Does the OF have too many options?

[snarflemike]

Just tossing this out for discussion. I read, many years ago, that combining all the options available in saying the OF resulted in there being more than a million different ways to say it. Don’t ask me to justify this number, it was just something I read and it stuck in my memory. So I’m wondering what others think - are there too many options in saying the OF? Or not? Or maybe too few options?

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

At our parish a few years back we have the contemporary Mass, the Organ Mass, the teen Mass, the Hispanic Mass, the Basque Mass and the Polish Mass…
No Latin mass because that is just divisive…

Good grief, how about just a Mass for Catholics!

 

[snarflemike]

To clarify, I’m talking about the different options, rites, forms and/or prayers allowed in the Missal (to give just one example, the different eucharistic prayers), not Mass in different languages.

 

[OraLabora]

The EF had many options as well, according to the level of celebration: Low Mass, Missa Cantata, with or without deacon/subdeacon, with our without public, facing the public or facing away from the public (yes facing the public did happen in EF days), to name the important ones. Of course within each of those options the choices were set, but there certainly were different formulae for different circumstances.

There were also optional musical selections for Masses in Gregorian chant, for example on ordinary Sundays there were two Kyrie melodies one could use for Mass XI; same for Sundays of Advent and Lent (Mass XVII). The same with some feasts. Now in the OF there are two other settings that are optional, Mass XIII and XIV. They aren’t new, but using them on ordinary Sundays is.

Plus 5 optional Credo settings, and a number of other ad libitum Kyries that could be used.

So still a bewildering array of choices, albeit in other places.

 

[snarflemike]

For the purposes of my question, I’m not considering singing the same text to different melodies as different options. 1 text = 1 option.

 

[CTBcin]

In general, the EF is very tightly regulated, whereas the OF offers a lot of flexibility, within limits. This flexibility can be a blessing and a curse. Flexibility allows for small variations to be adapted for unique situations in individual parishes. On the other hand, it can be confusing as an altar server to go and serve at a new parish and they do little things very differently. I know this from personal experience.

 

[Prodigal1984]

I have on occasion thought so.
For example, I wish priests would just say the confiteor instead of these other things. The other options are like this Confiteor/Kyrie Elieson mash up.
I also don’t really like all of the Eucharistic Prayers. I wish it was just the First one, The Roman Canon. I feel the third and fourth are okay, but the second one is so washed down in my opinion and it’s like the only one you normally hear. I swear some priests don’t even know how to do the others they are so used to only doing that one. ( you know it’s bad when they know it by heart), and I assume it is because it is the shortest.
I don’t like all of the dismissal options. Just say the old ite missa est.

 

[Peeps]

Many of us enjoy variety. It doesn’t mean that we despise tradition.

When I hear, see, or do the same thing day after day, week after week, month after month–I have a hard time paying attention But when there are little changes that occur on a regular basis–a different prayer, a different Mass setting, etc.–I find it refreshing and uplifting.

 

[JohnLilburne]

The Responsorial Psalm is discussed in General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) n. 61. Options it gives are:

A. Lectionary Psalm with no response.

B. Lectionary Psalm with sung seasonal response.

C. Lectionary Psalm with the day’s response.

D. Psalm from another book “Graduale Romanum”.

E. Responsorial Psalm from another book “Graduale Simplex”.

F. Alleluia Psalm from the book “Graduale Simplex”.

It also has “It is preferable for the Responsorial Psalm to be sung, at least as far as the people’s response is concerned.”

Often Masses I have attended have option C spoken. It is difficult for a congregation to learn to sing a new response for every Mass. So I think it is good that there are options A and B that enable more Masses to have a sung psalm.

Options D, E and F are harder to justify and this is reflected in the GIRM having “The Responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should usually be taken from the Lectionary.”

[Excerpts from the English translation of The Roman Missal © 2010 International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation. All rights reserved.]

 

[InThePew]

I also don’t really like all of the Eucharistic Prayers. I wish it was just the First one, The Roman Canon . I feel the third and fourth are okay, but the second one is so washed down in my opinion and it’s like the only one you normally hear. I swear some priests don’t even know how to do the others they are so used to only doing that one. ( you know it’s bad when they know it by heart), and I assume it is because it is the shortest.

LOL not entirely untrue sadly! I have a particular affection for EPIV (I tend to favour the overlooked and unloved ) but also enjoy the option of using some of the EP’s for Various Needs and Occasions when they work in well with the readings of the day or with my homily.

 

[Daniel1Catholic]

As long as they (priests and people) stick to what’s there (red and black) I don’t care, although I do feel like EPII is somewhat overused, and would enjoy if EPI and EPIV became the standard 90% of the time.