Which is a better term: Traditional, TLM, or EF?

[mick321]

Avoid acronyms. Life’s too short. Honesty is the best policy.

Around here, when one refers to -The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - there is no confusion.
.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

So then the statement that Vatican II redefined parts of the Mass is an error?

I believe sometimes when people refer to ‘Vatican II’, they don’t just refer to the documents of the council, but also the related commissions, for example the commission that established the the new Form of the Mass.

 

[MissRose73]

There are so many terms for the Mass but I would prefer it be called “Holy Mass” because it does not matter the language used, etc.

 

[pnewton]

I use the term freely and I’ve only encountered one poster on these boards who found it insulting.

There are more, I assure you, as there are some that use it as an insult. How would you have felt if the Church announcement had used the term “Old Mass”

I really have no issue with any of the terms listed in the title. It is not for me to say. If those who prefer the pre-1962 liturgy do not object, why should I? I do not take it as a slight of every other Mass as less than Traditional.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There are so many terms for the Mass but I would prefer it be called “Holy Mass” because it does not matter the language used, etc.

Exactly what “is” of importance is the Liturgy being performed by ordained Priests. And this could done in a Boiler Room in the basement of a Prison if need be.

Well, V-II was an ecumenical council thus guided by the HS. Also its a bit of a stretch when comparing V-I with V-II. In V-I we see the CC in all its glory, we have to look at the church, as its laity, as the suffering servants of the Lord. His Mystical body to which the called are attending.

Perhaps it would be better to view the Mass of the first 200 years of the Apostles leading up to V-I.

As we see with the liturgy of this month in the missle. The translation was never incorrect, it was only made clearer, translated, and instituted, thus again this mth. Well last month at some CC.

Just Sayin, I grew up attending V-I Mass, and remember the changes. The authority of the ordained, has never changed, and the liturgy has never changed. Today had St. Justin Martyr been hear he would recognize the Liturgy. He would recognize the CCC since its based on his by Blessed JP-II. What aspect do you propose he wouldn’t recognize? What do you propose he would react to aside from language, which in truth has never been an issue in the church from the Apostles foward.

 

[MikeDunphy]

There are more, I assure you, as there are some that use it as an insult. How would you have felt if the Church announcement had used the term “Old Mass”

I wouldn’t mind, anyway, I’d think you were being descriptive. I’ve sometimes used the phrase “old Mass” myself, in talking about the TLM.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I believe sometimes when people refer to ‘Vatican II’, they don’t just refer to the documents of the council, but also the related commissions, for example the commission that established the the new Form of the Mass.

Yet to be precise this was not part of Vatican II. It came after the Council was closed.