Mathematics and Mass: Why the E.F. over the O.F

[aristotle]

I understand this post may offend certain people, and that is not my intent at all. I wish to open up a charitable discussion about the E.F. mass, and the O.F. mass, names aptly given by His Holiness the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI.

Understand, I believe that the Ordinary Form is completely valid, completely licit, and without any theological or disciplinary error. Nevertheless, I believe the Extraordinary Form is preferable, and this is why.

It seems as though if one had two different liturgies (I understand that the E.F. and O.F. are two expressions of the same liturgy, but we will get there in a minute), if we have two liturgies, and if one can be found objectively superior to another, it seems the other would be lacking, either in goodness, beauty or truth. Beauty is difficult to discuss objectively and is a diverse thing, and so will be saved for last. But it seems as if goodness and truth were lacking, the O.F. must contain error. But as it does not, it seems as though both should, at least principally, be considered equal.

My argument is this:

One could decide to celebrate the Ordinary Form with the three readings, or to supplant one of the readings with a well-fashioned mathematics proof. Neither has error, neither is necessarily more beautiful, but one is certainly better for us than another. Both could be licit, if Rome agreed, and both certainly would be valid (the context of the readings would not invalidate the Mass), but both would not be equal.

So I claim that th Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, while each being diverse expressions of the same Rite, are not equal in value, and that, though each must enrich the other, the Ordinary Form will be far more enriched from the Extraordinary Form, than the Extraordinary Form from the Ordinary Form.

And this deals with substance. There is more of substance, more centrality, more focus in the Extraordinary Form than in the Ordinary Form, and more respect for the Mass itself there. This can be seen quite plainly from the fact that many so-called Ordinary Form masses are illicit, the priests and others violating the GIRM left and right. The Extraordinary Form, for all its problems, is far more respected by those who celebrate the Mass in that form. And in my time going from Mass to Mass, the E.F. masses have not erred save by accident from the rubric, whereas some of the O.F. masses had erred to the point where their validity could be questioned.

And the resurgence of the E.F. has seemed to have a wonderful gravitating effect on the O.F., as Father Zuhlsdorf has said many times.

So I contend that, though both forms are valid and licit expressions of the Roman Rite, the Extraordinary Form is closer in its praxis to right faith and right glory than the Ordinary Form is, and will through the Summorum Pontificum enrich greatly the Ordinary Form.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have a PhD in chemistry. I appreciate mathematics and logical proof.

Get out a pad of paper, spend some time in pros and cons, and tell me: which of your children do you love the most?

Or, if you have no children, tell me: which of the sons of the father in the story of the prodigal son did the father love the most?

I do not mean that liturgies are children, or that one liturgy cannot be better than another. I mean that there are some things that are beyond logic, beyond math, beyond science. Most things worth loving fall into that category.

IMHO.

I like the idea that having the two forms of the liturgy actually celebrated in the same diocese allows the two to greatly enhance one another. I hope that they will continue to do so, and will be celebrated with that end in mind.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with it in regards to the particular case of the TLM.

The problem is that you are assuming that the EF contains no negatives, and so any negatives in the OF can’t help but make it of less “value,” or whatever word is appropriate, than the EF.

Let me say at this point I happen to love the EF. I think it is beautiful and has many genuine advantages over the OF.

However, I also think the OF has genuine advantages as well. These are the places where I feel there are negatives in the EF, as I said.

Just a few examples:

