The essential difference is in the doctrinal and spiritual content of the prayers. "Watered down" doesn't begin to describe the impoverished prayers of the OF. See, for example, the work of Dr. Lauren Pristas:

http://faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/novaetveteraweb.pdf

"First, the vocabulary of submission or subjection, whether of the divine Son to human parents or of human beings to God, has been completely eliminated from the whole corpus of Sunday and Holy Day collects ..."

"Except for what is implicit in the act of praying itself, there are only two agents in the 1962 prayers. On the one side, the divine persons who bend ear to prayers, rouse, come, illumine, succor, protect, deliver, purify and speed; and, on the other side, our sins and the dangers that attach to them which both threaten and impede. We are situated between Christ who saves and the perils from which we need saving. The dangers named are interior to us: our sins, darkness, and impurity. The theology of grace at work in the aggregate of 1962 Advent Sunday collects is manifest most clearly, perhaps, in the collect of the second Sunday. We ask God to rouse our hearts to prepare the way for his Son, implying that unless he rouses us we will not be able to prepare for the Son. But unless we prepare the Son’s way, our minds will not be made pure through his coming; and unless they are made pure through him we will not be able to serve God. Everything pertinent to salvation comes forth from God, catches us up and transforms us, and then returns us to himself with our own human willingness fully engaged.

The picture painted by the verbs in the 1970 collects is quite different. It is not simply that the imperatives are far fewer (three) and weaker (grant and pour out); but that the human subjects, however they are named (variously the faithful, we, your people) are far more active; indeed, they are the subject of the five active infinitives. In one collect God is described as seeing their activity (they are faithfully awaiting), and in others he is asked to make their activity fruitful: to grant that they may inherit the kingdom, be made partakers of Christ through training in heavenly wisdom, to attain the joys of salvation, to celebrate these joys with solemn prayers and ready rejoicing. Moreover, the motion verbs of the two sets describe exactly opposite movements: in the 1962 collect Christ comes to meet us; in the 1970 collect we go to meet Christ, arrive, are brought to, and so forth. In the 1970 set, Christ is described as coming only in the collect of the first Sunday.
A second difference is that the 1970 collects name no overwhelming obstacles. In contrast to the 1962 collect in which we ask God to rouse our hearts in order that we may prepare for the coming of his Son, in the 1970 collects we are twice described as already hastening to meet him and once as faithfully awaiting the feast of his birth. The only suggestion in the 1970 collects that there are things that could cause us to stumble is the prayer that God let no works of earthly deed impede us as we hasten - where the works can be understood as either our own or those of others. In other words, the collect does not insist upon the existence of interior impediments.

In fact, the 1970 prayers contain no reference to sin or its dangers; to darkness or impurity of mind; to human weakness or need for mercy, forgiveness, protection, deliverance, purification; nor to the fact that any or all of us require a divine jump start to begin preparations for Christ’s coming. Also, the idea that we must undergo a transformation in order to enter heaven is intimated only by the word eruditio, instruction or training, in the collect of the second Sunday.

A third difference is that those who pray the 1970 collects do not seek divine assistance to survive perils or to begin to do good things. Indeed they express no need for such helps. Rather they ask to enter heaven at the last. In contrast, those who pray the 1962 collects do not explicitly seek heaven, but demand - the imperative verbs - immediate and personal daily help on the way. In these three differences we come to something very delicate. Put simply the Catholic faith holds that every good deed which advances us toward salvation depends upon divine grace. This doctrine is formally defined and is not susceptible to modification that would reverse its import. Every nuance of the 1962 Advent collects expresses this Catholic doctrine of grace unambiguously in the somewhat subtle, non-expository manner proper to orations. While the 1970 Advent collects do not explicitly contradict the Catholic teaching on grace, they neither articulate it nor, more worrisomely, seem to assume it. The delicate bit is how to sum this up fairly for while the 1970 collects may not legitimately be understood or interpreted in a way that is inconsistent with Catholic truth, they are susceptible to being misunderstand by those who are inadequately schooled in Catholic truth."

