Honest Question for those who prefer EF

  • Thread starter Thread starter BennyBoy89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then tell me why it’s incorrect.

Saying “that’s just your opinion” is simply a liberal code language for “every opinion is as good as the next - you’re not being nice if you say you’re right and I’m wrong”. It’s completely absurd.
Not any more absurd as your personal proclamations that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

You seem to have a penchant for interpreting documents as you see fit, and declaring everyone else to be wrong, including Popes.
 
That happens in the Pauline Mass too - not infrequently the Prayers over the Gifts, for example, will be said by the priest to himself, either while a hymn is being sung or while the congregation sits in silence.
Good point. I forgot about that. I’ve seen it a lot and it’s quite edifying.
 
You mean the NORMATIVE Mass of the Latin Rite? The Ordinary Form of the Mass?
Spill, it’s just a preference. Don’t take it personally. No need to excommunicate your Catholic brother or sister just because they don’t go to the same Church building you do.
 
A few simliar-sounding songs and a guitar or piano does not make a Mass a Protestant service.
As I’ve attended a few funerals and weddings at Protestant churches, the only piano I saw was at a small Baptist church. The others had grand organs played by very talented musicians. (You can find some of them on youtube.)

I find it interesting as Vatican II tried to promote the organ as the favored instrument for the Church. And hold it in high esteem, or something like that. Yet the Protestants seem to outdo the Catholics in that respect.
 
Not any more absurd as your personal proclamations that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
That’s simply what you do when making an argument. You don’t argue for something unless you think you’re right.
You seem to have a penchant for interpreting documents as you see fit, and declaring everyone else to be wrong,
The documents I’ve quoted don’t really require interpretation. I use the words of Popes and Councils which provide the authentic Catholic doctrine
including Popes.
This is a lie. I haven’t declared any Pope to be wrong about anything on these forums. I’ve called some statements of Pope John Paul II vague, but never wrong.

There have been Popes who have taught heresy, however, since not everything a Pope does is covered by infallibility.
 
You mean the NORMATIVE Mass of the Latin Rite? The Ordinary Form of the Mass?
Sorry,…my statement was a little confusing.

The fact is that soon after Vatican II the Masses I attended never stopped changing. Not a single priest of any church I went to for any length of time could leave well enough alone, he had to change *something *. Hence my “any shape or fashion of a post Vatican II Mass.”.
 
Would you prefer the OF over the EF if it was celebrated properly (as V2 actually intended it)? I’m defining properly celebrated by the priest facing ad orientem, the incorporation of Latin, and no Oregon Catholic Press (😛 ). The dignity would along the lines of Trent, but the readings, prayers, etc would be according to V2.

Would you still prefer the EF?
The only thing i like better in the Ordinary form is the schedule of readings. And, of course, as the Pope has noted, some newer saints need to be included in the EF calendar.

But other than that, no, i would not support even the most dignified celebration of the OF over the EF, because it represents a break in the continuity of our catholic traditions. It was completely made up from scratch by some men of questionable integrity.

I prefer the mass the majority of the saints knew. it worked for them.
 
Oh Lord, I think I’ve opened another can of worms… I didn’t really want to get people fighting. I was just curious if the people out there who go the extra mile (or 100) to attend the EF Mass would attend an OF if it was done more along the lines of V2’s intent. One poster said that was my personal interpretation… Well I’ve read Sacrosanctum concilium, and I can tell you that it’s intent was not to abolish the use of Latin or make the Mass less solemn. I mean if you really want to argue about it, go ahead, because I can easily unsubscribe to this thread… 😃

