1962 Missal And Sacrosanctum Concillium

[Catholic4Jesus]

This is something that has been on my mind for a while. As many of you may very well know, I am a big fan of the Tridentine Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) and I know many priests and faithful still use it today with thanks to Pope Benedict’s ‘Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum.’ However, there’s something I want to share. Sometimes I feel silly for having an attatchment to the EF liturgy. Even though it has the blessing of the Holy See, it only has it because of all of the division and opposition that has happened in the church since the promulgation of the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae by Bl. Pope Paul VI. Let there be no doubt, I love the OF liturgy too and it most especially has a prominent place in the Church today. That being said, since it’s promulgation, the older liturgy (though never officially abrogated) was restricted greatly and was almost out of use completely until 1988 when St. John Paul II issued his ‘Ecclesia Dei’ which allowed for the use of the 1962 books at the approval of the bishops.

I feel that, as a Catholic, who wants to be in 100% compliance with the Holy Magisterium and with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, I must not pick and choose which parts of the Council and which post-Concilliar papal documents I want to follow and which ones I don’t. Case in point, The Vatican II document ‘Sacrosanctum Concillium.’ Please excuse me, for I don’t have any of the VII documents in front of me so I can’t quote it directly, but I do remember reading the documents stating that both the ceremonies and texts of the Mass and the Sacraments were to be revised for whatever reasons. And by the mid-70’s (I think) all of them had been revised completely, especially with the 1969 promulgation of the New Mass or Novus Ordo Missae by Bl Paul VI (now the Ordinary Form). Paul VI created the New Mass in the name of the mandates called for by Sacrosanctum Concillium.

 Keep in mind, I think Sacrosanctum Concillium is a beautiful Church document and it was inspired by the Holy Spirit as was the rest of the VII documents and as well as the other ecumenical councils before it. So because of that, I feel bad for having, to some extent, a preference for the Traditional Liturgy because I feel that it does not fulfill the requirements of the Spirit-inspired document, otherwise it would have never have called for a revision of the liturgy because the 1962 books were the liturgical books in force at the time that these mandates were called for and I don't remember reading in the document saying, "The liturgical books are to be revised, but those who prefer to use the current books are free to do so with our blessing." 

 The liturgy has constantly changed throughout the history of the Church; from the mass, to the sacraments, to the divine office, etc and up until now, the Church has never given any special permission (I don't think) to use the former liturgy when the said revision had taken place. I want to have a devotion to the TLM but I also want to be faithful to and worship in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concillium. I don't want to be a cafeteria Catholic picking and choosing what I want to follow and what I want to ignore. I feel that if I am going to be in full communion with the Church, I have to be in it all the way, not just some of the way nor in all ways but one, but all the way. God bless

 

[NeuralMonk]

First the purpose of the Mass is not for you, the purpose is for you to give to God. However, my understanding of Sacrosanctum Concillium was to recognize and represent that the Eucharistic celebration can take many forms and was required to continue the claim of catholic without being singular in practice.

This opened up the way for the reconciliation of the Orthodox rite (amongst other things).

If you find a parish or service with EF, then fully enjoy it and give yourself completely to God in worship during the service. But if you find yourself in a non-EF liturgy, then fully enjoy it and give yourself completely to God in worship during the service.

These are the same because it is our duty. However, that doesn’t mean the emotional comfort I get from both services is the same. They can be different, and will be different because we are not all “hands” or “eyes” in the body of Christ. We will experience things differently, and that is what makes us catholic.

The word change in the liturgy points this out when we enter into the Eucharist (from the root word to thank) and the priest states, “Let us give thanks to the Lord”

We respond, “It is right and just” (the change was made towards Proverbs 21:3)

And the priest, rightly responds,
“It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation,
always and everywhere to give you thanks,
Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God,
through Christ our Lord.”

It IS our duty and our salvation…

 

[Thomas_White]

Even the Sunday Missals provided at the Church I attend are outdated. The Liturgy has been revised. While the revisions are minor, they are there. However, I do have a current Sunday Missal, and it is word for word identical with what is said during the Mass (the Readings and the Gospel, specifically).

The EF Mass does differ in ways from the actual Latin Mass (Tridentine Rite) as it was in 1962. This difference is not in the Liturgical text but in certain practices. Beyond that, English translations of the Latin Mass (Tridentine Rite) vary greatly. A literal translation from Latin to English does not read well, and the various translators have necessarily used wording that attempts to convey the meaning of the Latin. And this does significantly vary. It does no harm, of course, as the Latin Mass is not said in English.

