The EF "doesn't seem Catholic"

[ImmaculataFides]

That is the same reason why we should not say that if something was done for 500 years it must be better. I am always very suspicious about rationalizing personal preferences through pseudo-objective statements. I think that the median level of liturgical knowledge here on CAF is not that high and I have the impression that people just like to quote someone else to emphasize their preferences. The more I read about the liturgy the more I am amused on how a lot of people try to pit one form vs. the other, and I understand more and more the concept of liturgical development.

My ideal Liturgy would probably be in Latin and Greek, it would be a mix between the Eastern liturgies and the Latin one, it would last at least two hour long and after going there once I would skip it because it would be too much for my standards.

You’re mis-interpreting what Pope Pius XII meant. He was condemning the notion that organic development is bad, and that we should go back to the simplistic liturgies “of the early Christians” and get rid of all traditional developments. He is not at all condemning the idea that traditional is better.

 

[PennsyLaura]

When I was in my early twenties and attended the Latin Mass for the first time, I would have (and probably did) say the same thing as that young man.

In my little Novus Ordo world, I was overwhelmed when I attended the Latin Mass. I had never seen anything like that before. EVERYTHING was new: women in long skirts and ‘babushkas’, lots of altar boys in surplices, bells, incense, kneeling for Communion, Latin, seeing only the priest’s back, a hiding choir, a procession afterwards, really big families, etc., etc. I really did feel like I stepped into a cult. No, it wasn’t “Catholic”.

My feelings were further reinforced when I went home and looked up the Latin Mass online and happened to find sedevacantist stuff first. I naturally assumed that all Latin Masses were sedevacantist, not under the pope and therefore really Protestant. I told my friend who took me there that Latin Mass was a protestant cult. “And all the women wear babushkas.” I kept saying. (The particular Mass that I had gone to was fully legit and part of the diocese.)

Fast forward a few years… I had started to attend Latin Mass occasionally. I had a personal tragedy and that really made me call everything in my life into question. Since I had drifted away from the faith, when I came back, I came back to the Latin Mass. For me (in my experience) the Latin Mass seemed to “match up” better to the catechism than the Novus Ordo.

Fast forward to now… I’m one of those “Trads”. I’m now married with a few youngins and another on the way. I “converted” my Novus Ordo husband to the Latin Mass. I do occasionally attend the “OF”, but I really don’t “feel” that’s Catholic (which of course it is) or even that I actually fulfilled my obligation. Yeah, I’ve gone full circle.

But then (around ten years ago), when I attended my first Latin Mass (which happened to be a High Mass with a procession afterwards) I said worse than that young man. And, I actually believed it. And now I’m a “Trad”. So the bottomline is that I really do understand that young man and his comment.

 

[bmonk]

What makes both forms truly Catholic is the Church that celebrates them, the structure and intent of what is done, and so on.

I’d have to say that a staid, formal German-tradition Catholic Mass in a Midwestern parish is very different from a Southern African-American Catholic Mass with its singing and responding and all, but they are both authentically Catholic. Catholic does not mean uniformity, but unity.

 

[letters2mary]

I am stumped. What is EF? What is OF?

 

[thewanderer]

You’re mis-interpreting what Pope Pius XII meant. He was condemning the notion that organic development is bad, and that we should go back to the simplistic liturgies “of the early Christians” and get rid of all traditional developments. He is not at all condemning the idea that traditional is better.

Yes, but the point being made is that for many people what used to be traditional no longer is. Trying to force these people to go back to the pre-vatican II traditions simply because they used to be the traditions of the church is using the exact same reasoning that was condemned here. Bringing back older traditions for the good they can bring to a parish or individual is very different from bringing back traditions simply because they used to be the tradition.

 

[thewanderer]

I am stumped. What is EF? What is OF?

EF = Extraordinary Form ie, Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), the Tridentine, the Mass of 1962 etc.

OF = Ordinary Form ie, Novus Ordo (NO), the Mass of Vatican II, Mass in the Vernacular, etc

I hope this helps!

(ps, be aware that some people on this forum are really touchy about the use of the notation “NO” as they think it implies that the OF is no Mass… Sometimes they will assume this is your intent even if you assure them it is not, so it is probably safer to use the terminology EF and OF)

 

[paperwight66]

EF = Extraordinary Form ie, Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), the Tridentine, the Mass of 1962 etc.

OF = Ordinary Form ie, Novus Ordo (NO), the Mass of Vatican II, Mass in the Vernacular, etc

I hope this helps!

(ps, be aware that some people on this forum are really touchy about the use of the notation “NO” as they think it implies that the OF is no Mass… Sometimes they will assume this is your intent even if you assure them it is not, so it is probably safer to use the terminology EF and OF)

They are also the correct abbreviations to use. The Pope uses them, after all.

Anyway, it’s a bit odd to insist on NO (Novus Ordo) as after forty years, it’s hardly the New Form any more.

