For Lay People: Participation at Holy Mass: Which Form do you PREFER? WDTPRS POLL

Over HERE, I had a poll about what you actually do in regard to your participation at Holy Mass.

Here is a poll about what you would PREFER to do!

The poll options are the same, but the emphasis is a different.

This is about your IDEAL.   “On my planet, I would…”  Get it?

I hope you will choose your best answer and then post a comment with your reasons.

Do NOT… do NOT engage others or mention others by name in your comment.  Let everyone post freely without worrying in the least that others will attack.  I will delete comments which stray.

Anyone can vote.  Registered readers can post comments.

This is about your preference, which may or may not be what you can actually do.

Concerning my participation at Holy Mass in the Latin Church: which Form? IF IT WERE UP TO ME I would attend ...

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Technorati Tags: , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Linking Back, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, POLLS, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, Universae Ecclesiae and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to For Lay People: Participation at Holy Mass: Which Form do you PREFER? WDTPRS POLL

  1. Geoffrey says:

    I chose “Extraordinary and Ordinary both equally “. Often when I was able to attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form on Sundays, I attended the OF Mass (vigil) the evening before. I like the OF Mass when done right; I like the new Lectionary, and I like worshiping using texts that a majority of the faithful are using all over the world. On the other hand, I like worshiping in a form that my ancestors worshiped in, and without worrying about a liturgical abuse cropping up out of nowhere. I often resent, for lack of a better word, the fact that I have to choose at all…

  2. Michelle F says:

    I chose “Only Extraordinary and never Ordinary” because I think, after much reading and being able to attend the Extraordinary form of the Mass approximately 10 times, that the Extraordinary form, in both its outward form and in its prayers, best exemplifies all of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Also, I want to be part of the historical Church. I want to attend the same Mass and receive the same Sacraments that produced the Church’s Saints. I want to participate in the traditional (pre-conciliar) Liturgy of the Hours and pious devotions – all of which I think do the best job of bringing one’s heart and mind into their proper relationship to God and His will. (No, I am not a member of the SSPX or anything like that, but I do sympathize with many of their points.)

  3. Since the poll is worded as which I would prefer, I chose “Extraordinary only, never Ordinary” with the assumption that in ‘cases of need’, the Traditional Mass would remain available.
    I might be so bold as to say that I would “prefer” a world in which Pope Paul’s Mass was never promulgated. :P

  4. NoTambourines says:

    I chose both equally. I have a long-standing commitment to my choir at an OF Mass in my parish, but my preference for tradition would draw me to the EF. Of course, if I were to truly have equal access to EF and OF, it would mean a fundamental cultural change had occurred, and I’d be making the EF-or-OF decision from a very different context.

  5. The Sicilian Woman says:

    It was a bit difficult to answer this one; I need to attend a few more EF Masses before I can say with certainty what my preference is.

    The EF is new to me. Only since my digging deeper into the Faith in the past year have I learned anything about it; I hadn’t known before then that it existed. I’ve attended the EF twice at an FSSP parish and was completely lost the first time, only slightly less so the second. But…it was peaceful, it was dignified (no altar servers wearing sneaker or sandals), and the priest solely giving the Eucharist at the altar rail and reception of the Eucharist on the tongue with the recipient kneeling brought me back to the last time I saw such things, as a child in the 70s. It seemed right, and reverent. Plus, those things that I have always disliked at NO Masses – the “peace” handshake, the hand-holding during the Our Father, the clapping after any and every announcement before the final blessing – weren’t present. Further, from what I’ve gathered since reading this and other blogs, such things are inappropriate, if not flat-out wrong, at Mass.

    So, I think, with the exception of veiling (obligatory or not), I’m naturally inclined towards preferring the EF exclusively.

  6. Me, I chose the EF only option. While yes I understand the NO is validly sacramental and licit when priests with proper faculties do it with right form, matter, and intention, it does not personally give me that feeling of lifting my soul to the heavens many a time. Furthermore, the sermons of priests are very hit and miss, though I do know one parish whose priests do it right at another parish nearby and one of the three has great teaching sermons due to his background. Those sermons btw tend to steer clear of moral and ethical crises due to a desire to “not offend anyone”. Sometimes, I just get the feeling with the NO that it is just has been too reworked and that what accompanies the NO (e.g. Liturgies, ministries, pastors’ handling of their parishes and bishops’ leadership) takes away from its true mission of the salvation of souls. I feel that the EF and those who go and participate it really do reflect Christ more visibly and the role of the Church. It just feels more whole to me and not bogged down in garbage or useless “churchy” stuff.

  7. NB: I meant to say one of the three at my “home base” parish.

  8. JP Borberg says:

    Not once in my adult life have I attended a Novus Ordo Mass which did not make me ill. I have read on the internets that it is possible to make it stomachable, but I have yet to see or even hear of it in real life.

    I’ve also had a few agnostic/atheist classmates take a two hour round trip to check out the Extraordinary form, none of them have regretted it. By way of contrast, I once took my agnostic girlfriend (a veteran of more than five Extraordinary Form road trips) to a Novus Ordo Mass. She insisted we leave early. She’s also enthusiastically recommend the ‘Latin Mass’ to a staunchly protestant friend of mine. Bless her. She is, or course, an amazing woman.

