How could anyone hold the belief that one form of the Mass is "better" than another?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Duesenberg

Guest
How could anyone hold the belief that one form of the Mass is “better” than another? How could any Catholic Christian actually believe that the Catholic Church would offer a form of the Mass that was somehow less efficacious, less pleasing to God and/or otherwise inferior to another form?

Many of us have our preferences, even strong preferences, for a specific form of the Mass for a number of reasons. Nothing at all wrong with that, but that’s also a world away from what I’m asking about. For anyone to actually believe that one form is better (or inferior) to the others is absolutely mind boggling to me. Even more mind-boggling is that such a belief would also require the belief that the Catholic Church allows an inferior form of the Mass to be celebrated and that the Church could be “pressured” into doing such a thing.

Is the belief that one form of the Mass is somehow inferior, less efficacious and/or less pleasing to God widely held or is it just a very extreme view held by a tiny number?
 
Last edited:
Who makes this stuff up? All the Baltimore Catechism says is that the only difference between Masses is the degree of solemnity. Now one can argue that the Pontifical Mass is more solemn than a sung Mass but this more or less efficacious stuff is pure nonsense.
 
The Mass is the Mass

“The One that offers Sacrifice is the same One who, after having sacrificed himself on the Cross…to obtain for us eternal redemption…offers Himself now by the ministry of the priest; there is no difference except in the manner of offering.” [Council of Trent, S. 22, c.2]

“For in it Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the Cross, offering Himself to the Father for the world’s salvation through the ministry of priests.” [Vatican 2 Documents.9:3]

“The Eucharistic Sacrifice is the source and summit of the whole of the Church’s worship and of Christian life. The faithful participate more fully in the sacrament of thanksgiving, propitiation, petition and praise not only when they wholeheartedly offer the sacred Victim, and in it themselves to the Father with the priest, but also when they receive this same Victim sacramentally.” [Vatican 2 Documents :9]

“The other sacraments, as indeed every ministry of the church and every work of the apostolate, are linked with the Eucharist and are directed towards it. For the Eucharist contains the entire spiritual good of the Church, namely, Christ Himself, our Passover and living bread, offering through His flesh, living and life-giving in the Spirit, life to all who are thus invited and led on to offer themselves, their labors, and all created things together with Him.” [Vatican 2 Documents.9:6]
 
I’m wondering if it’s like the Eucharist under both species kind of idea.

We receive the entire Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in both the Bread and the Wine. But to receive Bread AND wine is seen as a ‘fuller sign’. Not better, not more complete, but fuller. A choice, a choice which, if asked to give a reason for, one can quite legitimately state, “fuller form” and not be seen as stating that it is ‘better than’ receiving under only one species.

So if a person preferred the EF they could say that they perceive it as a fuller form in that it fosters a greater contemplative aspect. That the OF is perfectly sufficient and complete, but the EF is fuller. The OF has a contemplative aspect but the EF in that is ‘fuller’.

And if a person preferred the OF they could say that they perceive it as a fuller form in that it brings in a participatory aspect. That the EF is perfectly sufficient and complete, but the OF is fuller. The EF has a participatory aspect but the OF in that is ‘fuller’.

And there you go. No one is holding that a form is ‘better’, but a person can hold that one form or the other is ‘fuller’. Not ‘better’, but ‘fuller’. To me, that is something I could easily understand and accept, either way.
 
stpurl said:
I’m wondering if it’s like the Eucharist under both species kind of idea.

We receive the entire Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in both the Bread and the Wine. But to receive Bread AND wine is seen as a ‘fuller sign’. Not better, not more complete, but fuller. A choice, a choice which, if asked to give a reason for, one can quite legitimately state, “fuller form” and not be seen as stating that it is ‘better than’ receiving under only one species.
Click to expand...
Not to belabor the point, but as Catholics we never receive either bread or wine when we receive Holy Communion. Also, receiving Holy Communion under both species does provide a better/improved sign value to the faithful.

The EF Mass is not a “fuller form.” It’s a different form than the OF Mass. People can legitimately choose one Mass over the other based on a number of personal preferences, no problem there. They fly off the rails when they suggest that according the the Church, one Mass is somehow more efficacious, more pleasing to God and/or otherwise superior (including “fuller”) than another form.
stpurl said:
So if a person preferred the EF they could say that they perceive it as a fuller form in that it fosters a greater contemplative aspect. That the OF is perfectly sufficient and complete, but the EF is fuller. The OF has a contemplative aspect but the EF in that is ‘fuller’.
Click to expand...
They could say something along the lines that “in my opinion, I find the EF Mass to be fuller, at least in my experience.” They would run into trouble as soon as they suggested the Church shares their belief.
stpurl said:
And if a person preferred the OF they could say that they perceive it as a fuller form in that it brings in a participatory aspect. That the EF is perfectly sufficient and complete, but the OF is fuller. The EF has a participatory aspect but the OF in that is ‘fuller’.
Click to expand...
See above.
stpurl said:
And there you go. No one is holding that a form is ‘better’, but a person can hold that one form or the other is ‘fuller’. Not ‘better’, but ‘fuller’. To me, that is something I could easily understand and accept, either way.
Click to expand...
Using the term “fuller” rather than “better” isn’t the issue. If someone said “for me, I find the EF Mass to be better” isn’t an issue. However if they said “according to the Church, the EF Mass is fuller and it fosters a greater contemplative aspect”, they would be wrong.
 
