The Mass

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1903045' date='Jun 27 2009, 07:44 PM']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.[/quote]
Well then, silly me!
But still, you have to know the chants and when to say them in order to participate. Then, I guess that also includes OF, though responses are easier to learn in Native language than Latin ( for me the average Joe anyway, not that I couldn't learn them!)
[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1903045' date='Jun 27 2009, 07:44 PM']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.[/quote]
Those are only two aspects of the Mass. A convert could also mistake the living sacrifice for a series of empty rituals with no significance in our day, but I guess that depends on the person!

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1903047' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:48 PM']
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.[/quote]

I, like many today, feel that the Reform of the Roman liturgy was a mistake. I believe that the Magisterium is infallible in regards to teaching of faith and morals. The Church cannot promulgate an invalid or heretical rite, certainly. There is nothing, however, that prevents the Church from promulgating a "banal on-the-spot product," which is how, as I said before, Cardinal Ratzinger described the newer form of the Mass.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1903047' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:48 PM']
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]

[picchick]

You now make the real debate known. The debate is no longer "We are debating what we prefer" but rather debating which is best or which one give more glory to God or which on is more favorable with God.

EF, OF, High, Low. Is it not all the Mass? Is not Jesus present there? What greater glory is it for God then to see his followers whole heartedly and humbly prostrate themselves before Him in awe and praise?

Edited June 28, 2009 by picchick

[picchick]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1902982' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:28 PM']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?[/quote]
Not personally although I am totally willing to check it out. My brother has it on his comptuer though. He likes it.

[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.

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]
[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]
Sometime it is easier for someone to respond in their own language. They know and understand better what they are saying and thus be able to put their whole heart, mind and understanding. We are suppose to love God with our whole heart, mind and soul. With the mind comes understanding. It is much more frustrating and difficult for me to sit there with a book and try to translate what is being said and what is going on than knowing what is happening and being able to participate. This is not just me. This is many people I know.

Not everyone has the interest or the time that you have to translate the whole EF prayers into their native tongue.




[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1903046' date='Jun 27 2009, 07:46 PM']How, then, do you know that you prefer the OF?[/quote]
Because he, like many other people, just know.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='picchick' post='1903059' date='Jun 27 2009, 07:03 PM']EF, OF, High, Low. Is it not all the Mass? Is not Jesus present there? What greater glory is it for God then to see his followers whole heartedly and humbly prostrate themselves before Him in awe and praise?[/quote]

The following is taken from [i]Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma[/i] by Ludwig Ott, p. 413. My emphasis is added:

I. Efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass generally
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the self-sacrifice of Christ, the Primary Sacrificing Priest; it is the Sacrifice of the Church to which the Eucharist was transmitted by Christ as a Sacrifice and a Sacrament (D 938)--thus in the strict sense of the word there are not "private Masses" (D 944) adn; it is the sacrifice of the celebrating priest and the co-sacrificing faithful.

a) As the self-sacrifice of Christ, the sacrifice of the Mass works ex opere operato, that is, independently of the moral worthiness of the celebrating priest and the co-sacrificing faithful. The Council of Trent declared: "This is that clean oblation, which no unworthiness or turpitude of those who offer it can stain." (D 939)

b) As a sacrifice of the Church, the sacrifice of the Mass works quasi ex opere operato, because the Church, as the Holy and immaculate Bride of Christ, is always pleasing to God.

c) [b]As a sacrifice of the celebrating priest and co-sacrificing faithful the sacrifice of the Mass, like every good work, works ex opere operantis corresponding to the intensity of their personal moral disposition. [/b]

Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi

[BG45]

[quote name='picchick' post='1903059' date='Jun 27 2009, 08:03 PM']You now make the real debate known. The debate is no longer "We are debating what we prefer" but rather debating which is best or which one give more glory to God or which on is more favorable with God.

EF, OF, High, Low. Is it not all the Mass? Is not Jesus present there? What greater glory is it for God then to see his followers whole heartedly and humbly prostrate themselves before Him in awe and praise?[/quote]

This is just my personal opinion, but I find it both pretentious and presumptious of humanity (and I include myself of course) to try and concentrate on the form of worship to the Christ, because by doing so, we detract from the very fact that through the miracle of the Eucharist, He is there in body with us.

