One Holy Sacrifice.

One Mass, two forms.

Mark Shea published an excellent bit of advice from Tolkien for Traditionalist Mass goers - and of course, Ordinary Form Mass goers.  [BTW, I consider myself a traditional Catholic, as if you didn't know.  I attend the Ordinary Form of Mass - which is the ordinary norm of the Latin rite.  I also deeply respect the Pope and Magisterium and strive to adhere to Catholic teaching.  I frequent the sacraments, especially the sacrament of penance, when I fail.]

"Also I can recommend this as an exercise (alas! only too easy to find opportunity for): make your communion in circumstances that affront your taste. Choose a snuffling or gabbling priest or a proud and vulgar friar; and a church full of the usual bourgeois crowd, ill-behaved children - from those who yell to those products of Catholic schools who the moment the tabernacle is opened sit back and yawn - open necked and dirty youths, women in trousers and often with hair both unkempt and uncovered. Go to communion with them (and pray for them). It will be just the same (or better than that) as a mass said beautifully by a visibly holy man, and shared by a few devout and decorous people. It could not be worse than the mess of the feeding of the Five Thousand - after which our Lord propounded the feeding that was to come."

This really works.  Especially if one can acquire the habit of recollection.  Tolkien still comes off a little condescending when he says 'go to communion with them - and pray for them.'   I would just say, 'pray with them' and leave it at that.  It's what I've done for years, since no longer going to St. Agnes in St. Paul - which I believed for a time, was the superior parish for celebrating the NO according to rubrics.  There is a snobbism which creeps in - no matter what, if one approaches Mass with that attitude.  When I first left the monastery years ago, I couldn't stand parish celebrations of Sunday Mass.  I got over it.

They who truly adore God must adore Him in spirit and in truth.

To really prepare for Mass, to assist at Mass, to focus on Christ, the Holy Sacrifice, to adore and worship, while at the end, spending time in thanksgiving, everything is holy.  Even during the chatter after Mass, one can remain recollected and at peace.  Frequently it all becomes white noise, or during Mass, the sounds of children warms the heart.  You no longer pay attention to how others dress or behave, much less attempt to consider who is worthy - or not - to receive the Eucharist.  All of that is out of place for the worshipper.  I've never felt the holiness of Mass more than after the long draught of not having Mass publicly, when we were able to go back, in smaller numbers.  How holy and beautiful were the simplest Masses.

There is one Mass in two forms, or uses. It is one Mass - the same Mass. We have one Faith, one Baptism, one Mass, one, holy, Catholic Church, and one reigning Pontiff as Vicar of Christ. That is not exaggerating his importance, nor is it papalatrous to believe that.

As regards exterior things, he (Editor: one who is attached to the grandeur and pomp of the EF) will become unable to dispose himself for prayer in all places, but will be confined to places that are to his taste; and thus he will often fail in prayer, because, as the saying goes, he can understand no other book than his own village. - S. John, Ascent

Spreading Devotion to the Extraordinary Form of Mass.

Nothing wrong with that.

Yet to make the claim one form of Holy Mass is better than another, or more efficacious, is a big mistake.  Yet that is what devotees frequently do, even Fr. Z and his followers.  Not always overtly, but it is implied - especially in his comment box.  Recently he posted: "A diocese smells the coffee: starts planning for decline of the Novus Ordo and growth of the TLM"

Just the language of the title seems to denigrate, declass the Ordinary Form of Mass, by referring to it as the Novus Ordo - which is understood by most to mean the 'new' Mass.  That is, the Ordinary Form of Mass celebrated by Roman Catholics throughout the world.  TLM stand for Traditional Latin Mass - known after Summorum Pontificum as the Extraordinary Form.  Summorum was not meant to be divisive but inclusive.  I have heard some Catholic claim that if one continues to attend the EF after experiencing the transcendent beauty of the EF, they offend God.  That is the notion I object most to.

Janet Smith posted a supportive link to Fr. Z's post and I responded.  In vain, I dare say.  This was the exchange:

Terry Nelson I hate it when you people promote this - Fr. Z's mentor and patron was not anti-VII, nor anti Novus Ordo. He celebrated the Novus Ordo - promoting Latin and ad orientem - seriously, there was no tangible difference to the ordinary Catholic in the manner Mass was celebrated. I went to talk to Monsignor, confessed to him - I think he would completely disapprove of how Fr. Z promotes this division. 

Janet E. Smith What is offensive or divisive about what was posted? People are gravitating to the TLM. Is that bad or divisive? Are those who stick with the NO divisive? Both are permitted. It not divisive to prefer one or the other. People who keep lamenting “division” are the ones causing it, IMHO.

Terry Nelson Janet E. Smith there is nothing wrong with an attachment to the EF - the OF is the ordinary form in the Church, when celebrated according to rubrics, esp. ad orientem, the OF is fine. To say one is holier than another is mistaken. To devoutly prefer one to another is not bad in itself, but it often degenerates into mockery of and condemnation of the OF. (In the extreme, calling into question the NO sacraments - including Holy Orders.) Fr. Z promotes the OF and encourages 'recruits' to it, if you will. Underlying all of this is the claim the OF is not as holy, that it's an abomination. Read the commentary Fr. Z gets. Holy Mass should not be politicized but that is how it gets treated, the 'liberals' don't like it, the 'conservatives' do, and so on. That's wrong. I grew up with the TLM, I was an altar boy - as Mons. Pope recently pointed out, the EF wasn't always well celebrated either. Wasn't the point of the Summorum Pontificum to help the Ordinary Form? It's been my observation it has been used to oppose the Pope and any authentic reform of VII.

My experience with Dr. Smith is that she is more or less dismissive of anyone who is neither an academic or cleric.  The conversation I began on her site developed further, with other commenters who supported her POV.  Nothing wrong with her opinion BTW, my point was made.  My experience of promoters of the TLM is that they are the divisive element when they think anyone devoted to the OF Mass is ignorant of tradition, and/or protestant.

I love both forms of Mass.  I also love the traditional celebration of the sacraments.  The Ordinary Form of things are just as sacred, just as holy, and no more or less eficacious than the EF.

As I have said before, I believe many people are drawn to deeper devotion in and through the traditional liturgical rites. Nothing wrong with that at all. It is their personal experience, but it cannot be stated that therefore the extraordinary Form is holier or more pleasing to God, when in fact the Church celebrates the Ordinary Form as the central form of the liturgy. (I'm not a liturgist so I'm not sure I expressed that well.) Playing the two forms against one another, or saying one is more efficacious than the other is an error. It seems to me that attitude is also a form of snobbery which is often observable in other areas of the lives of such people. (It's frequently fairly obvious on social media.)

As regards exterior things, he (Editor: one who is attached to the grandeur and pomp of the EF) will become unable to dispose himself for prayer in all places, but will be confined to places that are to his taste; and thus he will often fail in prayer, because, as the saying goes, he can understand no other book than his own village. - S. John, Ascent