? for those who exclusively attend EF mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mamaof10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dude. People have preferences. There are people who prefer the strictly the EF because they like that it has MORE silence. That’s OK. There are those who prefer the OF because it is more active. That’s great. Honestly, I’m kind of tired of seeing these threads that start out great (I took great joy in reading the responses of others), then suddenly goes to “which form is better”, or the assumption that one despises the other form, or whatnot. Can’t we just have a thread where we appreciate a form of the mass that we prefer without the needless arguments?
 
Last edited:
No. I was raised in the new Mass. I came to it by curiosity and fell in love with it.
I realized that even though you can’t understand it without the missal, it’s reverence is superior. And you know what no-one understands the Mass even in the vernacular. Once you realize the Mass is above you and it isn’t something we can understand is when you realize how small you really are and it is humbling.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. You emphasized silence so I just wanted to make that point.
There is never a moment of silence in the Eastern liturgies, even if the priest himself is silent at times. Though really it’s more the presence of the iconostasis that adds that sense of mystery during the most sacred moment of the holy sacrifice.
Interestingly, during the Christmas season, the candles on the altar at my cathedral (strictly OF) were so grand that, in the so called Benedictine arrangement with the crucifix, I felt like there was almost a quasi-iconostasis or rood screen between the faithful and the priest… I quite enjoyed that. The candles certainly towered above the priests’ heads.
 
I concluded my post with “Of course the EF is beautiful. So is the OF when properly celebrated.”.
Don’t you think you’re over reacting? I felt that my post was fairly neutral.
 
Perhaps. Sorry. I just see so much division on this site sometimes over the two forms that it has caused me some anxiety, so I’ve had to scale back my time on here…
 
Let’s not go there! We’re trying to keep this from devolving into an OF vs. EF thread, yes?
 
I used to think arguments went places…and then discovered they don’t change much. I like St. Bernadette’s quote “My job is to inform, not to convince.”
 
I think the EF is gorgeous… but I sometimes get the feeling that some “traditionalists” almost imagine that Christ and the Apostles followed the Roman Missal in the Upper Room. As I understand it, much of what we associate with the EF was the result of major reforms instituted by Pope St Gregory the Great…which then evolved from there down through the centuries.
 
Some elements of the OF are indeed ancient. Some of them have been made up on the spot. From my experience with people who have strong preference for the EF (I’d say I have weak preference myself), they do not usually claim that the OF has no historical basis, but that while the EF has developed more or less naturally over the course of, what, 1600 years, the OF somewhat negates the legitimacy of this natural development and replaces it with forced antiquarianism. As in, yes, even if the priest faced the people sometime in the 5th century, the Church has outgrown this custom and moved on. Same with communion in the hand, the kiss of peace, table altars etc.

Personally, sometimes, I have to agree. After all, it is curious, to say the least, to have the Pope write, in 1947, that
[…] it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform […]
Click to expand...
and then, 30 years later, have table altars everywhere and, as an added bonus in some places, the high altars torn down. It can definitely give off the impression of “Hey, uh, so I know we have these ancient venerable customs that have been practised for a millenium and a half, but now we know so much better, right? So here is how they did things in the 4th century. It’s older, which automatically means it is superior, doesn’t it?”
 
Last edited:
twf said:
As I understand it, much of what we associate with the EF was the result of major reforms instituted by Pope St Gregory the Great…which then evolved from there down through the centuries.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what I guess most traditionalists claim, if they make claims on this topic; not that Our Lord literally said “Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur” in Latin while John lifted the rim of His embroidered fiddleback chasuble, but that the rite of the Latin Church has developed naturally throughout millenia before being artificially “rolled back”, as if the previous centuries of development were somehow illegitimate. To what extent is this actually the case I dare not guess, but I would say “nonzero”.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for sharing, I really enjoyed reading everyone who answered my direct question and appreciate those who are keeping post on track, thank you!
 
No, but the OF from the 1960’s does incorporate many of the elements that Thomas Cramner incorporated in his Protestant Liturgy back in the 1500’s. Many English Catholics were martyred for holding true to the Old Mass during the English Reformation.
 
Going back to the original question:
Mamaof10 said:
Have you always attended the EF mass and if not what led you to?
Click to expand...
I attended the OF until I was 6, when my folks left the parish church to follow a renegade priest who’d been “asked to leave” the Jesuits because he refused to give Communion in the hand. He said only the EF, or as it was known to me, the “True Mass.” Since then it’s been the EF for me almost exclusively.

My husband (a convert) and all our kids attend the EF exclusively as well. We are used to it. It’s “normal” to us 😉
 
If you were raised with the Traditional Latin Mass, and understood the prayers in Latin, it is much easier to relate to it and appreciate the beauty. However, Mass in the vernacular affords understanding of the liturgy by many more people. Both are wonderful, and meaningful in their own way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top