Comparison of the Traditional Latin Mass with the Missal of 1969.

This is a very factual and informative look at the vast differences between the two Rites being used at present in the Latin Church:

I looked at it, but it uses the recently replaced English translation of the Novus Ordo in its comparison with an English translation of the Tridentine - that renders it pretty unhelpful with its point about “richness” of prayers.

Though there are many salutary changes in the more accurate version of the new Missal, there is stiil a vast gulf in difference betwixt the two forms.

The sacrificial nature of the Mass [which is the primary end of Mass along with Adoration] is still stressed much more in the Usus Antiquor, than the more accurate translations in the Pauline Missal, for openers.

What it is interesting is that the title means that the superiority has nothing to do with the form of the Mass. I think that the use of the word extrinsically is a contradictory to the message that is trying to deliver. The term superior is also an indication of rank but in the whole post I see only arguments that do not quantify a ranking.

I can see what the writer of the blog thinks but I think that he is lost so much in his own opinions that he can preach only to the choir. I think that to compare the EF to the OF it is just a loosing proposition, especially in terms of ranking. I think that people would do a much better service to the EF by leaving the OF alone and by focusing only on the beauty and theological merits of the older form. You cannot teach to love one form by detracting from the other, and I also think that the sin of detraction applies to the Mass as well as to people.

You can catch flies with either honey or excrement, which ones leaves a better smells after handling?

Old Salt, be careful not to violate the rules of the forum in the way you might end up comparing the OF and EF (check the rules).

Anyway, I hope this is not too far off topic, but to echo Cristiano, I am so weary and sick, sick, sick (in a sad way, not an angry way) of people who love the EF (as I do, too) but who also bash on/mock/etc. the Novus Ordo (I am not saying you are necessarily doing this, Old Salt). Cristiano is right, here - it turns off people who justly and rightly fear even the hint of a certain kind of prideful, schismatic “mentality” in the form of a critical attitude towards what are, in the end, legitimately approved rites in the Church. It scares away people who only know the OF and might have otherwise developed a liking for the EF. Let’s focus on the positive and let people see the goodness for themselves! :thumbsup:

I like to introduce others to the EF, and I am nervous much of the time that the misbehavior of somebody there along these lines might make the first time at the EF for somebody their last time.

PS I believe one can critique, in a respectful way, the human-contributed elements of different prayers, etc. - clearly that has always been done in Church history. That’s not what I am talking about above.


I posted a link to a site that speaks of the “extrinsic” superiority of the Usus Antiquor, not the intrinsic superiority.
As you obviously know, big difference.

It is not a big reach to state the fact that the Older Form of Latin Rite Mass expresses the ends of Mass in a much more rich and sacrificial manner.
There is nothing here about the intrinsic essential difference.

“If it aint broke don’t fix it.”

I do not think that Old Salt is trying to do any nasty comparison, he was trying to point factual differences and he did not really show any agreement with the methods of the blogger. I am the one that moved off thread because I started to digress about the methodology of the blogger.

I didn’t think so either… I tried to make that clear but I guess I didn’t do so well enough.

I just saw this thread possibly moving in that direction and wanted to make sure he didn’t get in trouble or anything. :smiley:

I fail to see how the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is even extrinsically superior to the Ordinary Form. First, the author of the blog makes the mistake of comparing translations, not the original Latin. Second, it doesn’t even appear that he/she is comparing the same Eucharistic Prayer. I’d be interested to see a comparison in Latin of the Roman Canon (a.k.a. Eucharistic Prayer I). Third, as has been noted, he/she’s making the comparison with an outdated translation that has been revised to better reflect the original Latin. Fourth, he/she is comparing an official translation (albeit outdated) with a translation from a devotional book - there is no official English translation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

The comparison seems to be one more of quantity rather than quality. Just because a prayer is longer does not mean that it is intrinsically or extrinsically more beautiful.

As to the sacrificial nature of the Mass, that has most certainly NOT been reduced in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Just because the current Form does not see the need to repeat the word “sacrifice” over and over, does not mean that the sacrificial element has been down-played or lost.

Well said, Mr. Rolfes. My thoughts exactly. I often go to the EF, and when I do, it is very clear how very close much of it is to the OF, especially when a priest uses the Roman Canon in the OF (which is very advisable, haha) - especially in the new translation.

