Do you prefer the OF or EF of Mass?


People don’t have to have kneelers to kneel. People don’t have to have a communion rail to receive Our Lord kneeling and on the tongue.


The same does apply.

If one wholesale rejected the EF as being somehow heretical, that would in itself be a statement of heresy.

Pragmatically speaking though, one is much more likely to find someone wholesale rejecting the OF than they are the EF.

There are entire websites and communities dedicated to “proving” the OF is invalid and even demonic.

I know of no such thing with regard to the EF.


Priests are indeed supposed to be fluent in Latin. And there really is no reason that the Mass should not be taught in seminary; that decision was never made by the council. It, as so many other things, was presented as a fait accompli by individuals who simply chose to interpret for themselves what their diocese, or their parish, ‘needed to do to be modern’.


I’ve only been to OF. I don’t think that any parishes near me offer the EF (unless I want to get on the highway- which I don’t).


Oh really? Seriously? There are how many Catholics who speak disparagingly of the OF as opposed to how many who speak disparagingly of the EF? On these very fora, no less. Take a good, unbiased look-see over the past nearly 14 years now and you’ll see a lot more of the "EF people are nasty rigid people who don’t know what they’re doing, OF people are open, tolerant, know what they’re doing. etc.’

We have had priests for heavens sake telling us not simply that they don’t care for the EF themselves, or that they think people who like it are ‘misguided’, but that those who like it are absolutely, totally wrong to do so and that the Mass should be retired PERMANENTLY.

I think that kind of attitude is far more prevalent HERE than the so-called ‘toxic trad’, especially because there are so many more people who feel that way and feel entitled to say how they feel, but to prohibit those who think differently from expressing how THEY feel. If you don’t ‘toe the party line’ then you’re an ‘unperson’.


The Mass of Pius V in 1570 and abrogated in 1962 by John XXlll as the latest typical edition, and the Mass of Paul Vl in 1970 and abrogated by John Paul ll in the 2008 new typical edition are both two forms of doing Mass in the same rite.

I agree. I just wanted to put my own words on it.


Exactly. More parishes should allow them. And half the time if you ask a priest to do it they laugh you off. When it is a legitimate request and legal by the way.


Priests are supposed to understand Latin well. Fluency is hard to come by in a language that is not spoken with great frequency.


Yoy’re right. Nuance is often lost in translation. Nuance is also lost when the understanding of a language is rudeimentary, at best.


So why did they ever take them down to begin with? You do know the Second Vatican Council never promoted this but bishops did for God knows what reason. Now people treat the Eucharist with no reverence.


Anyone can irreverently receive Our Lord on the tongue kneeling at a communion rail, especially in mortal sin! Reverence is not solely an external application; but, rather, it is something mainly interior that may or may not flow externally.

Although gifts vary, I would deem a person shedding tears, using their hands to form a throne to receive Our Lord, and saying ‘Amen’ with filial fear and trembling, more reverent than say someone who focuses more on the external motions of kneeling and receiving on the tongue for others to see.


You’re going to hear (I guarantee) “Correlation does not equal causation” as well as "but how can you presume to judge how a person worships based on simple ‘appearance’. . .but we’ll take that as said and move on to noting, quite correctly, that Vatican 2 indeed never called for taking down altar rails, and that the PEOPLE never, ever, called for receiving ‘in the hand’ (which is what taking down the rails made rather ‘easier’). And while you and I know scads of people who receive in the hand just as reverently as they would in days of yore have received on the tongue, we also know to our sorrow many who do not have the reverence, not because they don’t wish to be reverent but simply because to so many Mass is just a ‘supper gathering’ so they’re simply as ‘reverent’ as they feel they should be at a meal with friends. . . whereas had they been properly instructed and had they the experience of a reverential posture, they would find deeper reverence coming more naturally.

It is not by coincidence that until recently, people prayed ‘on their knees’ and not just however or whenever they ‘felt like it’. Wonderful prayer can come from the latter, but it is simply more likely that true penitence will come more easily when one puts oneself in a penitential position.


And you are completely missing the point I made and erecting a strawman to counter it. Not cool.


I love the Lord, so I love the mass, any form… 'nuff said.


Rejecting the EF as invalid or demonic would be rejecting almost the entire existence of the Church since the early centuries.


I’m going to address this strawman point by point.

The poster I was addressing had stated that adding kneelers and railings was expensive. To that worry of expense, I noted (correctly) that one NEED NOT have a kneeler in order to kneel, and one need not have a railing to receive on the tongue.

Somehow you took that into out of the blue making an argument about some holier than thou ‘look at me I’m kneeling’ person being all irreverent while Carrie communion-in-the hand, all reverent and trembling, was SO much better than the hateful pharisee blah blah.

Totally beside the point and a strawman, as I stated.


…Post must be at least 16 characters…


Well it seems the Holy Father thinks less of the EF from this article which when it came out really hurt my feelings actually.


More EF priests. Maybe in certain localities to cater for the EF enthusiasts but it is entirely up to the priests. EF is not necessary in the third world countries where people are already used to the OF. They do not need the EF.

It is alright to prefer the EF mass but not alright if it causes you to be schismatic. You know you are when your preference become unreasonably extreme.


Well if it were left up to me… I like the LOTH but there’s some things I’d change. But I wouldn’t want to go back to the breviary of Pius X. Too long for secular priests and the laity (although the monastic one I usually pray these days is the same length). The only thing I’d change, would be to drop the New Testament canticle at Vespers. It was a lame attempt to mirror the OT canticle at Lauds. There was some nonsense about a “canticle” being buried in the text there somewhere. But there isn’t. They don’t psalmody well, they are simply too syncopated. I’d drop it, add a third psalm instead, and perhaps aim for a 2-week instead of 4-week distribution. It would also help that, particularly in Week III, Vespers is simply too short, a longer psalm could be inserted instead of the canticle. I can chant the whole of Vespers in Latin, taking the time to re-read the psalm (and canticle) in French after chanting the Latin, with a silent pause after the reading, in 15 minutes. Seems hardly worth the trouble. In fact many times the psalmody at mid-day prayer (supposedly a “minor” hour) is longer than the psalmody at Vespers, which is supposed to be one of the two major pole hours. I’d leave Lauds alone though. Right now I’m doing the same monastic office as our abbey, and Lauds and Vespers take 25-30 minutes each. At least I don’t feel like I went upstairs to my oratory for nothing!

The form of the Mass has ZERO to do with the homily. I have heard many rousing homilies in the OF. The homilies at our abbey are excellent, though they tend to be deeply spiritual, not bold. Not surprising since it’s a contemplative monastery. They’re not meant to shock or awe… they’re meant to help us get more deeply into the text. Which is what a homily is supposed to do: expand on the text and teach us what the text means, not a rant about some issue du jour.

No it’s not. It started out as a vernacular, and ended up simply as a lingua franca of the liturgy.

What is sacred though, is a lot of the music that was built around the Latin version of the scriptures. The corpus of Gregorian and other forms of plainchant in the Church is a treasure to be preserved, and that does require a measure of Latin in the liturgy!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit