OF vs EF Divine Office?

[BarbTherese]

Disputes over who or what is greater or greatest:

Matthew Ch23 "He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." 

Matthew Ch18 "At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.

Whatever one's vocation and call it is Grace that grants what is necessary to fulfil the duties of the call - to God and His Grace then alone is any and all glory due.  For laity, the duties of our call and vocation is laid out very clearly in the various documents on the lay vocation. 

Edited April 21, 2015 by BarbaraTherese

[PartesVulpiumErunt]

The group I'm discerning with (Augustinian Canons) makes a huge point of regular recitation of the Divine Office as close as possible to the times for which they were suited. One of the Canons explained that a reason for this is that the Breviary is (per St. Augustine) the "Voice of the Whole Church". At 5 in the morning, our minds might not be turned to the sentiments expressed in the Psalter (I've yet to run across a psalm which thanks God for the supreme benevolence of coffee . . .) but at that point in time, somewhere in the world, there will be some Christian (or Christians) undergoing persecution, abandonment, doubt - or could be praising God for the many blessings which He has given to us - but who for whatever reason, cannot find the right words to pray or those who could pray for them. Their recitation of the Office is a prayer on the behalf of the "voiceless". 

 Keeping in mind how the Divine Office, in this sense, is a universal, non-ceasing intercessional prayer, I understand the reasons why a universal liturgical language is used, and why the office is prayed as frequently throughout the day as possible. 

I'm not dissing the OF Breviary. Prayer is prayer. And I've also known traditional priests to abuse the Breviary.* But I'd also say that priests especially act as ecumenical intercessors, and that at the very least symbolically, the EF Office shows that universal aspect by its uniformity. And although laity aren't required to recite all of the office, we have to remember that Vatican 2 emphasizes a "universal call to holiness" and calls on us to exercise our universal priesthood - and what better way than joining in the universal prayer of the Divine Office? 

*One priest I knew would wait until 10pm, recite the entire office for two days, be done by 2am the next day, and be free for two days. Not exactly what was in mind when the Office was composed. 

[oremus1]

HAs anyone ever switched from the EF office to the OF office?

I hear a lot of catholics saying they "graduated" or "grew" from  using the OF office to the EF one. But my mates are trads so are biased. And when there is a NO seminarian who is using the NO breviary, the laity act like it is deficient, even though they do not say the breviary

[oremus1]

HEre is a good article on this topic. The priest says the EF breviary is much better http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/02/20/being-a-traditional-catholic-is-not-easy/

[beatitude]

HEre is a good article on this topic. The priest says the EF breviary is much better http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/02/20/being-a-traditional-catholic-is-not-easy/

​Oremus, I get the feeling from you that your questions are not really questions at all - they are often written with very 'loaded' wording that suggests you have already made up your mind, and you're just wanting to see if people agree with you or whether it will cause controversy.

Father has found that learning Latin has increased his reverence for the Mass, and what he says about that is beautiful - it's always encouraging to see that our priests are filled with love for what they do, their life's work. But this doesn't mean that everything he writes is right and true for everybody. For example, he says he believes "with all my MIND, SOUL, and HEART that Latin prayer is more powerful against the devil and more pleasing to God." There is simply no evidence for that, no matter how many capital letters he believes it in, and I'd say plenty of evidence against it. I'm pretty sure, for example, that Jesus didn't pray in Latin (he taught his disciples the Pater Noster in Aramaic, their native spoken language), and he seems to have bested the devil all right. (And why would Latin be more powerful against Satan? Does he have a particular horror of the ablative case?)

I respect Latin as part our religious heritage and I went out of my way to study it as a teenager because of this. I sing some Latin prayers often (Adoro te devote is one of the most hauntingly beautiful expressions of faith I've ever heard). But there is a big difference between respecting our tradition and viewing it as though it's some kind of talisman against devil and a way of securing brownie points with God. That's just superstition. Think about it. What makes Latin holy? At the time Christ was alive, Latin was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire and every Roman foot-soldier on the street was cursing in it. It was Latin's eventual use in the liturgy that sanctified it; it's not the Latin that sanctifies the liturgy. You're getting it the wrong way round.

I suggest you stop caring so much about what looks holiest and what other people are likely to think. Ultimately, the state of your soul is between you and God. Ask him to purify your heart and then pray however you feel drawn.

[oremus1]

​Oremus, I get the feeling from you that your questions are not really questions at all - they are often written with very 'loaded' wording that suggests you have already made up your mind, and you're just wanting to see if people agree with you or whether it will cause controversy.

