Do Not Turn Into a Fight - 10 Reasons to Love the EF - Page 4

archangel04 · #46 Jun 5, '12, 1:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilyM

But he DOES make the error of claiming that the 'commander' is 'behind' the people in the OF. Which is simply nonsense because

a) the priest in the OF is in front of the people. He is facing towards them, true, but is in front of them.

b) the real commander is in fact CHRIST - who is certainly front and centre of both the OF and EF Masses, regardless of the posture of the priest.

What? You completely took my post out of context! I simply stated why I prefer the ad-orientem posture! Christ is the king, I would think Michael would be the commander of His military

I simply stated that I prefer the feeling of being led by the priest into one direction, notice I said "external" in my original post. It assures me that we all have our place in this world, and should humbly accept it. I am very fond of military and law enforcement, since it's my field, that's why I used that example.

archangel04 · #47 Jun 5, '12, 1:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilyM

He or she DID use the word 'me' - as in 'if I am going into battle I want my commander in front of me, not behind me'.

And he or she WAS talking about the OF - in a manner that really made it sound like he or she had never even attended one, or at least never noticed where the priest and the altar are located in relation to the congregation!

And yes, if people make ignorant comments disparaging the EF such as how they don't like the priest 'turning his back on the people' I can and do pick them apart. Not on here, there are more than enough more able defenders here than I, and they jump in at the drop of a hat, God bless them

I am a he, thank God! I grew up in Spanish OF all my life and served as an altar boy for ten years. The mass which I grew up always had guitars and hand holding.

archangel04 · #48 Jun 5, '12, 1:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDunphy

Does that seem likely? Given that archangel04 neither names nor describes the OF, I think it is more likely that he is not talking about the OF at all, but is thinking about the TLM, and using a military image to describe it.

Thanks. God bless you.

Yes! Exactly! BTW the mass that I usually attend due to my job is a Latin OF ad-orientem! St. John Cantius! Oh yeah!!

**LilyM** · #49 Jun 5, '12, 3:06 pm

Archangel, this thread is titled 'reasons to love the EF', not 'reasons to love ad orientem', since as you rightly pointed out ad orientem is not unique to the EF. In fact the OP explicitly said it was about explaining why people love the EF. So it was more than reasonable for me to assume that you were speaking about the EF with your comments.

Same with the idea of the 'commander' being the priest. The only difference with ad orientem is the position of the priest, not anything or anyone else. So itis more than reasonable for me to assume you were talking about the priest as the 'commander'.

I'd almost buy the rest of what you were saying - if you hadn't put in the words 'instead of behind' at the end of your sentence. Those words mean something. Let's unpack what the normal meaning is that someone would take from them.

Now, if I said to you 'I love my teacher because she stands at the front of the room, and doesn't roam around everywhere during class', would you understand by that that the idea of a teacher roaming around the classroom was completely hypothetical? Something that never does and couldn't possibly happen? Something that I'd never either seen happen or heard of happening?

That I really only meant the first half of the sentence - 'I love her because she stands at the front of the room' and meant absolutely nothing by the last half of the sentence but a random string of words that added nothing further? Of course not, or I wouldn't say them.

You'd assume that I specifically mentioned 'roaming around the room' because it is something that can and moreover does happen in classrooms, no? I wouldn't say 'I love my teacher because she stands in front of the room instead of turning into an ostrich', would I? Because there's never any possibility of any teacher turning into an ostrich!

So - how is it unreasonable to assume, when you say 'I want my commander in front of me instead of behind', meaning 'I want ad orientem', that it means that in some forms of the Mass, or at least some Masses, the 'commander', whoever they may be, is indeed 'behind' the 'troops', or the congregation? The very idea of which is preposterous. The 'commander' in every Mass, ad orientem or not, is front and centre in front of the congregation.

Rabbity · #50 Jun 5, '12, 3:28 pm

I really like #6 in the original post.

I'm a language geek so the more Latin the better!

The Curt Jester · #51 Jun 5, '12, 3:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilyM

Archangel, this thread is titled 'reasons to love the EF', not 'reasons to love ad orientem', since as you rightly pointed out ad orientem is not unique to the EF. In fact the OP explicitly said it was about explaining why people love the EF. So it was more than reasonable for me to assume that you were speaking about the EF with your comments.

Same with the idea of the 'commander' being the priest. The only difference with ad orientem is the position of the priest, not anything or anyone else. So itis more than reasonable for me to assume you were talking about the priest as the 'commander'.

I'd almost buy the rest of what you were saying - if you hadn't put in the words 'instead of behind' at the end of your sentence. Those words mean something. Let's unpack what the normal meaning is that someone would take from them.

Now, if I said to you 'I love my teacher because she stands at the front of the room, and doesn't roam around everywhere during class', would you understand by that that the idea of a teacher roaming around the classroom was completely hypothetical? Something that never does and couldn't possibly happen? Something that I'd never either seen happen or heard of happening?

That I really only meant the first half of the sentence - 'I love her because she stands at the front of the room' and meant absolutely nothing by the last half of the sentence but a random string of words that added nothing further? Of course not, or I wouldn't say them.

You'd assume that I specifically mentioned 'roaming around the room' because it is something that can and moreover does happen in classrooms, no? I wouldn't say 'I love my teacher because she stands in front of the room instead of turning into an ostrich', would I? Because there's never any possibility of any teacher turning into an ostrich!

So - how is it unreasonable to assume, when you say 'I want my commander in front of me instead of behind', meaning 'I want ad orientem', that it means that in some forms of the Mass, or at least some Masses, the 'commander', whoever they may be, is indeed 'behind' the 'troops', or the congregation? The very idea of which is preposterous. The 'commander' in every Mass, ad orientem or not, is front and centre in front of the congregation.

I understood what he said exactly how he explained it later. It seems you're grasping at straws to pick a fight. If the person says he meant something a certain way, then give him the benefit of the doubt and quit believing that he's some sort of liar.

thewanderer · #52 Jun 5, '12, 4:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Curt Jester

I understood what he said exactly how he explained it later. It seems you're grasping at straws to pick a fight. If the person says he meant something a certain way, then give him the benefit of the doubt and quit believing that he's some sort of liar.

Agreed. That is one of the things I was hoping to avoid in this thread. Please assume good intentions on the part of those posting or there is no way this thread will get anywhere.

**LilyM** · #53 Jun 5, '12, 4:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Curt Jester

I understood what he said exactly how he explained it later. It seems you're grasping at straws to pick a fight. If the person says he meant something a certain way, then give him the benefit of the doubt and quit believing that he's some sort of liar.

I never said he was a liar. I never thought he was a liar. I apologise if I ever gave the impression that I did.

I totally get it that what he said was intended in a very different way than how I took it. What someone intends to express and what they actually express can be entirely different things. Obviously you saw the intent where I didn't. And we are all guilty of sometimes expressing ourselves poorly, or at least ambiguously.

I was simply explaining how I took what he said and why I understood it my way. I am not 'grasping at straws' or looking to be offended. I simply took it the way I took it, and I don't think I was either unreasonable or crazy in my interpretation.

And if someone takes something you said the wrong way, you shouln't accuse them of calling you a liar, when they are merely stating that they understood things differently than you. And you shouldn't assume that they are wrong. Or that the way you meant to express yourself is the only possible or reasonable way that your words can be taken.

Sheesh!

archangel04 · #54 Jun 5, '12, 8:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LilyM

I never said he was a liar. I never thought he was a liar. I apologise if I ever gave the impression that I did.

I totally get it that what he said was intended in a very different way than how I took it. What someone intends to express and what they actually express can be entirely different things. Obviously you saw the intent where I didn't. And we are all guilty of sometimes expressing ourselves poorly, or at least ambiguously.

I was simply explaining how I took what he said and why I understood it my way. I am not 'grasping at straws' or looking to be offended. I simply took it the way I took it, and I don't think I was either unreasonable or crazy in my interpretation.

And if someone takes something you said the wrong way, you shouln't accuse them of calling you a liar, when they are merely stating that they understood things differently than you. And you shouldn't assume that they are wrong. Or that the way you meant to express yourself is the only possible or reasonable way that your words can be taken.

Sheesh!

You basically did call me a liar. In fact you had me questioning myself. At no point did I meant to make the OF inferior. I know what the title is, in fact in my previous post I was defending that title and asking people to stick to it. The EF does not allow for any option other than "facing east." That's one of the reasons why I like it. Now, in my OPINION I do feel as-orientem posture is better when it comes to liturgical orientation. This does not mean that I see the opposite as invalid, nor lacking in faith. The issue I have with it is that sometimes the priest seems to have to make a performance out of the mass, my experience. This is why when I said leading us I used the work "external" because yes versus populum also leads us through the liturgy, but externally it does not. Anyone leading a crowd facing that crowd will eventually trip

Now another reason I love the EF is the asperges me and the prayers at the foot of the altar.

**Friar David, O.Carm** · #55 Jun 5, '12, 8:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thewanderer

Ok, so another thread was started recently with this post.

However, the thread looks like it is heading towards a battle between the two forms of the Mass. I think that it would be wonderful if we could have a charitable thread where those who prefer the EF could explain why they prefer it without being attacked for their preferences. So I decided to start another thread about it in the hopes that it will turn out ok. This doesn't mean there can't be discussion about any points brought up. But please make sure that any such comments are done in an extremely charitable manner that will not come across as an attack against those with a different preferance from yourself.

I for one am very interested in hearing more of the reasons why people prefer one form to the other, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested. So if anyone is interested in sharing, please feel free to post here.

As I pointed out in the first closed thread there are glaring errors in the list that the original poster put up but I now realize that any disagreement is seen as fighting so I won't point them out again.

