WDTPRS POLL: Your Mass preference

Someone suggested this WDTPRS POLL about your preferences for attending Holy Mass. 

What is your preference, all things being equal, for the form of Holy Mass?

Do you prefer the traditional form of the Roman Rite, or TLM?  Extraordinary Form?  The Novus Ordo?

Does it matter?

This is clearly designated for subjects of the Latin Church.

{democracy:41}

Please give your reasons in the combox.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in POLLS, SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to WDTPRS POLL: Your Mass preference

  1. pbnelson says:

    My favorite isn’t on the list: Novus Ordo in Latin (such as at St. Agnes in St. Paul, Minnesota). [Yes... your preference is on the poll. It is included in "Novus Ordo", which in its proper form is in Latin.]

  2. fenetre says:

    We have that in our parish also, O.F. in Latin. Once a month on first Friday. Some parishes in Toronto, Canada, offer it also. Dumb question: why do we have that … isn’t it simpler with either E.F. or O.F.?

  3. Jason C. says:

    I prefer the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Melkite tradition. [Gosh. Is that what this poll was about? o{]:¬) ]

  4. I perfer the TLM, but will assist at the NO on weekday Masses. In the end I just want a Mass offered in the rubrics of Holy Roman Church

  5. Incaelo says:

    A well-offered ordinary form Mass for me. Ad orientem would be great.

  6. Brian Day says:

    I haven’t voted yet, but I’ll probably choose option 2.

    With all things being equal, if my parish offered both the OF and the EF of Holy Mass (they only offer the OF), I’ll go to the EF. What’s interesting for me is that that preference does not translate into a desire to travel to a different parish to attend an EF Mass. When the preference is that small, does option 3 or 4 seem more appropriate?

  7. Marcin says:

    Same as Jason C.

    (I am happy with any reverently celebrated Catholic Mass/Divine Liturgy)

  8. Random Friar says:

    *cough* Dominican Rite *cough* without all that Tridentine *cough* innovations *cough* ;)

  9. EnoughRope says:

    A Mass is a Mass- if done properly. Do it reverently and following the rubrics. Anything else is above my pay grade. I am just thankful Jesus gave us such a great gift. I am also thankful more and more priests are willing to say Mass properly and following the rubrics.

  10. Bruce says:

    I selected:
    I am happy with any reverently celebrated Catholic Mass/Divine Liturgy

    The E.F. is not offered where I live (Halifax,NS, Canada).I have attended The Ukrainian Catholic divine liturgy.

  11. Laurinda1230 says:

    I think I may not be well informed about which Mass is which. I thought it was this:

    Novus Ordo = Ordinary Form = Vernacular spoken (in my case, English)
    - This Mass can be very traditional and conservative but also has the tendency to be done inappropriately by progressive priests and laity.

    TLM = Extraordinary Form = communion rails = in Latin
    - How Mass was done before we had the vernacular.

    Can I get some correct definitions? I didn’t think the Novus Ordo is ever done in Latin.

  12. MargaretMN says:

    Maybe it’s because I’ve traveled a fair amount and regularly attended very different kinds of parishes but if the worship is sincere and doesn’t stray too much from the essentials, I will put up or “be happy” with a lot of stuff. (I’m not talking about word changes or animal sacrifices, mostly music and “style” issues). Probably less when I was younger. I had no real options then except very leftwing and liturgically “progressive” student chapels. I can definitely see myself in my younger days seeking out a TLM, now my choice of parish is more complex, I seek out not just the Mass that I like but also the place where I have a community of like minded people. Fortunately I have both where I am.

  13. Incaelo says:

    Laurinda: The NO can certainly be done in Latin. I’m not sure how it is elsewhere, but in Europe many parishes, if they have the means (ie. a priest) offer the NO in both Latin and the vernacular (although obviously not at the same time). The readings and homily will always be in the vernacular, though.

  14. Jayna says:

    I don’t have a preference for one over the other. My vote was for any Mass celebrated as the Church intends. The OF may allow for more deviation (well, not allow technically, but you know what I mean), but the EF is not immune from being improperly celebrated. The type of priests who celebrate it and those who attend almost totally preclude that situation but it is not an impossibility however improbable.

    Laurinda: The Brompton Oratory in London celebrates the OF Mass in Latin every weekday evening. I have found that a lot of churches that eventually end up celebrating the EF tend to start out with the OF in Latin to let parishioners warm up to the idea of the Mass in Latin.

  15. Laurinda1230:

    The Novus Ordo is in Latin, actually, and from the Latin is typically translated into the vernacular (in your case, English). However, what Sacrosanctum Concillium, which is the document from Vatican II that deals with liturgy and paved the way for the liturgical reform, actually says is just that certain parts of the Mass may be translated into the vernacular. In no way does it assume a translation or prescribe a translation, just simply that the vernacular is allowed. What it certainly indicates rather clearly is that Latin remains preferred, at least that certain parts of the liturgy are best preserved in Latin.

    As far as communion rails are concerned, again, while this is often a practical difference between an O.F. and E.F. Mass, it is not necessarily so. Altar rails are perfectly acceptable in an O.F. Mass (would that they were used!!!), and any communicant even without altar rails is always permitted to receive kneeling and on the tongue.

