What does it mean to attend both forms of the mass out of obedience and love for the Church?

[TrueLight]

Recently, I saw two different posts where people stated they attend both the OF and EF out of obedience and love for the Church.

One of them said they actually prefer one form, but attend both out of obedience…

Does that mean if you attend one form exclusively, you are being disobedient?

I think that is an interesting viewpoint. Is there any merit to it?

Please note that this thread is not meant to pit one form against the other.

 

[Newbie2]

Curious POV.

It would not seem to matter which form one attended; both would seem acceptable to the Lord, being acceptable by way of Magesterial authority.

 

[Jennet]

It’s a nice personal gesture, I suppose - showing that they deem both forms equally valid - but it strikes me as entirely unnecessary that everyone else should do likewise.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Recently, I saw two different posts where people stated they attend both the OF and EF out of obedience and love for the Church.

One of them said they actually prefer one form, but attend both out of obedience…

Does that mean if you attend one form exclusively, you are being disobedient?

I think that is an interesting viewpoint. Is there any merit to it?

Please note that this thread is not meant to pit one form against the other.

Both the OF and EF are legitimate forms of the Mass. We are allowed to celebrate the EF through an indult, special permission, provided we are not doing so because we feel the OF is an invalid form. The EF is not offered in a sufficient number of locations to allow the option everywhere so it is often necessary for those of us who prefer the EF to attend the OF, for me it is mainly when I travel.

 

[agnes_therese]

I would think that referred to Bob’s situation – someone who prefers the EF, but attends OF when/where the EF is not available. As opposed to those who say they would never attend (the form they don’t prefer), even if it meant missing their Sunday obligation.

If the form you prefer is always available to you, it’s certainly NOT disobedient to attend only that one. Both are valid Masses, approved by the Church.

Recently, I saw two different posts where people stated they attend both the OF and EF out of obedience and love for the Church.

One of them said they actually prefer one form, but attend both out of obedience…

Does that mean if you attend one form exclusively, you are being disobedient?

I think that is an interesting viewpoint. Is there any merit to it?

Please note that this thread is not meant to pit one form against the other.

 

[drforjc]

Both the OF and EF are legitimate forms of the Mass. We are allowed to celebrate the EF through an indult, special permission.

Summorum Pontificum made clear that this is not the case. No permission is needed. It is not an indult, it is a valid form of the mass.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Summorum Pontificum made clear that this is not the case. No permission is needed. It is not an indult, it is a valid form of the mass.

This sounds like an Indult to me:

1. INSTRUCTION
   UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE
   OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI
   On the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum,
   of HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI, given motu proprio
2. Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to maintain the ancient tradition. For this reason, Pope John Paul II with a special Indult Quattuor abhinc annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty under certain conditions to restore the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988, exhorted the Bishops to be generous in granting such a faculty for all the faithful who requested it. Pope Benedict continues this policy with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificumregarding certain essential criteria for the Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite, which are recalled here.

 

[ProVobis]

This sounds like an Indult to me:

1. INSTRUCTION
   UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE
   OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI
   On the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum,
   of HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI, given motu proprio
2. Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to maintain the ancient tradition. For this reason, Pope John Paul II with a special Indult Quattuor abhinc annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty under certain conditions to restore the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988, exhorted the Bishops to be generous in granting such a faculty for all the faithful who requested it. Pope Benedict continues this policy with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificumregarding certain essential criteria for the Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite, which are recalled here.

Bob, if you read further:

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents ‘Quattuor abhinc annis’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ are substituted as follows:

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

 

[TrueLight]

This sounds like an Indult to me:

1. INSTRUCTION
   UNIVERSAE ECCLESIAE
   OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI
   On the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum,
   of HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI, given motu proprio
2. Many of the faithful, formed in the spirit of the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council, expressed a lively desire to maintain the ancient tradition. For this reason, Pope John Paul II with a special Indult Quattuor abhinc annos issued in 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty under certain conditions to restore the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of 1988, exhorted the Bishops to be generous in granting such a faculty for all the faithful who requested it. Pope Benedict continues this policy with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificumregarding certain essential criteria for the Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite, which are recalled here.

It was an indult but that is no longer the case.

 

[TrueLight]

It’s a nice personal gesture, I suppose - showing that they deem both forms equally valid - but it strikes me as entirely unnecessary that everyone else should do likewise.

In a way it is almost like reparation for those who consider only one form valid?

 

[Bob_Aliano]

It was an indult but that is no longer the case.

The permission (Indult) of was from the Holy Father allowing an alternative form of the Mass to be said, that is why it is called the Extraordinary Form. It has nothing to do with the fact a priest may say the EF without further permission, provided he is suitably qualified. The later is a further clarification of the the terms of the Indult. At any rate this discussion is drifting away from the OP’s question.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

I think the subjective element is the key thing, here. The Catholic position would seem to be, what is permitted, is permitted, and no more and no less.

But if a person who prefers the EF who would under normal circumstances choose to go to daily mass, but decides not to go to daily mass since they are unable to attend it in the EF when an OF is available nearby that they could attend, that would seem to me to be an indication that something is wrong in their attitude as a Catholic.

