EF and OF

[Jack007]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=488839
read that before posting. my question is, wasnt an exact translation of EF enough? what was the need for a new form?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=488839
read that before posting. my question is, wasnt an exact translation of EF enough? what was the need for a new form?

If you have not yet, I strongly urge you to read this document. It will give you an idea of what the mind of the Church was in regards to reforming the liturgy. SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM

 

[ProVobis]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=488839
read that before posting. my question is, wasnt an exact translation of EF enough? what was the need for a new form?

I don’t mean to sound flippant about it, but I don’t believe we’ve ever had an exact translation of the EF, for one thing. Certainly not one where everyone, including the translators themselves, would be equally satisfied. There were books and books of why we needed or didn’t need a new form, and plenty of Church documents as well, so I’ll leave that to someone else to give a brief explanation.

 

[babochka]

I don’t mean to sound flippant about it, but I don’t believe we’ve ever had an exact translation of the EF, for one thing. Certainly not one where everyone, including the translators themselves, would be equally satisfied.

I agree.

This is one of the problems inherent in any translation. We don’t have an exact translation into English (or any other language) of the OF. Translation is an art and it requires someone who is a linguist, theologian and a even a poet. No two translators will come up with exactly the same wording, no matter how qualified and faithful they may be. Such is the nature of language.

I’d be the last to admit it, but perhaps that is a good argument for just keeping the Latin?

 

[phil19034]

The short answer, was to bring the liturgy closer to what it was in early Church history, before the dark ages.

 

[OraLabora]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=488839
read that before posting. my question is, wasnt an exact translation of EF enough? what was the need for a new form?

I’m not sure what the point is, of dredging this up again. The Church has made up her mind on this. What possible good could come from second-guessing her? We are at a specific point in time in Church history. Time marches only in one direction. It doesn’t mean that some traditions can’t be brought back, but right now, the Church has not indicated in any way she wants the EF to become “ordinary”. She has however ensured that some traditions carry forward, such as ensuring the the corpus of Gregorian chant is adapted to the new liturgical year, and keeping the Roman Canon as an option for the Eucharistic Prayer, to name two examples.

Personally I think it would much more useful to discuss how we can make what is the Ordinary Form, better and more in synch with Sacrosanctum Concilium, then trying to figure out why the Church didn’t just translate the EF.

 

[pianistclare]

I’m not sure what the point is, of dredging this up again. The Church has made up her mind on this. What possible good could come from second-guessing her? We are at a specific point in time in Church history. Time marches only in one direction. It doesn’t mean that some traditions can’t be brought back, but right now, the Church has not indicated in any way she wants the EF to become “ordinary”. She has however ensured that some traditions carry forward, such as ensuring the the corpus of Gregorian chant is adapted to the new liturgical year, and keeping the Roman Canon as an option for the Eucharistic Prayer, to name two examples.

Personally I think it would much more useful to discuss how we can make what is the Ordinary Form, better and more in synch with Sacrosanctum Concilium, then trying to figure out why the Church didn’t just translate the EF.

Yes. Thank you.

 

[twf]

I’m not sure what the point is, of dredging this up again. The Church has made up her mind on this. What possible good could come from second-guessing her? We are at a specific point in time in Church history. Time marches only in one direction. It doesn’t mean that some traditions can’t be brought back, but right now, the Church has not indicated in any way she wants the EF to become “ordinary”. She has however ensured that some traditions carry forward, such as ensuring the the corpus of Gregorian chant is adapted to the new liturgical year, and keeping the Roman Canon as an option for the Eucharistic Prayer, to name two examples.

Personally I think it would much more useful to discuss how we can make what is the Ordinary Form, better and more in synch with Sacrosanctum Concilium, then trying to figure out why the Church didn’t just translate the EF.

In reality, the Ordinary Form as celebrated at your Abbey has much more in common with the Extraordinary Form and the clear stated intention of the Council than it does with the Ordinary Form as celebrated in many parishes…
When Catholics disparage the Ordinary Form, they are often thinking of what they have experienced in their local parish and not what the OF is meant to be.

 

[Neofight]

Yes. Thank you.

Here here! This post is going no where good.

Jack, given an earlier thread, I’m wondering if you are stirring the pot a little.

I wouldn’t go so far as suggesting a little trolling is going on, yet, but I will watch with interest future posts.

