What's so great about the Tridentine Mass?

[slh3016]

When you phrase a question about the Tridentine Mass the way you have and then pose it on the “Traditional Catholicism” subforum, I don’t think you should be surprised that it isn’t exactly warmly received. I mean, in your OP you are asking traditional Catholics why they are “all worked up”, “splitting hairs”, “feel they are more pious than Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Mass”, “feel they are a little more devout” and follow this up by saying “It’s almost elitist”.

Do you see what I mean? I am trying to be helpful since you seem sincerely puzzled by the response. It is the way you pose the question and to whom you pose it. Posed the way it is, it is almost guaranteed to provoke a negative response. While I don’t suppose this was the intent, it is a sensitive issue involving deeply felt religious beliefs. :yup:

Here is my OP:

Disclaimer: I am in RCIA converting from Evangelical/Southern Baptist Protestantism in the South soooooo please have patience with my ignorance about these issues

Questions:

What are the differences between the Tridentine (Latin) Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass?

Why do many hail the Tridentine Mass as being the most “legitimate” or feel that the Novus Ordo Mass is “lesser than” the Tridentine Mass?

Why do people get all worked up (“splitting hairs”) regarding the differences or feel that they are more pious than Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Mass. I know this is stereotyping but I have friends who attend a parish that going to start having Tridentine Mass soon (the first in our diocese in like 20 years) and I get the feeling that they feel a little more devout by attending this particular parish and are especially excited about the change in Mass. It’s almost elitist.

Being new to the Catholic scene, I’m just trying to figure out what the big deal is.

What subforum should I have posted this on?

I tried to make it understandable that I did NOT think that all who preferred the Tridentine Mass had those attitudes and I fully admitted, in advance, that I was being guilty of stereotyping. I was trying to ascertain why, in some/many people, these attitudes ARE present regarding the Tridentine Mass.

Certainly, you’ll admit that* some * people are guilty of those things. Not all, but some. If I stepped on any toes, I am EXTREMELY sorry.

 

[bobballen_18]

Yes, none, and there are none in my area and haven’t been for 20+ years. There is going to be one starting in August and this has drawn a lot of attention (and opinions).

Great! I hope you go see what it’s like!

 

[Ignatius]

Disclaimer: I am in RCIA converting from Evangelical/Southern Baptist Protestantism in the South soooooo please have patience with my ignorance about these issues

Questions:

What are the differences between the Tridentine (Latin) Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass?

Why do many hail the Tridentine Mass as being the most “legitimate” or feel that the Novus Ordo Mass is “lesser than” the Tridentine Mass?

Why do people get all worked up (“splitting hairs”) regarding the differences or feel that they are more pious than Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Mass. I know this is stereotyping but I have friends who attend a parish that going to start having Tridentine Mass soon (the first in our diocese in like 20 years) and I get the feeling that they feel a little more devout by attending this particular parish and are especially excited about the change in Mass. It’s almost elitist.

Being new to the Catholic scene, I’m just trying to figure out what the big deal is

It’s really in the experience. It’s like Bach music; you just can’t explain it with words. But even an Ordinary Form Mass can be very beautiful. If you get a chance, go to a Mass at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, Al. on the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ (Corpus Christi) and I think you will see.

 

[Brendan]

1. before Vatican II, there were some priests who would pray the Latin mass so fast, some people had a hard time keeping up. So this leads to some people saying that they prefer the vernacular better because it allows them to know what’s going on durning the mass.

As an FYI, this also happened in the O.F. Mass. When I was an altar boy, there was a priest in our parish that would say the 8:00am daily Mass in about 15 minutes.

Only the more senior altar boys were assigned to that Mass, as they were the only ones who could keep up

 

[OraLabora]

Most of the time when I was able to get to daily Mass at St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal, it would be about 25 minutes (OF), with a very brief one or two sentence homily, on an ordinary weekday, maybe 3 or 5 minutes more if a feast or solemnity with Gloria or Gloria and Credo. At 15 minutes I expect the priest had his foot pretty firmly on the gas pedal

“Speed Masses” are nothing new, nor have they gone away

There’s one around here but it’s not in my parish. Others have told me about it. It’s a big sports area here, a bit of a cycling mecca in summer and a major ski area in winter. There’s a priest near at a parish near a ski hill that does an 8 am 20 minute Sunday Mass (in French) so skiers and cyclists can on their way quickly.

 

[Napoli]

I find the title of this thread a little confusing. I wonder the opposite. What’s so great about the new mass… excuse me… Novus Ordo?

