Need evidence that the OF and the EF are equally efficacious?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FNDRB58
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FNDRB58

Guest
Need help gaining some documentation…

Has the Magisterium stated that the Ordinary Form Mass and the Extraordinary Form Mass are equally efficacious? I need some evidence of this as I am debating a Catholic who will only attend an EF Mass because she says it is more efficacious.

Thanks.
 
The answer to your questions is “yes”, they are equally efficacious. I recommend reading Pope Benedict XVI Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum in which he states in part: “Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”

It is not uncommon for individuals who prefer the EF to speak in negative terms of the OF, or even deny its validity. Should they hold such an opinion, they are not in the mind of the Church.
 
Is there a reason why you submitted a duplicate thread again on this same topic (here)? You received the “evidence” you asked for in previous responses, so it puzzles me why you ask again for the same information?
 
I think this is being approached backwards. Why isn’t it equally efficacious?

Is the Mass of Pius V more efficacious that the Eastern Liturgy of St. John Crysysdom? Or the Maronite Qurbono? These are both valid liturgies, in which the Eucharist can be confected as long as the form, matter, and orders of the celebrant are valid (the same as the Mass).
 
Hello TM21.
tm21 said:
The answer to your questions is “yes”, they are equally efficacious. I recommend reading Pope Benedict XVI Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum in which he states in part: “Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”

It is not uncommon for individuals who prefer the EF to speak in negative terms of the OF, or even deny its validity. Should they hold such an opinion, they are not in the mind of the Church.
Click to expand...
Very nice answer.

To the OP, here is a way for you to answer your own question: attend another rite, say the Byzantine or the Armenian and see for yourself if it is just as “efficacious” as the NO and the EF you’ve already been to. I think perhaps the real issues are personal preferences rather than how much grace you think is available to you by attending. God is not limited by human wisdom in the Rites themselves.

As for every layperson attending any Mass in any Rite, they will get out of it what they put into it and if a person isn’t in a state of grace they won’t get much of anything at all except a peek in the window of what God wills for them. Some remain blind to it.

Every Mass is an grace filled occasion and our own participation can be limited greatly if we are there only to criticize and judge whether or not the actual Mass is as it should be. This is just as true for those who attend the NO looking for “liturgical abuses” of every kind and are busy about critiquing the Priest’s observance of the rubrics and the hymns used and the general level of reverence in the crowds etc., ad nauseum, as it is for those who attend an EF Mass looking for the same thing or are busy in their thoughts about how much “better” that Mass is then any other and/or how much better they are for going to it.

The devil distracts in many ways and he’d just love it if you went to Mass to criticize and judge and throw stones, till you are filled with contempt for God’s own Liturgy and fall into serious sin this way. Please be careful when you judge for it is God’s own House you are judging and if all His Minister’s aren’t to your liking, then suffer along with the rest of us. But do not give the devil his opportunity to separate you from His Church. It does happen.

Oh well, I’ve said enough.

Glenda
 
A better approach would be to ask them what their evidence is to support such a silly claim that one form of the Mass is more “efficacious” than another. Magisterial documents only, please. 😉
 
Sirach2 said:
Is there a reason why you submitted a duplicate thread again on this same topic (here)? You received the “evidence” you asked for in previous responses, so it puzzles me why you ask again for the same information?
Click to expand...
I received your PM stating that the two thread topics were not the same. However, you did receive answers very early in your original thread. [In case you forgot] Fr. David provided the Vatican explanation in post #4, to which you replied that you could not find evidence therein. The answer was given clearly by JM3 in post #12. So why is it necessary to look any further?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11974998&postcount=4
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11975612&postcount=12
Originally Posted by FNDRB58
Well, I read it, but apparently am not very smart…where in that document does it talk about how one form is just as efficacious as the new?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top