Wonderful Mass Celebrated According to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic03

Well-known member
I found this Mass from a page on another Catholic forum that had linked to EWTN. It is so reverent and beautiful.

I will link it below. It is truly wonderful:
.
 
Thanks for the link!
First Holy Communion girls in white dresses and veils (don’t flame me people!), servers in cassock and surplice. A sung OF Mass - delightful! Gloria in Latin. Communion hymn in latin too. Beautiful chapel too. Loved the flower arrangements too. Very reverent and beautiful. Thanks for sharing.
 
One of the reasons they revised the Mass was because they wanted to worship in exactly the same way as the early Catholics did in the years after Christ. The OF Mass is as close as possible to the Mass as celebrated in the years after Christ. When celebrated reverently, it is wonderful.

Not to say the EF is not good. I like this:
.
 
Ahh yes, the FSSP. Some years ago I attended a retreat given by one of their priests - it was excellent.

I love Solemn High Masses and Missa Cantata Masses in the EF. I find low Masses a bit hard on my back and knees.
 
catholic03 said:
One of the reasons they revised the Mass was because they wanted to worship in exactly the same way as the early Catholics did in the years after Christ. The OF Mass is as close as possible to the Mass as celebrated in the years after Christ. When celebrated reverently, it is wonderful.
Click to expand...
Personally, one of the issues I’ve always had with this line of thinking is that it discounts the organic developments of the Liturgy throughout the ages. I find it to be a form of antiquarianism.

But yes, I do love beautiful, reverent OF Masses (perhaps even more than the EF, actually).
 
I prefer to focus on the positives in this thread.

I have no wish to start WW3, but I personally do not agree with the comment the OF Mass was revised for that particular reason, I don’t think it was even a reason - but not being able to ask the Bishops who attended I can’t know for sure.

Is it as close as possible to how Mass was celebrated in the early years. IMO, no, I don’t think so. From memory of what I’ve read over the years, there has been various changes of various parts over time, thus growing organically.

And that’s where I’ll leave my comments on this matter.
 
I agree.
The truth is we really don’t know much about how the early Church did mass. The liturgists, scholars, and theologians who came up with the OF did go through writings that weren’t available at the time of Trent, but the writings talking about worship are pretty vague. Justin Martyr is one of them. And they tended to just throw in different things different saints said. Like the reason the " for the kingdom the power" etc got added to the OF was from the Didache etc.
I however believe in development. There is a reason the mass became what it was. And I’ve heard this argument as well, this claim that the OF is actually older, but that is speculative. I honestly doubt it honestly. The masses were more simple sure, but I doubt they were what the OF is at all. If you buy a EF missal every single thing that happens at mass has a meaning to it. Even how many times the priest genuflects or makes the sign of the cross during the consecration. This was all a development in liturgy. To say we wanna go back to the way the mass was said in the second century to me is like saying let’s go back to only having the teachings from the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. There is a hermeneutic development of the Church and there really is no evidence this is how mass was said besides some basics. Also I doubt Luther and Wesley were being sung either.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal1984 said:
To say we wanna go back to the way the mass was said in the second century to me is like saying let’s go back to only having the teachings from the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
Click to expand...
Wanting to ‘go back’ was not the motivation for the new form. It was people desiring to be more intimate with the Scriptural Christ in the Eucharist and to experience their invitation into the pascal mystery as the Apostles did at the Last Supper. I see it as an organic redress of the form that had come to exclude many people from the experience. So people are saying that the new form is not incompatible with the early Church Eucharist.
 
Never mind protestantism - Catholics cannot unite on the form of the Mass! It is the same Lord. It is the same unbloody Sacrifice offered to the Father. We offer ourselves along with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Oh, how often do we allow human aesthetic prefences to intrude?

The only “original” mass is in Aramaic. For that, we must purchase a DVD of “The Passion of the Christ.”
 
Nor was the “EF” incompatible.
Personally I find I am more ‘intimate’ with the Scriptural Christ in the Eucharist at the EF, but certainly the OF is not only a valid rite but can be lovely, reverent, and meaningful as the EF can.
 
The notion that the Novus Ordo Missae is somehow “closer” to the earliest liturgical observances was all the rage in the 60s-70s. It rests on very flimsy historical grounds.
 
Pope Benedict XVI gives several reasons for appreciating the OF:

Pope Benedict XVI likes the Novus Ordo

One more point to consider in light of the OF is given here:

In Praise of the Novus Ordo…when it’s prayed correctly!
  1. The revised lectionary has enriched the Liturgy of the Roman Rite.
The congregation now hears readings from the entire Bible. The Tridentine Mass neglected altogether the Gospel of Mark, and certain passages from the Gospel of Matthew were read repeatedly in Latin (one example is the parable of wise and foolish virgins that was read at EVERY feast day for women saints). The revised lectionary exposes Catholics to virtually the entire Bible, saturating them with the Word of God.
Click to expand...
 
I think it’s also proven itself to be more adaptable to indigenous cultures such as in Africa where Catholicism has grown significantly since the council.
 
CTBcin said:
Personally, one of the issues I’ve always had with this line of thinking is that it discounts the organic developments of the Liturgy throughout the ages. I find it to be a form of antiquarianism.
Click to expand...
Indeed, one could use the same logic to discount latter councils.
 
Last edited:
Academic studies in recent years have demonstrated that while the Novus Ordo is obviously full of much more Scripture, certain passages that used to be read yearly are now omitted entirely, and are…rather astonishingly…nowhere to be found. The one on unworthy reception of Holy Communion from St. Paul is the most glaring example. No surprise that there has been a demonstrable weakening in the catechesis about this issue since the new lectionary was implemented.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top