Reasons you love the Ordinary Form

[bpbasilphx]

Does it really matter what they were originally? And why did they remove Psalm 42 altogether unless they wanted no references to the altar or God?

By the way, the priests and servers had their own prayers in the sacristy. It only made sense that Psalm 42 be moved and heard before the congregation.

Do you have any PROOF that “they wanted no references to the altar or God”?

Next, who is “they”?

BTW–Psalm 42 was never said in the Dominican rite. Would you level such an accusation at them?

This begs the question, Why is this particular thread even on the Traditional Catholicism forum in the first place?

Is not traditional Catholicism bigger than a preference for the EF?

 

[Bbigam]

What?! Are you saying that they do not read the epistle and gospel in English at the FSSP church in Lexington? That is interesting.

Sorry, to clarify, they chant the epistle and Gospel in Latin at the altar, and then the priest reads them in English at the beginning of the homily from the ambo. I was under the impression that the latter (vernacular) was sort of extra-liturgical.

It doesn’t bother me that they do them twice that way, just to me personally it doesn’t seem necessary. I like that there is, in general, more flexibility for use of the vernacular in the OF.

I forgot to mention that I also like that, in the OF, the readings are proclaimed from the ambo rather than at the altar. (I do love ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist! I realize this is an option in the OF but I haven’t seen it much at all.)

 

[ProVobis]

To answer your question directly the Sunday readings are on a 3 year cycle, and the Weekday readings are on a 2 year cycle, almost all of the Bible gets read.

That is far from correct. According to the reference posted above (#28), the readings from Sundays and Weekdays cover only 13.5% of the OT and 71.5% of the NT. And how many Catholics now even go to Mass every Sunday, much less every day to get all these readings and make them experts on the Bible?

 

[ProVobis]

It doesn’t bother me that they do them twice that way, just to me personally it doesn’t seem necessary. I like that there is, in general, more flexibility for use of the vernacular in the OF.

The mind tends to remember more after given two different (name removed by moderator)uts of the same material. Even more if the priest picks any of the readings as a base for his sermon.

 

[cathguy]

This is kind of a spin off of another thread…I would like to know what things/aspects people love or like about the Ordinary Form of the Mass in comparison to the Traditional Latin Mass…how has it enriched the Liturgy…or has it not enriched the Litrugy…also, if you have dislikes about it compared to the TLM, please share that as well. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT VALIDITY, since we all know and agree that BOTH forms are valid without question. What say you?

I mean no disrespect with this response. I love the Mass.

In the new Mass:
I like the fact that there are more Scripture readings.

I like the fact that it is in English when I am struggling trying to keep a baby quiet and I can’t possibly follow along with the Missal.

I like the new OF translation more than the old OF translation… the new one coming out now I mean.

My dream Mass when dealing with my kids would be Liturgy of the Word in English, Liturgy of the Eucharist in Latin celebrated Ad Orientem and reverently, all the “smells and bells,” orthodox Catholic preaching, and traditional Catholic music.

Some things I do not like about the OF in comparison to the EF

So much symbolism lost. N.O. Masses celebrated at tables without altar stones. The gospel not read facing “the pagans.” The symbolism of sending the gospel out etc. etc., the fact that there IS a gospel side of the altar therefore, the beautiful and more rich prayers (this of course is being fixed partially by the new translation).

The loss of SO MANY prayers and traditions that evolved over the millennia with lay participation in an organic way in favor of a composed Mass entirely top down. (NO, this is not like what was done in the counter reformation with Pius V… Pius V’s Missal took into consideration what was being done in the local Churches, and those elements of organic development and codified them and standardized them.

The promotion of so many Eucharistic prayers. The Roman Canon is rarely heard anymore, even though it is given primacy of place in the new Missal.

I do not like the banality of the new Mass as commonly celebrated, and its seeming inability to DRIVE culture. It is instead driven BY the culture.

The old Mass gave us the greatest art and architecture the West has ever seen. The new Mass has simply incorporated the popular culture. That is just a fact sadly. Serious downside in my opinion.

Finally, it is commonly celebrated in the most banal way, rife with abuses. This is partially due to a weakness of the new Missal tolerating so much improvisation and not providing clear guidance to the priest.

 

[ProVobis]

I like the new OF translation more than the old OF translation… the new one coming out now I mean.

As I pointed out over on the other forum, the Gloria, Creed, and many responses of the “new one coming out” is almost verbatim from the 1945 Fr Lasance Latin-English (and probably other) Missals. So some of the new is really the old, except it wasn’t official in 1945 or before now. Just saying.