How come some priests don't want to celebrate EF?

[Genesis315]

just yesterday my sister’s priest said that in order to perform EF at his parish the entire altar would have to be rebuilt. (it’s a newer church building). at a tremendous cost.
how many of our newer churches are also unsuited for the EF mass??

If you can stand in front of the altar, it’s suitable. You don’t need anything special at all. I used to go to an EF Mass in a little chapel with a four-legged wooden altar on the floor without really any distinction between the sanctuary and the where the congregation was and it worked out just beautifully. When the roof was getting fixed once, we used the High School’s chapel which had a wooden table altar in the center with chairs around it–it worked just fine too.

Shoot, in war time they celebrated Mass on the hoods of jeeps or on tree stumps…you don’t absolutely need a huge, fixed high altar attached to the back wall.

 

[chewchoo]

What a crock. Tell that priest to watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=oUNfbgRJOe8

Even the most unsuitable arrangement can be made to work if the desire is there. My goodness - holy priests offered the traditional Mass in bunkers and trenches!

If you can stand in front of the altar, it’s suitable. You don’t need anything special at all. I used to go to an EF Mass in a little chapel with a four-legged wooden altar on the floor without really any distinction between the sanctuary and the where the congregation was and it worked out just beautifully. When the roof was getting fixed once, we used the High School’s chapel which had a wooden table altar in the center with chairs around it–it worked just fine too.

Shoot, in war time they celebrated Mass on the hoods of jeeps or on tree stumps…you don’t absolutely need a huge, fixed high altar attached to the back wall.

kinda sad then, cause i thought he was a pretty smart and orthodox priest.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Scotty PGH Quote:
Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV
The simplest thing would be the EF, in both Latin and in the vernacular, in each parish, with some ossifications removed in the interests of “noble simplicity.”

Wow, did I just read what I thought I read?

Of course, by ossifications I suspect you mean everything that puts the E in EF.​

I didn’t say anything about abuses—so why try to detour the discussion by bringing abuses in the EF. Once the “ossifications” as you said are removed in the interest of “noble simplicity”–we end up with what we have now. You --yourself have said in other threads --you prefer the NO because of its “noble simplicity”—so what you describing is the NO. And we currently have the NO with Latin and the vernacular.

You haven’t read the prayers of the EF? They’re very different from OF. The EF in the vernacular would NOT be the same as the NO. So I’m NOT describing the NO. I’m describing what is on the right hand page of a missal that has the EF printed in Latin on the left hand page.

Here’s a sample:

cs.cmu.edu/People/spok/mass-parallel.txt

I’m sure that even you can see the difference between the offertory prayers in the EF and the OF (“Receive, Holy Lord, God Almighty,” etc., and “Blessed are you, Lord God,” etc.).
Again… not remotely talking about the OF, talking about the EF.

 

[Walking_Home]

You haven’t read the prayers of the EF? They’re very different from OF. The EF in the vernacular would NOT be the same as the NO. So I’m NOT describing the NO. I’m describing what is on the right hand page of a missal that has the EF printed in Latin on the left hand page.

Here’s a sample:

cs.cmu.edu/People/spok/mass-parallel.txt

I’m sure that even you can see the difference between the offertory prayers in the EF and the OF (“Receive, Holy Lord, God Almighty,” etc., and “Blessed are you, Lord God,” etc.).
Again… not remotely talking about the OF, talking about the EF.

---

Well JKirkLVNV—I went with what you stated originally–before you qualified it with the above information. As you have stated various times-you prefer the current NO with its “noble simplicity”–so based on your preference —your prior description led back to the NO.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Well JKirkLVNV—I went with what you stated originally–before you qualified it with the above information. As you have stated various times-you prefer the current NO with its “noble simplicity”–so based on your preference —your prior description led back to the NO.

That’s the advantage of a careful reading of the text one finds in front of one.

