The intricacies of the liturgy irrespective of the faith or the religion are often merely taken for granted, even though the liturgy is central to many Christians' lives. In this context I refer to the liturgy as the public official service of the Church, or the Mass. Yet the fact that so many are ignorant of the dense history and fierce debate that rages in many circles regarding the liturgy's development and ancestry is what I wish to focus on in this brief, but hopefully concise, offering. My discussion relates to the Catholic liturgy - the variations that exist today - and disappointments that have arisen through the relatively recent (i.e. historically relative) alterations that have occurred - fuelled by the Second Vatican Council. From an intellectual viewpoint I hope you will see that the contemplation of different liturgical styles is a crucial, and certainly revealing, practice.

To many the words 'Latin Mass' will immediately flash images of mediaeval monastic life to mind, yet those less historically deprived will know that the Tridentine Mass or rite, as standardised by the Council of Trent, in roughly 1570, was the general norm in the Catholic church (with a few exceptions, predominantly in the East), prior to the Novus Ordo Missar, the New Order of Mass we know today, being introduced full in 1970. So after being the accepted norm, the Traditional rite hit a rocky road - in the immediate years following the introduction of the New Order of Mass, the Traditional Mass was 'outlawed'; literally becoming clandestine when celebrated. Thankfully, though the Traditional rite, (or Tridentine rite) is no longer abolished, a 1984 papal indult unequivocally endorses it.

With the onslaught of the Vatican II Council, Catholics began to sense the rumblings of great change in the way the vast majority celebrated the Mass: amongst may other changes, a conversion from the traditional Latin to one's native tongue. As Joseph Gelineau, a member of the liturgical constitution for introduction the Novus Ordo Missae, stated, "Let it be candidly said. The Roman rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed." Luckily for the sake of the faithful, he was jumping the gun in denouncing deep-rooted Catholic heritage - well beyond a millennium's worth of heritage that is!

Many saw the moves made by the Council regarding the liturgy as being the best and only way ahead for Catholicism. I certainly acknowledge the shift to a more child (and some may say community) friendly service, which I see as fitting for particular situations or circumstances. Nevertheless, even as a non-historian or theologian, I believe, and known, that we have lost some of our basic liturgical principles in the haste for sweeping reform.

The major difference apparent to any newcomer to the Tridentine rite is the obvious language difference. Latin, the mode in which the faith was spread by the first missionaries in the west (Greek of course in the East) is a language which transcends all perversions of culture, fad, and gratuitous modernisation, so often evident in many modern 'trendy' services. The beauty of Latin is clear in that it bridges nations - 'global' communion is possible to the fullest extent when one language is used. Sadly the use of Latin in the liturgy was suppressed by the reforms of Vatican II, however it has again re-emerged organically - this surely is the Spirit working!

One cause of discontent for many supporters of the Traditional rite is that the emphasis upon devotion or personal meditation within the modern Mass has been heavily dinted; no longer are we blessed with the long periods of silence, which the Canon (sacrificial part of the Mass - Eucharist as we know it today) in traditional service proffers, during which the priest lowers his voice and speaks directly to God. Yet today we are dealt a Mass crammed with too much congregational 'input', which, if one is not careful can become a parrot-like meaningless task. Alas the hear of the modern service has become Man, and not as it ought to be, God.

The participation of the lay in services is something that has developed significantly since the Vatican II reforms, unfortunately in my and copious others' opinions, to the liturgy's detriment. Actuosa Participatio or the actual participation of the lay in the sacrifice of the mass has rendered the modern mass, in more extreme cases, a pantomime for the local parish 'clique' whose motivation and behaviour one would be inclined to question. Lay Eucharistic ministers are an addition whose emergence I see as rather saddening, even though the intentions of many of those involved are genuine. Just as the lay do not have the authority to preside over Transubstantiation, why should they distribute the Blessed Sacrament - practicality or not. Surely, only God's chosen intermediate the priest has this right. So, in thirty or so years, we've moved from a position where the faithful justifiably were not even authorised to touch an empty consecrated chalice let alone manhandle the sacred host or passively shove it to one's mouth during communion. Is it too much for the faithful to kneel in humble adoration? These offensive habits seem to tie in pretty well with the general decline in appreciation or faith, in the Real Presence - say something? The word 'sacrifice' is almost alien to the Novus Ordo, as is often shown in the detachment of the altar from the wall - we are almost encourages to commemorate a meal rather than a sacrifice. Many modern Church buildings are built to accommodate the new Rite - high altars being sidelines for 'Ikea' style furnishings more akin to a doctor's waiting room that a place of sanctity.