    Oh, and all of these people are under 22. That says heaps really

  9. Tom Esteban says:

    Only the Usus Antiquior, never the Novus Ordo. I chose this option because I do not merely ‘prefer’ the TLM, but because I wholeheartedly believe and confirm that it is the fullest expression of the Catholic faith that the Roman Rite has so far produced. It isn’t perfect, but no liturgy this side of Heaven will ever be perfect. It is, though, a product of authentic liturgical development and it is full of the reverence and awe that we owe to God and it is objectively better than the Novus Ordo.

  10. Dismas says:

    I chose; Only Extraordinary and never Ordinary because I experience it to be more spiritually and theologically challenging, instructive and edifying.

    Save the Liturgy, save the world.

  11. leutgeb says:

    In an ideal world only the EF and a mixture of sung/High Mass and Low Mass and sung Masses where I sing and where I don’t.

    As a musician, the EF Mass is a great relief on a practical level because it is pretty well all laid down exactly what you must do and whoever the prest is it’s clear when to do it.

    I would find it very hard now to have to go to the OF exclusively now. In fact, I’d have to force myself to do so out of duty and I am aware that due to geography, that day could come.

  12. Ellen says:

    A reverently said Novus Ordo Mass with sung Latin parts (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) is what I like the best. Happily, that’s how it is in my parish and at the Fathers of Mercy Chapel where I sometimes go. I’d be even happier if they’d dispense with the sappy hymns though.

  13. Simon_GNR says:

    My preference is “Mostly Ordinary sometimes Extraordinary”, and within the “mostly ordinary” my preference would be for roughly a 50/50 split between the ordinary form in Latin and in English. I have never yet been able to attend an Novus Ordo Latin mass but I would love to do so. I’ve not yet found a church within reasonable travelling distance where an orddinary form mass is said in Latin.

  14. jaykay says:

    I inhabit an almost overwhelmingly NO universe but on my dream planet I would prefer the UA (in my actual universe the nearest UA is over 50 miles away so I can only attend sporadically). If I had a second choice it would probably for a 50/50 split between UA and NO, with the NO being totally ad orientem and very frequently in Latin.

  15. disco says:

    Ever since I first assisted at holy mass in the extraordinary form I have never gone to the ordinary form in its place except to fulfill some obligation apart from the precepts of the church. In a perfect world, there would be a properly celebrated traditional mass in every parish and the choice to attend would not be so difficult for the multitude who would want it. There would be far more prayers for the poor souls in purgatory that way too I suppose. In the meantime, I find that a poorly celebrated NO mass is just about more than I can bear and for the most part I’d rather not chance it.

  16. Precentrix says:

    Only Extraordinary.

    There is no option for ‘any Latin or non-Latin rite of the Church, excluding the Paul VI missal which drives me nuts.’ I’m happy with the Eastern Rites. I’m happy with the old Roman Rite (and variations thereof). I have objections to the usus modernior, including some aspects of the original Holy Week reforms.

  17. I voted “Mostly Extraordinary, Sometimes Ordinary.”

    But, honestly, I’ve yet to attend my ideal Mass. I really wish there was something between the two. I love the Gloria, Sanctus, etc. in Latin but I prefer the readings in English. I’m happy for the Liturgical Prayer to be in Latin, but I was frustrated at a low Mass (I’ve only been to 1 high EF Mass and 1 low EF Mass) where I couldn’t even get a “et cum spiritu too” in before the priest just barreled on ahead. I love the sacredness I find in the EF but I like the way the OF acknowledges the fact I’m even there.

    In my world, the Mass would be in between the two with quite a bit of Latin, but some English too. The priest would face away but would wait for the people’s responses.

    Maybe I’m just too picky. :)

  18. weneleh says:

    The last time I participated in anything other than a NO Mass I was a young toddler. I have no recollection of anything during that time. There are a few other choices within an hour of where I live, but I’ve never sought them out. I think it’s a matter of not knowing anybody who goes to an EF Mass and not knowing the Mass. I don’t want to go on my own only to find out that I’m not wearing the proper clothing (pants vs skirt or dress) or headcovering (don’t have one and I won’t place a tissue on my head) and not being able to follow along since I don’t know Latin. I truly enjoy my early Sunday (no singing!!!) NO Mass.

  19. jpkvmi says:

    I chose “mostly ordinary sometimes extraordinary”. The most important thing to ensure that the Catholic Church and it’s teaching spread is that people understand the mass. The use of the Novus Ordo will most make that happen, therefore I prefer the Novus Ordo in which a mixture of Latin and vernacular are used, much like the solemn masses at Westminster Cathedral in London.

  20. Darren says:

    I chose “Only Extraordinary but Ordinary in case of need” mainly because I prefer the extraordinay and look forward to the day (it’s coming) when I will not have to drive an hour or more to get to one (so I rarely do). Once it is local (or local enough) I will surely assist at the EF exclusively, but realizing that in my occasional travels I might find myself someplace on a Sunday or Holy Day where the only option locally is the ordinary. Hence, “Ordinary in case of need”.

    Sadly, the new translation – while a significant improvement – has done nothing to improve the music choices and the other things that I just find annoying. (like the blessing of the schools’ atheletes for the current athletic season in the middle of mass, etc etc etc).

