The Mass

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1903360' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:08 AM']Ahhh Res,

You shouldn't follow so blindly.
One day you're going to come to a crisis or and no amount of ecclesial documentation will help you.

I really hope as you mature your faith does too. [/quote]

I have asked this question before, but I will ask it again. How are we to understand Catholicism if not by the teachings of the Magisterium?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='kafka' post='1903082' date='Jun 27 2009, 09:11 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]
I agree with the variance on the OF. I've been pleasantly surprised about the relation with the OF office and sacred liturgy in all their respective propers.

[quote name='Church Punk' post='1903205' date='Jun 27 2009, 10:59 PM']Hands down Extraordinary, I like genuflecting, bowing, silence, Gregorian chant, incense and kneeling at mass. Its more fitting actions for when Jesus real presence is brought right before us.[/quote]
This can all be achieved in the OF, only if the priest wasn't in such a hurry to get the mass done and if people stopped being hippies (I'm talking of extreme cases here). Do the [b][color="#FF0000"]red[/color][/b], say the [b]black[/b]. That includes all the black that is left out such as the introit, the communion, etc. Sacrosanctum Concillium even tells us to retain Latin. That would be best done in the ordinaries, I'm sure.

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1903232' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:27 PM']Sacred Scripture has its greatest effect when it is chanted liturgically by a cleric [s]in a sacral language. [/s][/quote]
Fixed it for ya. Chanting scriptures is a dying art. I want to learn it so it may be introduced into the ordinary form.


Okay, overall thoughts on the poll. I nulled. It's at 4/4 right now. I have fallen in love with both forms. Frankly, a seminarian friend once said that he hopes that both the ordinary and extraordinary will soon be gone, and a new, beautiful, organic liturgy will be born from both. Call it blasphemy from your various camps, but I'm starting to like the idea. Another friend of mine who almost became a seminarian, but felt called to marriage (he is still very avid in studying the faith and liturgical matters... maybe he'll serve in the diaconate some day ) said that maybe the OF will disappear. I dunno. Maybe as we know it now. Personally, other than the "new" English translation which fixes the paraphrasing (which could be remedied for now by saying the Latin), I think the OF would benefit from having the first chapter of John said at the end! I loved that about the EF.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1903363' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:11 AM']I agree with the variance on the OF. I've been pleasantly surprised about the relation with the OF office and sacred liturgy in all their respective propers.[/quote]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1903363' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:11 AM']This can all be achieved in the OF, only if the priest wasn't in such a hurry to get the mass done and if people stopped being hippies (I'm talking of extreme cases here). Do the [b][color="#FF0000"]red[/color][/b], say the [b]black[/b]. That includes all the black that is left out such as the introit, the communion, etc. Sacrosanctum Concillium even tells us to retain Latin. That would be best done in the ordinaries, I'm sure.[/quote]

You are correct that Latin, incense, chant, etc. can be found in the OF, and I do appreciate it when priests do include this things in the OF, but the fact is that they are not found very often. My biggest problems with the OF, however, are that Communion is permitted to be distributed in the hand and that EMHCs are permitted at normal Sunday Masses. These things will probably not be fixed without legislation from the Holy See.


[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1903363' date='Jun 28 2009, 12:11 AM']Okay, overall thoughts on the poll. I nulled. It's at 4/4 right now. I have fallen in love with both forms. Frankly, a seminarian friend once said that he hopes that both the ordinary and extraordinary will soon be gone, and a new, beautiful, organic liturgy will be born from both. Call it blasphemy from your various camps, but I'm starting to like the idea. Another friend of mine who almost became a seminarian, but felt called to marriage (he is still very avid in studying the faith and liturgical matters... maybe he'll serve in the diaconate some day ) said that maybe the OF will disappear. I dunno. Maybe as we know it now. Personally, other than the "new" English translation which fixes the paraphrasing (which could be remedied for now by saying the Latin), I think the OF would benefit from having the first chapter of John said at the end! I loved that about the EF.[/quote]

As I have said before, I do have an appreciation for the OF celebrated correctly (by correctly, I mean as much like the EF as is permitted by the rubrics), but there is not a single change that I like. If feel that some things, like Communion in the hand and [i]versus poplum[/i], have been detrimental to the way many people understand the Mass.

Ideally, I would like an EF missal with some new saints added to replace the OF.

[VeniteAdoremus]

We have a couple of priests here who chant the Gospel. Always at Easter and Christmas, and sometimes through-the-year. It is teh awesome.

They also sing the ...what comes between Offertory and Sanctus. I can't think right now (I just woke up and my dad is singing his Office next door... and he most definitely can't sing). Prefation! Sung prefation in Latin. Rocks.

I was really surprised to read that Latin, incense, and silence are exclusive parts of the EF rite. That means I've been going to invalid OF masses for [i]years[/i]. Ouch!

Res, communion in the hand and [i]versus populum[/i] are NOT essential to the OF. If you really want to compare the two, you would have the strongest arguments if you compared it against the best possible version.

The main thing I don't like about the OF are the intercessory prayers. I have yet to encounter a set of prayers that aren't actually written or said for the people to listen to, instead of for God to listen to. I know a priest who can make reading from a milk carton sound prayerful, but even he has trouble with the intercessory prayers. It keeps sounding like either a shopping list or the action plan of the Christian Party.