These are my feelings on the EF vs. OF: I’ve only attended the EF once, and it was a Low Mass, so not much smells and bells. I had a hard time really following it, and I can’t say I was IN LOVE with it, but it certainly gave me a deeper appreciation of the Eucharist and for the OF. I would love to attend a High Mass, but right now I would have to drive over an hour away, and with the price of gas as it now is, I’m not sure when that is going to happen. I’ve never experienced the absolute horror stories some people talk about when they describe the OF (except Boy Scout Sunday came close…). My experience at my home parish is that the average Catholic is just ignorant when it comes to the Liturgy, and the priests are apathetic. Many of the Catholics in my parish are very devout and actually think they are doing the right thing when they make those goofy hand motions (“and also with you!”) and hold hands during the Our Father. They have priests tell them that the Church wants them receiving Communion in the hand because of the “symbolism.” My parish is a mess liturgically, but I blame the priests who lack the guts to actually preach the Faith, tell the Music Director to get a grip, and send the 10,000 EMHCs back to their seats. (I’m speaking in hyperbole, just to let the literal-minded who frequent this forum know). When it comes to the EF, I’d prefer it simply based on the fact that I’d know what I’m in for each time. Here’s the thing though, the OF is the Mass of V2, and the standard for us as Latin-Rites. I can appreciate the beauty and symbolism of the EF, but let’s be honest, the symbolism is downright Medieval, and I mean that in the literal, not derogatory, sense. V2 said that there are certain things about the Liturgy that can change, and certain things that cannot, and the things that can change SHOULD change in order to be more easily understood by the Church at large. Your average person does not think in terms of courtly ritual anymore.

These are my feelings, and I don’t expect everyone else to feel the same way.

The Church is a mess right now liturgically, and we’re horribly divided bc of which Mass we like better. What we need to do is pray that our priests and bishops (especially in the US) get with it and realize we’re not a bunch of Quaker-Episcopalian love children, but the Mystical Body of Christ, and our worship needs to reflect that, regardless of the form.

As for me, I’m going Byzantine. 😉
 
As I’ve attended a few funerals and weddings at Protestant churches, the only piano I saw was at a small Baptist church. The others had grand organs played by very talented musicians. (You can find some of them on youtube.)

I find it interesting as Vatican II tried to promote the organ as the favored instrument for the Church. And hold it in high esteem, or something like that. Yet the Protestants seem to outdo the Catholics in that respect.
In evangelical churches nowadays, it is unusual to find the organ played during a worship service. My husband subscribed to a Christian worship magazine for a few years, and there were constant admonitions for churches to tear out the organ and replace it with more modern instruments and sound equipment.

Even a piano is unusual. What you are more likely to find is a Praise and Worship band. Sometimes it is a real “rock” band, but more often, it is “pop” rock.

You say you attended weddings and funerals with organ music played by talented musicians. Heads up–those musicians were probably hired by the family of the deceased, or by the bride and groom, because in spite of the modernization of the Protestant churches, many people still prefer old traditions when it comes to marrying and burying.

The hired musicians probably have no affiliation with that church. They may not have an affiliation with ANY church, but are professional musicians that play gigs wherever they can get them.

I would willingly play (piano) for weddings and funerals in non-Catholic fellowships, except that I work during the day, even on Saturdays, so it’s not worth putting my business card out there at this point in my life.

Some of the “high” Protestant churches, or “mainlines” still use a pipe organ, and spend a lot of money hiring an organist (who is usually the Music Director as well). You might see really good organ music at these churches. In fact, I’ve read articles in Protestant magazines and websites about how many classical musicians are leaving evangelical churches and heading towards either the Catholic Church, or the mainline denominations (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, etc.).

Unfortunately–or maybe I should say, fortunately!–because of their liberal theology, many of these mainlines are loosing members by the tens of thousands. So at this point, some of these churches are actively courting the classical musicians so that they will have someone left to put some money in the offering plate and pay the electric bill!

There are still a few “hold-outs” in the evangelical world, though–churches that still don’t have a Praise and Worship group, that don’t do Praise and Worship choruses, and that still enjoy organ, piano, and orchestral instruments during their worship service. I know of one such church in my city, who had a young man named Scott Aniol as the Music Pastor. Here is a link to his website:

scottaniol.com/

Very different ideas than most evangelical church music ministers! Very very conservative.
 
