- Status
A
Aramis
Guest
That depends upon which version of “efficacious” one is looking at. Both are equal in imparting grace.
The OF is noted as being better at teaching the faith when properly implemented (an extra reading, better organization of the readings into themes from the church teaching). It’s also noted as being better able to adjust for cultural differences.
The EF is noted as being better at promoting reverence. (But many older priests remember otherwise when it was the only form in use in the Roman Rite.) It’s more consistent in presentation. It’s normally more able to trigger sense memories (because the use of bells and incenses is optional in the OF).
The church has multiple needs - one of them (identified by the V II council fathers) was improving catechesis, especially of adult faithful. The extra reading for sunday masses and holyday masses was part of that; the alignment into thematic units of the lectionary was another part of that. The acknowledgement that most people don’t participate in the office of the hours was part of why many of the readings for the breviary are now also in the lectionary (tho’ not normally on the same day) for the Mass. Likewise, the realization that most of the faithful don’t go to daily mass is why the lectionary has a different cycle for the weekdays from the sundays/holydays. The sunday cycle is, without a doubt, an acknowledgement of the western society’s changes in lifestyle.
So, yes, in some ways it can be said to be clearly better; in others, worse. But it’s been a blessing for many - and for the rest, the EF is still available, as are the Eastern Catholic Churches.
F
FNDRB58
Guest
By “more efficacious” my debater and I are referring to “more grace”. And the Holy Spirit wouldn’t have allowed 99.9 percent of the faithful to practice the NO Mass if it is less efficacious, that is, if less grace was imputed. It just wouldn’t happen. I am having trouble convincing her of this as she just brings up instances when popes have taught heresy and such.
1
1ke
Guest
As I said in my first post, these are a particularly irrational bunch. There isn’t anything you can say that will matter.
This is a made up conspiracy theory.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
She accepts that both forms of the Mass are valid. She is free to prefer one form of the Mass to the other, and she is free to exclusively attend one form.
There are a lot of Catholics who would never consider attending a Latin Mass, as they feel that it would not meet their own personal spiritual requirements, so why should it be wrong with those would never consider attending an OF Mass, as they feel it would not meet their own personal spiritual requirements?
So long as Catholics accept that both forms of the Mass are valid, there is no problem with exclusively attending one or the other out of personal spiritual needs. We all have different spiritualities and under Canon Law we each have the right to follow our own spiritual lives, so long as doing so does not put us at odds with the teachings of the Church.
S
Sirach2
Guest
I think you will agree that the Council Fathers were nearly unanimous in their vote to introduce these changes in our liturgy. Collectively, they expressed by their vote, the mind of the Holy Spirit. Most likely you will not find agreement with such a person, no matter how many proofs you share with her.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
But it is fair to say that they were not voting for the form of the Mass that we now see as the OF Mass. Much of what the Council Fathers voted for in Sacrosanctum Concilium is now routinely ignored in most OF Masses. How often does Gregorian chant feature in most OF Masses? How much Latin remains in most OF Masses?
The Council fathers were not voting in favour of what is now the OF Mass. They were voting for some changes in how the Liturgy was to be delivered (the most notable being the increase in scripture read) but they were not voting for the complete overhaul of the Mass that resulted in the OF Mass as we know it today.
S
Sirach2
Guest
It is also fair to say that IF the OF was a “lesser” form or is less efficacious" as was stated in the OP, that the Holy Spirit would have intervened sometime during the last 52 years to make appropriate changes. Three popes, all having the authority to issue a Motu Proprio on their own authority, have not found cause to do so. Neither have the College of Bishops petitioned Rome to revise the OF liturgy. except for the linguistic changes a couple years ago.
The only ones complaining are the very tiny minority of folks who mistakenly believe the EF is superior and are clamoring to have them celebrated more often.
S
simple_soul
Guest
I don’t know that we can say that the Council Father’s did not vote for what we now know as the OF of the Mass today. Maybe they knew full well all along exactly what they were voting for and knew full well that it would become what it is today and they were ok with that.
Ok, here’s some more food for thought. I go to the OF of the Mass on ocassion. I was raised with the mind-set that the woman in the OP has about it so I started going to it to see if what I had been told about it was true or not. In order to do this I had to ignore what I had been told about it and just kind of trustingly go with it. What I have discovered is that I am now growing to prefer it over any other form. EF and the Eastern Church’s forms. This got wondering and I have been following the numerous threads that keep popping up debating the OF verses EF and what and how I was raised with understanding it.
My conclusion right now as to why so many people who prefer the EF don’t believe the OF is any good is because they are not ready for it. Some one on a different thread said that the reason those who prefer the OF do not like the EF is because the OF was like milk and honey and that they were not ready for the solid food of the EF. From my own personal experience and observations I believe it is actually the opposite. It is actually all the things that people miss in the OF, for the most part, that are actually the Milk and Honey.