  21. Maxiemom says:

    I’m not sure that the quality of a sermon is based on whether you attend a NO or EF. I think it’s based on the knowledge of the priest and his ability to preach. I attend only NO and have listened to some truly memorable homilies from some priests and some truly awful ones from others. Right now, my parish has two priests, neither of which are good homilists. One is foreign and can be difficult to understand because of his accent and the fact that he speaks barely above a whisper and the other is American who would like to do EF mass, though I don’t think he has been trained to do so. Both of them give long homilies (often more than 20 minutes) and both give homilies that are all over the place. They start with a topic and never stay with it, finishing so far off topic that no one can follow the homily. And it’s not just me, when I look around church, the majority of the church is looking at the missalette, looking around at the windows, looking at the ceiling (we have a beautifully painted ceiling painted with symbols of the saints and the Blessed Mother), talking and even sleeping and that includes the much older members.

  22. MominTexas says:

    My church does ordinary so well, I just love it.

  23. Daria says:

    I chose mostly Ordinary, but in my fantasy world, this mass would resemble what it does at Thomas Aquinas College–sung propers, and mainly in Latin. To me this is preferable to the EF. Alternatively, if the EF were offered with the option of the people making the responses, perhaps I would have more enthusiasm for the EF. I know that we don’t have to be making responses out loud in order to be “participating”. However, it seems to me to be a superior thing that we do so. This is in line with the Church’s outlook on prayer and liturgy: engage all the senses rather than remain in the mental realm, hence incense, statues, music, stained glass windows, chanting, etc.

  24. JaneC says:

    I have rarely attended either an EF or an OF Mass that I thought was really well done. The Low Mass mentality is pervasive in both, and it drives me nuts. The only places where I have been happy every single time I go were Eastern Catholic parishes of Slavic Churches. If I had my way, I would be a permanent fixture at one of them, and my husband would too. Unfortunately it isn’t possible for us.

    In the real world, I’d be very happy at an EF parish that had at least a Missa Cantata every Sunday, if not Solemn High Mass, but those are very thin on the ground.

  25. Gregg the Obscure says:

    I chose mostly EF, sometimes OF for three reasons:
    1. There are some lectionary selections found only in the OF that make for good homilies;
    2. I’m not optimistic enough to believe that the weddings, funerals and other special events of family and friends could be celebrated in EF; and
    3. Occasional OF Masses would reduce the chances of becoming complacent about the great gift of a readily-available Vetus Ordo Mass.

  26. APX says:

    I went with mostly EF sometimes OF. Sometimes I find that some of the people who attend the EF are somewhat full of themselves and look down at other people who don’t attend the EF, or who attend the EF and aren’t as into the whole “traditionalist movement”. Personally, I find it helpful to go to the odd OF Mass to help remain cultured. Sometimes it really is a breath of fresh air to escape the “traditude”.

  27. mitch_wa says:

    I answered OF mostly, EF sometimes. I would attend the EF more if it were always dialogical and or a high mass (which is the normative version of the mass). Personally I find the silence of the low mass extremely in-conducive to authentic liturgical prayer.

    “There are two things you do not do alone: liturgy and sex.” -Fr. Robert Taft (Retired Professor of the Pontifical Oriental College)

  28. jennieprater says:

    We are blessed to have a beautiful FSSP parish about 45 minutes from our home. I try to assist at Mass there daily. The only reason I occasionally assist at a Novus Ordo Mass is if one of my children have an activity on a Sunday which requires us to attend a vigil Mass. Even then, however, we prefer the Byzantine Rite.

    I prefer the Extraordinary form for many reasons, but here are a few: first of all, the EF priests’ homilies dovetail with and reinforce what I am studying and teaching my children from books such as the Baltimore Catechism I and II, Father Laux’s books, and The Spiritual Life by Father Tanquerey. Too often NO priests’ homilies are largely disconnected from the theology described in my books. They seem to be theologically random and off-the-cuff, focused more on making some kind of sensory impression on the congregation than instructing them in the faith. Secondly, the music of the EF Mass, when employed, is an integral part of the Mass itself, a precious gift from the faithful in the millenia and centuries before ours. In the NO Mass, the music can be shallow to the point of being heretical and often an inappropriate accompaniment to a re-presentation of Our Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary.

  29. Gregorius says:

    I chose EF, never OF.

    Not too long ago, I probably would have chosen the option “EF and OF equally”, for I have nothing against the validity, licitness, and the efficaciousness of the OF. But the more I kept thinking about the reform of the reform, I kept thinking, “if the traditional Mass is the ideal, and our Holy Father has given all priests permission to say the traditional Mass without needing the permission of the local ordinary, why bend over backward for all the traditional options of the OF when one can simply use the EF, which by default has those features and much more?”

    Now granted, my love of the EF goes beyond Holy Mass. I have within the past couple of months switched from going back and forth between the two breviaries to only using the old breviary. And it has done wonders to my spiritual life. Just this morning I awoke before dawn for Matins, Lauds, and later Prime. The feast today is for both St. Fabian and St. Sebastian. By the time I went to the local seminary’s Mass at 7 am which includes parts of morning prayer, I had prayed 16 psalms and two canticles, read three lessons(readings) including one which gave background information on the saints of the day, read from the Martyrology which gives information about all of tomorrow’s saints as well as allowed me to pray for their intercession, and prayed prayers that asked God to bless my day and order all my work for His glory. What is more, I will see the same psalms I prayed today next week, while the three psalms those future priests prayed this morning probably won’t be seen again until another four weeks, and they will only pray 11-12 psalms and five canticles today and could at most pray 18 psalms in a day using the Liturgy of the Hours while I will pray 31 psalms and four canticles using the Breviarium Romanum. Plus, they don’t have the benifits of the prayers that I have as they didn’t pray those extra prayers.