There is much, much more at Dr. Pristas' website here: http://faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/

The differences in rubrics is something I hear bishops and priests talking about often, but I don't have the competence to discuss it at length.

On paper, we CMAA musicians know quite well that the differences can seem minimal. That is not how most people experience Catholic litugy, however. The sign of peace and the prayers of the faithful are good examples of how minor differences on paper are often major in experience. The two forms don't have to be so different, but they are presented as such. Some remark that it seems like two different religions. Ouch. We must face this, not that most people here don't realize that.


The essential weakness of the OF, IMO, is the sea of options. Any hope for simplicity has become burdensome, and the easiest options are most often chosen as a result. The neglect of the propers might be the most familiar evidence of this problem to us. What average layperson (who does not attend the EF) even knows that the propers exist?

Eliminating the Offertory prayers is a loss, considering the emphasis on sacrifice, unworthiness, and the Trinity. It's no coincidence that Catholic culture at large now has a greatly minimized understanding in those three areas. I pray that the pre-conciliar Offertory prayers will be restored, regardless of their later origins.

If we were to throw away things after the patristic age, many of the great prefaces, sequences, chant hymns, and possibly Gregorian propers would be gone.

I still believe in the reform of the reform, and work to make it happen. But in the current climate, even in a beautifully celebrated OF mass, I conclude we have essentially lost more than we have gained. On good authority, I have heard rumors of a new missal, which woul bring back things like the Offertory prayers and shore up excessive options, as well as reconcile the calendars. Though it would be years away, I pray for that day.

Jeff,

I assume from your post that you do not normally attend the EF. For musicians, the changes from the 1962 Graduale to the 1974 Graduale are the least striking. We even get additional chants (e.g., Laus tibi). But then we almost never experience a fully Sung Mass, nor are we ever allowed to sing the full Propers from the Graduale.

But the entire order of Mass also has the following striking changes:

• Changes in the Ordinary text - almost exclusively reductions, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, removing the Minor Absolutions, reduction in private prayers for example after ascending the altar, the Offertory prayers you mentioned, the Prayers Before the Priest's Communion, the Prayers of Ablution, the elimination of the triple Domine, Non Sum Dignus, the Last Gospel you mentioned, the Leonine Prayers retained in most places today where the EF is said with Vatican permission, changes to the text of the Communion Rite, minor changes to the Canon.
  
• Optional changes in the Ordinary text - the Penitential Rite, the Agnus Dei (!), Prayers of the Faithful, etc.
  
• Changes in the rubrics of Mass - replacement of double genuflections with single, replacement of genuflections with bows--which are not even "profound" bows from the waist but often merely nods, removal of many signs of the cross over the gifts, mandatory ablution with wine, fingers together from the consecration, form of the Sign of Peace.
  
• Changes in the vestments - particularly for servers, and some vestments now said to be optional for clergy as well.
  
• Changes in the normal mode of reception of Communion - according to local Indult in most places; customary non-use of the patina to the point that most parishes don't own them.
  
• Changes in architectural norms - location of altars, missing altar rails, etc. - saying Mass facing the people, not from a faldstool but from a presidential throne, is not objectively an incentive to impiety, but wicked Catholic laymen and priests have by their other habitual infidelities to liturgical norms turned it into such a priest-worshipping session that the women will complain if the priest's eyes are focused on the Host instead of on them.
  
• Changes in the canon law - the old canons regarding the person of lectors, acolytes and Communion ministers remain in use at the EF, and this seems to be the intent of the legislator, regardless of the theories of some canonists.
  
• Inaccurate English translations - this speaks for itself, and will not be entirely fixed by the revisions coming next Fall.
  
• Changes in the Propers - especially the readings, the 3-year cycle, elimination of "tough" lessons
  
• Arbitrary changes in the Sanctoral calendar
  

Combined with the above changes are the differences in the Office. Oh, and widespread modernist theology.