• I’ll quote Catholic apologist Matt1618 on this issue. I’ve dealved into it much deeper elsewhere, but he sums the point up well: “The Tridentine decree gave an impression that the sacrifice of bread and wine came during the offertory. Actually there is only one sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ accomplished during the consecration of the elements. Many eminent liturgists even during the days of St. Pius V discussed a reform of the Roman Canon to eliminate a misunderstanding of the meaning of sacrifice. The Tridentine Mass could give an impression that the offering of bread and wine constituted the sacrifice of Christ when it said, for example “We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the Chalice of salvation.” and “Receive O Holy father… this immaculate host which I…offer Thee…,”. This caused some to think that this is when the sacrifice of Christ took place. In actuality, the salvific sacrifice of Christ was on Calvary, and the sacrifice is perpetually renewed on the altar AT THE MOMENT OF CONSECRATION by a validly-ordained priest, and not before. The Council of Trent clearly teaches this (Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist) (Whitehead, 120).” - matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html
• The OF has a much better cycle of readings, which take the faithful through the vast majority of the Scriptures. In the EF, the Old Testament is hardly read at all.
• “Faith comes through hearing,” as St. Paul wrote. Following along with the prayers and readings in a hand missal is ok, but there is also tradition in the Church that Christ speaks to us in a particular way through our hearing His word proclaimed, rather than reading it. In the OF, this is possible, whereas in the EF, it’s not. All of those beautiful and profound prayers lose something in that they cannot be heard by the faithful but must be read.
• The EF does involve a great deal of time where the faithful aren’t really doing anything. They’re watching what’s going on, but in a way much more akin to watching Mass on television than to actually attending it. Certainly one can take the idea of the lay participation in Mass too far, as has been done, and certainly there must be times where the people simply sit and watch as the priest intercedes for them to God, as happens in the OF during the Eucharistic prayers, but if the people are to authentically worship God during the Mass, they need to actually do some worshipping.

In the EF, the people don’t even confess their own sins before Mass! The server does it for them. There are so many of these little things going on where the people don’t really do what the Mass - the EF included - envisions them doing. The people don’t recite the creed in the EF. Now they can, but it’s not a reuquirement - it’s not a formal part of the Mass. The same with the Kyrie. Why not? The purpose of the creed is to respond to the lessons and the sermon by making an act of faith. The purpose of the confetior and the Kyrie is to cleanse the people and to make them holy for the participation in Mass, but these things are done via proxy.

Those are just a few of the points I might bring up. So again, I see your point, and I even love the EF, but it isn’t perfect, and so the sort of argument you’re making doesn’t work.

 

[aristotle]

I have a PhD in chemistry. I appreciate mathematics and logical proof.

I am working on a PhD in Physics. Still far to go.

Get out a pad of paper, spend some time in pros and cons, and tell me: which of your children do you love the most?

Maybe I should love them equally. I certainly wouldn’t get out the maths to determine it (that is, in fact, part of my point; some things may still be licit and true, and still not fit will into the celebration of the Mass).

Maybe I should name one Jacob, and the other Esau… I could say that Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

I do not mean that liturgies are children, or that one liturgy cannot be better than another. I mean that there are some things that are beyond logic, beyond math, beyond science. Most things worth loving fall into that category.

I strongly agree with what you are saying here; I think this is a very good point.

So I would continue on with it. I do not love a liturgy like I love my father. I love Christ like I love my father, and I pray for the grace to love Him more. I express my love for Christ most deeply in the Liturgy, when He most deeply expresses His love for me. So I wish for the liturgy to be excellence in my life, more than my work, more even than my marriage; I wish to express my love for Christ the best way I can.

And this is why this issue is so important for me. I don’t think it’s a matter of taste. Nor even a matter of ``playing favorites’’. I think it is a matter of identity, of honor, and most of all, of love.

I like the idea that having the two forms of the liturgy actually celebrated in the same diocese allows the two to greatly enhance one another. I hope that they will continue to do so, and will be celebrated with that end in mind.

I completely agree. I think this should be true in every diocese, and that both forms will be better for it. But a choice between forms is not like a choice between ketchup and mustard. Nor is it a choice between the Beatles and the Monkeys… there is something far more substantial, far more to do with Catholic identity, than that.

 

[aristotle]

The problem is that you are assuming that the EF contains no negatives, and so any negatives in the OF can’t help but make it of less “value,” or whatever word is appropriate, than the EF.

I think both the EF and the OF have negatives. I simply am saying that the OF is more substantial, especially as it relates to the honor of God, and so will by its nature enrich the OF far more than the converse, though certainly both will occur.

