The EF "doesn't seem Catholic"

[annspazz]

This has been my expereince also. I am used to beautiful liturgy, and I almost exclusively attend the OF. We have chant and bells every Mass, often incense, always well done, careful liturgy. I have also attend stunning high Mass EFs and some pretty dismal low Mass EFs.

I have never in my life seen liturgical dance, sermonizing Easter bunnies, priests with the wrong vestaments, clay chalices, or similar things at a Catholic Mass. On the other hand, if someone is used to a solemn, orthodox Mass and attends an EF low Mass with the priest speaking and moving rapidly, those 52 sign of the cross movements begin to look dizzing and Mass can be over before you’ve found your place in the missal.

What we all should be praying for is orthodox, devout priests who will celebrate Mass well, no matter which form or rite they use.

Aren’t we fortunate to have two liturgies!

 

[M-Dent]

Why do you think this is? Is it inherent in the forms? Causation vs. correlation? Is it positive, negative? Does it matter?

Thoughts?

It’s not an unusual comment. I tend to view it as an issue of not completely understanding the ad orientem orientation and the wonderful silence.

 

[PJM]

=EcceAgnusDei;9255205]A few months ago I invited a devout Catholic family to attend a Solemn High Mass. The children are very active in their parish, the family goes on retreats, etc, etc, but they had never been to the EF. Afterwards, while discussing the Mass, the 17 year old son said that what he saw didn’t seem Catholic. He didn’t mean it in a negative way at all; what he meant was that it was so different from his experiences with the OF (as commonly celebrated in our diocese) that he found it hard to reconcile the two as being the same religion.

I bring up this story NOT to pit one form against the other or to say anything about superiority/inferiority, so please don’t go there. They are two forms of the same Rite as decreed by the Holy Father. But sometimes it seems to me that some people want to downplay the differences between the two forms, when in fact the difference *in the experience *of the two forms (in the pews, as commonly celebrated) is great. One would expect great differences between Rites, but it seems surprising to find them within a Rite.

Why do you think this is? Is it inherent in the forms? Causation vs. correlation? Is it positive, negative? Does it matter?

Thoughts?

• PAX

Aswome POST!

The reason [IMO] has to to do with two facts.

1. A personal level of comfort in the known verses the unknown
2. the FACT that piety is a learned responce.

I’m close to 68. As a kid we were still taught “Piery and FEAR of the LORD” as fruits of the Holy Spirit [God]. When is that last time you heard this taught? Pitey; while a personal responce to and with our God; nevertheless remains a " learned responce."

In an effort to fulfill the mandates of Vatican II for “active participation”; I wonder if perhaps; FEAR of the LORD and personal piety have not been placed in a rear "seat?’

Certainly “active participation” is both a good and a necessary thing. But ARE they too; were they intended to replace the former?

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Actually if you go to 500AD, you’d be surprised in the diversity of how the Liturgy was celebrated. They wouldn’t even be surprised with the OF Mass.

That’s not true at all. The Novus Ordo contains many medieval developments that were non existent in the early Church, for example the Credo. The Novus Ordo wasn’t a return to the “simple past”, contrary to what many think.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually if you go to 500AD, you’d be surprised in the diversity of how the Liturgy was celebrated. They wouldn’t even be surprised with the OF Mass.

They would be if it were in English.

 

[Cristiano]

That’s not true at all. The Novus Ordo contains many medieval developments that were non existent in the early Church, for example the Credo. The Novus Ordo wasn’t a return to the “simple past”, contrary to what many think.

The introduction of the Credo was of Frankish Catholic origins but it was introduced from the East. It became part of the Roman Liturgical at the time of the coronation of Henry II by Pope Bendict VIII, when it came evident to the emperor that the Credo was omitted at the coronation Mass. At that time the Roman Liturgy was in disarray and the monks were working on propagating the Franco-German liturgy to bring the Roman Catholic liturgy back to a reasonable level of splendor. I am not sure when the Credo was first implemented in the Eastern Churches.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

The introduction of the Credo was of Frankish Catholic origins but it was introduced from the East. It became part of the Roman Liturgical at the time of the coronation of Henry II by Pope Bendict VIII, when it came evident to the emperor that the Credo was omitted at the coronation Mass. At that time the Roman Liturgy was in disarray and the monks were working on propagating the Franco-German liturgy to bring the Roman Catholic liturgy back to a reasonable level of splendor. I am not sure when the Credo was first implemented in the Eastern Churches.