 

[edwest2]

This is something that has been on my mind for a while. As many of you may very well know, I am a big fan of the Tridentine Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) and I know many priests and faithful still use it today with thanks to Pope Benedict’s ‘Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum.’ However, there’s something I want to share. Sometimes I feel silly for having an attatchment to the EF liturgy. Even though it has the blessing of the Holy See, it only has it because of all of the division and opposition that has happened in the church since the promulgation of the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae by Bl. Pope Paul VI.
I feel that, as a Catholic, who wants to be in 100% compliance with the Holy Magisterium and with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, I must not pick and choose which parts of the Council and which post-Concilliar papal documents I want to follow and which ones I don’t. Case in point, The Vatican II document ‘Sacrosanctum Concillium.’ Please excuse me, for I don’t have any of the VII documents in front of me so I can’t quote it directly, but I do remember reading the documents stating that both the ceremonies and texts of the Mass and the Sacraments were to be revised for whatever reasons. And by the mid-70’s (I think) all of them had been revised completely, especially with the 1969 promulgation of the New Mass or Novus Ordo Missae by Bl Paul VI (now the Ordinary Form). Paul VI created the New Mass in the name of the mandates called for by Sacrosanctum Concillium.

 Keep in mind, I think Sacrosanctum Concillium is a beautiful Church document and it was inspired by the Holy Spirit as was the rest of the VII documents and as well as the other ecumenical councils before it. So because of that, I feel bad for having, to some extent, a preference for the Traditional Liturgy because I feel that it does not fulfill the requirements of the Spirit-inspired document, otherwise it would have never have called for a revision of the liturgy because the 1962 books were the liturgical books in force at the time that these mandates were called for and I don't remember reading in the document saying, "The liturgical books are to be revised, but those who prefer to use the current books are free to do so with our blessing." 

 The liturgy has constantly changed throughout the history of the Church; from the mass, to the sacraments, to the divine office, etc and up until now, the Church has never given any special permission (I don't think) to use the former liturgy when the said revision had taken place. I want to have a devotion to the TLM but I also want to be faithful to and worship in accordance with Sacrosanctum Concillium. I don't want to be a cafeteria Catholic picking and choosing what I want to follow and what I want to ignore. I feel that if I am going to be in full communion with the Church, I have to be in it all the way, not just some of the way nor in all ways but one, but all the way. God bless

Here is the answer to your concerns:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

• Pope Benedict

 

[Thomas_White]

While the document Sacrosanctum Concilliam” provided that both the ceremonies and the text of the Mass and the Sacraments were to be revised, it wasn’t really “for whatever reason.” It is widely recognized and understood that the reason was to provide texts in the vernacular that would be understood by the peoples of any particular region. The assumption was that millions of Catholic in regions across the earth had little or no knowledge of what the Liturgy of the Latin Mass meant. Yes, there were Missals with appropriate translations, but not everyone had access to them. And there was illiteracy was well. The sentiment was that the Liturgy of the Mass ought to at least be understandable to every Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church had grown.

What I never quite understood was why this principal did not apply to those with considerable familiarity with the Tridentine Mass and who did understand the Latin text. It is helpful to recall that the Tridentine Mass had been the only official Mass for a very considerable period of time. Even those who did not have much familiarity with Latin had in their Missals on a page opposite the Latin text an English translation. After many years of attendance at Mass, they too essentially knew what the Latin meant. Most Catholics in the U.S. would study Latin during high school in those years.

The EF Latin Mass differs in important ways from the Tridentine Mass (Tridentine Rite) that was observed prior to Vatican II. The EF Mass includes certain major differences that do reflect certain primary concerns of Vatican II. The EF Mass was officially approved by the Church, and it is not in practice the same Mass as the Tridentine Rite Mass, as many apparently assume. I do not believe there is any reason for concern.

I have never understood why the Latin Mass should be viewed any differently than any Mass in the vernacular. What is it about Latin that its use could become a contentious issue within the Roman Catholic Church? Latin is a language just as are all the languages of the so-called vernaculars. Think about that development for a moment. It is only more difficult to understand since the Tridentine Rite Mass had been the official Mass of the Church for a very long time and many Catholics were very familiar with it.

 

[Thomas_White]

While the document Sacrosanctum Concilliam” provided that both the ceremonies and the text of the Mass and the Sacraments were to be revised, it wasn’t really “for whatever reason.” It is widely recognized and understood that the reason was to provide texts in the vernacular that would be understood by the peoples ****of any particular region. The assumption was that millions of Catholic in regions across the earth had little or no knowledge of what the Liturgy of the Latin Mass meant. Yes, there were Missals with appropriate translations, but not everyone had access to them. And there was illiteracy was well. The sentiment was that the Liturgy of the Mass ought to at least be understandable to every Catholic.

