Why do you regularly attend the tridentine mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MillTownCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MillTownCath

Guest
Why do you decide to go to the traditional mass instead of the new mass?

Please be respectful. Thanks šŸ‘
 
I donā€™t post [often], I sometimes lurk here nowdays, but for the sake of being honest I must say that I voted, and I chose the second option.
 
I find it troubling that our current Pope and the previous one publicly celebrate a Mass that contains ā€œtheologically concernsā€, at least if this poll is to be taken at face value.
 
MillTownCath said:
Why do you decide to go to the traditional mass instead of the new mass?

Please be respectful. Thanks šŸ‘
Click to expand...
Schoking polls results.
Catholic Church is not a result of personal preferencesā€¦ tastesā€¦whimsā€¦ concernsā€¦theological concernsā€¦
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
Schoking polls results.
Catholic Church is not a result of personal preferencesā€¦ tastesā€¦whimsā€¦ concernsā€¦theological concernsā€¦
Click to expand...
Why shocking? The poll hardly indicates anything different from what is commonly known.

While the Church is not the result of personal preferences, clearly personal preferences play a large part in typical services these days. They play a larger part than ever before.
 
Poll results are showing ā€œtheological concerns with novus ordoā€ but I have not seen any explanations describing reasons for such a view.

I canā€™t vote as I have yet to attend a mass in Tridentine Form.

šŸæ
 
I like it, there are elements I prefer to the way a typical english mass. I think we must all agree now, that any liguistic concerns have been addressed in the full, the new translation is fantastic.

But what is lacking, for me, is the palpatible dignity of the the melenia and a half (or so) old style of worship. I feel more connected to the communion of Saints, I appreciate what I see is greater reverence, right down to kneeling while receiving.

That said, I have no particular problem being at an English mass.
 
There is no way someone can choose option 2 without subsequently being accused of pitting one form against the other.

Just something to think about.

Edited: One can certainly vote, but I wouldnā€™t go too much into the explanation. šŸ¤·
 
crazzeto said:
I think we must all agree now, that any liguistic concerns have been addressed in the full,ā€¦
Click to expand...
I donā€™t agree. English is still English and not Latin. Different nuances, different sounds.
 
ProVobis said:
I donā€™t agree. English is still English and not Latin. Different nuances, different sounds.
Click to expand...
You really canā€™t say that, and know much about this history of liturgical worship. Itā€™s not like worship in the venacular is some invention of the 20th century. The fact that Latin is used at all is itā€™s self proof that worship in the venacular is a historical reality.

Latin is fine, but the english is every bit as fine. Just like switching from Greek to Latin was fine, just like St. Sabas allowing his Egyption and Arminian followers to worshing using a liturgy in their language (~500ā€™s A.D.) was fine.

The complaint you make canā€™t be made with out throwing the Latin, Arminian and Coptic (venacular) liturgies all into question. One can, at some point, even say the same for the greek. As I doubt St. Peter spoke much greek.
 
I didnā€™t vote as I can only make it to the EF a few times a year at best.

If I could get there for every Mass I would always assist at the EF. I love the reverence. I love to kneel to receive our Lord. I love to hear Gregorian Chant after receiving.

The whole experience helps me to feel closer to heaven. There are a lot of little things too. Even at my local parish which celebrates the OF exclusively the experience has changed for me ever since the Tabernacle was returned to its proper position ā€“ front and centre right below the crucifix. As we celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass it is feeling more like we are in the court of heaven than it did before.
In other words, even the architecture can make a difference.

But especially the music. In most circumstances I feel that the music should be holy and majestic. I appreciate the effort made by our choir, but the choice of music is generally uninspiring.
 
Bearontherun said:
Poll results are showing ā€œtheological concerns with novus ordoā€ but I have not seen any explanations describing reasons for such a view.
Click to expand...
The forum rules discourage qualitative comparisons between the two forms.
 
I voted for option 2 although the reasons are not exactly theological. For me it is the question of continuity and tradition. I find it important to worship the way Catholics did for centuries. That connects me to the sainst and all those who lived the faith before us. I fully understand that the EF mass we have today did of course develop over the centuries. But the OF mass was not a result of organic development from the EF form and that makes it difficult for me to relate to that form. I feel many things are missing from it, although of course, the main elements are still there. As long as I am allowed this preference, I will attend the EF form of the mass.
 
I prefer the Traditional Mass for one reason. You know what to expect. A reverent Mass. With the Ordinary Form, you might get a reverent Mass, you might not. There is simply no telling beforehand what direction an Ordinary Form Mass will takeā€™. They vary tremendously from place to place and week to week.
 
I voted that it is my preference. If the OF is an accepted form of mass by the Holy See; who am I to judge.

I regularly attend both (daily in the OF, Sunday in the EF). Both have strong points. Both are approved forms of the mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top