OF Mass advocates - please help

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveGC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SteveGC

Guest
2007 convert. Never been to an EF Mass. Recent events in my life have led me to a strong concern regarding the OF. Strong desire to slowly transition my family over to the EF. I do not wish to go against forum rules and bash OF, or pit EF against it. I fully get and accept the fact that the OF is a valid form. And I emphasize that I do not feel that EF proponents are better, or more holy, Catholics than OF proponents, based on their respective preferences. A reverent OF is a thing of beauty in many respects.

But I request to hear from OF proponents their opinions on why they do not prefer the EF, or if they are neutral on the issue, what they find in the OF that compels them to remain with that form. Please respond in light of the following concerns I have, which I think are issues that exist in most parishes in the U.S.:
  • The priest now facing the congregation, and if/how that strengthens your understanding of the role of the priest
  • No Holy Communion kneelers and the widespread utilization of CITH, and if/how CITH strengthens your reverence of the True Presence
  • The widespread custom of holding hands during the Lord’s prayer, and how doing so (if you do) helps you connect with the intent of this part of Mass
  • The absence of Gregorian chant, and/or the more abundant selections with booming organ melodies, clap-along selections, and the emphasis on singing along as a group (does this music help you pray?)
  • The occasional “lay speaker” who addresses the congregation (with the subjects of stewardship promotion, charity work, diocesan appeal) after a short “homily” from the priest, and how this timing for a lay talk seems appropriate to you, or serves a purpose in the flow of the liturgy
  • The removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary
  • The inclination of parishioners to remain in the pews and socialize right after Mass
Lastly, please realize that it would be much more practical for my family to remain at our current neighborhood parish. I don’t want to leave this parish. But I am growing uneasy over the above issues, none of which are abuses obviously. I am fortunate to not have to deal with what others out there apparently deal with in the form of disgusting and blatant liturgical abuses. So I do appreciate that my parish does not seem to be inclined toward obscene practices…I do pray that they never are. I am hoping for some insight from OF proponents on why the above things are actually beneficial and inline with the purpose of the Mass, so that I may learn something about the beauty of the OF which I may be missing. Thanks in advance for your help.
 
Both forms of the Mass are great. Do not waste your time trying to get people to convince you one way or the other. Just get your family to experience both forms, be thankful to God for both of them being available in your area, and then as a family pick the one that fits you the best. I have the privilege of having access to at least 4 different forms/Liturgies and I love all of them; however, because of different constraints I tend to attend the OF more often but that does not mean that it is the one that I would pick first at all times.
 
Cristiano said:
Both forms of the Mass are great. Do not waste your time trying to get people to convince you one way or the other. Just get your family to experience both forms, be thankful to God for both of them being available in your area, and then as a family pick the one that fits you the best. I have the privilege of having access to at least 4 different forms/Liturgies and I love all of them; however, because of different constraints I tend to attend the OF more often but that does not mean that it is the one that I would pick first at all times.
Click to expand...
👍
 
I do want to point out a beautiful thing about the OF that is in not in the EF. That is the richness of the Liturgy of the Word.
  1. OF- 3 year cycle vs EF - one year cycle
  2. OF - a third reading usually from the OT vs EF - two readings with none from OT
  3. OF - we usually hear these readings in our native tongure vs EF- readings in Latin.
 
None of the criticisms about the OF mass in the OP are related to the form of the Mass. I attend a very reverent OF mass with Gregorian chant. Granted it’s a Benedictine monastery but still, it shows that it is possible to have an OF Mass that for the untrained, it would be hard to distinguish from the EF.
 
JoanREDirector said:
I do want to point out a beautiful thing about the OF that is in not in the EF. That is the richness of the Liturgy of the Word.
  1. OF- 3 year cycle vs EF - one year cycle
  2. OF - a third reading usually from the OT vs EF - two readings with none from OT
  3. OF - we usually hear these readings in our native tongure vs EF- readings in Latin.
Click to expand...
I realized this when I’m looking at the Liturgies in the East which has preserved ancient practices better than the West. The Divine Liturgy is similar to the EF that has one Epistle reading and then the Gospel. There are also Psalms, but not really OT readings. The reason. There are Vespers and Matins that provide the other readings, including OT readings. In the past, all these were attended by the faithful as one entire Eucharistic celebration.
 
