What form of the Roman Rite do you prefer? (Poll)

  • Thread starter Thread starter imo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Such a ban used to be in place. One of the many things we lost switching platforms.
 
This. I’ve been to some very reverent OF Masses. I’m in an FSSP parish now, but when I travel and can’t find FSSP I always manage to find a good OF Mass.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Much of my personal issue with the OF revolves simply around the poor choice in music. But I recognize that that’s not a problem with the form itself, so much as with the pastor and the music ministers.
Click to expand...
I also dislike the modern church styles that basically look like a warehouse from the outside and have stadium seating on the inside.
 
Great article! And I agree with the author. From the studies I’ve done and the numerous books I’ve read, the Ordinary Form - when celebrated properly - is in many ways more “traditional” than the Extraordinary Form, and is more in keeping with the liturgical approach and traditions of the enitre Church (East and West). That’s not to downplay the beauty of the Extraordinary Form and it’s role in Church history since Trent. In many ways, it’s just to recognize that the history of the Roman liturgy didn’t begin with Trent, nor did it come to a climax at Trent.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I’ve found that the bulk of folks who have problems with the Ordinary Form don’t have problems with the form itself so much as with the abuse of the form and the banal music that is permitted. But, if one can find a reverent Ordinary Form with traditional music (or, preferably, Gregorian Chant), then most of the issues really disappear.
Click to expand...
That’s sort of the problem though, isn’t it? We don’t find these abuses where the EF is said and probably not in the Maronite, Ruthenian and other Catholic rites, but I certainly couldn’t speak to that. The idea that one should have to search for reverent OF mass without abuses or that people have questions about the licitness or, God forbid, the validity of a mass, perhaps because there are actual abuses, because they are confused by all the options including options for priests to make stuff up at certain parts that aren’t abuses, or the priest doesn’t seem to believe, is just tragic.

This question is directed at you specifically, but why do these problems arise within the OF? Or more importantly, what is being done about them?
 
There are certainly abuses in the Maronite, Byzantine, and other liturgies of the Church. Always have been. I remember hearing a priest/liturgical scholar quoting a homily from St. John Chrysostom where he bemoans the abuses that were taking place in the liturgy in his day. The liturgical spoon in use among the Byzantines was initially condemned by the Byzantine patriarchs as a liturgical abuse.

Heck, in the Roman West orchestral Masses were condemned by popes as liturgical abuse. And then there is the well-known and oft-discussed 30 minute Sunday Low Mass.

The point is, liturgical abuse - even widespread liturgical abuse - is nothing new. In my experience, the reason liturgical abuse in the Extraordinary Form is at a minimum today is because the priests celebrating it tend to come from a more reverent and orthodox persuasion. But I’ve known plenty of similar priests in the past who exclusively celebrated the Ordinary Form, and always with great reverence.

It’s not the form of the Mass/Liturgy that’s the problem.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
The point is, liturgical abuse - even widespread liturgical abuse - is nothing new. In my experience, the reason liturgical abuse in the Extraordinary Form is at a minimum today is because the priests celebrating it tend to come from a more reverent and orthodox persuasion. But I’ve known plenty of similar priests in the past who exclusively celebrated the Ordinary Form, and always with great reverence.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The EF today is celebrated by enthusiasts, which is great for those of us to attend the EF. We get mass as it is intended in almost every instance.

But, what would happen if Fr. Ed, who plays fast and loose with the OF, was suddenly required to say the EF?

There is no doubt that there would be widespread abuse if the EF were the only form of mass today (just as there was before Vatican II).
 
“…celebrated by enthusiasts…” That’s the phrase/imagery I was trying to get at, but couldn’t come up with the words. I feel a cold setting in… 🤧😷😂
 
The ideal for me is a rotation between the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form each week. I’ve learned so much about the Ordinary Form of the Mass just by praying the Extraordinary Form and the reverse is also true. I wish more people had access to the Extraordinary Form and I wish many who only attended the Extraordinary Form would also frequently attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Both are incredibly beautiful and resonate with me in different ways.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Absolutely. The EF today is celebrated by enthusiasts, which is great for those of us to attend the EF. We get mass as it is intended in almost every instance.
Click to expand...
My EF is celebrated by an aged retired member of the clergy who is simply celebrating it the way he used to celebrate and probably never stopped doing.
 
I’m very fortunate to attend an OF Mass at a Benedictine monastery that is done with exceptional beauty. The propers and ordinary are done in Gregorian chant exactly as per the Graduale Romanum, including the Gradual instead of the resposorial psalm. The rest, including the readings, are in French plainchant. The only thing not sung, is the homily. All is sung a cappella, with a magnificent pipe organ for a prelude, Offertory (after the antiphon) and postlude. All 4 EPs are used.

It proves there is nothing wrong with the OF. It is noble, while at the same time simple and unencumbered with burdensome rubrics that in the words of the abbot were so distracting it prevented the celebrant from actually praying the Mass.

I wish that the efforts were concentrated on improving the celebration of the OF.
 
Why put this survey in traditional catholicism ? I almost missed it as I normally don’t go there.
 
You do have a point that this would be better in “Liturgy and Sacraments” subforum.
 
You assume that people do not have reasons for their personal preference.
 
Ah, before I set off my mouth before my brain is in gear, I see your point in that today, as opposed to the ‘old days’ there is more of a culture of ‘rugged individualism’ among priests (just as there is among lay).

One would hope that Father Ed the ad lib OF, would have it made clear that any such ‘individual touches’ in the EF OR the OF are not to be done. Of course that’s the case NOW with the OF and we’ve seen how successful that was with the OK Boomer crowd. . .but one can hope.
 
Last edited:
I’m sure they have reasons, much like I prefer church buildings with older style architecture while some people prefer churches with modern style architecture. The Church says that the two forms of Mass, however, are equal in all ways.
 
I don’t know if the Church says this or not. Pope Benedict XVI said they were two different expressions of the same lex orandi, ie the law of prayer. So it could be interpreted that way I suppose.
As to you Church Architecture analogy, yes we have preferences, and I believe we can all learn from people’s preferences. The same goes for the liturgy. Indeed, I think that was one of Pope Benedict XVI intentions. So if we do not explain our preferences, how do we learn from each other? I just think its a shut down conversation as to why one thinks one form is better than the other. I rarely see these discussions on this forum taking a turn that would be considered improper towards a valid liturgy of the Church, YMMV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top