Friends,

let me clarify:

Assuming that the OF is said in Latin, that clerics chant the readings, that Mass is said ad orientem, that Eucharistic prayer no. 1 is chosen, ETC.

Assuming all these things did I miss any essential differences?

I skimmed through the above, and I did not find a single one. (Again, I am very curious if I am missing anything)

Servers no longer act as proxies for the faithful in the pews in offering the responses and making gestures (the MIssal in EF didn't really regulate what the people in the pews did or did not do, but instead regulated the clerics, servers and schola).

The dialogue mass was a late development - and I thought you originally asked about a EF Pontifical high mass. Even though the people can make certain responses in the EF, as Liam points out, this is not spelled out in the rubrics. Also, there are responses in the OF that were said silently in the EF.

Sign of the Cross and greeting with their responses
Confiteor (single form for priest and people in the OF)
"Deo gratias" after the epistle and the "Laus tibi Christe" after the gospel
Offertory prayer and "Amen" (called the "Secret" in the EF)
(Memorial Acclamation)
All prayers from embolism after the Pater noster to the Agnus Dei (prayer for peace moved prior to the Agnus Dei in the OF)
Final blessing can be sung in the OF.
(The Canon said aloud has already been mentioned.)

The "Pater noster" is sung by the priest alone in the EF (with the exception of the "sed libera nos a malo"; I believe Good Friday is the only exception).

Also in the OF:

- the Asperges (or Vidi Aquam) is not, as a rule, done prior to mass, but takes the place of the penitential rite (applicable only to Sundays).

- proper prefaces for most feasts

- the homily is required on Sundays and Holy Days

Finally, as Msgr. (now bishop) Peter J. Elliot has pointed out, the rubrics for the OF are not as exact as the EF - they seem to assume a familiarity with the EF with regard to things like incensing, where precise directions are not spelled out. So besides all the legitimate options noted above, one often sees irregular movements and arrangements in the OF due to lack of clarity in the rubrics.

Sam Schmitt

Sam touched on one, but I'd like to expand - the Asperges.

In the EF, it was done at the High Mass on Sundays, and was restricted to Sunday's only. It was a very simple rite, and took for granted Holy Water being available. Once the sprinkling was over, the Mass could begin as usual.

In the OF, it is a complicated rite that involves blessing the water, and the salt added to the water, before each and every sprinkling. It then takes the place of everything leading up to the intonation of the Gloria.

IOW, the new MO of Liturgy seems to be that you cannot add something special without taking away something regular. ISTM that blessing water when there is already a supply of it in the building is redundant. And think about Paschaltide. We how call the "Sundays of Easter" rather than "after". Most parishes just blessed gallons of water at the Easter Vigil. But it's all gone? Come on! This lacks any sort of logic. But it's quite clearly in the OF rubrics.

Jeff, think you are looking at the "big picture", the basic form more than the details of the texts and choices of texts.

I disagree that the reversal of the Blessing and Dismissal is "not major". In the EF, the priest, in persona Christi, announces that the Mass is ended. He then gives us "his" blessing, in persona Christi. But we (most of us) have just received Jesus in the flesh, for real, through transubstantiation. The priest's blessing is like a courtesy to his congregation now preparing to depart. It is followed by the Last Gospel, a strong reminder of totality of what we have just experienced and a reminder of what we are to take into the world with us. Then (after Low Mass) we pray specifically for the conversion of Russia (still a very grave need IMO). In the OF, the Mass is not over until the priest has imparted his blessing, making it seem just as important as Communion which we just completed.

Also, remember that there is no blessing of the people present at a Requiem Mass. It is said ONLY for the departed, singular or plural. The OF Rite of Christian Burial does not reflect this attitude at all.

Hey Jeff, you are right about your initial post. I did not say that the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were part of the OF, just that, if they were, I've never seen them. We all know that they are not there and it would be very unusual to add them for an OF IMO. Just because they are omitted for a few Masses in EF, doesn't mean that they are not integral to it. The Masses you mention have completely different characters. I would assert objectively that these are a major difference between the two. Now does this mean that I cannot bear a properly done OF? Not at all. I do lament the loss of richness in the texts. It hardly seems a step "forward."

