Convergance of OF and EF

[THurifer2]

If I am going to share anything with someone, I like to see who I am sharing with.

DO you complain about the people in front of you with their back to you. What about the people behind you?

Why is it that the priest is the only one who is accused of turning his back to the congregation.

Again, why not everyone face calvary.

 

[StatCrux]

As to the facing East thing. What if that particular church would not have the priest facing east while saying Mass ad orientem? What if the front of the church faces east?

Like St. Peter’s in Rome? Well there are two options: (1) Say the Mass facing East and in this case towards the people (this is what they did pre-VII) or (2) face “liturgical East” which would be the Cross and still face away from the people. The Pope speaks about this in his book Spirit of the Liturgy (which I highly recommend). It is not about primarily about geographical orientation but more interior orientation.

 

[ethelzguy]

Liturgical east is Godward…the altar of sacrifice. It is not refering towards a geographical direction. There are thousands of churches built with the altar in a direction other than east.

The difference is understanding what Liturgical east is.

Thank you for clarifying

TBL

 

[ethelzguy]

DO you complain about the people in front of you with their back to you. What about the people behind you?

Why is it that the priest is the only one who is accused of turning his back to the congregation.

Again, why not everyone face calvary.

Of course I don’t complain about the other congregants

I was referring to sharing, as in the individual congregants with the priest. I guess it boils down to whether you feel the priest is supposed to be LEADING (which would make ad orientem logical) or SHARING the sacrifice of the Mass.

Just my personal point of view, I fully realize I won’t be changing any minds, nor am I trying to.

 

[MrS]

I was referring to sharing, as in the individual congregants with the priest. I guess it boils down to whether you feel the priest is supposed to be LEADING (which would make ad orientem logical) or SHARING the sacrifice of the Mass.

That has always been the plan… the priest leads us to the center of the faith… the Mass and the Eucharist.

.

 

[THurifer2]

Of course I don’t complain about the other congregants

I was referring to sharing, as in the individual congregants with the priest. I guess it boils down to whether you feel the priest is supposed to be LEADING (which would make ad orientem logical) or SHARING the sacrifice of the Mass.

Just my personal point of view, I fully realize I won’t be changing any minds, nor am I trying to.

No problem. By the way a real interesting book written by the Pope…(before he was the pope) is called SPirit of the liturgy. It is more than obvious that the pontiff leans towards the leading as opposed to the sharing.

Oh by the way I am an OF person. I think it is important for all of us to realize that there are some who are concerned that there is an overemphasis on the communal aspect of Mass. Many feel that such overemphasis shifts the focus away from the triune God and towards ourselves.

 

[BennyBoy89]

Maybe later they could insist on Eucharistic Prayer I (eliminate the others from allowed use).

I have to disagree with you on this one point. Personally, I don’t see a problem with various Eucharistic Prayers (IV is my favorite, although I never hear it ). The problem lies more in people not taking the Mass seriously.

But I would have no problem with the Church telling each priest that he is limited how often he may use Prayer II per year.

Btw, brockmac, I’m with you 100% on Communion rail. If the Church continues to allow Communion in the hand, I think it’s perfectly fine, but that doesn’t mean they still can’t kneel when they do it (or for receiving the Precious Blood for that matter).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If the Pope were to create a new Missal, which combines both OF and EF(I don’t beleive this will ever happen), I would have no problem with it. What the Church decides is what I’ll go along with.

However, we’d end up with two groups demanding a return to the other two formats, the Trads, who will only accept the TLM, and those who have been raised and rooted in the Novos Ordo.

Jim

 

[ethelzguy]

If the Pope were to create a new Missal, which combines both OF and EF(I don’t beleive this will ever happen), I would have no problem with it. What the Church decides is what I’ll go along with.

However, we’d end up with two groups demanding a return to the other two formats, the Trads, who will only accept the TLM, and those who have been raised and rooted in the Novos Ordo.

Jim

Exactly

 

[StatCrux]

However, we’d end up with two groups demanding a return to the other two formats, the Trads, who will only accept the TLM, and those who have been raised and rooted in the Novos Ordo.
Jim

If the growth is arbitrary and inorganic, I agree. There is history to support this. If it’s organic, it will be natural and unopposed (except by those who would disapprove of any change).

But I would have no problem with the Church telling each priest that he is limited how often he may use Prayer II per year.

Hahaha. I think that is less likely than a new missal coming out tomorrow.

I have to smile at what I perceive to be the obvious contradiction in the belief that the missal needed to be reformed (40 years ago) but now will be locked forever in its present state.

The missal will be reformed (the liturgy has been undergoing constant, continual reform since its creation). History tells us it will happen again. The nature of the reforms is anyone’s guess. The only way the missal would never be reformed again is if the Apocalypse is in our near future… but who knows, maybe it is!