Is there superiority of Traditional Latin Mass over 'regular Mass'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erundil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As has been answered already: Both are equally valid. Not “one is ideal and the other is acceptable”, but Both. Are. Equally. Valid. Full stop.

Said that, I have attended both and I very much appreciate the solemnity and reverence in the EF, but I don’t go weekly or even monthly. But I do go sometimes and I find it a refreshing change once in a while. It’s very different in many ways to the OF. As I’ve journeyed deeper as a Catholic I find that some aspects of “Traditional” Catholicism that used to make me bristle when I first converted (ie, receiving the Host on the tongue, rather than in the hand) actually help me to deepen my reverence to the King of the Universe. Be that as it may, though, I do not for a second look down upon those who take the Host in the hand and besides my own children, I never try to publicly “extol the virtues” of receiving the Host on my tongue. I think there are parallels here. Try them both. It’s perfectly fine to have a “mixed diet” of both EF and OF or mostly one and the other just once in a while. Find what speaks to your heart and draws you closer to Jesus. That’s what it’s really all about (take that, Hokey-Pokey! 😜 )
 
I believe Traditional Latin Mass is acceptable as well, n’est-ce pas?
 
It is a colloquialism, most often used by those who find it to be superior 🙂
 
The OP appears to invite insight on matters that go beyond validity.
 
ThomasMT said:
Because the OP seeks perspective on both positions. It is fitting the it be understood that he/she will only get one. Even the correct one has to be presented in manner agreeable with CAF standards.

Do you have a problem with intellectual honesty?
Click to expand...
There is only one “perspective” worth mentioning on this site, and that is the official perspective of the Church itself. Namely, that neither form of the Mass is superior or inferior to the other. It would be intellectually dishonest to state or suggest otherwise,
 
  1. And how do you defeat a fallacy if it cannot be presented.
  2. Even the true position can be well expanded upon beyond what is acceptable in this forum.
Can I elaborate? Obviously not. That hardly seems like a approach for seeking the whole truth.
 
ThomasMT said:
And how do you defeat a fallacy if it cannot be presented.
Click to expand...
By saying it’s wrong and not worth consideration.

We don’t need to present heresy to take it down every time it’s presented. Others may seek the answer if they want but OP said nothing about sources. They just wanted the answer.
 
You may have the last word. Not because you argued well, but because the opposing argument must remain silent.
 
@ThomasMT @Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman
Yes, I wanted to know the true perspective—which is of course the perspective of the Church.

I did not even suspected that there might be any rules here about favouring one form over another, because I didn’t knew if one form is really better than other…
I am sorry if I caused any disruption.
 
Last edited:
ThomasMT said:
Can I elaborate? Obviously not. That hardly seems like a approach for seeking the whole truth.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it sounds like you desire to take the discussion beyond the official teaching of the Church into the realm of speculation, personal opinion, or wild fantasy. I see no value in doing so to answer the OP’s question any clearer than it as already been answered.
 
Erundil said:
I did not even suspected that there might be any rules here about favouring one form over another.
Click to expand...
Well we aren’t allowed to present what’s not true as the teaching of the Church. It’s not that it isn’t allowed, per se, but the only way it can really be expressed beyond “Yeah this is a lie” is to break that rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top