Do you prefer the OF or EF of Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me, there is a pocket in the states , that wants to go back to the way it was. And that, I only get from reading this forum. Do you have any global stats?

And then, those who want a reform or return, how many were actually there?

Does this include a reform of the reform of all Liturgy, including LOTH?
 
I’m of the opinion that if all Masses had been High Masses and the congregation had sung along, then there would have been no need for reforms.
 
I prefer the EF Mass for sure. Whenever I go to an OF Mass, I’m reminded of why I prefer the EF so much.
 
I prefer the EF Mass because there is more silence and it’s easier for me to pray. I did not like the Low Mass at first because I found it hard to follow. I’ve now been enough times that is no longer a problem.

I like the High Mass better because the singing is so beautiful. I have been to one Solemn Pontifical Mass and it was amazing.

My former pastor used to offer the OF in Latin and ad orientem and I loved that as well.

That said, I belong to a NO parish and that is the Mass I go to most frequently. We have great music and chant the Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei in Latin, which is very beautiful.
 
I enjoy both forms of the mass really, and also all the eastern rites. And when it comes to the OF more if mass is traditionally offered. For the high EF mass I prefer the orchestral mass for feasts, which is very rare today.
 
jas84173 said:
Just curious , and not looking for an argument. Do you prefer the Mass of Plus V or the Mass of Paul Vl?
I personally like both. I enjoy the Liturgy of the Eucharist more in the EF. I feel it is far more reverent. However I do like the Liturgy of the Word more in the OF as much more Sacred Scripture is read.
Click to expand...
Been attending OF mass as far as I can remember after our parish switched to it from EF. Served OF (except for a short while in EF before the OF was introduced) as an altar boy as a kid, then as usher, lector, commentator and EMHC.

Have seen thousands of people being edified by the OF mass and our parish is vibrantly and actively alive. The Holy Spirit must be doing something good with the OF mass which seems to renew the church and the people.

Using English as the language for the mass was one big factor where people like to involve themselves and come to the church.

Those who did not practiced have come back, resulting in the church packed to the brim during each (OF) mass on Sundays, and very substantial number during the daily mass.
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
High Mass just wasn’t celebrated much, maybe 1 of 5 masses on Sunday.
Click to expand...
That is how I remember it as well.

It has been a very long time, and I was young as well as being new to the faith, but I seem to remember at the high mass the priest would walk down the aisle bless the people with holy water.
 
ProVobis said:
I’m of the opinion that if all Masses had been High Masses and the congregation had sung along, then there would have been no need for reforms.
Click to expand...
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this. A lot of “ifs” there, particularly as it was the Catholic way to stay quiet in church, and people were really used to that paradigm.
 
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I will say that for weekday Mass, the OF seems a bit more informal and practical. I am happy to attend either form for a Sunday Mass.
 
Hopefully after 80 posts I can get some good answers to these questions regarding participating in the EF Mass:

How can one raise their hearts to God, in the most sublime manner, if they cannot understand the ecclesiastical Latin fluently in the EF? Sure, one will probably understand the words in the Agnus Dei, the Sanctus, etc. But, I, and I am sure 95% of those who attend EF Masses, am not completely fluent in understanding Latin throughout the entire Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. When I attend an EF Mass, my heart is raised during consecration, but that is about it. I am not attempting to undermine the EF, but I just cannot understand how one can prefer it if they do not understand every word of the Liturgies; yes, I said every word - because when I go to Mass (OF English), every single word has divine meaning and it is imperative that I understand what I am participating in. Also, I do not go to Mass as a mere observant of a spectator sport; I go to actively participate (and passively receive) in every liturgical element possible.

Do people attend EF Masses merely for the ‘reverence’ and ‘tradition’ aspects? Of course reverence and tradition are of utmost importance in the Mass, but that should not be the core and sole purpose of their intentions for going to EF Masses instead of OF Masses, right?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Both…as long as they are done within the Rubrics established by the Church with no improvisation.
 
How can one possibly raise their hearts to God if they cannot understand the ecclesiastical Latin fluently in the EF?

How did millions of Catholics, Saints and sinners, literate and illiterate, raise their Hearts to God for centuries before vernacular was inserted into the Mass?
 
DustThouArt said:
How did millions of Catholics, Saints and sinners, literate and illiterate, raise their Hearts to God for centuries before vernacular was inserted into the Mass?
Click to expand...
Latin was the common language. Just because one could not read or write in Latin, i.e. “illiterate”, does not inherently mean that they could not understand or speak the language.
 
Last edited:
Latin was not the common language of Europe, Central America, Asia, nor anywhere else that the Church evangelized. Latin was, and is, the Official language of the Church. Or it was prior to Vatican Council II. It still is for formal documents and pronouncements. The early Briton or Irish, the German, the Japanese, The Aztec knew no Latin. Yet they came to the knowledge of God, His Christ, and the Church all the same.
 
AugustTherese said:
t I just cannot understand how one can prefer it if they do not understand every word of the Liturgies; yes,
Click to expand...
The use of a special language in prayer is common to a lot of faiths, both Christian and otherwise. I don’t think every Jew understands each word of Hebrew. You do know that church Greek used in GO churches isn’t the same as common vernacular Greek and the Arabic that muslims use in their mosques isn’t the same as what you’d hear on the streets of Cairo. This is also similar to the demand of some of our Protestant friends to use the KJV bible exclusively, the 16th century language not being commoneth to modern Americans.
 
DustThouArt said:
Latin was not the common language of Europe, Central America, Asia, nor anywhere else that the Church evangelized. Latin was, and is, the Official language of the Church. Or it was prior to Vatican Council II. It still is for formal documents and pronouncements. The early Briton or Irish, the German, the Japanese, The Aztec knew no Latin. Yet they came to the knowledge of God, His Christ, and the Church all the same.
Click to expand...
Right, good point! So did all of these churches across these continents have all of their Masses in Latin only, pre-Vatican II?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top