While both forms offer the Solid Food. To me one form focuses more on the solid food and the other on the milk and honey. Well actually it is not the form but those advocating for it that are focusing more on the milk and honey. From reading these kinds of threads and talking to others I believe that the OF when it first came out tried to change the kind of Milk and Honey that was being used and that is what turned people off more than anything. I have not experienced what a lot of people say they have with this new milk and honey. For the most part the OF form is just the Solid Food! Not much milk and honey. It focuses on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His redeaming and sanctifying Graces by keeping the milk and honey to a bare minimum. To me it is like spending a half hour to an hour with God with just Him looking at me and me looking at Him. That simple gaze that so many spiritual masters have written about, in communion with others.
Who knows. Maybe this is what the Concilliar Father’s were agreeing to when the agreed to the changes they did. Maybe they realized we needed to be weened from our milk and honey so that we could start eating Solid Food. To me it seems to fit in with Universal call to Holiness that they have also been trying to get us to respond to.
Granted these are just my observations and trying to understand things the best that I can but the more of these threads I see and the more I hear and read of people just clamoring for everything to just be more like the EF the more I find the OF form so refreshing and nourishing because it is not there to distract me from just being there saying “Lord! I am not worthy that you should enter my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed!” And then kneeling there quietly letting Him do just that!
T
Timothysis
Guest
The Holy See issued a statement on July 4, 1976 that said the protestant observers were not involved in the drafting of the texts for the revised Missal. To say “whether or not it’s true” is to imply that the Church is being deceitful in the matter.
The “fact” that Anglicans and Lutherans revised their liturgies based on the revised Roman Missal doesn’t mean squat concerning the liturgy of the Mass. If anything, it shows an identity crisis among denominations that were founded in disobedience and heresy against the Church of Christ. Just saying…
A
AlexV
Guest
It all depends on what you mean by “involved.” Anyone who wants a very detailed and clear sense of exactly what happened between 1965 and 1975 with the liturgy should read Annibale Bugnini’s book on the subject.
P
ProVobis
Guest
What deceit?
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Oh, I agree with you there. Both forms are equally valid, but in terms of ‘lesser’ or ‘greater’, perhaps the person the OP was talking to meant it in terms of the personal spiritual effects, and the other functions that a Mass serves to fulfil. I know Catholics who consider the OF to be to be more valuable in terms of their own spirituality and also in it’s effectiveness in spreading the Word, I also know Catholics who consider the EF to be more effective in emphasising the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It cuts both ways really. So long as Catholics recognise the validity of both forms, they are free to hold opinions on which form is most effective, not in terms of the Eucharistic presence, but in relation to the other functions that Mass fulfills.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
We know exactly what the Council fathers voted for. What they voted for is contained within what is written in the documents of the Council.
We know what is written in Sacrosanctum Concilium regarding the liturgy. This is what the Council fathers voted for, and Masses today are bound to comply with the letter of this document. Sadly some do not, and some priests have since decided to go several steps beyond what Vatican II established. Read Concilium to see exactly what was voted for in terms of liturgical changes. I think that every Catholic who is interested in the Liturgy ought to read Sacrosanctum Concilium
.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
That’s the thing though, a great deal of people who talk about the changes brought about by Vatican II don’t even seem to read the actual documents of Vatican II. Most of them are actually fairly conservative documents, and not some sort of ‘dawn’ of a new kind of Church that many would like to have us believe.
Redemptionis Sacramentum, which was introduced by John Paul II to tackle widespread liturgical abuse after Vatican II is also something all Catholics should read. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
T
Timothysis
Guest
Your words were “whether or not it’s true.” A well know picture of the protestant observers does not mean that they had a hand in drafting the text. The Holy See has said as much. You should be honest enough to either say that you don’t believe the leadership of the Church and that the protestant observers DID have a hand in the texts or that you are mistaken and to disregard your post.
A
AlexV
Guest
Again, read Bugnini’s book, where he discusses these issues in great detail. The simple fact is that the Consilium that was responsible for the “banal, on the spot fabrication” (to quote no less than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) did indeed consult extensively with Protestant observers, and to say they had a hand in the drafting of texts is more than fair, by Bugnini’s own admission in his book.
S
Sirach2
Guest
And why is one man, Bugnini, considered the final authority on this liturgy? Is he the Pope? Is his word the final say? Was he put in complete charge of drafting the liturgy, without anyone else rendering approval? Could he be in error, heaven forbid?
I think you guys watch too much Michael Voris.
A
AlexV
Guest
Didn’t say he was the “final authority.” But no one man was more responsible than he for the final shape it took. He was given enormous leeway and latitude on matters liturgical by the pope.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Then nobody else but Bugnini had a voice or vote in the approval of the liturgy? Not even the Pope? Um, pardon me if I disbelieve this nonsense.
- Status