And I believe that the EF could achieve the same noble simplicity without being precisely the same as the OF. It’s a wonderful mass (without the ossifications/distractions that have grown up around it, mind you)!

But really, we’ve been cautioned to stick to the topic.

 

[Walking_Home]

That’s the advantage of a careful reading of the text one finds in front of one.

And I believe that the EF could achieve the same noble simplicity without being precisely the same as the OF. It’s a wonderful mass (without the ossifications, mind you)!

But really, we’ve been cautioned to stick to the topic.

with some ossifications removed in the interests of “noble simplicity.”​

Gee JKirkLVNV----when someone has stated more than once their preference for the “noble simplicity” of the current NO–then speak of bringing the EF down to the level of what they refer to as “noble simplicity”— that is where it leads–to another NO. Of course --later bringing in other information to qualify the prior post–and using this to say the above is any persons prerogative.

 

[the_phoenix]

… priests should be required to consent to offer both before they’re ordained. Otherwise, you’ve just got camps.

Now this makes a whole lot of good sense! Excellent comment.

~~ the phoenix

 

[bpbasilphx]

I can think of several reasons right off the top of my head:

1. Unfamiliarity with the extraordinary form.
2. Uncomfrotable with using Latin.
3. Not having necessary books.
4. Not having all the vestments–in particular the chalice veil and the maniple.
5. Not having a pastoral or devotional need for himself (why else would he celebrate it privately) or for others.

Do these sound reasonable and charitable?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

with some ossifications removed in the interests of “noble simplicity.”​

Gee JKirkLVNV----when someone has stated more than once their preference for the “noble simplicity” of the current NO–then speak of bringing the EF down to the level of what they refer to as “noble simplicity”— that is where it leads–to another NO. Of course --later bringing in other information to qualify the prior post–and using this to say the above is any persons prerogative.

I don’t think there’s such a thing as “bringing down to the level” of noble simplicity. Noble simplicity is a virtue. So there’s no question of “bringing down”, nor is there a question of making the EF the same as the OF (at least not to my mind and I know what I meant).

And “that’s where it leads-to another NO?” That qualifies as subjective opinion, not objective fact.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The only thing that worries me is that I do not speak latin and would have absolutly NO clue what is going on in the Mass. I am a cradle Catholic, but I have never been taught latin…What would I do in that situation???

Start attending them and follow along in your missal. After doing this for a few months, it will all be second nature.

Vernacular doesn’t garunteed understanding either.

As to the OP’s question, why some priests don’t want to celebrate the EF?

We would have to ask each one of them. I am not prepared to speculate about their motives.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t think there’s such a thing as “bringing down to the level” of noble simplicity. Noble simplicity is a virtue. So there’s no question of “bringing down”, nor is there a question of making the EF the same as the OF (at least not to my mind and I know what I meant).

And “that’s where it leads-to another NO?” That qualifies as subjective opinion, not objective fact.

---

Really now—Where have you been—take a look around–We are living in the proof of where change has taken us—and we now have the NO.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

just yesterday my sister’s priest said that in order to perform EF at his parish the entire altar would have to be rebuilt. (it’s a newer church building). at a tremendous cost.
how many of our newer churches are also unsuited for the EF mass??

Tell your sister to tell her priest if that is the case (and its not) they can just go outside and do it then.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...180px-Fr_Ratzinger_Introibo_ad_altare_Dei.JPG

(Anyone know who that young German priest in the photo is? )

http://www.institute-christ-king.org/images/AdorationOutdoorAltar.JPG

If a priest tells you he does not want to celebrate the EF because of the architecture of the church building, smile politely and then ask him what the other (real) reason is.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Really now—Where have you been—take a look around–We are living in the proof of where change has taken us—and we now have the NO.

No, Walking Home, we have had a very bad season of abuse of the OF. It isn’t (at least to my thinking) that the NO has been tried and found wanting, but that it’s been hardly tried, or at least properly tried. Bishops and priests mistakenly hived off and engaged in innovation. Abuse and innovation should not be confused WITH the OF, no more so than a mumbled mass or silly looking, see-through nighty-ish albs, military drill team stiffness, and the distracting doffing of birettas should be confused WITH the EF.

