Author Topic: Ordinary Form of the Catholic Mass, Roman Missal-A critical discussion  (Read 780 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,437
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
In another thread, Cavaradossi wrote: "It would be nice to have a critical discussion on the OF as it was actually intended to be (that is, what is in the rubrics) rather than the abuses that certain people commit."

Here's your chance  ;).  What would you like to discuss?
"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,672
In another thread, Cavaradossi wrote: "It would be nice to have a critical discussion on the OF as it was actually intended to be (that is, what is in the rubrics) rather than the abuses that certain people commit."

Here's your chance  ;).  What would you like to discuss?

I'm interested in seeing why some people object to it so vehemently. If it were done with no liturgical abuses, what exactly is wrong with the OF? And on the other hand, I'm interested in knowing if there are any things which people consider improvements of the OF over the EF. I fear we may not have enough Catholic posters here for such a discussion, however, and this very topic is banned at CAF, so perhaps I am SOL.  :-\
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
In another thread, Cavaradossi wrote: "It would be nice to have a critical discussion on the OF as it was actually intended to be (that is, what is in the rubrics) rather than the abuses that certain people commit."

Here's your chance  ;).  What would you like to discuss?

I'm interested in seeing why some people object to it so vehemently. If it were done with no liturgical abuses, what exactly is wrong with the OF? And on the other hand, I'm interested in knowing if there are any things which people consider improvements of the OF over the EF. I fear we may not have enough Catholic posters here for such a discussion, however, and this very topic is banned at CAF, so perhaps I am SOL.  :-\
Well, personally I have no problem with the OF, as long as it is celebrated reverently, facing liturgical east, and with sacred music.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline akimori makoto

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,126
  • No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...
No epiklesis?
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
I never experienced an EF mass, since the city I lived in at the time didn't offer the EF (and then only once a month) until about a month before I moved away. From what I have heard from people who prefer the OF is that the EF is somewhat cold and/or stuffy. Again, I have no opinion, as I never experienced one. I experienced a few less-than-by-the-book OFs, though (jazz bands doing patriotic songs during the Mass because it's 4th of July? Check!). I don't mean to put words in any RCs mouths, but I'd guess that this is often one of those "general atmosphere" things, with the idea that the OF as often celebrated is either too irreverent, or (according to some of the more extreme anti-OF crowd) actually generates/encourages such irreverence by its form.

Offline akimori makoto

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,126
  • No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...
I never experienced an EF mass, since the city I lived in at the time didn't offer the EF (and then only once a month) until about a month before I moved away. From what I have heard from people who prefer the OF is that the EF is somewhat cold and/or stuffy. Again, I have no opinion, as I never experienced one. I experienced a few less-than-by-the-book OFs, though (jazz bands doing patriotic songs during the Mass because it's 4th of July? Check!). I don't mean to put words in any RCs mouths, but I'd guess that this is often one of those "general atmosphere" things, with the idea that the OF as often celebrated is either too irreverent, or (according to some of the more extreme anti-OF crowd) actually generates/encourages such irreverence by its form.

As I understand it, the eucharistic prayer is entirely silent in the so-called extraordinary form. That would drive me a bit mental.
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,395
In another thread, Cavaradossi wrote: "It would be nice to have a critical discussion on the OF as it was actually intended to be (that is, what is in the rubrics) rather than the abuses that certain people commit."

Here's your chance  ;).  What would you like to discuss?

I'm interested in seeing why some people object to it so vehemently. If it were done with no liturgical abuses, what exactly is wrong with the OF? And on the other hand, I'm interested in knowing if there are any things which people consider improvements of the OF over the EF. I fear we may not have enough Catholic posters here for such a discussion, however, and this very topic is banned at CAF, so perhaps I am SOL.  :-\
Well...for one thing the Scripture readings have been redone in the OF, making it to where the Catholic faithful read much more of the Bible during Mass over a three year cycle than they ever did in the Tridentine (EF) Mass.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 09:42:57 PM by Wyatt »

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,218
In another thread, Cavaradossi wrote: "It would be nice to have a critical discussion on the OF as it was actually intended to be (that is, what is in the rubrics) rather than the abuses that certain people commit."

Here's your chance  ;).  What would you like to discuss?

I'm interested in seeing why some people object to it so vehemently. If it were done with no liturgical abuses, what exactly is wrong with the OF? And on the other hand, I'm interested in knowing if there are any things which people consider improvements of the OF over the EF. I fear we may not have enough Catholic posters here for such a discussion, however, and this very topic is banned at CAF, so perhaps I am SOL.  :-\

That's a good question. Most often, objections have to do with versus populi, communion in the hand, etc. – that is to say, things that are permitted in the OF but not required.

Or translation issues, e.g. "pro multis" as "for all", which until recently was the English translation. But it could be pointed out that the language options for the OF have always been Latin or vernacular ... so again it's essentially an option-complaint.

Part of me wants to start a thread on fisheaters -- less than 1/2, maybe 1/4.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,437
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
In another thread, Cavaradossi wrote: "It would be nice to have a critical discussion on the OF as it was actually intended to be (that is, what is in the rubrics) rather than the abuses that certain people commit."

Here's your chance  ;).  What would you like to discuss?

I'm interested in seeing why some people object to it so vehemently. If it were done with no liturgical abuses, what exactly is wrong with the OF? And on the other hand, I'm interested in knowing if there are any things which people consider improvements of the OF over the EF. I fear we may not have enough Catholic posters here for such a discussion, however, and this very topic is banned at CAF, so perhaps I am SOL.  :-\

While I *prefer* the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I have no objections whatsoever to the "OF" of the "N.O."  Where we worship it is celebrated "by the book" and reverently.  No problems.

I've never been to a Mass with the Extraordinary Form so I can't comment on it.
"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,140
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
No epiklesis?

It is the OF Mass that has new Eucharistic Prayers with explicit descending epiklesis added.  The Roman Canon in both forms also has an epiklesis, just not the in the form Byzantines are used to.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.