  16. JamesW4CPM says:

    The Mass is the Mass, regardless of rite, language, or form, and I’m more than than happy to do my best to attentively participate in any reverently celebrated Mass. With that said I think that there is a time and place for everything. For my Eagle Scout court of honor I had most of the Mass in Latin but I had some specific parts said in English (in accord with the rubrics, of course) for the sake of edifying the many Protestants who would be in attendance. On ordinary days, and especially Sundays and feast days, I do prefer as much Latin as possible in the NO Mass, which my family attends. I have only assisted at one EF Mass in my life and was so put off by the arrogance of the priest and congregation, who had the attitude of the EF being the “Real” or “True” Mass, that for some time I would have bee quite happy to never assist at another EF Mass. Since then I have seen the beauty of the EF when celebrated reverently and can’t wait for another opportunity to assist. Hopefully one day I will have the chance to learn to serve for the EF and, God willing, to be able to celebrate Mass in both forms. God bless.
    James

  17. cheyan says:

    I am happy with either form of Mass. If the EF were offered at my parish, or if the OF at my parish weren’t reverently celebrated, I’d probably attend the EF more often than I do – as it is, I go about once a month.

  18. TMA says:

    I prefer the TLM but will assist at the Novus Ordo whenever duty/weather/distance etc. requires.
    I am blessed to belong to a TLM parish, and after many difficult years in bad NO parishes, I have found that the TLM is my place of healing. I am still recovering. For me, to attend any NO mass is a penance, a suffering, but it is an even greater suffering not to attend mass at all.

  19. Mariana says:

    I prefer the TLM, but it has been celebrated only twice in the last 2 years (and before that not for years and years, as far as I know) by a a wonderfully generous FSSP priest who travels all the way to this country to minister to us. So it’s the OF for me, whatever my preferences.

  20. Nathan says:

    Since you asked for reasons, Father….

    I prefer the TLM but will go to the Novus Ordo when necessary. Why the TLM?

    1) The clarity of Catholic teaching in the prayers, especially the Offertory and Canon.

    2) The consistent use of the most ancient part of the Roman Rite, namely the Roman Canon. With the most likely apostolic formula for Consecration, including “mysterium fidei” in its proper place and sense.

    3) The psalmody found throughout the Mass, especially the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Introit/Offertory/Communion verses.

    4) A set of readings not bowlderized to remove references to sin and Divine Justice. A one-year cycle of readings that builds logically and clearly ties to the Divine Office of the day. A calendar of readings during the Christmas/Epiphany that moves chronologically through the infancy narratives to the wedding feast at Cana, instead of putting the Finding in the Temple in the octave of Christmas before Our Lord’s Circumcision.

    5) Minimal “options” and absolutely no extemporaneous prayer-making or commentary allowed. Someone once told me that the OF, offered completely within the rubrics, can be said in more than 700 different ways.

    6) It’s a form of the rite that is catholic (small-c) in both space and time–not only is it universal at this moment, but it ties us to the Communion of the Saints in that it was the form of Mass that generations of saints in heaven worshipped God with while they were on earth.

    7) With it’s grammatical glosses and less-than-classical lingual structure, it’s something that comes across as given, passed down, and always was, rather than sounding like it was composed by an individual or committee.

    8) The great treasury of beautiful chant and polyphony fits and is intregal to the form.

    9) It corresponds beautifully and richly with the four marks of the Church–it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

    10) Explicit prayers to the Blessed Trinity in every Mass.

    11) No option to remove the names of saints from the Canon, the Confiteor explicitly names the principal patrons of the Roman Church.

    12) The Last Gospel–”Et Verbo Caro Factum Est” at almost every Mass.

    13) The Leonine Prayers after Low Mass.

    14) The explicit distinction between the Holy Communion of the priest offering the Holy Sacrifice and everyone else, with separate “Domine, non sum dignus” prayers.

    In Christ,

  21. Henry Edwards says:

    Nathan: What a list of good reasons! How can anyone remain unconvinced?

    However, I might suggest that if you start by multiplying 3 (possible languages, like Latin, English, Spanish where many of us are) times 3 (different penitential rites) times 4 (Eucharistic prayers) times 3 (acclamations) times 3 (versions of the creed) times …. (for each of the other possible options), you probably wind up with lots more than 700, perhaps many thousands of possible versions of the Novus Ordo.

    Which reminds me of a question posed by one of the authors of the Ratzinger-Fontgombault liturgy conference volume, as to whether the Novus Ordo exists with sufficient stability in both time and space as to qualify as an actual rite of the Church. That is, if it’s never seen the same way twice, does it qualify for serious discussion as a real rite?

    His perhaps even more serious question was whether, if the Novus Ordo continues to subdivide like some of the Protestant sects do, does it exhibit the persistence that historically has been necessary for a liturgical rite to continue to exist indefinitely, or is it just a passing phenomenon that’s already on its way off the scene.

    But this was in 2002, and it might be argued now that a principal purpose of the Benedictine program is precisely to stablize the Novus Ordo as a genuine liturgical rite with a perceptible identity that places it within the continuing history of the Church.

  22. smallone says:

    I generally dislike “I agree” postings but I do agree with EnoughRope’s statement. Any Mass is a blessing.

