Defending the Novus Ordo Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1ke said:
(B) A list of stories of liturgical abuses they have “seen” or "heard about. Abuses have nothing to do with the NO Mass at all.
Click to expand...
As much as you might like to deny it, the NO has precipitated much abuse. Hence, more leeway for the return of the TLM.
 
1ke said:
As a convert to the Orthodox Church you reject the Pope’s authority also. You’ve only demonstrated my point, not refuted it.
Click to expand...
Well you see, when the Church was one, there was no such thing as a supreme infallible pontiff. I wonder if all Latin bishops were unanimously in favor of the NO.

But that has been hashed over in many threads and I will not go there again.

Good day
 
clmowry said:
Let me guess, Callifornia?

Where pray tell did the Church say that folks shouldn’t kneel as part of the “new” mass?

Chuck
Click to expand...
I know of two chruches in Michigan, not California.

I have no clue, I have emailed both churches asking why they don’t kneel and have not gotten any reply back.
 
Mickey said:
As much as you might like to deny it, the NO has precipitated much abuse.
Click to expand...
It is naive to believe that priests did not abuse the Tridentine liturgy.

And, no, the NO did not “precipitate” abuse. The rubrics are clear and well defined.

Abuse comes from disregard for authority wherever it is found.
 
Mickey said:
The “authority” of these bishops to “modernize” the Liturgy is a thread all its own. As a convert to the Orthodox Church, I can enjoy the Divine Liturgy unchanged for about 1600 years. 😃
Click to expand...
But it was changed before that. The fact is, the Church has used a multitude of different liturgies across the world over the millenia as well as many different customs in those liturgies. Bishops today have no less authority than the bishops in the past who also introduced liturgies into the Church. The same is true with all the Holy Mysteries. The rites surrounding them have been different over time and place.
 
Genesis315 said:
But it was changed before that. The fact is, the Church has used a multitude of different liturgies across the world over the millenia as well as many different customs in those liturgies. Bishops today have no less authority than the bishops in the past who also introduced liturgies into the Church. The same is true with all the Holy Mysteries. The rites surrounding them have been different over time and place.
Click to expand...
Yes. There was the Liturgy of St James, St Basil, St Chrysostom–in that order. All three are celebrated today in very much the same way. (although the Liturgy of St James not very often).

When was the NO instituted? When was the first Latin style Mass?
 
Mickey said:
Yes. There was the Liturgy of St James, St Basil, St Chrysostom–in that order. All three are celebrated today in very much the same way. (although the Liturgy of St James not very often).
Click to expand...
There were others too, some more widely used than the others–those of Hyppolitus, Ambrose, one used in early England, that of the Holy Apostles, the rites of the Ethiopians and the Copts, the Maronites and more (there was a thread a while back where someone listed all the known liturgies that have ever been used).

Then of course there were customs associated with the liturgy that came even later, such as the development of the iconostasis, the manner of receiving communion, etc.
When was the NO instituted? When was the first Latin style Mass?
Click to expand...
The Roman Liturgy pre-400s was very, very austere. It was then emerged as something radically different, drawing heavily from the Gallician liturgy. The latest form was issued in 1969.

But again, why is it accetpabel for bishops in previous centuries to introduce liturgical reforms, but not those in other centuries? It’s the same Church today as yesterday–the bishops are entrusted with the same authority as they were in those previous centuries. There are always prudential judgments involved, but to say some objective act that was valid in the past is no longer valid would be to deny the unity of the Church over time and place.

As an aside–I think it’s relevant to this discussion–but I’ve read some Orthodox writers criticize the paradoxical disconnect between the Orthodox Church of today and that of the time of the Seven Councils as if the Church today is one entity subject to the bishops of the 7th or 8th century, instead of it being the exact same entity subsisting through history.
 
ljprevo said:
I am from Assumption Grotto and the NO mass does not seem high on the list there either. When the TLM was avail, the 9:30am latin NO mass was switched to TLM. Though Assumption Grotto does primarily use Latin, the other masses are english NO masses.

I am also in the chior there and trust me Father was ready and chomping at the bit to bring the TLM back ASAP.
Click to expand...
I brought up the example of Assumption Grotto to provide evidence that a properly-celebrated NO can be every bit as reverent as a properly-celebrated TLM (or Eastern Divine Liturgy). I’ve only attended the Latin NO at Grotto, and it was very reverent and faithful.
 
Mickey said:
Aha! That is because you are of Slovak heritage. 👍
Click to expand...
I’m actually Polish, but I suspect our parish’s Slovak heritage has something to do with the atmosphere of reverence and solemnity that characterize our celebrations of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

And Father is planning on instituting a TLM when the building project is completed next February 👍
 
Mickey said:
Most Eastern Catholic Liturgies have been thoroughly Latinized. I was there, I know.

Furthermore, I did not leave the true Church–I came home to her! 😉
Click to expand...
I’ve worshipped with a local Melkite community, and their D.L. wasn’t latinized in the least 🤷
 
VociMike said:
… but one cannot deny that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate the NO Missal.
Click to expand...
I don’t quite understand the point you’re trying to make here. Are you saying that, with all the Popes we ever had, this Pope decided he was going to show them who’s the most daring?
 
1ke said:
The defense of the NO Mass is simple: The Bishops have the authority to make changes to the liturgy and exercised that authority.
Click to expand...
Not so. The Council of Trent forbade any Church pastor from creating a new rite.
Canon XIII.—Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.
Click to expand...
 
BobP123 said:
Not so. The Council of Trent forbade any Church pastor from creating a new rite.
Click to expand...
Kinda changing language there aren’t ya? The Pope and Bishops does not equal “Church pastor.”

Chuck
 
Holly3278 said:
Also, please defend the Novus Ordo Mass in this thread as well. 👍
Click to expand...
The most important part of the Mass is the Consecration. When the priest says “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, he is quoting Scripture, and it must therefore be valid.
 
Mickey said:
I must admit, it is not easy to defend the Novus Ordo Mass. 😦
Click to expand...
Indeed, not easy at all. Especially for someone like me who despises it.

The Novus Ordo can be defended on its validity only imho, in its validity in the officially approved texts coming from Rome, and only with a priest who intends on doing what the Church does. He must believe he is Alter Christus, changing the substance of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and then offering Him to the Holy Trinity in Sacrifice for the living and the dead.

Get a priest who does not believe, does not intend on doing what the Church does- and the Mass is invalid. The same words as Eucharistic Prayer #2 are being used by those who do not believe in what the Mass actually is, or what happens on the altar. (Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists and Lutherans I believe)

With the 1962 Missal such is IMPOSSIBLE. There is no mistake with that Missal as to what the priest is doing. The words, the actions show what the Church believes unambiguously, therefore eliminating any possibility of “invalid” consecrations or invalid masses. The Church knew this- no wonder Pius V imposed this Mass on the entire Catholic Church, save for Rites over 200 years in existance during the Protestant Revolt that denied what the preist is, what the Mass is, and Transubstantiation.

Ken
 
The prayers are shorter and more to the point. Some of the prayers that were cut out of the Tridentine mass were a bit on the wordy side and, in my opinion, make it hard to stay focused on what is really important.

The priest faces you across the altar, so you can see what he is doing. That makes it more like actually being at the Last Supper.

The prayers are spoken more loudly and clearly so that it’s easier to understand the prayers being said. And you can participate with more responses.

Longer scripture readings. Hearing scripture is good. Also the lectionary covers more of the bible. In the Tridentine mass the same readings come up quite often.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top