Let me say at this point I happen to love the EF. I think it is beautiful and has many genuine advantages over the OF.

This is all that I am really trying to say, and that these advantages are substantial, so substantial that the EF should be offered alongside the OF in every parish, everywhere, so that the OF can be enriched, the EF shared, and yes, so that the EF itself can be enriched by the OF.

I’ll quote Catholic apologist Matt1618 on this issue… (many words)

I think I agree with this point most of all. For this especially, I would generally agree, at least at this time. Though, as a friend of mine and liturgist has said, there is something important about recognizing the offering of the people as well; we offer ourselves. Balance is key.

The OF has a much better cycle of readings, which take the faithful through the vast majority of the Scriptures. In the EF, the Old Testament is hardly read at all.

This I would disagree with, and along the lines that the Old Testament is widely read, both from the Psalms in Mass, and in the Breviary a good portion of the Old Testament comprises the readings. I would assert that the fewer readings (by one) is better because then the readings are more focused, one doesn’t get left out so easily in homily, and the Scriptures are better learned.

“Faith comes through hearing,” as St. Paul wrote. Following along with the prayers and readings in a hand missal is ok, but there is also tradition in the Church that Christ speaks to us in a particular way through our hearing His word proclaimed, rather than reading it. In the OF, this is possible, whereas in the EF, it’s not.

This also I’m going to have to take issue with. Partly because I believe a vernacular EF should exist at some point, and also because the OF is offered in Latin. Also, partly, because we do hear the words, and we should take the time to study and understand them. When I go to a Latin Mass, I do not need to follow the Missal over many of the prayers. I understand them. And the richness is that I understand them in a ``dead’’ language, which is to say a language that cannot die, because it does not change; because no one speaks it, it is universal.

Nevertheless, a good point is made; there is a catechetical advantage to the Mass being offered in the vernacular. The Byzantine Catholics do it, and their Divine Liturgy is wonderful. I think that the EF should be celebrated also in the vernacular. But not just yet.

The EF does involve a great deal of time where the faithful aren’t really doing anything.

And this is one of the things I think the OF can learn from the EF. Into Great Silence'', the documentary, illustrated it well. Silence, the not doing anything’’, is what happens in any worthy conversation. I wish to speak, to say that I love God, to show Him my love in my genuflection, in my song. But I also should be silent, so that I can hear and contemplate, when God offers to me, in that still silent wind, His words, that He loves me.

Not doing anything but contemplating and listening is a part of prayer that seems so foreign in our world, but for that is so much more important.

And the difference between being at Mass and watching it on television, even for the portions where there is no participation beyond listening, is being there. There is nothing richer than actually being in the presence of God.

I’ve seen a lot of the speeches by the Pope on TV. I wish so much I could have gone to see him. Wouldn’t have had to have said anything. I just wish I could have been there. Every Mass, I get to be with the God to whom the Pope is a small and humble vicar. How often I forget.

In the EF, the people don’t even confess their own sins before Mass! The server does it for them.

A note on this, any words the server says (save for a few small exceptions), the people are welcome to say as well, either softly upon their lips, or in the voice of their hearts.

The people don’t recite the creed in the EF. Now they can, but it’s not a reuquirement - it’s not a formal part of the Mass. The same with the Kyrie. Why not?

I agree with you here! This is a sad problem with some celebrations of the EF, much like communion in the hand is a sad problem with some celebrations of the OF. People really should say these things, as Pope St. Pius X said, “you do not pray at Mass, you pray the Mass.”

The purpose of the creed is to respond to the lessons and the sermon by making an act of faith. The purpose of the confetior and the Kyrie is to cleanse the people and to make them holy for the participation in Mass, but these things are done via proxy

And shouldn’t be.

Those are just a few of the points I might bring up. So again, I see your point, and I even love the EF, but it isn’t perfect, and so the sort of argument you’re making doesn’t work.

I’m not so sure (at least about the argument). My argument isn’t that one is perfect, and the other is not, but that both have things to work on, and that the EF is richer. So there is more need for the EF to be at every parish, even than for the OF to be at every parish.

