Do you prefer the OF or EF of Mass?

[Reuben_J]

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.

Really not problematic? Would you prefer a mass in a language you do not understand or one that you understand?

IDK, but I know many people today would not want to attend a mass in a language they do not speak, e.g. an English speaking person would prefer an English mass instead of going to the Italian one.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ve been to churches where the altar is in the middle and pews surrounding it.

There are a few advantages to this. Everyone is closer to the altar and everyone can see and hear better. The lighting is also often better because these types of churches often have big windows admitting a lot of light.

I tend to prefer the historic, traditional churches also, but from a practical standpoint it’s sort of like “theater in the round” as opposed to the classic design with a stage at one end and rows of seats getting progressively further away.

 

[AugustTherese]

Like non-spanish speaking poeple who would not want to go to a mass in Spanish because they don’t speak the language, not that they do not understand the mass or that their mass obligation is not fulfilled

Exactly! I went to a Mass in Spanish in the Dominican Republic three years ago; yes, it was beautiful, and reverent etc. But, I did not understand anything being said and there was not a translation guide, also.

Liturgical words and the proper understanding of them have deep meaning for me, not solely their actions. I hang on to every word, especially in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It is the understanding of the words and the actions that lifts my heart up to God.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

Like non-spanish speaking poeple who would not want to go to a mass in Spanish because they don’t speak the language, not that they do not understand the mass or that their mass obligation is not fulfilled

Exactly! I went to a Mass in Spanish in the Dominican Republic three years ago; yes, it was beautiful, and reverent etc. But, I did not understand anything being said and there was not a translation guide, also.

I went to a mass in Hanoi, Vietnam, in one of those oversea trips. It was a beautiful church, a building from the French colonial era, but the mass was said in Vietnamese. Boy, I don’t know whether you know Vietnamese, but it was completely alien to me. I could not follow, even the Hail Mary in the Rosary which they said after the mass. The experience was good though and I was thankful to be able to attend mass in a foriegn land but coming out of it you had strange feeling unlike when you attend a mass in a language that you understand.

 

[Reuben_J]

jas84173:

I’ve been to churches where the altar is in the middle and pews surrounding it.

There are a few advantages to this. Everyone is closer to the altar and everyone can see and hear better. The lighting is also often better because these types of churches often have big windows admitting a lot of light.

I tend to prefer the historic, traditional churches also, but from a practical standpoint it’s sort of like “theater in the round” as opposed to the classic design with a stage at one end and rows of seats getting progressively further away.

There are many churches today that are designed with greater width or even round in shape to faciliate the pews being nearer to the altar, rather than the more traditional narrow design where you have something like twenty rows of pews. And with many pair of pillars in the middle.

The former gives the feeling of nearer to the alter while the latter perhaps giving a sense of greater reverence. I notice that there are Catholics who like to sit at the back while others, right at the front.

 

[NickyMaz]

I’ve never attended an EF mass, I need to since they offer a latin mass here in Omaha but it’s a bit of a drive for me. I attend a parish that solely does OF and I find myself wishing we’d do ‘ad orientem’ and incorporate more latin in the mass. I have nothing against OF, but it can be done better and we should move in that direction.

 

[stpurl]

I was reading Dr. Kwasnewski’s “Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness” and he mentioned something that made me think about transparency.

Here, "Liturgy that is totally transparent is invisible and thus ignored, because it does not catch our attention at the very point where the invisible God becomes visible in otherworldly signs and symbols, like light becoming narrative in a stained glass window. Liturgy that is totally accessible is boring, because it is too easy. . . the traditional liturgies (i.e. EF, Byzantine, Divine Liturgy) are not readily intelligible but opaque, multilayered, cosmic in scope, rich in paradox, proclaiming the ineffable divine sacrifice; they are not transparent. . .not readily accessible but exacting, requiring self-discipline, demanding our conversion to something objective, outside of us, prior to us, higher than us, and normative of us. "

 

[babochka]

AugustTherese:

What does that have to do with understanding, hearing, and speaking Latin in the Liturgy?

Lay people didn’t have to speak a single Latin syllable to assist at Latin Mass for the vast majority of its history.

The Dialogue Mass was a 20th Century innovation, and was never universally offered. The usual situation was for the altar servers to do the responses, not the faithful.

Was it truly an innovation? What about further back? Maybe a couple hundred years or even before the Council of Trent? I know little of the history of the Latin Rite, but it seems to me likely that hundreds of years ago, the people did actually participate more. I feel fairly certain that the people did not sit silently while the priest greeted them, expecting altar servers to answer on their behalf. It seems such a strange development that the priest would greet the people, “Peace be with you,” as Jesus greeted his disciples, that the people would remain silent. Perhaps it came with the development of the Low Mass, which was itself an innovation.

