F
felsguy
Guest
Would it not be more correct to say “when done correctly, the OF is every bit as rational, reverent and beautiful as the EF when it is done correctly.”
- Status
O
OraLabora
Guest
I suppose. One assumes from reading here that the EF is always done correctly and the OF hardly ever!Would it not be more correct to say “when done correctly, the OF is every bit as rational, reverent and beautiful as the EF when it is done correctly.”
I can’t speak for the EF as it’s impossible for me to attend an EF that is not SSPX due to distance, but certainly the OF is often done correctly. Even our local parish rarely strays from the rubrics even if the music isn’t to my taste.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Well in a way it is. The monastery follows the Graduale Romanum which as you probably know has a major difference with the mainstream OF Mass: the use of the Gradual response instead of the responsorial psalm.If there were such a thing, I’d call that a Extraordinaria Subforma Ordinariae Formae. (Extraordinary Subform of the Ordinary Form)
But the rest is exactly the OF. Same rubrics, same readings, same entrance and communion antiphons, same structure, same EP, same everything.
G
GangGreen
Guest
It could be, but there are things missing from the OF that detract from it most specifically the offertory prayers and much of the symbolism.Would it not be more correct to say “when done correctly, the OF is every bit as rational, reverent and beautiful as the EF when it is done correctly.”
C
curlycool89
Guest
If this is really a list of grievances, then it really shows that “trads” either have a very poor liturgical theology or really only care about aesthetics and not about the theology. So, for a generic list of things, here’s some easy replies:
What does “deficient” mean? What they really want to say is that “they’re not as pretty”. Which is true, EP1 is a lot prettier, but that doesn’t make other EPs deficient. According to the CCC (cf. 1352ff), the EP has 5 requirements: 1. Preface 2. Epiclesis 3. Institutional Narrative 4. Anamnesis 5. Intercessions
All EP that are approved for use in the OF have these 5 requirements. To say that any of them are deficient is just bad theology.
This is a false dichotomy bordering on heresy.
Instead, read what the CCC says: (1368) “In the Eucharist, the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, suffering, prayer, and works, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value”.
Also, the reason for the existence of the ministerial priesthood is to build up and support the royal priesthood of all the baptized. To place a wedge between the two is just wrong.
If this is actually an opinion, it shows a lack of understanding of what is going on during the Eucharistic sacrifice.
During the Mass, the primary focus is the ALTAR. Not the tabernacle. The altar is where Christ is being made present NOW. The Eucharist is always central in every Mass regardless of where the tabernacle is because Jesus is being made present.
Why? Why are we placing a wedge between the Mass and the sacrifices of the people of God? The Eucharist is a gift (a grace) from God for us, to build us up and give us strength. You cannot simply place the Mass in a vacuum apart from the people who are there to celebrate it.
[citation needed] (for those who claim these things)
The truth about music is that any music which is not inherently evil can be used for sacred music. To try to artificially restrict music is against the idea of liturgical inculturation, and it really smacks of a musical classicalism.
Piano and guitar can be incorporated into the liturgy. So can drums and dancing (which have always been part of worship in African or Aboriginal cultures for example). It a simple statement: Just because Rome (the city) didn’t use it doesn’t mean others didn’t, and it doesn’t mean that others can’t.
As defined by who? Traditionalists themselves? If anyone is using this argument, it basically comes down to a “because I said so” answer, and so it’s not an argument at all but an assertion.This is a statement that I’ve seen floating around for years, without ever seeing an actual scientific study to back it up. No statistics (well analyzed and corrected against external factors), no major journal publications.
Nor any acknowledgement that the external cultural factors of the 60s/70s/80s could have actually played a part. As if the only thing that Catholics in the world thought about during that period was liturgical form. It’s just a poorly thought out assertion that seems to have this pre-assumption that Catholics are immune from external cultural factors (as if that has ever been the case in the 2000 year history of Christianity).
And yet requiring priests to actually focus on the Scriptures in their homilies is an ancient tradition (St. Augustine anyone?). It also connects the Liturgy of the Word more to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where in both the Word or the species are taken, blessed, broken, and shared. If the Word is to be alive for us in our time (as it is in every age of the world), then it needs to be explained and broken open for the people. Otherwise the Words becomes dead words on a page that say nothing to our time.
This is really a homiletics question. And we know, the homilies in Catholic churches are not very good in many cases. We need to teach our priests and seminarians better homiletics. A good homilist can incorporate more teachings into a good explanation of the scripture text that was read without making it sound like your ramming something down somebody’s throat (most people do not in fact appreciate that, and good pastoral action means that you are doing the best you can to help people encounter Jesus, not turn them off from Him).
These were just a few quick answers I thought up that some here might want to contemplate over. A few of these I’ve head for years, so I just wanted to give some answers on why many of them aren’t really good reasons at all.
F
felsguy
Guest
Would it not be more correct to say “when done correctly, the OF is every bit as rational, reverent and beautiful as the EF when it is done correctly.”
Yes, that is the very point I was making.
F
felsguy
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Unfortunately there a lot who think anything before '60’s, correctly done or incorrectly done, was less than beautiful.Would it not be more correct to say “when done correctly, the OF is every bit as rational, reverent and beautiful as the EF when it is done correctly.”
F
felsguy
Guest
:tsktsk: Clever comeback, but still specious. I’m movin’ on here. Enjoy the rest of the day.
O
otjm
Guest
Less than beautiful? Now that is a new one.
Some people may not like the EF in and of itself (and by that, I mean to exclude political ideologues) as they find it too formal. It is a bit akin to those who like classical music and those who don’t. Among those who do are a subset who look with ill-concealed disdain on anyone who does not find something bordering on ecstasy in a violin solo.
What started this thread appears to be comments from traditionalists who appear filled with disdain (at best, in some circumstances) with those who would prefer something less formal. They have a “my way or the highway” attitude. Comments such as “deficient”, :diminish", “insufficient”, and “less worthwhile” are indicative of attitudes such as the OP was suggesting as troublesome.
Some of those same traditionalists would appear to be scandalized at the beginnings of the Mass, say, in the first 50 years of the Church - never mind that it was from Christ as He celebrated it, and His hand-picked followers celebrated it.
And that is not a suggestion that we start going to Jewish synagogue on Saturday and have the breaking of the bread (St. Paul’s words) on Sunday.
There is absolutely nothing wrong, whatsoever, with the EF or with being attracted to it. I grew up on the EF. Starting in grade school and ending up during college, I had every position open during an EF Mass available to a non-ordained person. I don’t need instructions on the beauty of the EF, not do I need someone to define for me the differences between the EF and the OF, particularly those who were not even born when I was serving as Master of Ceremonies. I am quite aware of the differences.
Comments such as the OF being “man centered” may have been a reference to OF Masses in which the celebrant has far too much hubris; but that was not how the comment was stated. Having attended a number of Solemn High Masses in the 50’s and 60’s, I have seen more than one in which the celebrant displayed not a little hubris and flair. The point? The disposition of the celebrant can impact the Mass, whether it is the OF or the EF, an that is not an issue of the form of the Mass; it is an issue of the person celebrating it.
And thanks to OraLabora for articulating what I tried to convey in one or two sentences.
- Status