But thank you for your rich comments; they have given me something to consider with more care.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

whats wrong w/ this proof? (gotta love this one)

a = b
a^2 = ab
subtract b^2 on each side
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
factor
(a+b)(a-b) = b*(a-b)
canceling the (a-b) on each side
=> a+b = b
=> 2*b = b
=> 2 = 1

 

[aristotle]

whats wrong w/ this proof? (gotta love this one)

a = b
a^2 = ab
subtract b^2 on each side
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
factor
(a+b)(a-b) = b*(a-b)
canceling the (a-b) on each side
=> a+b = b
=> 2*b = b
=> 2 = 1

Dividing by zero. In the process of cancelling you divide.

Dividing by zero is fine, so long as you are careful about it (and know what function is tending where how fast). But it cannot be done blindly (it is the same as multiplying by infinity).

A very good illustration, though, of the power of dividing by zero! And of the way in which it can be hidden.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Aristotle, I think your comments were very balanced and I really appreicate that.

I really only want to respond to one thing you said, which is in regard to the silent prayer.

I wrote this regarding the EF some time ago. It’s imperfect, and I would phrase it differently now, but nevertheless it will illustrate my core point:

There are two sides to this issue. On the one hand, all of the time the celebrant spends “on his own” in the rite of Pius V lends itself wonderfully to prayer. This is very profound, and certainly greatly desirable. On the other hand, that prayer is a prayer which is in a certain sense detached from the Mass itself. While the participation of the Pauline rite can be taken too far or overdone, I believe that at its core, the idea of bringing the faithful into a more “focused” - for lack of a better term - worship in the Mass is a good thing. Understanding that they are written for God, not the faithful, nevertheless all of those profoundly beautiful prayers I wrote about earlier do lose something when most of the people aren’t paying attention to them.

There is plenty of time in life for personal prayer. I do not believe that the Mass is one of them. The Mass is the Mass, and it ought to be treated with the greatest reverence and attention, not the distraction, disattention, or indirect involvement of the faithful that the rite of Pius V so easily lends itself to.

The Mass shouldn’t be a time for personal one on one time with God. It shouldn’t be a time for praying which is in any way detached from the Mass itself. In the Mass, worship and sacrifice are being offered to God, in various ways. It’s a very focused, very “narrow” prayer. In the OF, the people are constantly paying attention to the prayers being offered to God, and in some cases are joining in those prayers with their response.

In the EF, there is a great deal of time when the priest is offering prayers which the people are not able to hear, and which they do not “join in” in any way - that is, by responding, assenting with an Amen, etc. The priest is offering the Mass, while the people are waiting in silence. It doesn’t lend itself well to the people praying the Mass, as Pius X said in your quotation. It lends itself well to the people doing some of the praying they ought to be doing during the rest of the day.

Now this is especially true when we consider one of the traditionalists greatest reasons for liking the EF - the clear and unambiguous presentation of the priest as intercessor acting in persona Christi. I have seen objections to the OF of many pertinent varieties, but one in paticular illustrates the point well: criticisms of the concelebrations which are common in the OF. Proponents of the EF say that it obscures the role of the single priest acting as intercessor in persona Christi.

Now to bring this back to the point, in the EF all that silent time that lends itself to prayer while the priest is doing other things creates an extreme rupture in this reality that the priest is the intercessor for the people, offering the Mass on their behalf. It creates a sitution where the priest is offering the Mass, and no matter what else the people could be praying would be detatched from this sole intercessor who is occupied with totally unrelated things.

In the OF, the people have their times of silence, but these are times in which they are really supposed to be watching as the priest makes his offering to God. This is, consequently, why I dislike the silent Canon of the EF. It in a very particular way takes away from that role of the priest as the sole intercessor, because as he offers the pre-eminent intercession of the entire Mass, the people are left to pray on their own without even the ability to watch, listen, and really in at least one sense revere that act. The rest of the OF, the people are always engaged in listening to the prayers, responding to God in the Creed or the Psalm, or joining their prayers to those of the priest in the general interecessions, or such things.