Father has found that learning Latin has increased his reverence for the Mass, and what he says about that is beautiful - it's always encouraging to see that our priests are filled with love for what they do, their life's work. But this doesn't mean that everything he writes is right and true for everybody. For example, he says he believes "with all my MIND, SOUL, and HEART that Latin prayer is more powerful against the devil and more pleasing to God." There is simply no evidence for that, no matter how many capital letters he believes it in, and I'd say plenty of evidence against it. I'm pretty sure, for example, that Jesus didn't pray in Latin (he taught his disciples the Pater Noster in Aramaic, their native spoken language), and he seems to have bested the devil all right. (And why would Latin be more powerful against Satan? Does he have a particular horror of the ablative case?)

I respect Latin as part our religious heritage and I went out of my way to study it as a teenager because of this. I sing some Latin prayers often (Adoro te devote is one of the most hauntingly beautiful expressions of faith I've ever heard). But there is a big difference between respecting our tradition and viewing it as though it's some kind of talisman against devil and a way of securing brownie points with God. That's just superstition. Think about it. What makes Latin holy? At the time Christ was alive, Latin was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire and every Roman foot-soldier on the street was cursing in it. It was Latin's eventual use in the liturgy that sanctified it; it's not the Latin that sanctifies the liturgy. You're getting it the wrong way round.

I suggest you stop caring so much about what looks holiest and what other people are likely to think. Ultimately, the state of your soul is between you and God. Ask him to purify your heart and then pray however you feel drawn.

​It is not so much that I have made up my mind. logically I know the people on this thread are right, and are balanced middle of the road catholics. but you must understand that all of my friends are trads, and it is only in the past few months I have started going to the Novus Ordo, much to the scandal and derision of many. So my ideas about what feels to be best are influenced by traditional catholicism.

HEre is an example of the kind of values I have become instilled with: The EF mass  is more meritorious than the NO mass - Fr Rippenger FSSP http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Merit%20of%20the%20Mass%20(Fr.%20Ripperger,%20F.S.S.P.).pdf

[MarysLittleFlower]

​It is not so much that I have made up my mind. logically I know the people on this thread are right, and are balanced middle of the road catholics. but you must understand that all of my friends are trads, and it is only in the past few months I have started going to the Novus Ordo, much to the scandal and derision of many. So my ideas about what feels to be best are influenced by traditional catholicism.
HEre is an example of the kind of values I have become instilled with: The EF mass  is more meritorious than the NO mass - Fr Rippenger FSSP http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Merit%20of%20the%20Mass%20(Fr.%20Ripperger,%20F.S.S.P.).pdf

There is nothing wrong with being "trad" if you are with the Church and not schismatic... I personally attend an FSSP parish and its not heretical to be more traditional. I think the view about the Traditional Latin Mass being more meritorious - they don't mean the reality I think in terms of the Mass being the Sacrifice, since both Traditional Latin Mass and NO are this, - but how the Traditional Latin Mass can affect people, extra prayers, heightened sense of reverence, etc - all that affects people spiritually. They dont mean that the Eucharist is somwhow different i mean. I go to NO when I can't go to Traditional Latin Mass but I prefer Traditional Latin Mass because I find it lifts my heart and mind to God more strongly through the reverence, chant, etc. Its not about having a scrupulous fear but about loving the traditional element because of the spiritual benefit. NO is valid and I know the Holy Eucharist is there but when I go there I miss the silence and prayerfulness of the Traditional Latin Mass. Its not heretical to think that.. And there are people in the leadership of the Church like Bishop Athanasius Schneider who would say that some expressions promote more reverence than others. Not going to go into that here so as not to start a debate but he has some good interviews on YouTube. Anyways all I'm trying to say is that its not a bad thing to be a "trad" and its not disobedient though some people might think so. 

I hope you didn't imply that more traditional Catholics are not balanced or something like that... Again there are different types of them

Edited April 21, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just to illustrate the above point... Fr Ripperger, who is a priest in good standing by the way and not a schismatic sedevacantist, - talks about the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the Mass. The intrinsic value is always infinite. So no one is saying that the Eucharist is somehow different in the NO. However just as we receive more or less graces from Communion due to our disposition, same with the Mass... I'll make an extreme example. Would you get the same from a 'clown' Mass as a reverently done Mass? Why or why not?

I'd say you wouldnt precisely because of the extrinsic merit. You wouldnt even be recollected at the 'clown' Mass. So Fr Ripperger compares Traditional Latin Mass and NO with this logic. I know some here might object to his reasoning but there is nothing against faith there. The Church does not hold all liturgical actions to be equal in reverence or equally promoted. Even people like Cardinal Arinze have promoted certain actions and not others. Since there is this variety in liturgy, - various liturgical actions are not dogmatic and can be more or less reverent or helpful. For example there is more extrinsic value in showing an act of reverence to Our Lord vs not, right? same logic with the other points as to how much reverence. Again I'm just saying all this because often trads get labelled as disobedient to the Church unjustly and Fr Rippergers article makes sense if these points are considered. His article is far from being an example against traditional Catholicism since other Catholics apply the same logic in arguing against very liberal liturgies. Hope that makes sense. It doesn't reflect on validity of NO... But even Pope Benedict seemed to express hope that NO can be influenced by the Traditional Latin Mass - so liturgical actions were never meant to be above reproach. Fr Ripperger is a priest and I think a professor at seminary so he has the authority to comment on this.

