What are the main differences between the OF and the EF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe_5859
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joe_5859

Guest
Forgive me in advance as I have no personal experience with the EF beyond what I have read. It is not my intent to misrepresent the EF but to find out more about it.

I see some people speak of the two forms as though there is this great chasm between them. I am having trouble wrapping my brain around how this could be the case. Don’t they both follow the same general format (which echoes the format found in St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology, chapters 66-67)? In other words, don’t they both have a Liturgy of the Word and a Liturgy of the Eucharist?

Most of the reasons that I have seen given for the EF being superior to the OF have more to do with abuses in the OF, not anything inherent to the OF itself.

I know that, for us in the U.S., the language is different, but the normative version of the OF is still Latin, the same as the EF, isn’t it? It’s just that vernacular translations have been allowed for the OF.

I know that the priest faces the other direction (and personally, I like the theology behind the EF posture much better), but, by itself, this hardly seems reason to view the two forms as so vastly different.

I’m hoping to keep this thread charitable. 🙂 I’m not trying to start a fight. I just want to learn. I would particularly like to hear from people who have experience with both forms. Thanks!
 
The NO can be said in Latin with the preist facing the altar, etc., but the actual prayers are still different from the TLM. Here’s a side-by-side comparison that’s pretty accurate (although not perfect):
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm
 
Hi, I go to both Masses (EF and OF), more or less weekly. I appreciate both forms when done reverently, but prefer the EF.

The prayers in the EF, as you can probably see are far more poetic. Also, there’s a greater sense of mystery and profundity in my opinion, because the role of the priest is as intercessor between God and man is defined more clearly. There’s also a greater attention to the detail of the Mass in the EF. The music at the EF I assist at is Gregorian chant (which is typical), and it’s is way beyond beautiful. I personally don’t much care for the “sing songy” tunes at the OF, such as “Gather us In” and the like, although some of the older hymns at the OF I find to be fine and very lovely; there’s just not enough of those where I am.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Most of the reasons that I have seen given for the EF being superior to the OF have more to do with abuses in the OF, not anything inherent to the OF itself.

I’m hoping to keep this thread charitable. 🙂 I’m not trying to start a fight. I just want to learn. I would particularly like to hear from people who have experience with both forms. Thanks!
Click to expand...
If more people understood this, we would have far less bickering (about the validity of the Mass, that is…not about the innovations of lay and clergy.)

Both, when correctly celebrated are wonderfull.

.
 
I’m not going to get into one being superior over the other, but the main structural differences between OF and EF are…

OF is divided into the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist; the Word consists of the penitential rite, the readings, and the homily. The Eucharist consists of the Canon, among other things.

In the EF, the Mass is divided into the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful. They consist of similar parts, but the difference is that all of the EF Mass is focused on the Eucharist and its celebration. The Mass of the Catechumens is said at the atlar, not at the chair. (The term ‘Mass’ comes from ‘missae’ or ‘dismisals’, because Mass had two dismisals; one for catechumens, one for the faithful, in ancient times. As in…Greece, not the council of Trent). The homily is an aside, not a focal point. The priest removes his maniple before he goes to the ambo, etc.

In the OF, you can clearly see the transition from Liturgy of the Word to Liturgy of the Eucharist. In the EF, the Mass of the Catechumens blends right into the Mass of the Faithful, and all of it is said at the altar.

The prayers of the EF are longer, even when there is an equivalent in the OF. They usually involved more complex or archaic language, as the EF was designed to enforce orthodoxy in a turbulent era(post Reformation). The EF involves dozens of genuflections by the priest(s) and severs, the OF uses two. The EF includes the ‘prayers at the foot of the altar’, at the beginning of Mass. There are more prayers after Communion in the EF. The OF has the sign of peace in a different place, and it is done by all of the congregation, not just the priest/deacons. In the EF, many prayers are said silently. The priest is less of a worship leader, as he rarely says prayers with the people or begins them. During the songs, such as the Kyrie or Sanctus, he usually sang the first view words and then said them to himself quitely after the choir began singing with the people, finishing faster and going about saying prayers to himself(there are tons of private prayers the priest says during the EF). There is no space to make annoucements in the EF.

