Is it okay for a Church to refer to their masses as "Novus Ordo"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Got it. I know exactly what your talking about.
I believe even the Assumption has different antiphons for the vigil as opposed to the mass of the day.
Sometimes it is just antiphons which are different. Sometimes the readings are totally different. I think many solemnities have vigils. Not all but a good number in the missal.
But yes the regular Saturday evening anticipated Sunday mass is the same as Sunday Mass. And liturgically being after First Vespers just is Sunday Mass.
 
Last edited:
chessnerd321 said:
I just wonder how long it has to be around before it’s no longer “new”. At some point it starts to sound silly.
Click to expand...
500 years would be reasonable.

When my son went to talk to one of the local priests about having a latin mass he said no and that it had been too long since there was a latin mass. The absurdity of that statement had me howling with laughter.
 
He should write the bishop. Believe it or not most dioceses especially younger priests many know the EF and want to celebrate it.
 
Last edited:
He’s planning on doing that to get 1st Fridays and Saturdays that working people can attend. The archdiocese has a couple we attend, though it would be nice if the weekday mass was more local. The other problem we have is that all the weekday masses are for retirees. I think to get EF in the parish he’d need to find more people who want it in the parish and then petition the archbishop. But now that we go to other parishes in the week and an FSSP church on Saturdays wer don’t really have any link to our local parish.
 
It is technically correct, but outdated, to use the former term.
In the case of this parish it appears harmless. In other cases, I have seen people use the initials “N.O. Mass”, aka no Mass.

If there is any question or doubts of the validity of the OF, even in a minority of a community, better to use the current term.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
500 years would be reasonable.
Click to expand...
I guess basically everything is new then. That’s an interesting opinion, but since “new” is a relative term I guess I won’t be able to convince you otherwise. (Not to mention that the Tridentine missal was disseminated in 1570 so I guess it’s the old new mass, right?)
 
Actually, the older Mass goes back to Pope Gregory if not before that. There have been several typical editions “disseminated” since then, one in 1570 (as you state), also one in 1920 and then 1962. Maybe others.
 
chessnerd321 said:
Not to mention that the Tridentine missal was disseminated in 1570 so I guess it’s the old new mass, right?
Click to expand...
This is historically incorrect. I’ve heard it many times.
The Tridentine Mass of 1570 is largely the same as the mass had been for centuries, probably about a millennium, Saint Pope Gregory the Great largely brought it together. What Pope Pius V did in 1570 following the Council of Trent was make it mandatory that all Churches in the Latin Rite used the same Missal. Prior to this, regional areas for the most part used the same Missal but through time different innovations were added or subtracted from the Mass, so it was not completely the same everywhere. This was something addressed as for one it is a universal Church and secondly some things added or subtracted were questionable liturgically. But for the most part the Missal of 1570 was the same as it had been for a very long time. The Churches and orders who did not have to adapt the Missal were groups( Benedictines, Dominicans etc) who could prove they had been using the same Missal since 1370(200 years) and could continue using it. Also the eastern churches who were in communion with Rome, since their liturgy was just as old, was allowed to be used still.
It was a move to keep the Church universal without any innovations by local regions in the Missal. However as a whole the Missal was the same besides some minor things that may have been done in certain regions locally. A good example of this is the Last Gospel. Originally this was an innovation some priests began privately reciting which became more common and eventually became just part of the end of mass. The editors of the Mass of Paul Vl decided they liked it and made it an official part of the Mass. Other things were omitted.
 
Last edited:
Thomasbradley312 said:
This is historically incorrect. I’ve heard it many times.
The Tridentine Mass of 1570 is largely the same as the mass had been for centuries,
Click to expand...
This is historically incorrect. I’ve heard it many times.

🤣😜😱

The Tridentine Mass of 1570 is largely the same as the mass had been for centuries in the Diocese of Rome.