    I have a hard time feeling like I am present at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass when the emphasis is on the congregation. This has been the case at nearly every OF mass I have attended. (Daily Masses don’t seem to suffer from this problem as much.)

    I would be much happier if the NO mass were celebrated in such a way that there was no question about why we were present.

    Although sometimes I think I’d gladly sing “Gather Us In” a million times if I could just receive kneeling and on the tongue without being viewed as a freak.

  23. wchoag says:

    I grew up with the TLM. It’s my spirituality. But the Novus Ordo is the ordinary form…

  24. bruno says:

    If I attended the TLM in Canada, it would be about a 12 hour drive. OF, as I have mentioned in other posts here, is about a 45 minute homily with the remaining part whistled through in 20 minutes, or so. If we here could just get something reverential and , say the black and do the red.

  25. Andy Milam says:

    wchoag,

    “I grew up with the TLM. It’s my spirituality. But the Novus Ordo is the ordinary form…”

    It is every Catholic person’s spirituality, even if they don’t know or admit it. The Sacrament is universal and for all time. Regardless of form, the Mass is central to the Catholic faith. What a great observation you made!!

  26. Mike says:

    I reverted when I went to a Benedictine Abbey with little or no Latin, but the reverence was powerful. Now, some 30 years later, I see why they could use more (much more!) Latin, but as St. Benedict says, bend the heart before you bend the knee. I don’t think that’s a reciple for liturgical dance, just so you know.

  27. Magpie says:

    I chose the second option. Whilst I prefer the TLM, I did attend a wonderful Latin NO once. I think therefore I prefer the TLM for historical/continuity/pedigree reasons. Having said that, the NO in Latin is pretty good too. However, all things being equal, I prefer the TLM. With the readings also repeated in English, I’d be a happy camper. Having said that, the NO in Latin, with the consecration aloud in Latin, is pretty cool too. In short, I probably should have chosen the last option. But I’d insist on ad orientem for any Latin NO. If I was in a position to insist, of course. Yes, I am in a funny mood this evening!

  28. crnugent says:

    “I am happy with any reverently celebrated Catholic Mass/Divine Liturgy ” (my vote with a caveat that reverent=licit and valid)

    But Father! But Father! Being happy with it or preferring it isn’t our standard of measure!

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/01/feedback-i-am-59-years-old-and-like-the-current-liturgy/

  29. Precentrix says:

    I’m 25 and definitely prefer the TLM/EF/whatever-you-want-to-call-it; however, it drives me nuts when people refuse to attend the NO/EF/whatever, because this usually implies that they doubt its validity. I can understand refusal to assist in a particular parish because of the way in which the Mass is celebrated, however.

    My reasons were probably initially aesthetic, but I’m one of those church music geeks who at least dabbles in theology and therefore in liturgical studies and I’ve come to a conclusion that much of what was removed in the reforms is, in fact, quite important. That’s in addition to the things which one finds in the new Mass correctly celebrated. With time, my reasons have become more rational, I suppose.

    Still, the New Mass is better than no Mass, on account of it being, well, you know, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, so as long as there is no actual sacrilege taking place, count me in.

  30. joebebopper says:

    Prefer TLM; tolerate NO and am weary of doing so.

  31. Dr. Eric says:

    I would rather go to an EF Mass in pretty much every circumstance. But as the church is over an hour away, we usually go to an OF Mass in our town. After First Communion (we teach the First Communion Class) we are going to start going to St. Francis de Sales in downtown St. Louis.

  32. Heather says:

    I only attend the TLM or the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

    I’m open to attending other rites except the novus ordo.

    In fact, I have only attended the novus ordo a few times, without receiving communion.

  33. ncstevem says:

    I think Nathan above offers some good reasons in favor of TLM vs the NO.

    The idea that many of the prayers have been removed in the NO is akin to saying that praying three decades of the Roasary is equal to praying five decades.

    As far as I’m concerned the NO contributes to a loss of Faith among Catholics.

    One question I’ve never have answered–If the priest must purify his hands prior to the consecration, why don’t laymen have to do the same thing prior to distributing Holy Communion?

  34. Philothea says:

    I prefer the TLM, but I have to drive 45 minutes to get to one (that may change soon).

    I am also happy with a reverent, “Say the Black Do the Red” Novus Ordo Mass with an excellent homily. That is what I get regularly at my own parish.

    But my visit to a Tridentine Sunday Mass at an FSSP parish a couple of weeks ago spoiled me; now I am slightly irritated by the music selections at my own parish. (Nothing heretical, but no chant or sacred polyphony either.)

  35. Lori Ehrman says:

    I prefer a reverantly celebrated Mass in any approved form by a Catholic priest in good standing who has a holy and true Devotion to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and His mother, the Immaculate Conception. I want to right here and right now say THANK YOU to Father Paul Weinberger of Greenville, Texas because I am privileged to have what I prefer! Deo Gratias!

  36. TomB says:

    OK, I guess I’m happy with any serious Mass. However, it has come to the point that a serious Novus Ordo Mass is quite rare (speaking only from my own personal experience), so I avoid it whenever possible. I haven’t got to the point of the TLM exclusively, but I have that tendency which grows stronger with each N. O. Mass that I must attend. That is now so infrequent that I find it at times shocking to see and hear.

