Is there anything you DO like?

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

damooster

Guest
I’ve been reading these forums, trying to get an understanding of the EF and OF Mass. This research includes what changes were actually made during Vatican II, how our parishes came about their interpretations (the ones you guys don’t seem to agree with, like peace offerings etc), and where should I invest my time (which Mass has more staying power so that I don’t choose to go to one if it’s going to be changed or removed).

Anyways, my question is to all you “trads”:

Is there anything about the NO Mass that you do like, or at least agree that it was authorized by Vatican II and is legit?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic at all; this is a legitimate question from someone who is in RCIA and trying to learn about Catholicism.

Thanks in advance.
 
Truth be told, no. Nothing. Some of it isn’t so bad in and of itself, but when compared to the Tridentine…well, there is no comparison. Non Catholics who do not believe in the priestly hierarchy, the True Presence, the intercession of the Saints, the Sacrifice of the Mass…they approve of this Mass, or at the least prefer it to the Tridentine. Need I say more? My mother prefers the NO, but one could say she’s still a Baptist at heart. I also know non Catholics who scoff at the NO because it’s so, as they put, “watered down,” and “no different from the other Christian churches.” I also know of converts to the Faith who were disgusted by the change because it resembled what they left. I am not opposed to *gradual *changes to the Mass, but a total revision? What a joke! There was no need for what was done except pleasing the non Catholics. Caving in is not the way to convert.

Before the accusation gets thrown out, I am not saying that those who offer/attend/prefer the NO have no faith, or lack true faith or are not/can’t be holy. My favorite priest in the world doesn’t offer the Tridentine, and my current spiritual director actually prefers the NO. My brother prefers the old ways but has no special desire to attend the Tridentine. And my confirmation sponsor, who happens to be the holiest woman I know, never attends the Latin. I’m just saying that the changes were and still are pathetic…ridiculous…pointless…etc, etc, etc. The result of someone with too much time on their hands.
 
latinmasslover said:
Truth be told, no. Nothing. Some of it isn’t so bad in and of itself, but when compared to the Tridentine…well, there is no comparison. Non Catholics who do not believe in the priestly hierarchy, the True Presence, the intercession of the Saints, the Sacrifice of the Mass…they approve of this Mass, or at the least prefer it to the Tridentine. Need I say more? My mother prefers the NO, but one could say she’s still a Baptist at heart. I also know non Catholics who scoff at the NO because it’s so, as they put, “watered down,” and “no different from the other Christian churches.” I also know of converts to the Faith who were disgusted by the change because it resembled what they left. I am not opposed to *gradual *changes to the Mass, but a total revision? What a joke! There was no need for what was done except pleasing the non Catholics. Caving in is not the way to convert.

Before the accusation gets thrown out, I am not saying that those who offer/attend/prefer the NO have no faith, or lack true faith or are not/can’t be holy. My favorite priest in the world doesn’t offer the Tridentine, and my current spiritual director actually prefers the NO. My brother prefers the old ways but has no special desire to attend the Tridentine. And my confirmation sponsor, who happens to be the holiest woman I know, never attends the Latin. I’m just saying that the changes were and still are pathetic…ridiculous…pointless…etc, etc, etc. The result of someone with too much time on their hands.
Click to expand...
Just trying to get a little background on you if you don’t mind:

When were you confirmed?
Did you start with the Tridentine Mass, or did you find your way there from the NO Mass?

Thank you for your response.
 
I don’t think a single iota of good came out of the liturgical ‘reform’. The orientation which followed the Council has been of absolutely no benefit for the Church. Every liturgical or disciplinary change has in some way tended towards a loss of reverence, abandonment of tradition, or banalization of prayer.

Of course, the Pauline Mass is perfectly valid and authorized (although Vatican II didn’t call for anything remotely like it).
 
Be aware that many people lump the actual changes of VII and the influence of the 60’s on ecclesiastical culture into the same thing. It can be difficult to determine whether the changes of VII caused the culture shift, or whether the VII changes simply had the misfortune of being instituted during the 60’s, when culture was changing for the worse on its own.
 
I like the readings being in English, though, even in the Tridentine the Gospel is re-read in English as well.

Other than that…not really much, and even that I could live with, more than happily.

I’m 20, converted in…07? Was Confirmed in a NO Easter Vigil.
 
Yes, there is. I like pretty much all the reforms and I think the NO can be just as meaningful and moving as the EF when done well.
 
Sarpedon said:
Be aware that many people lump the actual changes of VII and the influence of the 60’s on ecclesiastical culture into the same thing. It can be difficult to determine whether the changes of VII caused the culture shift, or whether the VII changes simply had the misfortune of being instituted during the 60’s, when culture was changing for the worse on its own.
Click to expand...
Some might even go so far back as to blame the French Revolution for the mindset that eventually led to the results of Vatican II…
 
Can’t say that I do. In re the usual versus populum vernacular, I haven’t voluntarily been to an OF service in 35+ years and have no intention of breaking that tradition now.

OTOH, If I ever found a “reform of the reform” offered ad orientem and in Latin, I might give it a try. So far, though, no luck in that department.
 
