What if a new liturgy was made that was more "Catholic" than the EF?

[Sarpedon]

I frequently hear people say that the EF is superior because it is more “explicitly” Catholic, i.e. the prayers reference more Catholic doctrine and belief than the prayers of the OF.

What if a new liturgy were to be introduced that was even more explicitly and unambiguosly Catholic than the EF? Suppose that the prayers were intentionally written to contain more doctrine than those of the EF, perhaps including references to more recent declarations of dogma (Immaculate Conception and Assumption)? Would this be opposed?

 

[cothrige]

I frequently hear people say that the EF is superior because it is more “explicitly” Catholic, i.e. the prayers reference more Catholic doctrine and belief than the prayers of the OF.

What if a new liturgy were to be introduced that was even more explicitly and unambiguosly Catholic than the EF? Suppose that the prayers were intentionally written to contain more doctrine than those of the EF, perhaps including references to more recent declarations of dogma (Immaculate Conception and Assumption)? Would this be opposed?

Shouldn’t liturgy develop over the life of the Church, rather than being a new invention by this or that man, or committee, to reflect this or that point of view? Isn’t that what is fundamentally flawed in the approach taken for the new Mass? Reform is good, when needed, but reinvention is different.

Patrick

 

[Rawb]

I agree with cothrige.

However, I don’t like the EF because it is more ‘doctrinally Catholic’ (though it naturally is, as the Liturgy and Doctrine developed together), I think it’s just more beautiful.

Compare:

Receive, O Holy Father,
almighty and eternal God,
this spotless host, which I,
Thine unworthy servant, offer
unto Thee, my living and true
God, for my countless sins,
trespasses, and omissions;
likewise for all here present,
and for all faithful
Christians, whether living or
dead, that it may avail both
me and them to salvation,
unto life everlasting. Amen.

With:

P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of
all creation. Through your
goodness we have this bread to
offer, which earth has given and
human hands have made. It will
become for us the bread of life.

R. Blessed be God for ever.

Are they both beautiful? Yes, the second has a nice sort of simplicity to it, but the first, in my opinion, creates a grander scope and encompasses more. I happen to prefer the first. Compare the rest: geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html

 

[scylla]

Making a liturgy sounds very wrong, yet if the liturgy was enhanced to further express Catholic doctrine I would be all for it.

If the NO was grown to better express the Catholic faith or if the EF Mass was made to better express the faith, I would be all for it. But change should come very slowly, unless it is for correction to curb abuses, it should be very slow and prudent.

I would like to propose the problem, all too often we have had a girly outlook on things. Teenage girls like to change, their clothes, styles, seek innovation. (most teenage boys have just one thing on their mind and that is irrelevant right now) Whereas good men prefer to maintain things as good. We have been overcome with a bunch of men\women who think like teenage girls seeking to change, rather than preserve and promote the Church.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[AJV]

Would this be opposed?

I doubt. The only people opposing it would be scholars. And that would be restricted to journals and books.

 

[stbruno]

I think that enormous of a undertaking requires a Vatican Council and I don’t think one is convening anytime soon.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

My first impression on reading the title is, "What is more Catholic then Catholic???
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[redrosetea]

I think the first is more pious sounding ,more reverent for me

You know what I think the average person would say, take the one that is the quickest…Catholics seem to like their services short and to the point

I tend to be a bit that way myself, many people don’t want things that go on and on, no matter how beautiful

 

[SenorSalsa]

Are they both beautiful? Yes, the second has a nice sort of simplicity to it, but the first, in my opinion, creates a grander scope and encompasses more. I happen to prefer the first. Compare the rest: geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html

ya’know, after reading through that, I allowing the EF to be celebrated in vernacular. While I dont deny that it is a beautiful celebration in Latin, when I go to Mass, I tend to just start meditating on parts of the Mass that strike me on that particular Sunday, and for me, its easier to do this if I can listen to the Mass without thinking of the translation. Becuase I dont think I will ever be fleunt in Latin, and while I could learn what was being said, I would still have to think about it as it goes.

If such a thing was allowed, I would probably switch which form I attend, and would promote it when I become a Priest

 

[Spiller]

I frequently hear people say that the EF is superior because it is more “explicitly” Catholic, i.e. the prayers reference more Catholic doctrine and belief than the prayers of the OF.
**
What if a new liturgy were to be introduced that was even more explicitly and unambiguosly Catholic than the EF?** Suppose that the prayers were intentionally written to contain more doctrine than those of the EF, perhaps including references to more recent declarations of dogma (Immaculate Conception and Assumption)? Would this be opposed?