  37. momoften says:

    I have grown to love TLM more, but continue to fill in with an occasional Monastery Mass that is always reverent with only boy servers and sacred music. I rarely go to the parishes by my house. (one is almost in my back yard) The music is horrible, the lack of reverence is horrible, and girl servers arrggh!

  38. Mitchell NY says:

    I prefer the TLM although not opposed to the NO, (which I will occasionally attend) simply because that between the two, the TLM is still closer to what the Vatican II Council wanted. The NO as celebrated, not as written, is still light years away from what it should be. Even when they talk about reform of the reform I assume they are talking about reforming even the best of the NO celebrations and the books of Pope Paul VI. The Pope has even said it is fabricated liturgy though valid. And the question of invalidity is raised more often because of the endless options that the NO allows and that way that most Priests choose to celebrate it. The facts are the facts and reverant celebrations according to the way the NO is supposed to be celebrated are the exception not the rule. Or the way things are in the communities of the faithful. That is what I think to be the inherrant flaw in the NO, way too many options, which fosters the abuse and the void of anything traditional. Latin and Chant are at least guaranteed in the Tridentine Mass, not to mention all the other reasons various posters have written already. If given the chance to do it all over again, the NO Mass as we know it probably would not be here. That is more than enough for me to stick with the Tridentine Mass until the NO is scrapped or completely overhauled AND enforced to reflect the traditional continuity of the Church.

  39. bernadette says:

    I prefer the TLM but the closest one is a three hour drive one way. I usually am only able to attend a TLM about four times a year so I have to be content with the Novus Ordo, provided it is offered reverently.

  40. yatzer says:

    Any reverently celebrated, say the black do the red, Mass is fine with me, with the caveat that I would much prefer being able to kneel at the altar rail to receive the Lord even at the NO.

  41. As to celebrating the Holy Mass, I prefer the Extraordinary Form. However, it is more exacting and physically demanding, I have to tell you (since I do have some physical infirmities to deal with)…I feel, many times, that the sacrifice involved with its physicality and mental energy to be “present” to the Mystery in all its demands is truly united to our Lord on the Cross. Not to sound self-pitying, here, but just to make this observation.
    The OF is not something I find difficult to celebrate; it just does not have the profundity in its prayers and rites. It is still the same Mystery.
    But to be honest, unless it is sung in Latin Gregorian chant, I prefer to recite the OF when I offer it; I am offering two Masses each week in a local parish with no music. This is a very contemplative and profound experience, for me, as celebrant, anyway.

  42. MrsHall says:

    I am happy with any reverently celebrated Catholic Mass/Divine Liturgy.

    That said, my first Mass was in a charismatic/renewal parish.
    My second Mass was in an SSPX chapel (the TLM, obviously).
    We settled in a diocesan NO parish, with a charismatic priest who has a definite love of Tradition.

    In all three settings, the Mass was reverent, the Spirit of God was tangible, my heart, mind and soul were engaged. I love the Mass. I grew up Protestant and although I am not going to disparage the good I received from my background, I have a deep, deep love for the Catholic Church, the Mass, Tradition and tradition. Jesus is there at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, regardless of the language Fr. prays in or the direction he faces. I feel the TLM has many aspects that are more appropriate when worshiping our Holy God. I would rather receive Him on my knees. I have never yet touched a Host and have no intention of doing so, even if the EMC doesn’t care for placing it on my tongue. But in any case, Jesus is there. Just walking into the church takes my breath away when I see that candle lit. The Mass needs to be done right, I agree, and I am glad there are theologians such as the Holy Father working toward that end. But for me, it’s all about Jesus. “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof,” and so He brings us under His. Amazing.

  43. Girgadis says:

    I voted for the last option. However, one of the many factors that has me going to the TLM every Sunday is knowing that, at this form of the Mass, I can receive Holy Communion kneeling at the altar rail and I will not have to contend with the exchange of peace and people who disturb others before, during and after Mass with inane chatter.

  44. Therese says:

    “Prefer TLM; tolerate NO and am weary of doing so.”

    I frankly find the NO Mass distracting. And believe me, I’ve tried very hard not to be distracted!Many thanks to the deacon for listing 14 reasons to attend the EF. Here’s one more:

    By virtue of his ad orientem position at the altar, the celebrant effectively leads his congregation in prayer at Mass–we address the Lord together.

    (I have often wondered whether the push to move the tabernacle out of the sanctuary had something to do with a bit of guilt in the celebrant for turning his back to the Lord during Mass…yes, I am aware that the Lord is on the altar as well during and after the consecration..it’s just a thought.)

  45. TJerome says:

    I prefer the TLM as modified in 1965 (no Last Gospel, shortened prayers at the Foot of the Altar, etc) but alas, since that is no longer a viable option I prefer the Novus Ordo, in Latin, ad orientem, although I frequently go to the EF which I do appreciate. Tom

  46. I mean really I tried.

    Undergraduate degree in classics, Ph.d. in Medieval Art. Really – I can read the Mass and any devotional text i need to with reasonable fluencey. Theology in Latin – harder.

    I hung around the Latin Mass community in Atlanta until I left in 1999 for work in Upstate New York, which was before the canonical establishment of the FSSP parish. I have a number of friends in that parish.