As stated the TLM’s prayers have more depth; as well, I appreciate the silent Canon- or as some call it the “mumbling”. More time for silent reflection.

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has so much richness too. But I am a traditional Latin Catholic and prefer the traditional Latin Mass. But for those who prefer the DL more power to you. For those who prefer the OF more power to you. Just respect other traditions too.
 
You mean the NORMATIVE Mass of the Latin Rite? The Ordinary Form of the Mass?
Actually, the normative Mass of the OF and what usually goes on, at least at the parishes I’ve attended in the US, are significantly different. The actual norms of the OF are communion on the tongue and no altar girls, as well as a couple other differences. However, these practices started out as abuses that then became “custom” so they were then acceptable as deviations from the actual norm.
 
“Celebrated Properly” as defined by the Church?

Or as defined by one individual? Your post is confusing

There IS a difference. :rolleyes:

PS…Can you direct us to where V2 actually defined it as you do above?
From SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
    **Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. **
  2. In the Latin Church** the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things**.
As to facing versus populum, nowhere that I’m aware of do any of the Vatican II documents suggest this, although I could be wrong. . . I believe this was another “innovation” that became so widely accepted that it became a norm.
 
Good point. I forgot about that. I’ve seen it a lot and it’s quite edifying.
Yep. Actually, if more people were lectors, they would get a better up close and personal view of things, like the aforementioned example.

Lotsa little things going on that Average Joe Catholic out in the pew may not notice.
 
From SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
    **Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. **
  2. In the Latin Church** the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things**.
As to facing versus populum, nowhere that I’m aware of do any of the Vatican II documents suggest this, although I could be wrong. . . I believe this was another “innovation” that became so widely accepted that it became a norm.
We’ve seen this cut and paste a hundred times. New material please.

All of your bolded words are fine and good, but none of them say that only that which is stated is proper, and everything else is improper.

Nice try, though.
 
We’ve seen this cut and paste a hundred times. New material please.
What a convincing response. You’re really changing my mind. 😉
In all seriousness, though, if there’s a clear and easy response that shows that these quotes are not to be relied upon, as your post suggests, I would really like to see it.
All of your bolded words are fine and good, but none of them say that only that which is stated is proper, and everything else is improper.
I never claimed that the only proper things are what VII prescribes. However, the language seems pretty clear to me. 🤷 I guess, though, much like the SSPX, you’re arguing that VII isn’t binding and we can pretty much ignore it because it’s only a list of non-obligatory suggestions. If that’s your position, fine, but I think that instead of simply embracing the anything-goes “Spirit of Vatican II,” we should probably read the documents and use them as the pastoral guidance they were intended to be.
 
We’ve seen this cut and paste a hundred times. New material please.

All of your bolded words are fine and good, but none of them say that only that which is stated is proper, and everything else is improper.

Nice try, though.
Hey, maybe you’ve heard this before, too, then. Although, knowing your style, i doubt it could change your mind, if you do manage to understand it:

The rubrics and the GIRM never say at all that it is improper to allow chimpanzees in tutus into the sanctuary during consecration. Surely, then, such a practice is allowed, right? Since the text doesn’t forbid it.

Come on, for crying out loud! How can you possibly continue to ignore that text which you say you’ve seen pasted countless times. It should be pasted more, since apparently it hasn’t sunk in yet!
 
Hey, maybe you’ve heard this before, too, then. Although, knowing your style, i doubt it could change your mind, if you do manage to understand it:

The rubrics and the GIRM never say at all that it is improper to allow chimpanzees in tutus into the sanctuary during consecration. Surely, then, such a practice is allowed, right? Since the text doesn’t forbid it.

Come on, for crying out loud! How can you possibly continue to ignore that text which you say you’ve seen pasted countless times. It should be pasted more, since apparently it hasn’t sunk in yet!
😃 😃 😃 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top