Tridentine mass vs Novus ordo mass

Which is the best? TLM OR Novus ordo?
Obviously it is TLM,the mass of all time. Is there anyone who disagrees with this?

3 Likes

Let the fireworks begin :popcorn:

3 Likes

Settle down! Jesus is present at both masses, are you suggesting He is better at one mass. Surely not.

8 Likes

Not many would dispute that.

But if liturgy is “theology in action” andc”what we pray is what we believe” then there is no doubt that the Tridentine Mass does the following:

  • It emphasises much more the fact that the Mass is a sacrifice, not just a commemoration
  • It emphasises much more the sacerdotal role of the priest
  • it emphasises much more the concept of holinesss, which at its root means “set apartness”
  • it emphasises much more the intercession of saints and the presence of the Church in heaven.

Is this a good thing? . . .

1 Like

@Tradcat1

SInce you are claiming that one is better than the other, you need to carefully read the Vatican papers pertaining to the establishment of equality between the two forms. As it is, you are going against Church teaching.

Why do you come here and immediately try to cause an argument? How Catholic is that? How is it an example of piety? How genuinely wanting others to agree with your stance is your approach and attitude? How pleasing is your effort to divide us to Our Lord? How closely aligned with Our Lord’s teaching are the thoughts expressed in the manner in which you approached the membership?

3 Likes

Any Mass permitted by the Church is the unbloody sacrifice of Jesus and is no better or worse than any other Mass.

You having a preference for what type of Mass you like does not make that type of Mass “best”.

We constantly have this topic come up and we constantly have to provide the same answers. I personally would like to see someone show up insisting that the Sarum Rite or Mozarabic Rite is the best Mass, just to add some variety to this tired debate.

7 Likes

Bottom line , Jesus is Jesus and as we believe, is at both types of masses. He does not discriminate. He also created everyone who is not Catholic, no exceptions.

Who are we, His creatures, to tell Him one mass is better then the other.
That is just pride.

4 Likes

Honestly my personal preference lies with Novus Ordo if celebrated Ad Orientem with incense and very reverently. That said, I really like prayers in TLM but I think Novus Ordo puts emphasis on community as well and participation is surely nice. I really like fact it can be done in vernacular too. I wish that some prayers and actions from TLM made their way to Novus Ordo, but that doesn’t make it superior.

Anyway that is just my personal preference. If one TLM were better than Novus Ordo objectively then Church would make TLM the norm. They are equal objectively according to the Church but that doesn’t mean they are equal subjectively.

When I started studying abroad I spent my first half a year attending Byzantine Catholic Liturgy and then I alternated between TLM and Novus Ordo. When I felt like I need TLM I went to TLM. When I felt like I need Novus Ordo I went to Novus Ordo. Church is very diverse and beautiful and She is like that to help our Salvation. Some use it in a way where they only attend TLM and that’s fine. Some use it like me and alternate… some don’t necessarily use it. Everything is fine. But that is all subjective.

2 Likes

Please explain exactly what you mean by “the mass of all time.”

1 Like

That is how TLM was called when promulgated. It is a title very often used for the EF.

1 Like

According to Pope Benedict XVI, they are one and the same rite:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en//letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

2 Likes

Rite? Yes. Mass? No.

EDIT: They not are same Form of the Mass… using same “Mass” is a bit confusing.

1 Like

“There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

1 Like

Also, in relation to the topic:

1 Like

I do not dispute anything that Pope Benedict XVI said, I am just saying that they are not the same form of the Mass. They are nevertheless Latin Rite and even Roman Rite- they are Ordinary and Extraordinary Form of it.

(I actually said same “Mass” which is misleading… I’ll edit above to “form” of the Mass and that should be much less confusing. If that was your point then I apologize.)

Yes.

234567

@Tradcat1 It seems to me you’ve already reached your conclusion, and so there’s no real grounds for discussion here.

You have your opinion, and I for one won’t attempt to sway you from it, regardless of whether or not I agree with you.

I would like to know, however, how you reached your conclusion.

1 Like

Yes. For one thing, “all time” is not historically factual.

1 Like

If liturgy is “theology in action” and “what we pray is what we believe” then in the Vaticanine Mass:

-people can understand what Is emphasized.
-people can understand the role of the priest.
-people can understand what holiness is.
-people can understand what we ask of the saints And how they are present with us.

What is the point of emphasizing if no one understands the language you speak? What is the point of the language of sacrifice if no one has ever offered a slain animal to a different god?

The Pope and the bishops have chosen the ordinary form for us. The Extraordinary Form was not chosen to be our ordinary form; are you questioning the wisdom of the Popes and bishops?

If there is no Sacrificial meaning, Mass isn’t valid. Meaning is that we understand our Lord Sacrificed Himself for us.

I agree with that thesis but in the end Latin was supposed to be understood by most people… at least parts in the Liturgy. I asked my great grandmother and she said she understood quite well what is happening.

Granted, Sacrificial language was usually present in parts which Priest said quietly to himself. Perhaps Altar Servers had that emphasis but did laity as general? Probably not.

Pope after Council of Trent said that Tridentine Mass is Mass of All Ages IIRC (maybe it was mentioned later by another Pope). Are you questioning Wisdom of that Pope?

There is probably no real way to distinguish objectively which Mass is “better”. Subjectively… yes, vernacular tips it towards OF, Sacrificial language towards EF and so on… you can find pros and cons for each form of the Mass. But we pick subjectively based on pros and cons. It isn’t objective. Not according to the Church.

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