Solemn and not so solemn
  • Chris -

    I don't agree that the OF is anthropocentric. It is, granted, considerably simpler than the EF, but is no less God-oriented than the EF. It's great shortcoming is all the various options and the multiplicity of eucharistic prayers. Too, it is less rich in prayer and its theology less developed, but it isn't anthropocentic. Nor does it call for the shabby ways in which it is often celebrated by poorly formed priests and even more poorly catechised people. There is nothing inherent in the rite which invites this shabbiness of praxis. The poor celebrations of the rite would be unthinkable, undreamed of, by properly formed clergy and conscientiously catechised people. I repeat yet again, if the EF were all that we had, it would be the object of the shabbiness which is too often inflicted upon the OF.

    Now! Having given the OF its just defense, I will confess that the EF is theologically richer. This is where my personal preferences enter this picture. I love Latin. I sing in Latin very often. I have been deeply moved by Latin masses, and greatly perplexed that many Catholics hold Latin in contempt - but! I would not want to have Latin only in my spiritual life, or only in my worship - and am gratefully blessed that I can worship with Old Church English as my sacred language. I realise that this is anathema to adherents of the EF, but the EF should have been put into English at the very start after the council. Whatever daft reasons for which it wasn't will ever be just that: daft. The proverbial boat was not only missed, it was shunned by small-minded men with small-minded agendas. Too, the Vatican, the vaunted Vatican with all its real and imagined power and authority did nothing, nihil, to stanch the spread of a culture of disobedience and cheapness. All this is the responsibility and fault of a Vatican and an hierarchy which quite obviously didn't (and doesn't) care.

    Still, though, the OF, in its simplicity, is not anthropocentric, and is far from the 'Protestant communion service' which I have heard it called. It invites a 'high church' praxis and where it doesn't receive this praxis the fault lies with the low church brains of incredibly, astonishingly poorly formed priests. But they are the products of the spirit of our times - and of the residual old guard of those who disobeyed the council, and of a Vatican that doesn't seem to mind.
  • Carol
    Posts: 856
    I never really thought about the Pre V2I Mass being substantially different than Post V2 in terms of it being more than a translation into the vernacular. I am too young (62) to remember much about attending Mass Pre V2. That there is a difference in theological emphasis is a new concept to me. Thank you for educating me and keep up the good work, gentlemen! I should have realized it- "And also with you" is not the same as "And with your Spirit."
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Carol, you should look into the Pre-V2 liturgy--what you will discover is that the Pass of Maul VI is FAR from being a translation of the Tridentine Missal: it is, in reality (pace Papa Ratzinger!) a completely different Use of the Latin Rite. (Which is not, in itself, a bad thing; after all, the Ordinariate Use is a distinct Use from that of Trent, as are the Ambrosian, Gallican, and Sarum Uses, but all uses within the Latin Rite, distinct from the Use of Rome, though related to it.) What you will discover is a different Order of Mass, a different Calendar, different sacred ministers with specific roles, etc. The new Roman Rite and the Old Roman Rite are really two distinct things; related but all the same distinct; just as Tulips and Lilies are related (in the tribe of Liliae), but are distinct (Genus Tulipa & Lilium, respectively)--no one would mistake a Tulip for a Lily.