Do Not Turn Into a Fight - 10 Reasons to Love the EF

[Zosimus41]

Exactly.

A reason to love the EF does not mean that one hates or dislikes the OF.

Let’s compare chocolate and vanilla ice cream. They’re both ice cream, right?

But some people will prefer chocolate and some will prefer vanilla. I’m pretty certain (I’m a vanilla ice cream person myself) that in preferring vanilla ice cream I am not disdaining chocolate itself (I happen to love chocolate cake and chocolate candy, and don’t really care for vanilla caramels!). And if somebody were to offer me a dish of chocolate ice cream with "sorry we don’t have any vanilla’, I would certainly eat it AND enjoy it.

But if I went into a store and there were two containers of ice cream for sale, one chocolate and one vanilla, I would prefer the vanilla. I just happen to ‘get more out of’ the vanilla. I have subjective and objective reasons. And those who prefer chocolate have their subjective and objective reasons and they are all just fine.

I happen to love the EF because it–to me, personally–has a richness and depth and character that helps me, personally, to focus more intently on Christ and to think more about loving and serving Him.

And I’m sure a person who loves the OF has pretty much the same kind of reason to love it–to that person, the OF has the kind of richness and depth and character that helps HIM to focus more intently on Christ and think about loving and serving Him.

My loving the EF does not in any way diminish that person’s love of the OF, just as that person’s love of the OF does not in any way diminish my love of the EF.

That’s fine, isn’t it? I mean, God didn’t give us JUST chocolate or JUST vanilla ice cream. We have different gifts but are of the same body. Different ice cream tastes but the same body. Different forms of the Mass but the same body. Right?

After reading your post I know feel the need to take a trip to Braums for some chocolate ice cream!

 

[Rich_C]

Another reason I like the EF: I have little idea as to what the characters of the priests saying it are like, unless I meet them. They just do the job and go home. One less thing to be distracted by.

I remember that the first five EF Masses I assisted at, the priest was from a different country, and I couldn’t even tell until he got to the sermon. It struck me profoundly.

 

[floresco]

Here are some of my reasons:
Emphasis on propitiatory Sacrifice.
Sense of connection to Catholics of the past who also attended this Mass.
Silence during Canon.
Personality of priest is obscured, emphasis on his role in offering Sacrifice.
Less busy with responses - helps me to focus on prayer.
Receiving Communion on the tongue while kneeling facilitated by paten, altar rail, and kneeler
I have the same understanding of appropriate dress and behaviour as most in congregation.

 

[TrueLight]

I remember that the first five EF Masses I assisted at, the priest was from a different country, and I couldn’t even tell until he got to the sermon. It struck me profoundly.

Good point. I’ve experienced the same!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Another reason I like the EF: I have little idea as to what the characters of the priests saying it are like, unless I meet them. They just do the job and go home. One less thing to be distracted by.

That would be a negative for me.

Priests are more than just sacramental machines.

I like to get to know the priest.

But it does not matter how I feel about any priest personally. The Sacraments have nothing to do with that.

 

[thewanderer]

Classic. Any thread that states “The TLM is great” soon gets protested that “The NO is great too!!!”

Another reason I like the EF: I have little idea as to what the characters of the priests saying it are like, unless I meet them. They just do the job and go home. One less thing to be distracted by.

ByzCath,

I was really struck by this reply to. It’s a different way of looking at things, which is part of why I starts this thread in the first place. To learn more about where my fellow Catholics are coming from.

What’s interesting is at first I was completely taken aback by the phrase ‘they just do their job and go home’ because it sounded as though the poster disapproves of having a relationship with one’s priest. But when I reread it and thought about I a little more I realized that it’s possible he/she was just speaking this way to emphasize the idea that who he priest is is unimportant for the celebration of the Mass, which really is true.

For those of you who agree with this statement, that they prefer this removal of person from function, I’m really curious what in particular you are thinking of? Is it because it is not in the vernacular? Is it due to the particular rubrics of the EF? Or is it something that comes more from the attitude of the priest celebrating the Mass? Or a combination o the above?

Also, do you prefer it if even in the homily very little of the priest’s character comes across?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

ByzCath,

I was really struck by this reply to. It’s a different way of looking at things, which is part of why I starts this thread in the first place. To learn more about where my fellow Catholics are coming from.

What’s interesting is at first I was completely taken aback by the phrase ‘they just do their job and go home’ because it sounded as though the poster disapproves of having a relationship with one’s priest. But when I reread it and thought about I a little more I realized that it’s possible he/she was just speaking this way to emphasize the idea that who he priest is is unimportant for the celebration of the Mass, which really is true.

For those of you who agree with this statement, that they prefer this removal of person from function, I’m really curious what in particular you are thinking of? Is it because it is not in the vernacular? Is it due to the particular rubrics of the EF? Or is it something that comes more from the attitude of the priest celebrating the Mass? Or a combination o the above?

Also, do you prefer it if even in the homily very little of the priest’s character comes across?

I believe he means that each priest does not try to inject his own personality into the Mass. Assuming that’s the meaning, I agree. To use a musical analogy, you can hear pianists all play the same piece, and they will all “make the piece their own”. A priest should not be trying to make the Mass his own.

In regard to the sermon/homily, it’s pretty clear that his personality will come across. He would have to put on an act to do otherwise. In this regard, yes, it’s fine, as long as he’s not trying to be a showman and make it about himself.

 

[Zosimus41]

I believe he means that each priest does not try to inject his own personality into the Mass. Assuming that’s the meaning, I agree. To use a musical analogy, you can hear pianists all play the same piece, and they will all “make the piece their own”. A priest should not be trying to make the Mass his own.

