EF a different rite than OF, some say.

[CB Catholic]

Originally Posted by TrueLight

It's a discussion we constantly have on this forum. Some feel that the term Novus Ordo shouldn't be used at all. Some say that is what most people use in real life.

Some feel we should always use "Ordinary Form (OF) for the Novus Ordo or Extraordinary Form (EF) for the TLM.

But that's another topic.

In real life most people just say "the Mass". It is only on forums such as these that we get into such issues. The average pew Catholic never even says EF or OF. They would call the EF the "old Latin Mass". For sure. Unless you are in an EF parish, or a parish that offers both forms, most people just say "the Mass".

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by Jegudiel

I'm sorry but I disagree. When someone quite correctly uses "EF" to describe one form of the Mass and then uses "NO" in the same sentence that begs further scrutiny. Why have they adopted the Pope's nomenclature for one form of the Mass (which they clearly prefer based on their other comments) and not the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

Why do such people typically dig-in when someone charitably explains to them that many view "novus ordo" and particularly "NO" to be pejorative labels? How could they not intuitively realize that "NO Mass" is going to offend many? Why do they invariably further denigrate the OF Mass as they are digging in?

My own opinion is that they do realize that many find such labels offensive. Sadly they use the labels as a quiet way to denigrate the OF Mass and/or to antagonize those that love the OF Mass. Either ways it's very obvious.

I disagree that it is obvious. I also preffer the OF, but am honestly not offended when people talk about the NO, so again I can only assume you have had some bad experiences with people who purposefully used this term in a derogatory fashion. I have never heard it used in a derogatory fashion, and I was only introduced to the language of EF/OF on this forum. I realize that you really believe that they meant it in a derogatory fashion, but there really are many other reasons, the primary of which being thats just how they've always heard it. Even if they do refer to the EF and the NO, it is very likely that that is how they are used to hearing them reffered. Or it could simply be the case that they have never before heard of a reason to use one over the other and so use them interchangeably. I know I have done that when writing posts, only to catch myself and change it in time because I was afraid of someone getting upset and assuming I meant it in a derogatory fashion. So I must disagree that the obvious answer is that they meant it in a derogatory manner. I could very easily have done the same thing and trust me, I would not have meant it in a derogatory fashion. Assuming that others mean it in such a way is only going to cause hard feelings between people.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Well, when you have one form which allows the option of two different types of Creeds, four different Canons/Eucharistic Prayers, 500 different vernaculars, and the option of replacing the Offertory with a hymn, how much more division would it cause to keep a form with the same language, one creed, and one canon for everyone? Just saying.

I have no idea why you are bringing this up. Having options in the liturgy is not necessarily divisive. I know plenty of people who prefer and attend the OF but who hold absolutely no hard feelings against other forms or rites. The division comes from people becoming intolerant of one form/rite/language/preference etc, not from people attending different forms etc. There are so many Catholics across the globe that worship in different ways, it would be neither practical nor desirable for everyone to worship exactly the same way. The problem isn't with the diversity, but with the attitude that one's own preference is best. In other words, the problem comes in when people start judging legitimate forms of the liturgy based off of their own preferences.

[OraLabora]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Well, when you have one form which allows the option of two different types of Creeds, four different Canons/Eucharistic Prayers, 500 different vernaculars, and the option of replacing the Offertory with a hymn, how much more division would it cause to keep a form with the same language, one creed, and one canon for everyone? Just saying.

You'll never make all the people happy all the time. You could make the Mass as dull and uniform as as a fridge without beer in it, and people will complain. You can make it as colourful as an African village, and people will complain. You can make it all chant or all happy clappy hymns, and people will complain. The Anglicans in Canada have two forms in one language, and people don't complain, they just stopped talking to each other. I hope we don't go down that road. The Church is messy because people are messy, and since it's the universal Church, there are lots of people and hence lots of mess.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by OraLabora

You'll never make all the people happy all the time. You could make the Mass as dull and uniform as as a fridge without beer in it, and people will complain. You can make it as colourful as an African village, and people will complain. You can make it all chant or all happy clappy hymns, and people will complain. The Anglicans in Canada have two forms in one language, and people don't complain, they just stopped talking to each other. I hope we don't go down that road. The Church is messy because people are messy, and since it's the universal Church, there are lots of people and hence lots of mess.

