Why does the condemnation of those who attack the EF regarded as anathema, but those who downtalk the OF apparently don’t suffer the same condemnation. It seems like the so-called “Traditionalists” think they are above reproach, while anybody who even dares to question their position on EF vs EO is tantamount to heresy?
Ideally, nobody should be attacking either form of the Mass.
Right both are good with the Church and they are both MASS!
I think you could reverse your terms and ask the same question. But in any case, this is not the sort of discussion that ever goes anywhere productive, much less charitable.
Flagged for moderation.
If I had to guess, I would say that some Traditionalists have gotten the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that they are “second-class citizens” in a way ever since the Second Vatican Council. Many of the clergy have not been supportive of the EF since V2 (although that has been changing). This causes them to be extremely defensive of the EF when others criticize it.
The thing is, I rarely see anyone actually criticize the EF beyond maybe saying they don’t like assisting at a Mass where they don’t understand the language. On the other hand I’ve seen people on here absolutely ripping the OF, complaining about practically every aspect of, some even saying that the OF is completely invalid. Practically every ill that afflicts the Church gets blamed on the OF Mass.
I have hurled fire and brimstone in testament against this Thread.
I will grant you that the EF is not as ripped into as the OF is by many Traditionalists. And Traditionalists are rather defense even about minute things.
But Sedevacantists are lumped into the “Traditionalist” group so you will have more of that.
(I’m not saying that the OF doesn’t deserve criticism. I think the OF Mass needs some tuning especially in the run-of-the-mill Masses. But some folks are way out there in their criticism)
The thing is, when the EF was the only Mass it’s run-of-the-mill Masses needed fine tuning as well.
True. It’s just that the OF Mass has only been around for 40 years. That’s an infinitesimally small time period in the Church. The EF Mass has been around for…longer than that. I think the OF will get there but it needs more work.
Cracks me up when I hear it called the “New” Mass. I’m like Dude, it’s been 50 years. It ain’t new any more.
I’ve got a feeling it’s going to go down in the history books as the Novus Ordo. And people a thousand years from now will ask why it’s the “New Mass”. And the only response folks will have is that it’s new in relation to the Tridentine Mass. Clunky but hilarious.
Honestly, the only people I see using that term are Trads, and they’re using it as a slur. Pretty much anyone else I’ve seen just call it “The Mass”, or less frequently “The OF”.
Maybe it’s just me.
You have to remember, for the vast majority of American Catholics it’s the only mass they’ve ever known.
That also might be a reason not many people criticize the EF. They don’t know about it.
That’s likely because the average Catholic has at most a vague notion of the existence of the EF, so there is no need to differentiate. On the other hand, most “trads” (itself often used as a derogatory term by those with less traditional tastes) are very aware of both forms, and therefore need to distinguish in conversation.
Quite possibly! I have no problems with the EF myself, if someone prefers that form, good on them! I simply prefer the OF myself as I do not understand Latin and have no capacity to learn it.
I don’t think that’s the case. There are some of both, and they both get (deservedly0 trashed by the “other side.”
Which is really sad. It’s Mass, there shouldn’t be “sides.”
BOTH----It’s us being at Calvary and also at the Last Supper WITH JESUS!