Oh, there is a huge difference, even in the official Latin translation of the Missal of 69 and the Usus Antiquour:

This is what I was afraid of happening.

Old Salt, I would remove that post I just quoted above. It’s from a site that claims the Novus Ordo is Protestant (i.e. Cranmer references). That is not allowed by the Forums - and also, that site is misleading.

Hear, Hear!

Leon, Indeed. What often gets to me is when people compare abuses in the Ordinary Form with the norm for the Extraordinary Form. Examples include the unchecked use of Eucharistic ministers (which are really only meant to be used under extreme circumstances), and the unbridled use of the vernacular to the exclusion of Latin. One could also cite the use of “hymns” from such horrible books as the Glory and Praise hymnal. If every parish were to use the official Gregorian chants for the “Opening Hymn, Responsorial, Processional, and Closing Hymn” then the riches of the Ordinary Form would be more widely opened up to us.

The argument over the option of the vernacular is simply ridiculous. Vernacular languages have been used throughout the Church since its foundations. This is particularly so among the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, but there are also examples of the use of the vernacular in the Latin Church. If memory serves me correctly, the Council of Trent debated over whether or not to translate the Missal into Chinese for the sake of evangelizing China. It was decided not to at the time because it was felt that it wasn’t the most opportune moment.

I am now an Eastern Catholic. I worship with the Melkite Greek Catholics and we use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (and that of St. Basil during Lent and Advent). That being said, however, I spent 10 years of my life serving daily at the altar in the Roman parish that I grew up in. I came to know the Mass inside and out. I love the Ordinary Form for many reasons, and I loath the rampant abuses that occur within it. But, as any honest historian of the Liturgy will tell you, no form of the Mass or any other Liturgy is above abuse.

One final thought. We do not attend Mass in order to be catechized. That is not the purpose of the Mass or of the prayers of the Mass. Catechesis flows not only from the Mass, but from the entire liturgical/sacramental life of the Church. We go to Mass to offer worship to God. Saying that a prayer is externally more superior because it “more accurately/precisely” conveys the Catholic Faith is simply laughable and completely misses the point of prayers. Is “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your merciful love” extrinsically more beautiful than saying “Lord, have mercy”? Of course not. It’s simply more verbose. That’s not to say that we humans don’t sometimes need longer prayers that really spell things out for us; but is the Mass really the place where we need those longer prayers?

Nearly the entire group of Roman Catholic bishops felt that it was “broke.” Plus, the Roman Mass has undergone numerous revisions, corrections, strippings, addings, etc. through it’s history, some of them quite drastic.

Liturgical historians will invariably tell you that liturgy is always a work-in-progress and that no one form of the Mass is perfect. That’s because the Mass is meant to be a reflection of the wedding banquet that we hope one day to enjoy in the presence of God the Trinity!

I am currently reading Alcuin Reid’s The Organic Development of the Liturgy. Interesting book.

Pitting one form of the Mass against the other is against forum rules.


Personally, I prefer not to be an experimental subject.

Change begets the toothing for more change; you can’t really say ‘no’ to the latest innovation if you have the precedent of a new Mass, created by a committee. The changes I see are banal. They also emphasise the meal aspect.

**This is a real problem when it comes to demonstrating Transubstantiation: that Christ is the host. **

If you just want to portray that it’s a holy meal, then fine.

This is too close to me to what I understand is the Protestant project:

*]That Mass is simply a commemorative meal where the elect rejoice.
*]If we get back to what they had in year 3AD, we’ll have a better Mass.
*]What happened between then and the year 1500 are mere accretions to be stripped away.

You’d think with the advent of bare churches and dancing in the aisles people would realise Something Is Wrong.

I am sorry if I have not followed the rules.
That was not my intention.
I was not at all attempting to pit one form against another.
I was only trying to point out the myriad external differences between the two forms of the Latin Rite Mass.

It is confusing and not a unifiying factor.

I wish there was one Form.

Then use the Ordinary Form.

But there is no real reason not to have 2 different forms, or 7 or 12 or whatever!
As long it is the Holy Sacrafice of the Lord’s supper where Jesus becomes present in a real way (just like there are different “styles” shall we say, in the Eastern Churches).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit