Fair enough. What I’d really like to know is what religious beliefs are different between the two……or is just preference? If preference, that’s an understandable answer. We all have our preferences, but if one asserts that his or her preference is because of some deep theological difference, then I’d like an explanation of that difference for my own benefit. What I don’t think is fair is for someone to assert their preference as fact or superior with no facts to support it.
Maybe “guilty” is a poor choice of wording, but I did not mean it as something one should necessarily feel shame about, but as in the sense of “I’m guilty of preferring pizza over salad”
I understand, and it is okay. I will try to explain as best I can. Both the EF and OF are valid forms of the Mass, and there is no difference in religious belief between the two. In that sense, it is strictly a matter of individual preference. And the reason it is a matter of individual preference is that there really are differences between the OF and the EF Mass, the most obvious one of course that the OF Mass is most often said in the vernacular and the EF Mass is always said in Latin.
There are other differences. In a word, many feel that the EF Mass is more sacred. The atmosphere of the EF Mass, much quieter and more conducive to silent prayer and contemplation, is true to very long traditions of the Catholic faith. The OF Mass, on the other hand, is more open to the world, with singing, verbal responses and the shaking of hands and so on. There is often talking prior to the beginning of Mass, a time once reserved for silent prayer. Instead of facing the Crucifix on the high altar, the priest stands behind an altar table and faces the congregation. Many believe this allows the congregation to become more fully engaged in the service, while others would say this should not be the point at all–that engagement should be on an interior and spiritual rather than on what they perceive as a temporal or worldly level. There is something of a fault line here, and it is a point of contention.
Vatican II was an ecumenical council, and without doubt the OF Mass represented an attempt at ecumenism. However, many feel it is closer to a Protestant service. While that may be neither here nor there, many did not like this change while others readily accepted it.
But this has had the result of introducing a difference that had not been present before, and it persists to this day. It is at times contentious. For this, Vatican II is often criticized.
Why I personally prefer the EF Mass is no doubt a result of having been raised in the pre-Vatican II Church. We attended a Tridentine Mass before every single school day. By the later years of elementary school, there was for us nothing mysterious about the Tridentine Mass or its Latin language. We had by then attended many hundreds of Tridentine Masses, and maybe several thousand by the time we graduated from high school. It was all we had ever known of the Catholic Mass. It is probably helpful to know that a number of people on this subforum share this background and also to realize Vatican II represented a sea change for the Church.
In this sense, I don’t even feel that for me the term ‘traditional Catholic’ is really altogether correct. From my perspective, this is Catholicism. But I am nevertheless happy enough to attend an OF Mass and do so regularly, knowing very well it is a valid Mass. I just don’t know why some who are new to EF Mass might feel the way you have described.
I hope this will help in your understanding of the issue.
