Why Hostility for the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Duesenberg

Guest
More and more I’m shocked by the disrespect and outright hostility some here on CAF hold for the Ordinary Form (OF) of the Mass. Have these hateful critics actually taken the time to sit down and review the official rubrics for the OF Mass? Or do they just judge the OF Mass based on their own personal beliefs and preferences?

Why the obsession with “clown Masses”? Have they ever actually attended a “clown Mass” or is it more Internet lore than anything else? Do they realize the official rubrics for the OF Mass don’t allow for “clown Masses” and other such monstrosities? That a “clown EF Mass” could just as easily be celebrated – and probably would have been at least once if the EF Mass was celebrated in the huge numbers the OF Mass is celebrated?

Or do they denigrate the OF Mass in hopes of attracting more adherents to their beloved EF Mass? Do they feel they can add luster to the EF Mass by attacking the OF Mass? Or are they simply reactionaries who are largely ignorant of the rubrics of the OF Mass?

Perhaps most troubling is their rather ludicrous “side by side comparison” which leads them to conclude the EF Mass bestows more of God’s grace to its attendees than the OF Mass does to those that attend it? That’s so far over the top incorrect that I really don’t know how to respond.

I can understand why some reactionaries act as they do. They have been through a lot. They also don’t see the big picture, they lack perspective, they don’t realize how long it takes to turn an aircraft carrier, etc. But their demonstrated hate of the OF Mass is most troubling. It would be interesting to better understand the genesis of the attackers’ hateful behavior.
 
Last edited:
Let me ask you something:

Can you prefer the EF-- or the OF–without any kind of 'baggage?"

Or, as people start to ask more and more questions, “No, but really, exactly what makes you like the OF?”
“Well, it’s the vernacular, really.”
“Oh, so you think Latin is too hard. You’re just lazy and a modernist”.

“No, but really, exactly what makes you like the EF?”
“Well, it’s kind of the timeless beauty of the Latin.”
“Oh, so you want the average person not to be able to participate or understand a single thing. You want to drag people back to the Middle Ages. You’re a rigid elitist snob.”

You know what? Neither one of the people responding (in 99.9% of the cases for either form) had any kind of agenda OR were ‘lazy’ OR ‘elitist snobs.’

In 99.9% of the hostility, it’s not the people who give their opinions or reasons who are the problems. . .it’s the people ‘listening’ who only hear what their bias wants to hear. To whom “vernacular” is code for ‘lazy progressive lumps who want to change the Mass into a protestant service. To whom “Latin” is code for "rigid elitist snobs who want to drag Catholicism back to the Inquisition.’

And NOTHING satisfies these people. You can assure them until your dying day that you personally have no animus against Latin and your vernacular Masses are reverent and you respect them and wish they would respect you --but you’re still a lazy heretic.

And you can assure them until your dying day that you personally have nothing against the vernacular and your Latin Masses are understandable to you and you respect them and wish they would respect you–but you’re still a rigid, elitist snob trying to force people into the Dark Ages.

For all that people start out with saying that they’re perfectly open minded, tolerant, respectful of others, and would never judge a person based on their choice of one of two equally valid Mass forms, very quickly all we get are people jumping down each other’s throats and accusing them of every extremism under the sun.

It’s a sin and a shame.

I once thought that surely simply sharing my personal preference (and you know, ‘preference’ means you DO think one thing is better than another thing. That’s why it’s a preference. It’s not a ‘diss’ of the other thing or person) with fellow Catholics would lead to greater understanding simply through the act of openness in sharing something I loved and cared about.

Well, I’ve learned my lesson well. At least for the foreseeable future, ‘sharing’ one’s feelings and reasons for choosing the OR or the EF is tantamount to declaring oneself either Torquemada or Martin Luther, and letting the hounds ‘bay’.

Sad.
 
To be honest, I’ve only seen about two people who could be considered as having actual hostility towards the OF here on CAF. But that’s beside the point. I would say that most of this hostility comes from the implementation of the OF right after the Council. It was a huge change. Granted there were some churches who were doing the Mass in the vernacular before but not the Church as a whole. And when you include with the liturgy changes the fact that most churches took out the altar rails and some the High Altars, you might get some folks who start asking questions about the OF. Some folks took it too far and questioned the validity of the Mass. Those folks probably left or went SSPX. Some just questioned the implementation and wished for the stability of the old EF. The OF is getting better and will hopefully recover from the aftermath of the Council.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
In 99.9% of the hostility, it’s not the people who give their opinions or reasons who are the problems. . .it’s the people ‘listening’ who only hear what their bias wants to hear. To whom “vernacular” is code for ‘lazy progressive lumps who want to change the Mass into a protestant service. To whom “Latin” is code for "rigid elitist snobs who want to drag Catholicism back to the Inquisition.’
Click to expand...
I largely agree with that, except I haven’t run into many people who prefer the OF Mass that have an obsessive hatred for the EF Mass. The reverse is not true in my experience. Walk into a big coffee social after a bit OF Mass and they’ll be no discussions about the EF Mass, no focus on liturgical abuses. Flip that around again and there will be plenty of such chatter.

