideals,. nuances, etc., and could change the meanings from country to country, or even region to region or whomever was writing down the words of scripture or the formulas for sacred rites, etc., they needed a language for the Church to be used worldwide. This was used for official documents, as well, as the prayers of different liturgical rites under the (religious) Roman Rite. This way, the original intent of the words as first interpreted from their initial state as given to us by divine origin, would be preserved, celebrated and spread throughout the entire world. Priests could easily teach to the laity what was being said regularly. and what was new for that day could also be read in their vernacular, without any risk of distorting the sacred form of the liturgy.
Today, when people attend the new liturgy, they have, along with the Novus Ordo Missae itself, lost the sense of the sacred. They look to "get something out of it", showing they they have no idea of the actual intent of the Mass itself and why it exists in the first place. They look to be entertained, amused, understood, etc., a miss the nature of the Catholic Mass. Yes, the Holy Eucharist is the crucified and resurrected body of Christ, but this comes at the cost of sacrifice --- a holy sacrifice, which is done once, but re-created in a spiritual and physical reality at every (valid) Catholic Mass. In an effort to find worldly relevancy to 'get with the times', as they say, the most profound holiness and significance of the sacrifice for all ages has been obscured, and some may say, utterly lost. Rather than "welcome our absent brethren", the new rite has succeeded in confusing those that celebrate it into strange doctrines more in line with a type of neo-Ariansm, seeking to remove the divine Son of God from the Crucifix, and even the tabernacles from the altars.
Evidence of the Novus Ordo Missae promoting an neo Arianism is in how few Bishops will stand up to the gravest public scandals of the Church's history. In nations where the people are not in danger of losing their lives, Bishops and priests refuse to stand up to political leaders who promote the most abominable sins, And in the land of the Protestant apostates, who ironically (falsely) claim to be "bible-based"* (*then why did they redact it to form a new religion?) hurl public insults at those who promote what teachings that came directly from Christ's mouth: "[6] But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6 Also ," [4] He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. " --- 1 John 2:6
But even in defense of the most defenseless lives, the majority are silent. Yet, when we have a high-ranking prelate, even a Cardinal, speak out of the rights of God in His Church, he is imprisoned and worse, and yet, has the Pope spoken out on his behalf? Has the Pope spoken out on God's behalf? Has the Pope put God's rights as a priority in the duties of his office? If the answer is, "no", then he, too, is guilty of grave scandal.
Humanism is at the core of the New Order, including the New Order Mass. It basically says that the highest good is what man can do for man, rather than God, himself. It obscures the transcendence of God and replaces it with a man-centered worship and theology. It hides and demeans the need for the sacred and replaces it with the ever-changing inclinations of a wounded society with its fickleness and creates a false 'god' in its own image. It says that God's grace no longer transforms but at best "covers", lowering the bar of what Christ has commanded (and he would not command the impossible). It is religion of sentimentality and lies, to accommodate worldliness, more or less, with out putting the Christ at the center of the heart of man, or at the heart of society, or even at the heart of his church.