Yes, especially spare us the political manifestos that pass for Prayers of the Faithful these days.

I don't see that in his initial post. I hear his implicit question as "If an OF Mass celebrated properly is really not much different from an EF Mass, then why do we need the EF Mass?" I could be wrong, but that's what I hear.

My preference is for the 1962 Missal, and Pope Benedict has said this preference is entirely legitimate.

However, I often hear some pretty dumb comments about the OF, and I think these could be alleviated and mutual understanding could be arrived at through comparison of the two Rites.

In this particular thread, I am merely trying to ascertain some information. Thanks!!!!!

fixed. (embarrassed)

Liam, for what it's worth, when they did Renaissance Masses at the Vatican, the Benedictus was sung after the "Mortem Tuam" Acclamation. This was under Pope John Paul II.

Actually, while I was alive before the 1962 edition of the Missal, my first memories of Mass were from around 1965.

Jeff

I would not consider those examples to be indicative of how the current MIssal is intended in its instructions to be intrepreted. The Pope is free to dispense with compliance (in oh so many ways, as people have often complained), but the Missal is simply not set up that way at all. One-offs do not a rule or norm make (in Anglospheric eyes, they might, but not in Roman eyes).

As for various externals, yes the Novus Ordo can be made to look and sound somewhat similar to the traditional one, that is, if the celebrant selects the 'right' options. The problem is precisely the need to select, that it is up to one's taste in the Novus Ordo.

The more interesting question is how much the TLM could be made to look like a badly-done OF Mass, if the celebrant selected the "wrong" options based on his own tastes. Funky polyester vestments? Check (yeah, really). A bunch of hippie vernacular folk songs (maybe Gather Us In, Sing a New Church, Imagine) led by a long-haired guitar player? Check. Watered-down and/or heretical preaching? Check. Tabernacle off to the side, no altar rail, whitewashed and stripped-down sanctuary not particularly sacred in appearance? Check, check, check.

See? The problem is that it's totally up to his taste. That must be it.

An EF Low Mass with a Four-Hymn Sandwich of Haugen and Haas would be a bit cringeworthy, but then you'd get to the Canon and all would fall silent, the priest's personality would happily recede, and Christ would slip into the world just like in Bethlehem. Of course the priest could find a way to botch that, but it would involve violations.

'I think that Jeff's point is entirely missed, or I've completely misunderstood the topic. It seems to me that he is asking what rubrics prevent one from being ABLE TO celebrate an OF Mass exactly like an EF Mass, if a priest should choose to do so.' I agree with your hunch, and see merit in this idea. Imagine a good priest friend is interested in celebrating a Latin Mass, but for whatever reason its not prudent or he just doesn't want to celebrate the EF. This kind of information would be perfect for such a situation, and can also help the average person understand that there need not be as much of a difference as is often encountered.

If, on the other hand, people use this line of reasoning to claim there is no real essential difference between the two forms, and both as they are *commonly* celebrated are basically the same, that's just denial. I have heard people talk like this, though I know that Jeff isn't in that camp.

In terms of concrete differences, the texts of the prayers seem the biggest examples. The absence of a subdeacon won't have the same catechetical result as the absence of the offertory prayers of the EF, as an example.

Still haven't had a second to check out Jeff Culbreath's link about the collects, etc. But the difference between OF and EF collects is indeed striking, and his point is well taken. Lex credendi... and all. These things are very important.

But a list of things Jeff O is asking for would be helpful to several priests I can think of, who can apply the information to practical situations and developments in their parishes. More and more there will be priests who want to know these things, and were simply never told, or seminarians who are still languishing in less than adequate seminaries. CMAA can help meet these challenges in liturgical formation, too.