I think if you honestly answer the second question, the first question becomes moot. The Traditional Latin Mass is the “Mass”. The “novus ordo” is the new order of the Mass. Seems self explanatory.

 

[Glennon_P]

I find the title of this thread a little confusing. I wonder the opposite. What’s so great about the new mass… excuse me… Novus Ordo?

I think if you honestly answer the second question, the first question becomes moot. The Traditional Latin Mass is the “Mass”. The “novus ordo” is the new order of the Mass. Seems self explanatory.

What’s so great about the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

It is the Mass. Holy Mother Church, led by the Vicar of Christ on earth, His Holiness Pope Paul VI, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has provided it for us.

Repeating: IT IS THE MASS.

The Extraordinary Form is also the Mass. Holy Mother Church, led by the Vicar of Christ on earth, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has provided it for us.

Both Forms are the Mass. Period.

 

[ProVobis]

And from the Baltimore Catechism

Q. 916. When and where are the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ?

A. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration in the Mass.

Q. 917. What is the Mass?

A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.

Q. 918. Why is this Sacrifice called the Mass?

A. This Sacrifice is called the “Mass” very probably from the words “Ite Missa est,” used by the priest as he tells the people to depart when the Holy Sacrifice is ended.

Q. 919. What is a sacrifice?

A. A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.

Q. 920. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.

Q. 921. How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same – Christ our Blessed Lord; and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.

Q. 922. What were the ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered?

A. The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were:

    To honor and glorify God;
    To thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world;
    To satisfy God's justice for the sins of men;
    To obtain all graces and blessings.

Q. 923. How are the fruits of the Mass distributed?

A. The fruits of the Mass are distributed thus:

    The first benefit is bestowed on the priest who says the Mass;
    The second on the person for whom the Mass is said, or for the intention for which it is said;
    The third on those who are present at the Mass, and particularly on those who serve it, and
    The fourth on all the faithful who are in communion with the Church.

Q. 924. Are all Masses of equal value in themselves or do they differ in worth?

A. All Masses are equal in value in themselves and do not differ in worth, but only in the solemnity with which they are celebrated or in the end for which they are offered.

 

[Thomas_White]

Here is my OP:

What subforum should I have posted this on?

I tried to make it understandable that I did NOT think that all who preferred the Tridentine Mass had those attitudes and I fully admitted, in advance, that I was being guilty of stereotyping. I was trying to ascertain why, in some/many people, these attitudes ARE present regarding the Tridentine Mass.

Certainly, you’ll admit that* some * people are guilty of those things. Not all, but some. If I stepped on any toes, I am EXTREMELY sorry.

I will try to explain. I don’t agree that some people are “guilty” of their sincere beliefs. They have a right to their religious beliefs whether I agree with them or not.

It is again the way the question is posed. If we simply ask why some people hold certain beliefs about the Tridentine Mass, then I think it is a fair question. But I also don’t think it is a question easily answered. I for one just don’t know why a particular person might believe the Tridentine Mass is in some way a more authentic Mass, even though it is my own personal preference. So, it is left for an individual who does believe this to provide an answer. But I don’t believe this means they are guilty of anything. We should be careful not to become judgmental about the religious beliefs of others while remembering that both forms of the Mass are valid.

 

[Convert_in_99]

First of all, welcome home to the Catholic Church! :extrahappy:

Second, you unknowingly picked at topic that usually winds up in an exhaustive and heated debate. I apologize in advance.

You are right that both forms of the Mass are acceptable and valid. You may attend whichever form suits you and your tastes best.

Again, Welcome Home!

 

[Genesis315]

The ordinary form of the Mass is basically a very simplified rite–in both the prayers and actions of the priest–compared to the extraordinary form, which came before it. To me, it’s like comparing the Apostles Creed with the Credo of the People of God (starting at par. 8). Both are true and good and communicate the Catholic faith, but one does so in more explicit depth.

For me, I didn’t really appreciate what Mass really was until I attended the extraordinary form for a while. Even without knowing Latin or even following the prayers in English for the first few times, it opened my eyes. It helped me to better appreciate what I was doing at Mass in either form. Just like studying the Catechism will help one truly and more deeply appreciate the significance of the clauses of the Apostle’s Creed, so did worshiping according to the older rite help me better appreciate the significance of what was happening in the new.

Of course, Mass isn’t primarily meant to be pedagogical, but rather it is a means by which we adore God, give Him thanks and praise, and make reparations for sin. But the law of prayer does affect how those who pray it believe–it certainly affected me in that way.