Like the current OF for instance?

 

[kleary]

I frequently hear people say that the EF is superior because it is more “explicitly” Catholic, i.e. the prayers reference more Catholic doctrine and belief than the prayers of the OF.

What if a new liturgy were to be introduced that was even more explicitly and unambiguosly Catholic than the EF? Suppose that the prayers were intentionally written to contain more doctrine than those of the EF, perhaps including references to more recent declarations of dogma (Immaculate Conception and Assumption)? Would this be opposed?

Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi…

We are still waiting…what happened after 1962 is not what Vatican II called for as we are learning now after 30 years of anarchy…

The Catholic Faith never changes- and no new liturgy is needed to express the Catholic Faith unambiguously and completely. The EF already has Immaculate Conception and Assumption - and…St. Joseph was added to the Canon in 1962.

Ken

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Like the current OF for instance?

Are you joking?

 

[Hijikata]

Are you joking?

He has to be, I don’t believe anyone can say that with a straight face.

 

[PrayforMallory]

ya’know, after reading through that, I allowing the EF to be celebrated in vernacular. While I dont deny that it is a beautiful celebration in Latin, when I go to Mass, I tend to just start meditating on parts of the Mass that strike me on that particular Sunday, and for me, its easier to do this if I can listen to the Mass without thinking of the translation. Becuase I dont think I will ever be fleunt in Latin, and while I could learn what was being said, I would still have to think about it as it goes.

If such a thing was allowed, I would probably switch which form I attend, and would promote it when I become a Priest

The Latin grows on you. We just don’t have the proper catechism yet. As a seminarian, you’ll grasp it eventually. Besides, even being a seminarian means you are above-average intelligence!

I admire your vocation.

 

[markadm]

To my mind the “timelessness” of the EF contributes to the discussion. It was codified in essentially the same form it is now 500 years ago, and existed in a similar form for maybe the same time before that at least. Why modify it? Why try to compete with it?

 

[ethelzguy]

He has to be, I don’t believe anyone can say that with a straight face.

And why is that? Some of us are totally content and happy with the NO/OF. If you study the NO with an open mind and heart, it is certainly beautiful (in a succinct and straightforward way).

typed with a totally straight face…

 

[Sarpedon]

And why is that? Some of us are totally content and happy with the NO/OF. If you study the NO with an open mind and heart, it is certainly beautiful (in a succinct and straightforward way).

typed with a totally straight face…

Honestly, I personally find the OF in English far more beautiful than the EF in Latin. I find Latin to be a disjointed and jerky larguage (at least as the priests I’ve heard pronounce it- maybe Romans would make it sound better).

 

[ProVobis]

(at least as the priests I’ve heard pronounce it- maybe Romans would make it sound better).

You have a point there. Each priest does have a different style of pronounciation and delivery. I prefer the priest who says the Latin fluently but then I don’t always get what I want.

Someone made a point about becoming more proficient in Latin at the seminary. Probably, if the conversations among seminarians and their mentors are mostly in Latin, then one cannot help but become more proficient in it. Some college classes in foreign languages forbid English in the classroom; best way to teach the foreign language that way.

 

[SJP]

And why is that? Some of us are totally content and happy with the NO/OF. If you study the NO with an open mind and heart, it is certainly beautiful (in a succinct and straightforward way).

typed with a totally straight face…

What kind of OF liturgy are you talking about? Does it include the use of latin? Does Gregorian Chant enjoy pride of place?

 

[SJP]

I frequently hear people say that the EF is superior because it is more “explicitly” Catholic, i.e. the prayers reference more Catholic doctrine and belief than the prayers of the OF.

What if a new liturgy were to be introduced that was even more explicitly and unambiguosly Catholic than the EF?

Your question is inherently flawed, proper Catholic liturgy cannot be “introduced” or created, not even by a Pope.

As noted by Cardinal Ratzinger in the Preface to The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Alcuin Reid:

The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition and, thereby, the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and he is thereby able to oppose those people who, for their part, want to do whatever comes into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The “rite”, that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living Tradition in which the sphere using that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit that is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis, the handing-on of Tradition.