If you could, what changes if any would you make to the Ordinary Form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter giuseppe96
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you mean? The Latin consubstantialem translates, literally, as ‘one in being with’…
 
Evidently they missed Patri being in the dative case: TO the Father.

But no one understands the concept anyway.
 
Yes, I just now read that the original Nicene Creed was written in Greek, not Latin…how did I not know this? 🤣
 
I went to Latin Mass from birth to 12 years old. I knew what consubstantial meant. We didn’t have to have the Mass simplified.
 
The Latin version inserted the Filioque among other things so it was different.
 
Last edited:
With everything going on right now, I would return to praying the St. Michael prayer at the end of every Mass.
 
Times were different then.

In our city, only 17% of 3rd graders are able to read at grade-level.

Many kids never read anything other than their social media.

And most importantly, many Catholics are NOT at Mass from birth to age 12, and many Catholic children do NOT attend parish schools where they are taught the basics of their faith the history of their Church, the meaning of the Mass, or the layout of the Bible.

I am a college-educated woman, and I think the term “consubstantial” is kind of over most of our heads.

The Bible teaches a principle that I think is worth remembering–“precept upon precept.” This means that people have to start at the beginning when learning anything, and then they can add more difficult concepts to their knowledge as they understand the easier concepts.

When bringing up a child, we don’t teach the child “photosynthesis” until we have first taught them “pretty flower.”

I think that considering how many Catholics deny True Presence and don’t even know the most basic tenets of their Catholic faith, it would be best to “start at the very beginning.”
 
What I personally miss most are the communion rails and kneeling and receiving Jesus on my tongue

Patrick
 
I’m new to all this, but I’d really like mass to be ad orientem. For a while all our masses were this way due to work being done. It was marvelous. I also wish there was more chant and polyphony.
 
It is more difficult to celebrate ad orientum now because in many churches they have confused the symbolism by building all the churches facing the wrong direction. Currently the Priest faces East, and we the people have our backs turned. Of course they will say, but you are facing the cross, but then of course the priest is not. Benedict the XVI tried to get around this by having yet another cross on the altar. A lot of symbolism and tradition has been dispensed of in the name of architecture. This is very unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
Why isn’t it available? For one thing in most places the churches are not set-up properly for them. I started a small movement to bring the EF to our Parish. After a little while a friend of mine who was part of a a Latin Mass Society pointed out that our Church was built such that the parishioners face the Priest, and the altar was facing the wrong direction for the rubrics. Older Churches can be converted back, but newer “modern” churches like ours are stuck in the OF. The Priest faces east (correct), but we face west (incorrect).
 
Couldn’t the priest stand on the opposite side of the altar in order to celebrate ad orientem? My parish used to do it that way before the FSSP priest moved to a new EF exclusive parish. Of course it’s a much older building (around 70 years old).
 
JohnQPublic said:
It is more difficult to celebrate ad orientum now because in many churches they have confused the symbolism by building all the churches facing the wrong direction. Currently the Priest faces East, and we the people have our backs turned. Of course they will say, but you are facing the cross, but then of course the priest is not. Benedict the XVI tried to get around this by having yet another cross on the altar. A lot of symbolism and tradition has been dispensed of in the name of architecture. This is very unfortunate.
Click to expand...
In point of fact, no matter the orientation of the Church, even with versus populum celebration, everyone, priest included, faces the consecrated Eucharist, and hence Christ Himself, on the altar.
 
This is an important point, many churches have been designed with OF in mind. My parish is a newer building and it is beautiful but has many design oddities.

For instance, the tabernacle is off to the side and not on the altar. The altar is in the center of a raised area, it could be celebrated ad orientem but behind the altar, elevated, are the chairs for the celebrant and deacon. So the highest thing on the altar is not the actual altar but the chairs for the celebrant! Think about the message that sends, Jesus is off to the side, and the highest thing is man. That’s clericalism! OF makes man the focus, not Jesus!
 
Last edited:
I would probably just follow the “suggestions” and “recommendations” skipped by many of our diocesan priests today. I would also only use the Roman Canon as it is the only Eucharistic prayer that can be traced to the disciples. I would also have no one in the congregation raise their hands for the our father or for the “sursum corda” part of the mass considering this is something the priest does to collect our prayers and turn and give them to God (the mass being celebrated Ad Orientem of course to continue with the traditions that were ambiguously implied after VII but not enforced. I would have no communion standing (for those able to kneel) nor would I give communion in the hand considering this results in many particles of the Eucharist being thrown about, never to be found and I feel as if this is something very irreverent and lazy. This is all for this current post but there are also little things here and there that would be nice to change too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top