Happy 40th Birthday Novus Ordo

[pnewton]

After deeply studying the changes in the Mass, I can say with conviction that the Novus Ordo is, quite simply, a Protestant mess.

Another slanderous, uncharitable insult of the Holy Mass to reinforce the SSPX stereotype. For your information “Protestant” has its roots in the protest from the Holy Catholic Church. Coming from an SSPX, if find this charge ironic and hypocritical.

Needless to say I find your post deeply offensive, insulting and judgemental.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

I luv Burpees,

**You wrote: ** *After deeply studying the changes in the Mass, I can say with conviction that the Novus Ordo is, quite simply, a Protestant mess. *​

I rather like your statement, short and not-so-sweet as it is, about the Novus Ordo (N.O.), but, I would have to say, that the N.O. is a Catholic mess, even if its liturgical quality per se is sub-Protestant, apart from, admittedly far more importantly, the N.O.'s sacramental validity! You know, all that you have to do is to compare the bald, barren, and threadbare wording of the N.O. with something so liturgically full and beautiful as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)‘s ***Book of Common Worship ***(current ed.: Louisville, KY.: Westminster-John Knox Press, copyr. 1993; viii, 1107 p.; ISBN 0-664-21991-8) or, for American Anglicans, their Anglican Service Book: a Traditional Language Adaptation of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (Rosemont, Penn.: Good Shepherd, 1991; 734 p.; ISBN 0-9629955-0-9). The difference is astonishing. These Protestant denominations have beautiful and stately liturgies, even when their sacramental validity probably is nil, whereas the N.O. of the Catholic Church is paltry and commonplace, albeit its sacramental validity is certainly sure. Why does this have to be? Cannot Catholics do better? You konw, Catholics themselves may excuse such lowly standards, but they do not speak well for Western Catholicism in others’ eyes, be they Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, or secular.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[ProVobis]

After deeply studying the changes in the Mass, I can say with conviction that the Novus Ordo is, quite simply, a Protestant mess.

I don’t know if I would call it “Protestant” but if someone showed me this liturgy prior to Vatican II, I would have definitely called it non-Catholic and would have had to confess if I attended it of my own free will.

 

[iluvburpees]

I don’t know if I would call it “Protestant” but if someone showed me this liturgy prior to Vatican II, I would have definitely called it non-Catholic and would have had to confess if I attended it of my own free will.

Unfortunately, that’s the strategy of the Liberals. Slow, gradual changes. Slow enough that the faithful don’t realize what they’re attending.

 

[bkovacs]

Unfortunately, that’s the strategy of the Liberals. Slow, gradual changes. Slow enough that the faithful don’t realize what they’re attending.

Agreed!.

 

[paperwight]

How old were you when the Novus Ordo was “manufactured” by Annibale Bugnini. Better yet, how old were your parents. I’d almost wager that you really haven’t a clue about the atmosphere in the parishes & in the Catholic homes during that period.

Oddly enough, pretty much the same age as you were, early twenties. I’ll be 66 in a couple of weeks.

Go ahead and wager - I wouldn’t dream of generalising about all parishes and all Catholic homes of that period. I only know about my own parish and what was reported in the Catholic press at the time, which was selective, no doubt.

I can only say that the older members of the family continued going to Mass, kept welcoming the priest to their home, supported special parish events just as before, and had Catholic funerals. They certainly weren’t alienated, it would seem, and I didn’t hear any grumbles, only a thankfulness.

I was appalled to read of the priest’s name-calling of his older and unhappy parishioners. My comment about it possibly being a reaction to intransigence on the part of those to whom he was speaking was sincerely meant. Perhaps he’d had a bad morning already, and something said was the last straw. Not an excuse for harshness, but an explanation. You seem to have taken offence.

Another poster suggested that the difference in acceptance of the Novus Ordo could have been geographical, and that not all parishes had such an unhappy and badly-managed experience as yours seems to have done. I’d add into that mix the influence of a good Catholic press running articles to prepare people for the changes to come.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

ProVobis and I luv Burpees,

You two, between you, wrote: *I don’t know if I would call it “Protestant” but if someone showed me this liturgy prior to Vatican II, I would have definitely called it non-Catholic and would have had to confess if I attended it of my own free will.

Unfortunately, that’s the strategy of the Liberals. Slow, gradual changes. Slow enough that the faithful don’t realize what they’re attending. *​

Yes, I think that you two are right. The Novus Ordo (N.O.) technically is valid and Catholic, but it is a weakening and undermining of the tradition of Catholic worship. The liberals had compromised the life out of the 1965 Missale Romanum, and since 1970, they have been chiselling away at the N.O. Where are they headed? For liturgical Unitarianism (like the ever increasingly modernist Protestant Episcopal Church) or to abolish liturgy completely?

