Just a quick survey: do any of you here in this group habitually assist at the extraordinary form of Mass, and why do you (or do you not) do so?
I'll answer that I do, driving about an hour on Sundays into a neighbouring diocese, as the EF is not offered in mine. The reason I do so is a general lack of reverence in the liturgical ethos of the parishes and religious chapels nearest me, super-hits-of-seventies music caterwauled by untrained choirs and cantors, and preaching that never rises above the intellectual, moral, or spiritual level of what I knew when I made my first communion so many years ago.
Often, when time allows me not the take the drive, I will assist at the 7 am Low Mass at a local parish (the least officious), and will occasionally drive to another part of my own diocese, even more remote than the EF Mass in the neighbouring diocese, to hear an OF Mass at a Polish parish that is sung very reverently, with plenty of Latin, plainchant, and such.
What about you, gents?
Here's a solution:
In St. Louis, a nice "compromise" can be found at St. Mary of Victories. Sunday Mass is the OF celebrated ad orientem in Latin with chanted propers, and daily Mass is an EF low Mass. It's located near Choteau and 2nd, right next to the Powell Square building.
For the record, I assisted at a whole lot of "extraordinary form" Masses when I was an altar boy back in the 1960s.
It seems to me that this thread is bringing out a strong whiff of "Sister Better Than You", and with respect, a fairish amount of apparent arrogance about the form of worship preferred by individuals.
If you like Latin, fine. If you don't, that's fine too.
The Mass has never been the monolithic world-wide procedure apparently assumed by some of the more vocal proponents of a full "Return to Latin".
A very brief visit into history will note that in Europe, for several centuries, Latin was the lingua franca of the learned and officialdom, not to mention the ony generally extant written language in most of Europe. Thus anything crossing local boundaries was conducted in Latin. Hence (lightbulb moment here!) Latin was the language of the Church, and thus the language of the Church's Rites.
A further historical note is that the rise of Protestant religions coincided with the development of widespread vernacular literacy, facilitated by the European invention of the movable typeset printing press.
Sorry for wandering off.
Thing is, neither form of Mass is "better" than the other.
Officially, the differences are:
1. The "Extraordinary Form" is really an "extra ordinary" form, a fully canonically approved and authorized celebration of the Mass. It's extra ordinary because it's not the ordinary celebration.
2. The Extraordinary Form uses the old annual cycle of readings rather than the triennial cycle used in Ordinary Form.
Let's remember Luke 18:9-14 (which was an annual Gospel back in my Latin Mass youth) before getting into a huge sweat over which Mass is "better".
I go to the TLM. I have gone to the NO mass, however, I seem to be more in tune to my faith while attending the TLM. Yes, it is all in Latin. Yes, the priest always faces the altar. But there are two things that really speak to me. First, the focus is on the Eucharist, and the Tabernacle. Second, Latin is the 'Holy Language' of our faith. I am getting better at Latin, and my children are more involved in the TLM.
To each his own.
Just remember, it's "mawn-e-boos", not "many bus"! (Alterboys' mispronunciation fo "manibus" being Fr. Ralph's particular problem when teaching us our Latin.)