Do you prefer the OF or EF of Mass?

[KMG]

Read Father Zuhlsdorf’s excellent series of posts showing the original Latin and what was omitted in the 1974 translation.

 

[stpurl]

I think you’re both right, because you are both addressing something slightly different.

It is true that the word ‘sin’ exists in the liturgy (although I can tell you of some very, uh, creative priests who can manage to cut or change the mention down to virtually nothing, by eliminating the Confiteor, the Gloria, and the Creed, and substituting their own words for sin, or omitting it entirely, thus: Lamb of God, who takes away the hurt of the world" and changing any reading where sin is mentioned, or any collect as well! )

It is also true that any study of the collects used prior to the OF comparing them to the ones used until 2011 will show that the words regarding sin, humility, etc. are omitted or changed to reflect a ‘dynamic equivalent’ focused on a more egalitarian approach, God as loving friend and not Judge and King. That is being slowly addressed (for now) by the newer English translation, although the door seems to be being pried open to a plethora of 'let’s have our OWN translations" (Heaven help us).

 

[Spyridon]

Lamb of God, who takes away the hurt of the world"

That would be a massive liturgical abuse and should be immediately reported to the Bishop.

Personally, I would also confront the Priest to his face and ask him why he would blaspheme against the Church by doing such a thing.

I’ve been to hundreds of Masses and never seen anything remotely like it.

In fact one of my favorite Priests routinely adds in extra prayers in certain places of the Mass. Never does he omit or change prayers.

 

[OraLabora]

Instead of reading Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s “excellent” series of posts, I will look at the collectarium in my Monastic post-Conciliar Breviary (same collects as at the Mass) compared to Christian Prayer which also uses the same collects as at Mass.

In Advent: two mentions of “peccatis/peccata” in the collects. 1974 translation uses the word “sin” in both instances.

Christmastide: no mention of “sin” in Latin or English collects.

Lent: 5 collects mentioning sin in Latin; the same 5 use the word “sin” in the 1974 English; one use of the word “penitent” in Latin, rendered as “repentant” in English.

Eastertide: 2 collects mentioning “sin” in Latin. English uses the word “sin” for the same two collects.

Sunday collects in the year: 3 mentions of “sin” in Latin; 2 mentions of sin in the alternate collects in English for the equivalent Sunday; 1 mention of sin in the main collect and also the alternate collect in English. One mention of sin in the alternate collect, but no mention of sin in the Latin collect for the same Sunday nor the main collect in English.

I won’t bother to go through all the collects for the saints, but you can get the picture. Neither in the Mass, nor in the collects, was there a systematic conspiracy to eliminate the word “sin” from the Mass. Fr. Z. probably is referring to the pre-Conciliar Missal vs the post-Conciliar. Still, “sin” has most certainly not been eliminated from the Mass, whether in the order of the Mass or the collects.

I’m not sure however, how comparing whether “sin” is used 7 times or 70 times is really helpful in determining which liturgy is better than the other.

by eliminating the Confiteor

All three forms of the penitential act mention sin/sinning.

I’ve been to hundreds of Masses and never seen anything remotely like it.

Nor have I, at least not recently.

 

[KMG]

No, Father is referring to the 1974 ICEL translations, which he has meticulously shown to be regularly deficient, poorly rendered versions (to call them translations is laughable to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Latin) of the originals.

 

[OraLabora]

Your original argument was that the translations systematically left out references to sin or penance, and I have shown this to be manifestly not the case.

 

[KMG]

Again, read Father’s posts. They have indeed left out such references, along with references to sacrifice, oblation, judgment, and plenty of other concepts. Father has done all the hard work to demonstrate this. You’d be well educated reading his series of meticulous articles on the 1974 translation of the prayers of the Novus Ordo.

 

[Duesenberg]

The OF Mass by far for a number of reasons including:

• More exposure to the written word of God.
• Homilies that necessarily focus on the Mass readings.
• The option of Holy Communion under both species.
• An order of the Mass that is closer to the ancient sacrificial liturgies of the early church.
• And I course, I feel the OF Mass is FAR more reverent than the EF Mass – at least the low EF Masses around here.

 

[KMG]

It is highly debatable that the 1970 Missale is “closer to the ancient …”

The Canon 2 controversy is a good example of this canard. It is NOT an ancient Roman anaphora (read Father Louis Bouyer on this point for the most convenient study).

 

[Duesenberg]

It is highly debatable that the 1970 Missale is “closer to the ancient …”

Not really, no. I appreciate the those that prefer the EF Mass like to claim that, but it’s simply not true.