    On top of all of that, since the OF doesn’t do commemorations the way the EF does, today’s OF Mass was for St. Sebastian, while St. Fabian was left out. Other churches will have Mass for St. Fabian, while St. Sebastian will be ignored. And as the semianry’s Mass had about 8-10 priests concelebrating, those are 8 or so less Masses offered in the day, 7 side altars in two chapels on campus left unused, 7 less seminarians serving as acolytes, and most importantly, one less saint to intercede for these men of God. Now maybe there’s some theology differences that I don’t know about that make the OF more worthwhile than the EF, but on a practical and pastoral level, in my opinion the choice is clear.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I going to pray Terce.

  30. wmeyer says:

    My vote was for EF only. Were I to have the experience of attending an NO Mass where there were no ad libs in the liturgy, and the people were quietly reverent before Mass, and did not leave their places to give the sign of peace, nor stretch across the aisles to hold hands during the Our Father… oh, sorry, I lapsed into a dream world.

  31. oldCatholigirl says:

    As I said in my response to the first poll, I seldom have a choice when it comes to daily Mass.
    Actually, I would like the OFs I go to to be in Latin–and not just bits, which is often done. That’s partly because I’m learning Latin in my old age (and loving it!) and reading it gives me the thrill of discovery. I hope it makes me more attentive to so-called “routine” prayers, too.
    Another reason I would be reluctant to give up the OF altogether, (an unlikely possibilty), is that I like to do the one-volume LOH, and the prayers are keyed to the OF. There is a Liturgia Horaria online which goes along with the book I have, so I can attempt the Latin. I also have a slim, one-volume LOH for laypeople according to the old rite, and, abashedly, I do not care for it. Too many psalms each time for me to fit in, and too little variety in the other prayers/readings. Obviously, I’m neither a champion prayer or a true scholar, but that’s the way it is right now.

  32. PghCath says:

    My preference would be a reverent OF mass celebrated ad orientum, with sung propers and the Latin canon. I think the OF can be great- especially with the new translation.

    Since I’ve never attended such a Mass, however, I voted “Mostly extraordinary, sometimes ordinary.” I always leave an EF Mass feeling spiritually enriched. While I’ve been to some wonderful OF Masses, it’s much more of a gamble – I sometimes leave feeling angry (due to the sensory assault I just endured) or unmoved.

  33. joan ellen says:

    Extraordinary, but ordinary in case of need. Extraordinary because of the order (discipline and mystery…Latin increases both -for sursum corda. Mass in other languages does not do this for me), offertory (clearly sacrificial), one canon (unchanged), obedience to God (more apparent). EF helps my soul health much, much more for the above reasons.

  34. mamajen says:

    I chose: Only Ordinary, but Extraordinary in case of need

    I outlined my reasons on the previous poll–basically, not understanding Latin and being hearing impaired means that I feel like I get very little out of an EF mass. I leave feeling discouraged. However, if it is the only option available, I of course deal with it.

  35. bgeorge77 says:

    My ideal? Here we go into my liturgical fantasy world.

    First: A reset of the Mass and Office to pre-1911.

    Then:
    Newer saints added.
    Restoration of the pre-Urban hymns.
    Vernacular added as an option, which would be safe, legal, and rare.

    Options for the Office:
    Priests or anyone bound to the office could elect to say only one of the psalms instead of all of them in private recitation. Matins could be privately and optionally reduced to one or two nocturns. In private recitation such a one could choose between the secular and monastic offices, or even the Little Office if they’re that “busy”. Again, the vernacular would be an option.

    The Novus Ordo would be an ordinariate somewhere.

  36. HyacinthClare says:

    Only Extraordinary. If I never have to go to an Ordinary Form mass again, I will be very grateful. The EF is based on the premise of being before God in adoration and humility. It’s NOT about US. Father leads us toward Christ in prayer, and worship. Maybe OF was never supposed to have been hijacked by the entertainment-look-at-me-zippy-music crowd, but it WAS. It was a soil ripe for the culture’s narcissism and entitlement ideas, and they grew there. Extraordinary is REALITY. He is beautiful, He is God, He is worthy of worship and obedience and delight. He LETS me worship Him and that makes me human. I was a 49-year-old convert, converted by reading Newman, Knox, Karl Adam, Guardini and Chesterton. EF is what THEY loved, what THEY were talking about.

  37. Mary Jane says:

    I chose only Extraordinary, never Ordinary. I grew up with the EF and have really only been to the OF a handful of times…if that. One of those times reduced me to tears in my pew – not because it was “so bad”, but because it was “so mediocre” and I felt really sorry for the people in that church who had probably never seen an EF, never smelled incense, never listened to a *really good* homily. Plus…well I am just obsessed with Sacred Music, and I get plenty of that at the EF. :)

  38. Only Extraordinary but Ordinary in case of need. If the EF Mass were unavailable on a Sunday or holy day of obligation, but there is an OF around, then I would have to go to the OF. An obligation is an obligation.

