Question for TLM Supporters

[Sugnaflow]

If someone says, “While I appreciate both the N.O. and the TLM, I prefer the N.O.,” is that person mistaken or wrong? Or would you say it is legitimate for someone to prefer the N.O. over the TLM?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

If someone says, “While I appreciate both the N.O. and the TLM, I prefer the N.O.,” is that person mistaken or wrong? Or would you say it is legitimate for someone to prefer the N.O. over the TLM?

Of course it is legitimate for someone to prefer the OF (ordinary form) over the EF (TLM).
There are many of us who only know the OF.

Both are acceptable forms of Mass in the Roman Catholic Church-
neither is better than the other, they are just different.

 

[floresco]

If someone says, “While I appreciate both the N.O. and the TLM, I prefer the N.O.,” is that person mistaken or wrong? Or would you say it is legitimate for someone to prefer the N.O. over the TLM?

By phrasing it that way, the person is speaking of his subjective experience. If that is how he feels, then why shouldn’t he say so? According to Summorum Pontificumit is legitimate to attend either form of the Mass which implies that such preferences are also legitimate. I know many fine Catholics who prefer the NO (I am married to one.)

Now if someone were to say that the underlying theology of the NO is better than that of the TLM, I would say that person is mistaken. That is not a subjective question.

 

[AndrewF1995]

If someone says, “While I appreciate both the N.O. and the TLM, I prefer the N.O.,” is that person mistaken or wrong? Or would you say it is legitimate for someone to prefer the N.O. over the TLM?

No I don’t think they are wrong, there are good things in both the TLM and NO masses.

 

[Chatter163]

If someone says, “While I appreciate both the N.O. and the TLM, I prefer the N.O.,” is that person mistaken or wrong? Or would you say it is legitimate for someone to prefer the N.O. over the TLM?

The first part of the question, as phrased, is ludicrous and leading. It is of the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” variety.

 

[didymus]

If someone says, “While I appreciate both the N.O. and the TLM, I prefer the N.O.,” is that person mistaken or wrong? Or would you say it is legitimate for someone to prefer the N.O. over the TLM?

I am one of those people.
I have sought out a parish that has a very reverent OF & I certainly support making the EF available to all who want it. I hope Fr Z’s “gravitational pull” theory works so that the spread of the EF will bring a greater sense of reverence to liturgy throughout the Church.

All that said I find the EF to be like Bach’s music – I understand that it is beautiful and why so many people love it but it doesn’t do anything for me. Maybe that’s a flaw on my part.

My suggestion: since diversity is “in” make it mandatory for all seminarians to learn two forms/rites. If they reject the EF, fine. They can learn the Byzantine, Melkite, or whatever.

 

[TheDoctor]

If someone says, “While I appreciate both the N.O. and the TLM, I prefer the N.O.,” is that person mistaken or wrong? Or would you say it is legitimate for someone to prefer the N.O. over the TLM?

Neither mistaken nor wrong as long as they understand that neither the EF nor the OF is in any way better than the other.

It is as legitimate for someone to prefer the OF over the EF as it is to perfer the EF over the OF.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

AS it is someone voicing their own personal preference it cannot be wrong, if it is what they prefer it is what they prefer.

 

[Sugnaflow]

By phrasing it that way, the person is speaking of his subjective experience. If that is how he feels, then why shouldn’t he say so? According to Summorum Pontificumit is legitimate to attend either form of the Mass which implies that such preferences are also legitimate. I know many fine Catholics who prefer the NO (I am married to one.)

Now if someone were to say that the underlying theology of the NO is better than that of the TLM, I would say that person is mistaken. That is not a subjective question./quote]

Perhaps someone could exlain this to me better. Thanks!

 

[corsair]

I would support anyone’s right to prefer the NO Mass. However, I prefer the TLM. I frequently drive 120 miles each way to attend the TLM. If the finances are critical, then I’ll go to the local NO.
Even with the upcoming changes to the NO, I’ll still go to the TLM.

 

[reggieM]

Now if someone were to say that the underlying theology of the NO is better than that of the TLM, I would say that person is mistaken. That is not a subjective question.

I agree that the person would be mistaken. That question is not open to subjectivism because one cannot say that any approved liturgy is “better or worse” (in universal terms) than any other. A valid Mass offers the infinite sacrifice. As such, it cannot be compared. You cannot have a greater or lesser infinity.

The official decisions of the Church are what makes something objective. The Church speaks for God – and that’s something that we, normally (without authentic prophecy), cannot do.

One can prefer a theological expression more than another. But we can’t say it’s “better” (if approved).

 

[TheDoctor]

floresco;6884252:

By phrasing it that way, the person is speaking of his subjective experience. If that is how he feels, then why shouldn’t he say so? According to Summorum Pontificum

it is legitimate to attend either form of the Mass which implies that such preferences are also legitimate. I know many fine Catholics who prefer the NO (I am married to one.)