And of course, you made another typical error. “Correlation does not prove causation.” There is no proof that where we’ve gone is a result of the OF (though I would certainly agree that the abuse of the OF is a large part of where we are now). If you doubt that the OF is of value, you might want to re-read more carefully our Holy Father’s cover letter of the Motu Proprio to the world’s bishops. He seems to have high hopes for the OF and what he refers to as the “the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.”

 

[Walking_Home]

No, Walking Home, we have had a very bad season of abuse of the OF. It isn’t (at least to my thinking) that the NO has been tried and found wanting, but that it’s been hardly tried, or at least properly tried. Bishops and priests mistakenly hived off and engaged in innovation. Abuse and innovation should not be confused WITH the OF, no more so than a mumbled mass or silly looking, see-through nighty-ish albs, military drill team stiffness, and the distracting doffing of birettas should be confused WITH the EF.

And of course, you made another typical error. “Correlation does not prove causation.” There is no proof that where we’ve gone is a result of the OF (though I would certainly agree that the abuse of the OF is a large part of where we are now). If you doubt that the OF is of value, you might want to re-read more carefully our Holy Father’s cover letter of the Motu Proprio to the world’s bishops. He seems to have high hopes for the OF and what he refers to as the “the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.”

---

JKirkLVNV—I was not speaking of abuse–so please don’t take that detour to throw off this discussion. I was speaking of change. What we have now–is not what the Council intended—it is not even what Paul VI initialy intented with the NO.

So while you may have “visions” of some form of hybrid—by the time “indults” get done with it --more than likely —we will end up with NO second edition.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

JKirkLVNV—I was not speaking of abuse–so please don’t take that detour to throw off this discussion. I was speaking of change. What we have now–is not what the Council intended—it is not even what Paul VI initialy intented with the NO.

Honestly, Walking Home, maybe you could read what I write a two or even three times before you respond. You spoke of “where change has taken us” and “we now have the NO.” I responded by distinguishing between the NO and the abuse OF the NO, because I firmly believe that it was the abuse OF the NO and not the NO itself that has lead us to the mess we’re in. And unless the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI has been officially changed, by his successors, then it IS what he intended because it’s what he promulgated. Certainly, he did not intend the abuses.

So while you may have “visions” of some form of hybrid—by the time “indults” get done with it --more than likely —we will end up with NO second edition.

**I don’t have visions of a hybrid (though some are, even in these forums, asserting that the Pope, yes, you heard it here, Pope Benedict XVI, is aiming toward a hybrid, but I don’t know). What I envision (and I only envision it because I think that our dear Holy Father is going to be regretfully cheated of his desire for peaceful coexistence and we’re going to have to go back to one form for one Rite) is the EF as the only form (despite my love of the OF and its noble simplicity), but reformed (you know, I’ve mentioned it, one confietor; the whole liturgy in Latin at one Mass, the whole thing in the vernacular at another, within the same parish, the readings always in the vernacular, the people always making the responses, the audible canon, not to mention the elemination of some of the distracting things). None of these things would, however, result in the NO. They’re entirely two different missals.
**

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t have visions of a hybrid (though some are, even in these forums, asserting that the Pope, yes, you heard it here, Pope Benedict XVI, is aiming toward a hybrid, but I don’t know). What I envision (and I only envision it because I think that our dear Holy Father is going to be regretfully cheated of his desire for peaceful coexistence and we’re going to have to go back to one form for one Rite) is the EF as the only form (despite my love of the OF and its noble simplicity), but reformed (you know, I’ve mentioned it, one confietor; the whole liturgy in Latin at one Mass, the whole thing in the vernacular at another, within the same parish, the readings always in the vernacular, the people always making the responses, the audible canon, not to mention the elemination of some of the distracting things). None of these things would, however, result in the NO. They’re entirely two different missals.

