picchick Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902931' date='Jun 27 2009, 05:39 PM']Do you ever go to the EF?[/quote] I have a feeling this is going to turn into which is better and why... I agree with Noel. I will go to any Mass as long as Jesus is there. Sometimes I don't pick and choose. I just want Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 [quote name='picchick' post='1902974' date='Jun 27 2009, 05:15 PM']I have a feeling this is going to turn into which is better and why... I agree with Noel. I will go to any Mass as long as Jesus is there. Sometimes I don't pick and choose. I just want Jesus.[/quote] I want to participate in the Mass which gives the greatest glory to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902976' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:16 PM']I want to participate in the Mass which gives the greatest glory to God.[/quote] Ok...which to you is which form? Let me guess....EF? How will something give more glory to God if the person's heart is not into it? What if someone is able to give more glory to God by participating fully through their heart, word and understanding through the OF? Mass is beautiful no matter what language it is said in, whether or not incense is used, whether the priest is facing the tabernacle or facing the congregation. Mass is the greatest glory that we can give to God whether we prefer OF or EF or Eastern Liturgy. God is not going to discredit His people because they did not go to an EF form of the Mass. Edited June 27, 2009 by picchick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregorius Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 I personally cannot go to EF as only two parishes in the Archdiocese offer it, neither of them very close by. My own priest has a brand spanking new [u]Missale Romanum[/u], but due to certain health problems he would have trouble saying EF Mass. Also, the local ordinary requires that a priest has to send in an application and prove his proficiency in latin in order to regularly say the EF Mass. I can see the safety reasons involved, but I do admit it can be a little... constricting. That being said, I have my own EF missal (an old one!) and have seen the prayers for the mass. Although I agree that some of these prayers are a bit unnecessary, they are nonetheless very beautiful (I have heard live chant) and do not necessarily (for me) detract from the sacrifice. The OF seems to add a participatory dimension to the sacrifice, which despite some claims, is not a bad thing depending on those participating. This form also seems easier to say, requiring slightly less equipment, less manpower (same Godpower?) and a slightly easier time understanding what you see, though in my opinion EF is not a total mystery because it is in latin. I'm not voting, as I can't make an unbiased vote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregorius Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Has anyone seen an OF Mass in Latin? My cathedral offers it every week, though I can't attend. How do you all feel about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 [quote name='picchick' post='1902980' date='Jun 27 2009, 05:25 PM']Ok...which to you is which form? Let me guess....EF? How will something give more glory to God if the person's heart is not into it? What if someone is able to give more glory to God by participating fully through their heart, word and understanding through the OF? Mass is beautiful no matter what language it is said in, whether or not incense is used, whether the priest is facing the tabernacle or facing the congregation. Mass is the greatest glory that we can give to God whether we prefer OF or EF or Eastern Liturgy. God is not going to discredit His people because they did not go to an EF form of the Mass.[/quote] I believe that the rites and ceremonies of the EF give more glory to God than those of the OF. Similarly, I believe that a High Mass gives greater glory to God than a Low Mass. The more solemn the ceremonies of the Mass are, the greater is the glory given to God. Obviously one's own spiritual dispositions are equally important, but I think that, even if the Mass is celebrated in Latin, anyone can put his whole heart into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 [quote name='Gregorius' post='1902981' date='Jun 27 2009, 05:27 PM']I personally cannot go to EF as only two parishes in the Archdiocese offer it, neither of them very close by. My own priest has a brand spanking new [u]Missale Romanum[/u], but due to certain health problems he would have trouble saying EF Mass. Also, the local ordinary requires that a priest has to send in an application and prove his proficiency in latin in order to regularly say the EF Mass. I can see the safety reasons involved, but I do admit it can be a little... constricting. That being said, I have my own EF missal (an old one!) and have seen the prayers for the mass. Although I agree that some of these prayers are a bit unnecessary, they are nonetheless very beautiful (I have heard live chant) and do not necessarily (for me) detract from the sacrifice. The OF seems to add a participatory dimension to the sacrifice, which despite some claims, is not a bad thing depending on those participating. This form also seems easier to say, requiring slightly less equipment, less manpower (same Godpower?) and a slightly easier time understanding what you see, though in my opinion EF is not a total mystery because it is in latin. I'm not voting, as I can't make an unbiased vote![/quote] I do not see how the OF makes external participation easier than the EF. Chanting or saying the responses and chanting the ordinary chants of the Mass is just as possible in the EF as it is in the OF. Also, I do not understand what you mean by saying that some of the prayers in the EF are unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902856' date='Jun 27 2009, 04:07 PM']If there were a perfect parish across the street from your house where both the EF and OF were celebrated at equally convenient times, which would you attend?[/quote] Both. Christ is present at both, neither is more or less valid than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregorius Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902991' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:37 PM']I do not see how the OF makes external participation easier than the EF. Chanting or saying the responses and chanting the ordinary chants of the Mass is just as possible in the EF as it is in the OF. [/quote] For the most part, agreed. However, I think I may need to clarify a little. Do note that participation is more than singing/chanting responses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that in EF Mass the parts are still only spoken/sung by those on the altar (sung by choir/clergy at high mass), and the congregation is discouraged from speaking? Now you and I would probably have no problem following along with the priest, but what about those who cannot hear what the priest is saying, haven't gone to mass long enough to look for clues on where he is in the liturgy, do not know Latin, and do not have a missal to guide him/her along. In other words, if a potential convert walked into a church to see a mass, I'm sure he/she would get a somewhat better idea of what it's about looking at OF rather than EF. [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902991' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:37 PM']Also, I do not understand what you mean by saying that some of the prayers in the EF are unnecessary.