Do you prefer the OF or EF of Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you’re right. I was listening to it on the radio the other day.
 
Which bishops and scholars exactly? It’s not like the Mass hasn’t been translated several times already, including by Anglicans and others.
 
We need more priests who know the EF. I don’t know if it is taught in seminary but it really should be. I got in an argument with my priest once who is a typical baby boomer priest and they are the ones who seem to have the biggest problem with the EF. I have no idea why maybe it was a rough time to be in seminary. I asked that we put altar kneelers and railings back in our church. He laughed at me. I asked we have the EF sometimes in our parish. He said I’m on the road to being a schismatic. Sorry if I’m wrong but does not Pope Benedict XVl Summorum Pontificate say it is completely legal to use the EF form using the 1962 Missal? How does this make me a schismatic. I notice many priests think just because you like the old form it means your schismatic?
 
Last edited:
You’re treading a dangerous path when you start seeing the EF as superior to the OF, because it can easily lead to a total rejection of the OF, and voila, you’ve become schismatic or even heretical.
 
Last edited:
It’s an optional class in the seminary closest to me, which I think is the best way.
 
jas84173 said:
We need more priests who know the EF. I don’t know if it is taught in seminary but it really should be.
Click to expand...
If the priests really have no interest in celebrating Latin Mass, what would be the point?

The priest didn’t say you were “schismatic”, just that you were “on the road” to schism.

Purchasing and installing new kneelers and railings is an expensive purchase and there is a tight budget.
 
So, then, what of the person who sees the OF as superior to the EF? Why are they not to be warned how this will 'easily lead to a total rejection of the EF, and voila, you’ve become schismatic or even heretical?"
 
People don’t have to have kneelers to kneel. People don’t have to have a communion rail to receive Our Lord kneeling and on the tongue.
 
stpurl said:
So, then, what of the person who sees the OF as superior to the EF? Why are they not to be warned how this will 'easily lead to a total rejection of the EF, and voila, you’ve become schismatic or even heretical?"
Click to expand...
The same does apply.

If one wholesale rejected the EF as being somehow heretical, that would in itself be a statement of heresy.

Pragmatically speaking though, one is much more likely to find someone wholesale rejecting the OF than they are the EF.

There are entire websites and communities dedicated to “proving” the OF is invalid and even demonic.

I know of no such thing with regard to the EF.
 
Last edited:
Priests are indeed supposed to be fluent in Latin. And there really is no reason that the Mass should not be taught in seminary; that decision was never made by the council. It, as so many other things, was presented as a fait accompli by individuals who simply chose to interpret for themselves what their diocese, or their parish, ‘needed to do to be modern’.
 
I’ve only been to OF. I don’t think that any parishes near me offer the EF (unless I want to get on the highway- which I don’t).
 
Oh really? Seriously? There are how many Catholics who speak disparagingly of the OF as opposed to how many who speak disparagingly of the EF? On these very fora, no less. Take a good, unbiased look-see over the past nearly 14 years now and you’ll see a lot more of the "EF people are nasty rigid people who don’t know what they’re doing, OF people are open, tolerant, know what they’re doing. etc.’

We have had priests for heavens sake telling us not simply that they don’t care for the EF themselves, or that they think people who like it are ‘misguided’, but that those who like it are absolutely, totally wrong to do so and that the Mass should be retired PERMANENTLY.

I think that kind of attitude is far more prevalent HERE than the so-called ‘toxic trad’, especially because there are so many more people who feel that way and feel entitled to say how they feel, but to prohibit those who think differently from expressing how THEY feel. If you don’t ‘toe the party line’ then you’re an ‘unperson’.
 
The Mass of Pius V in 1570 and abrogated in 1962 by John XXlll as the latest typical edition, and the Mass of Paul Vl in 1970 and abrogated by John Paul ll in the 2008 new typical edition are both two forms of doing Mass in the same rite.

I agree. I just wanted to put my own words on it.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. More parishes should allow them. And half the time if you ask a priest to do it they laugh you off. When it is a legitimate request and legal by the way.
 
stpurl said:
Priests are indeed supposed to be fluent in Latin. And there really is no reason that the Mass should not be taught in seminary; that decision was never made by the council. It, as so many other things, was presented as a fait accompli by individuals who simply chose to interpret for themselves what their diocese, or their parish, ‘needed to do to be modern’.
Click to expand...
Priests are supposed to understand Latin well. Fluency is hard to come by in a language that is not spoken with great frequency.
 
ProVobis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yoy’re right. Nuance is often lost in translation. Nuance is also lost when the understanding of a language is rudeimentary, at best.
 
So why did they ever take them down to begin with? You do know the Second Vatican Council never promoted this but bishops did for God knows what reason. Now people treat the Eucharist with no reverence.
 
stpurl said:
People don’t have to have kneelers to kneel. People don’t have to have a communion rail to receive Our Lord kneeling and on the tongue
Click to expand...
Anyone can irreverently receive Our Lord on the tongue kneeling at a communion rail, especially in mortal sin! Reverence is not solely an external application; but, rather, it is something mainly interior that may or may not flow externally.

Although gifts vary, I would deem a person shedding tears, using their hands to form a throne to receive Our Lord, and saying ‘Amen’ with filial fear and trembling, more reverent than say someone who focuses more on the external motions of kneeling and receiving on the tongue for others to see.
 
Last edited:
You’re going to hear (I guarantee) “Correlation does not equal causation” as well as "but how can you presume to judge how a person worships based on simple ‘appearance’. . .but we’ll take that as said and move on to noting, quite correctly, that Vatican 2 indeed never called for taking down altar rails, and that the PEOPLE never, ever, called for receiving ‘in the hand’ (which is what taking down the rails made rather ‘easier’). And while you and I know scads of people who receive in the hand just as reverently as they would in days of yore have received on the tongue, we also know to our sorrow many who do not have the reverence, not because they don’t wish to be reverent but simply because to so many Mass is just a ‘supper gathering’ so they’re simply as ‘reverent’ as they feel they should be at a meal with friends. . . whereas had they been properly instructed and had they the experience of a reverential posture, they would find deeper reverence coming more naturally.

It is not by coincidence that until recently, people prayed ‘on their knees’ and not just however or whenever they ‘felt like it’. Wonderful prayer can come from the latter, but it is simply more likely that true penitence will come more easily when one puts oneself in a penitential position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top