And even at that, it should probably be limited to what became called “High Mass”–“Low Mass”, which became the norm, was actually a liturgical abuse that had speed fare and wide . . . (it originated as a way of knocking out Masses faster for the stipends . . . 😱 )

Noone is quite sure exactly how common it was to base mass on the Roman Missal at that time. Many (half??) did. Others, e.g. Milan, did not. Some actually used eastern liturgies, and some used the vernacular.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
I’m not worried about the eastern schismatics liturgies. It is the Roman Catholic Church. So yah if it was in Rome that’s good enough for me.
Click to expand...
Do you realize that there are over twenty rites of Eastern liturgies that are in communion with Rome and thus a part of the Catholic Church, though not the Latin-rite, that you just called schismatic?
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
I’m not worried about the eastern schismatics liturgies. It is the Roman Catholic Church. So yah if it was in Rome that’s good enough for me.
Click to expand...
  1. That wasn’t about the east, it was in the western church that liturgy was varied prior to Trent. Some of the Western dioceses used liturgies from the East, some used the vernacular, etc.
  2. Are you really so divorced from RCC teachings of the last few decades as to not know better than to use phrases like “eastern schismatic”? Aside from being uncharitable, it violates Roman instruction. Please correct your abusive language before your post is removed.
  3. Milan is the next arch-diocese over from Rome; it is not in the East!
  4. as noted by @Fauken, there are about two dozen Eastern Churches in full communion in Rome, and a handful more with formal clergy arrangements with Rome.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
Churches and orders who did not have to adapt the Missal were groups( Benedictines, Dominicans etc) who could prove they had been using the same Missal since 1370(200 years) and could continue using it.
Click to expand...
It is very important to note this. It might even be said that this applied even to those rites which had been discontinued for whatever reasons.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
A good example of this is the Last Gospel . Originally this was an innovation some priests began privately reciting which became more common and eventually became just part of the end of mass. The editors of the Mass of Paul Vl decided they liked it and made it an official part of the Mass
Click to expand...
Really? My recollection is that the “last prayers” - last Gospel (St John), Prayer to St Michael, maybe 3 Hail Mary’s - were dropped, not “liked” at that time.

BTW, in my area many Catholics are unofficially adding the Prayer to St Michael at the end of Mass. A necessary prayer now, IMO.
 
Last edited:
The Prayers Ordered by the Pope (Leonine Prayers), or prayers after low mass were instituted by Pope Leo Xlll in the 1880s. Three Hail Marys, Hail Holy Queen, prayer for the Church, Saint Michael Prayer; and Pope Saint Pius X added three Sacred Hearts at the end. Originally they were meant for a resolution to the Papal state question, when that was solved with the Lateran Treaty in 1929 it went to the Consecration of Russia until Inter Oecumenici suppressed them( along with omitting the Judica Me and Last Gospel) in 1964.
The Last Gospel is still technically part of Mass and is in the Missal. The Leonine Prayers are not technically part of the Mass but immediate follow it.

These were never part of the missal. They were prescribed by the Pope to be said immediately following low mass. Since this prescription was still in place in 1962, most Extraordinary Form Masses still recite them after Low Mass.
 
Last edited:
They collectively have around about 14 million out of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. You probably have that many Catholics in metropolitan NYC. The Eastern Orthodox have some 250 million adherents. Most eastern Christians are in schism with the Church.
 
Last edited:
Thomasbradley312 said:
They collectively have around about 14 million out of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. You probably have that many Catholics in metropolitan NYC. The Eastern Orthodox have some 250 million adherents. Most eastern Christians are in schism with the Church.
Click to expand...
I don’t care how many there are. Their rites are in communion with Rome. The Pope, our Pope, recognizes those 14 million Catholics as being a part of his flock, and vice versa. Those Eastern Catholic liturgies then are not schismatic.
 
Last edited:
Eastern Catholics are as much part of the core of Catholicism as Western Catholics. They are not only in union with the Pope but with the bishops as well, their rites hold equal dignity with the Latin Rite. They are Churches.
 
They are but they share most of their traditions with the Eastrrn Orthodox Church. Most came back from being in schism and even faced persecution in spite of and we must respect that. However I’d much rather see the day when the entire west and east are united again.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top