Norvus Ordo High Mass

[Dauphin]

Actually I think I’ll follow what the Church ACTUALLY directs… There are not “better ways and worse ways” – only those approved by the Church and those that are not.

If the Church says we are (as an example) free to stand, kneel or sit during a specific segment of the Mass then one posture is NOT intrinsically better than the other two in that specific sitution.

Given that option by the Church you wouldn’t simply choose to kneel. You would suggest to others that kneeling is “better” than the other two postures – and you would be wrong.

Simply because the Church allows certain things, it does not follow that all practices are necessarily equal in value. The Church does not forbid the faithful from believing that certain behaviors, forms of music, or liturgical expressions are better or more inherently reverent than others. In fact, many Saints and Popes have written at length making just the sort of arguments that you find so offensive.

You’re invoking the fact that the Church allows freedom in order to squelch any debate about whether certain things the Church allows are better than others. You have absolutely no grounds for doing so. It’s a form of intellectual intimidation which borders on insinuating that certain Catholics are “disobedient” simply for presenting the Traditions of the Church as superior to modern novelties,

 

[scylla]

Not that you’re wrong, but to be precise:

Sacred Tradition is that deposit of faith which has been passed down in its entirety and its integrity from the apostles to their succesors since the beginning of the Church. Catholics transmit this Tradition unaltered; we pass on what we have received. As such, we are guaranteed a continuity with the past. By examining what we believe and how we worship in the light of Tradition, we may be certain that we share the faith and essential practices of those who came before us.

I agree, that is precise and a great definition.

Maybe I should have been more specific and said “traditional practices”, to narrow down my definition, to be more precise.

Now in regards to our practice it is our traditional practices which reinforce the teaching of the Church by paying heed to our belief by our actions.

Another example, we fast before we receive the Eucharist, this shows respect for Christ in the Eucharist. It is better to fast more than not to fast. We are only required to fast one hour before we receive, but should we seek the least obedience? Should I measure out exactly when I receive so I can eat each time all the way until right before the hour to do the minimum? Or is it better to freely give up some time before we receive, (if we can) to fast and reflect on the greatness of the gift we are about to receive.

Just because I am allowed to do the least doesn’t mean doing more is bad, doing more is better. This is something I fight in my parish, there are comments like “you can’t hurt God”, “we like to do things this way” and “God doesn’t mind”. We offend the majesty of God when we are lukewarm or wishy washy. We should be firm and seek the most obedience to His Majesty.

Again for the original poster, to try and steer this back on topic… What your priest did was good as it was showing respect to the faith and against culture, he stood up for the faith. This takes a lot of bravery these days as fashion says we shouldn’t respect God and should just respect culture, so often we are tempted to bend to fashion rather than seek to obey God. Showing continuity reinforces the teaching of the Church and shows a link to the past which we should treasure, as it is our heritage.

I am trying to bring back some reverence into our Masses at my parish by participating as an MC. Find ways to support your Priest as it is difficult to be a good Priest.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[snhs]

Again, there is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo parish.” Plenty of parishes around that do not have a scheduled EF, but they are not “Novus Ordo parishes” – they are Catholic parishes.

There is no “TLM side” – there is one Church, the Catholic Church. Trying to erect those artificial and divisive walls is terribly wrong. To suggest that “traditional Catholics can often be the most faithful to the Church and her teachings” is nonsensical. It depends on the individual Catholic. To infer that “traditional Catholics” are more faithful is simply wrong.

This divisive traditionalist stuff belongs on the traditional Catholic forum.

There is a Novus Ordo, that is the term used by the Church to describe the Form of the Mass used in the vast majority of Catholic Churches. They are of course Catholic Parishes, just as Parishes which use the Extraordinary Form are Catholic Parishes. But they are also Novus Ordo Parishes because that is the form of Mass used in that Parish. If you don’t like the term you don’t have to use it but others have every right to if they wish.

Your position is absolutely ridiculous. If I describe myself to be a political Conservative it does not all of a sudden separate me from the human race, if you think my use of Conservative means I’m a Neo Nazi or an outright Facist thats your problem not mine. Similarly if the term Traditionalist indicates to you that someone is some sort of separatist or a Holier than thou type, or whatever other negative connotations you might have of the term thats your problem and you shouldn’t be inflicting your stereotypes on others.

