Do you prefer the OF or EF of Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very serious.
During the Eucharistic Prayer I hear people respond “amen” right after the words "through Christ our Lord’ even when no such response is needed seeing as the prayer isn’t even finished. People just assume when the priest says that they are supposed to say amen. It’s funny , listen for it sometime.
Yes , most Catholics have no idea why they are saying and doing what they are. Which is why many fall away. My brother who is non practicing but was raised in the faith says he feels like we are all pawns. And I can see it feeling that way if you don’t understand the sacredness in every acct.
To me the Eucharistic Prayers seem more like a congregational feast as opposed to a sacrifice which is really is. Sorry but Eucharistic Prayer 2 which is most common most likely because it’s the shortest is very flawed and I have questioned how it is even a legal consecration many times. Prayer 1 is closest to the EF. The Mass is a sacrifice, the priest acting as Christ is performing the sacrifice in an unbloody manner however it is a sacrifice . The due reverence is shown during the consecration. I just don’t feel it when I’m at the new Mass. I am 33. I didn’t grow up with the old form as the norm. It seems like the only priests who defiantly defend the OF are baby boomer priests. The priest at my parish became almost enraged when he found out many of the youth were going to the EF now instead. Young people want the rigidness and reverence shown in the Old form. We can manage to follow along with a missal I promise you. I am in a young adult Catholic group and the majority of us prefer the old form. Even pope Francis doesn’t understand why so many youth are attracted to it. Maybe because it is more to our needs and identity as Catholics? I am not questioning the second Vatican council however I will say this. In church history many councils have propagated things only to be taken back or reformed by a council later. The Church is always inspired but being run by humans it can at times make mistakes.
 
Yes that’s true.

Vatican II corrected that problem however… Which had really only begun to be a problem around the beginning of the 20th century.
 
R_H_Benson said:
that our intellectual assent somehow enables us to “get more” from the Mass.
Click to expand...
It does.

Do you honestly believe someone who attends the TLM and spends the whole Mass playing on facebook is going to receive the same amount of spiritual benefit as someone who attends an OF Mass and spends the whole Mass devoutly and intently focusing?
 
I prefer the TLM, as I always feel spiritually rejuvenated after attending. They almost always have way better, bolder homilies too. NO homilies, in my opinion, generally tend to be the same old stuff over and over.
 
jas84173 said:
Sorry but Eucharistic Prayer 2 which is most common most likely because it’s the shortest is very flawed
Click to expand...
EPII is an ancient Apostolic Anaphora attributed to St. Hippolytus of Rome, a 3rd century Priest of the Church in Rome.

The Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition, also known as the Anaphora of Hippolytus, is an ancient Christian Anaphora (also known in the contemporary Latin Rite as a Eucharistic Prayer) which is found in chapter four of the Apostolic Tradition.

In 1906 Eduard von der Goltz was the first to suggest that the anonymous manuscript discovered in the 19th century was the Apostolic Tradition historically attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, thus dating the anaphora to the mid 3rd century AD and using it in reconstructing the early worship in Rome. This understanding was subsequently accepted by the great majority of scholars of the 20th century, including Gregory Dix, and played a crucial role in the liturgical reforms of main mainstream Christian bodies

This anaphora is minimal compared with the longer and more ornate forms of the Roman Canon, and the Anaphorae of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, and the Liturgy of St. James the Just; it is widely believed that these ancient liturgies are themselves either derived from, or closely related to, this liturgy.
 
Yes at some of our Sunday Masses the Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei are sung in Latin. I too appreciate that.
 
Some Sunday, poll people as they leave a vernacular Mass. I’d guess the majority wouldn’t be able to tell you much of anything about say the First Reading, or the Second, despite having heard it in their native language and probably amplified.
 
KMG said:
Some Sunday, poll people as they leave a vernacular Mass. I’d guess the majority wouldn’t be able to tell you much of anything about say the First Reading, or the Second, despite having heard it in their native language and probably amplified.
Click to expand...
Hasty generalization fallacy. The same “argument” could be made for those who are not fluent in understanding Latin.
 
The point is, the vernacular does not guarantee what some claim it does. Latin is the language of the Roman Rite, and there is nothing whatsoever problematic if people do not understand every single word of a liturgy.
 
I agree. I met a priest once who was complaining about the vernacular. His parish is English however he also has to say a French Mass as their are a large number of French speakers in his area. His Church is also yoked with a Spanish speaking church. He told me one time how much easier it would be if everything was in the same language. I agree. It isn’t easy. Learning Latin in the seminary should be a requirement to begin with. I know they need a general understanding.
 
jas84173 said:
Learning Latin in the seminary should be a requirement to begin with
Click to expand...
It wasn’t that many years ago that Latin was regularly taught in public high school, and educated people across the board- not just in the Roman Catholic clergy- were very familiar with the tongue.
 
KMG said:
The point is, the vernacular does not guarantee what some claim it does. Latin is the language of the Roman Rite, and there is nothing whatsoever problematic if people do not understand every single word of a liturgy.
Click to expand...
The language has absolutely no bearing on the liturgical elements and efficacy.

There is nothing inherently “problematic” if people do not understand every single word of a liturgy, you are right. However, I am not talking about inadvertently missing a word here or there during the litrugy, but people going to a TLM and having no clue what any of the words mean, while the ‘reverence’ and ‘tradition’ alone lifts their hearts up to God more than perfectly understanding every word of the liturgies in an OF Mass. It would be analogous to having someone’s heart being lifted up during the chant of a Psalm during the Liturgy of the Word solely because of the chant and not the words; does the chant help, of course! But, if you leave out the context and the meaning of words of the Psalm, what’s the point?

In Christian tradition [liturgy] means the participation of the People of God in the "work of God. Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of redemption in, with, and through his Church. - CCC 1069
 
Last edited:
You do not need to understand the language of the liturgy to participate in the liturgy.
 
I know and if I go to another country their vernacular is foreign to me. If it was all said in Latin it would truly be universal. The Mass would be the same no matter where you went and after time you pick up on what the language means in regard to the liturgy.
 
KMG said:
You do not need to understand the language of the liturgy to participate in the liturgy.
Click to expand...
Sure you can “participate”, but to what extent?

“[The Liturgy] engages the faithful in the new life of the community and involves the ‘conscious, active, and fruitful participation’ of everyone.” - CCC 1071
 
You can’t define “participation” precisely according to some quasi-scientific formula that really is meant to exalt the vernacular’s merits over Latin.
 
Show me exactly where the Church has ever said that you can only participate “fully, consciously, and actively” in the liturgy if you are fluent in the liturgy’s language. You can’t, because such a view is foreign to the Church’s understanding of both liturgy and participation.
 
KMG said:
to some quasi-scientific formula that really is meant to exalt the vernacular’s merits over Latin.
Click to expand...
I think you’re misunderstanding the point of my question. They are equally meritorious and both liturgically of the same norms and elements. I have not heard of anyone lording the vernacular over Latin, however, I have seen, heard, and read many Catholics denigrating the vernacular under the guise of Latin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top