Pros and cons of both EF and of form OF of the mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter redrosetea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

redrosetea

Guest
There are things I like about both…I wish I could take the best of both and combine them

I like the fact that Fr now faces us, instead of having his back to us…It is much more meaningful for me

I love the Latin and miss it, I especially miss the chants. I don’t think much of most of our hymns…and they are not sung very well in my opinion

I hope we get back some of our beautiful traditional music…I would love to hear a bit of Latin at mass…perhaps the Our Father

I think its OK that we don’t have a gospel and epistle side for hearing scripture
 
Remember, one person’s pro may be another person’s con.

For example you see Mass facing the people as a pro. I see it as probably the biggest con.

James
 
James0235 said:
Remember, one person’s pro may be another person’s con.

For example you see Mass facing the people as a pro. I see it as probably the biggest con.

James
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Like Father Z says, I believe that is one of the most destructive things to come out of the council… and the council never mandated such things!
 
I think watching the consecration is beautiful…but I don’t expect everyone to agree
 
“Watch the consecration”? You mean you can actually SEE the transformation of the gifts of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ with your physical eyes?

You must be blessed indeed.
 
I do believe that the Mass was changed about 1000 years ago so that people could see the Eucharist. The priest elevates the host and chalice in the EF.
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
I do believe that the Mass was changed about 1000 years ago so that people could see the Eucharist. The priest elevates the host and chalice in the EF.
Click to expand...
Yes I know he does…but I still perfer to have the consecration done facing me…I think it is far more meaningful for me
 
redrosetea said:
Yes I know he does…but I still perfer to have the consecration done facing me…I think it is far more meaningful for me. I see it in my heart and my soul rejoices
Click to expand...
Now I am confused. If you see the consecration it is more meaningful. What exactly does that mean? If you don’t actually see it isn’t meaningful? I find that astonishing. Thats what it sounds like you are saying and if it is then that is a very disturbing statement indeed, especially since we really don’t know exactly when the miracle of transubstantiation occurs. And if you see it in your heart what possible difference could it make if you see it with your eyes or not.:confused: .

Or is it that you believe that in order for you to actively participate in offering the sacrifice with the Priest you have to see exactly what he is doing at all times? Or is it that perhaps you don’t trust the Priest to say and do the right thing and you have to keep an eye on him?

Help me out:confused:
 
Why is wathing whatever the priest does so important?
You don’t need to see what the priest does… (hand gestures, face, etc) just look out for the Lord.

And that is why in both forms the priest lifts the Lord.
 
palmas85 said:
Now I am confused. If you see the consecration it is more meaningful. What exactly does that mean? If you don’t actually see it isn’t meaningful? I find that astonishing. Thats what it sounds like you are saying and if it is then that is a very disturbing statement indeed, especially since we really don’t know exactly when the miracle of transubstantiation occurs. And if you see it in your heart what possible difference could it make if you see it with your eyes or not.:confused: .

Or is it that you believe that in order for you to actively participate in offering the sacrifice with the Priest you have to see exactly what he is doing at all times? Or is it that perhaps you don’t trust the Priest to say and do the right thing and you have to keep an eye on him?

Help me out:confused:
Click to expand...
It means I like seeing his face and not his back as he prays over the gifts…I think it is a way of sharing …You might not agree

I don’t make snide and insulting cracks at what other people like

Why does it seem to bother some that I prefer this?

I have never said you had to…Let me like what I like, and I will allow you the same privilege, and I won’t take cheap shots at you, like some have at me
 
redrosetea said:
It means I like seeing his face and not his back as he prays over the gifts…I think it is a way of sharing …You might not agree

I don’t make snide and insulting cracks at what other people like

Why does it seem to bother some that I prefer this?

I have never said you had to…Let me like what I like, and I will allow you the same privilege, and I won’t take cheap shots at you, like some have at me
Click to expand...
It just didn’t make any sense the way you said it, thats all. It still doesn’t. No I really don’t agree at all, because I can’t understand why in the world you you even be looking at the Priests face as he says the prayers. I never have. nor do I have any reason to.

But to each his own I guess.
 
redrosetea said:
It means I like seeing his face and not his back as he prays over the gifts…I think it is a way of sharing …You might not agree
Click to expand...
Maybe I missed something but doesn’t a crucifix need to be present for Mass to take place? And if so, doesn’t the priest usually have his back to the crucifix at the OF? I don’t think I want to see the consecration so badly when it means someone has to have his back to the crucifix.
 
redrosetea said:
It means I like seeing his face and not his back as he prays over the gifts…I think it is a way of sharing …You might not agree

I don’t make snide and insulting cracks at what other people like

Why does it seem to bother some that I prefer this?

I have never said you had to…Let me like what I like, and I will allow you the same privilege, and I won’t take cheap shots at you, like some have at me
Click to expand...
i think we just see things differently. not one better than the other i suppose.
when the priest’s back is turned, its like watching something intimate and beautiful between just the priest and God.
i also like it better with the back turned because, the priest is less likely to be distracted during the consecration which is very important.
 
I don’t understand the preference for priests facing the congregation. It’s like a performance, instead of focusing on God. Of course my OF parish they applauded the choir at Christmas Mass. 🤷
 
I don’t understand why some people think they are the filter to decide what other people can like?
 
redrosetea said:
I don’t understand why some people think they are the filter to decide what other people can like?
Click to expand...
To the original poster: Pros and Cons…
The contention is that there really are no cons to either. Liturgicaly they are dissimilar. But neither is any inherently better. Mabey likes and dislikes would have been a better way to phrase your post. In that light:
OF: What I like:
  1. I was raised in it.
  2. I know it well.
  3. I like having a frontal view of the consecration. Mystically speaking the transubstantiation can be ‘seen’.
  4. Good coverage of scripture throughout the cycle.
What I don’t like:
  1. Allowing liturgical abuses
  2. female alter servers.
  3. the music.
  4. Communion in the hand. Only way to accept communion from an EMHC though. One layperson to another.
EF. Likes
  1. Rubrics. There is a consistancy that can only be called beautiful.
  2. Latin prayer. I fault the USCCB for robing us of our Liturical Laguage.
  3. Chant. The true music of the church.
  4. A priest is imersed in the sacrafice of the mass not distracted by ambiguity.
Dislikes:
  1. I’m just spectator at the sacrafice. Its the Iconostasis keeps me away from the Orthodox Churches.
  2. Silent prayer.
  3. Not enough scripture. Though the last gospel is nice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top