  39. tealady24 says:

    I chose EF only; in my perfect world. We go occasionly to the NO and more and more I dislike it. If it was the same in every church maybe that would help. It’s every church’s ego that you encounter when you attend that mass. Too bad; the church has really shot itself in the foot with this. The serenity and beauty of a well-done NO mass, (ala EWTN) is the ideal.

  40. dominic1955 says:

    If this is a “On my planet…” fantasy, then I’m Pope-Emperor of the whole world who’s glorious restoration of Tradition is backed up with interdicts, excommunications, defrocking, and/or Swiss Guard halberd-point for anyone who opposes-after a suitable time of re-education, of course…;)

    In more realistic land, if I had my way, the liturgy would be restored very much like bgeorge77 mentioned, so I won’t take the time to rewrite. I would also promote the traditional non-Roman Latin Rites and Eastern Rites. However, as to a NO Ordinariate, absolutely not. To show our pastoral sollicitude, those attached to the Neo-Roman Rite can have it once a month on the third Thursday in a cemetery chapel at 2 pm. If there is anything going on at that time at the cemetery, then its cancelled. Wouldn’t want to be “divisive”, y’know…

  41. Justin_Kolodziej says:

    My first choice would be a Byzantine-rite parish. Since it’s my planet all Roman Rite parishes would have at least one sung solemn Mass with incense and the Roman Canon every Sunday. But all Masses would use the propers for the day or, where allowed by law, the propers for the celebrant’s desired votive Mass. Since I apparently also get to be Pope since it’s my planet, there would be an instruction saying that “another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year” is strictly interpreted as chants from other Catholic rites, and not any song not explicitly rejected by the local Bishop.

  42. Texana says:

    Many years ago in RCIA my question was, “But what does the Catholic Church really teach?” I was looking for that Holy Mass I attended in 1962 with beautiful music and incense and Latin. Finally, by grace of God, we have found the Tridentine Mass at our little FSSP parish! It is overwhelming joy to discover this diamond, this treasure of our Faith hidden from us on purpose for so many years! My prayer is that all Catholics receive the graces and path to Heaven from this truly extraordinary Holy Mass.

  43. La Sandia says:

    I wasn’t quite sure what to put. We attend the EF Mass on Sundays, but the OF for daily Mass because there are no daily EF Masses in our diocese. So I put “both equally,” even though the OF probably wins out as far as actual time spent.

  44. eastsilica says:

    My imaginary parish would be the OF in Latin with Gregorian chant, like the Holy Father did on the Feast of the Mother of God. Meanwhile, while at Mass I read the Latin as the English words are spoken. I love learning Latin and am working on the skill of singing Gregorian chant silently in my head. I also follow the modern breviary in Latin on almudi.org when I can.

  45. Alice says:

    I chose mostly Eastern, although even that’s not ideal since I have no desire to abandon my tradition. In my perfect world we would have something like the 1965 Mass chanted ad orientem with congregational participation. Even at Low Mass (which would be only allowed by indult), the congregation would be encouraged to respond. The pervasive Low Mass culture of the Roman Rite in the US just annoys me to no end.

  46. Elizabeth D says:

    I actually really like Novus Ordo in Latin, ad orientam, with the Roman Canon, preferably sung, and with Communion on the tongue kneeling at the rail, but that is even rarer than EF Mass especially on Sundays. Actually I have never attended a Mass that exactly fit that description, though there is often a Latin NO on Fridays here. But if “Novus Ordo” means in English with music from the Gather hymnal or similar, and with the priest facing the people, I prefer the Extraordinary Form.

    So I chose mostly extraordinary, some ordinary. I have never experienced an EF dialogue Mass but I might like that a lot if done appropriately.

  47. lucy says:

    I chose only extraordinary, but also ordinary in case of need. I would never miss Mass, and so that’s the only choice for me. I love the High Mass with it’s rich tradition of incense, schola singing Gregorian Chant, sometimes our girls’ choir singing with them, all the altar boys, the whole deal. It’s so beautiful and lifts one’s soul up to the Lord.

    So, if I were in charge, I’d attend EF daily with High Mass on Sundays only.

  48. St. Louis IX says:

    I only attend a NO if I need to fulfil a Holy Day of Obligation and I cannot get out of work, or when I attend a relatives 1st communion/ funeral etc.
    All other Times I attend the TLM at a Diocesn Parish. I also have Children that serve at the Altar.
    We have a High Mass (Missa Cantata) Every Sunday with Low Mass 4 days a week.
    HEAVEN ON EARTH

  49. rollingrj says:

    I chose “Extraordinary and Ordinary both equally”, mostly from an “academic” viewpoint. If there is to be “mutual enrichment” as our Holy Father has encouraged, the “study” (from theoretical and practical perspectives) of both is needed. I think that some time in the future (i.e.–not in my lifetime) there will only be one form of the Roman Rite, looking much more like the EF than the OF but having a few elements from the OF that are worthy and truly organic in development.