 

[OraLabora]

In reality, the Ordinary Form as celebrated at your Abbey has much more in common with the Extraordinary Form and the clear stated intention of the Council than it does with the Ordinary Form as celebrated in many parishes…
When Catholics disparage the Ordinary Form, they are often thinking of what they have experienced in their local parish and not what the OF is meant to be.

Yes, true, but at least at the parish level there are things we can do about it. Serve on liturgical committees for instance, or join or form a schola and bring chant to parishes, to help expose Catholics to what they’ve been missing.

One has to pick one’s battles. Complaining about what could have been is a waste of effort. There are concrete things we can do to improve the OF, and that we as laity can at least try to influence. A lot of people invest of themselves to get an EF Mass in their parish or diocese; I wish folks would do the same to improve the OF Mass. If we invested as much effort, we would have an OF that’s at least follows the rubrics, and is much closer to what SC intended.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, true, but at least at the parish level there are things we can do about it. Serve on liturgical committees for instance, or join or form a schola and bring chant to parishes, to help expose Catholics to what they’ve been missing.

If I’m not mistaken, SC did appoint a committee to reform the liturgy. They in turn formed subcommittees all the way down to the parish level, and that’s where we are today. I don’t think the problem (if any) is having too few members on such committees.

 

[OraLabora]

If I’m not mistaken, SC did appoint a committee to reform the liturgy. They in turn formed subcommittees all the way down to the parish level, and that’s where we are today. I don’t think the problem (if any) is having too few members on such committees.

Too few? No that’s not the issue. The issue is that currently, on parish liturgical committees, there seems to be too few members pushing for a properly-celebrated OF Mass. I’ve seen so many hokey innovations, it’s almost as if just celebrating Mass reverently according to the rubrics and with appropriate, singable music would be a major innovation in itself.

 

[sw85]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=488839
read that before posting. my question is, wasnt an exact translation of EF enough? what was the need for a new form?

There was a sense that the old liturgy was encumbered with historical accretions and needed cleaning in order that its beauty might shine forth more readily. And indeed there were numerous redundancies in it, e.g., two absolutions at the Confiteor, and a dismissal that conspicuously doesn’t end Mass.

There was a sense that the Mass in its elaborateness had become too alien and unrelatable to ordinary people so that, even with a proper translation, the situation would not markedly improve.

There was a sense that the insistence on Romanitas (Gregorian chant, pipe organ, etc.) made the Mass inaccessible to non-Westerners.

There was a sense that the horizontality of the liturgy was insufficiently emphasized and needed to be played up, so to speak.

And there was a sense that the Mass had strayed too far from apostolic roots and needed to be revised along the lines of Eastern liturgies in certain ways (hence the push for additional anaphoras containing eastern-style epicleses).

 

[Jack007]

Jack, given an earlier thread, I’m wondering if you are stirring the pot a little.

They are of different topics,right?

And I have found the answer to my original question.

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

 

[Jack007]

Personally I think it would much more useful to discuss how we can make what is the Ordinary Form, better and more in synch with Sacrosanctum Concilium, then trying to figure out why the Church didn’t just translate the EF.

preparation for the mass is the best thing to make of more in sync with sc.
i think there is nothing wrong with novus ordo in and of itself.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Certain people had super-de-duper-ly-huge issues with the structure of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Too few? No that’s not the issue. The issue is that currently, on parish liturgical committees, there seems to be too few members pushing for a properly-celebrated OF Mass. I’ve seen so many hokey innovations, it’s almost as if just celebrating Mass reverently according to the rubrics and with appropriate, singable music would be a major innovation in itself.

Ora, you have to remember, though, that the members of liturgical committees come and go all the time. The new ones are faced with “this parish always does it this way” type of approach and so forth. There would first have to be massive training on the OF; it’s really not as easy as it looks if one considers all the built-in options. Besides “properly-celebrated” covers a lot of ground. There are baptisms and confirmations during Mass. There are visiting priests who speak English with heavy accents or not at all. The organist or pianist calls in sick. The priest forgets a line or adlibs a lot. Or the deacon does everything except consecrate the bread and wine. Or the parish is multi-lingual and one congregation never speaks to another. There is nothing really improper about these circumstances and yet whatever happens seems to set a precedent for that parish. It is no wonder why things are so different from parish-to-parish, including choices of music, etc.

 

[babochka]

It is no wonder why things are so different from parish-to-parish, including choices of music, etc.

Is it really so different from parish to parish, though?

