Priest Actively Discouraging Me From Attending EF Mass

[Loud-living-dogma]

I am sure in God’s eyes, he is more interested in the mindset of those worshipping, not in the formality of the Mass ritual or in how many responses the congregation had to make either.

This whole “EF’s holier”, “no, OF’s holier” is a very unproductive and divisive dead end and it is just sad to me that any Catholic would engage in such thinking.

Well, God may be more interested the mindset of those worshipping, but some styles of Mass elevate the mindset of worshippers more than others, I dare say.

 

[ChristMyLife]

explained to him my desire to also attend an EF Mass in our city, and he explained to me that I need to be careful about that “old stuff”, and that the EF Mass is anachronistic and that is why the Church changed the Mass.

Sounds to me like your priest himself is holding to some “anachronistic” and “old” ideas - like, from the 1970’s.

Lemme guess, your priest is in his 50s or 60s?

(Edit. I saw another poster literally asked the exact same question, verbatim, about the age of the priest. Hand to God I made my comment before I read that.)

The generation of priests who were taught that tradition is a dirty word are aging rapidly, and the younger generations tend to have a profound respect for their Roman patrimony.

I believe eventually there will be a reform of the reform. Sometime this century, but most likely not under the current Pontificate. I love Pope Francis, but it’s going to take another, younger, Benedictine type Pontiff to accomplish a meaningful Reform of the Roman Liturgical Rites.

I’d imagine that before the current form of the Roman Rite is 100 years old (2070) it will have been reformed, bringing it much closer to the Tridentine form of the Rite.

 

[angel12]

some styles of Mass elevate the mindset of worshippers more than others, I dare say.

But which style often depends on the worshipper.

 

[Weserthy]

Scott84:

explained to him my desire to also attend an EF Mass in our city, and he explained to me that I need to be careful about that “old stuff”, and that the EF Mass is anachronistic and that is why the Church changed the Mass.

Sounds to me like your priest himself is holding to some “anachronistic” and “old” ideas - like, from the 1970’s.

Lemme guess, your priest is in his 50s or 60s?

(Edit. I saw another poster literally asked the exact same question, verbatim, about the age of the priest. Hand to God I made my comment before I read that.)

The generation of priests who were taught that tradition is a dirty word are aging rapidly, and the younger generations tend to have a profound respect for their Roman patrimony.

I believe eventually there will be a reform of the reform. Sometime this century, but most likely not under the current Pontificate. I love Pope Francis, but it’s going to take another, younger, Benedictine type Pontiff to accomplish a meaningful Reform of the Roman Liturgical Rites.

I’d imagine that before the current form of the Roman Rite is 100 years old (2070) it will have been reformed, bringing it much closer to the Tridentine form of the Rite.

I think you have made a very astute point about this - it seems like it is almost always the older priests of a certain generation that think like this and have a certain aversion to the EF, or tradition in general. Of all of the younger priests that I have personally met, all of them have been open to using traditional practices or devotions. You don’t see many younger priests with a negative attitude towards tradition, maybe because in our current age, any young person who is going to commit to the priesthood will have a certain zeal for Catholicism in selecting in what secular society views as an “unusual” career choice. Younger Catholics who do not value Catholic teachings or traditions aren’t becoming priests at best, at worst and what is probably more common, is that they are leaving the Church entirely.

This is sort of a tangent here but I’ll just say that when you look at some of the strange ideas that are being pushed in the Church today by bishops or priests, especially on hot-button topics such as sexual morality, it seems like it’s always older priests/bishops pushing for changes to Church doctrine. I wonder what the Church will look like in 30 years or so when many of these people are retired or deceased, and the current younger generation of priests are then the elders and the bishops and Cardinals. I think and hope that although the quantity of vocations to the priesthood may decrease, the quality will increase.

 

[prayerrider]

“But I do not see anything bad with going to both an EF and OF church. I am blessed to be able to live very close to two such churches! Both are about equal distance from me.”

Nothing wrong with that at all. I can’t get to the EF Mass often, because it’s so far. I usually assist at a nearby OF Mass. I often make the responses quietly in Latin–not loudly like JRR Tolkein, lol! And I laminated 8-1/2 by 11 printouts of the Last Gospel and the Leonine Prayers, which I pray after the OF Mass. These aren’t included in my 3rd Edition Roman (OF) Missal. I don’t want to lug my 1962 and my Roman Missal to the OF Mass

So, I bring a little EF into my OF, so to speak, and try to do it in a low key manner.

 

[berniemcken]

He’s misguided. Ignore him. I’d give anything to have an EF close. I yearn for the beauty and I want my children to grow up with it.

 

[berniemcken]

Tis_Bearself:

I am sure in God’s eyes, he is more interested in the mindset of those worshipping, not in the formality of the Mass ritual or in how many responses the congregation had to make either.

This whole “EF’s holier”, “no, OF’s holier” is a very unproductive and divisive dead end and it is just sad to me that any Catholic would engage in such thinking.

