Why Do I Sense A Strange Debate Over The Mass?

[Annie12]

Okay. So, I feel like people either love or strongly dislike the English mass or the Tridentine Mass. Both Masses are approved by the church so why the weird feelings. I'm not just talking about preference here. I have heard people say things like "I don't like the Latin Mass." or "The Latin Mass is better". Both Masses are beautiful and what really matters is that we are there to meet Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. I don't know Is this just me or have other people seen this in action?

Edited March 24, 2012 by Lil Red

[homeschoolmom]

Welcome to phatmass.

[EmilyAnn]

Oh don't even get me started.

It's fine to have a preference. But you should still treat the other form with the proper reverence due to the holy sacrifice of the Mass. I prefer the form of the OF, but I still appreciate and understand the beauty of the EF. Sadly there are people who don't do this and act like their opinion is superior to the Church.

Edited March 24, 2012 by EmilyAnn

[Annie12]

What should we do about this? Is there rally anything we can do?

[EmilyAnn]

Pray. Stand firm in our defence of both forms of the Holy Mass.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1332548949' post='2406699']
What should we do about this? Is there rally anything we can do?
[/quote]

You can do your best to politely encourage a rude person to charity, but whether or not they'll listen to you is anyone's guess. It's not likely in this place. As HSM said...

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1332546824' post='2406685']
Welcome to phatmass.
[/quote]

[filius_angelorum]

There is simply no way to talk about the preference of a particular Mass in the same way that one talks about a preference for this or that type of ice cream. Ask any Byzantine Catholic, they will tell you definite reasons why they think "their" (although it is really God's) form of Mass is in this or that way superior to the average Roman Mass, or more ancient, or more reverent, etc. The same could be said for those who favor the traditional Mass and those who favor the newer Mass. Both of them are going to have definite reasons for doing so, and those reasons are going to be obnoxious or opposed to the proponents of the other form.

The fact is, though, that there is room to disagree. There is room to compete and still call each other Catholics. Why must we always be affirming one another? Why can we not strive for the mind of the Church, or participate in the eventual synthesis of opposite ideas? The fact is that much of what we experience as Catholicism is the result of bitterly opposed camps coming to some sort of compromise. In fact, it seems to me that what the Holy Father has permitted is precisely that, a synthesis of opposite views taking place in the only way that such a synthesis is possible.

I should mention, by the way, that if you had to suffer for your form of the Mass like I have seen many traditionalist Catholics suffer, you might be a little less tolerant of the whole "lets just get along" perspective as well.

[MissyP89]

We can disagree and still be civil to one another. Suffering for the sake of the Traditional Latin Mass is laudable, but all of us are still called to respect and charity.

[filius_angelorum]

Yes, but the standard of "respect and charity" needs to work both for those who have worked to maintain the traditional Mass and those who are now able to attend it without sanction, in an atmosphere of freedom and acceptance. There is a strange tendency in mankind to expect those who have suffered and fought for a cause to suddenly "get with the program" when the cause no longer needs to be defended. The fact is that respect and charity for the pain they have endured demands that we give all of those who have suffered a little more understanding for their strongly-held opinions and rhetoric. If, however, you had a view on the traditionalist movement like I have had here in the diocese of Little Rock, or in numerous other dioceses where the traditional Mass has been actively persecuted and prohibited, you might think twice about your belief that we have two forms of Mass, between which one may choose freely and without suffering. This is simply not the case. In fact, it makes the traditionalist movement more angry, more passionate that we SHOULD have such freedom, that the whole Church has been given such freedom, and yet the local bishops are attempting, in many cases, to quash the freedom that we ought to have.

[Aloysius]

there are many liturgical issues that the average layman is generally content not to worry about, but that many of us who study liturgy either as a hobby (myself) or whatever have very strong opinions about. there are serious issues to worry about, it's not as simple as just saying one is just as good as the other; for in common practice the one has been impoverished of some things that are our spiritual heritage, and I worry about their loss. I am not alone in worrying about such impoverishment, the Holy Father is worried too, and he takes steps even now as he works through often hostile members of his own curia to work to re-enrich the spirituality of the liturgy.

many are unaware of some of the riches of true liturgy that have been withheld from them... a blind man does not know the brilliance of a sunset.

this is not a question of two different rites with different traditions over the course of centuries; this is one and the same Roman Rite, in two different forms. so I do worry about certain postures and orientations that have crept into the liturgy in modern times and how they affect the mindset of worship. I do think it is absolutely valid to take a stance on something being better or worse liturgically between the two forms; we are not comparing Roman Apples and Byzantine Oranges here, we are comparing two forms of the one same Roman Apple, so to compare, contrast, and critique is absolutely a valid action.

so ultimately, I say, the strange debate is a valid debate. but don't let your heart be troubled when your liturgy is not yet as enriched as it ought to be, for whether or not the liturgy contains as many deep riches and symbols as it ought to, so long as the sacrament is there then there is sufficient grace and beauty there to feed your soul. but that should not trivialize issues over ad orientem worship, over seasonal and daily propers and chants, over certain ancient prayers that have been needlessly ommitted in the transition from the books of John XXIII to the books of Paul VI. there are many liturgical issues that are completely valid to discuss and debate the merits of, and no one is forbidden from saying that one liturgy is better than another over these critiques; one would be more incorrect to start trying to compare/contrast Roman vs. Byzantine liturgies and trying to say that one is better or worse than the other, but when discussing two forms of the Roman Rite it is absolutely essential that we be able to critique in a way that we may see one as better than the other in this or that way.

[Aloysius]

of course, the freedom of both forms is a very good thing; in my opinion, it is Benedict's wise plan to, in the long term game, allow this liturgical plurality to save the Novus Ordo from its failings without having to scrap the whole project of the Novus Ordo so that some of the gains, like more vernacular and Old Testament Readings and such, can be retained. A way to, through mutual enrichment and what Fr. Z calls gravitational pull, purify and enrich what may have been lacking in the missal of Paul VI. so the freedom of both forms should absolutely be held on to and cherished for the time being, allowing communities devoted exclusively to one or the other form to proliferate while infusing most communities with an availability of both forms.

[the171]

I LOVE the mass. But I think the problem for those who do oppose the OF completely is that liturgical abuse is rampant in the OF. Now, I am not saying that gives them the right to deny the mass (in the OF) but what I am saying is that I understand. This is one reason why I go to EF at a parish that is not my own each Sunday. The mass there is filled with liturgical abuse. Prayers. Yes, prayers that Christ the High Priest will show his priests how it should be done. Just a reminder. I love the EF and the OF! I love mass without liturgical abuse, especially!

[BG45]

Oh dear, this could turn ugly...I hope it doesn't though. As someone who usually attends the Novus Ordo, but also as a person who has attended a Traditional Latin Mass...I loved both. The Mass is the Mass, whether I can understand the words or not. The Consecration is the Consecration; the Eucharist is there as the source and summit of our faith in both forms.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who are willing to travel out of their way to go to the Traditional Latin Mass. I wouldn't do it every week, but if it helps someone with their relationship with the Lord, who would I be to judge them?

[the171]

I concur. My bishop is gracious enough to offer Traditional Latin Mass at our cathedral and he even does pontifical solemn high masses, and I am blessed to live near the cathedral. Next town over and loving it. Anyway, like you said the mass is the mass. I completely agree.

[the171]

I have a feeling that this will get ugly.... No, I know it will. It does every time.