I’m going to be frank here. If the OP was a new poster, he would be branded a troll.

Obviously he’s not, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s asked a bunch of loaded questions. I’m sure that the OP is being sincere, but for the sake of all of our sanities I want to suggest that we don’t touch any of these.

All of these questions could be spun off into their own thread and everyone here knows that we will argue around in circles on all of them. You can argue any of them from a theological, pastoral, historical, or even an emotional angle and they will clash. There’s just no point getting into it with each other.

Unless we all agree that everyone will just give their own responses and no one is going to go at it with others for their responses (this includes the OP; what I mean is that we turn this more into a survey without commentary), then we should drop this. Otherwise, it will not turn out well. We all know that.
 
OraLabora said:
None of the criticisms about the OF mass in the OP are related to the form of the Mass. I attend a very reverent OF mass with Gregorian chant. Granted it’s a Benedictine monastery but still, it shows that it is possible to have an OF Mass that for the untrained, it would be hard to distinguish from the EF.
Click to expand...
The fact that the OF was less strict in the rubrics allowed these abuses/bad practices (in case I don’t get yelled at for not being perfectly precise) to crawl in in the first place. It’s simply not possible to have these inventions in the EF.
 
SteveGC said:
2007 convert. Never been to an EF Mass. Recent events in my life have led me to a strong concern regarding the OF. Strong desire to slowly transition my family over to the EF. I do not wish to go against forum rules and bash OF, or pit EF against it. I fully get and accept the fact that the OF is a valid form. And I emphasize that I do not feel that EF proponents are better, or more holy, Catholics than OF proponents, based on their respective preferences. A reverent OF is a thing of beauty in many respects.

But I request to hear from OF proponents their opinions on why they do not prefer the EF, or if they are neutral on the issue, what they find in the OF that compels them to remain with that form. Please respond in light of the following concerns I have, which I think are issues that exist in most parishes in the U.S.:
  • The priest now facing the congregation, and if/how that strengthens your understanding of the role of the priest
    I don’t like the idea of it, personally. It’s true that priests faced the people for the first few centuries, but celebrating ad orientem has been a long-standing tradition in the Latin church, and truly emphasises the role of the priest at the very best.
  • No Holy Communion kneelers and the widespread utilization of CITH, and if/how CITH strengthens your reverence of the True Presence
    Personally, I don’t like CITH at all. I have only been a confirmed Catholic for several months, but have never received Holy Communion in the hand. I think Holy Communion on the tounge, if possible kneeling, encourages much greater reverence for the Eucharist.
  • The widespread custom of holding hands during the Lord’s prayer, and how doing so (if you do) helps you connect with the intent of this part of Mass
    No, that’s a discouraged practice and some people call it an abuse. I have never done it, or experienced it at a big extent. I mainly just see families holding hands sometimes.
  • The absence of Gregorian chant, and/or the more abundant selections with booming organ melodies, clap-along selections, and the emphasis on singing along as a group (does this music help you pray?)
    This type of music isn’t played at my parish, and I don’t think I have experienced it anywhere else so far. We are starting to bring in some Gregorian Chant, but yes, the absence of it for 40-50 years was a huge loss for the Latin Church.
  • The occasional “lay speaker” who addresses the congregation (with the subjects of stewardship promotion, charity work, diocesan appeal) after a short “homily” from the priest, and how this timing for a lay talk seems appropriate to you, or serves a purpose in the flow of the liturgy
    Never experienced this. Just announcements at the end of Mass.
  • The removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary
    Huge mistake. They need to be put back behind the altar.
  • The inclination of parishioners to remain in the pews and socialize right after Mass
    Annoying as anything, but I am a hypocrite. I get very annoyed at people who talk loudly in the Church after Mass, but I always respond to people who talk to me. I also talk to the priest up the front if I need help with something.
Lastly, please realize that it would be much more practical for my family to remain at our current neighborhood parish. I don’t want to leave this parish. But I am growing uneasy over the above issues, none of which are abuses obviously. I am fortunate to not have to deal with what others out there apparently deal with in the form of disgusting and blatant liturgical abuses. So I do appreciate that my parish does not seem to be inclined toward obscene practices…I do pray that they never are. I am hoping for some insight from OF proponents on why the above things are actually beneficial and inline with the purpose of the Mass, so that I may learn something about the beauty of the OF which I may be missing. Thanks in advance for your help.
Click to expand...
Most people like the OF because of the vernacular, I am guessing. Or more ‘involvement’ from the laity. The truth of the matter is, however, that most of the practices and inventions that most OF parishes experienced post-Vatican II were never actually mandated by the council, such as the removal of Latin (the opposite of what Vatican II actually said).

