Tridentine Mass( Extraordinary Mass) or Ordinary Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
I am just curious. I am sure there’s plenty of people on here who are old enough to remember Mass before the new Missal was introduced in 1970. I believe the last Missal which is considered the legal Tridentine Mass Missal is the 1962 Roman Missal. My question is to those who have lived to see both. ( I am only 33, so I never experienced the Extraordinary form of Mass) which was just the ordinary form prior to 1970, so I am just curious, which do you prefer? Are there any parts you prefer in both sides? I.E. you may like a particular part of the Tridentine Mass but prefer the Ordinary Mass on other parts? Just curious how older Catholics view this; for me the Mass has been the same my whole life, but I assume it was a real shock when it first was made the ordinary form in 1970; how did people react to it? I mean I remember people getting all upset over the third edition of the newer Missal with different wording; I can only assume people were completely lost with such a drastic change that occurred in the early 1970s.
 
I am 66 years old -will be 67 in August. I prefer Mass in the Ordinary Form. However I do like to attend an occasional Mass in the Extraordinary Form, like this morning. It is more difficult for me to keep up and follow along as an adult than I recall when I was a child. As a child, I do not recall having had difficulty understanding or following the Latin Mass. When I was a child, We had missals with the Latin and English translation on the right side. Now we have Mass booklets for EF Mass along with a supplement for the dailys reading for the various parts. The booklets also have the English translations. I have gotten a little more used to following along. When we first started, it was a little confusing juggling booklet and supplement which you have to follow closely to know the responses and when to sit, kneel and stand, and the posture is different between High Mass and Low Mass.
So, in answer to your question, I prefer Mass in the Ordinary Form, with traditional songs and occasional Latin hymns and Mass parts is my preference. At certain times in the Church year, we sing the Mass parts in Latin at the OF Masses. Other times we use English. I like both.
 
Well, I was born in 1953, a time where Pius XII was already making changes, so I can remember totally Latin Mass (ok, there was that smattering of Greek) with the silent Canon. While some areas experienced dialogue Mass before Vatican II, my area was not one. We were silent.

I was in 6th grade when Mass started changing so my First Communion (1960) and Confirmation (1961) were celebrated using, not the 1962 Missal, but the 1920 Typical Edition that had sustained numerous changes by 1960.

Right after Vatican II I liked that Mass was in a language I could understand. I liked that I could respond and participate. I missed the Latin chanted responses though. I know I was only 12 but the Kyrie, the Gloria, and the Sanctus were already ingrained. The settings as familiar to me as a lullaby.

I didn’t hear any of them again at Mass until 2013. I can’t even express what it was like to attend Mass at Notre Dame in Paris and hear the Gloria I’d grown up with for the first time in 49 years! Yet, that Mass was in the Ordinary Form. I’ve yet to experience an EF Mass, none is celebrated within a 1000 km of where I live.

But Mass is Mass. I’d be perfectly content with an OF Mass if we could return to singing the Greek/Latin Ordinary as was expected after Vat. II. Pope Paul VI had sent all his bishops a compilation of the minimum he thought congregations should be able to sing in the language of the Latin Rite. Sadly, if you say “Jubilate Deo” to most choirs they won’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
 
Pax Christi.

I agree with Phemie. Mass is Mass. But I remember the Old Mass, and rediscovered it in Chartres Cathedral some years ago. Now I drive the extra distance to the Latin Mass.

Try a French cathedral! Even if you can’t understand the homily. You can spend that time, as I did, contemplating the windows.

Seriously, I can’t take the homilies at OF Masses.

God bless.
 
svid2 said:
Pax Christi.

I agree with Phemie. Mass is Mass. But I remember the Old Mass, and rediscovered it in Chartres Cathedral some years ago. Now I drive the extra distance to the Latin Mass.

Try a French cathedral! Even if you can’t understand the homily. You can spend that time, as I did, contemplating the windows.

**Seriously, I can’t take the homilies at OF Masses. **

God bless.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Seriously?
 
jas84173 said:
but I assume it was a real shock when it first was made the ordinary form in 1970; how did people react to it? I mean I remember people getting all upset over the third edition of the newer Missal with different wording; I can only assume people were completely lost with such a drastic change that occurred in the early 1970s.
Click to expand...
There was an intermediate half-Latin version of the mass in the late 60’s, it didn’t go from all-Latin to all-vernacular over night.

The biggest change wasn’t really the change from Latin to English. The biggest change was asking the Faithful to read aloud different prayers and responses. In traditional days, the faithful were expected to and remained quiet during the entire mass, weren’t expected to say a single word during the entire liturgy. The liturgical reforms changed that paradigm completely.