    Still and all the simple fact is that if you grow up a Protestant and then accept the One Holy Catholic and Aposolic Church you’ll put up with a LOT so long as it’s true.

  47. markomalley says:

    Any Mass, properly celebrated, is wonderful.

    By the way, did you all see this article in NLM? Apparently there is going to be a Solemn Pontifical EF Mass on Saturday, April 24, 1 PM at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC!!!!! Dario Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is the celebrant.

  48. Jim of Bowie says:

    I much prefer the TLM for many of the reasons cited by Nathan. However, the nearest TLM to Bowie is about 45 min. away. I attend twice a month for their Missa Contata. The rest of the time I go to the Novus Ordo at my home parish in Bowie, which is very traditional (reverent masses, male servers, incense masses, limited EMHCs) although with Haugen and Haas music. I usually say the prayers at the foot of the altar, the last gospel and the Leonine prayers after mass. I try to avoid the guitar masses though. Another problem is that my family prefers the Novus Ordo.

  49. I checked “happy with any reverently celebrated Catholic Mass”. But for me “reverently celebrated” would optimally mean “in Latin, ad orientem, with organ and chant if there is to be music, with every instruction and rubric obeyed and interpreted in accord with liturgical tradition.”

    These days I have been trying out a modified meaning of “traditional”, using it equally for EF and OF when these are done as above, and “modernist” or some such word for the contrary. It changes my perspective. Either form can be beautiful, dignified, and reverent; either form can suffer the absence of those qualities.

  50. An American Mother says:

    Any reverently celebrated Mass is fine with me.

    We really have an embarrassment of riches here – the FSSP parish and our home parish are almost equidistant from our house. Both are splendid – our home parish is OF but very traditional – judging from our unhappy experiences elsewhere, the most traditional in the area. All the priests are good solid homilists, although each has his own style all are orthodox, direct, and unflinching. All are reverent in their celebration. Nobody blinks an eye if you receive kneeling and on the tongue, no handholding silliness during the Our Father or ‘holy touchdown’ at the Sursum Corda. The Ordinary is chanted in Latin every first Sunday, our younger priests add more Latin regularly and we will probably wind up with the OF in Latin. EF hopefully to follow.

    The deciding point in favor of our home parish (in addition to the outstanding priests and wonderful parishioners, as well as encouraging the wider use of Latin outside ONE parish in the archdiocese) is that the music is absolutely superb — while the FSSP parish has an excellent schola and my daughter and I both have sung under their very competent music director (at our former high school), the music director at our parish is quite possibly the best organist in the city and an expert in medieval and Renaissance music. He has coached an amateur choir (with one staff singer per section) to a remarkable level, doing justice to fairly difficult music. Intelligent, reverent delivery of chant and polyphony is the order of the day, and if an occasional bone of a horrible hymn is thrown to the surviving hippies in the congregation, we just grin and bear it. They seem to be learning from the contrast . . . .

  51. JPG says:

    I checked any reverently celbrated Mass. For its reverence and sheer beauty nothing compares to the solemn EF. On a day to day basis a reverently spoken daily Mass in the OF is wonderful. The readings and the psalms gives one a different perspective every day. The issue is the average Sunday Mass in the OF is another matter. I have been to way too many Masses celebrated with sappy music by Father Superiorsmugly Happyclappy, with all the reverence of Mickey and Judy saying “Let’s put on a Show”. What is worse is I insist my family attend which in fact has led to any suggestion of the OF to my family being shot down. Talk about trying to comprehend the great and awesome mystery of the Mass with the all too common attitude on the part of priest and people. It is small wonder people say “it is grave sin if I miss this?”.
    JPG

  52. DetJohn says:

    I selected the second choice. I love a TLM High Mass, but I have a great love for the Low Mass. I am 68yrs.old and I went to Catholic School and we attended mass daily plus Sunday and over 90% were Low Masses. During the school year I would serve 20 plus masses a month. For the above reason I am very much at home in the TLM Low Mass. Often times I am not in an area that is near or convient to a TLM location and I attend the Novus Ordo.

    For those who have a difficult time with the Novus Ordo and have limited access to the TLM, I would suggest that they see if there is an Eastern Rite Catholic Church in their area. The Armenians, Melkites and all the other Byzantine Rites celebrate the Liturgy ad orientem. These Eastern Rites distribute Holy Communion via intinction and in the standing position. There is no kneeling in the Byzantine Rite. Another option is the Anglican useage. It is similar to the TlM and said in Olde English.

    If it is Sunday or a Holyday you need to attend mass/liturgy in what ever form is available.

  53. Lynn Diane says:

    All Eucharistic celebrations are beautiful but I prefer the Novus Ordo in Latin. I also attend the extraordinary form of the Roman rite or Eastern liturgies on occasion. Our pastor is very reverent, and I like to hear the canon read aloud. I think the Novus Ordo has a greater selection of readings. A retired pastor told me to go to whichever Mass I get the most out of.

  54. Francisco Cojuanco says:

    I prefer the EF masses slightly, but I attend the OF Masses more often – the Mass is the Mass is the Mass, and compared to the horror stories from before, it’s actually gotten better in the parishes I attend (I travel in the locality frequently). Compared with 10 or 15 years ago, I can with reasonably expect either form of Mass to be reverently celebrated within reason – the OF’s aren’t ad orientem et in lingua Latina yet, but it’s reverent and the priests are orthodox, even if some are eccentric.