I like the EF in this regard because the rubrics are so strict they don’t allow for such monumental abuses that the OF had to deal with post-Vatican II (The biggies, not the ones listed above).
 
SteveGC said:
  • The priest now facing the congregation, and if/how that strengthens your understanding of the role of the priest
Click to expand...
I really feel like this would be a non-issue if the priest would say the prayers as mandated, allowing us to ignore the priest as man, and focus on the sacrifice being made.
  • No Holy Communion kneelers and the widespread utilization of CITH, and if/how CITH strengthens your reverence of the True Presence
Click to expand...
Non-issue. COTT is allowed in all Masses in the OF.
  • The widespread custom of holding hands during the Lord’s prayer, and how doing so (if you do) helps you connect with the intent of this part of Mass.
Click to expand...
Non-issue. It’s illicit, don’t do it.
  • The absence of Gregorian chant, and/or the more abundant selections with booming organ melodies, clap-along selections, and the emphasis on singing along as a group (does this music help you pray?)
Click to expand...
It helps me pray if I know what I’m saying. Remember, in the EF, the priest is supposed to be very good at Latin and know what he is praying.
  • The occasional “lay speaker” who addresses the congregation (with the subjects of stewardship promotion, charity work, diocesan appeal) after a short “homily” from the priest, and how this timing for a lay talk seems appropriate to you, or serves a purpose in the flow of the liturgy
Click to expand...
Virtual non-issue. I don’t remember the last time I witnessed this.
  • The removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary.
Click to expand...
Non-issue. The focus should be on the sacrifice taking place on the altar, not on the Blessed Sacrament already in the tabernacle. Reserving the Blessed Sacrament is a concession to the practical need of bringing Holy Communion to the homebound, not specifically for our adoration in the church.
  • The inclination of parishioners to remain in the pews and socialize right after Mass.
Click to expand...
You’ve got a good point here. The nave and sanctuary should be reserved for worship, not socialization.
 
[edited]

To answer the OP’s question–I never took much notice of some of these things until I came to CAF and started to read the endless list of complaints. Some people have a field day here, and call just about anything an abuse, even if it’s permitted. It can become very negative and it was making me very critical at my perfectly reverent OF Mass and taking my mind off of Christ. That was a bad thing that I had to correct.

I prefer the OF for perfectly legitimate reasons, but the EF was the form I grew up under and I have respect for that tradition. I like the Liturgy in the vernacular. Period. I like the expanded cycle of readings, and I like the homiletics better than before. When I grew up there was very little preaching on the events in the Bible. Our priests are very good about preaching on the readings and applying them to our lives, which is what a homily is supposed to do.

I like the active, vocal participation at Mass. I like the music and the singing–some of which is admittedly better than others. I take Communion on the tongue–that is not a problem. I don’t feel any more reverent than when I took it in the hand–I sometimes take it in the hand.
I also like what seems to be a friendlier atmosphere than what was present in my younger years. The whole thing just suits me better, and I have learned to ignore some things that I don’t like because they aren’t really abuses and are just my preference–like holding hands during the Our Father.