As far as I understand it the Church bases her teachings on three basic things Scripture, the Magisterium and Tradition. If someone chooses to follow those traditions and put their own spin on them then its quite possible they will fall into error. But if they faithfully follow those things, follow tradition etc? Traditionally Catholics follow the Magisterium and Scripture hence if someone calls themselves/affiliates themselves with Traditionalist ideology on that basis I don’t see any problem with it. Do you have a problem with such people? I didn’t say they are more faithful now, did I? Might be worthwhile if you read what people say rather than what best suits your argument.

 

[Praxis]

There is a Novus Ordo, that is the term used by the Church to describe the Form of the Mass used in the vast majority of Catholic Churches. They are of course Catholic Parishes, just as Parishes which use the Extraordinary Form are Catholic Parishes. But they are also Novus Ordo Parishes because that is the form of Mass used in that Parish. If you don’t like the term you don’t have to use it but others have every right to if they wish.

You’re confused. The Mass’ correct name is the Mass of Pope Paul VI. You show further confusion when you suggest they are anything other than Latin/Roman Rite parishes.

Your position is absolutely ridiculous. If I describe myself to be a political Conservative it does not all of a sudden separate me from the human race, if you think my use of Conservative means I’m a Neo Nazi or an outright Facist thats your problem not mine. Similarly if the term Traditionalist indicates to you that someone is some sort of separatist or a Holier than thou type, or whatever other negative connotations you might have of the term thats your problem and you shouldn’t be inflicting your stereotypes on others.

Ummmm, oki-doki.

As far as I understand it the Church bases her teachings on three basic concepts Scripture, the Magisterium and Tradition. If someone chooses to follow those traditions and put their own spin on them then its quite possible they will fall into error. But if they faithfully follow those things, follow tradition etc? Traditionally Catholics follow the Magisterium and Scripture hence if someone calls themselves/affiliates themselves with Traditionalist ideology on that basis I don’t see any problem with it. Do you have a problem with such people? I didn’t say they are more faithful now, did I? Might be worthwhile if you read what people say rather than what best suits your argument.

“Tradition” or “tradition” does not equate to Sacred Tradition – you had better read up on that.

Not sure what to say about your other “Traditionalist ideology” comments…

 

[snhs]

You’re confused. The Mass’ correct name is the Mass of Pope Paul VI. You show further confusion when you suggest they are anything other than Latin/Roman Rite parishes.

“Tradition” or “tradition” does not equate to Sacred Tradition – you had better read up on that.

Not sure what to say about your other “Traditionalist ideology” comments…

The Vatican has used the term Novus Ordo in various documents referring to the Mass, examples here and here. Perhaps you should get in touch and inform the Holy See that they have used the incorrect term.

There are two forms of the Roman Rite as Pope Benedict has said. If someone wishes to refer to a Parish by the form used there they are entitled to do so. There can be Parishes which use one form, if people wish to refer to them as such then thats their choice.

I think I may understand it better than you think, perhaps you could do with brushing up on it a bit here. I particularly like the quote from 2 Thess. 2:15 “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”. If for some people that means wearing Chapel Veils, or having a devotion to the Form of the Mass they attended in their childhood or the Form of Mass which Saints and other people they admire would have worshiped at what is wrong with it?

Interesting that you failed to answer any of the questions, and then also failed to accept that you had completely misstated what I had previously written.

 

[Praxis]

The Vatican has used the term Novus Ordo in various documents referring to the Mass, examples here and here. Perhaps you should get in touch and inform the Holy See that they have used the incorrect term.

The correct name is the Mass of Pope Paul VI. There is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo parish.”

There are two forms of the Roman Rite as Pope Benedict has said. If someone wishes to refer to a Parish by the form used there they are entitled to do so. There can be Parishes which use one form, if people wish to refer to them as such then thats their choice.

POPPYCOCK!

There is ONE Latin/Roman Rite! Within that rite there are Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Mass. This is not merely semantics. What you suggest is perniciously divisive.

I think I may understand it better than you think, perhaps you could do with brushing up on it a bit here. I particularly like the quote from 2 Thess. 2:15 “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”. If for some people that means wearing Chapel Veils, or having a devotion to the Form of the Mass they attended in their childhood or the Form of Mass which Saints and other people they admire would have worshiped at what is wrong with it?