Well, God may be more interested the mindset of those worshipping, but some styles of Mass elevate the mindset of worshippers more than others, I dare say.

I’m no expert but here’s my take (and I’m sure it’s so much deeper).

Right…but the mass is the holy sacrifice. I’d point out that the NO mass emphasizes a meal with the priest facing the people (etc), circular churches versus cruciform, songs based upon eating the heavenly bread. The EF emphasizes the sacrifice and is worship/God-centric with the priest facing East and offering the sacrifice (Jesus) on behalf of the people to God the father. If you love God, you 1) worship Him and 2) are obedient to His commandments. Worship isn’t eating the heavenly bread although the consumption of the Eucharist it is the climax.

Worship isn’t defined as a meal and eating the heavenly bread because that is person-centric. We do consume the body, soul and divinity of our Lord in the Eucharist but first we unite ourselves (we are to be a living sacrifice) to His body during the offertory and we are offered up as well when the priest offers the sacrifice.

When the emphasis changed, so did the people’s focus on the sacrifice as and their understanding of the Real Presence. It became a more Protestant like Last Supper with people not really understanding what was going on—at least in my neck of the woods. Well, everywhere I’ve ever lived.

The NO doesn’t really change these truths but it makes the actual truth hard to see and less evident.

 

[KAMMYXPXP]

Please help this new Catholic understand in the simplest terms possible about all the different kinds of Catholic-styles that are out there. OF? EF? SSXP? Charismatic? Are there more? What are they? How do they differ? Did all this come out of Vatican II?

Being younger in the faith, this talk of varieties of Catholics can cause confusion. I want to understand. Please if you would take a little time to explain by answering my inquiry.

Personally, I attend Holy Mass where the liturgy is in English. Moreover, I receive only from the Chalice, as, like so many, I can not receive the Sacred Host due to severe allergies.

Thanks for educating me!

 

[recentrevert]

The OF means the Ordinary Form of the Mass and this is usually offered to God in the language of the country where it is said. It has different ceremonies and prayers from the ‘EF’ or ‘Extraordinary Form’ which is always in Latin. The OF was put together in the 1960s although much of it is the same or very similar to the EF and most of the prayers are ancient. Both forms are the same in the essentials. Some people think one form is better than the other (I do too). In practice, the priests who offer the EF and are not members of a breakaway sect are far more likely to believe what they are supposed to, teach the way they are supposed to, behave the way they are supposed to and offer Mass reverently than priests who offer the OF. That is my practical experience.

 

[recentrevert]

The SSPX is a society of priests who offer the EF. Some people say they have separated themselves from the Church by refusing to be subject to the Pope but they and others deny it.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Please help this new Catholic understand in the simplest terms possible about all the different kinds of Catholic-styles that are out there. OF? EF? SSXP? Charismatic?

OF means Ordinary Form Mass, the one celebrated in most Latin rite Catholic Churches, according to the current Missal.
EF means Extraordinary Form Mass, celebrated in Latin, according to the 1962 Missal.
SSPX is a priestly society founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. SSPX operates chapels and says the Latin Mass, outside the Catholic Church system of bishops and diocese. SSPX claims exemption from Church laws because the Church has been in crisis for some decades.
Charismatic is simply a style of prayer.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Loud-living-dogma:

some styles of Mass elevate the mindset of worshippers more than others, I dare say.

But which style often depends on the worshipper.

So true. It’s really just sad that some people are dismissive and even angry about the music that the Church wants us to use - - chant and polyphony.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Yeah. As much as people love to rail on the OF, the truth is that some people, myself included, just really like mass in the vernacular. I think there’s a beauty in Latin, yes, but everything being in my first language helps me truly connect on a personal, not just ritual, level.

 

[KAMMYXPXP]

Thank you for your reply. Most helpful!

 

[ProVobis]

SSPX is a priestly society founded in 1970

Not a society but a priestly fraternity. Officially it was the FSSPX which was recognized by the Vatican in 1970.

Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Weserthy, it’s possible that older priests, because they have served longer, have seen many Catholics become disillusioned with Catholicism and abandon the Church giving reasons that involve the “old-fashioned Latin Mass”.

Hmmm. Any priests that remember people being disillusioned with the “old-fashioned Latin Mass” would have to be…how old?
Let’s see, according to this article (Library : The Day the Mass Changed, How it Happened and Why -- Part I | Catholic Culture), the vernacular started being used as early as 1964, and mostly fully phased in by 1969. So, let’s say, people might still be “disillusioned” with the old-fashioned Latin Mass in 1966. So, if a priest was old enough to be a priest in 1966, let’s say he would have been a minimum of 25 years old, then he would now be 77. I suppose there may be some practicing pastors out there who are 77, but I don’t think that the OP’s pastor is quite that advanced in years.