 

[ProVobis]

Recently, I saw two different posts where people stated they attend both the OF and EF out of obedience and love for the Church.

One of them said they actually prefer one form, but attend both out of obedience…

Does that mean if you attend one form exclusively, you are being disobedient?

I think that is an interesting viewpoint. Is there any merit to it?

Please note that this thread is not meant to pit one form against the other.

You won’t find this in the Catechism but how about attending both could lead to a “fuller” understanding of our faith?

 

[TrueLight]

I think the subjective element is the key thing, here. The Catholic position would seem to be, what is permitted, is permitted, and no more and no less.

But if a person who prefers the EF who would under normal circumstances choose to go to daily mass, but decides not to go to daily mass since they are unable to attend it in the EF when an OF is available nearby that they could attend, that would seem to me to be an indication that something is wrong in their attitude as a Catholic.

I don’t agree with that.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I don’t agree with that.

Care to elaborate? If I am understanding Leon Bloy correctly, I agree with him.

If I prefer to attend the EF, but also want to go to Daily Mass, and choose not to go to Daily Mass because there is not one in the form in which I prefer, I would hope it would call into question my motives. Mass is Mass, no matter what form it is in, and if I choose to start not attending because I don’t like the form, I think there is a potential problem there that I would certainly bring up with a trusted priest or spiritual director.

 

[Corki]

I think the subjective element is the key thing, here. The Catholic position would seem to be, what is permitted, is permitted, and no more and no less.

But if a person who prefers the EF who would under normal circumstances choose to go to daily mass, but decides not to go to daily mass since they are unable to attend it in the EF when an OF is available nearby that they could attend, that would seem to me to be an indication that something is wrong in their attitude as a Catholic.

I disagree. The choice to attend daily Mass is a personal choice and entirely optional unless one is under vows. Many factors go into ones decision to go to daily Mass including schedule, distance, the language the Mass is offered in, other committments, etc. The form of the Mass being offered is no less valid a reason to attend/not attend daily Mass.

 

[Digitonomy]

But if a person who prefers the EF who would under normal circumstances choose to go to daily mass, but decides not to go to daily mass since they are unable to attend it in the EF when an OF is available nearby that they could attend, that would seem to me to be an indication that something is wrong in their attitude as a Catholic.

Oneofthewomen:

Mass is Mass, no matter what form it is in, and if I choose to start not attending because I don’t like the form, I think there is a potential problem there that I would certainly bring up with a trusted priest or spiritual director.

I’m with TrueLight on this. If you really don’t find a particular mass quite as satisfying, then you don’t have to go if you have other options. That can mean other churches on Sunday, but on weekdays another option would be simply not to go.

If the only mass available is in Romanian or Korean, or the kneelers are terribly uncomfortable, or the pastor’s homily is usually tedious, or there is no air conditioning in the middle of the work day, or the music is atrocious, or the mass is too long, or the incense makes me sneeze, or the prayers of the faithful are too brief, or the panhandlers outside make me nervous, or the parking is difficult, or the risk of bedbugs or fleas or other vermin concerns me, or any combination of the above - I can choose not to go. Yes, it’s a perfectly valid mass with a sacrificial meal and all the rest, but I am free to avoid the associated things I don’t like on a weekday.

 

[alwayslooking]

I highly prefer the EF. I attend the EF mass on Sunday and on Tuesday nights. My work schedule does not allow me to attend EF daily as the closest parish is a half hour away. Therefor I attend the OF on weekday mornings.

In the end I’d rather attend an EF but and OF is better than not being able to attend daily mass.

 

[TrueLight]

If I prefer to attend the EF, but also want to go to Daily Mass, and choose not to go to Daily Mass because there is not one in the form in which I prefer, I would hope it would call into question my motives. Mass is Mass, no matter what form it is in, and if I choose to start not attending because I don’t like the form, I think there is a potential problem there that

I can choose to go to daily mass or not. There is nothing that says I have to go to an OF mass when it is not for my obligation.

I will say this. I think sometimes, the incredulity I see when someone says they only go to one particular form is that people think it is just a preference. For some, it is more than that and there is lots of documentation on what some of the issues may be.

Now one can agree or disagree, but I just wanted to put it out there, that there may be other concerns.

The good thing is I am given the option of attending an EF by the Church and that is what I will attend unless I have to attend another form, like for example, if I am at a conference or an event run by Religious.

… would certainly bring up with a trusted priest or spiritual director.

My trusted priest or spiritual director would agree with me.

 

[ProVobis]

Care to elaborate? If I am understanding Leon Bloy correctly, I agree with him.

If I prefer to attend the EF, but also want to go to Daily Mass, and choose not to go to Daily Mass because there is not one in the form in which I prefer, I would hope it would call into question my motives. Mass is Mass, no matter what form it is in, and if I choose to start not attending because I don’t like the form, I think there is a potential problem there that I would certainly bring up with a trusted priest or spiritual director.

It may not be the form per se but maybe the guitars or EMHCs or amplification which one cannot tolerate. I’ve seen people travel to different parishes simply because they don’t like the priest or congregation at their own parish.