Once should also mention for those not 'in the know', that the clergy's behaviour in the modern rite is quite distinct from that of the Traditional Roman rite. A perhaps quite hard line view, yet one I have cause to agree with is that the priest's facing away from the tabernacle in the modern service is sadly representative of society's turning away from Christ. This is not a harsh representation of modern day society, but equally past generations in differing ways. The outward sign of turning to God in prayer, celebrants and faithful, and not as is the case for the modern approach 'versus populum' (towards the people) is a significant symbol of our faith and focus. The rubrics of the Traditional rite allows both the faithful and the priest to be in complete confidence of their respective rôles, and thus contemplation of the holy sacrifice is paramount. The Mass ought to be centred about adoration, worship and soul searching and not preoccupation with how the priest wishes to keep the faithful's attention on that particular week in his 'versus populum' rôle. Without doubt the Sacred liturgy is not an excuse for being entertained.

In all, the question must be: why must we shift to a quasi non-Catholic service - surely the wonder of modern Christianity is the many different moulds it takes - Methodist, Evangelical... etc. etc. Who gains in unpicking and shedding our liturgical tradition and core values? A sufficient answer has never been proffered.

As with the suppression of Catholicism in communist Poland, the suppression of the roman rite has done one thing along for the liturgical traditionalists' stance - strengthened it. Traditional seminaries are sprouting up all over the globe, and Mass attendances are rapidly increasing. The Novus Ordo is sadly failing many; Mass attendances are falling, vocations often struggling. I would never, however denounce the Novus Ordo, since any Holy Mass can potentially be spiritually beneficial if appreciated fully. The are though, (many) other gripes regarding the modern rite, scores of which I agree with, others I see as plainly non-Christian in their motivation. A balance must be sought between standing up for sanctity and blindly throwing insults - Christianity in action I suppose!

Many believe the way forward is through the establishment of an Ecumenical liturgy (denoting all liturgies in communion with the Church of Rome), which draws of the beauty of all the liturgies past and present. However, I remain sceptical, for if the engineering skills that were used in creating much of the Novus Ordo are called upon again, we will run into trouble. Instead, by running simultaneously, side by side, the modern and Traditional liturgies, with refinements to some of the practices in the modern rite, I think we can cater for all needs. We must however have a level playing field. Let us not assume that the traditional rite be reserved for special occasions or for those more 'spiritually affluent', - these are inaccurate misconceptions. Likewise denouncing the modern rite's legitimacy would be completely wrong. As stated, co-existence is the key, and thankfully the Tridentine rite, after having been maltreated and discarded by many, including honourable clerics, is continuing to make a health and steadfast recovery. The fact is however that this should not have had to happen. An interesting and telling qualification one could introduce is that those who defend Vatican II's liturgical reforms frequently, introduce "it was never the intention that..." into their defence statements, inadvertently offering admissions to the Council's failings.

Founded in 1966 in Rome, "Una Voce [one voice - preface to Holy Trinity in Traditional rite] is an international federation of associations", which preserves fullness of the Traditional rite's rôle in Liturgical life. Likewise the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales (amongst numerous other societies worldwide) carries out equally vigorous activities aimed at cherishing our heritage. An understanding of their works and views is most enlightening. Most dioceses in Britain (and many worldwide for that matter) offer some form of Traditional service (and some a very plentiful selection), unfortunately the diocese which York falls under is more hindered in this respect. Local Bishops must give authority for Traditional service to be prayed in their diocese, and therefore the services selection very much depends upon the particular Bishop's view on the matter.

The preference of one rite above another should not be made on purely nostalgic grounds or simply by what we are accustomed to, but unquestionably on what we see as most fitting spiritually for our own needs. I have made a diluted case for the Traditional Roman rite, and equally many others will do so for the modern rite. A healthy situation is that which involves a framework with some choice - Modern or Traditional - and thankfully we are moving, perhaps painfully slowly at times, towards that target.