This isn’t stated as clearly as it could be. The Vatican II document itself (Sacrosanctum Concillium) called only for unspecified changes in the Liturgy of the Mass. This was not accomplished during the Council itself. Proposed changes were later submitted to a select group of bishops appointed for that purpose. What was first proposed to the bishops were minor changes, and the Liturgical text remained Latin. The bishops were not satisfied with the proposed changes and believed a much more significant change was needed. Protestant bishops attended both this and subsequent meetings in an attempt at ecumenism in the spirit of Vatican II. The Mass in the vernacular was the eventual result, and in many in ways it more closely resembled a Protestant service.

The were practices observed during Tridentine Rite Mass that are not observed during the EF Mass. Females were required to cover their heads, not genuflecting was rare and considered inappropriate, one fasted from the prior midnight, there was a communion rail (which vanished following Vatican II) where one knelt to receive Holy Communion (kneeling still occurs in some Churches, depending on the facilities available, but it is not mandatory). There are other minor difference as well.

Perhaps the most significance difference is that only the servers said the Latin responses during the Tridentine Mass. This too has changed in the EF Mass. The result in a more actively engaged congregation, but what is disturbed to a degree is the silent prayer and contemplation that were so much a part of the Tridentine Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

I have never understood why the Latin Mass should be viewed any differently than any Mass in the vernacular. What is it about Latin that its use could become a contentious issue within the Roman Catholic Church?

According to Cardinal Arinze,

Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.

It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.

It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth…

ADDRESS OF HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL FRANCIS ARINZE

St Louis, Missouri (U.S.A.)
Saturday, 11 November 2006

 

[Thomas_White]

The many Romance Languages evolved from Latin. “Romance” refers to the language originally spoken by Romans. The Romance Languages were at first known as Latin Languages. The major Romance languages are Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian. There are many others. These languages, originally Latin, evolved over the centuries into regional dialects. Latin is at their roots. The Romance languages are largely spoken in what was once the Holy Roman Empire but they now are spoken as well in both the U.S. and Canada. The Romance languages, with Latin excluded, are recognized as languages of the ‘vernacular’.

 

[commenter]

The were practices observed during Tridentine Rite Mass that are not observed during the EF Mass. Females were required to cover their heads, not genuflecting was rare and considered inappropriate, one fasted from the prior midnight, there was a communion rail (which vanished following Vatican II) where one knelt to receive Holy Communion (kneeling still occurs in some Churches, depending on the facilities available, but it is not mandatory). There are other minor difference as well.

Some women at EF Masses choose to veil, with a particular spiritual purpose, when they are ready. In 1962 I suspect they did so because it was mandatory.

Perhaps the most significance difference is that only the servers said the Latin responses during the Tridentine Mass. This too has changed in the EF Mass. The result in a more actively engaged congregation, but what is disturbed to a degree is the silent prayer and contemplation that were so much a part of the Tridentine Mass.

My memory from the late 50s early 60s is that some people may have been engaged in silent prayer and contemplation, but a lot were probably daydreaming. Many were saying the Rosary, a beautiful prayer but not part of the Mass. How many could have explained what “contemplation” is? In Catholic school I was never taught that.

I think people are - rightly - so angry at liturgical abuses they tend to romanticize a little about the earlier era. I fully agree we need to restore an understanding and practice of silent prayer and contemplation, of reverence in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, not just by women but by men. Even prior to Vatican II there were innovations such as the Dialogue Masses by Pope Pius XII, to attempt to engage the congregations more.

 

[Thomas_White]

Some women at EF Masses choose to veil, with a particular spiritual purpose, when they are ready. In 1962 I suspect they did so because it was mandatory.

With all due respect, my comments about the Tridentine Mass do not involve what I suspect. They are what I know because I was there to observe and experience it. During our eight years of elementary school in the 1950’s, young girls (and well as all other females) covered their heads whenever they were inside the Church and not just during Mass. This was observed because it was the rule, and the rule was obeyed just like we all obeyed the many rules then existent. Dress was more formal for everyone. One certainly did not wear shorts to Mass in those days, for example. It would have been considered scandalous. As a boy, and thus a male, I was forbidden to wear a hat inside a Church. We were in the Midwest, and it was not unusual for a young boy to forget this rule when the weather was extremely cold. Trust me, he was very quickly reminded. And there were instances where a boy’s cap or hat was pulled right off his head by a patrolling nun. And we had better keep quiet. Even an observed short whisper never had a good result. The rule was silence. And rules were to be obeyed. Excuses were only further disobedience.