 

[Devekut]

I just really get the impression that the OP is more of an elitist for saying that people who prefer the TLM are elitists. OP has stated that the TLM is more rigid and basically lacks humility, as it is a snobby form of Mass.

So, my question to the OP is “what makes you think you are better because you appreciate the minimal version of the Mass?”. It is like people who live in a house without a mirror or toilet and eat only what they hunt, or the people who run bare foot. the are super judgey because their lifestyle is obviously awesome and simple, as nature surely intended.

 

[rfournier103]

Disclaimer: I am in RCIA converting from Evangelical/Southern Baptist Protestantism in the South soooooo please have patience with my ignorance about these issues

Questions:

What are the differences between the Tridentine (Latin) Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass?

Why do many hail the Tridentine Mass as being the most “legitimate” or feel that the Novus Ordo Mass is “lesser than” the Tridentine Mass?

Why do people get all worked up (“splitting hairs”) regarding the differences or feel that they are more pious than Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Mass. I know this is stereotyping but I have friends who attend a parish that going to start having Tridentine Mass soon (the first in our diocese in like 20 years) and I get the feeling that they feel a little more devout by attending this particular parish and are especially excited about the change in Mass. It’s almost elitist.

Being new to the Catholic scene, I’m just trying to figure out what the big deal is

You picked a whopper of a topic!

I will say this for you: you jump right in. Good for you!

I am a novice when it comes to the EF (Extraordinary Form), but I appreciate the pious wording of the prayers, and the very reverent way that the Mass is offered. That is part of the appeal to me. Another thing that appeals to me is the way that the Holy Eucharist is recieved. Let me explain:

As a Catholic you will accept and believe that Jesus Christ IS present in the Holy Eucharist. That is THE focal point of the sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus Christ is the Almighty King of the Universe. EVERY Christian - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant - believes that. I firmly believe that the King of the Universe should be recieved on the tongue as He was in the EF. I know that the Ordinary Form allows it to be placed in the hand of the recipiant, but I personally feel that I am completely unworthy to “handle” Christ. What if a crumb remains on my hands and is left somewhere? How disrespectful is that? The priest’s hands are consecrated by the bishop when he is ordained. My hands have had no such blessing… I also genuflect before I recieve the Eucharist. The current guidelines say that a simple nod of the head or a slight bow is sufficient, but I prefer a more reverential show of respect. After all, Jesus is right in front of me!

One thing that was a change FOR THE BETTER was that a three year cycle of Sunday readings was introduced, labeled “A”, “B”, and “C”. And there was a two year cycle of readings for Daily Mass, labeled “1” and “2”. Before THAT change was made, the same readings at mass were used year… after year… after year… More Sacred Scripture was something that was needed. I also like that the priest prays aloud.

There is ALOT more I could go into, but this is all I have time for now.

A great question that most wouldn’t even care to ask. It shows a desire to know your faith in a way that many don’t care to.

God bless you on your journey, and please don’t be a stranger.

 

[slh3016]

First of all, welcome home to the Catholic Church! :extrahappy:

Second, you unknowingly picked at topic that usually winds up in an exhaustive and heated debate. I apologize in advance.

You are right that both forms of the Mass are acceptable and valid. You may attend whichever form suits you and your tastes best.

Again, Welcome Home!

Thank you! Yes, it appears I did :sad_yes:

 

[slh3016]

You picked a whopper of a topic!

I will say this for you: you jump right in. Good for you!

I am a novice when it comes to the EF (Extraordinary Form), but I appreciate the pious wording of the prayers, and the very reverent way that the Mass is offered. That is part of the appeal to me. Another thing that appeals to me is the way that the Holy Eucharist is recieved. Let me explain:

As a Catholic you will accept and believe that Jesus Christ IS present in the Holy Eucharist. That is THE focal point of the sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus Christ is the Almighty King of the Universe. EVERY Christian - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant - believes that. I firmly believe that the King of the Universe should be recieved on the tongue as He was in the EF. I know that the Ordinary Form allows it to be placed in the hand of the recipiant, but I personally feel that I am completely unworthy to “handle” Christ. What if a crumb remains on my hands and is left somewhere? How disrespectful is that? The priest’s hands are consecrated by the bishop when he is ordained. My hands have had no such blessing… I also genuflect before I recieve the Eucharist. The current guidelines say that a simple nod of the head or a slight bow is sufficient, but I prefer a more reverential show of respect. After all, Jesus is right in front of me!

One thing that was a change FOR THE BETTER was that a three year cycle of Sunday readings was introduced, labeled “A”, “B”, and “C”. And there was a two year cycle of readings for Daily Mass, labeled “1” and “2”. Before THAT change was made, the same readings at mass were used year… after year… after year… More Sacred Scripture was something that was needed. I also like that the priest prays aloud.

