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

[LUISV]

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.

Thank You.
It takes a great man to lead his parish. Many priests it seems have become more of an accesory in the parish not presbyter they were ordained to be. Catholic tradition can be passed on in the NO if we allow our priests to guide the way. Not by putting him at odds with the layity on what the liturgy should look like.

 

[Extempore]

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?

Hopefully I don’t get attacked for this, but I think the quickest answer is that the theology that inspired the two forms are, in many ways, at odds.

A few quick examples are the “pro-multis” translation, the new emphasis of ecuminism, the changes in the catechisms, etc.

One particular example I can think of is the scrapping of the Anti-Modernist Oath which a priest used to say before his ordination. The text of it was:

“I hold most certainly and I profess sincerely that Faith is not a blind religious feeling which emerges from the shadows of the subconscious under the pressure of the heart and the inclination of the morally informed will. But it is true assent of the intellect to the truth received from outside, by which we believe to be true on God’s authority all that has been said, attested and revealed by God in person, our Creator and Lord.”

Why are Priests no longer required to say this oath against Modernism?

Why instead are many (as I was) taught as children that what is important is not the deposit of faith, but instead ideas like “religious feeling” and “personal faith experiences”? We were taught to shun absolutes in favor of individualistic interpretations of revelation. The Bible was no longer referred to in Church as “Sacred Scripture” but instead, a “narrative.”

I would highly recommend some of the writings of Pope St. Pius X regarding Modernism as many of the problems he mentions did indeed come to fruition in the modern Church.

 

[Lainey63]

Hopefully I don’t get attacked for this, but I think the quickest answer is that the theology that inspired the two forms are, in many ways, at odds.

A few quick examples are the “pro-multis” translation, the new emphasis of ecuminism, the changes in the catechisms, etc.

One particular example I can think of is the scrapping of the Anti-Modernist Oath which a priest used to say before his ordination. The text of it was:

Why are Priests no longer required to say this oath against Modernism?

Why instead are many (as I was) taught as children that what is important is not the deposit of faith, but instead ideas like “religious feeling” and “personal faith experiences”? We were taught to shun absolutes in favor of individualistic interpretations of revelation. The Bible was no longer referred to in Church as “Sacred Scripture” but instead, a “narrative.”

I would highly recommend some of the writings of Pope St. Pius X regarding Modernism as many of the problems he mentions did indeed come to fruition in the modern Church.

I was born after VII and went to catholic school-I was never taught any of that. I also attend both Masses and I still never heard anything like “if it makes you feel good do it”. I was taught that when I was away from God…drinking, drugging, etc…Being taught to shun absolutes is from “the world”-justification of abortion, etc.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

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?

EF/TLM, hands down.

One question, though.
Why do you attend both forms on a given Sunday?

 

[JPUSC]

I view them as the same (if the Novus Ordo Mass is done correctly).

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

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 attend both. On Saturday evenings I attend the NO at my parish of registry. On Sunday mornings I attend a beautiful High Mass at the oratory where I am an associate.

One condition of being an associate at the oratory is directly from our Bishop and that is we must continue to participate in…and contribute to our parish where we are registered. I have no problem with that. My first choice is the TLM where I attend daily Mass and weekly Dolorosary, but as required I continue to support my parish church. I feel that is a “small price” to pay for the joy of being able to have both…a TLM and a reverently celebrated NO. As I have said before…the best of both worlds.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I attend both. On Saturday evenings I attend the NO at my parish of registry. On Sunday mornings I attend a beautiful High Mass at the oratory where I am an associate.

One condition of being an associate at the oratory is directly from our Bishop and that is we must continue to participate in…and contribute to our parish where we are registered. I have no problem with that. My first choice is the TLM where I attend daily Mass and weekly Dolorosary, but as required I continue to support my parish church. I feel that is a “small price” to pay for the joy of being able to have both…a TLM and a reverently celebrated NO. As I have said before…the best of both worlds.

What is an associate at your oratory?

 

[Corki]

Hopefully I don’t get attacked for this, but I think the quickest answer is that the theology that inspired the two forms are, in many ways, at odds.

A few quick examples are the “pro-multis” translation, the new emphasis of ecuminism, the changes in the catechisms, etc.

The “pro-multis” translation is a red herring argument. First of all, it is primarily an issue in English. Second, the official missal for the OF, which is in Latin, has always said “pro multis”.

We do include more prayers for people of other faiths in the Mass so I’ll grant you that one - not that I think it is necessarily a bad thing.

