Well, it had to be stated at some stage; I know the SSPX view would be 'no', I expect the liberal view would be 'no', but the traditional, orthodox view is, 'YES! Yes', they are the same; a Mass is a Mass is a Mass.
But what do I mean when I state that they are the same? I mean that both Masses are valid before Almighty God and that both are pleasing to Almighty God. I also mean that there is a difference between them and that difference is one of the reasons for the Holy Father giving them the two forms; Ordinary and Extraordinary.
Which form do you think more pleasing to God? Which form produces God's gift of grace more abundantly? - or are they both the same?
Anything extraordinary must, in essence, be better than its ordinary counterpart. Extraordinary calls for extra effort, a more advanced production or style, maybe, even, a more complicated structure. That is what we experience at an EF Mass. It is more demanding for the celebrant, more demanding for the altar server and arguably more demanding for the congregation (although the jury is out as to that point, much depends on whether you 'participate' or 'meditate').
What do I mean by more demanding for the celebrant? For a start, it is in Latin. That has to be learnt and comprehended. Next, is the liturgical format itself. Few would argue against the fact that the EF rubrics require much of the priest. Each move, each tone, inflection and tenor of voice; it is, as Mgr Ronald Knox once described it: "A slow and deliberate dance". Each step requiring precision and timing. As a privileged altar server, I, at certain stages during the Mass, have a close view of proceedings on the altar; I see the hands of the priest gently rotating the host in a certain direction, I see the tips of the index finger and thumb being joined so as not to be sullied by earthly things after touching the Lord, I see the earnest and silent prayers being offered up on our behalf.
It is both reverent and complicated; it is challenging to undertake and, above all else, it places the priest in a face to face confrontation with the Almighty giving him an opportunity to focus solely on God rather than the congregation.
It is not my purpose to denigrate the Ordinary Form of Mass in any way. As stated previously, it is an authentic and licit form of the Mass. But it requires less input from all concerned, it is plain, it does not challenge, it is ordinary.
Which form do you believe to be more pleasing to God? Which form do you believe produces a greater flow of grace from God to us?
They cannot be equally pleasing. Cold logic precludes that train of thought. A one line prayer enunciated in 3 seconds must be less effective in producing grace than, say, a more elaborate and longer prayer (accepting that both are delivered reverently).
Ten decades of the Rosary are better than one Hail Mary; is that not the principle?
I want to emphasize the fact that both Masses are valid but I also do not wish to shy away from the fact that the Extraordinary Form of Mass is more competent in terms of the reverence it inspires and the volume of grace that comes as a result.
I have experienced that flow of grace.
As a family, we 'bounced' back into the traditional arms of Holy Mother Church in 1988 - for a number of profound reasons. Our needs were provided by a great priest, Father Peter Lessiter. Father Lessiter travelled the country, on a continous circuit, taking the Mass and Sacraments to the faithful. As returners to the Latin Mass he explained that we would receive tremendous grace as a result of the path we had chosen.
This was so. In fact, it was so to a point of overflowing, and so it continues to today.
Finally, I would like to ask a question of every priest that celebrates both forms of the Mass:
"Given the option, would you prefer to only celebrate one form and, if so, which one?"
The answer will be known only to God, but I think it would be an extraordinary one!
But what do I mean when I state that they are the same? I mean that both Masses are valid before Almighty God and that both are pleasing to Almighty God. I also mean that there is a difference between them and that difference is one of the reasons for the Holy Father giving them the two forms; Ordinary and Extraordinary.
Which form do you think more pleasing to God? Which form produces God's gift of grace more abundantly? - or are they both the same?
Anything extraordinary must, in essence, be better than its ordinary counterpart. Extraordinary calls for extra effort, a more advanced production or style, maybe, even, a more complicated structure. That is what we experience at an EF Mass. It is more demanding for the celebrant, more demanding for the altar server and arguably more demanding for the congregation (although the jury is out as to that point, much depends on whether you 'participate' or 'meditate').
