Does you love for the EF make you anti OF unintentionally?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasonjessica09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Te_Deum said:
And Rome was wrong to give the option. The Ordinary Form should never have came into existence.
Click to expand...
Wow…you really do think highly of yourself, when 4 popes and an Ecumenical Council have approved of, and celebrate(d) the Novis Ordo.

Please keep in mind that the NO is the official liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church currently, and it is only in “extraordinary” moments that the Extraordinary Form (1962 missal) be used. The Church’s standard is the Ordinary Form – the Paul VI mass of 1969.

I agree with the above writer, who is tired of those who enjoy the EF putting down the OF/NO as an improper way to worship.

Please people. We are ALL Catholics who celebrate both, and we (hopefully) believe the same thing is happening and being recieved.
 
Big_Feet said:
Wow…you really do think highly of yourself, when 4 popes and an Ecumenical Council have approved of, and celebrate(d) the Novis Ordo.
Click to expand...
And are the opinions and actions of Councils, Popes, saints and liturgists before the Second Vatican Council completely invalidated then?
Please keep in mind that the NO is the official liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church currently, and it is only in “extraordinary” moments that the Extraordinary Form (1962 missal) be used. The Church’s standard is the Ordinary Form – the Paul VI mass of 1969.
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of that fact. I do not even begrudge Rome’s authority over the liturgy, to change it etc. I simply believe that the exercising of their authority in this manner was wrong, unnecessary and very ill-thought out.

Yes the Missal of Pope Paul VI is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite… and for centuries the Extraordinary Form was the ordinary form of celebration for the Roman Rite.
 
Te_Deum said:
And are the opinions and actions of Councils, Popes, saints and liturgists before the Second Vatican Council completely invalidated then?
Click to expand...
What in the teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council contradicts the teachings of previous 20 ecumenical councils?

Also, why, when celebrating the EF of the mass is the 1962 missal used, and not the one promulgated from the Council of Trent, or any of the numerous adjustments made thereafter until 1962?
 
Big_Feet said:
What in the teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council contradicts the teachings of previous 20 ecumenical councils?
Click to expand...
The Teachings of the Church are not limited to just the Ecumenical Councils you know. But in general? Off the top of my head, “religious liberty”. Not everything that follows from an Ecumenical Council is infallible Church teaching.
Also, why, when celebrating the EF of the mass is the 1962 missal used, and not the one promulgated from the Council of Trent, or any of the numerous adjustments made thereafter until 1962?
Click to expand...
First, if you were to celebrate the Tridentine Missal and the 1962 Missal (on any normal day) right next to each other, they would almost mirror images of the other. Celebrate the Ordinary Form… not so much.

I’m not denying Rome’s authority to effect the liturgy. Rome’s authority over the liturgy is absolute and I will never deny that. That doesn’t mean Rome gets it right every time she does approach the liturgy. I don’t just stop at the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council (or those following from the Council but that were not ordered or suggested by it). Why were the Pian reforms necessary?
 
How many here have had the experience of assisting at an abuse-free OF?

I have been to both an OF where abuses have been painfully obvious (and it grated on my nerves) and an abuse free OF

My normal parish; my pastor has a second post along with being our pastor; he is the dir. of divine worship for our archdiocese. He does a beautiful job; he chants, sings etc–I say he understands how the OF is intended to be celebrated and it’s very reverent and beautiful 🙂
 
Big_Feet said:
Also, why, when celebrating the EF of the mass is the 1962 missal used, and not the one promulgated from the Council of Trent, or any of the numerous adjustments made thereafter until 1962?
Click to expand...
The difference is that the Missal of 1962 (and its predecessors) represent minor, organic changes. IOW, someone in a time warp from, say, the year 1600 would know the Mass according to the 1962 Missal. I hardly think the same could be said of the Novus Ordo.
 
Big_Feet said:
Wow…you really do think highly of yourself, when 4 popes and an Ecumenical Council have approved of, and celebrate(d) the Novis Ordo.

Please keep in mind that the NO is the official liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church currently, and it is only in “extraordinary” moments that the Extraordinary Form (1962 missal) be used. The Church’s standard is the Ordinary Form – the Paul VI mass of 1969.

I agree with the above writer, who is tired of those who enjoy the EF putting down the OF/NO as an improper way to worship.

Please people. We are ALL Catholics who celebrate both, and we (hopefully) believe the same thing is happening and being recieved.
Click to expand...
The above writer (Timothy) is constantly on here bashin EF lovers. Pretty much he does not like the EF. This sub-forum is traditional Catholic for a reason, where we can express our love of the traditional liturgy. Every time someone does this we have to bring the OF or the eastern rites, why? I simply ask why? If you are not a fan of theEF then great! No need to tell us, we already have to deal with that at our local parish from those who simply dislike the EF. It’s always the same thing, “hey I love the EF, it makes me feel closer to God” response: “now wait! If you say this about the EF you HAVE to say the same about the OF and the Eastern rites!! blah blah blah” Dear God when does it end?
 
archangel04 said:
It’s always the same thing, “hey I love the EF, it makes me feel closer to God” response: “now wait! If you say this about the EF you HAVE to say the same about the OF and the Eastern rites!! blah blah blah” Dear God when does it end?
Click to expand...
ArchAngel…
actually the original post, and many of the other posters here indicate a certian distain for the Ordinary Form of the mass.

I actually find immense beauty in both forms of the mass, as well as the Divine Liturgies of the East, and the primary reason for me posting is to get at why some would think the OF/NO is outright wrong.
:cool:
 
Big_Feet said:
ArchAngel…
actually the original post, and many of the other posters here indicate a certian distain for the Ordinary Form of the mass.