Yes, you proved my point. The Credo was included into the liturgy during the Middle Ages.

 

[Cristiano]

Yes, you proved my point. The Credo was included into the liturgy during the Middle Ages.

No I have not proved any point, even if it might be true, because we do not know when it was introduced in the Eastern Liturgies. Remember that that was before the great schism and the Romans were heavily borrowing from the easterners and it was one big Catholic Church. The Latin Church in Rome had quite different liturgy that the Gallican Latin Church, and I am not sure that I know when the Gallican Latin Church implemented the Credo. At that point even the titular churches in Rome had their own sacramentary and so you would have wide differences form church to church within the city, the only effort that was still going on was done to maintain a unique liturgy for the stational churches. Again I am not saying that you are wrong, I simply do not have any evidence to say that the Credo just appeared in the middle ages, I just know that it was there since the beginning in the rite of baptism but the Mass is a different story. BTW I think that ConstantineTG is quite right with his statement about 500 AD.

 

[Rich_C]

No I have not proved any point, even if it might be true, because we do not know when it was introduced in the Eastern Liturgies. Remember that that was before the great schism and the Romans were heavily borrowing from the easterners and it was one big Catholic Church. The Latin Church in Rome had quite different liturgy that the Gallican Latin Church, and I am not sure that I know when the Gallican Latin Church implemented the Credo. At that point even the titular churches in Rome had their own sacramentary and so you would have wide differences form church to church within the city, the only effort that was still going on was done to maintain a unique liturgy for the stational churches. Again I am not saying that you are wrong, I simply do not have any evidence to say that the Credo just appeared in the middle ages, I just know that it was there since the beginning in the rite of baptism but the Mass is a different story. BTW I think that ConstantineTG is quite right with his statement about 500 AD.

According to one Orthodox website, the Creed (Nicene) was first recited at a DL in Constantinople in AD518.

However, most of the old prayers that were retained in the OF (Credo, Gloria, Agnus Dei, etc) were adopted in the west hundreds of years after AD500 while the one prayer that would have been standard in almost every western liturgy in AD500 (Roman Canon) is now an option only. So I think it would have looked foreign to a Catholic at that time.

That said, Pope Pius XII said it’s an error to try to recreate long-gone ancient liturgies on the assumption that older = better, so this argument doesn’t concern me either way.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

That said, Pope Pius XII said it’s an error to try to recreate long-gone ancient liturgies on the assumption that older = better, so this argument doesn’t concern me either way.

This is important to remember. So often we hear “that’s how the ancient Christians did it in the first century” as an excuse to modify liturgy or justify changes.

• PAX

 

[Cristiano]

According to one Orthodox website, the Creed (Nicene) was first recited at a DL in Constantinople in AD518.

However, most of the old prayers that were retained in the OF (Credo, Gloria, Agnus Dei, etc) were adopted in the west hundreds of years after AD500 while the one prayer that would have been standard in almost every western liturgy in AD500 (Roman Canon) is now an option only. So I think it would have looked foreign to a Catholic at that time.

That said, Pope Pius XII said it’s an error to try to recreate long-gone ancient liturgies on the assumption that older = better, so this argument doesn’t concern me either way.

Would you please be so king to post the link to the Orthodox web site. I am trying to get some more info on the Eastern Churches an it looks like you found a good site.

I tend to agree with your reference to Pius XII that older does not mean better.

 

[Cristiano]

This is important to remember. So often we hear “that’s how the ancient Christians did it in the first century” as an excuse to modify liturgy or justify changes.

• PAX

That is the same reason why we should not say that if something was done for 500 years it must be better. I am always very suspicious about rationalizing personal preferences through pseudo-objective statements. I think that the median level of liturgical knowledge here on CAF is not that high and I have the impression that people just like to quote someone else to emphasize their preferences. The more I read about the liturgy the more I am amused on how a lot of people try to pit one form vs. the other, and I understand more and more the concept of liturgical development.