True, we have Protestant liturgies in the same language, (interestingly very many of them in Germanic languages), but you can't say that language and culture aren't issues. For example, didn't some Poles form the schismatic Polish National Catholic Church because they wouldn't let them teach Polish in the schools?

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

True, we have Protestant liturgies in the same language, (interestingly very many of them in Germanic languages), but you can't say that language and culture aren't issues. For example, didn't some Poles form the schismatic Polish National Catholic Church because they wouldn't let them teach Polish in the schools?

They can become issues, but they are not necessaarily issues in and of themselves. And whenever they do become an issue there is always some other underlying issue without which they would not become schismatic etc. prefering to have the liturgy celebrated a specific way is absolutely natural and not necessarily problematic, it is when coupled with other attitudes and opinions that it can become a problem, at which point it is not the preference itsself that is the problem, but the other underlying attitudes.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

They can become issues, but they are not necessaarily issues in and of themselves. And whenever they do become an issue there is always some other underlying issue without which they would not become schismatic etc. prefering to have the liturgy celebrated a specific way is absolutely natural and not necessarily problematic, it is when coupled with other attitudes and opinions that it can become a problem, at which point it is not the preference itsself that is the problem, but the other underlying attitudes.

There probably are other reasons but it seems the number 1 reason given for turning against the EF is that the Mass is said in a language they don't understand, not realizing the OF can also be said in Latin and the Vatican is encouraging it.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

There probably are other reasons but it seems the number 1 reason given for turning against the EF is that the Mass is said in a language they don't understand, not realizing the OF can also be said in Latin and the Vatican is encouraging it.

I personally prefer to attend mass in a language I can understand. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who give that as the reason they are wary of the EF have a more deeply seated issue. It is likely that they either
1. feel threatened by those who attend the EF only and who come across as though the OF is not as good as the EF and, sure, maybe its valid, but it is a lesser form of the Mass and everyone's faith would become stronger if they started to attend the EF (Many traditionalists come across as judgemental, I realize they don't always intend to, but I have often experienced this myself. It really does happen.) If your only experience with the EF involves people who sound as though they are judging you to be less Catholic because of your legitimate preferences then of course you are going to become wary of them and the mass they attend. That is only a natural response.
2. are afraid of the unkown
3. have been habituated by others they know to be wary of the EF
4. picture the sspx when they think of the EF and so become dubious of it because of the fact that the sspx are still not in full communion
etc.

There are many, many reasons why people end up wary of either form of the mass that do not have anything to do with an actual dislike or judgement of the other. Thats not to say that you don't have the extremists, who exist on both sides, who really do judge the other form as lesser and would preffer if it were gotten rid of, but that is not at all the majority. It is the extremeists who do the most harm to the unity of the church, because often hearing the extremeists of those who attend a whichever form you don't can really put a person on edge and have them assume that any time someone else has a similar preference to that extremeist they are also judging them. Which causes them to go on the defensive straight off, and likely to say something that is taken as offensive or judgemental by others, etc etc, the cycle continues. Instead we need to learn to stop judging others and assuming that just because they have a different preference that means they are judging us.

[adopted heir]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Well, when you have one form which allows the option of two different types of Creeds, four different Canons/Eucharistic Prayers, 500 different vernaculars, and the option of replacing the Offertory with a hymn, how much more division would it cause to keep a form with the same language, one creed, and one canon for everyone? Just saying.

If I can weigh in, since I was quoted twice in the OP, just to be clear I didn't say or imply they were two different Rites. I said they were different, and I stand by that all the way. I *didn't* say one was illegitimate or inferior (although I could have), I didn't say one form or the other was better (although I ... have my opinion on that), but if someone thinks that the only difference is a matter of English versus Latin, that's pretty misinformed. Even OF in Latin is *different* than the EF in Latin.

And furthermore I agree with everything I just said.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

I personally prefer to attend mass in a language I can understand.

Then our philosophies are different. Everyone prefers everything in the vernacular but why should our worship of our Creator be just like everything else? Christ didn't worship in His vernacular; why should I? I love the beauty of the Maronite consecration or even the Spanish Mass because they're not using my everyday words among other things.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who give that as the reason they are wary of the EF have a more deeply seated issue. It is likely that they either
1. feel threatened by those who attend the EF only and who come across as though the OF is not as good as the EF and, sure, maybe its valid, but it is a lesser form of the Mass and everyone's faith would become stronger if they started to attend the EF (Many traditionalists come across as judgemental, I realize they don't always intend to, but I have often experienced this myself. It really does happen.) If your only experience with the EF involves people who sound as though they are judging you to be less Catholic because of your legitimate preferences then of course you are going to become wary of them and the mass they attend. That is only a natural response.
2. are afraid of the unkown
3. have been habituated by others they know to be wary of the EF
4. picture the sspx when they think of the EF and so become dubious of it because of the fact that the sspx are still not in full communion
etc.

