Poor choice of wording on my side to represent what I meant. I should have simply said deviation from the direction. I do not believe that the OF is the opposite of the EF, on the contrary I think that they are like two parallel lines converging at infinity.True, but that assumes that the Novus Ordo is necessarily an “opposite direction”.
That is excellent – thanks.I think that they are like two parallel lines converging at infinity.
I don’t think the OF would require training- considering its flexibility and that it is in the vernacular it would be pretty easy to do off the cuff.These orders are traditionalist orders to the core. They live and breath the Classical rite. The ICRSS priests spend 7 years in formation where they submerge themselves into that liturgy, for 7 years.
These orders were brought about to feed the needs of Traditionalist Catholics, and to fulfill their own respective role within the Church.
The role of these Traditionalist orders is to provide the Extraordinary Form. Now, I’d be curious to see if these priests have even had training for the NO. Many on these forums argue that NO priests simply don’t have time for the EF, how much truer is this for a traditionalist priest.
Simply put, yes they may be able to have a NO - but that’s not their calling. It would be an exception, if anything. Remember these priests have a duty to live out the spirituality of their order - and for these priests, the EF is inseparable from their spirituality.
The scandal is only in the case of the small number of people who reject the OF because they deny that it is a valid mass. Since the pope and bishops say it is a valid mass, those people are opposing/denying the church and that is a scandal.Why?
I don’t think that is always the case. I attend my NO parish for Saturday evening Mass every week and attend Sunday High Mass and daily Mass at my EF oratory. It is a matter of personal preference and IMO…the NO is celebrated just as respectfully as the TLM. I have stated before and it holds true…in my case, I have access to both and it is the best of both worlds for me.Originally Posted by Aramis Those who prefer the EF for many good reasons but don’t deny the validity of the NO do not give scandal.
Probably pastoral reasons. When I lived in Germany, church attendance percentage-wise was practically in single digits, and nearly everyone was old. This was true of both the regular OF masses I attended and also the EF.In the case of the FSSP, it’s very clear that the Fraternity was formed precisely to foster the EF. Whereas it may be possible for an FSSP priest to use the OF, I don’t really see any reason why he would actually want to do that: if the OF (aka NO) was of interest, there would have been no reason to join the FSSP in the first place. There are oodles of other religious congregations (or orders, or societies, etc) that are bound to the OF in primary.
I fully agree with that. I’ve attended the EF every Sunday for the past 15 years and I used to be a person who wanted to believe what you just described. But over time, I discovered many people who could not connect with it. I couldn’t dismiss them as “modernists” or “lazy” either. They had good, liturgical reasons for a preference for the OF (reverent, Tridentine-style OF only I’m talking about, not altar girls and EMCs, etc).While I know that many want to believe that if people just attended an EF mass they’d fall in love with it and want nothing more to do with the OF, I’ve met many people who have attended it and just aren’t that impressed. Yes, they want more reverence, Latin, chant and incense at their OF mass, but they’re not interested in the EF taking its place.
It would certainly be wrong to refuse to celebrate the NO categorically, especially out of a belief that it is invalid. But what about a specific rejection that just so happens to be de facto absolute? A priest might say “I am bound in conscience to provide Catholics with the best liturgy possible, and though I recognize that I have two valid forms from which to choose, the most edifying and thus most pastorally appropriate choice winds up always being the EF.” I’m not saying that’s an airtight defense; in fact it still seems to admit of some suspicion. But I also know that if I were a priest it would cause me some spiritual anguish to be, essentially, forced to give God and neighbor what I consider to be good but seriously second-best. Why would you mandate that someone give God his second-best just to prove he’s willing to obey?It depends on what is meant by “reject”.
It would certainly be a scandal for any Roman Rite priest to “reject” the Melkite Rite as a liturgy of the Church.
The Novus Ordo is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. On what basis could a Roman Rite priest “reject” it without causing scandal?
Would you consider a Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy to be second best to the Tridintine Mass? No. So why compair the OF Roman Rite to the EF Roman Rite in this way? Both represent the same sacrafice of Christ. One may convey those ideas in a way that connects to you better, but that doesn’t mean the other is second rate. A priest should ultimatly be concerned with what the Mass represents. If he has a preference for form then he should go with that preference but if he is asked to use a different Rite then if he is capable then he should. Both forms are equal legitimate forms of the Mass. They both represent the same Calvery. A preference is fine but it should not be to the exclusion of the other. That is the same thing that many of the opponents of the EF do. Recognize its validity, then put it down and refuse to have anything to do with it. A Catholic should be just as comfertable with either form of the Mass.It would certainly be wrong to refuse to celebrate the NO categorically, especially out of a belief that it is invalid. But what about a specific rejection that just so happens to be de facto absolute? A priest might say “I am bound in conscience to provide Catholics with the best liturgy possible, and though I recognize that I have two valid forms from which to choose, the most edifying and thus most pastorally appropriate choice winds up always being the EF.” I’m not saying that’s an airtight defense; in fact it still seems to admit of some suspicion. But I also know that if I were a priest it would cause me some spiritual anguish to be, essentially, forced to give God and neighbor what I consider to be good but seriously second-best. Why would you mandate that someone give God his second-best just to prove he’s willing to obey?
I wouldn’t consider a Divine Liturgy (or Qurbono, etc.) second best because those would be from a separate tradition for (presumably) the worshipers of that tradition. If my bishop or superior asked me to learn that rite in order to serve its adherents, I would do so, but with a request to be able to continue my own rite at least somewhat. The NO is an entirely different story. It is not the liturgical patrimony of any Latin Catholic, unless you define that incredibly shallowly in order to make it the “tradition” of those born after 1970. They are simply apples and oranges - I might rank other traditional liturgies relatively to my own preferred rite, but those rankings would be of a different kind than my criticisms of the NO that stem from its not being anyone’s traditional rite and a co-habitant of the Latin liturgical world.Would you consider a Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy to be second best to the Tridintine Mass? No. So why compair the OF Roman Rite to the EF Roman Rite in this way? Both represent the same sacrafice of Christ. One may convey those ideas in a way that connects to you better, but that doesn’t mean the other is second rate. A priest should ultimatly be concerned with what the Mass represents. If he has a preference for form then he should go with that preference but if he is asked to use a different Rite then if he is capable then he should. Both forms are equal legitimate forms of the Mass. They both represent the same Calvery. A preference is fine but it should not be to the exclusion of the other. That is the same thing that many of the opponents of the EF do. Recognize its validity, then put it down and refuse to have anything to do with it. A Catholic should be just as comfertable with either form of the Mass.