Primary tabs

Agree
7% (131 votes)
Disagree
93% (1814 votes)
Total votes: 1945
body: 

<h2>Thank you for your response. <a href="/node/2115">Click here to fill out the rest of this month&#39;s Sounding Board Survey</a>. </h2>

Comments

Submitted by Paul, a Lay Apostle (not verified) on

Reading some earlier comments it appears there is resistance to the Latin Mass as it is felt that no one will understand what is being said. This is far from the truth. Attendees at the Tridentine Mass use Missals which have both the Latin and English versions of the Mass side by side, with explanations. The Mass becomes a sequence of prayer, meditation, and participation in the Sacrifice in a manner of reverence and solemnity that eclipses the Vatican II reformed Mass. The Epistle and Gospel is read in Latin and English and so the message of the select scriptures are not lost as one respondent indicated. I would add finally that if you can picture a silent church, without the typical noises and distractions that have become commonplace in the modern mass, and then introduce into your mind the smell of incense, the regular chime of bells, the melodic and soothing Gregorian chant carrying your meditative prayer to ever greater heights, and your absolute focus on the true presence of Christ and the sacrifice He made for us, then you might come to the conclusion that the Tridentine Mass is THE Mass, and essential beyond any other religious devotion in this sinful disobedient era.

Submitted by Patrick (not verified) on

I have participated in the Extraordinary Form once, and I now have a better understanding of the complaints other Catholics, particularly of the preceding two generations, have voiced.

I have also participated in the Ordinary Form, ordinarily throughout my life.

The E.F. is not perfect, especially when celebrated in haste, and there is certainly room for improvement. As for the O.F., it is mostly awful, seasoned with terrible, and with just a dash of the good idea or two.

I DO prefer the Ordinary Form's use of the Old Testament. I DO prefer the fact that the language of the Ordinary Form is spoken as a language and not some speed-read formula. I DO believe that the Ordinary Form can be celebrated with dignity and reverence due to our Lord.

Even so, I loathe the intentionally bad translations of the Ordinary Form, which spit in the face of the Catholic Faith. I detest the ceaseless hammering of New Age and Liberation Theology and the irreverence to the Sacrament that would make a Protestant blush. I have nothing but contempt for the petty profanations that abound in the average OF Mass. Lastly, I abhor the shocking lack of even the most basic teachings of the Catholic Church from being taught in either the school, the pulpit, or even the community.

What must be done? Reform the reform, listen to the Pope, read the Catechism, go to a licit and valid Mass every week and if possible every day...

Oh, and Say the Black, Do the Red.

Submitted by Ygnacia (not verified) on

As younger person that only attended the Ordinary Form Mass up until last year, and now also attends the Extraordinary Form Mass, I find the description of the OF as 'sublime' just plain laughable...sorry...

Submitted by Rev Fr Christop... (not verified) on

I spent my youth hearing all about how evil the Catholic Church was and how no one sane would actually ever be stupid enough to believe in such a religion. When I actually opened my mind to what the Catholic Church was really like, I realised that what I had been told was wrong, narrow and prejudiced. When I became a Catholic, much of the same vitriol was heaped on the Latin Mass and its adherents. I came across some crazy Trads just as I came across some crazy people of every stripe, but I realised that what I had been told about the Latin Mass was wrong, narrow and prejudiced. I have found that the Latin Mass divides only when people decide to make it an issue. The naysayers always say that no one is interested in the Latin Mass and it is entirely marginal, but they sure do like to spend a lot of time and energy making sure no one wants to go to it and that it is going to shipwreck the church. I saw through the foolishness of such sophistry applied to the Catholic Church, and to the Latin Mass. I celebrate both Ordinary and Extrordinary Forms, and I can tell you, every time I have introduced a young person to the Old Mass, they love it. The best way to make people love the Old Mass is for them to see through the hatred for it.

Submitted by Mike Schmitz (not verified) on

The Church has never had and should never have one Mass, as far as the external rites are concerned. What about the Eastern Catholics, who celebrate the venerable Byzantine Rite, the Coptic Rite, the various Syriac rites? What about the Mozarabic rite, the Ambrosian rite, the various usages of the Roman Rite in the West? The argument that a variety of legitimate liturgical forms- which have different theological emphases- damages the unity of the Catholic Church simply does not work; or else we must conclude that there never was unity in the Catholic Church. Rather, as with the diversity of ancient and venerable liturgical forms East and West, a diversity of legitimate liturgical form informed by tradition brings a great richness to life of the Church (and allows us more clearly to see when a certain tendencies in understanding the liturgy are going off track)

Submitted by Jovan (not verified) on

So am I to assume that the existence of the Eastern Rites, the Mozarabic Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, etc. 'undermines the unity of the Catholic Church'? Balderdash!

Submitted by Larry G (not verified) on

As a 35 year old Catholic it is certainly not a sense of nostalgia that encourages me to go to a EF Mass, but the fact that it precisely expresses Catholic belief. In fact it is quite dishonest of the writer to encourage a discontinuity of belief from the period before the council and after. Ever read Pope Benedicts comments on the Council. Did the writer realize that we have had other Councils too, Vatican II is not a super council that cancels everything else out.

I would encourage the writer to read some of this Pope's and previous writing concerning the Liturgy, and see that the faith of Christ does not change to fashion but is timeless.

Didn't Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically state that Latin was to be retained? Didn't it state that Gregorian Chant was to be held as specially suited. Active Participation? Did the writer read any Catholic Pope on this?
Our own Pope John Paul II said the following...
"Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active"

What about the misrepresentation of Pope John XXIII, did the writer read anything Pope John XXIII write?

This article is most dishonest and we deserve a bit better.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

The new mass does not even follow what Vatican II suggested. Vatican II is not doctrinal, unless it is in union with prior Church teaching. The new mass obscures what the Mass is, a renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross. You really need to study what the Mass really is. Most new masses are an insult. It is almost impossible to raise kids to be good Catholics in that atmosphere. Why is it that my 3 year old can make responese in Latin?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

What undermines the unity of the Catholic Church is ignorant and sophomoric descent like that of the writer of this article. I wound find it amusing if it was in line with the Second Vatican Council (which it was not) or if it was based on a mature orthodox theology (which it is not). It is better for one to keep their opinions to oneself and let everyone assume you are uneducated in the Faith, instead of writing it down and casting away all daunt.

Submitted by Mary Ann, Singi... (not verified) on

I am a youngish (36) Mom, newly attending the EF by way of my profession as a sacred musician.

Because I've known people who were attached to the older form of Mass, I've never downed it. But I was also unprepared for how much I would LOVE praying this way. My convert husband is loving it, too. And, whether I am singing or not, I participate on a whole new level.

The OF can certainly be celebrated beautifully, and (increasingly) with reverence and according to the rubrics.

However, after careful study of both, my observation is that the EF posesses a deeper theological richness and is more explicit in its prayers, especially as concerns the Trinity and the sacrificial dimension of the sacred liturgy. I do miss a few things about the OF, especially OT readings. But overall, I find the EF has more of everything great.

I do not need to hear everything in English. Especially in such a literate society, its easy to find translations for everything, in a missal or online, for example. A little prep goes a long way towards participation.

If you doubt the beauty of the EF, take some time and steep in it for a while. I would especially recommend attending a High Mass. The experience has only deepened my love for Christ and His Church. Thank you, Pope Benedict for liberating the use of the EF!

Pages