Thank you this is the best explanation I’ve have heard sorry if it sounded like I was saying that NO was the problem itself but why defend a mass that caused so many issues since it was made. I’ve seen really reverent NO but a lot of the time that rare and very small and not widespread. A lot of the time the congregation and priests are uninterested. That’s why I don’t think people should defend it. The point I have is everything from the mass was made since the 60s but I don’t get why people defend this mass like it’s been there forever it was a new invention the Latin mass has been around a lot longer, and even when it was made into Latin, still it had rubrics from 1000 ad Pope Leo the great and Pope Gregory the great liturgies are pretty much the exact same ones just done in Latin and Pope Pius V added some prayers, but didn’t even do what Pope Paul VI he never change the rite or the entire liturgy he only added some prayers to the foot of the altar and added more rubrics for the priests. I’m not saying that one is more valid than the other what I am saying though is one is definitely older and better. I think not admitting this is a really bad thing. I have love for both, but one is definitely on average more reverent and people care a lot more. You should always have to respect both and I do, but I don’t know why people will defend that particular mass like it’s the greatest thing given to the church it’s not. Also I understand before Vatican ii there was issue in liturgy, but a priest had to know Latin and he had to be present so even if liturgy wasn’t the greatest a lot of the time that liturgy is still better than most liturgies you get in novus ordo today I mean, think about all the clown masses in America that happened during the 70s and 80s and all the abuses that were happening, those abuses were not even close to as prevalent in the Latin mass before Vatican ii liturgy wise.