  55. bookworm says:

    I chose option #4 (happy with any reverently celebrated Mass or Divine Liturgy). I have no problem with either a properly celebrated NO or a TLM (which I’ve attended only a few times in my life). I also have attended Orthodox Divine Liturgies and if there were a Byzantine/Eastern Rite parish in my area I’d probably choose that over even a TLM.

    But in general, I feel that as long as the Mass is valid and you are receiving Jesus, that’s what counts, and being overly “picky” about what liturgy one attends is not necessarily an indication of virtue or piety. However it may be easier for me to say that because I have never been subjected to some of the grosser liturgical abuses recounted by others on this blog.

  56. RichardT says:

    Option 2 for me (prefer TLM, but usually have to do NO).

    Why not Option 1 (TLM only)?
    Because I have an obligation to attend Sunday Mass where possible, and the Church says that the NO is valid (indeed is the “Ordinary Form”).

    Why not Option 4 (any reverent Mass)?
    Many of Nathan’s points above.
    But the big personal reason for me is the period from the end of the Eucharistic Prayer to Communion. I feel a strong desire to stay kneeling in the presence of Christ, and standing up in the NO to say prayers (and particularly to shake hands) is distracting.

  57. maynardus says:

    Although I picked the first option I’d have taken the second if it was worded differently, e.g. “I prefer the TLM but will assist at the Novus Ordo only under the most extreme duress”.

    I simply don’t feel comfortable at the O.F. – actually, I feel extremely UN-comfortable. Even in a parish known for its orthodoxy, even with a priest I know, even without any abuses, there are things which I find utterly disconcerting: the banality of the language, the priest facing me over a table (while a glorious altar stands unused in the shadows behind him), the absence of the traditional Offertory, the happy handshake of hospitality, the ubiquitous “ordinary-extra ministers”, etc.

    I wish I didn’t feel this way, but I do. This is the Mass which brought my wife into the Church. This is the only Mass my five boys can remember attending. It’s part of our lives as a Catholic family. So we find a way. For ten years we drove 45 miles each way (and of course MANY folks drive MUCH further). We’ve embarked 2+ hours early during snowstorms and arrived 5 min. before Mass. We’ve gotten up ay 0430 to drive to a 7:00 Mass about 90 min. away because of “duty” later that day. During that time we’ve atended the O.F. on a Sunday or holy day exactly once, when the nearest T.L.M. was 200 miles away and we’d have missed our flight home.

    By now we consider that “normal”. I know what happened to my Faith growing up in a parish and diocese which simply appeared to have stopped taking the Faith seriously. I won’t make that mistake with my own family…

  58. bookworm says:

    A quick heads up for anyone in the Chicago area who’s interested:

    The CLTV channel will be broadcasting the funeral of its ace political reporter Carlos Hernandez Gomez today from St. John Cantius Church starting at 11 a.m. (Central Time) This story says that the Mass “will be in Latin” and a priest will be on hand to provide commentary:

    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker/2010/01/cltv-to-carry-funeral-of-political-reporter-carlos-hernandez-gomez.html

    The story doesn’t say whether this is a NO Mass of Christian Burial or a TLM Requiem Mass, but either way, it will be a great chance for those of you who want to see a funeral liturgy done the way it should be, to see it.

    Gomez died at the age of 36 after a long battle with cancer, and he was known for being a very tough but fair reporter in the world of Chicago/Illinois politics. Don’t forget to say a few prayers for him and his wife as well.

  59. irishgirl says:

    I checked off the fourth option.

    I usually go to the TLM on Sundays, but there is one Sunday in the month when it’s not offered at the chapel I attend. So I go to the Maronite Rite parish instead. That’s only during the winter months, because in the nicer months I make a two-hour drive (one way) to a TLM at a convent of traditional Sisters.

    I want to go a Mass that has reverence and a sense of the sacred. I don’t find it in the NO-and yet I grew up with it! I became fed up with women running the show [I know I shouldn't refer to the Mass as a ''show', but that's the only way to describe it sometimes]. I used to be a lector and sing in both a choir and as a cantor; but I don’t do those things anymore now that I go the TLM exclusively.

  60. rogue63 says:

    I checked the 2nd option. The TLM is simply a richer rite, more full of Scripture, and inherently more disposed to truly sacred music. I’m a parish school music teacher, so I am always preparing music for a weekly NO school Mass. I am always trying to expose the students to more sacred music, more jewels from the Church’s tradition, but sometimes the “popular acclaim” for something like “Eagle’s Wings”/”One Bread, One Body” becomes so violent that I have to give in to keep my job.

    I can’t lie: As for the TLM, I love the sound of Latin, the way it rolls in mellifluous cadence from the tongue. I love the “liturgical dance” of priest, deacon, subdeacon, and servers which is so frequently lacking at most NO Masses. I love the rapt attention and near-silence from fellow parishioners at a TLM. I love to hear Holy Scripture in Gregorian chant (although, to my chagrin, still sung to Rossini propers or something similar). I love the measured and careful formality of the versicles: Dominus vobiscum, etc.

