It’s easy to disagree- but why? What counter claim can you offer to a PHD in Philosophy and an exorcist of 10,000 + exorcisms to boot?
deleted , we are way off topic
Yes. He is in Colorado and functions under authority. He isn’t a rogue or a loose cannon. And his order is fully approved.
I think you could have helped some of us out by sharing something from the book. Your question about the “best form” of the Roman rite has no absolute answer. I am old enough to be well acquainted with the Latin Mass.
At first, the English Mass was the translation of the Latin Mass, as I recall, with some omissions. But, as time has run along, there has been a tendency for the priests to use the shortest alternatives for the Eucharistic Prayer – you know, the one that talks about the ‘dewfall’ ?
I have a theological problem with that, because dew is just condensation of moisture from the air when the temperature drops. The word ‘fall’ seems to suggest that dew drops down from the sky, which it does not. Hence, the Spirit cannot drop down like anything, least of all dew.
If I had to take a guess, and this is only an uneducated one, it’s actually referring to manna.
It’s statements like this that give traditionalists a bad name. It’s one thing to, like good traditionalists, have a preference. It’s another thing, like bad traditionalists, to say one’s preference is inherently superior.
I’ll be forthright and say that I’m not going to drop money on the book that I already know the Ordinary Form to be perfectly valid and equally graceful to other forms of Mass. (Though I may read Ottavani’s letter about the OF if I have time to kill)
Though I will discuss more. For sake of argument, what happens in the Extraordinary Form that makes it objectively superior?
just a guess that 400 years of usage can’t be too bad
I appreciate your honesty and totally respect you view.
In fact, I think you have got to the heart of the matter. That said, I think at the same time that you have the issue back to front. . . Let me explain. . Traditional Catholics would be ‘bad’ if they made an issue over thing that was ’ merely a question of ‘preference’. This would be creating a division where there is no real grounds for doing so.
The Latin Mass however is not a question of ‘preference’. If you are going to create a division in the Church over some nostalgic ‘preference’, I would say that such a one would savor of a Schismatic mindset, to say the least.
For Traditional Catholics the Latin Mass is about the integrity of the faith. . . . .An integrity that we believe is not reflected in the Novus Ordo Missae, as Cardinals Ottavianni and Bacci points out.
Michael Davies, in his work, Pope Paul’s New Mass, states in this regard that (, p. 170): “the most evident characteristic of the new liturgy is that it is the Cult of Man rather than the Cult of God . The last thing it intends to convey is that we are in but not of the world; the last thing it intends is that we should be drawn out of our ordinary lives. The leit-motiv of contemporary writing on the [new] liturgy is that the congregation must be made to feel at home, during Mass and this is best done by insuring that that the liturgy reflects its particular milieu… This is particularly true in the case of children…the Directory on Children’s Masses….”
What is more, is that during the early years after the papal promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, the priests of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, under Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, put out a text titled, 62 reasons why the Latin Mass, why not the new. Perhaps you may want to take some time to read and reflect on some of the points made by these priests.
The EF focuses on God transcendent; the OF brings in more God imminent. As I experienced it, there was one High Mass per week; all other Sunday and weekday Masses were Low Mass setting, with the exception of funerals.
We had one or two Solemn High Masses per year (priest, deacon and sub deacon). While there was a tendency toward Gregorian chant (always with funerals; no idea how many times I sang the Dies Irae, etc., my dad sang in the adult choir for the Sunday High Mass, and as he considered singing in choir to be distracting to his attention to the Mass, he went to two, and we were with him at the other (Low) Mass. I can’t say that choir was capable of, say, the works of Palestrina, but I do recall they sang various Masses written by whom I don’t know. In short, the Mass was more formal.
Formal often is considered reverent; and my experience I won’t detail except to say that I attended all too many 6:30 a.m. weekday Masses in the 1950’s that lacked reverence. I have attended many, many very reverent Masses for the last 28 years at my parish, and also recall Masses in the 70’s that were lacking in a sense of reverence and decorum. In my experience, reverence is as reverence does; it can be lacking or strong in either form.
My mother was born in 1917. One day I asked her what she thought about the OF; her immediate response was “Oh! The Mass in English!” She was the one who saw to it that my siblings and I all had missals when we were able to use them. She also was a high school graduate in a class of 5 from a rural Catholic school. She had no desire to go back to the EF, and the rubrics made little difference to her. The language was key.
Hate to disappoint you but neither the faith nor the liturgy of the Church come down to the personal experience of the individual. It is the mind of the Church that we look to in this regard. And from this aspect many of the conciliar reforms that have impacted the and produced what is known as the Novus Ordo Missae have already been condemned by the Popes, Saints and theologians of the past.
Interesting to read, what Fr. Stephen Somerville who was a member of ICEL (the group responsible for the English translation of the liturgy) had to say in this regard:
For more info on his work in regards the actual translation of the liturgy see: https://www.fisheaters.com/frsomerville.html
You might find helpful in grasping why the vernacular ought not to be used in the sacred liturgy, by reading the words of Cardinal Antonio Cardinal Bacci; - words which were delivered at the Second Vatican Council.
If you’re talking about the '58 reforms of Holy Week, that was highly unprecedented as well…
And the Church gave us the OF. So a liturgy in the vernacular are perfectly okay.
Well, Vatican II made clear that the vernacular is okay.
And I know you’ve provided lots of links, but I do want you to put in your own words some of things that make you say the EF is better.
Example of what I’m thinking of
- Said in Latin
- Longer history
- More incense
I wouldn’t say one is more valid than the other, but I will say that the EF seems to foster a greater sense of reverence, if through nothing other than the manner of receiving Communion. It always struck me as odd that the priest is required to wash his hands prior to consecration, yet one can receive Communion in the hand after changing a diaper, etc.
Full disclosure: I normally attend a OF Mass, and a TLM when I get the chance, typically 3-4 times a year. I didn’t intend this as a OF-bashing post.
Unrelated, but as the new guy, is there an “introduce yourself” thread? I’ve been poking around but haven’t found one.
Thankyou for taking the time to respond , maximillian. Which reform specifically did you think I am referring to.
do you mean 1958 or do you mean the number 58.
Vatican II never intended an all vernacular liturgy. We can see many of the Council Fathers desired maybe the readings and Gospel in English and other certain parts. But the idea for the whole Roman Mass to be in vernacular is quite odd. Also if you read the documents they say vernacular can be permitted by such communities that desire it but Latin must be retained. Pls don’t make me go look it up, I know it’s somewhere in the beginning of the liturgy section. Also keep in mind Vatican II isn’t infallible (though many things in the document repeats already infallible truths)
One person’s opinion, vs. the decision of the Church.