The Protestants, in many cases (though surely not all), have done better in their own liturgical revisions, augmenting the catholicity and liturgicalism of their worship (even if one usually wonders if they really believe the words which they craft so well for their liturgies), as I had pointed out to be the case for the Presbyterian Church (U. S. of A.) and some Anglicans. If the liturgies that I had cited specifically are nul in sacramental validity, as I should have noted, that is so due to these denominations lack of valid orders of their ordained clergy, not to the formulation of the wording of the liturgies themselves that I cited!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[pnewton]

I am going to save a link to this thread the next time someone complains about the way mainstream Catholics (not liberals) treat the TLM and those who attend it. Neither is justified, but then neither is hypocricy.

 

[yosupman]

I am going to save a link to this thread the next time someone complains about the way mainstream Catholics (not liberals) treat the TLM and those who attend it. Neither is justified, but then neither is hypocricy.

pnewton,I can’t quite figure out where you’re comming from. Are you a traditional catholic, or a novus ordo catholic?

 

[iluvburpees]

pnewton,I can’t quite figure out where you’re comming from. Are you a traditional catholic, or a novus ordo catholic?

From what I’ve seen, he’s Novus Ordo.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,I can’t quite figure out where you’re comming from. Are you a traditional catholic, or a novus ordo catholic?

I am an orthodox, obedient Catholic. I refuse to engage or acknowledge a labeling system I find insulting. However, what Mass I attend could have no use to evaluate what I say. That would be an ad hominem argument.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know if I would call it “Protestant” but if someone showed me this liturgy prior to Vatican II, I would have definitely called it non-Catholic and would have had to confess if I attended it of my own free will.

Interesting. ‘Non-Catholic’ - when used to describe a rite of the Mass that has been validly promulgated by Rome and signed off by the Pope - is quite simply an oxymoron. May as well speak of circular squares or four-angled triangles as a Non-Catholic Mass that has been promulgated by Rome itself.

As for having to confess - well, if you’d attended a liturgy that followed word-for-word the EF prior to the Council of Trent you would also have had to confess that - as it was not at that time a valid rite of liturgy and so it would not have been proper for you to attend at any time prior to its promulgation by St Pius V. Afterwards, of course, it was fine.

That’s simply a matter of canon law though, not a reflection on either the TLM or the forms of Mass that existed prior to it - after all, a number of them were allowed to continue alongside the TLM.

Rather like if you fasted for three hours prior to communion in the 1850s that would’ve been a violation of both Canon law and of a precept of the Church. You would’ve had to confess it at that time because Canon Law and precept stipulated a midnight fast.

Whereas if you’d done so in the late 1950s you would’ve been fine, had nothing to confess and committed no sin, because by then the venerable Pope Pius XII had altered canon law (and hence the fasting precept) to stipulate three hours.

Canon law and the details of the precepts of the Church are at least in part DESIGNED to be changeable, and have certainly been changed frequently enough. So it is with forms of liturgy - the prayers of the Mass have actually been altered numerous times, even between Trent and Vatican 11. And the Church’s OTHER form of liturgy (people keep forgetting that Liturgy of the Hours is ALSO liturgy) was much more comprehensively revised under St Pius X, ironically enough for the society that bears his name.

Main point being - Canons of Trent, Seventh Session - stipulate that it is ANATHEMA to suggest that the forms (as there were several in existence, so not only referring to the TLM) used by the Church in conducting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are in any way incentives to impiety among the faithful.

So any criticism in that vein of the form of the NO - such as calling the prayers themselves ‘Protestant’ (since the heresy of Protestantism surely fits under the definition of impiety) potentially means anathematisation of the critic.

Sure, Pope Benedict himself criticised the NO, but went no further, if memory serves, than calling it banal and an on-the spot fabrication or words to those effects.

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting. ‘Non-Catholic’ - when used to describe a rite of the Mass that has been validly promulgated by Rome and signed off by the Pope - is quite simply an oxymoron. May as well speak of circular squares or four-angled triangles as a Non-Catholic Mass that has been promulgated by Rome itself.

As for having to confess - well, if you’d attended a liturgy that followed word-for-word the EF prior to the Council of Trent you would also have had to confess that - as it was not at that time a valid rite of liturgy and so it would not have been proper for you to attend at any time prior to its promulgation by St Pius V. Afterwards, of course, it was fine.

Lily, here is the wording from a 1959 missal: (It’s in the examination of conscience section)

1st commandment. Have I willfully doubted or denied my holy religion? Have I taken part in services other than those of my religion? Have I consulted fortune tellers, or read forbidden books, or despaired of God’s mercy? Have I neglected to worship God with prayer and the Mass?

