Thanks for your question.
To learn more about the Tridentine Mass, you can visit: http://www.latinmass.org/faq.html. It's a little outdated (and biased), but it gives you the facts.
Basically, the Tridentine Mass is how Catholics worshipped for about 1500 years, until the reforms of Vatican II. It was quite a different experience from worship today. It was all in Latin, everything (and I mean everything) was sung, and there was lots of incense, candles, and ritual. Some people call it the Mass with "all the bells and smells." But honestly, its theology extends much deeper than that.
It was sacred. With the Latin language, all the hymns, incense, and candles, some people felt like walking into Church was like a little piece of heaven on earth.
But it was also not about congregation (laity) involvement. The priest faced the altar with his back to the congregation for about 95% of the Mass. His role was clearly that of a mediator between God (at the altar and on the Cross) and the people of God. And the people of God came to worship. Because not everyone knew Latin, some used the hour to pray silently. Others prayed the rosary. There were missals to translate the parts of the Mass into English, so you could follow along. But the focus of the Mass was not on the congregation or on connecting our lives with the Eucharist. Also, the laity rarely received from the cup -- that was reserved for the priest.
The reforms of Vatican II changed this in radical, radical ways. In fact, it's kind of hard to fathom how the church -- celebrating the Mass the same way for 1500 years -- could make such a sudden and (I can't think of any better word) radical change.
The langauge was changed from Latin (the same anywhere you'd go to Mass anywhere in the world), to the vernacular (what the people of the area spoke, whether English, Spanish, German, etc.). The priest turned around to face the laity and share the emphasis of God's presence not just in the Eucharist, the Word, or the priest, but also in the community assembled together. Guitars replaced organs, parts that were sung were now spoken ... lots and lots of changes.
There is a recent movement to restore the Tridentine Mass. It should be noted that the Tridentine Mass was never abolished or condemned -- only efforts made to connect this holy worship with the cultural, contemporaneous contexts of the people celebrating.
I think a move back to the Tridentine Mass would be a mistake. It was reformed because people grew disconnected from it. It wasn't consonant with how people desired to gather and give worship and praise to God. Going back isn't the right answer. But in gowing forward, perhaps we should strive to incorporate some of what we lost in the Tridentine Mass.
In my opinion, the Tridentine Mass offered us four gifts that we don't currently celebrate (perhaps as much as we should) in liturgy today: silence, reverence, otherness, unity.
Silence: there were long periods of silence in the Tridentine Mass, so people could take in the hymns, incense, and candles and feel closer to God. This gave them an avenue to pray in ways that we don't have today. We need time to sit and be still. Time at Mass, as a community, could be a powerful and peaceful time to pray together.
Reverence: All the bells and smells made it clear that this was a ritual in worship. Not an ordinary gathering, meeting, mode of entertainment, or "feel good session." It was supposed to be (when done well) anything but ordinary or boring. It was supposed to call us out of our normal routine to discover the nearness of God. Today, Mass at its worst can be a mundane, go-through-the-motions, boring, obligatory experience. Instead, the idea is that this is something we prepare for, make special, and set apart from our ordinary lives. This is time with God and it is sacred. Sure, God can be found in the mundane. But when we call the Eucharist the source and summit of our lives and we look to become what we receive in the Eucharist, that should mean something special and sacred. I'm not saying God frowns upon people who wear jeans to Mass, but wearing jeans and t-shirts, having cell phones go off, and when no one sings or participates, it's much more difficult to recognize what's special or sacred about the Eucharist.
Otherness: This is kind of tied into reverence. The idea is that, by using Latin (an ancient if not "holy" language -- since it was the language of the Church), it set the Mass apart. Just like all the organ hymns, incense, and candles. It was a reminder that the Eucharist is a different and distinct experience and that we are gathered for something special and sacred. Why? Because God is always bigger, more, and OTHER. So our worship should strive to be something OTHER than a pep rally, town hall meeting, appointment, or lecture. The ritual ought to unite our hearts, minds, and souls in a single movement of worship. Many people argue that Latin did exactly that, because it was out of the ordinary and it was universal.
Unity: This, too, is connected with using Latin and having the SAME ritual (in the Tridentine Mass) the whole world over. There is something powerful about knowing that wherever you are or wherever you go, the Catholic Mass is the same (even throughout the decades and centuries). Because we are the Body of Christ, we worship together as ONE. In the days of the early Church, the Pope would say the first Mass in Rome and pieces of the host he used would be fractioned off and sent to the other churches in the city. When the priests celebrated the Eucharist later that morning, they would place that particle of the host into the cup of blood. Why? To emphasize the UNITY of the Church as the Body of Christ. We are parts of one whole, even throughout the ages -- but this sense of solidarity might be lost on many Catholics today.
So, although some feel like returning to the Tridentine Mass would be a step in the right direction, I think greater effort should be made to incorporate silence, reverence, otherness, and unity into our worship today.
Of course, as with MOST things, this is really more about a both/and solution than either/or. Our worship should not be so silent as to mute our praise; not so reverent that it becomes impossible to access; not so other that it is foreign or exclusionary; not so unified or uniform that it limits the Spirit from working among and through us. At the same time, it should not be so loud and noisy that it becomes cacophonous; not so informal that it becomes empty routine; not so ordinary that it becomes mundane or dull; not so different as to invite division, competition, or dispute.
So instead, let us find a balance!
But that's just my two cents.
Your thoughts -- as always -- are welcome.