That’s all I cna think of off the top of my head…they are quite different, though an OF Mass celebrated ad orientem in Latin with proper music and vestments, and trained servers, looks and feels, and is, a lot more like the EF, more continuous.
 
Jacafamala said:
Hi, I go to both Masses (EF and OF), more or less weekly. I appreciate both forms when done reverently, but prefer the EF.

The prayers in the EF, as you can probably see are far more poetic. Also, there’s a greater sense of mystery and profundity in my opinion, because the role of the priest is as intercessor between God and man is defined more clearly. There’s also a greater attention to the detail of the Mass in the EF. The music at the EF I assist at is Gregorian chant (which is typical), and it’s is way beyond beautiful. I personally don’t much care for the “sing songy” tunes at the OF, such as “Gather us In” and the like, although some of the older hymns at the OF I find to be fine and very lovely; there’s just not enough of those where I am.
Click to expand...
Attention to detail is relative- the priest at my parish is certainly a stickler for details :o

and it is OF. And we use mostly Gregorian chant, polyphony, or traditional english hymns. Most of the Mass is sung in plaincahnt(english though).
 
muffinmojo said:
Attention to detail is relative- the priest at my parish is certainly a stickler for details :o

and it is OF. And we use mostly Gregorian chant, polyphony, or traditional english hymns. Most of the Mass is sung in plaincahnt(english though).
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Benedictines chant at the NO not far from here. In English. It’s a school chapel. It’s a beautiful (and long!) liturgy. Before my husband and I had kids, we went to midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. Took them 3 hours to finish singing. I could hardly keep my eyes open.:o
 
Thanks for the replies. This helps.
BrendanD said:
The NO can be said in Latin with the preist facing the altar, etc., but the actual prayers are still different from the TLM. Here’s a side-by-side comparison that’s pretty accurate (although not perfect):
latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm
Click to expand...
Very helpful link! It will be interesting to see the side-by-side comparison to the new English translation of the OF. It seems like the two will be a good deal closer.
MrS said:
If more people understood this, we would have far less bickering (about the validity of the Mass, that is…not about the innovations of lay and clergy.)

Both, when correctly celebrated are wonderfull.

.
Click to expand...
Amen to that! 🙂
muffinmojo said:
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head…they are quite different, though an OF Mass celebrated ad orientem in Latin with proper music and vestments, and trained servers, looks and feels, and is, a lot more like the EF, more continuous.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat the thought I had that led me to start this thread. It seems that it is possible (though, perhaps, not common) to celebrate the OF with many of the same elements as the EF (using Latin, the priest facing ad orientam, using chant, etc.). In that case, it seems the two forms would be pretty similar, except of course for the textual differences illustrated by Brendan’s link.
 
I just got back from my first E.F. Mass today - while the differences set forth above are accurate, when it comes right down to it, they’re the same Mass!. The O.F. is basically the E.F. translated into (simple) English, sanitized, watered down. and stripped down to the bare minimum required for a valid Mass.

Essentially, as I saw it, anyway - the E.F. is a Rolls Royce, with all the features, while the O.F. is a Geo Metro, which simply gets you from point A to point B. Both work, both “do the job,” but the former is an overall better experience.
 
Ehh…above poster, take the missal from the EF Mass and compare it to one from the OF Mass…yes they have similarities, but they are more like cousins than siblings, even in structure.

That is assuming that priests at both ‘say the black, do the red’ 😉
 
muffinmojo said:
Ehh…above poster, take the missal from the EF Mass and compare it to one from the OF Mass…yes they have similarities, but they are more like cousins than siblings, even in structure.

That is assuming that priests at both ‘say the black, do the red’ 😉
Click to expand...
I would say that they’re more like father and son; but I don’t think that you can easily see the similarities if you’re comparing an English translation of the EF to the current English translation of the OF. From personal experience, the inter-relationships are not too obvious until you compare the actual Latin. Even in structure, the OF, when performed by the book, looks almost identical to the EF, keeping in mind the absense of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and Last Gospel, at least that is my point of view. I would say that the biggest difference between the two is that the EF has a lot of repetition, whereas the OF doesn’t; Domine, non sum dignus, genuflections, crossings, and depending on whether you are using the 1955 or 1962 Missal, even the Confiteor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top