Those that do have a problem with the EF Mass stem from two main groups in my personal experience. First people that are curious, even supportive of the EF Mass but don’t enjoy dealing with rudely severe and artificially pious individuals that often make up such “communities.” Second,sexists/feminists who fear a return to times past. Then again, they’ll only voice their concern if you try to sell the EF to them. They’re not standing around vilifying the EF Mass.

I agree that all this behavior is a sin and a shame. It’s also likely the single biggest factor that most assuredly going to keep the EF from become far more popular than it could be.
 
I think it is just an online phenomena. I don’t ever hear anyone fuss at church or at functions.
 
Last edited:
Entwhistler said:
I would say that most of this hostility comes from the implementation of the OF right after the Council.
Click to expand...
I think three things hit very hard. First, the Church as a whole did a hideous job of implementing the OF Mass. Truly abominable. Second, it chose a particularly septic period in history in which to implement the new Mass. Third, the Church either encouraged or at the very least allowed the destruction of a great many parish sanctuaries. Imagine if all three of these issues has been carefully managed with the exact same OF Mass! In any event, to blame the construct of the OF Mass or question its validity based on how poorly it’s celebrated or how much damage was done to a sanctuary is just wrong.

I don’t know how many times I have heard people say "Father XYZ couldn’t take it any longer and had to open his own private chapel (or join the SSPX or other such group.) Then the recite a string of liturgical abuses – NONE of which derive from the OF Mass rubrics or from Church direction, but from “experimenting” pastors/priests. There was no need to run and hide – it would have been better if they would have stayed and served as strong, responsible, orthodox pastors in the Church.

As a side note, I wonder what would have happened if the Internet of today existed in 1969? What if the laity were able to communicate as they are today and had access to Church documents and expert opinions? I think the Internet is actually what’s pulling the Church out of the liturgical abuse cesspit. Not because of forums like this, but just a great deal better access to information.
 
2towers said:
I think it is just an online phenomena. I don’t ever hear anyone fuss at church or at functions.
Click to expand...
The only places I hear about it are here online and at coffee socials following the EF Mass and Eastern Divine Liturgies (populated largely by “traditional” Latin Rite Catholics.) Then the talk can become terribly toxic very quickly.
 
Last edited:
I got this link from a poster here on another threads. It’s not hostility towards the OF Mass, but preference of the EF Mass. Here is just one reason from this page:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/latina.htm

Fourth reason: The concern for universality.

Pope Pius XI on this issue expressly states that: “The Church - precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time - of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” (Officiorum Omnium, 1922)

Since Latin was spoken in numerous countries for many centuries, it is impartial and does not arouse jealousies between nations. It is the prerogative of no one and therefore can be accepted by all. That is why it has been maintained by the Catholic Church as a universal language, uniting the faithful in the practice of religion for all times and in all places. This is because a universal Church requires a universal language. In speaking on this question Alfons Cardinal Stickler stated that:

“The vulgar tongue has often vulgarized the Mass itself, and the translation of the original Latin has resulted in serious doctrinal misunderstanding and error… This Babel of common worship results in a
loss of external unity in the worldwide Catholic Church, which was once unified in a common voice… We must admit that only a few decades after the reform of the liturgical language, we have lost that former possibility of praying and singing together even in the great international gatherings such as Eucharistic Congresses, or even during meetings with the Pope as the external center of unity of the church. We can no longer sing and pray together”. – The Theological Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass,” a speech given on May 20, 1995 in Fort Lee, New Jersey apud
Catholic Family News, (II:7, July 1995), p. 10

This reason, IMO is like the Catholic faith itself…logical and beautiful.
 
One more reason from the same site:

Sixth reason - Variety of Languages is the result of Sin

The Variety of Languages is a punishment (Genesis 11:7) a consequence of sin; it was inflicted by God that the human race might be dispersed over the face of the earth. The Holy Church, the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ, has been established for the express purpose of destroying sin and uniting all mankind; consequently she must everywhere speak the same language.
 
I am glad i haven not been put through the trial of being stopped at the door over wearing the wrong shoes or something by traditionalists, or anybody for that matter.
 
Last one, I promise. This is just a partial of number 7. Really, all should read the whole thing…it’s quite beautiful:

Seventh Reason: The Example of Christ Himself

It is often neglected or plainly forgotten that Christ Himself worship with the Jewish people in the Hebrew. This Hebrew language was not the contemporary language of the time as Aramaic was the language of the Jews at the time and yet they worshiped God in this dead language to which Christ Himself conformed and approved.