Now if someone were to say that the underlying theology of the NO is better than that of the TLM, I would say that person is mistaken. That is not a subjective question./quote]

Perhaps someone could exlain this to me better. Thanks!I’ll try. There are various rites within the Church for the celebration of the Mass (or Divine Liturgy for our Eastern brothers and sisters). Within the Latin Church alone, we have the Ordinary Form, the Extraordinaroy Form, the Anglican Use, Mozarabic, Dominican, Carthusian, etc. Now, all of these different forms of the Mass have varying prayers but they are all the same theologically. They are all Mass. The eucharist is transsubstatiated in all.

So it is acceptable for someone to say “I enjoy the Dominican form of the Mass better than anything else so I will go to that to fulfill my Sunday obligation”.

It is unacceptable (and ignorant in my humble opinion) for someone to say “The Mozarabic form has been around longer than the EF, so I only worship at the Mozarabic from because it is a better, holier, greater Mass than the EF”.

I think that is what you were asking. If I missed the mark, let me know and we can try again.

 

[Sugnaflow]

Perfect, thanks!

 

[choy]

If someone says, “While I appreciate both the N.O. and the TLM, I prefer the N.O.,” is that person mistaken or wrong? Or would you say it is legitimate for someone to prefer the N.O. over the TLM?

no offense but isn’t this a leading question to crate another TLM vs OF debate in this forum?

the Ordinary Form of the Mass is the norm of the Latin Rite. why can’t someone prefer it? there shouldn’t be a rift between people choosing one form over the other within the Latin Rite. if we’re wanting there to be a debate on it, where will it end? assuming one side wins, are we going to start going to the other Rites and critique their Mass/Divine Liturgy and claim our form is better? thats crazy. the Mass is the Mass, the form is the external and is purely for our sake. i don’t even get why its even a question in our own Rite. i have visited a website of the UGCC and they compared the Byzantine Rite and the Latin Rite. at the end of the page they said something beautiful, that both Rites are distinct and they are different, but they are equal. they are both Catholic and none is greater than the other. can’t we adopt that same charitable attitude within our own Rite?

 

[Gregorianman]

I am one of those people.
I have sought out a parish that has a very reverent OF & I certainly support making the EF available to all who want it. I hope Fr Z’s “gravitational pull” theory works so that the spread of the EF will bring a greater sense of reverence to liturgy throughout the Church.

All that said I find the EF to be like Bach’s music – I understand that it is beautiful and why so many people love it but it doesn’t do anything for me. Maybe that’s a flaw on my part.

My suggestion: since diversity is “in” make it mandatory for all seminarians to learn two forms/rites. If they reject the EF, fine. They can learn the Byzantine, Melkite, or whatever.

An interesting concept. Under your suggestion, could a seminarian choose to learn the EF and the Melkite? or the EF and the Byzantine, and reject learning the OF?

 

[choy]

An interesting concept. Under your suggestion, could a seminarian choose to learn the EF and the Melkite? or the EF and the Byzantine, and reject learning the OF?

each seminary would cater only to one Rite. you cannot learn Byzantine Divine Liturgy in a Latin Rite seminary, and vice versa

 

[Student09]

i don’t even get why its even a question in our own Rite. i have visited a website of the UGCC and they compared the Byzantine Rite and the Latin Rite. at the end of the page they said something beautiful, that both Rites are distinct and they are different, but they are equal. they are both Catholic and none is greater than the other. can’t we adopt that same charitable attitude within our own Rite?

I don’t know, but I think there’s a difference between comparing different rites (Latin/Byzantine), and different forms of one rite, which is what the EF/OF are (someone correct me if I am wrong here). Also I think the history of the EF/OF - that is, the Latin Mass being re-written and then the new form implemented in such a way that many people could no longer find the old form of the Mass - gives rise to these debates.

 

[floresco]

I agree that the person would be mistaken. That question is not open to subjectivism because one cannot say that any approved liturgy is “better or worse” (in universal terms) than any other. A valid Mass offers the infinite sacrifice. As such, it cannot be compared. You cannot have a greater or lesser infinity.

The official decisions of the Church are what makes something objective. The Church speaks for God – and that’s something that we, normally (without authentic prophecy), cannot do.

One can prefer a theological expression more than another. But we can’t say it’s “better” (if approved).

This is not at all what I meant by my statement: “Now if someone were to say that the underlying theology of the NO is better than that of the TLM, I would say that person is mistaken. That is not a subjective question.”

I would say that it is mistaken to say that the underlying theology of the NO is better because the underlying theology of the TLM is the one that is better. I believe it is possible to make objective statements on this.

If one examines these two forms of the Mass, it is indisputable that one clearly expresses the Church’s teaching on the Mass as propitiatory sacrifice and the other does not. The form that better conforms to Church teaching, i.e. the TLM, is better theologically.

Just because both forms of Mass are valid does not mean that we cannot make objective statements about various aspects of them.

(I have the impression that some people who are not TLM supporters are answering the question addressed to us. Could you please identify yourself as such when you answer. The OP asked about the views of TLM supporters and your answers confuse this.)

 

[didymus]

An interesting concept. Under your suggestion, could a seminarian choose to learn the EF and the Melkite? or the EF and the Byzantine, and reject learning the OF?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant the OF plus one other form.
I assume for that would in most cases the second choice would be the EF, but having bi-ritual priests who know the Byzantine or whatever would be great.