The main thing I like about the EF is that the laity have a different role than in the OF. In the OF, we're answering the priest and saying some prayers along, but in the EF we sing the Propers while the priest gets on with his stuff, and then we pray (and the priest doesn't talk through it... OF post-communion pet peeve). This is a wholly non-theological feeling. I just prefer the type of teamwork where everybody is doing what he's best at, instead of everybody doing more or less the same for the sake of equality. I understand that some people prefer the latter. I'm glad we get to have both

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1903360' date='Jun 27 2009, 11:08 PM']Ahhh Res,

You shouldn't follow so blindly.
One day you're going to come to a crisis or and no amount of ecclesial documentation will help you.

I really hope as you mature your faith does too. [/quote]
spot.
on.

good on you, OPM

[OraProMe]

Hey Resurrexi,

It just occured to me that Latin isn't used in the Mass because its a sacred language but because it was the official language of the Roman Empire.

Makes more sense than God guiding the evolution of a particular langauge, don't you think?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1903502' date='Jun 28 2009, 09:04 AM']Hey Resurrexi,

It just occured to me that Latin isn't used in the Mass because its a sacred language but because it was the official language of the Roman Empire.

Makes more sense than God guiding the evolution of a particular langauge, don't you think?[/quote]

You are correct that the historical reason that Latin is used in the Roman Liturgy is because it was the vernacular of the Western Roman Empire. (The Roman Liturgy was originally in Greek, actually.) Latin wasn't used in the Liturgy until about the 3rd century.

As I have said before, Latin is regarded as holy not only because the Latin Church set it aside for liturgical use, but also because the titulus on the Cross was written in Latin (as well as Greek and Hebrew).

As Christians, we should see God's providence in history. I believe that is was through the providence of God that the Latin Church adopted the Latin language, already consecrated through our Lord's passion, for liturgical use.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1903446' date='Jun 28 2009, 02:31 AM']Res, communion in the hand and [i]versus populum[/i] are NOT essential to the OF. If you really want to compare the two, you would have the strongest arguments if you compared it against the best possible version.[/quote]

Of course I know that that Communion in the hand and [i]versus poplum[/i] are not essential to the OF. When did I ever state that they were? One cannot deny, though, that those things are present in more than two thirds of the places where the OF is said, at least in the United States.

Also, if you want to compare the most solemn OF to the most solemn EF, we would be comparing the OF to a Pontifical High Mass at the Throne, a Mass which is extremely rare.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi

[OraProMe]

God doesn't care about human displays of grandeur.
He created the entire universe, you really think some nice vestements, latin and incense is going to impress him?

Like I said, IMO, the EF is good for me because it helps me realize how amazing God is, not because it gives greater glory to Him than an OF Mass like you said previously.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1903507' date='Jun 28 2009, 09:36 AM']God doesn't care about human displays of grandeur.
He created the entire universe, you really think some nice vestements, latin and incense is going to impress him?[/quote]

I do think that Latin, beautiful vestments, and incense are very pleasing to God because all beautiful things glorify God, their maker.

[OraProMe]

Beauty is a fluid concept and subjective. You can't project this basic, human understanding you have onto God. It just doesn't work because He can't be understood in human terms.

Edited June 28, 2009 by OraProMe

[Resurrexi]

I disagree with you then. I believe that beauty is objective. As we are made in the image of God, and like God, we have intellect and will, we can perceive that objective beauty.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Resurrexi

[OraProMe]

Do you really want to say that beauty is objective? Like, don't just say it so you can disagree with me, Rex. Actually think about it. Because frankly I thought you had a little more intelligence then that. I don't know anyone that would argue that beauty, of any kind, is objective fact.

Or that what we find impressive (incense, latin, whatever) would be pleasing to God. It's for our own sakes, not His.

Edited June 28, 2009 by OraProMe

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1903535' date='Jun 28 2009, 09:59 AM']Do you really want to say that beauty is objective? Like, don't just say it so you can disagree with me, Rex. Actually think about it. Because frankly I thought you had a little more intelligence then that. I don't know anyone that would argue that beauty, of any kind, is objective fact.[/quote]

There are plenty of smart people who believe that beauty is objective.

Raphael, who has a theology degree, [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=89408&hl=beauty"]seems to think that beauty is objective[/url].

My Christian morality teacher also taught our class that beauty was objective last semester.

[OraProMe]

I read the post, I don't care if she has a theology degree, that was a weak argument. She used the example of the LOTR characters. Now just because something is held by the majority doesn't mean it's objective.

Human concepts of beauty are always changing. Seem we're talking physical stuff here (incense, robes etc.) I'll use a physical example: women. Hawaiin culture holds overweight women in very high regard because it's considered a sign on royalty. Where as in the West we have models living off ciggarettes and coffee to get down to the lowest weight possible. We can even look to the present. If you had a mullet 25 years ago Rex you'd be hot stuff. If you had one now I doubt anyone would want to be seen with you in public.

So, we have something that changed from culture to culture, age to age and person to person. It's not anything factual, it has all to do with human perception which varies between individuals. Yet you think it's objective?

Rightio then.