That’s where it leads, and that’s why it’s modernist: If the Mass isn’t intelligible, you’re not participating (so said the English Protestants under Henry VIII, and the modernist liturgical movement of Lambert Beauduin).
In fact, quite logically, the Novus Ordo now actively discourages the hand missal, since, having achieved a vernacular rite, it serves no purpose except to stop daydreaming (and it impedes “doing stuff” to “more fully participate”).
Furthermore, the SSPX says Mass largely in the vernacular in parts of France and Germany. So why a hand missal tgere??
Right, I only moderate my statements in saying that the hand missal isn't modernist but is a watering-down that facilitates Modernism. That's a word that I think is best-suited to refer to the formally perverse ideas and praxis of the Conciliar Church.
The problem is that if one weighs things out with a full view of Tradition, taking into account the truly perennial practices of our religion, then a frighteningly large amount of the practices we have begin to look "modernist."
Do men and women sit mixed in our churches? Do priests ever refuse absolution to recidivists? Do we receive communion as frequently as we wish with or without preparation? Do laypeople serve at the altar?
This is all "modernism" if we paint with a broad enough brush.
Topic: What is the problem with the "Dialogue Mass"? (Read 10299 times)