My ideal Liturgy would probably be in Latin and Greek, it would be a mix between the Eastern liturgies and the Latin one, it would last at least two hour long and after going there once I would skip it because it would be too much for my standards.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

That is the same reason why we should not say that if something was done for 500 years it must be better.

I understand your meaning, but there is a difference between “returning” to something that hasn’t been done for 1000 years and getting rid of something that has been done for 500+ years.

My ideal Liturgy would probably be in Latin and Greek, it would be a mix between the Eastern liturgies and the Latin one, it would last at least two hour long and after going there once I would skip it because it would be too much for my standards.

Ha!

• PAX

 

[thewanderer]

I understand your meaning, but there is a difference between “returning” to something that hasn’t been done for 1000 years and getting rid of something that has been done for 500+ years.

Ha!

• PAX

There is also a difference between getting rid of something that has been done for 500+ years and having people return to something which was done for 500+ years.

I know most traditionalists probably don’t mean to come across this way, but often, because of the focus they put on what happened after Vatican II they end up sounding as if they want everyone to return to how things used to be simply because they used to be the traditions of the Church for many years. Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that these traditions are beautiful, but there are many Catholics who have grown up with completely different traditions and it would be just as wrong to expect those traditions to be removed from them simply because that is the way things used to be as many traditionalists feel it was to remove these older practices in the first place.

 

[onenow1]

Aswome POST!

The reason [IMO] has to to do with two facts.

1. A personal level of comfort in the known verses the unknown
2. the FACT that piety is a learned responce.

I’m close to 68. As a kid we were still taught “Piery and FEAR of the LORD” as fruits of the Holy Spirit [God]. When is that last time you heard this taught? Pitey; while a personal responce to and with our God; nevertheless remains a " learned responce."

In an effort to fulfill the mandates of Vatican II for “active participation”; I wonder if perhaps; FEAR of the LORD and personal piety have not been placed in a rear "seat?’

Certainly “active participation” is both a good and a necessary thing. But ARE they too; were they intended to replace the former?

God Bless,
pat/PJM

Hi,PJM, I’m also close to 68, as I remember back in the 50’s there was always, a high mass and a low mass. This may be the avenue of bringing back this practice to all the Catholic World eventually ?

God bless
onenow1

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

There is also a difference between getting rid of something that has been done for 500+ years and having people return to something which was done for 500+ years.

I know most traditionalists probably don’t mean to come across this way, but often, because of the focus they put on what happened after Vatican II they end up sounding as if they want everyone to return to how things used to be simply because they used to be the traditions of the Church for many years. Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that these traditions are beautiful, but there are many Catholics who have grown up with completely different traditions and it would be just as wrong to expect those traditions to be removed from them simply because that is the way things used to be as many traditionalists feel it was to remove these older practices in the first place.

This is where the discussion of whether or not a particular tradition is inherently better than another tradition logically comes into play, right? And that discussion logically entails a discussion of the standards we use to judge traditions. I think such discussions are important because they force us to examine the Faith and not just our own personal preferences. Just because we are used to something or just because we want it is not really a good reason.

Such discussions can also lead into grey areas, which is probably why they are discouraged here at CAF (by posters who jump on any suggestion that one religious practice could be better than another, and also by rules). While I think those posters are wrong in discouraging such discussions, I certainly agree that CAF is allowed to have whatever rules CAF wants for its forums and I will certainly abide by them.

• PAX

 

[thewanderer]

This is where the discussion of whether or not a particular tradition is inherently better than another tradition logically comes into play, right? And that discussion logically entails a discussion of the standards we use to judge traditions. I think such discussions are important because they force us to examine the Faith and not just our own personal preferences. Just because we are used to something or just because we want it is not really a good reason.

Such discussions can also lead into grey areas, which is probably why they are discouraged here at CAF (by posters who jump on any suggestion that one religious practice could be better than another, and also by rules). While I think those posters are wrong in discouraging such discussions, I certainly agree that CAF is allowed to have whatever rules CAF wants for its forums and I will certainly abide by them.