 

[Cristiano]

I’m not even talking about the Easterners. I’m talking about the Latin Rite liturgy. I said that the Credo was one of many medieval developments that were still included in the Novus Ordo Mass, so therefore it would have been totally foreign in the Latin Rite in the 6th century.

When was the Credo introduced in the Gallican Liturgy?

 

[Cristiano]

You’re mis-interpreting what Pope Pius XII meant. He was condemning the notion that organic development is bad, and that we should go back to the simplistic liturgies “of the early Christians” and get rid of all traditional developments. He is not at all condemning the idea that traditional is better.

Why am I misinterpreting PIusXII?
I have not argued any of his statements. What are you taklking about?

 

[robwar]

What makes both forms truly Catholic is the Church that celebrates them, the structure and intent of what is done, and so on.

I’d have to say that a staid, formal German-tradition Catholic Mass in a Midwestern parish is very different from a Southern African-American Catholic Mass with its singing and responding and all, but they are both authentically Catholic. Catholic does not mean uniformity, but unity.

that was so well put! thanks
I am sure if I took my children to an EF mass they would say the same things too!

 

[thewanderer]

They are also the correct abbreviations to use. The Pope uses them, after all.

Anyway, it’s a bit odd to insist on NO (Novus Ordo) as after forty years, it’s hardly the New Form any more.

I’m not saying that the only reason to use EF and OF is that others will be offended. I was giving a heads up because I have personally witnissed very judgemental attidtudes on CAF towards those that use the term NO even if they do not intend it to be offensive. It is not pleasant to be judged unfairly so I just thought it would be kind to give a heads up.

 

[ProVobis]

What makes both forms truly Catholic is the Church that celebrates them, the structure and intent of what is done, and so on.

I’d have to say that a staid, formal German-tradition Catholic Mass in a Midwestern parish is very different from a Southern African-American Catholic Mass with its singing and responding and all, but they are both authentically Catholic. Catholic does not mean uniformity, but unity.

True, and it’s a good argument, but who would put them in the same parish? And how do I know they are all Catholic?

 

[bmonk]

True, and it’s a good argument, but who would put them in the same parish? And how do I know they are all Catholic?

Answer: generally, it would be rare to have such different forms in one parish. Even if it happened, over time a more unified culture would tend to evolve.

One of the problems I have with very committed traditionalists, or very committed liberals, is that they are unwilling to make any accommodation to others.

As for how to know they are Catholic, you could check with the local diocese, or else look in a Catholic directory, which would list all the institutions (orders and houses, schools, parishes and such) in good standing with the Church. And the priest should have some sort of Diocesan identification, a “celebret” card issued by the bishop.

 

[ProVobis]

As for how to know they are Catholic, you could check with the local diocese, or else look in a Catholic directory, which would list all the institutions (orders and houses, schools, parishes and such) in good standing with the Church. And the priest should have some sort of Diocesan identification, a “celebret” card issued by the bishop.

That’s what I should have done when I got invited to a Vietnamese wedding. And I wasn’t the only one thinking it was a Catholic one.

Turned out it was a Baptist wedding and when I asked about it, the bridegroom really started a rant against the Catholic Church. Oh well.

 

[jmj33777]

They are different but…where are we suppose to go from there?

It astounds me to see the conflict between men over the Extra Ordinary Form and the Novus Ordo Form of the Mass.

Can one ever see it reasonable to argue and divide after receiving the author of life and communion.

I have served in hundreds of Novus Ordo masses done with extreme reverence and beauty and over the past year I have been serving the Extraordinary Form at least twice a week and it then that I realized there was a war going on between Novus Ordo daily communicates and EF daily communicates.

I didn’t realize the intensity of the division at first but now I do and I see it as a tremendous break. A wound in the Body of Christ that bleeds rivers of blood.

If a Mass whether EF or NO is done invalidly and with out any reverence, love and beauty than there is a reason to step up and say something and demand correction. But to argue and divide over two forms of the perpetual sacrifice which is the representation of the sacrifice on Calvary in a non bloody manner is to intellectually and willfully do the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ came to do for all of us which was to reconcile and “Unite” all men to the Father and to each other through the shedding of His Most Precious Blood…

There are always things to discuss and no one likes change and all too often people abuse change and take it as an opportunity to take the “New Form - ation” of something and irreverently “De - form” it in to something that is inappropriate.

That warrants attention that could lead to division but that is not what the current strife between brothers is about. It seems to be instead something deformed with in itself. A detachment from the Holiness of the Mass that leads men to division rather than Communion…

May the Lord’s Peace and Love come to dwell within our hearts while the receiving of the Most Blessed Sacrament transforms us into the image and likeness of Peace and Love itself, Our Lord Jesus Christ…

 

[thewanderer]

It astounds me to see the conflict between men over the Extra Ordinary Form and the Novus Ordo Form of the Mass.

Can one ever see it reasonable to argue and divide after receiving the author of life and communion.