Now that I have answered you questions I think you should ask yourself if you are being affected by the negative attitudes and complaints on the forums. If so, that is not a reason to switch, you have to examine things and ask yourself why didn’t they bother you before?
 
SteveGC said:
Lastly, please realize that it would be much more practical for my family to remain at our current neighborhood parish. I don’t want to leave this parish.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to talk about the Mass. I’m going to ask you if it is worth having your family leave a parish where they probably have friends, many of whom live in your neighborhood and shop in the same grocery stores as you.

Are you involved in parish life? Do you have friends at Church, people whom you are involved in ministry with and who pray for you and you for them? If not, then maybe the impracticality of driving to a parish further away would be worth it.

For me personally, I would be extremely saddened to leave the friends I have at my Church, people who’s kids’ baptism I have been to and who I have prayed with when their husband died and wife left them. I would hate to leave my priests and deacons, people whom have help me similarly.

One may be fully engaged in the Mass, but I think one is missing out a major part of our Church if they don’t have an active parish life.
-Tim-
 
CB_Catholic said:
No, but having been raised in the EF, I can tell you that there are other bad practices that crept in. There have been bad practices in both Masses, although liturgical abuse is less likely in the EF. And what some people consider abuses in the OF are not abuses.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I didn’t say abuses didn’t happen in the EF. I said that monumental abuses took place in the OF, and sometimes still do, that are so bad they can invalidate the Mass. Compare the abuse of a few prayers removed from the EF celebration, and the priest con celebrating with all the congregation at the altar at an OF.

I think you get what I’m saying.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I realized this when I’m looking at the Liturgies in the East which has preserved ancient practices better than the West. The Divine Liturgy is similar to the EF that has one Epistle reading and then the Gospel. There are also Psalms, but not really OT readings. The reason. There are Vespers and Matins that provide the other readings, including OT readings. In the past, all these were attended by the faithful as one entire Eucharistic celebration.
Click to expand...
At least in the Byzantine (I’m not familiarr with other eastern) the weekday Liturgy has the OT cycle during the weekday liturgies, and not necessarrily just one–one of the Holy Week liturgies has four.

hawk
 
quote=SteveGC;8665476]2007- The widespread custom of holding hands during the Lord’s prayer, and how doing so (if you do) helps you connect with the intent of this part of Mass
    • The occasional “lay speaker” who addresses the congregation (with the subjects of stewardship promotion, charity work, diocesan appeal) after a short “homily” from the priest, and how this timing for a lay talk seems appropriate to you, or serves a purpose in the flow of the liturgy
  • The removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary
  • The inclination of parishioners to remain in the pews and socialize right after Mass
Click to expand...
none of these are inherently part of Mass in the Ordinary Form so should not be considered in the discussion

if you want to discuss ways in which the OF differs from the EF and how these may or may not influence a person’s reasons for prefering one or the other fine, but bringing up irrelevancies that are not part of the OF is not going to shed light on that question.
 
MartyrForJesus said:
I said that monumental abuses took place in the OF, and sometimes still do, that are so bad they can invalidate the Mass.
Click to expand...
What does it take to “invalidate the mass?”

Are there church teachings on this or is it opinion?
 
MartyrForJesus said:
Yes, but I didn’t say abuses didn’t happen in the EF. I said that monumental abuses took place in the OF, and sometimes still do, that are so bad they can invalidate the Mass. Compare the abuse of a few prayers removed from the EF celebration, and the priest con celebrating with all the congregation at the altar at an OF.

I think you get what I’m saying.
Click to expand...
I would not even get involved in these type of threads. They don’t turn out well for traditionalists.

Better to let the OF “advocates” answer as the OP requested.
 
[edited]

According to the FishEaters definition, I am not a traditionalist. I simply love the traditions of the faith, and the Traditional Latin Mass. I prefer it to the OF. I attend the OF more than I do the EF, twice a week OF once a week EF (Lately I have started going sometimes twice a week).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top