I agree with your four points.

There are many, many reasons why people end up wary of either form of the mass that do not have anything to do with an actual dislike or judgement of the other. Thats not to say that you don't have the extremists, who exist on both sides, who really do judge the other form as lesser and would preffer if it were gotten rid of, but that is not at all the majority. It is the extremeists who do the most harm to the unity of the church, because often hearing the extremeists of those who attend a whichever form you don't can really put a person on edge and have them assume that any time someone else has a similar preference to that extremeist they are also judging them. Which causes them to go on the defensive straight off, and likely to say something that is taken as offensive or judgemental by others, etc etc, the cycle continues. Instead we need to learn to stop judging others and assuming that just because they have a different preference that means they are judging us.

All valid points but again do we let our preferences dictate all our actions? I prefer to eat nothing but saturated and transfats but can my arteries tolerate it? At some point I have to realize I can't have everything I prefer. I realized too late in my marriage I did have to make some compromises.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by adopted heir

Even OF in Latin is *different* than the EF in Latin.

So is the EP2 in Spanish and the EP4 in Polish. What's your point?

[adopted heir]

Just that I was quoted in the context of saying I thought they were two different rites, and I didn't. At all. Although it could probably be argued that depending on the magnitude of differences, they may as well be.

[Cider]

Originally Posted by Jegudiel

I'm sorry but I disagree. When someone quite correctly uses "EF" to describe one form of the Mass and then uses "NO" in the same sentence that begs further scrutiny. Why have they adopted the Pope's nomenclature for one form of the Mass (which they clearly prefer based on their other comments) and not the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

Why do such people typically dig-in when someone charitably explains to them that many view "novus ordo" and particularly "NO" to be pejorative labels? How could they not intuitively realize that "NO Mass" is going to offend many? Why do they invariably further denigrate the OF Mass as they are digging in?

My own opinion is that they do realize that many find such labels offensive. Sadly they use the labels as a quiet way to denigrate the OF Mass and/or to antagonize those that love the OF Mass. Either ways it's very obvious.

I don't know, I haven't seen much I'd call charitable so far. I've seen a lot of jumping to conclusions and assumptions of others motives in your posts though.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by ProVobis

Then our philosophies are different. Everyone prefers everything in the vernacular but why should our worship of our Creator be just like everything else? Christ didn't worship in His vernacular; why should I? I love the beauty of the Maronite consecration or even the Spanish Mass because they're not using my everyday words among other things.

Whats funny about this response is that I actually like attending a Latin OF mass... I have studied enough latin, and attended a latin OF long enough that I understand what is going on even though it is in latin, I didn't bring it up though, because what the particular language is was irrelevent to the point I was making.

I agree with your four points.

All valid points but again do we let our preferences dictate all our actions? I prefer to eat nothing but saturated and transfats but can my arteries tolerate it? At some point I have to realize I can't have everything I prefer. I realized too late in my marriage I did have to make some compromises.

Of course not everyone is going to get it exactly as they want it. I prefer to attend the OF, actually, I prefer to attend the Divine Liturgy. However, I cannot always do that, so I usually attend the OF. And if I found myself somewhere where the EF was the only mass available I would attend it because it doesn't matter ultimately whether your preferences are met so long as you attend mass and can receive the Eucharist to strengthen you to keep to the narrow path. But why shouldn't we try to give people what they want as best we can within what is allowed?

I'm really not sure what exactly you are trying to argue or why you are bringing it up. I only jumped in on this thread to try and help prevent it from turning into another divisive thread about what terms are and aren't offensive.

[Jegudiel]

Originally Posted by Cider

I don't know, I haven't seen much I'd call charitable so far. I've seen a lot of jumping to conclusions and assumptions of others motives in your posts though.

Judge me as you will -- I couldn't possibly care any less, but I have seen several others (bother here and in the real world) be very diplomatic about the novus ordo/NO matter and they were met with dug-in anger.