“It is stated in Decretal i, q. 1: The worthier the priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays.” (Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas Aquinas, III, q. 82, a. 6, sc)

"There are two things to be considered in the mass, namely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief thing; and the prayers which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead. So far as the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked priest is not of less value than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is offered by both.

Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects: first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the devotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the mass of the better priest is the more fruitful. In another respect, inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place of the entire Church, of which the priest is the minister; and this ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said above (A. 5) in regard to Christ’s ministry. Hence, in this respect the prayer even of the sinful priest is fruitful, not only that which he utters in the mass, but likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices, wherein he takes the place of the Church. On the other hand, his private prayers are not fruitful, according to Prov. 28:9: He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination." (Ibid., c.)
 
Last edited:
I agree that the Mass is the Mass. Regardless of what form or rite, the sacrifice is the sacrifice. But concerns for the form of the Mass, EF, OF, or any of the various Eastern or Orthodox rites - the Latin Mass is the rite of the Mass that was used from the codification onwards - and only in the sixties was it altered - under the influence of the enlightenment - which was the original point of major departure from the church.

The new form of the Mass is still the unblemished sacrifice - it has been abused from that time, the sixties. It was never implemented as it ought to have been, as it should have been: look at the GIRM.

A lot of people take the authority most recent to their upbringing, as if it were a company policy most relative, but tons of factors attribute to why many would say that one form of the Mass was better than another.
 
Last edited:
What does someone who claims one form is better propose as criteria for deciding this, and are those criteria vali?

If one believes that the Mass should offer time for contemplation and forental prayer, then the EF is “better.” For those who considering a community Spirit an portant criteria, the OF is “better.”

So the main question is to determine the appropriate criteria for good Masses, then to see which rites meet those criteria most closely. Otherwise, it’s all a matter of opinion.
 
“vali” should be valid, and “forental” should be for mental.

I cannot see what I am typing as I type, and for the same reason, I cannot make corrections,
 
The Mass has both intrinsic and extrinsic value. All valid Masses have infinite intrinsic value. The differences in the forms are the extrinsic values.

Father Ripperger explains it very well in this article.
Merit of the Mass
 
hymin said:
Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects: first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the devotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the mass of the better priest is the more fruitful. In another respect, inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place of the entire Church, of which the priest is the minister; and this ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said above (A. 5) in regard to Christ’s ministry. Hence, in this respect the prayer even of the sinful priest is fruitful, not only that which he utters in the mass, but likewise all those he recites in the ecclesiastical offices, wherein he takes the place of the Church. On the other hand, his private prayers are not fruitful, according to Prov. 28:9: He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination." (Ibid., c.)
Click to expand...
“More fruitful?” I’m not really sure what that means? God’s grace which stems from the celebration of a valid Mass is the exact same His grace stemming from any other valid Mass.
 
I’m a bit baffled that this is an issue. Humans have a bit of a habit of thinking their preferences are better, which does make sense if they have thought their preferences through and decided they are the best choice. I have to be very careful lest I fall into a certain kind of rigid interpretation of things, which comes from being a biblical literalist fora number of years, so I work very hard to see the other point of view.
In our parish we receive the Eucharist in one kind only, and I actually prefer it after looking at the reasoning behind it. The next parish along offers both kinds, but only maybe a quarter of the congregation go to the chalice, which always made me feel a bit awkward for the layperson distributing as she was standing around like a bit of a spare part.
I have yet to attend a perfect Mass. I will attend one in heaven. I think reverence is probably my bench mark for a Mass, but that clearly means different things to different people!
 
JoyToTheWhirled said:
I’m a bit baffled that this is an issue. Humans have a bit of a habit of thinking their preferences are better…
Click to expand...
Because some people on these forums make the statement that one form of the Mass is “better” than another form and then attempt (and fail) to prove their preferences using Church documents and Sacred Scripture. It’s mind-boggling to me that any Catholic Christian could actually believe the Church itself recognizes one form as “better” than another.
 
Last edited:
But surely they have researched the topic and come to an honest conclusion, then that particular Mass is better for them?
 
JoyToTheWhirled said:
Meh. Humans and their foibles. One of those things
Click to expand...
No, it’s a great deal more than that – and it’s wrong to try and discount the damage such a view can do. As a Catholic Christian, believing that the Catholic Church would offer a form of the Mass that was somehow less efficacious, less pleasing to God and/or otherwise inferior to another form is pretty serious. They compound their problem when they try to sell their personal beliefs as something the Church teaches to others. That’s awful.
 
Last edited:
And how is convincing people convinced of their position going for you?
 
JoyToTheWhirled said:
And how is convincing people convinced of their position going for you?
Click to expand...
Why would you ask such a question that’s so extraneous to the discussion? Is it your attempt to derail this thread?

I’m not trying to convince people who hold this false belief to recognize it for what it is: a falsehood.

I’m trying to understand how any Catholic Christian could come to hold the belief in the first place? Apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:
Why would I want to derail a thread? I gave some suggestions as to why someone might consider their viewpoint better than others. You countered that it was unacceptable for them to do so. It doesn’t really sound like you are actually interested in finding out why someone thinks this way so much as you are determined to announce that they are wrong. If I have misread that I apologise. Go your way and find understanding. Peace.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top