I find it isn't worth the debate to try and place one form over another. For me, Christ is present, and it is enough to prostrate myself before Him.

[MissyP89]

I prefer the Ordinary Form versus populum in the vernacular, particularly when liturgical dance is included.

Edited June 28, 2009 by MissyP89

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1903066' date='Jun 27 2009, 07:13 PM']I prefer the Ordinary Form versus populum in the vernacular, particularly when liturgical dance is included.[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1903052' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:57 PM']Those are only two aspects of the Mass. A convert could also mistake the living sacrifice for a series of empty rituals with no significance in our day, but I guess that depends on the person![/quote]

From what I have noticed, the priests who celebrate the Mass in Latin, whether it be the EF or the OF, are the least likely to give the appearance that they are celebrating an empty ritual when they say Mass.

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902907' date='Jun 27 2009, 05:17 PM']I actually like the repetitiveness of the epistles and gospels in the EF. I think that hearing the same passages of Scripture on a particular Sunday each year helps to impress those passages on our mind better. Additionally, the passages read in the EF tend to be shorter, which leaves more time for praying the other parts of the Mass more devoutly. In the OF, where there are longer readings, it is often the case that the shortest Eucharistic prayer is chosen to save time, which I find problematic.[/quote]
weak argument. Sounds more like an excuse to me in favor of your preference. I would even wager that if the EF had the sort of diversity of readings of the OF back to the Council of Trent, you would think it fitting and perfectly sensible.

I served at the EF everyday for about five straight years, and I decided that the repetitiveness was absurd only after I started attending OF daily. Plus in the OF each day there is a little theme or nuance of the Faith, and it even spills into the Office prayers. It is edifying for the Faithful to be exposed to more Sacred Scripture than less.

[MIKolbe]

appearances...how positively pharisedic!!!



and 14 years of 'noticing' at that........

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902920' date='Jun 27 2009, 06:26 PM']We are debating about which from of the Mass we prefer.[/quote]
It is a simple preference, since any valid Mass gives glory to God. Please do not start the my Mass is better or more holy than your Mass croutons again.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' post='1903082' date='Jun 27 2009, 08:11 PM']weak argument. Sounds more like an excuse to me in favor of your preference. I would even wager that if the EF had the sort of diversity of readings of the OF back to the Council of Trent, you would think it fitting and perfectly sensible.

I served at the EF everyday for about five straight years, and I decided that the repetitiveness was absurd only after I started attending OF daily. Plus in the OF each day there is a little theme or nuance of the Faith, and it even spills into the Office prayers. It is edifying for the Faithful to be exposed to more Sacred Scripture than less.[/quote]

If you think that the repetitiveness in the EF is absurd, you should stay far away from the Byzantine Liturgy! (I am very fond of the repetitiveness of the Byzantine Liturgy, by the way.)

Since we are speaking of the Byzantine Liturgy, I would like to say that, just like the ancient Roman Liturgy, the Byzantine Liturgy uses a one-year cycle of readings rather than a three-year cycle. The use of a three-year cycle is an innovation that has never been seen before in liturgical history.

Again, like the EF, there are normally only two selections of Scripture (obviously in addition to the numerous psalms and quotes from Scripture in the prayers themselves) in the Byzantine Liturgy.

As to your claim that there the EF contains less of Scripture, I would venture to say that the unchanging prayers of the EF Mass are far more saturated with quotations from the Bible than prayers of the OF are. As you know, the EF begins with an entire psalm, and again at the lavabo another entire psalm is prayed. The EF also ends with the beginning of St. John's Gospel, which the OF does not include.

[kafka]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1903095' date='Jun 27 2009, 09:27 PM']appearances...how positively pharisedic!!!



and 14 years of 'noticing' at that........[/quote]
I was just reminiscing on how there would around fifty to a hundred Masses commemorating a Confessor or a Virgin each year in the EF, and the same readings/prayers would be read for each of the respective Masses. I remember rejoicing when there would actually be a second class feast day just so the readings would change.

The daily and Sunday cycle of the OF readings/prayers is more sophisticated, detailed, thematic, all-encompassing.

Edited June 28, 2009 by kafka