---

We will see ---- If you and I are still alive 20 yrs from now–we will both see what type of Mass and/or Masses there will be.

Since you brought up the abuses done to the Mass—I don’t foresee any change in the future until the source that gives life to and feeds off the abuses is suppressed.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

We will see ---- If you and I are still alive 20 yrs from now–we will both see what type of Mass and/or Masses there will be.

**Indeed we will. **

Since you brought up the abuses done to the Mass—I don’t foresee any change in the future until the source that gives life to and feeds off the abuses is suppressed.

And what would that source be?

 

[Walking_Home]

And what would that source be?

I believe you and I had a discussion concerning this source. I said --I had a moral responsibility to let people know that this movement was not orthodox. Do you remember.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I believe you and I had a discussion concerning this source. I said --I had a moral responsibility to let people know that this movement was not orthodox. Do you remember.

I’ve frankly no idea whether those in the Neo Catechumate are or are not heretics, I’ve not studied them that closely. But I would say that the source of our problem is a lot of things, but mostly sin.

 

[otjm]

This evening I was asking a priest if he was going (or knew of someone in area who was going) to celebrate EF. There followed some negative comments about it not being a good choice to make (the MP) and I was wondering why all the negativity I’ve heard on this coast?
Now, I mean this as purely a question as to sincere beliefs that I’ve seen/heard and with the utmost in charity!

When I’ve heard Bishops on this coast refer to the EF it was not in a favorable light. I’m a post-VII convert and haven’t any idea as to what may have been going on before the Council in regards to this. So, let me say again, PLEASE respond in charity!

This is apparently a stumbling block to some and I merely want to find out some reasons why that might be so.

I will post the OP’s question in order to get back to square one.

We are in somewhat of a Catch 22, in that there was nothing said of what constitutes “a stable group of the faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition”. It was not defined either in raw numbers or in percentage of the parish.

From a very practical standpoint in many, if not most parishes in the Northwest we are limited to one priest; a few have two priests, and very few have more. There is not exactly a plethora of young priests (ours is in his 70’s, and the assistant who we are losing at the end of the month to Belize is 80) and some are faced with already saying more Masses (with permission) than the law regularly allows. Expecting an additional Mass in some circumstances simply is outside of physical possiblities. In other cases, it is a question of, very realisticly, not being able to find enough people who would attend on a regular basis to justify changing one of the OF Masses to an EF Mass. Having, say, 35 or 50 people who want the EF replace a Mass of the OF for say, 300 is probably in itself going to cause hardship and hard feelings in a parish; and the purpose of this is not to create divisiveness. The whole thing seems to be a balancing of alternatives.

I am sure there are parishes which would have a sizeable attendance on Sunday if the EF were offered; and I suspect that will occur when a sizeable group gets together…

Another part of the Catch 22 is that there are so many people who have never experienced the EF. There seems to be a presumption among some who have found a strong attraction to it, that if people were just exposed to it they would come in droves. That may be the case, but all of the work just to get to the point of being able to offer it on a regular basis is weighed against the “If they would just” presumption that this would happen - that people would sign on in droves. For the more sophisticated, the difference in prayers may be the deciding point; but given the state of catechesis, those are few and far in between. I think a more critical point will be how strong attraction the vernacular is in and of itself - or the reverse, how strong an attraction Latin is in and of itself. And that is the Catch 22; until it is offered, we won’t know; but it won’t be offered until we know.

In our parish, I would guess that if it were to be offered at all, it would not be until early to mid afternoon; that in and of itself would probably put off a lot of people. and if people are put off and don’t show, particualrly on a regular basis, well, then, it would appear to have been shown that it did not draw many.

I think that at the base there is a perception that the vernacular has a very strong draw. Whether the perception is correct or not is another issue; but we are back to the same thing; without a perceptible group who want the EF, and given the rest of the issues, it is Catch 22.