I actually find immense beauty in both forms of the mass, as well as the Divine Liturgies of the East, and the primary reason for me posting is to get at why some would think the OF/NO is outright wrong.
:cool:
Click to expand...
So do I, I am a huge fan of the Divine liturgies especially Byzantine and Maronite, but why do I need to mention this? So that I don’t offend anyone? I am also a big fan of the OF when celebrated ad-orientem, but why do I have to mention this? To simple state that one loves the EF because they bring them closer to God is not wrong, or to say they are not a big fan of the OF because of common abuses is legit, just like saying “I am not a fan of the EF because I like the vernacular” that’s legit as well. Some people here do put down other liturgies, but they are minor.
 
archangel04 said:
So do I, I am a huge fan of the Divine liturgies especially Byzantine and Maronite, but why do I need to mention this? So that I don’t offend anyone? I am also a big fan of the OF when celebrated ad-orientem, but why do I have to mention this? To simple state that one loves the EF because they bring them closer to God is not wrong, or to say they are not a big fan of the OF because of common abuses is legit, just like saying “I am not a fan of the EF because I like the vernacular” that’s legit as well. Some people here do put down other liturgies, but they are minor.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between saying you love the EF and saying that the OF was a mistake, that you disdain it, and that the OF is not “authentic” catholic worship (yes, that was a post on here, I can even dredge it up if you like).

If the traditionalists would police their own members, then perhaps you wouldn’t have outsiders coming in and pointing out that these statements are inappropriate. As it is, the EF supporters have taken to answering questions in the liturgy and sacraments section with “go exclusively to EF mass because the OF is filled with abuses”, so I’m sorry, that in my mind welcomes the discussion back to this section as well. (in fact, that was the very thing that led me to start visiting this section)
 
archangel04 said:
The above writer (Timothy) is constantly on here bashin EF lovers.
Click to expand...
From the original post; *“I’m tired of Catholics not attending the Latin Mass. *” Please explain to me the fact that pointing out that there are two legitimate forms/options of the Mass is "bashing EF lovers."
archangel04 said:
Pretty much he does not like the EF.
Click to expand...
Well, I "pretty much" have no problems at all with the EF, except when people say that the OF is inferior or not really Catholic compared to the EF. If you don’t want a rebuttal, then don’t say ignorant things.

And please show any quote of mine that has me “bashin EF lovers” or that I do "not like the EF."
 
A_Catholic said:
No one is saying which form of Mass you should attend. We are merely expressing our love of the Traditional Mass. If you love the OF, all the more power to you. 🙂
Click to expand...
Reread the original post. I think the poster IS telling people which form of the Mass we should attend.
 
I love both if the OF is done reverently and according to the missal. On Sunday’s I visit an oratory that celebrates the EF with a Benedictine priest. On weekdays and Saturdays I attend a my home parish which calibrates the OF.

If the OF is done according to the missal, with no additions by the priest, inclusive language, or too contemporary of music, I love the OF as well. Luckily there are a few parishes in my area that do the OF very well.
 
40.png
jasonjessica09:
At 5, I knew the Litany of the Saints, by heart, in Latin, and the whole mass, in Latin.
I know Latin pretty well.
But I am puzzled by people who go miles to a Latin Mass. And consider it “better” than the other. And that are looking at what happens, how people behave and so on.
Sorry, I cannot follow what Novus Ordo, OF, EF is.
I am just puzzled. As if you wanted to drive in your car backwards.
The way is into the future not into the past.
All I care when I go to mass is that it is a mass. That Jesus Christ is there. And if He is there, no one else is in the Church. He is the center of attention, I cannot leave Him there to find Him again in a latin mass.
Sorry, for saying this for I already know many of the names around, but I think that there is much talk about feelings and feelings do no matter. It is Jesus Christ what matters. Thanks to God that Churches are full. People do not behave well. Well, well, sometimes they do not behave well anywhere so why demand that they react differently?
First things first.
 
Big_Feet said:
ArchAngel…the primary reason for me posting is to get at why some would think the OF/NO is outright wrong.
Click to expand...
That is a complicated issue.

In general, there are two answers to the question you pose, with many shades in between.

First, some people question whether Vatican 2, or the various acts that followed it, with or without various approval, had the authority to change the things that were changed. This could be rephrased, “Is the new order of the mass lawful?”

Into this camp, fall the various sedevacanists, certain Orthodox commentators, and to an extent, people (including perhaps two popes) who desire to “reform the reform,”
although they usually stress the second theme (see below).

The second common criticism asserts that the new order of mass led to apostasy, indifferentism, blasphemy and confusion about the nature of the sacrament. Though the breadth of criticisms could fill a book, it comes down to asking “was the replacement of the tridentine mass with the n.o. prudent?”

Into this camp, fall SSPX, traditionalists who attend their diocesan parishes, those who advocate for “the reform of the reform.”

Like I said, there is considerable movement between these two broad camps, and one frequently uses the arguments of the other. Hopefully, though, that sketch provides a fair description why some people take an “anti ordinary form” stance, which may help in analysing any given critique.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
All I care when I go to mass is that it is a mass. That Jesus Christ is there.

It is Jesus Christ what matters.

First things first.
Click to expand...
PERFECT!!!
Enjoy whichever form or rite you wish, but please dont put down another one, as the above is what really matters.
 
Marie5890 said:
How many here have had the experience of assisting at an abuse-free OF?
Click to expand...
How can one tell? The last one I attended seems like it was reverent but I don’t know. The priest proceded extremely slowly to the altar and sat for about 70% of the Mass. All male servers who wore white gloves. The deacon gave the gospel reading and sermon so I guess it’s all allowed by the GIRM. Everything seemed orthodox. The Church was far from being filled. In fact, I sat in my own section.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top