That’s why even today, you might hear someone talk about “hearing mass”, because that was exactly the people’s role back in the day.
 
jas84173 said:
My question is to those who have lived to see both… I am just curious, which do you prefer? …I assume it was a real shock when it first was made the ordinary form in 1970; how did people react to it? …I can only assume people were completely lost with such a drastic change that occurred in the early 1970s.
Click to expand...
I prefer the EF
We are not usually asked our opinion, shock is not a big enough word.
How did my parents react? They left the church and kept us kids away. Yes, I was completely lost. I tried going back as a teen and I did not know what was going on. My entire family on both sides are no longer Roman Catholic, neither I am, I transferred into an Eastern Catholic church when my husband converted.
The church did a horrible job with the changes, many souls were lost.
 
jas84173 said:
I am just curious. I am sure there’s plenty of people on here who are old enough to remember Mass before the new Missal was introduced in 1970. I believe the last Missal which is considered the legal Tridentine Mass Missal is the 1962 Roman Missal. My question is to those who have lived to see both. ( I am only 33, so I never experienced the Extraordinary form of Mass) which was just the ordinary form prior to 1970, so I am just curious, which do you prefer? Are there any parts you prefer in both sides? I.E. you may like a particular part of the Tridentine Mass but prefer the Ordinary Mass on other parts? Just curious how older Catholics view this; for me the Mass has been the same my whole life, but I assume it was a real shock when it first was made the ordinary form in 1970; how did people react to it? I mean I remember people getting all upset over the third edition of the newer Missal with different wording; I can only assume people were completely lost with such a drastic change that occurred in the early 1970s.
Click to expand...
I participated in the Latin Mass using 1920 Pope Benedict XV missal with 1955 changes of Pope Pius XII (revised Holy Week and calendar changes), and 1962 Pope John XXIII missal, and during the transitions in March 1965 (vernacular, option to face congregation, and communion under both kinds), and the second instruction 1967 (English canon, simpler rubrics), and then the additional anaphora of 1968. It just kept changing over the entire period. I liked the Latin and gregorian chant, and the original way of communion, and the facing the high altar and the more formal feeling. I was an altar server for eight of those years.

Later, after the 1970 Missale of Pope Paul VI, and some later editions, I transferred to the Byzantine Catholic Church.
 
My mother who lived during the change said she loved it when the Ordinary Form became available for she could actually UNDERSTAND what was being said, especially the Homily.

She also notes she could respond to all the responses in Latin but had no clue what she was saying so it was meaningless.

Just her opinion,
I am happy we have the option now in some places for those who prefer one or the other.

God bless,

Mary.
 
Personally I think the OF has made the laity to casual during mass, and the songs in the liturgy have really diminished in their beauty.

Is it just my country or are some songs more like folk songs than actual liturgical ones? 🤷
 
I think it important to remember that the Mass is not a show put on for us, it is about Christ and His Real Presence on the altar.
 
MaryT777 said:
she could actually UNDERSTAND what was being said, especially the Homily.
Click to expand...
Homilies were in the vernacular, not Latin. Was there a different reason she couldn’t understand homilies given at Tridentine Masses?
 
Catholic4Christ said:
Homilies were in the vernacular, not Latin. Was there a different reason she couldn’t understand homilies given at Tridentine Masses?
Click to expand...
Back in traditional times, at least here in the United States, most of the local Catholic churches were ethnic based. The priest were from Poland or Lithuania or Italy or elsewhere. They used the veracular- which was their own native tongue- and many of the English speaking faithful were unfamiliar with it.
 
I like that the OF has more dialogue so I dont feel left out. I also prefer the priest facing the congregation so we can see what he is doing. I would have preferred that we kept the Latin and the Gradual.
 
Casilda said:
The church did a horrible job with the changes, many souls were lost.
Click to expand...
Were they lost because of changes in the Mass or because selfish people didn’t get their way? It is hardly a sign of fealty to abandon something as soon as one doesn’t get what they want.
 
I’m not “old enough to have experienced both” but I do attend the Tridentine when it is available and I can make it (local provision is a little patchy at present but is set to improve soon with the new Oratory). I prefer the Tridentine. Basically anything traditional resonates with me. I also find the Ordinariate Use very reverent.
 
They prefer to just listen and be passive?
Click to expand...
May I jump in? In my estimation, the Tridentine Mass isn’t passive. If you have a Missal, and you follow along closely with the priest’s prayers during the Mass, the liturgy is very engaging.

The Tridentine Mass is very meditative and calming. But you have to choose to be engaged. My Latin is getting better, but I tend to read the English translation alongside the Latin half the time.

I use the St. Andrew’s Daily Missal which contains Masses for nearly every day of the year. The Missal is replete with commentary so it is a real gem to keep the reader engaged.

There are also several parts of the Mass where the laity is expected to respond and even sing, such as in the Gloria and the Credo.

I guess someone could sit there and be passive, and never participate. It’s possible I suppose. But many attendees at the Tridentine Masses will have Missals and follow along with the liturgy closely. If you use a Missal, the Mass is not boring, but rather very engaging.
 
Thank you StGerardMajella, but reading along is a lesser participation than the responding. Yes, there are point to respond but most of the Mass the priest has his back to you and is hardly audible. Even with the missal it can be a struggle to even follow. Does he use a microphone where you go?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top