In regard to the sermon/homily, it’s pretty clear that his personality will come across. He would have to put on an act to do otherwise. In this regard, yes, it’s fine, as long as he’s not trying to be a showman and make it about himself.

Well said

 

[T_More]

I remember that the first five EF Masses I assisted at, the priest was from a different country, and I couldn’t even tell until he got to the sermon. It struck me profoundly.

Great point. My priest is from Ireland, and you wouldn’t even know it when he says the EF.

 

[choliks]

I remember that the first five EF Masses I assisted at, the priest was from a different country, and I couldn’t even tell until he got to the sermon. It struck me profoundly.

Rich, could you expound further on the relevance and significance of not knowing the nationality of the priest during Mass; why it struck you profoundly?

 

[AJV]

I remember that the first five EF Masses I assisted at, the priest was from a different country, and I couldn’t even tell until he got to the sermon. It struck me profoundly.

This is NOT to dimiss your (or the other posters commenting on the same) general point, but merely an observation that my experience has been different - but this might also be because of the nationalities I have encountered which makes the Latin pronunciation differences quite noticeable. I find the usual American pronunciation of Latin sticks out for me especially with the vowels. It’s also noticeable if you serve for say, a French priest and a German priest. For example, at the Sanctus, the former has a tendency to say something like “Sonc-tus-suh, Sonc-tus-suh, Sonc-tus-suh” or pronounce 'r’s the French way. Germans will often say “Zanktus, Zanktus Zanktus”.

 

[Rich_C]

@ Choliks
It struck me because it felt transcendent. When they began the sermon in English, it was like waking up from a meditative state, and I was amazed that such different priests all gave the same impression.

@AJV
I suspect experience is at work here. They were, after all, my first EF Masses ever. Now I can recognize which priest is saying Mass because I’ve heard them each scores of times. I probably still couldn’t tell two unknown priests apart, though.

 

[wasserfall]

That would be a negative for me.

Priests are more than just sacramental machines.

I like to get to know the priest.

Who doesn’t like to get to know the priest?
But in the church at mass doesn’t have to be the place and time for that!

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

When someone is facing you all the time, the animal instinct is to keep an eye on him. Ad-orientem is less distracting.

When I hire a musical impersonator, I don’t want him to personalise a performance. I just want Elvis.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Who doesn’t like to get to know the priest?
But in the church at mass doesn’t have to be the place and time for that!

My comment was more on the “they just do the job and go home” part.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath,

I was really struck by this reply to. It’s a different way of looking at things, which is part of why I starts this thread in the first place. To learn more about where my fellow Catholics are coming from.

What’s interesting is at first I was completely taken aback by the phrase ‘they just do their job and go home’ because it sounded as though the poster disapproves of having a relationship with one’s priest. But when I reread it and thought about I a little more I realized that it’s possible he/she was just speaking this way to emphasize the idea that who he priest is is unimportant for the celebration of the Mass, which really is true.

For those of you who agree with this statement, that they prefer this removal of person from function, I’m really curious what in particular you are thinking of? Is it because it is not in the vernacular? Is it due to the particular rubrics of the EF? Or is it something that comes more from the attitude of the priest celebrating the Mass? Or a combination o the above?

Also, do you prefer it if even in the homily very little of the priest’s character comes across?

I am sorry but I disagree with you. The “they do the job and go home” part is the curx of it for me.

It says exactly what you thought it did at your first take.

The poster has had much time to clarify this and has not done so.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

“Do the job and go home” means say a Roman Catholic Mass and not ‘Fr. Twomey’s Vatican II Catholic Mass Plus+’. Be a good workman. Do what it says in the specs and keep your personality out of it.

When I hire a plumber I want him to fix the leak, not redesign the system and prate at me about how good he is. Do the job, no fuss, thanks very much. I can admire the workmanship from a distance and get on with my business.

It’s such a relief just to go to a mass, the TLM, without accompanying performances. As the sign said at the Live Aid recording “Leave your ego at the door”.

 

[Rich_C]

I hit upon a passage in a book last night that reminded me of this discussion between Roger and ByzCat. It is from a letter by Evelyn Waugh, a British author and convert to Catholicism, from 1966:

When I first came into the Church I was drawn, not by splendid ceremonies but by the spectatle of the priest as a craftsman. He had an important job to do which none but he was qualified for. He and his apprentice stumped up to the altar with their tools and set to work without a glance to those behind them, still less with any intention to make a personal impression on them.

I can see what Roger means, and apparently his view on this aspect of the role of the priesthood in the old Mass is not new.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I hit upon a passage in a book last night that reminded me of this discussion between Roger and ByzCat. It is from a letter by Evelyn Waugh, a British author and convert to Catholicism, from 1966:

I can see what Roger means, and apparently his view on this aspect of the role of the priesthood in the old Mass is not new.

No its not new. It is the view I hold while attending the OF.

A properly celebrated OF is the same way. All the things Roger speaks out against are not found within the OF but are found within the individual. If the OF was done away with today and all priests were forced into the celebration of the EF you would see abuses and personalities within it.

That’s the problem I have with these sort of discussions. It is comparing apples to oranges. Those who have a preference for the EF take the best celebrated EF and compare it to the worst that they have heard of (or possibly) seen OF.

 

[Rich_C]

That’s the problem I have with these sort of discussions. It is comparing apples to oranges. Those who have a preference for the EF take the best celebrated EF and compare it to the worst that they have heard of (or possibly) seen OF.

If I compare them I compare what the prayers and rubrics actually say, taking the best translation of each since my Latin is so-so, but I’m not comparing here. Why not let people enjoy talking up the Mass for mutual edification and for the sake of readers who have never heard of it? That’s the main reason I visit CAF.