**Friar David, O.Carm** · #56 Jun 5, '12, 8:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Curt Jester

Could you point to where in this thread anyone has minimized the OF? I can't find any such posts, so I find your warning very confusing. Without knowing what has been said that might be possibly construed to be offensive (again, I don't see a thing), it's rather hard to even say anything in this thread. It's like walking on glass.

(Ordinarily I'd ask this via PM, but I figure there may be many other people who are scratching their heads as well and would be appreciative of the matter being made more clear.)

See here. . . (the bolded points)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDunphy

My list:

- Beautiful and inspiring prayers.

- Music almost always well-chosen to honor God, which has tugged a progressive-minded musician friend in a more orthodox direction.

- Priests who reference the consistent teaching of the Church from the popes and saints and councils of many centuries.

- Priests who want their flock to become holy so that they too may be counted among the saints.

- Quiet before and after Mass.

- Points before and after the consecration where it is natural and easy to add to add prayers for particular people. (Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants and handmaids, N. and N. ...)

- Time to linger over particular prayers.

- Kneeling for Holy Communion on the tongue (at the same altar rail where I received my first Communion in the same way 42 years ago).

- A sense of continuity with the past, and an attitude of gratitude for what we have received from the generations of Catholics who preceeded us.

- Above all the Presence of our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist.

Oh, and I appreciate being able to light a votive candle at most Latin Mass parishes.

**Friar David, O.Carm** · #57 Jun 5, '12, 8:43 pm

It all boils down to one point.

Personal preference.

Why must we try to make it anything more.

For either preference.

That is all it is. It is personal preference. It is what we find more appealing. What we find more of a connection with.

Why must we try to put up points that "prove" our preference is any more than that or any better than any one else's preference.

I know, you will say that you are only saying why you love the EF but why must this be done? I have yet to see anyone post a "Reasons why to love the OF" or a thread pushing the OF over everything else. But then maybe I have just missed them.

Its a preference, plane and simple. Can't we leave it at that?

I assume that if you have a preference for a certain form of the Mass or a certain rite then you have it because you feel it is more spiritually enriching than all the other choices. Isn't that enough?

Why the competition?

**LilyM** · #58 Jun 5, '12, 8:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by archangel04

You basically did call me a liar. In fact you had me questioning myself. At no point did I meant to make the OF inferior. I know what the title is, in fact in my previous post I was defending that title and asking people to stick to it. The EF does not allow for any option other than "facing east." That's one of the reasons why I like it. Now, in my OPINION I do feel as-orientem posture is better when it comes to liturgical orientation. This does not mean that I see the opposite as invalid, nor lacking in faith. The issue I have with it is that sometimes the priest seems to have to make a performance out of the mass, my experience. This is why when I said leading us I used the work "external" because yes versus populum also leads us through the liturgy, but externally it does not. Anyone leading a crowd facing that crowd will eventually trip

Now another reason I love the EF is the asperges me and the prayers at the foot of the altar.

I basically did not call you a liar. I believe you are being honest and never implied otherwise.

To say, as I did, that your words are at best capable of more than one interpretation, and worst perhaps conveyed a different meaning to the one you intended, is totally different to implying that you are a liar.

I had you questioning yourself? About what? I thought your intention was pure as the driven snow, so what was there to question?

If I had you questioning how you express yourself - well, each of us sometimes needs to take a look at how we write or speak and whether what comes out of us properly conveys what we intend to express. So that's actually a good thing.

Rich C · #59 Jun 5, '12, 9:04 pm

I also love how every word, movement, gestures, bell, incensing, happening in the sanctuary is part of one big prayer - nothing is extraneous or without meaning. It's a masterpiece.

thewanderer · #60 Jun 5, '12, 10:05 pm

ByzCath

I am fine with people pointing out that many of the reasons people give for liking the EF are not exclusive to the EF. It is actually something I would love to talk about at some point if this thread can actually get going. My problem is with people attacking individual posters who bring up such things. It is a legitimate reason to like the EF because certain of your preferences for the way the liturgy is celebrated are generally found in the EF. So there should not be a problem with people bringing up such things as reasons for why they like the EF. It is not a preference based on something intrinsic to the EF, but if it is generally found with the EF then it can be a legitimate reason to like the EF.

I think it would add an extra element to the conversation to have a calm chartiable discussion about which reasons are based solely on the EF and which are simply based on the fact that they are usually found at the EF and not usually found at the OF. But this discussion should not be started by calling out individual posters and implying that their preference is illegitimate simply because it is not something intrinsic to the EF.

I understand the desire to make sure people don't start thinking that Latin, gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc are exclusive to the EF. Trust me, I have definately called out people in other threads for doing this. But I don't see how it will further the purpose of this thread to call out individuals who list it as a reason for why they like the EF. Instead it is just going to scare away more people from actually responding because they will feel as though there is an antagonistic attitude against them.