The EF "doesn't seem Catholic"

  • Thread starter Thread starter EcceAgnusDei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we could have a really constructive discussion of this somewhere, but not on CAF. You should check out Fish Eaters.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The problem with today’s world is we always view difference meaning that one has to be better than the other. Its not just in forms of Liturgy. 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.
Click to expand...
Very astute!
 
They are very different. But, as for how that 17-year-old felt about the EF, so what? He is entitled to his opinion. Who knows what level he is at spiritually? The same guy might find the EF even MORE Catholic when he gets a bit older. On the other hand, I brought a family to an EF not so long ago and the 26-year-old son of the family said afterwards “I feel like I have been to Mass for the first time in my life!”

As a member of the older generation, I must say, I miss the EF and wish priests would say it as regularly as the OF. I have to travel for almost half a day to get to one now! I feel deprived! It should also be called simply “the Latin Mass” rather than the EF. There was nothing ‘extraordinary’ about it when I was growing up in Ireland. 🙂
 
EcceAgnusDei said:
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?

Good point Ecce Agnes Dei. My personal opinion is that they are two different rites, but Pope Benedict, gloriously reigning, says they are not so I accept and believe what the Pope says. I have no contact with the novus ordo but I see photos of what is going on there, dancing girls, Easter Bunny giving a sermon, puppets as altar servers, etc. When you put that up against a solemn mass, its hard to undertstand that they are not seperate religions. Before the novus ordo, we in the Latin Rite had different Rites. Roman,Ambrosian,Dominican, Mozarabic, Carmelite,etc. Whats wrong with having different Rites now in the Latin Rite. I know traditionalists are reviving these various Latin Rites and that is a great thing. We have the Carmelite Mass in Wyoming, and the Dominican in Washington DC. Before Vatican II, if a Roman Rite Catholic attended a Carmelite mass, he would not have any problem even though its different. The priest at the cannon has his hands out as Christ on the cross. That is different but not so foriegn as to make someone think he may have walked into the wrong church. Good point Ecce Anus Dei!!!
Click to expand...
 
tradcathusa said:
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 *
Click to expand...
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?

Good point Ecce Agnes Dei. My personal opinion is that they are two different rites, but Pope Benedict, gloriously reigning, says they are not so I accept and believe what the Pope says. I have no contact with the novus ordo but I see photos of what is going on there, dancing girls, Easter Bunny giving a sermon, puppets as altar servers, etc. When you put that up against a solemn mass, its hard to undertstand that they are not seperate religions. Before the novus ordo, we in the Latin Rite had different Rites. Roman,Ambrosian,Dominican, Mozarabic, Carmelite,etc. Whats wrong with having different Rites now in the Latin Rite. I know traditionalists are reviving these various Latin Rites and that is a great thing. We have the Carmelite Mass in Wyoming, and the Dominican in Washington DC. Before Vatican II, if a Roman Rite Catholic attended a Carmelite mass, he would not have any problem even though its different. The priest at the cannon has his hands out as Christ on the cross. That is different but not so foriegn as to make someone think he may have walked into the wrong church. Good point Ecce Anus Dei!!!

I personally prefer the Latin Mass when I can get to one. However, I have never seen any of the abuses you claim as the norm in the Novus Ordo, which I attend regularly. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
I’m just going to point out, as was already pointed out, the extent of the differences between the OF and EF depend on how they are celebrated. So the extent of the difference felt by this young man cannot be used to judge how great the actual differences are. As has already been noted some people mistake the Latin OF for the EF … Doesn’t this imply that the experience between the two can be much more similar than implied by this particular experience? In otherwords, OP, no, I do not think the extent of the differences is dependent on the form itself. Yes there are real differences, which is why it is a different form, but the extent of the difference sometimes experienced has nothing to do with the forms themselves but rather the manner in which they are celebrated.
 
A few thoughts.
  1. Juridically, because HH Pope Benedict XVI has said so, the OF and EF are both forms of the same Latin Rite. However, that is how we speak about them. It doesn’t change the reality that they often don’t seem like that.
  2. This is not just subjective. Objectively, it’s a fact that the OF, depending on how and what options are used, even if there are no abuses, is way way way more similar to the way, superficially, that the vast majority of liturgical Protestants worship (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists).
  3. Surely it is also partly subjective. But anyone with some basic experience or education should see that the TLM is screamily obviously Catholic. So is the DL, so is the Low Mass if you have some more catechesis and read the prayers.
But the OF? I have no doubt it’s Catholic and valid because the Pope has said so. But go back in time 100 years, show a Catholic the OF, and expect them to know it’s Catholic even without telling them the Pope promulgated it? Without that help from authority, it’s far from clear.

So the 17-year-old really has no basis for saying the EF doesn’t seem Catholic. He really could only say “it didn’t seem Catholic to me, and my experience of Catholic is formed from my own life experience, not from any broad attempt to understand what Catholic liturgy is across the various rites or across the centuries.”