The changes in the Catechism are a parallel result of Vatican II but do not really have anything to do with the differences in form. It is the same faith expressed in both forms.

 

[Cristiano]

The “pro-multis” translation is a red herring argument. First of all, it is primarily an issue in English. Second, the official missal for the OF, which is in Latin, has always said “pro multis”.

We do include more prayers for people of other faiths in the Mass so I’ll grant you that one - not that I think it is necessarily a bad thing.

The changes in the Catechism are a parallel result of Vatican II but do not really have anything to do with the differences in form. It is the same faith expressed in both forms.

This is interesting because one of the abuses that I have seen at one OF celebration in vernacular was the priest saying "for many"and not “for all”. I also seriously doubt that a lot of people noticed that change or complained about it.
I am sorry to say so, but I liked it that way even if it was an abuse.

 

[TBolt1000T]

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.

Like you, I really do think that the Novus Ordo could definitely ue some major reform. I wish that they would have just translated the TLM into the vernacular. I love the prayers that are said at the TLM. They mean much more, and they go much deeper into Catholic theology.

 

[eelpis]

I do, but I prefer the EF.

 

[TBolt1000T]

EF/TLM, hands down.

One question, though.
Why do you attend both forms on a given Sunday?

Since I’m a convert, I knew the NO long before I ever attended a TLM, so the NO is what I’m used to. However, I like the TLM more and more each time I attend it. Since I’m in the Latin Mass choir, I’m really starting to appreciate the Gregorian chants that we do. Also, the homilies are much better at the TLM, and they’re longer.

One thing I wish that they would do at the TLM is give the priest a mic throughout the Mass, so that I can hear what is being said in Latin. In the choir loft, it’s extremely difficult for me to make out what the priest is saying most of the time.

 

[SenorSalsa]

As a discerning priest, I have been asked if it would bother me if I never celebrated the EF(at least publicly), due to no interest from my parish.

Despite being fairly involved with the EF here at school, my answer was not at all. There is nothing in the EF which in my eyes makes it better that can not be done in the OF.

Reverence. number one thing. No moseying around the sanctuary, but a unison of movement.

Beauty. Liturgical space, vestments, vessels, Altar arrangements

Music. Chant, Polyphony, Organ, Strings(as in violin, viola, cello, bass kind)

and least important, Latin. Some, if not all, especially propers, and maybe even into the EP.

PS, as a side note, I would try to push for Ad Orientum, but I realize not every parish would accept this,

The only thing that I find objectively superior is the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, which I could live without.

 

[malphono]

As a discerning priest, I have been asked if it would bother me if I never celebrated the EF(at least publicly), due to no interest from my parish. …

and least important, Latin. Some, if not all, especially propers, and maybe even into the EP.

Most of what you said is fine and I have no objection, but I’m not so sure I agree with Latin being the “least important” component. Nor, I think, would the proponents of the “reform of the reform.” The language of the liturgy is in itself a unifying factor.

PS, as a side note, I would try to push for Ad Orientum, but I realize not every parish would accept this

From my perspective, ad orientem celebration is perhaps the single most important issue. Granted, after 40+ years of versusm populum as the norm, maybe there should be some catechesis to teach the faithful about the ad orientem posture. And of course, that is the responsibility of the the priest (better still, the bishop-ordinary). But to say a parish “won’t accept it?” The only answer I have to that is: too bad.

The only thing that I find objectively superior is the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, which I could live without.

The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are one of the great jewels of the EF. The only complaint that I could ever make about them is that I’d rather they were said aloud (in Latin).

One last note: a major part of the OF that I consider a serious problem in and of itself, is the watered-down offertory. No way, no how, does it even begin to compare with the EF.

 

[JaMc]

I consider myself as “conservative-but-leaning-traditional,” i.e., I think there were a lot of good things that came out of Vatican II, but the change to the liturgy was not one of them.

That being said, while I prefer the EF (having only been to one), I do also like a reverent, properly celebrated OF Mass, and I serve as Lector at least once a month. I have never seen one in person celebrated as well as the one on EWTN, but, nevertheless, I have been lucky enough not to have witnessed the serious abuses I read about periodically on these forums.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Christ is present body blood soul and divinty at both masses so both are good for me although latin chant sounds beautiful!!!

 

[SenorSalsa]

Most of what you said is fine and I have no objection, but I’m not so sure I agree with Latin being the “least important” component. Nor, I think, would the proponents of the “reform of the reform.” The language of the liturgy is in itself a unifying factor.