Fr. James L. Meager in his well know work “How Christ said the First Mass” (Tan Books) affirms that “The sermons of these ancient preachers come down to us under the name of The Targuns and Midrashes. But they made no change in the ancient Hebrew of Moses and Temple, and synagogue services to our day (circa 1906) remains in the pure Hebrew, which only the learned Jews now understand. People who find fault because Mass is said in Latin, Greek , and tongues the people do not understand, do not realize that Christ worshipped in the synagogues where the services were in a dead language.”

Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) laid down a rule on the use of the vernacular in the liturgy: “The Church must steadily and firmly heed that although the language of the people may change, the language of liturgy should not be altered. Thus, the Mass must be said in the language in which it was said from the beginning, even if such a language be already, antiquated and strange to the people, for it is wholly enough, if the learned men understand it.” - De Missae Sacrificio, 2, II
 
2towers said:
I am glad i haven not been put through the trial of being stopped at the door over wearing the wrong shoes or something by traditionalists, or anybody for that matter.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I was stopped once at a parish where I am well-known by the clergy for wearing very nice Bermuda shorts. I just pushed past the ushers and took my place in the pews (there was plenty of room.)
 
Its interesting, we have 9000 or so members but no ushers. Once the Priest enters the church the keep everyone late from going in until the priest sits down though, and the open the door for the late comers. I don’t think most people mind that too much. It’s a good church.
 
I have friends who prefer the EF of the mass, but I have never heard a single disparaging remark from them about OF. I was invited to sing at an EF mass (not as part of the schola, which is male only) and found the community positive and welcoming afterwards.

Yes, I’ve seen a few negative posts on CAF in my eleven years here, but even those posts were more about specific masses rather than the OF of the mass itself. Not saying there isn’t any hostility, but I personally haven’t witnessed it.
 
No, that is the total membership. We have a Saturday vigil and on Sunday there are like four or five services. I think the church will sit only a 1000
 
I just want to say one thing about the infamous “clown Masses”. From what I read a long time ago, is that there was a circus themed Mass done in the early 80’s. This was offered in California at the bicentennial of a city that was a headquarters of one the major circuses of the country. Many of the performers,trainers,etc, etc. were Catholic. It was said that every business, church, other organizations were taking part in this celebration. Now, probably not the wisest of decisions, but yes, there was a Mass provided to these Catholics dressed in the costume of their profession.
Of course, this was video taped and thus, the urban myth that there were dozens and dozens of these Masses was born. This is the only clown Mass that I have ever heard of that can be verified. Could be others, but not that I have ever heard about or read about.
 
I think a lot of the hatred comes from a lack of education. We, can agree, I think, that there is hardly anyone full of more zeal, than a relatively new convert. The trouble is, that many have been “educated” by radicalized anti-VaticanII websites, and proponents of such a mindset.
I came across this commentary this morning and I learned something new. That may be a failure to comprehend in new converts. We never stop learning and understanding. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/summorum-pontificum-calls-us-deeper-into-liturgys-mystery Who knew that Pope St. PiusX was the first to use the phrase “active participation” in 1903. Now this may be common knowledge to some, but I had never read it until today. So, I beg all you folks, full of zeal and love for the Church, just get your facts straight. I know how it feels, since I was absent from the Church for several years, and I felt like a kid in a candy store when I came back. It has been many years now, and I am still trying to learn and understand.
 
Indyann said:
I think a lot of the hatred comes from a lack of education. We, can agree, I think, that there is hardly anyone full of more zeal, than a relatively new convert. The trouble is, that many have been “educated” by radicalized anti-VaticanII websites, and proponents of such a mindset.

I came across this commentary this morning and I learned something new. That may be a failure to comprehend in new converts. We never stop learning and understanding. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/summorum-pontificum-calls-us-deeper-into-liturgys-mystery Who knew that Pope St. PiusX was the first to use the phrase “active participation” in 1903. Now this may be common knowledge to some, but I had never read it until today. So, I beg all you folks, full of zeal and love for the Church, just get your facts straight. I know how it feels, since I was absent from the Church for several years, and I felt like a kid in a candy store when I came back. It has been many years now, and I am still trying to learn and understand.
Click to expand...
Good insight. I agree…
 
Actually, there is a real issue in the Novus Ordo Missae in its frequent permission in the rubrics for the priest to use “similar words” or to give “brief explanations” of what is going on.

As Archbishop Bugnini notes in his massive book on his liturgical novelties, the point of this was to allow for maximum creativity.

When people say, I wish Father would just do what’s in the Missal…one problem is, the very Missal rubrics permit quite a bit of latitude and options.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top