 

[babochka]

Reuben_J:

Like non-spanish speaking poeple who would not want to go to a mass in Spanish because they don’t speak the language, not that they do not understand the mass or that their mass obligation is not fulfilled

Exactly! I went to a Mass in Spanish in the Dominican Republic three years ago; yes, it was beautiful, and reverent etc. But, I did not understand anything being said and there was not a translation guide, also.

Liturgical words and the proper understanding of them have deep meaning for me, not solely their actions. I hang on to every word, especially in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It is the understanding of the words and the actions that lifts my heart up to God.

While I definitely prefer a Mass in my own language, I have been to many in languages that I don’t understand and have always felt at home because the Mass is the Mass. What makes it universal is not the Latin language (or any other language), but the fact that it is the same Mass, the same sacrifice, in any language.

 

[Augustinian]

Was it truly an innovation? What about further back? Maybe a couple hundred years or even before the Council of Trent?

Actually , the Trent Council opened up the Mass. Before the counter reformation, a screen was set up between the altar and the people, so the people largely couldn’t see what was going on. The altar rail remained, but it was more before Trent

 

[Reuben_J]

AugustTherese:

Reuben_J:

Like non-spanish speaking poeple who would not want to go to a mass in Spanish because they don’t speak the language, not that they do not understand the mass or that their mass obligation is not fulfilled

Exactly! I went to a Mass in Spanish in the Dominican Republic three years ago; yes, it was beautiful, and reverent etc. But, I did not understand anything being said and there was not a translation guide, also.

Liturgical words and the proper understanding of them have deep meaning for me, not solely their actions. I hang on to every word, especially in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It is the understanding of the words and the actions that lifts my heart up to God.

While I definitely prefer a Mass in my own language, I have been to many in languages that I don’t understand and have always felt at home because the Mass is the Mass. What makes it universal is not the Latin language (or any other language), but the fact that it is the same Mass, the same sacrifice, in any language.

It is true, a mass is a mass, regardless of whct language it is being said. That’s the unique beauty and the mystery of the mass - the sacrifice when it is offered and celebrate transcends all languages.

Thus we can attend any mass in any language in any country and feel at home with it. How great the mass is.

Often this fact is overlooked when we start calling our preferences, which to a certain extend understandable but we also see how there are people who feel very strongly about the type of mass they prefer and dislike.

 

[babochka]

Actually , the Trent Council opened up the Mass. Before the counter reformation, a screen was set up between the altar and the people, so the people largely couldn’t see what was going on. The altar rail remained, but it was more before Trent

That doesn’t necessarily prevent the people from answering greetings or making other responses. In the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, the nave is separated from the altar by the iconostasis. When the priest is greeting the people (“Peace be with you”), the doors are open, the priest is visible and facing the people. He greets us, we respond. As I recall, during the Tridentine Mass, the priest also turns around to face the people.

Was that not the case in the Latin Rite, even if the altar was not visible to the people?

 

[jas84173]

Yah but if it was in a universal language we could all be engrained with the rubrics and know exactly what is being said and have our missals like we always do and the mass would be the same in language and liturgy no matter where you went. That is beautiful and truly universal.

 

[ProVobis]

Any merits to the vernacular come at a price. The Latin nuance is gone. For example, “Per Ipsum, et cum ipso…” uses the INTENSIVE pronoun. (It is not “Per Eum…”) There is NO WAY this can be properly translated. There are many other examples throughout the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

There is nothing to stop these kinds of hymns at an EF. But why would you want them?

 

[ProVobis]

By the way, there is no “lifting up” in the Latin. The simple “Sursum corda” does all that for you.

Besides it’s poor rhetoric. How many “lift down”?

And how many first-yr Latin students would translate “Dominus vobiscum” as “The Lord be with you” as opposed to maybe “The Lord IS with you”?

 

[AugustTherese]

By the way, there is no “lifting up” in the Latin. The simple “Sursum corda” does all that for you.

Besides it’s poor rhetoric. How many “lift down”?

I might be too dense to understand the seeming satire; “lift up your hearts”, i.e. Sursum corda?

 

[ProVobis]

The translation was forced because of the response. “Habemus ad Dominus” (literally “we hold to the Lord.”) but instead we say “We have lifted them up to the Lord.”

Too wordy and we lose the directional nuance IMO. Sursum corda = Upwards hearts. ALL hearts, not just yours.

 

[omgriley]

EF for sure. The ritual of the EF mass is, extrinsically, more meritorious.

Nothing against the OF.

 

[Spyridon]

Am I supposed to believe @ProVobis of CAF is capable of producing a better translation than the Bishops and Scholars of the Church?