Oh Sweet Jesus! Chapel veils have nothing to do with Sacred Tradition! You DO need to read-up on the Church’s dogmatic deposit of faith! To equate man-made disciplines or customs to Sacred Tradition is terribly wrong! Jesus was not talking about chapel veils!

Interesting that you failed to answer any of the questions, and then also failed to accept that you had completely misstated what I had previously written.

It’s remarkable that you would equate man-made customs and disciplines to Sacred Tradition. Do you really believe the following verses speak to man-made traditions?

2 Th 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

1 Cor 11:2 “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”

1Pet1:25 “but the word of the Lord abides for ever.” That word is the good news which was preached to you. (Notice the term “preached” – ponder that.)

John20:30 “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book”

John21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

NO! They speak to Sacred Tradition! It appears you do not know the difference between man-made customs or disciplines (“traditions”) and Sacred Tradition.

 

[snhs]

The correct name is the Mass of Pope Paul VI. There is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo parish.”

POPPYCOCK!

There is ONE Latin/Roman Rite! Within that rite there are Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Mass. This is not merely semantics. What you suggest is perniciously divisive.

Oh Sweet Jesus! Chapel veils have nothing to do with Sacred Tradition! You DO need to read-up on the Church’s dogmatic deposit of faith! To equate man-made disciplines or customs to Sacred Tradition is terribly wrong! Jesus was not talking about chapel veils!

It’s remarkable that you would equate man-made customs and disciplines to Sacred Tradition.

Please get in touch with the Vatican, inform them of their error and then if they decide to correct it to what you so definitively state is the ‘correct name’ you may have a point.

What I suggest is that given Pope Benedict has referred to the Latin Rite as having two forms it is quite acceptable for us to do so also. Given that His Holiness has also put a Church in Rome under the control of the FSSP as an Parish which practices exclusively the Extraordinary Form it is also legitimate for us to distinguish between Parishes by what form they use. (Or perhaps you should write to His Holiness and tell him how divisive he is being). If the OP had came on saying he really loved this Mass and it had bells, incense and a lot of Latin, but didn’t mention it was a NO Parish/Mass was in the vernacular then many people might have thought it was in the Extraordinary Form. By making clear it was a NO Parish he avoided this confusion. You may not like a term that does not mean everyone else on this forum is prevented from using it.

Again you appear to be attempting to misconstrue what I have written, I don’t believe I even remotely implied that there was more than one Latin Rite, did I?

Did you not bother reading that quote I provided? It was 2 Thess. 2:15 “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”. Now if I were female and had grown up 60 years ago, and had heard a Bishop, a Successor to the Apostles, explaining why my Mum and Gran were wearing Chapel Veils based on what is said on the subject in the Scriptures etc and that explanation had made sense to me and appeared well founded in what the Church believes, and still appeared as such today, would I be wrong for continuing to practice it?

Now when did I equate man made customs/disciplines to Sacred Tradition? If someone chooses to wear a veil because they believe that is what is most appropriate given what the Scriptures say and what the Church teaches are they wrong for it? If I think that the Extraordinary Form is preferable to the Novus Ordo because to me it better expresses the reverence due to God, or because I feel closer to God by attending it than a NO Mass am I wrong for it? We are meant to draw closer to God aren’t we? We are meant to give due reverence to him?

You are conducting yourself in a manner that is wholly inappropriate. If you are unwilling to engage in a sensible discussion then don’t bother responding. Rather than insulting me, or my views how about you try answering some of the questions that I pose rather than trying to extricate yourself from a weak position by bluster and bravado.

 

[Praxis]

Please get in touch with the Vatican, inform them of their error and then if they decide to correct it to what you so definitively state is the ‘correct name’ you may have a point.

What I suggest is that given Pope Benedict has referred to the Latin Rite as having two forms it is quite acceptable for us to do so also. Given that His Holiness has also put a Church in Rome under the control of the FSSP as an Parish which practices exclusively the Extraordinary Form it is also legitimate for us to distinguish between Parishes by what form they use. (Or perhaps you should write to His Holiness and tell him how divisive he is being). If the OP had came on saying he really loved this Mass and it had bells, incense and a lot of Latin, but didn’t mention it was a NO Parish/Mass was in the vernacular then many people might have thought it was in the Extraordinary Form. By making clear it was a NO Parish he avoided this confusion. You may not like a term that does not mean everyone else on this forum is prevented from using it.