What do I mean by more demanding for the celebrant? For a start, it is in Latin. That has to be learnt and comprehended. Next, is the liturgical format itself. Few would argue against the fact that the EF rubrics require much of the priest. Each move, each tone, inflection and tenor of voice; it is, as Mgr Ronald Knox once described it: "A slow and deliberate dance". Each step requiring precision and timing. As a privileged altar server, I, at certain stages during the Mass, have a close view of proceedings on the altar; I see the hands of the priest gently rotating the host in a certain direction, I see the tips of the index finger and thumb being joined so as not to be sullied by earthly things after touching the Lord, I see the earnest and silent prayers being offered up on our behalf.
It is both reverent and complicated; it is challenging to undertake and, above all else, it places the priest in a face to face confrontation with the Almighty giving him an opportunity to focus solely on God rather than the congregation.
It is not my purpose to denigrate the Ordinary Form of Mass in any way. As stated previously, it is an authentic and licit form of the Mass. But it requires less input from all concerned, it is plain, it does not challenge, it is ordinary.
Which form do you believe to be more pleasing to God? Which form do you believe produces a greater flow of grace from God to us?
They cannot be equally pleasing. Cold logic precludes that train of thought. A one line prayer enunciated in 3 seconds must be less effective in producing grace than, say, a more elaborate and longer prayer (accepting that both are delivered reverently).
Ten decades of the Rosary are better than one Hail Mary; is that not the principle?
I want to emphasize the fact that both Masses are valid but I also do not wish to shy away from the fact that the Extraordinary Form of Mass is more competent in terms of the reverence it inspires and the volume of grace that comes as a result.
I have experienced that flow of grace.
As a family, we 'bounced' back into the traditional arms of Holy Mother Church in 1988 - for a number of profound reasons. Our needs were provided by a great priest, Father Peter Lessiter. Father Lessiter travelled the country, on a continous circuit, taking the Mass and Sacraments to the faithful. As returners to the Latin Mass he explained that we would receive tremendous grace as a result of the path we had chosen.
This was so. In fact, it was so to a point of overflowing, and so it continues to today.
Finally, I would like to ask a question of every priest that celebrates both forms of the Mass:
"Given the option, would you prefer to only celebrate one form and, if so, which one?"
The answer will be known only to God, but I think it would be an extraordinary one!
"Anything extraordinary must, in essence, be better than its ordinary counterpart. "
ReplyDeleteExcept for "Extraordinary ministers of holy communion"?!
I think you may confusing what orthodox Catholics mean by "Extraordinary Form". It does not mean it is "better" than the "Ordinary Form".
ReplyDeletePaul, no confusion just a simple formula.....more effort, more reverence, more depth equals more pleasing to God.
ReplyDeleteCheck out Fr Patrick Brennan on his post "Healthy Priest"
ReplyDeletehttp://humblepiety.blogspot.com/2011/02/healthy-priest.html
I fully agree with him!
Jackie, I think he is the one who is "rubbishing" the Mass. Something I would never do.
ReplyDeleteDominic, I agree, an oversight on my part.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHave you read this article by Fr. Chad Ripperger FSSP on this very subject?
ReplyDeleteSomeone seems to be censoring comments here
ReplyDeleteSorry Auricularis, you were spammed for some reason.
ReplyDelete"Anything extraordinary must, in essence, be better than its ordinary counterpart."
ReplyDeleteI agree this is a simple misunderstanding of terminology. Extraordinary in this context does not mean "better", it means "other than ordinary".
I'm not disagreeing with your point, but it would be better made without including this non sequitur.
As a priest in the Church of England, I have been to Tridentine Masses in Latin in both Anglican and Roman Catholic churches.It is very beautiful but I believe that the Mass that is the norm for Sundays etc should be in the language of the people (except, on occasions, for things like the lyrie and gloria)and the ceremonial clear and uncluttered.
ReplyDeleteAuricularis/Mark Harden...I have read Fr Ripperger's piece, he makes a good case but I cannot depart from the fact that, if you make a greater effort over something, the end result is more pleasing. In this case, to Almighty God.
ReplyDeleteThat is my point really but I cannot deny that I feel that the EF Mass is "better" than the OF.
A simple one word prayer, said reverently is pleasing to God but a recitation, reverently of the 'Our Father' has to be more pleasing.
Gfsquire..we managed very well in the Middle Ages,a knowledge of Latin is not actually necessary. Firstly, because one's missal carries a mirror translation and, secondly, even without a missal the EF Mass allows you to meditate. Impossible in the vernacular.