A female covering her head while in Church was a very old tradition, and like many things it changed during the 1960’s. The mid to late 1960’s involved a sea change within Western culture and society. Vatican II was a part of it.

 

[edwest2]

With all due respect, my comments about the Tridentine Mass do not involve what I suspect. They are what I know because I was there to observe and experience it. During our eight years of elementary school in the 1950’s, young girls (and well as all other females) covered their heads whenever they were inside the Church and not just during Mass. This was observed because it was the rule, and the rule was obeyed just like we all obeyed the many rules then existent. Dress was more formal for everyone. One certainly did not wear shorts to Mass in those days, for example. It would have been considered scandalous. As a boy, and thus a male, I was forbidden to wear a hat inside a Church. We were in the Midwest, and it was not unusual for a young boy to forget this rule when the weather was extremely cold. Trust me, he was very quickly reminded. And there were instances where a boy’s cap or hat was pulled right off his head by a patrolling nun. And we had better keep quiet. Even an observed short whisper never had a good result. The rule was silence. And rules were to be obeyed. Excuses were only further disobedience.

A female covering her head while in Church was a very old tradition, and like many things it changed during the 1960’s. The mid to late 1960’s involved a sea change within Western culture and society. Vatican II was a part of it.

Your last sentence is incorrect. Vatican II had nothing to do with the the things that began shortly after it ended. I was there before and after Vatican II. Western culture and society was involved in a coordinated attack that included those inside and outside the Church. Vatican II did not promote disrespect for all authority, including parents and the Church. “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” Well, who should we trust? Another tribe going under the labels Hippies, anarchists and nihilists. Did Vatican II promote illegal drug use, living with and having sex with your girlfriend, or general fornication? Did it promote the opening of porn bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars? We Christians protested but the pornographers had high priced lawyers to protect them.

online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

Peace,
Ed

 

[Thomas_White]

Your last sentence is incorrect. Vatican II had nothing to do with the the things that began shortly after it ended. I was there before and after Vatican II. Western culture and society was involved in a coordinated attack that included those inside and outside the Church. Vatican II did not promote disrespect for all authority, including parents and the Church. “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” Well, who should we trust? Another tribe going under the labels Hippies, anarchists and nihilists. Did Vatican II promote illegal drug use, living with and having sex with your girlfriend, or general fornication? Did it promote the opening of porn bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars? We Christians protested but the pornographers had high priced lawyers to protect them.

online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

Peace,
Ed

Of course Vatican II did not involve or promote any of those things.

There were fundamental changes throughout Western culture and its institutions. And there was also very significant change within the Catholic Church during this period. What occurred was a very complex phenomenon.

Peace.

 

[edwest2]

Of course Vatican II did not involve or promote any of those things.

There were fundamental changes throughout Western culture and its institutions. And there was also very significant change within the Catholic Church during this period. What occurred was a very complex phenomenon.

Peace.

Complex? Not at all. Clear lines can be drawn to the individuals and groups responsible. I watched the 5 year plan unfold from 1968 to 1973. We, the Christian people, had nothing to do with it. The following decades saw it spread like a cancer.

Ed

 

[Thomas_White]

Complex? Not at all. Clear lines can be drawn to the individuals and groups responsible. I watched the 5 year plan unfold from 1968 to 1973. We, the Christian people, had nothing to do with it. The following decades saw it spread like a cancer.

Ed

Ed, the entire Western world evolved during the late 1960’s. It was not a conspiracy. There were many reasons for it. One of them was the post-war generation’s coming of age, the war in Vietnam another. There was the civil rights movement and the women’s movement. Were those bad things? Was the free speech movement a bad thing? Was the emergence of environmental concerns a bad thing? Was protesting the draft and the war in Vietnam a bad thing? I was by 1970 in college and protesting the war myself, after having served in the U.S. Army from 1967-70. Even the Army experienced significant change during this period, and, believe me, even some career soldiers, let alone draftees, were in rebellion. Many other institutions, including the Roman Catholic Church, were also experiencing dramatic change. It was a complex phenomenon and absolutely involved many millions of Christians.

But suffice it to say, not everyone was pleased and not every change was accepted.

Peace.

