E
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
edwest2
Guest
Not true. I heard all voices responding to the priest. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site: "Perhaps the most common dialogue in the Liturgy of the Roman Rite consists of the greeting :And being so exceedingly well versed, they said rosaries and read from private devotional books.
There was a reason the 2,000+ bishops of the world wanted to increase participation in the Mass - they knew there were problems.
Yes, people would look up when the servers rang the bells; and otherwise, they were elsewhere.
"Dominus vobiscum et cum spiritu tuo
"Since 1970, this has been translated as:
“The Lord be with you. And also with you.”
There was a dialogue between us and the priest.
Ed
T
tawny
Guest
Not true. I heard all voices responding to the priest. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site: "Perhaps the most common dialogue in the Liturgy of the Roman Rite consists of the greeting :
"Dominus vobiscum et cum spiritu tuo
"Since 1970, this has been translated as:
“The Lord be with you. And also with you.”
There was a dialogue between us and the priest.
And the Priest & the Altar Servers as well.
Ed
T
tawny
Guest
Not true. I heard all voices responding to the priest. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site: "Perhaps the most common dialogue in the Liturgy of the Roman Rite consists of the greeting :
"Dominus vobiscum et cum spiritu tuo
"Since 1970, this has been translated as:
“The Lord be with you. And also with you.”
There was a dialogue between us and the priest.
And the Priest & the Altar Servers as well.
Ed
T
tawny
Guest
And between the Priest & Altar Servers as well.Not true. I heard all voices responding to the priest. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site: "Perhaps the most common dialogue in the Liturgy of the Roman Rite consists of the greeting :
"Dominus vobiscum et cum spiritu tuo
"Since 1970, this has been translated as:
“The Lord be with you. And also with you.”
There was a dialogue between us and the priest.
Ed
O
otjm
Guest
In the 50’s we didn’t respond to the priest. there was no dialogue. And we didn’t take our missals with us to school; we had them for Sunday Mass - and sat with our families.Not true. I heard all voices responding to the priest. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site: "Perhaps the most common dialogue in the Liturgy of the Roman Rite consists of the greeting :
"Dominus vobiscum et cum spiritu tuo
"Since 1970, this has been translated as:
“The Lord be with you. And also with you.”
There was a dialogue between us and the priest.
Ed
L
LightBound
Guest
. Any reason you dug up a ten-year old thread and decided to reply to "brother Bob, who has long since been banned and hasn’t logged on since 2008? on it? You’ve been a member here long enough to know the rules about resurrecting old threads…Amen brother Bob no doubt our Creator knows our hearts and whether we pray in any particular language seems somewhat superfluous but Latin is the language of the Church. All Church documents are in Latin. It is unambiguous and therefore leaves little to misinterpretation. I’m not sure if it was Pope St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict emeritus that strongly recommended that all Catholics learn the basic prayers in the Latin. Discussion/questioning is obviously ‘healthy’ arguing the importance of something like this seems counterproductive to me. Let us pray from our hearts. I was an altar boy just before and during V-2 so I learned to memorize the prayers as a young boy but now I know what I am really praying when I pray the Holy Rosary in Latin. Everyone should avail themselves of this beautiful ancient language, it is not ‘dead’. Pax tecum
P
ProVobis
Guest
If you translate that back to the Latin, you would have “Dominus sit vobiscum/Et tecum quoque.” Translation thus fails.Not true. I heard all voices responding to the priest. From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site: "Perhaps the most common dialogue in the Liturgy of the Roman Rite consists of the greeting :
"Dominus vobiscum et cum spiritu tuo
"Since 1970, this has been translated as:
“The Lord be with you. And also with you.”
The new translation goes “The Lord be with you/And with your spirit”
Translated back: “Dominus sit vobiscum/Et cum spirituo tuo” But that’s not what we have in Latin. The Latin does not have a subjunctive. The Lord IS with us.
K
Kielbasi
Guest
It was certainly a dramatic change in paradigm.And being so exceedingly well versed, they said rosaries and read from private devotional books.
There was a reason the 2,000+ bishops of the world wanted to increase participation in the Mass - they knew there were problems.
.
The Faithful were expected to remain quiet and engage in prayer during the mass, and had been for many, many years. They were “hearing” mass, and that expression is still used today.
Then the expectations changed, and they were expected to read prayers from the missal.
Quite a shift, and although it wasn’t done “overnight”, innovations like the optional “Dialogue Mass” helped, I’m sure it was difficult particularly for older people, who spent the whole lives being quiet in church now not only speaking aloud themselves, but hearing hundreds of other voices where they weren’t heard before.
E
edwest2
Guest
That is incorrect.It was certainly a dramatic change in paradigm.
The Faithful were expected to remain quiet and engage in prayer during the mass, and had been for many, many years. They were “hearing” mass, and that expression is still used today.
Then the expectations changed, and they were expected to read prayers from the missal.