• PAX

Except that it also has to be kept in mind that even if one practice is inherently better than another, it is not necessarily better for a particular individual.

A similar idea is that of vocations. The vocation to the priesthood or religious life is inherently better than the vocation to marriage. But that doesn’t mean that it is better for every individual. I have been exposed fairly extensively to both forms of the Latin Rite. I recognize the beauty and splendour of the EF, I really do see why so many people prefer it, but I personally find it a lot harder to concentrate on the Sacrifice of the Mass when I attend the EF, and like I said, this is not because I am just not used to the EF, or haven’t given it a good chance, it just doesn’t work for me as well.

 

[thewanderer]

This is where the discussion of whether or not a particular tradition is inherently better than another tradition logically comes into play, right? And that discussion logically entails a discussion of the standards we use to judge traditions. I think such discussions are important because they force us to examine the Faith and not just our own personal preferences. Just because we are used to something or just because we want it is not really a good reason.

Such discussions can also lead into grey areas, which is probably why they are discouraged here at CAF (by posters who jump on any suggestion that one religious practice could be better than another, and also by rules). While I think those posters are wrong in discouraging such discussions, I certainly agree that CAF is allowed to have whatever rules CAF wants for its forums and I will certainly abide by them.

• PAX

Except that it also has to be kept in mind that even if one practice is inherently better than another, it is not necessarily better for a particular individual.

A similar idea is that of vocations. The vocation to the priesthood or religious life is inherently better than the vocation to marriage. But that doesn’t mean that it is better for every individual. I have been exposed fairly extensively to both forms of the Latin Rite. I recognize the beauty and splendour of the EF, I really do see why so many people prefer it, but I personally find it a lot harder to concentrate on the Sacrifice of the Mass when I attend the EF, and like I said, this is not because I am just not used to the EF, or haven’t given it a good chance, it just doesn’t work for me as well.

Part of the problem with the idea that the pre vatican II traditions are better, is that many of the traditions introduced into the Latin Rite after Vatican II are practices in the Eastern Churches. I’m not saying they should be in the Latin Church just because they are in the Eastern Catholic Churches, I’m not trying to bring up that debate, but claiming that the having Mass in Latin is always or inherently better is like a slap in the face to Eastern Catholics who have their liturgies in the vernacular. The same with kneeling or receiving the Eucharist under both species. The pre-vatican II traditions of the Roman Rite are not the only good practices.

 

[asia53]

Women don’t want to be different than men because they think if they are seen as different, it means they are lesser. We don’t want to acknowledge there are differences in races in culture again because we think difference means one has to be better than the other. We ignore the fact that variety means we are meant to complement one another. Everyone has something lacking and everyone has something better than the other. We should see this as an opportunity for one another to help each other rather than compete. Same with the Liturgies, not only between the two forms of the Roman Rite, but all the other Rites as well. The uniqueness of each one should complement the others to give us the fullness of our faith. It is not meant that one is superior to the other.

As a woman, Nope to your theory about women. As an asian/american, Nope to your theory about differences in races. You missed the mark on these.

However, this is right on the mark:

The uniqueness of each one should complement the others to give us the fullness of our faith. It is not meant that one is superior to the other.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

No I have not proved any point, even if it might be true, because we do not know when it was introduced in the Eastern Liturgies. Remember that that was before the great schism and the Romans were heavily borrowing from the easterners and it was one big Catholic Church. The Latin Church in Rome had quite different liturgy that the Gallican Latin Church, and I am not sure that I know when the Gallican Latin Church implemented the Credo. At that point even the titular churches in Rome had their own sacramentary and so you would have wide differences form church to church within the city, the only effort that was still going on was done to maintain a unique liturgy for the stational churches. Again I am not saying that you are wrong, I simply do not have any evidence to say that the Credo just appeared in the middle ages, I just know that it was there since the beginning in the rite of baptism but the Mass is a different story. BTW I think that ConstantineTG is quite right with his statement about 500 AD.

I’m not even talking about the Easterners. I’m talking about the Latin Rite liturgy. I said that the Credo was one of many medieval developments that were still included in the Novus Ordo Mass, so therefore it would have been totally foreign in the Latin Rite in the 6th century.