  50. Rev. Paul L. Vasquez says:

    Being a devotee of the late, great Msgr. Richard Schuler, and discovering the Latin Mass as Fr. Zulsdorf did at the parish church of St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN which was the Novus Ordo (and was at that Church as soon as the books were published in Latin and could be transported over) and usually the missa cantata or missa solemnis (depending on whether other sacred ministers were available) with a schola for the chant propers and a choir with orchestra most of the year doing the works of the great composers (primarily the 1st Viennese School: Schubert, Haydn, Mozart) for the commons with appropriate anthems where practicable, I voted mainly Novus Ordo with the older usage occasionally. Many of the folks’ comments above against the NO have included in them never having seen the NO done well and as the Council asked. I am fortunate enough to have been in St. Paul while Msgr. was still alive and directing the choir, and I realize what a grace that has been. The altar and church were never renovated in the legal sense of that word, so the celebration was ad orientem as one or two mentioned above. It was the most unique, moving spiritual experience(s) I have ever had, or ever will have in this life, I think.
    The EF should still be employed though, to remind priests of where the NO came from, to improve and keep their ars celebrandi in continual development, to inform their reverence, and to understand the parallels between the main Latin rite and the other rites of ancient usage (such as the Greek). Most of those same things apply to the laity as well.
    The option not included was more general access of people of all sorts to the oriental liturgies and the other Latin-rite liturgies. As travel does so much to broaden one’s perspective of life, so too does experience of the other legitimate Catholic liturgies potentially broaden the perspective of what it means that the Church is indeed Catholic (i.e. universal). That can be done in an improper way, of course, such as when the various liturgies are mixed and matched, or gestures, actions, and tones migrate from one to the other, but abusus non tollit usus, and the fact that something has been abused does not take away from its legitimacy. I very much wish to experience the Anglican use, for instance, and the Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites. I would very much like to see the legitimate Blue Vestments of the Mozarabic rite. I would like to finally see one of the St. Thomas communities’ anaphora (approved without the institution narrative in some cases). I missed my chances to see the Maronite liturgy in full splendor, alas, but there are so many things out there I should very much like to see to broaden my own perspective, even of my own rite and use.

  51. aspiringpoet says:

    I didn’t vote in this one, because honestly, what I care about is the reverence and beauty of the Mass, so I will attend the Mass that provides this. I like both forms when they are done properly, and given a choice between a reverent OF with Gregorian chant and all the rubrics followed, and an EF, all other things being equal – I’m not sure which I would choose. However, a truly reverent OF can be difficult to find. I am fortunate to have one where I live and this is probably why I am sympathetic to the Ordinary Form.

  52. Rev. Paul L. Vasquez says:

    Ooops, I just realized this survey was for lay people, and I do not qualify to participate. Please exclude my vote from the tally, but I hope my comments may remain.

  53. nanetteclaret says:

    If I thought the Anglican Use Mass would be the EF in hierarchical Olde English, I would have voted for Anglican Use. However, while the current Anglican Use Rite I is very close, it isn’t exactly and from what I understand there are a few parts that need to be corrected. The Anglican Use Rite II is pretty much just the Novus Ordo, with better music. So, I voted for EF exclusively. I suffer through the OF, with its maudlin music, extraneous commentary by the priest, undignified “sign of the peace” with people milling about in the pews, chatter before and after Mass so that others cannot pray, no reverence and quiet, no one genuflecting or otherwise showing that they understand that Jesus is there Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, and no indication that anyone, priest included, believes that it is the **Holy Sacrifice** of the Mass. I have very rarely heard the Roman Canon (never at my parish church) – usually it’s either Eucharistic Prayer II or III. Besides the fact that the other Eucharistic Prayers don’t emphasize the Holy Sacrifice, it makes me angry that the names of all the saints and martyrs who have been in the Mass for almost 2,000 years are now left out.

    In my fantasy world there would be no OF at all. If people wanted to attend a Mass in English, they would attend the Anglican Use, which would be the EF in English. But the EF would be the norm, so that people who speak different languages could be united by all praying together in one language, Latin. I would definitely get rid of “bi-lingual” Masses, which end up sounding like the Tower of Babel when people say the prayers or responses in their own languages all at the same time. It is truly divisive, since it emphasizes our differences rather than uniting us as we should be when praying.

    I would also go back to the old liturgical calendar. The Circumcision of Jesus would be on January 1st (the eighth day according to the Law), Epiphany would be on January 6th, the “gesima” Sundays would be celebrated, the Ember Days and Rogation Days would be celebrated, Acension Thursday would be on Thursday and not Sunday, and there would be more, not less, Holy Days of Obligation (such as Transfiguration, Triumph of the Cross, and Annunciation). The seasons of the year would be called by their proper names, such as Epiphanytide or Whitsuntide. There would be no “Ordinary Time,” because that concept downplays the significance of the liturgical year as being seamless. The saints days celebrations would happen once again, such as Candlemas and Michaelmas, St. Joseph’s Day feasting, etc. And of course, all Catholics would observe meatless Fridays.

    I converted from Protestantism and the NO is just too Protestant, especially when the hymns are ones I learned growing up Presbyterian. I feel that I have been spiritually robbed, since I have no way to partake of the beauty of the EF and no way to join in the same prayers as those who have gone before. I have been robbed of the opportunity to worship God as He deserves to be worshipped, including kneeling while receiving Communion. In addition, the Church does not celebrate the liturgical year as it used to. The joyful feasts and seasons of the Church are few and far between and very few people celebrate them, if at all. I feel robbed that there is so little opportunity to celebrate “being” Catholic in my everyday life.

