Topic: Ordinary Form of the Catholic Mass, Roman Missal-A critical discussion

[J Michael]

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?

[Cavaradossi]

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. 

[Papist]

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.

[akimori makoto]

No epiklesis?

[dzheremi]

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.

[akimori makoto]

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.

[Wyatt]

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.

[Peter J]

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.

[J Michael]

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.

[Deacon Lance]

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.