How do we really make this objective? Well many distinctively Catholic doctrines were de-emphasized in the OF (intercession of the saints, propitiatory sacrifice, purgatory, fasting/abstinence which is mentioned in so many of the older Lenten collects). So while the OF is Catholic, it does not attempt to scream this so loudly and clearly. The TLM prayers, at least IMHO, drip with distinctively Catholic doctrine that would make an anti-Catholic fundamentalist protestant’s skin crawl.
 
newyorkcatholic said:
A few thoughts.
  1. Juridically, because HH Pope Benedict XVI has said so, the OF and EF are both forms of the same Latin Rite. However, that is how we speak about them. It doesn’t change the reality that they often don’t seem like that.
  2. This is not just subjective. Objectively, it’s a fact that the OF, depending on how and what options are used, even if there are no abuses, is way way way more similar to the way, superficially, that the vast majority of liturgical Protestants worship (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists).
  3. Surely it is also partly subjective. But anyone with some basic experience or education should see that the TLM is screamily obviously Catholic. So is the DL, so is the Low Mass if you have some more catechesis and read the prayers.
But the OF? I have no doubt it’s Catholic and valid because the Pope has said so. But go back in time 100 years, show a Catholic the OF, and expect them to know it’s Catholic even without telling them the Pope promulgated it? Without that help from authority, it’s far from clear.

So the 17-year-old really has no basis for saying the EF doesn’t seem Catholic. He really could only say "it didn’t seem Catholic to me, and my experience of Catholic is formed from my own life experience, not from any broad attempt to understand what Catholic liturgy is across the various rites or across the centuries."

How do we really make this objective? Well many distinctively Catholic doctrines were de-emphasized in the OF (intercession of the saints, propitiatory sacrifice, purgatory, fasting/abstinence which is mentioned in so many of the older Lenten collects). So while the OF is Catholic, it does not attempt to scream this so loudly and clearly. The TLM prayers, at least IMHO, drip with distinctively Catholic doctrine that would make an anti-Catholic fundamentalist protestant’s skin crawl.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. I’m pretty sure tht is what he meant by it. If you read the OP carefully that is really what it sounds like. He was just using that particular expression to express the extent of the differences he saw between the two forms, not for the sake of trying to claim one is better than the other. 🤷
 
Look at the bright side. At least the 17-year-old didn’t say that the EF seemed Protestant. 😃
 
thewanderer said:
I’m just going to point out, as was already pointed out, the extent of the differences between the OF and EF depend on how they are celebrated. So the extent of the difference felt by this young man cannot be used to judge how great the actual differences are. As has already been noted some people mistake the Latin OF for the EF … Doesn’t this imply that the experience between the two can be much more similar than implied by this particular experience? In otherwords, OP, no, I do not think the extent of the differences is dependent on the form itself. Yes there are real differences, which is why it is a different form, but the extent of the difference sometimes experienced has nothing to do with the forms themselves but rather the manner in which they are celebrated.
Click to expand...
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.
 
what we are used to is the form that probably seems the most right. (whatever it may be)

when we experience change we really don’t like it and a change of Mass (setting) is no exception to that experience.

So it be perfectly natural for anyone who is used to the one style most of their live then attend another style and think it dont seem ‘Catholic’. Saying it don’t seem Catholic is just how it be verbally expressed by someone who hasn’t thought through the bigger picture of what is Catholic anyway. He thinks what he is used to is Catholic and nothing else is. Perfectly natural really. He is just simply comparing to what he knows rather than what is. He is also comparing to what he knows of Catholic too. He just stated an opinion based on his own experience and that is all. That is what I think and I also think its a bit niave to have a theoloigcal debate about the two because the lad was only making a passing comment and didn’t intend on it becoming something torn to shreds by people who like to discuss things.
 
Phemie said:
That.

By the way, the French quote in your signature took me back 45 years when I last prayed the rosary with my aunt Ethel. She always said that at the end of the rosary.
Click to expand...
Haha, maybe you can add that to the next Rosary you pray, in her honor 😉

I’m sure this has been said before, but at the end of the day, no matter the form, the most amazing part is when the Eucharist is raised. From the most non-denominational looking, no-crucifix parish to the most rigid, weird-looks-because-you-dressed-in-jeans parish, that moment is always brings my soul to its knees!
 
EcceAgnusDei said:
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
Click to expand...
Hello friend,

Your observations are indeed, true. Many have made that same observation. To the non-Catholic, they would look like two different religions! Heck, even liberal Bishops admit that the theology behind both Masses is different, and admit that they look monumentally different! Have you noticed that every time they try to suppress the ancient Liturgy, they do so under the excuse “It causes division among the faithful”? If they were so similar, they wouldn’t cause division would they!

Believe it when I tell you friend, the differences are not downplayed everywhere. They are downplayed on this forum, presumably because it causes too many fights and heated arguments. They are downplayed at the more ‘conservative’ Novus Ordo parishes, because they wish to promote the idea that the Novus Ordo is simply an organic development. I myself find it somewhat humorous that both traditionalists and liberal Catholics refuse to downplay the differences. There’s a reason why liberal Catholics scream “You’re taking us backward!” when the Church creeps slowly back to tradition. Even they acknowledge that there is a big difference.

God Bless, and keep the faith.

Through the hearts of Jesus and Mary,

ImmaculataFides
 
. To the non-Catholic, they would look like two different religions!
Click to expand...
You hear this a lot, and it is a vast overstatement. The sit-stand-kneel, sit-stand-kneel alone gives any kind of Mass away as Catholic.
 
Lujack said:
You hear this a lot, and it is a vast overstatement. The sit-stand-kneel, sit-stand-kneel alone gives any kind of Mass away as Catholic.
Click to expand...
It’s not an overstatement. Many Novus Ordo parishes don’t even “sit-stand-kneel” anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top