Edited April 21, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[beatitude]

Just to illustrate the above point... Fr Ripperger, who is a priest in good standing by the way and not a schismatic sedevacantist, - talks about the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the Mass. The intrinsic value is always infinite. So no one is saying that the Eucharist is somehow different in the NO. However just as we receive more or less graces from Communion due to our disposition, same with the Mass... I'll make an extreme example. Would you get the same from a 'clown' Mass as a reverently done Mass? Why or why not?

I'd say you wouldnt precisely because of the extrinsic merit. You wouldnt even be recollected at the 'clown' Mass. So Fr Ripperger compares Traditional Latin Mass and NO with this logic. I know some here might object to his reasoning but there is nothing against faith there. The Church does not hold all liturgical actions to be equal in reverence or equally promoted. Even people like Cardinal Arinze have promoted certain actions and not others. Since there is this variety in liturgy, - various liturgical actions are not dogmatic and can be more or less reverent or helpful. For example there is more extrinsic value in showing an act of reverence to Our Lord vs not, right? same logic with the other points as to how much reverence. Again I'm just saying all this because often trads get labelled as disobedient to the Church unjustly...

​MarysLittleFlower, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it, comparing the OF to a clown Mass is...not great. It might not go against faith, but it certainly goes against charity (and probably humility, as you're tacitly saying that EF worshippers are more recollected than OF ones are). It is perfectly possible to be recollected at a Mass in the Ordinary Form, and to be entirely scattered and distracted at the Extraordinary - some people find the structure of the OF makes it easier for them to focus, for example.

I think you share Oremus's tendency to believe that if a priest says something, it must be true. Any priest who is so hyperbolic as to make an allegory between the Ordinary Form and a Mass celebrated while dressed up as a clown is plain wrong, priest or no. These comparisons are like the Catholic equivalent of Godwin's law.

Finally, Phatmass has many people who consider themselves traditionalists and who prefer the EF. No one is going round here saying that traditionalists are disobedient to the Church.

Edited April 21, 2015 by beatitude

[oremus1]

Just to illustrate the above point... Fr Ripperger, who is a priest in good standing by the way and not a schismatic sedevacantist, - talks about the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the Mass. The intrinsic value is always infinite. So no one is saying that the Eucharist is somehow different in the NO. However just as we receive more or less graces from Communion due to our disposition, same with the Mass... I'll make an extreme example. Would you get the same from a 'clown' Mass as a reverently done Mass? Why or why not?

I'd say you wouldnt precisely because of the extrinsic merit. You wouldnt even be recollected at the 'clown' Mass. So Fr Ripperger compares Traditional Latin Mass and NO with this logic. I know some here might object to his reasoning but there is nothing against faith there. The Church does not hold all liturgical actions to be equal in reverence or equally promoted. Even people like Cardinal Arinze have promoted certain actions and not others. Since there is this variety in liturgy, - various liturgical actions are not dogmatic and can be more or less reverent or helpful. For example there is more extrinsic value in showing an act of reverence to Our Lord vs not, right? same logic with the other points as to how much reverence. Again I'm just saying all this because often trads get labelled as disobedient to the Church unjustly and Fr Rippergers article makes sense if these points are considered. His article is far from being an example against traditional Catholicism since other Catholics apply the same logic in arguing against very liberal liturgies. Hope that makes sense. It doesn't reflect on validity of NO... But even Pope Benedict seemed to express hope that NO can be influenced by the Traditional Latin Mass - so liturgical actions were never meant to be above reproach. Fr Ripperger is a priest and I think a professor at seminary so he has the authority to comment on this.

​Just to be clear, I am not SSPX or Sede or anything, I was Ecclesia Dei trad.

Wondering, the above stuff you wrote - how do these ideas apply to the EF vs NO Office

[NadaTeTurbe]

​MarysLittleFlower, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it, comparing the OF to a clown Mass is...not great. It might not go against faith, but it certainly goes against charity (and probably humility, as you're tacitly saying that EF worshippers are more recollected than OF ones are). It is perfectly possible to be recollected at a Mass in the Ordinary Form, and to be entirely scattered and distracted at the Extraordinary - some people find the structure of the OF makes it easier for them to focus, for example.