    It seems that the NO Mass is less reverent—almost Catholic-lite—partially by design, but mostly through its practice. I keep hoping and praying for more of the cross-pollination from the TLM to the Novus Ordo. Why sing “songs” at Mass, when one can actually sing the Mass, just as Pope St. Pius X requested?

  61. Bornacatholic says:

    If it were possible I’d go to the EF daily.

    Also, were I am Priest and a Traditionalist Confessed to me a Mortal Sin, I’d send him to two N.O. guitar Masses as Penance.

  62. Diego F. C. says:

    “I am happy with any reverently celebrated Catholic Mass/Divine Liturgy”.

    This is that says my Church, the rest is vanity of vanities.

  63. Diego F. C. says:

    And that is what makes my Pope.

  64. Rudolphus9 says:

    The traditional Latin Mass builds faith. One would need a book to explain all the reasons for preferring it to the NO Mass. I take the liberty to quote “Nathan” who summarized the reasons so well in an earlier comment. Thank you, Nathan!

    Most cordially,

    Dr. Rudolph Masciantonio
    Chairman, Philadelphia Chapter, Latin Liturgy Association, Inc.
    429 S. 20th St., A
    Philadelphia, PA 19146
    e-mail: Rudolphus9@aol.com
    telephone: 215 732 6431
    website: http://www.latinliturgy.com

    NATHAN’S COMMENT
    <>

  65. Rudolphus9 says:

    Why the TLM?

    1) The clarity of Catholic teaching in the prayers, especially the Offertory and Canon.

    2) The consistent use of the most ancient part of the Roman Rite, namely the Roman Canon. With the most likely apostolic formula for Consecration, including “mysterium fidei” in its proper place and sense.

    3) The psalmody found throughout the Mass, especially the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Introit/Offertory/Communion verses.

    4) A set of readings not bowlderized to remove references to sin and Divine Justice. A one-year cycle of readings that builds logically and clearly ties to the Divine Office of the day. A calendar of readings during the Christmas/Epiphany that moves chronologically through the infancy narratives to the wedding feast at Cana, instead of putting the Finding in the Temple in the octave of Christmas before Our Lord’s Circumcision.

    5) Minimal “options” and absolutely no extemporaneous prayer-making or commentary allowed. Someone once told me that the OF, offered completely within the rubrics, can be said in more than 700 different ways.

    6) It’s a form of the rite that is catholic (small-c) in both space and time—not only is it universal at this moment, but it ties us to the Communion of the Saints in that it was the form of Mass that generations of saints in heaven worshipped God with while they were on earth.

    7) With it’s grammatical glosses and less-than-classical lingual structure, it’s something that comes across as given, passed down, and always was, rather than sounding like it was composed by an individual or committee.

    8) The great treasury of beautiful chant and polyphony fits and is intregal to the form.

    9) It corresponds beautifully and richly with the four marks of the Church—it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

    10) Explicit prayers to the Blessed Trinity in every Mass.

    11) No option to remove the names of saints from the Canon, the Confiteor explicitly names the principal patrons of the Roman Church.

    12) The Last Gospel—”Et Verbo Caro Factum Est” at almost every Mass.

    13) The Leonine Prayers after Low Mass.

    14) The explicit distinction between the Holy Communion of the priest offering the Holy Sacrifice and everyone else, with separate “Domine, non sum dignus” prayers.

    In Christ,

    Comment by Nathan — 20 January 2010 @ 4:29 pm

  66. TheWork says:

    I prefer the Novus Ordo in Latin, with a very firm recommendation that translations be put in the parishes, and simple latin classes be given in the parishes.

    I’ll be very happy though, with the new missal coming out. Faithful to the text and a quality reverent liturgy is what I care about.

  67. Manrique Zabala de Arizona says:

    I LOVE the TLM even if I was born and raised with the ordinary form. I still attend my parish, which celebrates only in vernacular, twice on week days and a Sunday per month, while attending the Mass of the Institute of Christ the King in Madrid.

    I’ve got to know both communities, and I love the people that work, in their own way, for the love of God. I wouldn’t have it no other way, really.

  68. Nathan says:

    I’d like to ask WDTPRS-ers a question about this discussion. Obviously, from what I wrote above, I have a strong preference for the TLM. Can we put a list together of reasons to prefer the Novus Ordo, however? This isn’t a polemical exercise, but my attempt to understand (and hopefully be able to discuss in greater charity) why a fairly significant number of people becoming increasingly familiar with both forms of the Latin Rite still prefer the Novus Ordo.

    A large number of posters quite truthfully point to the validity of both forms and the graces associated with the divine action of any Holy Mass or Divine Liturgy. That is a great point (and especially salient to my temptation to approach Holy Mass like a theater critic), but since Summorum Pontificum pointed to juridical equality between the two forms, it seems ok to compare the two and go to Mass in the form that best suits our spiritualities.

    I think it’s important, though, to focus on comparison between the texts and rubrics (in the OF case, the GIRM as well) instead of the ars celebrendi or common abuses or “atmosphere.” Both forms can be celebrated well or poorly, but that doesn’t give, IMO, a useful basis of comparison.

    For the intellectual exercise, here’s my admittedly biased stab at reasons to prefer the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite:

    1) It’s much less difficult to follow and pray, even in the Latin. The cues that the congregation follows are heard rather than seen.