Dont get me wrong, I think it is a great thing and of great importance, I just think that if you do the others first, then belief will increase(lex orandi, lex credendi) more than the switch to latin would cause, and it would also make the switch to latin easier, as a result of the previous effect

From my perspective, ad orientem celebration is perhaps the single most important issue. Granted, after 40+ years of versusm populum as the norm, maybe there should be some catechesis to teach the faithful about the ad orientem posture. And of course, that is the responsibility of the the priest (better still, the bishop-ordinary). But to say a parish “won’t accept it?” The only answer I have to that is: too bad.

I don’t think too bad is an acceptable answer. They are the parish who you are supposed to guide. I can’t picture Jesus turning to his disciples having asked “Teacher, what does that parable mean” and Him responding “don’t understand it? Too bad”. The way I can envision this change working is slowly, with warning before hand, as well as some sort of poll afterwards where congregants may express if they thought the position was helpful, hurtful, or neither. From there, depending on results, I would choose many different things, all aiming to were Ad Orientem could be used, at least in some of the masses

The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are one of the great jewels of the EF. The only complaint that I could ever make about them is that I’d rather they were said aloud (in Latin).

Here I disagree. The point of those prayers is to ask pardon for those ascending into the Sanctuary, into where Heaven and Earth meet. They begin “I will go unto the altar of the Lord”. I will say however, the confiteor could be done aloud, or we could bring back the second confiteor(I would like this option better personally)

One last note: a major part of the OF that I consider a serious problem in and of itself, is the watered-down offertory. No way, no how, does it even begin to compare with the EF.

you got me there. But is that a translation issue or a change? I dont happen to have the latin in front of me, nor could I read if if I did

 

[malphono]

Dont get me wrong, I think it is a great thing and of great importance, I just think that if you do the others first, then belief will increase(lex orandi, lex credendi) more than the switch to latin would cause, and it would also make the switch to latin easier, as a result of the previous effect

OK, I’ll buy that.

I don’t think too bad is an acceptable answer. They are the parish who you are supposed to guide. I can’t picture Jesus turning to his disciples having asked “Teacher, what does that parable mean” and Him responding “don’t understand it? Too bad”. The way I can envision this change working is slowly, with warning before hand, as well as some sort of poll afterwards where congregants may express if they thought the position was helpful, hurtful, or neither. From there, depending on results, I would choose many different things, all aiming to were Ad Orientem could be used, at least in some of the masses

That’s all find and and dandy, but what I meant was, if after chatechesis, etc, the “parish won’t accept it” (ad orientem), then it’s “too bad.” The teacher can do what the teacher can do. If the student refuses to learn, does the teacher say, “ok, well, I tried but since you won’t accept what I have taught, I’ll do it your way?” Rather like a student telling the teacher the Pythagorean theorem is garbage. Who is going to win that one?

Here I disagree. The point of those prayers is to ask pardon for those ascending into the Sanctuary, into where Heaven and Earth meet. They begin “I will go unto the altar of the Lord”. I will say however, the confiteor could be done aloud, or we could bring back the second confiteor(I would like this option better personally)

I know well what they are and how they begin, and to me, one of the most beautiful things in the EF are the simple words “Introibo ad altare Dei.” The priest says those words (and the following prayers) precisely to ask the Almighty for permission to enter the sanctuary and to prepare himself to offer the sacrifice. What I meant was that those words (as well well as what follows, including the Confetior) should be done aloud in the EF. To me, they are too rich to be kept quiet.

you got me there. But is that a translation issue or a change? I dont happen to have the latin in front of me, nor could I read if if I did

It’s a change. The offertory in the EF has skant resemblance to what appears in the OF.

 

[Mike_Searson]

I used to consider myself a traditionalist, but after seeing some of the whack-jobs in action, now consider myself a Catholic who prefers the Latin Mass.

I attend the NO when I can’t make it to the Indult and enjoy it better early in the morning with reverend hymns, no altar girls, and no former gym teachers or white haired ladies in tennis shoes distributing communion.

A 5 PM hootenany with people holding hands, singing hymns that mention God in passing, cymbals crashing during the Great Amen, the aforementioned laity abuses, and “Ollie-ollie-ollie-loo-eee-ya” make me want to smash someone’s face in with a framing hammer.

Altar servers wearing wannabe monk robes and tennis shoes annoy me, too.

 

[Patrick2340]

This is simply my opinion. That disclaimer aside, the OF is like nails on a chalkboard for me, even a well done OF.