Pope Paul VI removed the List (or Index) of Forbidden Books (1966?).

 

[vz71]

pnewton,I can’t quite figure out where you’re comming from. Are you a traditional catholic, or a novus ordo catholic?

The fact that people perceive a difference in the Catholic tells me volumes.

Guys, BOTH are accepted forms of the Roman rite. There is no subset of Catholicism that attends one or the other, we are all Catholic.

 

[LilyM]

Lily, here is the wording from a 1959 missal: (It’s in the examination of conscience section).

You cannot possibly with a straight face claim that a Mass (namely the Novus Ordo) that has been promulgated and celebrated by the Pope and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church - and no other non-Catholic religious authority - is “a service of those other than my (the Catholic) religion”, to quote your examination of conscience.

A Hindu worship service, yes, a Muslim prayer service, yes. They can be described rightly as services of other than the Catholic religion. Even a non-Catholic Christian worship service.

The Novus Ordo, however, is none of those things.

Non-Catholic Christians do NOT use the Novus Ordo as their service, they use their own forms of service which all have significant differences from the Novus Ordo. Neither do Hindus, Muslims or any other religion use the Novus Ordo as their form of service. Only Catholics do.

So it makes no sense whatsoever to describe the Novus Ordo as a service of another religion. It is solely used by Catholics, at the request and following the example of the Holy Fathers and the Magisterium, and thus IS Catholic and nothing other.

Pope Paul VI removed the List (or Index) of Forbidden Books (1966?)

This comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Please explain why you mentioned the Index of Forbidden Books and what on earth it has to do with the form of Mass which is what we were discussing.

 

[Bebekoualy]

pnewton,I can’t quite figure out where you’re coming from. Are you a traditional catholic, or a novus ordo catholic?

Yosupman, do we have to be one or the other?
I mean… I attend Tridentine Mass quite often, and I need to go to Ordinary Mass as well.
So what am I? Do we have to be categorized?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Not true. Take away the homily and communion, my daily OF could be done in 10 minutes. But some still think it’s too long and just come in for the communion and walk right out.

As I understand it there were some that did the same back in the day. I’ve spoken to men who were altar boys then who talked about people coming in to receive communion *before *Mass who then just walked out. Something about having to go to work…

 

[Elsport1]

I grew up going to a Novus Ordo parish pretty much every Sunday. I was not taught the real presence of the Eucharist. I was not taught that confession was an important part of being Catholic. I was not taught that there was such thing as a Holy day of Obligation. I was not taught how to pray the Rosary. I could go on and on. I have moved all over the east coast and met some wonderful Novus Ordo priests and belonged to some decent parishes. The problem is you never know what you’re going to get. When I go to a TLM I can be about 99.9% sure that I’m going to here TRUTH from the priest. That to me is why I choose TLM over Novus Ordo whenever I have the chance. May God bless our Church with holy priests to proclaim the truth of the Gospel in both TLM parishes and Novus Ordo.

 

[paperwight]

I grew up going to a Novus Ordo parish pretty much every Sunday. I was not taught the real presence of the Eucharist. I was not taught that confession was an important part of being Catholic. I was not taught that there was such thing as a Holy day of Obligation. I was not taught how to pray the Rosary. I could go on and on. QUOTE

I agree with you that you should have been taught about the Real Presence, and am amazed you weren’t.

Re - Confession/Reconciliation.Yes, you should have been taught, but for young children, I suppose it’s unwise to over-emphasise the traditional way of doing it. As a matter of interest, can I ask when did you make your First HC? Was it during the very short period when it was felt better to delay Confession until the child was older?

Re HDO, well, perhaps that was felt to be contentious, as ultimately it is the parents’ job to take a child to Mass, and it might have caused rows if the child insisted on going because the teacher/priest said they had to. This would not have been fair on the child.

But I think we should be wary of elevating the Rosary to an essential part of being a Catholic. It is a private devotion, and difficult for a child to say without vain repetition, IMO.

 

[Elsport1]

I did make my first confession before I received first communion, then never really heard much about the sacrament after that. I was confirmed in the Richmond Diocese, where confirmation normally occurs in the 11th grade. I think that is plenty old enough to be given info on how to make a good confession, told about the real presence, the necessity of holy days, and how to pray the rosary. I didn’t say my first Hail Mary until I was in college. As a cradle Catholic that is absurd. I do not blame my poor formation entirely on the Church, it is a parents responsibility to raise a child to know the faith. When I ask my mom questions about why she didn’t teach me something her response is always “I didn’t think the church taught that anymore.” Why don’t our Novus Ordo priests make more of an effort to educate the faithful from the pulpit? I will admit that my experiences with Novus Ordo parishes have been much more positive now that I live in western PA than they were in NC and VA.