And FWIW, Latin is certainly not a more “meritorious” language than others. That’s a silly notion in the context of discussing the Mass.

 

[jas84173]

We have very few sources on how the early Christian’s celebrated Mass. The first few centuries that is.

I believe the Didache is our earliest source.
Justin Martyr also spoke of the “Prayers of the Faithful”, The " Great Amen" , and " The Kiss of Peace". All of these are represented in both forms however in different ways.

 

[KMG]

Exactly. We have VERY few sources.

For years, people claimed Canon 2 was the oldest Roman anaphora. That is false.

 

[Duesenberg]

We have very few sources on how the early Christian’s celebrated Mass. The first few centuries that is.

I believe the Didache is our earliest source.

Justin Martyr also spoke of the “Prayers of the Faithful”, The " Great Amen" , and " The Kiss of Peace".

All very true. We also have the benefit of considerable archaeological evidence. There’s no question the OF Mass is closer in order to the ancient sacrificial liturgies than the EF Mass.

Probably the closest sacrificial liturgies of today compared to the early church are different Divine Liturgies of the East. Again, the OF Mass is more reminiscent of them than is the EF Mass.

 

[KMG]

Again, false assertions. A few mosaics of highly debatable archaeological evidence do not a case make.

Read Father Bouyer…who was actually one of the authors of this “ancient” liturgy of 1970…and he demolishes these arguments.

 

[OraLabora]

Again, read Father’s posts.

I’m not going to bother and here’s why:

1. It’s irrelevant, the 1974 translation no longer has official standing;
2. I almost never attend Mass in English;
3. and on the rare occasions that I do, I find it sounds just as kludgy in the new translation as in the old. But that’s just me. I was brought up on my mother’s knee hearing the Mass first in Latin, then in French. And now where I go to Mass, it’s a mix of Latin and French.

So I’m sorry I got dragged into this silly debate about the 1974 translation; I guess it was a slow, boring and stormy Saturday afternoon. Back to the original point, I much prefer the OF Mass. And I’m going to leave it at that, other than to say that where I attend Mass, a Benedictine monastery, it’s pretty much as Sacrosanctum Concilium wished (Gregorian chant, vernacular where it counts for the faithful, and deep, deep reverence by the monks) and I thus fee absolutely zero reason to seek out an EF Mass as a result, much less drive the 100 km or so to the nearest one.

 

[jas84173]

I have no issue. This was just about preference. Either form is legal. I however do wish the EF was more accessible. Every diocese should have to offer it in at least one of their Churches. After Summorum Pontificate you would have thought something like that would have occurred. I am from the northeast. There’s three EF Masses available to me within a half hour drive. One is a diocese run EF. Which I go to most frequently. The others are one which is run by the FSSP, and another by the SSPX, (which although canonically irregular, i really do like the priest at this chapel).

However i hear there are some areas of the country where you would have to drive hours. That is unacceptable for a Mass that is valid.

 

[Gertabelle]

I have no issue. This was just about preference. Either form is legal. I however do wish the EF was more accessible. Every diocese should have to offer it in at least one of their Churches. After Summorum Pontificate you would have thought something like that would have occurred. I am from the northeast. There’s three EF Masses available to me within a half hour drive. One is a diocese run EF. Which I go to most frequently. The others are one which is run by the FSSP, and another by the SSPX, (which although canonically irregular, i really do like the priest at this chapel).

However i hear there are some areas of the country where you would have to drive hours. That is unacceptable for a Mass that is valid.

Drive hours to get to a valid mass?

Or drive hours to get to a form of a valid mass that they prefer?

Not the same thing. Not at all the same thing.

 

[Augustinian]

Every diocese should have to offer it in at least one of their Churches.

Just about every diocese does, at least in America.

 

[jas84173]

Valid EF Mass which is valid and some people prefer. Come on, you know what I meant.

 

[stpurl]

Sadly I have. . BTW he uses NO penitential rite whatsoever so that takes care of any references. Yes, I know, before I came here even though I’d experienced the liturgical crazies of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and ‘2000s’, I’d have thought by 2012 they’d have faded away. . .not increased to a point beyond even some of the worst ‘In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier’ style. I just grit my teeth and keep on praying.

I do NOT however want this to turn into anything that comes close to priest-bashing because I have the deepest respect and love for priests. What a battle they fight, for themselves and above all, for us. No wonder that the Devil chases them so, no wonder that the Devil tries to find ways to use a priest’s knowledge and love and authority in a twisted way.