  54. Christina says:

    I said both EF and NO equally because since I’ve started only attending the EF, I’ve really missed the NO. I don’t know what it is; probably that it’s what I grew up with (I’m 25) and I feel very much at home there. I guess it’s almost a part of my heritage, and I don’t want to give it up entirely. I also feel more connected to that part of the Church that I grew up in when I go to the NO, partially because the different calendars (grrrrr!) have us celebrating different things at different times.

    I know; very touchy-feely post, but that’s my preference, and there it is.

  55. trad catholic mom says:

    Only EF, and it’s calendar

  56. sanctamaria says:

    I like both, only because the NO I got to is 100% reverent.
    I would prefer the NO with the Priest facing ad orientum…I often feel the Priests look uncomfortable as well facing us…
    I also like NO because I like to be on the same page as the rest of the Church with feasts etc.
    The EF honestly can be very long, on a weekday especially.

  57. sanctamaria says:

    Christina, I agree with you

  58. rodin says:

    “Only Extraordinary and never Ordinary”

    Because of time constraints I did not give my reasons on the earlier poll for which I apologize. Besides, I did not trust myself to remain civil. With effort and much editing I believe this should pass the test though it is longer than I would like.

    On my planet there would be only the Extraordinary Form available. That does not mean, however, that the Ordinary is unacceptable when it is respectfully done.

    My parish church is only five minutes away. There have been a number of occasions when the celebrant did things that set my teeth on edge, but I considered it penance and accepted it.

    Sometimes scheduling requires a change in churches. About five years ago I attended a service at a church ten minutes from my home. It seemed odd that the priest did not read the Gospel, but rather hoisted the book above his head and began walking back and forth as he performed a feat of memory reciting the gospel. A few other things seemed unusual. However, when he got to the Consecration he extended his hands over the chalice, flipped the palm of his right hand up, gazed heavenward and ordered, “Change them” I hit the “eject” button.

    In searching for another church I found one about twenty-five minutes away. The Mass there is also Novus Ordo. It is generally done in a respectful manner so I made it a habit to attend Mass there. On one occasion, however, I returned to the parish church to find that the bongo drums had been replaced by a Paganini selection. The pastor, who was saying the mass, felt obliged to point out the “proud grandmother” of the rather accomplished performer. Eject again, in favor of a drive to the more distant church.

    Since then the Extraordinary Form has become available in this area and the only time I have attended the Ordinary Form is on holy days when the time of the Extraordinary is changed to a time that I cannot make. That leads to the most recent experience of a mass on a holy day at a church I have not attended for over twenty years. Thanks to my early arrival the church was silent and conducive to prayer. Suddenly children from the neighboring Catholic school made a noisy entrance and the din continued until Mass began despite the presence of teachers. Among the unpleasant performances was what I can only refer to as the “Dance of the Vestal Virgins” who entered wafting votive candles above their heads while doing rather lumpish footwork. Eventually there was relative silence only to be broken by laughter and screeches at the “greeting.” Not until the celebrant raised the broken host and held it up until quiet descended did peace return. It was enough to bring tears to the eyes.

    These are among my reasons for strongly preferring the Extraordinary Form. Before the introduction of the Ordinary Form the Mass was reliably, in all countries, said with proper respect. That cannot be said for the Novus Ordo thanks to the permissiveness of that Liturgy.

  59. acardnal says:

    I voted “Only Extraordinary but Ordinary in case of need.”
    With increasing maturity (age, 57) and my continuing study of theology over the years, I find that I prefer the EF to the OF because I find it more reverential and worshipful. There is also less tendency for liturgical abuse. In the OF I have found, at times and in certain locations, there is too much emphasis on the meal and fellowship and less on the central aspect of the Mass which is the Lord’s sacrifice. Moreover, I believe the Mass is fundamentally the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ and that we are there to worship/adore, do penance, give thanks, and offer reparation. And often the music is banal in an OF Mass. The EF, especially a High Mass, is very beautiful and glorious. Dare I say ineffable and transcendent. It puts me into a different reality so to speak. I have been to very well done OF Masses where they are celebrated in Latin and with excellent choirs, but they just don’t seem to match the splendor of the EF High Mass.

  60. 1987 says:

    I chose “Mostly Extraordinary, sometimes Ordinary” by mistake. I simply did not read the post and thought it was a repetition of the previous poll (for any possible reason).

    Now, I would definitely choose “Only Extraordinary and never Ordinary”, with maybe one exception: possibility to assist at Papal Mass in Rome. Rites made up by some arrogant liturgists are NOT equal to those inspired by the Holy Ghost.

  61. If it were up to me, I would attend the Gregorian Mass. Since I do not have a car to assist at the one being offered in the diocese, I am content with the Ordinary Form as it is offered at my local parish which is five minutes away from my house.

  62. jameskrich says:

    I put EF and OF equally. I have a couple of caveats.
    1. I really don’t have enough experience with Latin or the EF to participate with ease. Oddly enough, I think practice just might make me better able to participate.
    2. In being open to about half OF, I would really prefer that it be done in Latin; or at least reverently, with chant or music appropriate to the highest form of our worship.

    I live in the spiritual desert of the See of El Paso. I have often thought that opting for Latin would go a long way toward ending and mending the division within our consubstantial English/Spanish diocese.

  63. adeoamata says:

    My answer (both ordinary and extraordinary evenly) is based on the assumption of an available Latin-language, well-prayed ordinary form mass. (I’m not a terribly big fan of exclusive use of the vernacular, though the new translation helps a bit.)