    2) The explicit inclusion of a separate Old Testament lesson in Masses of Sundays and Solemnities.

    3) The Eucharistic Prayer is spoken, not silent, so you know exactly what’s going on in the action of the Holy Sacrifice.

    4) The congregation is included for the entirety of the Pater Noster.

    5) The three-year cycle of readings, which incorporates a much greater cross-section of Holy Scripture.

    6) The proclamations and acclamations between the priests/lectors and the congregation is much more similar to the ancient Eastern and Gallican rites than the TLM.

    7) Repetitious elements of the TLM are reduced, such as the priest/people dual Confiteor and “Domine, non sum dignus”

    8) The OF tends to make Catholic worship more understandable to potential converts and to those who are coming back to the Faith. It is much less intimidating in that regard.

    9) EP 3 is an excellent summary of Catholic teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist.

    Is this a fair list? Can we make useful comparisons? Is it possible for TLM devotees and people of good will in the OF not to talk past each other?

    BTW, Henry, thank you very much for the compliments on the pro-TLM list. I think you’re right on the multiplicity of ways to say the OF within the rubrics–I’m just too lazy to actually do the math.

    In Christ,

  69. Okay, this is one very passionate response to why the NO, with massive con-celebration is just “over the top”.
    I just saw a 40 minute entrance procession with priests, bishops, cardinals and the principal celebrant cardinal (who by the way, greeted and spoke with people on the way to the altar!) at the “Solemn Pro-Life Vigil Mass” televised on EWTN live.
    This is just not right. Forty minutes? That’s probably two to three times the length of the Liturgy of the Eucharist! It’s just a parade.
    Thanks be to God, Pope Benedict has changed this at the papal Masses (at St. Peter, anyway).
    Con-celebration has got to be dealt with.
    I realize that bishops and cardinals are present, but why all these priests? Can’t they be in choir; present but not a part of the “central action”? That’s my question.

  70. Frank H says:

    And, nazareth priest, what was with all the introductions and applause? Not very “solemn”, I agree!

  71. mike cliffson says:

    Mass is mass is mass is mass….
    Áfter What Ive heard of as happening in penal times, in concentration camps, etc.: few infrequent risky hurried secretive minimalist masses, so much as having an opinion and being able to be picky is a compasrative luxury for pampered modern westerners.
    Like me.
    So
    Don’t really like to vote a preference..
    Voted number 4
    But actually it’s negative …. I do have tastes, likes’ etc , whch might have a proper litugical and theological basis.I don’t want to go into that now.

    But I do find irreverence so off putting. And Im not I hope too fussy.
    (I’m lucky: I hear vernular masses mostly in modern latin, ie Spanish.The icel english is like St teresa calling this life a night in a bad inn: uncomfortable and deficient , but enoughly of the same nature as a better equivalent as to not make one give up in despair of a good inn some how somewhere.)
    and
    I’ve heard a great many n.o. masses said very Reverently(? don’t like the word) by many priests
    and
    I´ve known, eg , “children’s” masses, outwardly a bit “messy”, which other people objected to, where I felt that the priestand his parishioners WERE utterly aware of wherethey were and what they were doing.( manifested eg in -very contrasting!- Silence and rapt attention and plain, dignified, unhurried pauses around the consecration)……

    whereas elsewhere without anything obvious like thast Ive had the suspicion , maybe wrongly, surely uncharitably, that priest and parish had heart just plain otherwhere.
    So I dunno.

  72. mfg says:

    Prefer the TLM 100 – 1. But when I cannot go because of no availability on First Friday and First Saturday I attend the NO and just keep my head down, strategize how to get in the Priest’s Communion line and I live to fight another day. So I picked #2.

  73. kbf says:

    I prefer the OF. I like it done in Latin, but English is fine with me. I learned to serve the EF and became quite competent but I fail to see how anyone finds it in any way superior to the OF in the same way that I couldn’t say that the Byzentine Rite liturgy is superior or inferior to the Roman Rite. It is simply another form of the Rite.

    That being said, I think it would be beneficial to the life of the church if the majority of parishes, if not every parish, had mass in both forms each Sunday to emphasise the bredth of expression of catholic liturgy. I wouldn’t opt to attend the EF if every parish offered it, but I firmly believe it should be open to those who do.

  74. Niall Mor says:

    I was born in 1963, smack dab in the middle of Vatican II, so I have no memory of the Traditional Latin Mass. For better or worse I grew up in the ’70s and ’80s, the era of the “Folk Mass.” I have never had the opportunity to attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form but would very much like to. I am almost embarrassed to say this, but it was only a few years ago that I discovered the polyphonic music of Tallis, Palestrina, and others, and this, in turn, has sparked a greater interest in the Latin language, Gregorian chant,and the older forms of the liturgy. The older I get, the more sympathetic I am to older, more traditional forms of worship. For me, the liturgy, in whatever form it is celebrated must have three essential things: beauty, dignity, and reverence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

  75. cl00bie says:

    I am happy to attend any liturgy which is reverently celebrated in any language. My favorite of all is Novus Ordo in Latin (in which the celebrant reads the black and does the red) augmented by chant.

    I generally attend a reverently celebrated Novus Ordo weekly, but my wife and I attend a very reverently celebrated EF on first Fridays at our local Friars of the Immaculate hermitage.