Quite a shift, and although it wasn’t done “overnight”, innovations like the optional “Dialogue Mass” helped, I’m sure it was difficult particularly for older people, who spent the whole lives being quiet in church now not only speaking aloud themselves, but hearing hundreds of other voices where they weren’t heard before.
Ed
C
commenter
Guest
The EF had much more of a supernatural emphasis. There was a recognition that, during this Mass, Heaven was somehow participating in our midst, and that we were somehow participating in the ongoing liturgy of Heaven. People applaud the increased “participation” of the laity under the OF, as if verbalizing were the only kind of important participation.
But in the EF there clearly is more “entering into” the Sacrifice of the Mass with the Heart, mind, and emotions. In the OF there is more lay verbalizing, but for most not an appreciation that there is something crucial going on here, something that touches Heaven and Earth like nothing else. Of course every valid Mass does that, but the EF makes it clearer, more explicit to the laity that this is happening. It is not less participating, but a different kind of participating.
But in the EF there clearly is more “entering into” the Sacrifice of the Mass with the Heart, mind, and emotions. In the OF there is more lay verbalizing, but for most not an appreciation that there is something crucial going on here, something that touches Heaven and Earth like nothing else. Of course every valid Mass does that, but the EF makes it clearer, more explicit to the laity that this is happening. It is not less participating, but a different kind of participating.
O
otjm
Guest
I am 71, and so I knew a lot of the “older people”. And I did not know anyone who had any difficulty of any significance in the changes. Some may have not liked it, but back then, obedience was far more strongly felt than it is now.It was certainly a dramatic change in paradigm.
The Faithful were expected to remain quiet and engage in prayer during the mass, and had been for many, many years. They were “hearing” mass, and that expression is still used today.
Then the expectations changed, and they were expected to read prayers from the missal.
Quite a shift, and although it wasn’t done “overnight”, innovations like the optional “Dialogue Mass” helped, I’m sure it was difficult particularly for older people, who spent the whole lives being quiet in church now not only speaking aloud themselves, but hearing hundreds of other voices where they weren’t heard before.
O
otjm
Guest
Actually, the OF is every bit as supernatural as the EF.The EF had much more of a supernatural emphasis. There was a recognition that, during this Mass, Heaven was somehow participating in our midst, and that we were somehow participating in the ongoing liturgy of Heaven. People applaud the increased “participation” of the laity under the OF, as if verbalizing were the only kind of important participation.
But in the EF there clearly is more “entering into” the Sacrifice of the Mass with the Heart, mind, and emotions. In the OF there is more lay verbalizing, but for most not an appreciation that there is something crucial going on here, something that touches Heaven and Earth like nothing else. Of course every valid Mass does that, but the EF makes it clearer, more explicit to the laity that this is happening. It is not less participating, but a different kind of participating.
The emphasis in the EF was God transcendent.
The OF brought in an emphasis of God imminent to balance with the transcendent. And so the heart, mind and emotions are more fully brought to focus on the Mass - and in particular the mind, as, prior to the release of the OF, only a minority had missals, and very few understood enough Latin to be able to translate any parts of the Mass, let alone be able to converse in it.
“Participation” in the EF prior to the entry of the OF consisted for the majority of individuals of saying their rosary, or reading pamphlets of private devotions int he larger part; some just “made their obligation”.
We might remember that the Mass started with the Last Supper - which was the celebration of the Passover, with its specific rituals. Your waxing eloquent about the EF could cause someone to criticize Christ - and those who followed him for a number of generations - who did not have the EF.
C
commenter
Guest
The transcendence of God is often forgotten in the West nowadays. If you are going to emphasize anything, not a bad idea to remind people of this.Actually, the OF is every bit as supernatural as the EF.
The emphasis in the EF was God transcendent.
I agree that the OF is every bit as valid, every bit as supernatural as the EF, objectively speaking. I am just pointing out the EF makes the supernatural element more explicit to the worshipper.
I had not attended the EF for decades. When I started doing that on occasion, I realized some aspects that are not unique to the EF, but uniquely visible in the EF. Ideally I should have been aware of that while attending the OF all along, but I guess I wasn’t that attentive.
After having attended the EF a few times, I am more spiritually sensitive to the realities that are present in all valid masses. Today, I normally attend the OF mass in my parish.
Of those people I know who do go to the diocesan approved EF every week, half of them are young families. They have no memory of pre Vatican II, they were brought up exclusively on the OF. But they find something there now.
The OF Mass would be said more reverently, with more understanding by the laity, if the EF were available more widely. Ideally, every Catholic school student should have the EF at least a couple times during their enrollment. Every parish, or at least every cluster of parishes, should have the EF at least once a year.
E
edwest2
Guest
Same here. Obedience to Holy Mother Church came first. I didn’t love God any less after the Ordinary Form began.I am 71, and so I knew a lot of the “older people”. And I did not know anyone who had any difficulty of any significance in the changes. Some may have not liked it, but back then, obedience was far more strongly felt than it is now.
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.