 

[commenter]

With all due respect, my comments about the Tridentine Mass do not involve what I suspect. They are what I know because I was there to observe and experience it. During our eight years of elementary school in the 1950’s, young girls (and well as all other females) covered their heads whenever they were inside the Church and not just during Mass. This was observed because it was the rule, and the rule was obeyed just like we all obeyed the many rules then existent. Dress was more formal for everyone. One certainly did not wear shorts to Mass in those days, for example. It would have been considered scandalous. As a boy, and thus a male, I was forbidden to wear a hat inside a Church. We were in the Midwest, and it was not unusual for a young boy to forget this rule when the weather was extremely cold. Trust me, he was very quickly reminded. And there were instances where a boy’s cap or hat was pulled right off his head by a patrolling nun. And we had better keep quiet. Even an observed short whisper never had a good result. The rule was silence. And rules were to be obeyed. Excuses were only further disobedience.

Those were good days.
Maybe half the time I feel like saying “turn back the clock”. Oh well.

 

[Speramus]

You received some good answers here. The Mass that you are drawn to honors God and is unambiguously approved by the Church. Worship there in peace.

 

[Cat]

I appreciate that Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom, has two forms of the same rite.

We are all different because God created us different, and His creation of us results in different upbringings and preferences for all of us.

Some of us have a preference for quiet and solitude, while others enjoy conversation and the company of others.

Some of us find fulfillment in the unchanging ancient ways, while others find fulfillment in constantly-changing contemporary innovations.

Some of us are energized by beige, white, and black, while others are energized by orange, red, and purple.

Some of us are lifted to heavenly places by chant and organ, while others are lifted to heavenly places by folk/rock and guitar.

The EF and OF Masses meet the needs of all types of people. Some Catholics claim that there should be only one form of the Mass in the same language because this would bring about unity, but I disagree. This argument assumes that the Mass is strictly for GOD, and that we humans should not expect to actually enjoy it or be uplifted by it, but only to SERVE GOD and cater to His preferences. The assumption is that the Mass is already going on in heaven, and that we humans only “drop in” on heaven.

Well, that’s true, but there’s more to it and we can’t ignore this: We are on this earth, not heaven, and we are human and always will be.

Christ Himself didn’t disdain humanness. He thoroughly understand the human senses, and why we perceive through our senses, not through some “ethereal spirituality” that most of us simply don’t understand. We need art, music, language, writing, etc., and this need is not profane because God created us this way.

When we get to heaven, these things will pass away and we will be united to Christ and participate in the never-ending Mass in a way that none of us can understand yet. But that’s the future. Right now, we live in a temporal earth, and we need to recognize and accept our human limitations, hence the need for a Mass that we can relate to, understand, and even enjoy.

This argument of “One Mass Only” also assumes that there is something “wrong” or “un-Christian” about differences between people, and it also disregards our very humanness, the fact that each of us is “wired” differently. We need to remember that God created us with differences. He’s the One Who wired some of us to respond positively to Gregorian chant and wired some of us to respond positively to Praise and Worship choruses.

I think that the Catholic Church is wise to keep and endorse both forms because this recognizes and honors God’s Creation of human differences. All humans can find a Mass where they can not only receive Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, but also receive solace and encouragement for their God-given human needs.

I hope this answer is helpful to the OP.

 

[bobballen_18]

OP, I don’t see anything wrong with preferring the EF. The only thing that could potentially be wrong with that, and I’m sure you’re aware of this, is having a certain (negative) attitude about the OF (which I admit I sometimes struggle with… ). I think Cat had a good perspective on how everyone has a different personality and spirituality (although while I agree with that statement, I have some additional thoughts on that…). But anyway, in light of that, as long as there is no “ban” on the EF (which in my opinion would be totally incorrect/wrong but I don’t think we’ll have to worry about that happening), it can never be wrong to have a preference for the EF or to attend it regularly or even exclusively.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think Cat’s comment was most excellent. There are indeed two basic types of personality, often termed Introvert and Extrovert. These differing personality types appear in the general population in approximately equal numbers—about 50/50 in percentages. I don’t believe there could possibly be anything wrong with attending either the EF or the OF form of the Mass, and I further believe that there are the two forms is a good thing. They are both officially recognized Catholic Masses. Yes, they are different, but so are people.

 

[ProVobis]

I appreciate that Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom, has two forms of the same rite.

We are all different because God created us different, and His creation of us results in different upbringings and preferences for all of us.

Some of us have a preference for quiet and solitude, while others enjoy conversation and the company of others.

Some of us find fulfillment in the unchanging ancient ways, while others find fulfillment in constantly-changing contemporary innovations.

Some of us are energized by beige, white, and black, while others are energized by orange, red, and purple.

I’d like to think that people can do both if not more.

There are 23 or 24 approved rites of the Church in many languages. That is a vast amount of knowledge and spirituality to be gained. As well as silence and social gatherings.

Those who are just happy to do the minimum, well…