There is ALOT more I could go into, but this is all I have time for now.

A great question that most wouldn’t even care to ask. It shows a desire to know your faith in a way that many don’t care to.

God bless you on your journey, and please don’t be a stranger.

Thank you for clearly explaining why you prefer the EF. This helps me a ton.

 

[slh3016]

I will try to explain. I don’t agree that some people are “guilty” of their sincere beliefs. They have a right to their religious beliefs whether I agree with them or not.

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.

It is again the way the question is posed. If we simply ask why some people hold certain beliefs about the Tridentine Mass, then I think it is a fair question. But I also don’t think it is a question easily answered. I for one just don’t know why a particular person might believe the Tridentine Mass is in some way a more authentic Mass, even though it is my own personal preference. So, it is left for an individual who does believe this to provide an answer. But I don’t believe this means they are guilty of anything. We should be careful not to become judgmental about the religious beliefs of others while remembering that both forms of the Mass are valid.

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”

 

[slh3016]

The ordinary form of the Mass is basically a very simplified rite–in both the prayers and actions of the priest–compared to the extraordinary form, which came before it. To me, it’s like comparing the Apostles Creed with the Credo of the People of God (starting at par. 8). Both are true and good and communicate the Catholic faith, but one does so in more explicit depth.

For me, I didn’t really appreciate what Mass really was until I attended the extraordinary form for a while. Even without knowing Latin or even following the prayers in English for the first few times, it opened my eyes. It helped me to better appreciate what I was doing at Mass in either form. Just like studying the Catechism will help one truly and more deeply appreciate the significance of the clauses of the Apostle’s Creed, so did worshiping according to the older rite help me better appreciate the significance of what was happening in the new.

Of course, Mass isn’t primarily meant to be pedagogical, but rather it is a means by which we adore God, give Him thanks and praise, and make reparations for sin. But the law of prayer does affect how those who pray it believe–it certainly affected me in that way.

 

[slh3016]

I just really get the impression that the OP is more of an elitist for saying that people who prefer the TLM are elitists. OP has stated that the TLM is more rigid and basically lacks humility, as it is a snobby form of Mass.

Again, I am truly sorry if I gave you that impression. I have apologized again and again for coming across the wrong way or phrasing something the wrong way…….can we just let that rest now?

So, my question to the OP is** “what makes you think you are better because you appreciate the minimal version of the Mass?”**. It is like people who live in a house without a mirror or toilet and eat only what they hunt, or the people who run bare foot. the are super judgey because their lifestyle is obviously awesome and simple, as nature surely intended.

I don’t think either is better….I’m trying to figure out why one side thinks their opinion is better than the other.

For example, some people rave about caviar as it is a very expensive and rare dish. Maybe those people have refined tastes or they grew up enjoying caviar regularly…who knows what the reason is. That is their opinion and they are certainly entitled to it.

However, there are those like me that, although caviar may be the more exquisite dish, I’ll take pizza over it any day. I’m not going to judge the caviar-eaters and I certainly hope they won’t judge me.

Both are delicious.

 

[rfournier103]

Thank you for clearly explaining why you prefer the EF. This helps me a ton.

You are very welcome.

As I said - I am a novice when it comes to the EF. I’ve been to maybe a dozen or so EF Masses; the most recent being about three weeks ago. I bought a very nice missal that has a VERY detailed 1962 liturgy, and that has helped me follow it immensely.

The two forms are VERY different and this is a very sensitive topic for some people. I know of a website that does a very good job explaining the theology of the EF and the differences between the two forms; but as good as the site is, it’s rather slanted against the OF and I’m not going to post the link here for two reasons: 1 - it’s a violation of the forum rules; and 2 - as a new Catholic, I don’t want the wrong message to reach your ears.

Perhaps in a private message I can cut and paste some of the “good stuff” from their website; but I will refrain from doing so here so that the conversation doesn’t degenerate into an argument over theology.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT BOTH FORMS ARE VALID AND THE CHURCH DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE LITURGY.

 

[Lormar]

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT BOTH FORMS ARE VALID AND THE CHURCH DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE LITURGY.

Very true, except they didn’t just “makes changes” but rewrote the entire Mass in the sixties.

I clearly remember asking why, if the whole intent of the new Mass was to make it in a language understandable to all, they didn’t just use the English translation of the old Mass (here in the USA that is; I am certain that every country had in their respective missals the Mass in their native language alongside the Latin).