I have served in hundreds of Novus Ordo masses done with extreme reverence and beauty and over the past year I have been serving the Extraordinary Form at least twice a week and it then that I realized there was a war going on between Novus Ordo daily communicates and EF daily communicates.

I didn’t realize the intensity of the division at first but now I do and I see it as a tremendous break. A wound in the Body of Christ that bleeds rivers of blood.

If a Mass whether EF or NO is done invalidly and with out any reverence, love and beauty than there is a reason to step up and say something and demand correction. But to argue and divide over two forms of the perpetual sacrifice which is the representation of the sacrifice on Calvary in a non bloody manner is to intellectually and willfully do the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ came to do for all of us which was to reconcile and “Unite” all men to the Father and to each other through the shedding of His Most Precious Blood…

There are always things to discuss and no one likes change and all too often people abuse change and take it as an opportunity to take the “New Form - ation” of something and irreverently “De - form” it in to something that is inappropriate.

That warrants attention that could lead to division but that is not what the current strife between brothers is about. It seems to be instead something deformed with in itself. A detachment from the Holiness of the Mass that leads men to division rather than Communion…

May the Lord’s Peace and Love come to dwell within our hearts while the receiving of the Most Blessed Sacrament transforms us into the image and likeness of Peace and Love itself, Our Lord Jesus Christ…

**Amen **

This sums up my thoughts on the matter very nicely. Jesus wants His Church to be one, and to treat all men, especially their own fellow members in the Body of Christ with charity and respect. We all grow up with bias’ and prejudices and we need to overcome these to rid the division that is currently in the Church over these two forms.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Yes, but the point being made is that for many people what used to be traditional no longer is. Trying to force these people to go back to the pre-vatican II traditions simply because they used to be the traditions of the church is using the exact same reasoning that was condemned here. Bringing back older traditions for the good they can bring to a parish or individual is very different from bringing back traditions simply because they used to be the tradition.

Tradition doesn’t change. There’s not “Pre-Vatican II traditions” and “Conciliar traditions”. There’s simply, tradition. They are tradition, and therefore need to be restored.

 

[JustaServant]

A few months ago I invited a devout Catholic family to attend a Solemn High Mass. The children are very active in their parish, the family goes on retreats, etc, etc, but they had never been to the EF. Afterwards, while discussing the Mass, the 17 year old son said that what he saw didn’t seem Catholic. He didn’t mean it in a negative way at all; what he meant was that it was so different from his experiences with the OF (as commonly celebrated in our diocese) that he found it hard to reconcile the two as being the same religion.

I bring up this story NOT to pit one form against the other or to say anything about superiority/inferiority, so please don’t go there. They are two forms of the same Rite as decreed by the Holy Father. But sometimes it seems to me that some people want to downplay the differences between the two forms, when in fact the difference *in the experience *of the two forms (in the pews, as commonly celebrated) is great. One would expect great differences between Rites, but it seems surprising to find them within a Rite.

Why do you think this is? Is it inherent in the forms? Causation vs. correlation? Is it positive, negative? Does it matter?

Thoughts?

• PAX

The Tridentine Latin Mass (sorry, I’m old fashioned, I prefer that over ‘EF’) is very old and beautiful. It literally took centuries to develop into what we know today. The Novus Ordo (not ‘OF’, same reasons above) being new on scene will draw criticism for certain exclusions from the TLM, but nevertheless can be done in a reverant manner that is equally beautiful.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

First you have to find an OF done ‘reverently’. This depends on the view of the seeker. A lot of people posting here seem to have very reverent NO masses locally.

Then you do a bit of reading and realise that none of the things that upset traditionalists are actually in the rubrics; they are fashion.

Then you check out the Latin Mass society website for local TLMs.

 

[BenedictFTW]

The Tridentine Latin Mass (sorry, I’m old fashioned, I prefer that over ‘EF’) is very old and beautiful. It literally took centuries to develop into what we know today. The Novus Ordo (not ‘OF’, same reasons above) being new on scene will draw criticism for certain exclusions from the TLM, but nevertheless can be done in a reverant manner that is equally beautiful.

As an older person who loved the TLM, I must agree that I have also been able to adore Our Blessed Lord in the Novus Ordo thanks to our wonderfully holy priest in our parish. However, I do also agree that the NO has ushered in many abuses of the Holy Sacrament of the Mass due to the fashionable whims attached, such as the hand-holding Our Father and the too effusive Sign of Peace to our neighbours, not to mention the Tabernacle shoved over into the corner somewhere, taking us away from adoring Our Blessed Lord.

In our case, in our part of Spain, we would have to travel half the day to get to the nearest TLM, which grieves me deeply. So, we are left with the NO. I am glad to know that we are still getting the graces attached to The Holy Mass, but I cannot watch as people receive in the hand. It is just not right!!! AND our Holy Father, Benedict XVI, God bless him, has shown by example that he agrees with me!! God be praised

I do wish with all of my heart that priests would follow the wishes of Pope Benedict XVI and include regular TLMs. I feel deprived.