  64. JacobWall says:

    I voted “Mostly Extraordinary, sometimes Ordinary” – slightly different what I commented in the last pole. (My reality is “Only Ordinary, never Extraordinary,” and I said I would prefer the opposite.) I’ve never experienced the EF, but I feel the mass that in complete continuity with the Latin Rite Mass as it’s always been celebrated is the best option. My wife doesn’t know much about the extraordinary form, so I’d want to see her reaction before saying only EF, all the time. I think if both forms became equally available to us, the option I voted would be the best way to let my wife “ease into it.” I think an even better way for my wife to ease into it would be EF in Latin most of the time and EF in the vernacular sometimes to help her ease into it (an imaginary option?)

    For me, all of this points to an eventual EF in Latin all the time, so I guess this is my real preference. Anyway, for the moment the OF has it’s place, if done correctly. (I assume that the pole assumes that both are done correctly.)

  65. yatzer says:

    I would like to attend an Anglican Use. I was an Episcopalian, and they had better music.

  66. Laura R. says:

    I chose “Mostly Extraordinary, sometimes Ordinary” but that would require learning far more about the EF than I know now. Possibly also an Anglican rite, depending on how well it was done.

  67. Brent S says:

    I chose “Only Extraordinary, never Ordinary.”

    However, I would much rather attend an Anglican Use/Anglican Ordinariate if the TLM was going to be a low Mass.

    I would never, ever attend a low Mass.

  68. Jayna says:

    I chose OF and EF equally. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with the OF as long as it’s done properly in English and/or Latin. So that’s my caveat, OF (done well) and EF equally.

  69. Adventist says:

    Dear Father, thank you for this much more awesome poll…

    This is a very difficult question. My vote is split exactly equally between Ambrosian Liturgy and a good, solid Ukrainian use of St. John Chrysostom’s Liturgy. The pull is so strong in both directions! Ugh!

    Probably go for Ukrainian in the end, because Gregorian chant is so tiresome compared to the heavenly choirs of the East! =)

  70. Centristian says:

    My IDEAL? Well. Let me put it this way: there are 4 Catholic churches within a five minute drive of where I live. If I had my way, one would offer the Ordinary Form* of Mass, one would offer the Extraordinary Form of Mass, one would be an Anglican Use parish, and the fourth would be a Byzantine Rite parish. I would nearly have an aneurism trying to make a decision each Sunday as to which church to go to.

    *By “Ordinary Form” I mean what the Pope does at Rome (Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem, Canon in Latin, Gregorian Chant, magnificent vestments, traditional solemnity, smells & bells, &c). By “Ordinary Form” I do NOT mean what they do at my own parish or at most others (silly music, ugly vestments, no ceremony to speak of, holding hands, &c).

    I voted “Mostly Ordinary, sometimes Extraordinary” with the above definition of “Ordinary” in mind.

  71. pinoytraddie says:

    I Would like go to Mass in Both Forms,because One needs Another. Enough Said!

  72. CarismaTeaCo says:

    Only Extraordinary

    A perfect world would be one where the Holy Sacrifice was ONLY offered in any Catholic Rite ad orientem. And people stopped acting like Protestants DURING mass. Let’s save the (non-Latin) tongue-speaking, hugging, and clapping for the prayer group later.

    Healing always expected w the Eucharist of course:)

  73. Mamma B says:

    I chose mostly Eastern, because there wasn’t an option for only Eastern :-)

  74. And I chose mainly Eastern, but not because ‘there wasn’t an option for only Eastern’ .

    Actually, my liturgical tastes are rather Catholic. I venerate the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox wings of Byzantine/Eastern liturgies, and am as comfortable with Byzantine and Arabic chant as I am with Russian harmonization and Slavic Chant. I regularly worship at St. Andrew Russian Catholic Church in El Segundo, CA where our priest, Fr. Alexei Smith, serves the Divine Liturgy both devoutly and beautifully.

    But I’m cool with Western liturgies as well, from Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, Dominican, and even the plain vanilla of Tridentine, whether missa cantata or simply spoken. I can even handle Novus Ordo, if the priests, servers, choir and congregation know what they are actually doing, and adhere fully to the liturgical rules. Anglican Use or full blown Anglican Mass is wonderful, too. It’s all good, if done devoutly and in humility.

  75. Dan says:

    I chose mostly ordinary, somtimes extraordinary.

    A few years ago, I would have said only extraordinary. And while I love the traditional Mass, I’ve found that the atmosphere that often predominates there tends to be contrary to the mens of what the Holy Father is actually trying to accomplish with Summorum Pontificum. I find the OF to be very beautiful when done right (the problem is usually with the music…not the Mass) and in the end the Eucharist is the Eucharist. The altar of Calvary is one and the same whether it is ad orientem or versus populum. But I would prefer to see the “Benedictine Arrangement” in use when the priest celebrates versus populum.

    I look forward to the day when we will have one Roman Rite that combines the best of both. My ideal Mass would be 1) Prayers at the foot of the altar as in the EF, 2) Readings as in the OF, 3) Offertory as in the EF, 4) Choice of Eucharistic prayers as in the OF, 5) Pater Noster recited/sung by all as in the OF, and 6) Concluding prayer/final blessing as in the OF.

    I also pray the Liturgy of the Hours, and I like not having to jump between calanders as I did when I was going to EF/OF both equally.