I think you share Oremus's tendency to believe that if a priest says something, it must be true. Any priest who is so hyperbolic as to make an allegory between the Ordinary Form and a Mass celebrated while dressed up as a clown is plain wrong, priest or no. These comparisons are like the Catholic equivalent of Godwin's law.

Finally, Phatmass has many people who consider themselves traditionalists and who prefer the EF. No one is going round here saying that traditionalists are disobedient to the Church.

​Yes yes yes. i feel that on the internet we don't hear this so often. But I am the kind of girl who really can't pray at the EF, or in latin. I can't focus on God and Jesus with latin, incense, and the test of the EF. Like, even if I try to make effort, i can't really be close or confortable with a religious wearing an habit.  I feel like the EF is more about showing reverence, and the OF about feeling reverence. Just a personal remark. Maybe it's because I have been teached in the Faith by very Vatican II group - AC, SGDF, SEM, now the JOC... 

[MarysLittleFlower]

​MarysLittleFlower, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it, comparing the OF to a clown Mass is...not great. It might not go against faith, but it certainly goes against charity (and probably humility, as you're tacitly saying that EF worshippers are more recollected than OF ones are). It is perfectly possible to be recollected at a Mass in the Ordinary Form, and to be entirely scattered and distracted at the Extraordinary - some people find the structure of the OF makes it easier for them to focus, for example.

I think you share Oremus's tendency to believe that if a priest says something, it must be true. Any priest who is so hyperbolic as to make an allegory between the Ordinary Form and a Mass celebrated while dressed up as a clown is plain wrong, priest or no. These comparisons are like the Catholic equivalent of Godwin's law.

Finally, Phatmass has many people who consider themselves traditionalists and who prefer the EF. No one is going round here saying that traditionalists are disobedient to the Church.

To clarify, my intent was not to compare the NO to the clown Mass but to illustrate how the logic used by Fr Ripperger is used by most Catholics - this means that liturgical actions can be validly compared in terms of their extrinsic value. This is what many do with the NO already even if they are not 'trads' - they may be interested in looking for the most reverent NO like the one on ewtn, rather than a more casual one. This illustrates that extrinsic value of liturgy is not only used by trade and that the Church can apply it we also see people like Bishop Schneider apply it in supporting specific reverent actions. However NO is valid and same intrinsic value. I do find that certain aspects of the Traditional Latin Mass are especially beneficial in encouraging reverence and this is related to extrinsic merit.

also I never said or implied that people at NO are less recollected. I said that Traditional Latin Mass encourages recollection well - hopefully the distinction is seen here... Yes people can be well rwcollected at NO but that can be due to their level of spiritual advancement and prayer. On its own, the amount of silence etc at the Traditional Latin Mass fosters recollection in those who may not have it as well as those who do. Of course this also happens at NO but the Mass is quicker and it really depends on how it is done. There can be levels of this based on how the Mass is said. NO on ewtn might be more similar to Traditional Latin Mass.

To clarify another point, Fr Ripperger never mentioned the analogy with the clown Mass...and I meant the analogy in a different way.  Personally I do tend to believe Fr Ripperger on such things since he is a knowledgeable orthodox priest..

[MarysLittleFlower]

​Just to be clear, I am not SSPX or Sede or anything, I was Ecclesia Dei trad.

Wondering, the above stuff you wrote - how do these ideas apply to the EF vs NO Office

I haven't really done research on that... My understanding is I like the extra prayers. But I get the impression this is bothering you and may I ask why? If you like the EF office more then what is stopping you from doing it? or do you like the OF office more? Why or why not? Just trying to figure out your question!

[MarysLittleFlower]

 

​Yes yes yes. i feel that on the internet we don't hear this so often. But I am the kind of girl who really can't pray at the EF, or in latin. I can't focus on God and Jesus with latin, incense, and the test of the EF. Like, even if I try to make effort, i can't really be close or confortable with a religious wearing an habit.  I feel like the EF is more about showing reverence, and the OF about feeling reverence. Just a personal remark. Maybe it's because I have been teached in the Faith by very Vatican II group - AC, SGDF, SEM, now the JOC... 

I'm just curious what you mean about showing vs feeling reverence... I mean if we feel reverence don't we then want to show it?  

[NadaTeTurbe]

No ? I feel reverence at the mass. I don't think I need to show it to the rest of the word with mantilla, veil, very long kneeling, etc... Usually, at the mass, I try to not "show" myself. I don't want to be distinguished because of my attitude. (well, in my parish i am an altar server, so I don't have the choice in the attitude !). But I feel that in my case focusing in exterior attitude (showing reference) distract me from interior attitude (feeling reverence.) I don't know if I'm clear. But then, the culture is different. American are very focused on exterior , it's less the case in France.