Does this make sense?

 

[EasterJoy]

I completely agree. I think this should be true in every diocese, and that both forms will be better for it. But a choice between forms is not like a choice between ketchup and mustard. Nor is it a choice between the Beatles and the Monkeys… there is something far more substantial, far more to do with Catholic identity, than that.

No, you are right. It is deeply personal, but it is not simply a matter of taste. I think it is more like marrying this woman instead of that one. Both are your sisters in Christ, equal in dignity, but one has the particular vocation of travelling with you to Heaven. Nor should the sins of a woman’s suitors be made out to be a reflection on her holiness!

It is not exactly like that, because of course the relationship is not exclusive, but it is a lot like that. Maybe it is more like having been given this mother or this teacher instead of another.

I mean that our brothers and sisters should not be discouraged from having a particular devotion to one form or from recognizing the gift they have been given in loving it so much, but they should be discouraged from letting their devotion to and even their indebtedness to the one allow them to disparage the other. So perhaps the two forms are more like angels, each with a mission to help us in ways particular to our needs. Of course you love the angels who open heaven to you the most! There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[tcraig]

And this deals with substance. There is more of substance, more centrality, more focus in the Extraordinary Form than in the Ordinary Form, and more respect for the Mass itself there. This can be seen quite plainly from the fact that many so-called Ordinary Form masses are illicit, the priests and others violating the GIRM left and right. The Extraordinary Form, for all its problems, is far more respected by those who celebrate the Mass in that form. And in my time going from Mass to Mass, the E.F. masses have not erred save by accident from the rubric, whereas some of the O.F. masses had erred to the point where their validity could be questioned.

I bolded those two sentences because I think they illustrate the major differences that are seen between the two masses - and it has a lot to do with the priest and the congregation.

I used to attend a NO mass on a military post. It wasn’t our first preference, but occasionally my husband worked odd hours and this mass was at an odd time, so we would attend it when necessary so that we could all attend mass as a family.

Originally we had a priest that was “anything goes” when it came to the liturgy. He was deeply spiritual, and gave good, orthodox sermons, but he just didn’t seem to think that obeying the rubrics of the mass was a priority. This trickled down to everyone who attended that mass. The choir was kind of crazy and sung at odd places, and people would wander in an out of mass like it was a social meeting. Cell phones rang constantly.

Then we got a new priest. He followed the rubrics exactly and reigned the choir in. His first sermon was a “straighten up and act like adults” type of sermon. No more cell phones. If you’re over the age of six, he shouldn’t see you wandering out to use the restroom in the middle of mass or to get a drink of water (a huge problem, half the congregation seemed to be walking in or out of the church at any given time during mass). Wear adult clothing. Etc., etc.

Same priest, same congregation. But the difference was remarkable. A mass that we had always been reluctant to attend became a joy.

Now take your typical TLM congregation. Most parishioners are drawn from many different parishes in the diocese, some even coming from out-of-state. These are orthodox Catholics, the “wheat” so to speak of many different parishes, who are now congregated at one mass. No “chaff”. If a priest deliberately strayed from the rubrics he’d hear it in a heartbeat.

So at a TLM you have a very potent combination - committed priest and committed parishioners. I think that primarily accounts for the respect and focus that many who attend the TLM comment on.

 

[puzzleannie]

one could have this discussion comparing say the Latin Rite liturgy and the Eastern Rite and conclusions drawn by OP would be just as inaccurate and mistaken because his premises would be just as faulty.

 

[ProVobis]

Dividing by zero. In the process of cancelling you divide.

Two problems for you to solve:

1. Differentiate x^x
2. Integrate e^x^2

I had a PhD in math have a tough time with 2.

Good discussion on mathematics and how it relates to the different forms. It has me thinking a little bit.

 

[ProVobis]

1. Differentiate x^x

Here’s a hint: x = e ^ ln x

---

And God said E = mc^2, and there was light.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Nevertheless, I believe the Extraordinary Form is preferable, and this is why.