Again you appear to be attempting to misconstrue what I have written, I don’t believe I even remotely implied that there was more than one Latin Rite, did I?

Did you not bother reading that quote I provided? It was 2 Thess. 2:15 “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”. Now if I were female and had grown up 60 years ago, and had heard a Bishop, a Successor to the Apostles, explaining why my Mum and Gran were wearing Chapel Veils based on what is said on the subject in the Scriptures etc and that explanation had made sense to me and appeared well founded in what the Church believes, and still appeared as such today, would I be wrong for continuing to practice it?

Now when did I equate man made customs/disciplines to Sacred Tradition? If someone chooses to wear a veil because they believe that is what is most appropriate given what the Scriptures say and what the Church teaches are they wrong for it? If I think that the Extraordinary Form is preferable to the Novus Ordo because to me it better expresses the reverence due to God, or because I feel closer to God by attending it than a NO Mass am I wrong for it? We are meant to draw closer to God aren’t we? We are meant to give due reverence to him?

You are conducting yourself in a manner that is wholly inappropriate. If you are unwilling to engage in a sensible discussion then don’t bother responding. Rather than insulting me, or my views how about you try answering some of the questions that I pose rather than trying to extricate yourself from a weak position by bluster and bravado.

There is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo parish.” There is ONE Latin/Roman Rite. Man-made customs and disciplines are not Sacred Tradition.

The rest is noise.

Finis.

 

[snhs]

There is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo parish.” There is ONE Latin/Roman Rite. Man-made customs and disciplines are not Sacred Tradition.

The rest is noise.

Finis.

Just because you don’t agree with something does not mean it becomes noise. There is the Novus Ordo, there are Parishes which celebrate only the Novus Ordo they are hence Novus Ordo Parishes. They are also Catholic Parishes, they are also Roman Catholic Parishes, Parishes of the Latin Rite or if you prefer Parishes which celebrate the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

When have I suggested there was more than one Latin Rite? You keep making this point but given that no one has challenged it there’s not much point in making it.

Practices can and do originate from Sacred Tradition and/or from what is said in Scripture. If some people choose to follow traditional practices which stem from Sacred Tradition, what the Church has said either now or in the past then they are perfectly entitled to do so as long as it is not contrary to what the Church now teaches.

As I’ve pointed out your failure to answer questions only highlights the weakness of your position it remains as such.

I also find it interesting that long after I had responded to your previous posts several Biblical quotations all of a sudden sprang up at the end of it, which in charity I will presume to be because you were looking them up although it may also have been a rather cack handed attempt to weaken my argument.

 

[Phemie]

We are supposed to refer to Ordinary Form & Extraordinary Form.

Whether you mean it to or not, “N.O. parish” is a loaded term with negative connotations. Your comment that it’s necessary to mention the form because mentioning the use of incense & such would lead one to believe that a parish uses the EF is insulting. It’s not as though incense, bells and reverent liturgy is the sole province of the EF.

 

[snhs]

We are supposed to refer to Ordinary Form & Extraordinary Form.

Whether you mean it to or not, “N.O. parish” is a loaded term with negative connotations. Your comment that it’s necessary to mention the form because mentioning the use of incense & such would lead one to believe that a parish uses the EF is insulting. It’s not as though incense, bells and reverent liturgy is the sole province of the EF.

If you had actually read what you I wrote you would have noticed that I said specifically “If the OP had came on saying he really loved this Mass and it had bells, incense and a lot of Latin, but didn’t mention it was a NO Parish/Mass was in the vernacular then many people might have thought it was in the Extraordinary Form.”. It only applied to the specific case where all of those things, particularly the use of Latin, are mentioned AND the fact that it was a NO Mass/Parish is omitted that it comes into play. Notice that I also said ‘might’, the OP used a term which has been used in official Church Documents and in doing so made the meaning of his post apparent, which it would not have been if he had just said it was a Catholic Church. It is not the business of Praxis or you to police the use of such terms especially when, as has been established they are legitimate.

When did I say or even hint that reverent liturgy was the sole province of the EF? Rather than people criticising what they think I have written/implying that I have written something when I haven’t even came close to it please try addressing the issues. Apart from anything else its an incredibly hollow and transparent tactic which doesn’t do your position any favours.

The Vatican has referred to the Novus Ordo, it is a legitimate term which means the same thing as the Ordinary Form if others choose to attach hidden meanings to it thats their concern.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.