Nihil Obstat Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Absolutely. Reminds me a lot of the humeral veil, even though it is not really the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Why does the priest have to speak in Latin? Is it because most Catholics are latino? Seems kind of unfair in America. Why does the priest have his back to the people? Is it because the Church wasn't pastoral before Vatican II? Why continue this practice when we're now the post-Vatican II church? Why the kneeling to receive communion? We're a resurrection people. It also makes for awkward moments when trying to receive on the hand, which is the norm in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Thanks for that, Fr. Küng. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Of Congar and Rahner and Küng The praises are everywhere süng. But Ottaviani One fine domani Will see that they’re properly hüng. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 This made me think of you. http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/09/07/thomas-woods-and-his-critics-the-austrian-vs-distributist-debate-among-catholics/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Really unfortunate about how Dr. Woods and Mr. Ferrara had such a major falling-out over Austrianism vs. distributism. I guess things just got too personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NonNovi Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 1) Why are the priest's vestments different in the EF and NO? 2) Why are the calendars different? 3) Has anyone else had problems remembering what's different when switching between rites? Or am I the only one who's started in Latin only to realize that she's at an NO Mass that is most assuredly not in Latin? (Okay, that's just to laugh at myself and have a little fun.) 1. They aren't. The vestments are the same (except that in NOM the maniple isn't used anymore, but still allowed), it's the style that is different. Even church fashion changes through the ages. In the 1970's they just started to use a very ugly style of vestments, wich can be worn at an EF Mass too. There is no obligated style for EF Mass. On the other hand, EF people and priests usually want to have beauty at the liturgy, so in most cases they choose fiddlebacks or nicely decorated gotic chasubles. 2. Because they just decided to change the calendar, I don't know exactly why. Can be very confusing, because they also count different. When you have at EF the Mass of the 5th sunday after Easter, that will be the 6th sunday of Easter at OF. I like the old calendar better, it has much more variety and stresses important feasts more. 3. I attend both forms kind of equally and actually never have problems switching. If they do NOM right, the difference isn't that big. At the monastery where I now live half of the time, they celebrate NOM ad orientem, and everything is as much as possible and allowed like the EF. Then you really see the continuity and that a lot of NOM's are just abuses of the liturgy, that certain people want(ed) to create a rupture. On the other hand it can be confusing too. I once served Mass and I only realised it was NOM when I saw the missal was on the "wrong" side and the priest just walked up to the altar instead of saying the prayers at the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I once served Mass and I only realised it was NOM when I saw the missal was on the "wrong" side and the priest just walked up to the altar instead of saying the prayers at the foot. To be entirely fair, that was about as early as you possibly could have figured it out. :| It is not like you did not realize until he got to the Te Igitur or something. :smile3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NonNovi Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 To be entirely fair, that was about as early as you possibly could have figured it out. :| It is not like you did not realize until he got to the Te Igitur or something. :smile3: True, but I was assuming all morning it would be EF, and I seriously didn't realise it until we were in front of the altar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 They certainly can look similar, going simply by outward appearances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NonNovi Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 They certainly can look similar, going simply by outward appearances. Yeah, I'm with you on the Propers thing :) EF made me understand OF a lot better, because OF just seems to be a watered down form of EF. But still, EF is sooo much richer when it comes to prayers for specific occasions. OF can be very shallow and general when it comes to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthephysicist Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 1. They aren't. The vestments are the same (except that in NOM the maniple isn't used anymore, but still allowed), it's the style that is different. Even church fashion changes through the ages. In the 1970's they just started to use a very ugly style of vestments, wich can be worn at an EF Mass too. There is no obligated style for EF Mass. On the other hand, EF people and priests usually want to have beauty at the liturgy, so in most cases they choose fiddlebacks or nicely decorated gotic chasubles. 2. Because they just decided to change the calendar, I don't know exactly why. Can be very confusing, because they also count different. When you have at EF the Mass of the 5th sunday after Easter, that will be the 6th sunday of Easter at OF. I like the old calendar better, it has much more variety and stresses important feasts more. 3. I attend both forms kind of equally and actually never have problems switching. If they do NOM right, the difference isn't that big. At the monastery where I now live half of the time, they celebrate NOM ad orientem, and everything is as much as possible and allowed like the EF. Then you really see the continuity and that a lot of NOM's are just abuses of the liturgy, that certain people want(ed) to create a rupture. On the other hand it can be confusing too. I once served Mass and I only realised it was NOM when I saw the missal was on the "wrong" side and the priest just walked up to the altar instead of saying the prayers at the foot. What was different that made it stress important feasts more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Yeah, I'm with you on the Propers thing :) EF made me understand OF a lot better, because OF just seems to be a watered down form of EF. But still, EF is sooo much richer when it comes to prayers for specific occasions. OF can be very shallow and general when it comes to that. It is very unfortunate that most of the propers were stripped of their original form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now