Then why not simply go to the Extraordinary Form? Why do we continue to have these divisive discussions? The axes surely have been ground down to shadows of their former selves by now.

 

[ProVobis]

aristotle;3664643:

Nevertheless, I believe the Extraordinary Form is preferable, and this is why.

Then why not simply go to the Extraordinary Form? Why do we continue to have these divisive discussions? The axes surely have been ground down to shadows of their former selves by now.

Jkirk, this thread reminds me of John Nash (ever see the movie “A Beautiful Mind”?) where John sees mathematics in everything, be it the way birds gather around to eat, or the way a touch football game is played, or how to pick up girls at a bar. So why not start a thread comparing the two forms of the same rite? Mathematics isn’t intended to be divisive.

 

[SenorSalsa]

The only problem with your argument is that all of the so called “problems” with the O.F that you list are actually problems with the people at the Mass, not the Mass. And like somebody pointed out earlier, the reason the E.F. isnt like that is becuase it isnt your run of the mill, im here becuase i ahve to be, catholics going to the EF.

I bet that if the E.F. was the main form, and the O.F was the rarity, the situation would be exactly flipped of what it is now. Priests would get lazy at the E.F., and rubrics would begin to be broken. And becuase Churches would be filled with your everyday lackluster Catholics, they would continue, and us few that care would go just as unheard as now

 

[ProVobis]

I bet that if the E.F. was the main form, and the O.F was the rarity, the situation would be exactly flipped of what it is now. Priests would get lazy at the E.F., and rubrics would begin to be broken.

Do you have mathematical proof of this?

 

[SenorSalsa]

x=OF
y=EF
z=mistakes

x=z
x=y(due to the switch to the main form)
therefore y=z (transitive property)

and if you want another example of why math is sneaky,

x=.99999(repeating)
10x=9.99999(repeating)
10x-x=9.99999-.99999
9x=9
x=1
therefore .9(repeating)=1

also 1/3=.33333
31/3=1 .3333=.9999

1/9=.111 2/9=.2222 3/9=.333…9/9=.999?

kudos if someone can point out why this doesnt work. I mean we all learned in third grade that this is how you make repeating decimals into fractions. And i will tell you that they are not equal.

 

[GemmaRose]

… Now take your typical TLM congregation. Most parishioners are drawn from many different parishes in the diocese, some even coming from out-of-state. These are orthodox Catholics, the “wheat” so to speak of many different parishes, who are now congregated at one mass. No “chaff”. If a priest deliberately strayed from the rubrics he’d hear it in a heartbeat. …

If I have misinterpreted this paragraph, then I apologize in advance.

Are you saying that those of us who do not attend TLM are the chaff ? That we are any less Catholic than you?

If this is what you meant, then all I have to say in reply can be found in the 23rd Chapter of Matthew.

 

[Lazerlike42]

If I have misinterpreted this paragraph, then I apologize in advance.

Are you saying that those of us who do not attend TLM are the chaff ? That we are any less Catholic than you?

If this is what you meant, then all I have to say in reply can be found in the 23rd Chapter of Matthew.

No, he’s rejecting that viewpoint.

It is often argued that the EF is better than the OF because there is much greater reverance at it and people are paying more attention to Mass.

The point that was made was that this can be accounted for because whenever you have an EF Mass, you have a unique situation of only those being there who really want to be there. People have traveled for miles from all around to go to the EF Mass. Everyone there is very focused on his or her faith, or they wouldn’t be there.

On the other hand, at your average OF Mass, you have some devout, faithful people and a lot of folks that are there just for the sake of their family traditions, or cultural reasons, and stuff like that. These people arer the “chaff” he was referring to. For every person like me in Mass that is paying attention and reverantly participating, you have 10 others that are just there because they’re used to going or something and who are not participating in that way.

The point was that the OF is not necessarily less reverant than the EF, but the EF seems to be because only reverant and devout people are attending and none of the “don’t really care” sort of people are.