I occasionally attend 4 different Latin Rite parishes, and 3 of the 4 of them seem very much the same. The liturgy is reverently celebrated, though certainly there is not a traditional feel. The hymns are mostly the same. The mass settings are similar, if not the same. I most often hear Eucharistic Prayer II or III, but occasionally the Eucharistic Prayer I is prayed. The confiteor is the most commonly chosen option for the penitential rite, though the others are not unheard of. These are run-of-the-mill parishes, not known for conservatism or liberalism. I’ve also encountered pretty much the same while traveling. I’ve never seen the crazy abuses that I’ve read about so much hear on Catholic Answers, and I grew up in California in the 70s. (Well, that’s not entirely true. I did experience liturgical dance and my niece’s high school baccalaureate Mass. It was awkward and uncomfortable and … weird. ) The other parish that I attend for daily Mass is a bit different, and definitely on the more traditional/conservative end. The hymns are different, though not necessarily traditional, and the mass settings are usually chant. The priest generally chants a good portion of his part of the Mass as well. It is a modern church with no center aisle that slopes toward the front like a theater, but the pastor there does a great job with what he’s been given. One major difference here is that many, many people receive Holy Communion while kneeling - at least 2/3 of the daily Mass crowd. Still, it is mostly the same where ever I am, in spite of the options available. Why does it need to be absolutely uniform?

 

[Cat]

I have a very difficult time understanding why some Catholics seem obsessed with uniformity.

Why should everything be exactly the same from parish to parish? Why should everyone speak the same language? Why should all the music be the same style? Why should all the priests use the same prayers?

I love the way the OF gives so many option for various parts of the Mass. I love the different languages, including Latin for those priests who choose to use it in their OF Masses.

I especially love the different styles of music. I prefer a Mass to have a more or less uniform style of music; e.g., all traditional praise or all contemporary praise or all folk or all chant. But I don’t get bothered at all if the organist plays a Franck prelude, the opening hymn (in the 4-hymn option) is an American gospel, the Offertory is a Haugen, the Communion hymn is Dvorak, the Recessional hymn is Rutter, and the Postlude is a Matt Maher song presented by the youth choir.

Perhaps I don’t have a problem with the differentness because I spent 47 years as a Protestant, and all those years, I understood the “One Holy Catholic Church” as something much more esoteric and spiritual than just “everyone does things the same.”

I certainly believe that the Catholic Church is the One Church that Jesus Christ Himself founded. But I also believe what our Church teaches, that all who are baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are brothers and sisters, which means, of course, that the One Holy Catholic Church is much more inclusive than just a set of Mass rubrics.

I would respectfully and humbly suggest that Catholics try very hard to think outside the box and recognize that there is unity in diversity, and there is reverence in many different styles of worship. That’s basically what Holy Mother Church teaches, and praise God, the Church allows for many variations in the celebration of the OF Mass. I love it!

 

[Ad_Orientem]

I have a very difficult time understanding why some Catholics seem obsessed with uniformity. Why should everything be exactly the same from parish to parish? Why should everyone speak the same language? Why should all the music be the same style? Why should all the priests use the same prayers?

Why be obsessed with novelty?

First, please note that the following comments address a certain mindset or approach to liturgy, and are not a critique of the ordinary form of the Mass in itself.

There’s room for diversity, but when the liturgy is not strictly regulated, it is at the mercy of the celebrant and ministers. It easily becomes about us, about how creatively we can invent liturgy, how it can reflect our particular congregation, how entertaining it can be, how relevant it is to me, or how efficient and convenient we can make it for ourselves.

An ever-changing liturgy without definable boundaries is unstable and does not reflect the reality that we worship an unchanging God. It also does away with tradition, the bedrock of our faith. It disregards the wisdom of centuries and discards the precious treasure that is our spiritual heritage.

St. Pius V made the Roman rite more uniform in 1570 partly because there were too many variations leading to abuses. Think about it. If you don’t specify how things are to be done, then anything goes. It was also a measure against Protestant influence. Again, if you don’t specify how things are to be done, who’s to say you can’t introduce these ideas and methods over here or over there, which may not be consonant with the Catholic faith?

I don’t think the Fathers at Vatican II or even Pope Paul VI, who advocated the vernacular, intended a hermeneutic of discontinuity. That is the antithesis, by the way, of strictly regulated liturgy. The regulation is necessary to maintain continuity with our Christian heritage, with the wisdom of centuries, which tells us far better than the 1970s alone what is best for our souls.