Anyways, my question is to all you “trads”:
Is there anything about the NO Mass that you do like, or at least agree that it was authorized by Vatican II and is legit?
Click to expand...
The short answer is “No.” That the NO is “valid” even Abp. Marcele Lefebvre admitted. But at the same time he asserted, in so many words, that it was intrinsically evil- not so much because of what the NO includes, but what it doesn’t include. I challenge anyone to take the ordinaries of both Mass rites and compare them sentence by sentence and word by word. The richness and variety of the Old Mass can not be compared with the relative banality of the New. One forum member contrasted the “fine food” of the EF with “fast food” of the OF. He painted a brillant illustration. “Fast food,” just as the name connotes is ‘fast.’ It’s easily prepared, greasy, and, though somewhat tasty, perhaps, does not provide too much nutrition. Such was the history of the OF. Msgr. Bugnini and the Consilium put it together in a matter of weeks or months, and Pope Paul VI allowed it to be marketed to the Church universal. Whereas, the EF, like “fine food,” required much time in preparation. It came together gradually, though its major ingredients were available as early as the 7th century and before. Much care was taken in its preparation.
 
Dauphin said:
I don’t think a single iota of good came out of the liturgical ‘reform’. The orientation which followed the Council has been of absolutely no benefit for the Church. Every liturgical or disciplinary change has in some way tended towards a loss of reverence, abandonment of tradition, or banalization of prayer.

Of course, the Pauline Mass is perfectly valid and authorized (although Vatican II didn’t call for anything remotely like it).
Click to expand...
Agreed. The N.O. is just not nearly as spiritually nourishing as a the TLM. In away its akin to a starvation diet. While such a diet would fulfill the basic requirements to sustain human life, its nowhere’s near as healthy / nourishing as a regular, more rich diet.
 
damooster said:
I’ve been reading these forums, trying to get an understanding of the EF and OF Mass. This research includes what changes were actually made during Vatican II, how our parishes came about their interpretations (the ones you guys don’t seem to agree with, like peace offerings etc), and where should I invest my time (which Mass has more staying power so that I don’t choose to go to one if it’s going to be changed or removed).

Anyways, my question is to all you “trads”:

Is there anything about the NO Mass that you do like, or at least agree that it was authorized by Vatican II and is legit?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic at all; this is a legitimate question from someone who is in RCIA and trying to learn about Catholicism.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
The Holy Father has stated quite clearly that both forms of the mass are legitimate and correct. In so far as the Chruch teaching is concerned that settles it. The bickering back and forth about this or that form does nothing to promote either.
As for myself, I love Both because I receive Christ at Both.
I prefer the EF on Sunday simply because of the music and more contemplative atmosphere.
I prefer the OF during the week because it is more “involved”. I mean there are generally not that many people there and it feels more informal.

Hope that helps you some

Peace
James
 
damooster said:
I’ve been reading these forums, trying to get an understanding of the EF and OF Mass. This research includes what changes were actually made during Vatican II, how our parishes came about their interpretations (the ones you guys don’t seem to agree with, like peace offerings etc), and where should I invest my time (which Mass has more staying power so that I don’t choose to go to one if it’s going to be changed or removed).

Anyways, my question is to all you “trads”:

Is there anything about the NO Mass that you do like, or at least agree that it was authorized by Vatican II and is legit?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic at all; this is a legitimate question from someone who is in RCIA and trying to learn about Catholicism.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
A great deal. It’s the Mass most often celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI; Mass in vernacular which is so much easier to follow; concelebration; penitential rite with entire congregation actively involved; more and expanded Bible readings; homily in place of sermon; sign of peace; communion from chalice and more.
 
oldmass said:
The short answer is “No.” That the NO is “valid” even Abp. Marcele Lefebvre admitted. But at the same time he asserted, in so many words, that it was intrinsically evil- not so much because of what the NO includes, but what it doesn’t include. I challenge anyone to take the ordinaries of both Mass rites and compare them sentence by sentence and word by word. The richness and variety of the Old Mass can not be compared with the relative banality of the New. One forum member contrasted the “fine food” of the EF with “fast food” of the OF. He painted a brillant illustration. “Fast food,” just as the name connotes is ‘fast.’ It’s easily prepared, greasy, and, though somewhat tasty, perhaps, does not provide too much nutrition. Such was the history of the OF. Msgr. Bugnini and the Consilium put it together in a matter of weeks or months, and Pope Paul VI allowed it to be marketed to the Church universal. Whereas, the EF, like “fine food,” required much time in preparation. It came together gradually, though its major ingredients were available as early as the 7th century and before. Much care was taken in its preparation.
Click to expand...
Chilling, and wrong.
 
Ultimately, personal preference for either mass is essentially subjective, although some claim absolute truth in matters of the mass- always based on their own personal preference.
 
Navarre said:
A great deal. It’s the Mass most often celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI; Mass in vernacular which is so much easier to follow; concelebration; penitential rite with entire congregation actively involved; more and expanded Bible readings; homily in place of sermon; sign of peace; communion from chalice and more.
Click to expand...
An N.O. Mass with all its variations isn’t easier to follow just because its in the vernacular. There’s 4 different Eucharistic prayers, different greetings, etc. The TLM is perfectly capable of being easily followed. The Mass doesn’t change from week to week and missals are available.

There is active involvement in the TLM too. Just because there aren’t rote verbal replies does not mean there is active involvement. True active involvement is to unite your prayers with that of the priest.

Furthermore, are you saying communion from the chalice is better? If so, why? We receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ through the Host, the chalice isn’t needed. The use of the chalice by the laity increases the chance of spillage, which is undoubtedly a bad thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top