How many traditional Catholics here like both forms of the Mass?

[TBolt1000T]

At my parish, I feel like a minority, because most people who go to the TLM seem to dislike the NO, even though the NO in our parish is celebrated very reverently. Most Sundays, I try to attend both our NO and our TLM. How many others here feel the same way?

 

[white_sheep]

The reason I like the EF is because it is a reverent, beautiful mass. If I can find that in an OF mass I like it almost as much, especially if they have chant.

 

[IrishAm]

At my parish, I feel like a minority, because most people who go to the TLM seem to dislike the NO, even though the NO in our parish is celebrated very reverently. Most Sundays, I try to attend both our NO and our TLM. How many others here feel the same way?

I do.

 

[Corki]

The reason I like the EF is because it is a reverent, beautiful mass. If I can find that in an OF mass I like it almost as much, especially if they have chant.

That pretty much sums it up for me too. In fact, when I find a reverent OF, I almost appreciate it more because you know the priest had to put extra effort into it against the odds.

 

[Cristiano]

That pretty much sums it up for me too. In fact, when I find a reverent OF, I almost appreciate it more because you know the priest had to put extra effort into it against the odds.

I agree with you. I feel that in the case of the EF the priest preaches to the choir while in the OF a good priest has do to a lot of hard work to reel in Catholics that have a more “relaxed” attitude. I have the privilege of having access to both of them.

 

[palmas85]

The problem as i see it with the Pauline Rite is to put it bluntly, you really don’t know what you are going to get until you are there. It could be very solemn or it could be wildly charismatic. You could have chant or you could have hip hop It could be perfectly orthodox or a jumble of innovations, violations of the rubrics or anything else for that matter. Unless you have experience at that particular Parish you just never know.

When I find a reverent Mass in the Ordinary Form, I am very grateful because they are so hard to find.

 

[Mamselle_Duroc]

Like others here, if I can find an OF properly done I am very appreciative indeed. So, yes, I like both forms… but I do prefer the EF to even a proper and reverent OF.

 

[rpp]

I can appreciate a reverent OF Mass, but I will admit that I have attended my share of OF Masses where I was distracted by varying degrees of liturgical “mistakes” and even a few outright abuses. I also appreciate and enjoy the EF Mass, however, I have never attended an EF Mass where I noticed anything out of the ordinary.

 

[Archangelum]

It’s fine for now as long as it done correctly and the prayers that replace the Canon are clear and theologically unambigious. But it’s a temporary solution. The NO will either have to be redesigned or scrapped. The faithful need tl be brought back to the H. Mass of all times.

 

[CoolRich59]

I’m fine with both forms so long, as others have noted, the Mass is said correctly and reverently.

 

[ibkc]

My home parish only celebrates the OF. It is a conservative parish and what reasonable people would call “liturgical abuses” are few (over-reliance on EMHCs is probably the worst thing.) With a couple of exceptions, masses there are somewhat perfunctory. I have only witnessed one truly beautiful and reverent OF mass, and that was at our archdiocese’s cathedral. However, I have been to some places where there was some serious irreverence and I have the impression that silliness, irreverence and protestant-type music is the norm. If that wasn’t the case, I could probably say I “like” the OF as much as the EF.

How’s that for a wishy-washy answer?

 

[weepixie71]

i dont mind a novus ordo if it is done tastefully and feels, well, catholic. i know a great many people who do attend the novus ordo who are very devout catholics and work very hard to keep the mass at their parish very respectful. my traditional priest said he believes that the novus ordo is very much valid and would die saying so if he had to.
but for now we have great priests who choose to do the tridentine rite. they want to do this mass because they are very passionate about it. there is no room for surprises. although i cant say that is totally true. i remember being very surprised when a priest got very passionate pounding and shaking his fists about hell and dangers of mortal sin. my chin dropped. i never saw a priest do that before. but i liked it after i was done being scared witless. and it made me think and want to do better.

 

[jmcrae]

:aok:

Count my vote!!

I like any form of the Mass - yes, even Charismatic! What I look for is not a particular style of Mass, but rather, consistency of style.

A Tridentine Mass should be Tridentine through and through - the music (if any) should be Gregorian Chant without instrumental accompaniment, the priest should be facing the Altar throughout, except when giving his homily, the people should be on their knees except during the Gospel, etc. - if the Mass is a Charismatic Mass, then the music should be of modern composition and played on stringed instruments, the people should be waving their arms around and shouting “AMEN” at the appropriate moments, etc. If it’s a regular Pauline Mass, then the music should be from the Baroque period and played on the organ and led by a four-part choir, the people should participate in the singing and in the dialogue in a sober and reserved manner, etc., they should be standing, sitting, and kneeling at the appropriate moments, and so forth.

For me, a badly presented Mass is one where there is no apparent consideration for style, or else a mixing of styles (which results in confusion for the people, and they don’t know what their responses are supposed to be, or what their postures are supposed to be, which results in chaos). But if it is presented in a way that is conscious of style, and consistent with its chosen style, and the people are responding appropriately to that particular style without any sense of confusion, then I consider it a well-presented Mass.

 

[Dauphin]

I find it impossible to pray at the OF. Everything feels hollow.

 

[bkovacs]

I only like the EF (TLM) and the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

 

[tcraig]

The reason I like the EF is because it is a reverent, beautiful mass. If I can find that in an OF mass I like it almost as much, especially if they have chant.

Agreed. I may even like it a bit more, simply because I find it easier to connect with, in many ways.

The problem, as so many people have said, is that finding a beautiful, reverent orthodox OF mass is sometimes next to impossible.

I’m not really sure why that is … but it’s distressing.

 

[Lainey63]

I love both forms of the Mass…I am grateful that I have been given the grace to go to Mass and receive Holy Communion. That is a wonderful gift from God…take it from one who could not stay out of mortal sin for 48 hours. :heaven:

 

[oldmass]

I attend the EF exclusively. Since the lifting of the excommunications, I feel that the OF and EF are on a collision course. Only one will eventuallly survive in the Church, and that will be the EF, which will then become once again the OF.

 

[Lujack]

I attend the EF exclusively. Since the lifting of the excommunications, I feel that the OF and EF are on a collision course. Only one will eventuallly survive in the Church, and that will be the EF, which will then become once again the OF.

Why is this the case? Why can’t they exist together?

 

[anon77300002]

I find it impossible to pray at the OF. Everything feels hollow.

I wouldn’t say that everything feels hollow. But that’s close.
To use restaurants as an analogy, the E.F. is “fine dining” whereas the N.O. I’ve experienced is more like fast food.
My parish only celebrates the ‘new’ Mass and does so without many abuses. And yet Mass is often a struggle for me. I know I came to worship God and receive the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ. But I get so distracted…