Its really kind of fun to wonder WHY Jeff O is sniffing this out, no? What is the next project? :)

Even if one were to "opt" to celebrate the OF in "perfect" way, which is a BIG if... the EF is my grandfather's watch, the OF is a replica of my grandfather's watch. To address Jeff's question: What would be the difference between the two? The politics that would be required to pull off a really "upscale" OF.

Today, July 14th, is the feast of St Bonaventure on the EF calendar... But in the OF his feast is tomorrow. To me, it's little things like that that are just so dumbfounding. That's an isolated example of a general pattern: No respect for tradition and changing things for no discernible reason. Don't get me started on the Divine Office.

What problem was there in the EF that required the change in the Mass, Calendar and the Divine Office? Maybe a few more things could have been in the vernacular, and maybe the priest could have spoken certain things in a voice that could be heard. One could cite a few other issues perhaps... but rather than widen a door and readjust a few picture frames we dismantle the entire house and then try to rebuild it by committee?

Ignore me, I'm just a young fogey and a sinner.

bgeorge77, I hear ya on the Divine Office, but the main thing that the Vatican Council wanted was a more active engagement with the Mass by the faithful, a "clearing out" of accretions since Trent, and a (to me faulty) reclamation of the most ancient practices that had been "lost" during the Middle Ages.

are still very much with us, and won't be solved by more strict adherence to the new books.

And, many argue, won't be solved by strict adherence to the old books, either. Or to new translations of not-quite-new-but-not-old-yet books.

Good point, Adam - I didn't mean to portray a simple adherence to books as a panacea - but it would be a start.

Jeff - agreed - I happily work with both he OF and the EF.

And I realize that these questions are too big to be answered in this forum - I've just rarely hear them addressed.

Sam Schmitt

Beautifully put (if I may say so), Aidan.

I suspect this is why many people are attracted to the EF, even apart from the music, or the exact nature of the changes and all the controversies, etc. The EF more clearly expresses what the Mass *is* - an action - not a "series of events."

Sorry for resurrecting this five year old thread, but I recently attended my first EF, a Missa Cantata, and was looking for info on the forum regarding the same. I came across this thread and feel like I have to point out something: the major issues facing each form are not contained in the forms themselves, but rather how the people involved use or abuse them. It is quite clear that the OF could easily be very similar to the EF in many ways, however, the people celebrating it don't want it that way, and therefore choose to do things differently. I read on another thread where someone else stated that most of the options chosen in the OF are done so for the sake of expediency: optional parts are eliminated, shorter prayers are chosen, less music prescribed (hymns instead of propers, Pater Noster and Credo recited instead of sung [although I know many places where the PN is sung at the OF, just saying that's an example of one of the commonly used options for expediency]). Is isn't to say that this is the way the OF is everywhere you go, but it certainly is in my experience. Something I'd like to see more priests do is the Rite of Sprinklng at the beginning of every Mass, followed by the Kyrie. I'm no theologian but it doesn't seem proper to consider the Rite of Sprinkling as a replacement for the Penitential Rite, as if holy water by itself absolves us of our sins. That's just my two cents though. I will say that first, my experience with the OF is far greater than my experience with the EF, although my recent experience with the EF was good, and very comfortable: nothing seemed too odd or out of place, and I really can't find any fault in it. I will continue by saying second, that in my greater experience with the OF, I've seen it done well and I've seen it done poorly. At the cathedral, the priest chants almost everything, and the PN is also chanted, but by the congregation. At the small country church where I am the DM, nothing is chanted at all, except the doxology after the fraction of the host, and all of the prayers are recited. The Rite of Sprinkling is done twice per year: once at Easter Sunday, and once at Pentecost Sunday. To sum up, because this is getting lengthy: the reasons for the discrepancy in reverence within either form (because I've heard it can happen in the EF too) are due to the actions and choices of the people involved in celebrating it. Yes, the addition of options and choices in the OF allowed the possibility for the abuses, but it was ultimately the people involved that made the choices and celebrated Mass in a particular way. Not sure how many others will see it this way, but that's my take on it.