Attack the OF; permissible, Attack the EF; ANATHEMA!

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

scrupulousrvrt

Member
Why does the condemnation of those who attack the EF regarded as anathema, but those who downtalk the OF apparently don’t suffer the same condemnation. It seems like the so-called “Traditionalists” think they are above reproach, while anybody who even dares to question their position on EF vs EO is tantamount to heresy?
 
Last edited:
I think you could reverse your terms and ask the same question. But in any case, this is not the sort of discussion that ever goes anywhere productive, much less charitable.

Flagged for moderation.

-Fr ACEGC
 
If I had to guess, I would say that some Traditionalists have gotten the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that they are “second-class citizens” in a way ever since the Second Vatican Council. Many of the clergy have not been supportive of the EF since V2 (although that has been changing). This causes them to be extremely defensive of the EF when others criticize it.
 
Last edited:
Entwhistler said:
If I had to guess, I would say that some Traditionalists have gotten the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that they are “second-class citizens” in a way ever since the Second Vatican Council. Many of the clergy have not been supportive of the EF since V2 (although that has been changing). This causes them to be extremely defensive of the EF when others criticize it.
Click to expand...
The thing is, I rarely see anyone actually criticize the EF beyond maybe saying they don’t like assisting at a Mass where they don’t understand the language. On the other hand I’ve seen people on here absolutely ripping the OF, complaining about practically every aspect of, some even saying that the OF is completely invalid. Practically every ill that afflicts the Church gets blamed on the OF Mass.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I have hurled fire and brimstone in testament against this Thread.
 
I will grant you that the EF is not as ripped into as the OF is by many Traditionalists. And Traditionalists are rather defense even about minute things.

But Sedevacantists are lumped into the “Traditionalist” group so you will have more of that.

(I’m not saying that the OF doesn’t deserve criticism. I think the OF Mass needs some tuning especially in the run-of-the-mill Masses. But some folks are way out there in their criticism)
 
The thing is, when the EF was the only Mass it’s run-of-the-mill Masses needed fine tuning as well.
 
True. It’s just that the OF Mass has only been around for 40 years. That’s an infinitesimally small time period in the Church. The EF Mass has been around for…longer than that. I think the OF will get there but it needs more work.
 
Cracks me up when I hear it called the “New” Mass. I’m like Dude, it’s been 50 years. It ain’t new any more.
 
I’ve got a feeling it’s going to go down in the history books as the Novus Ordo. And people a thousand years from now will ask why it’s the “New Mass”. And the only response folks will have is that it’s new in relation to the Tridentine Mass. Clunky but hilarious.
 
Honestly, the only people I see using that term are Trads, and they’re using it as a slur. Pretty much anyone else I’ve seen just call it “The Mass”, or less frequently “The OF”.
 
You have to remember, for the vast majority of American Catholics it’s the only mass they’ve ever known.
 
That also might be a reason not many people criticize the EF. They don’t know about it.
 
That’s likely because the average Catholic has at most a vague notion of the existence of the EF, so there is no need to differentiate. On the other hand, most “trads” (itself often used as a derogatory term by those with less traditional tastes) are very aware of both forms, and therefore need to distinguish in conversation.
 
Last edited:
Entwhistler said:
That also might be a reason not many people criticize the EF. They don’t know about it.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly! I have no problems with the EF myself, if someone prefers that form, good on them! I simply prefer the OF myself as I do not understand Latin and have no capacity to learn it.
 
scrupulousrvrt said:
Why does the condemnation of those who attack the EF regarded as anathema, but those who downtalk the OF apparently don’t suffer the same condemnation.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s the case. There are some of both, and they both get (deservedly0 trashed by the “other side.”

Which is really sad. It’s Mass, there shouldn’t be “sides.”
 
So you are asking why people argue? You are asking why people are partisan? Because they are human.

It is worth pointing out that criticism isn’t attack. Disliking isn’t attack. Since it is you who have characterized one group as attacking maybe the problem doesn’t lie with them but with you. That is at least worth considering.

Another thing worth considering is people who don’t want to actually dialogue aren’t worth having a discussion with. That could be others or you. We can only control ourself.
 
I take it you’ve never visited Oxford University’s New College (founded 1379) or England’s New Forest (so named.since ar least the 1000s sometime). Now there’s some really old 'new" stuff for you 😷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top