It’s tough for a priest to watch his sheep leave the fold. It hurts and leaves deep scars. When an older priest talks to young people who want to abandon the OF Mass for an EF Mass, the sad memories of those who he saw leave because of Latin Mass (and there were plenty) come surging back…

When I first became Catholic (in 2004), I talked to quite a few elderly people. One man who was discerning a call to the diaconate told me that he was two weeks away from leaving the Church over the Latin Mass, which he hated with all his heart. He was planning on leaving the Church when he turned 18. He told me that Vatican II and the OF Mass saved his soul!

This raises an interesting point to me. For all the people who think that Vatican II was a great and helpful thing, wouldn’t that mean that in retrospect, the changes from Vatican II should have happened much earlier? Because if these changes were beneficial in the 1960s, wouldn’t they also have been beneficial in 1910, or the 1860s? Or the 1760s?
So why were popes going on about the importance of Latin, say in the early 1900s, but then all that was turned around 60 years later? (For instance " The Popes on the Latin language:

Pope Pius X (Moto Propio on the Restoration of Church Music , November 22, 1903): “The language of the Roman Church is Latin. It is therefore forbidden to sing anything whatever in the vernacular in solemn liturgical functions—much more to sing in the vernacular the variable or common parts of the Mass and Office.”

Pope Pius XI ( Officiorum Omnium , 1922): “The Church - precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time - of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”

Pope Pius XII ( Mediator Dei) : “The use of the Latin language affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine.”"
https://www.tldm.org/news5/latin.htm

 

[ProVobis]

I would imagine many Reformers and their followers thought that the vulgar/vernacular language saved their souls in the 15th century too.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually Mass attendance was already declining in Europe in the mid-50’s. Let’s not forget Mass reforms had already started with a major change to Holy Week in 1955. Vatican II never called for a New Mass but the Old Mass was severely being dismantled starting in 1964. This did not help attendance. But the New Mass promulgated in 1970 didn’t help it much either.

 

[ChristMyLife]

When I first became Catholic (in 2004), I talked to quite a few elderly people. One man who was discerning a call to the diaconate told me that he was two weeks away from leaving the Church over the Latin Mass, which he hated with all his heart. He was planning on leaving the Church when he turned 18. He told me that Vatican II and the OF Mass saved his soul!

Something I still wonder to this day is why the reform of the Liturgy had to go as far as it did.

I think the EF could have simply been translated into English, had a few tweaks here and there to a few rubrics and prayers, and been good to go.

I am personally a reform of the reform kinda guy.

I don’t want to go back to the EF, but I feel the OF is lacking. I feel the OF could be reformed (I can think of a few things which would be EASY and could be done almost immediately. Ad Orientem liturgical orientation. Make it optional to use the prayers at the foot of the altar. Return to the old Offertory. Return the Confiteor and the Collects and post Communion prayers to the Tridentine form.)

Those reforms alone would make a massive difference.

 

[Peeps]

When it comes to the timing of the changes in the Mass liturgy, you simply have to take history and world events under consideration.

It was in the 20th Century that radio and television united people around the world in ways that had never happened before. Finally, relatives and friends who lived far apart, or even in different countries, could hear about or see the same events, and then they could call each other on the phone (or send mail to each other and know that it would arrive in a timely way), and discuss world events.

The invention of moving pictures in the early 20th century exposed people to cultures, events, and issues that they had previously known little about.

The two world wars had a major effect on the psyche of the world’s peoples. Many gave up religion entirely, disgusted with the horrors that they had not only personally observed, but had seen on newsreels in movie theaters, and in newspapers, and had heard about on the radio.

And then came ANOTHER war–Korea, and then ANOTHER WAR! Viet Nam was the cause of conflict and the tearing apart of long-standing social norms here in the U.S. This was the first televised war, and it shook people’s beliefs in God and religion.

And the rise of radio and television enabled many Catholics to hear and see Protestant churches for the first time, and many LIKED what they heard and saw. In the Evangelical Protestant churches that I was involved with for the first 47 years of my life, around 25% of our members were former Catholics!

One thing that you need to know about that rocked the faith of many Catholics in their Church was the fire at Our Lady of the Angels School in Chicago in 1957. This horrible fire took the lives of around 97 people, mainly children, and destroyed the trust of Catholics around the U.S. in their Church. Read about it if you don’t believe me.

This is a very simplified and incomplete description of some of the changes. I didn’t even mention the changes in public schools in the U.S., the number of mothers who returned to the workforce, the rise of the Women’s Lib Movement, the increased demand for Civil Rights for minorities and the riots, the rise of interest in the occult and hallucinogenic drugs, the increased liberalism in universities, and the increased number of young people who were able to attend universities (it was in the 1970s that many families sent a person to college for the first time in their family history!).

So many issues and so many people KNEW all about these issues because of increased communication–it’s no wonder that the Catholic Church had to “open the windows,” so to speak, and make sweeping changes in order to remain relevant.

GOD was behind all these changes, not men. HE is wise and knows exactly what we needed. Please do not ascribe Vatican II to mere men, and please do not label it as something “bad.” You are treading on thin ice to assume that God couldn’t protect His Own Church, His Bride.