[/quote] But apparently the Magisterium did/does. look: [quote name='The constitution on the Sacred Liturgy-Vatican II Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December 1963, chapter II,']Decree 50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as well as connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved. [b]For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance. Parts of the Mas which with the passage of time came to be duplicated, or were added with little advantage, are to be omitted. [/b]Other parts which suffered the loss through accidents of history are to be restored to the vigor they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902931' date='Jun 27 2009, 03:39 PM']Do you ever go to the EF?[/quote] no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Gregorius' post='1903027' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:24 PM']But apparently the Magisterium did/does. look:[/quote] That quote from [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i] has nothing to do with doctrine. It is a disciplinary statement directed at those who would be responsible for reforming the Roman liturgy, the [i]Consilium[/i]. I think many, especially since the promulgation of [i]Summorum Pontificum[/i], would disagree that any of the prayers of the EF are superfluous or in need of being reduced. The reduction of elements thought "repetitive" was a horrible thing for the Roman Liturgy, which actually has little repetition compared to the Eastern Rites I agree with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who, in his preface to the book [i]The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background[/i], called the newer form of the Mass a "banal, on-the-spot product." Edited June 27, 2009 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Gregorius' post='1903027' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:24 PM']For the most part, agreed. However, I think I may need to clarify a little. Do note that participation is more than singing/chanting responses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that in EF Mass the parts are still only spoken/sung by those on the altar (sung by choir/clergy at high mass), and the congregation is discouraged from speaking? Now you and I would probably have no problem following along with the priest, but what about those who cannot hear what the priest is saying, haven't gone to mass long enough to look for clues on where he is in the liturgy, do not know Latin, and do not have a missal to guide him/her along. In other words, if a potential convert walked into a church to see a mass, I'm sure he/she would get a somewhat better idea of what it's about looking at OF rather than EF.[/quote] It is certainly not discouraged for the faithful at Mass to say the responses and chant the ordinary chants of the Mass! In fact, many Popes, especially during the first half of the twentieth century, encouraged both of those things. In my opinion, a prospective convert would do better to go to the EF, since I think that Communion kneeling and on the tongue better only better represents our belief in the Real Presence. I also feel that the [i]ad orientem[/i] altar orientation better expresses the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Edited June 27, 2009 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 [quote name='MIkolbe' post='1903038' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:34 PM']no[/quote] How, then, do you know that you prefer the OF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregorius Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902990' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:34 PM']I believe that the rites and ceremonies of the EF give more glory to God than those of the OF. Similarly, I believe that a High Mass gives greater glory to God than a Low Mass. The more solemn the ceremonies of the Mass are, the greater is the glory given to God.[/quote] This is a very dangerous position to hold! By making this statement, you are implying that the current Holy Father, his predecessors, and the Magesterium are knowingly and willingly withholding saving graces by actively promulgating a rite less pleasing to God than its predecessor, let alone the fact that you believe that the church can and has done something unpleasing to God. I doubt, however, that that is your intention. It seems you may be misunderstanding something here. The will of the Father is to save the world from itself. To do that, 2,000 years ago he sent His Son, the second person of the Trinity, to sacrifice Himself as a perfect oblation that lasts for all time. The Mass is a representation of that same sacrifice, instituted by God, Christ, to His Church. The Father is pleased because the sacrifice was Christ lovingly following His Will. The Mass is pleasing to God because it is a representation of that same sacrifice that was pleasing to Him in the first place. Beauty is also pleasing to God, but nowhere near as pleasing as the sacrifice. That is why the Church's main form of worship is the Mass, and not a biblical sing-a-long or an orgy or an exorcism. God is not pleased by the Mass because it is beautiful, but because it is the same sacrifice on Calvary. No Mass can be greater or more pleasing to God than another, because they are the same. Now you could say 'the more solemn the mass is, the more I am able to appreciate the sacrifice that unfolds in front of me every moment, and thus I am able to give greater glory to God.', but I would not go as far as to say, 'The more solemn the ceremonies of the Mass are, the greater is the glory given to God.' as if it was an objective thing. [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902990' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:34 PM']Obviously one's own spiritual dispositions are equally important, but I think that, even if the Mass is celebrated in Latin, anyone can put his whole heart into it.[/quote] Agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeniteAdoremus Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) As a physics student, I probably see this a bit too mathematically, but - the glory given in the Offering, during the Consecration, is so much bigger than any other externals that to me the difference between the OF and EF is negligible, glory-wise. I am perfectly content with a well-celebrated OF, but I do prefer the EF. I have, by the way, attended OF in Latin... it wasn't much different from Dutch. And I strongly prefer ad orientem. We had ad orientem OF a couple of times... that was great. Edit: grammar. Edited June 27, 2009 by VeniteAdoremus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts