Novous Ordo?

[GratefulLiving]

Hey, I am a Traditional Catholic, and am just wondering what all of you guyses thoughts are regarding the Novous Ordo. It seems that of the Traditionals that I know, about half to two thirds will attend a NO, and the others would avoid it with all costs. Of those that choose to avoid it, they don’t like the fact that I may make a different decision.
It’s my opinion that being that the NO is valid if done correctly, there shouldn’t be any problem if a person chooses to attend it instead of the Traditional Mass regularly or on certain occasions. After all, the pope has stated that there are two forms, one of which being the Traditional Rite, and the other being the NO. Is it justifiable to condemn a person for making a different choice about which mass they attend, even when they choose differently than you?

C’ya…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Hey, I am a Traditional Catholic, and am just wondering what all of you guyses thoughts are regarding the Novous Ordo. It seems that of the Traditionals that I know, about half to two thirds will attend a NO, and the others would avoid it with all costs. Of those that choose to avoid it, they don’t like the fact that I may make a different decision.
It’s my opinion that being that the NO is valid if done correctly, there shouldn’t be any problem if a person chooses to attend it instead of the Traditional Mass regularly or on certain occasions. After all, the pope has stated that there are two forms, one of which being the Traditional Rite, and the other being the NO. Is it justifiable to condemn a person for making a different choice about which mass they attend, even when they choose differently than you?

C’ya…

I consider myself a traditionalist who definitely prefers the Traditional Latin Mass. However, I usually go to the NO since that is pretty much all that is available in my area. I would argue with any so-called traditionalist who tried to state that the NO is invalid. I also don’t think anyone should be condemned for attending the NO.

However, having said that, I think one needs to factor in the importance of the liturgy and its purpose beyond whether or not it’s valid. The liturgy is to lift our hearts and mind to God and it’s also supposed to be the embodiment of the Catholic Faith. In a sense, the liturgy is to be a school for our souls. There are some who would argue that one liturgy does that better than another. And I don’t have any problems with those arguments since when two liturgies are different one may very well accomplish those things better than another (regardless of a person’s personal preference).

For an argument for one type of liturgy you may want to read “The Case for the Latin Mass” in my signature line below. Beyond that there are good books like “The Heresy of Formlessness” from Ignatius Press or “The Ottaviani Intervention” by Cardinal Ottaviani (can be found online).

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Hey, I am a Traditional Catholic, and am just wondering what all of you guyses thoughts are regarding the Novous Ordo. It seems that of the Traditionals that I know, about half to two thirds will attend a NO, and the others would avoid it with all costs.

One thing that worries me is the emergence of parallel “Traditional” parishes. Catholics have not traditionally chosen their priests, although they can choose their confessors, and I think that is a good rule - the alternative is very open to abuse.

So I don’t try to avoid NO Masses. However I’ve very rarely seen the sort of liturgical abuse that some people on this forum complain about - I think “clown Masses” and the like may be more of an American phenomenon. What I do see is a steady dripping away of reverence and commitment, whilst all the time keeping up the pretence that the parish is some sort of strong, loving, faithful community, when in fact it cannot even repair the roof.

I think a more reverent liturgy is a powerful way of reversing these negative trends. But there’s a danger in siphoning off all the most committed people into extraordinary form Masses. Where will the nucleus for improvement of the Ordinary form come from?

 

[palmas85]

One thing that worries me is the emergence of parallel “Traditional” parishes. Catholics have not traditionally chosen their priests, although they can choose their confessors, and I think that is a good rule - the alternative is very open to abuse.

So I don’t try to avoid NO Masses. However I’ve very rarely seen the sort of liturgical abuse that some people on this forum complain about - I think “clown Masses” and the like may be more of an American phenomenon. What I do see is a steady dripping away of reverence and commitment, whilst all the time keeping up the pretence that the parish is some sort of strong, loving, faithful community, when in fact it cannot even repair the roof.

I think a more reverent liturgy is a powerful way of reversing these negative trends. But there’s a danger in siphoning off all the most committed people into extraordinary form Masses. Where will the nucleus for improvement of the Ordinary form come from?

If it doesn’t improve it dies. Thats all. There is no reason to keep it if it dies on its own They thought that is what would happen with the Traditional Mass. It would soon be nothing more than a memory. The fact is it was kept alive and grew through the influence I believe of the Holy Spirit. There is really no other explanation. That is exactly the same reason I believe that given time the Pauline Rite will disappear. Once there are no more attractions that will draw the faithful in, once people are tired of liturgical dance and prayers to the Mother Father God and the Earth Mother and all the other things introduced in the name of relevancy and correct progressive thought it will go away.

Its just a matter of time.

And when it does it will be interesting to see if those who prefer it will cling to it and fight for its return as the Traditionalists did.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Hey, I am a Traditional Catholic, and am just wondering what all of you guyses thoughts are regarding the Novous Ordo.>>

I’ve never heard of the “Novous Ordo.”

Is it anything like the Novus Ordo?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I go strictly to the OF of the Mass (I have stated elsewhere why). The Mass I go to is Ad Orientum, has Chant in Latin (most times), Eucharistic Prayer in Latin (depends on the priest), and Communion only on the tongue and using the Altar Rail.

 

[DustinsDad]

I’ve never heard of the “Novous Ordo.”

Is it anything like the Novus Ordo?

I think that’s what Curly calls it.

Wait - maybe that’s Noivus Ordo.

 

[joanofarc3]

It would be wrong to condemn somebody simply because they attend the Novus Ordo. I prefer the Tridentine, I go to the Novus Ordo when the Tridentine is unavailable, and strictly out of obedience and in reparation. I don’t like it, and I hope that the next pope will make the necessary moves to get it totally out, or at least work towards it. That’s my opinion on the matter anyway.

 

[BobP123]

<<Hey, I am a Traditional Catholic, and am just wondering what all of you guyses thoughts are regarding the Novous Ordo.>>

I’ve never heard of the “Novous Ordo.”

Is it anything like the Novus Ordo?

Yes, the same spelling as on the U.S. dollar bill. Coincidence?

 

[Refugium]

I really try to avoid the Novus Ordo. I won’t go so far as to say it is a sin to go to one, but on the other hand I don’t think you are sinning at all or breaking the Sunday obligation if you do not have the availability of the traditional Mass and you don’t go to the Novus Ordo. I might sometimes go to a Novus Ordo for the sake of receiving the sacraments alone, since it is valid when it is celebrated according to the rubrics. But generally it is scandalous and dangerous to my faith to go to one. The whole affair presents a message that is compromising and un-catholic and as is obvious from the last 40 years, gradually wears away at one’s belief in the Catholic doctrines concerning the Eucharist, the priesthood, salvation, and so on.

 

[paramedicgirl]

If it doesn’t improve it dies. Thats all. There is no reason to keep it if it dies on its own They thought that is what would happen with the Traditional Mass. It would soon be nothing more than a memory. The fact is it was kept alive and grew through the influence I believe of the Holy Spirit. There is really no other explanation. That is exactly the same reason I believe that given time the Pauline Rite will disappear. Once there are no more attractions that will draw the faithful in, once people are tired of liturgical dance and prayers to the Mother Father God and the Earth Mother and all the other things introduced in the name of relevancy and correct progressive thought it will go away.

Its just a matter of time.

And when it does it will be interesting to see if those who prefer it will cling to it and fight for its return as the Traditionalists did.

Very interesting post, palmas.

 

[brigid12]

I go to the NO, since if I didn’t I couldn’t fulfill my Sunday obligation (only 1 TLM in this 2800 mi diocese-I can’t afford the gasoline and supposedly there aren’t any priests around that want to do it, or want to incur the bishop’s displeasure).

 

[LilyM]

I really try to avoid the Novus Ordo. I won’t go so far as to say it is a sin to go to one, but on the other hand I don’t think you are sinning at all or breaking the Sunday obligation if you do not have the availability of the traditional Mass and you don’t go to the Novus Ordo. I might sometimes go to a Novus Ordo for the sake of receiving the sacraments alone, since it is valid when it is celebrated according to the rubrics. But generally it is scandalous and dangerous to my faith to go to one. The whole affair presents a message that is compromising and un-catholic and as is obvious from the last 40 years, gradually wears away at one’s belief in the Catholic doctrines concerning the Eucharist, the priesthood, salvation, and so on.

No. The NO is valid if the consecration is done correctly - in terms of matter (properly made bread and wine), form (the words ‘this is my body, this is my blood’) and intent to consecrate.

Other abuses and deviations from the rubrics may make it illicit, but even if illicit it still fulfils the Sunday obligation when valid, and you are still bound to attend on pain of mortal sin.

If you are 100% certain that you cannot find a VALID NO to attend, only then are you not obligated to do so.

 

[Refugium]

LilyM, I know the Novus Ordo validly confects the Eucharist if it is done “correctly”. But if you ask me this makes it all the more scandalous and sacreligious and is another reason to avoid it.
BTW I know that Eastern Catholics are not obligated to attend a Roman Mass if there is no Eastern Mass around, and Novus Ordo Catholics aren’t obligated to attend the Tridentine when there is no Novus Ordo around, so why are Traditional Catholics obligated to attend the Novus Ordo when no TLM is around?

 

[LilyM]

LilyM, I know the Novus Ordo validly confects the Eucharist if it is done “correctly”. But if you ask me this makes it all the more scandalous and sacreligious and is another reason to avoid it.
BTW I know that Eastern Catholics are not obligated to attend a Roman Mass if there is no Eastern Mass around, and Novus Ordo Catholics aren’t obligated to attend the Tridentine when there is no Novus Ordo around, so why are Traditional Catholics obligated to attend the Novus Ordo when no TLM is around?

Because the TLM isn’t a separate rite from the NO. Both are Latin Rite Masses. And as Latin Rite Catholics it is Latin Rite liturgy to which we are bound, not the TLM or the NO in particular.

And however scandalous a poorly-celebrated NO may be, if Jesus can stand to be there (and He can and is) then so must we.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

I really tried to embrace the Arch-Conservative/Traditional thang several years back but I’m just so happy at my normal N.O. Parish that I just can’t brake from my spiritual father and friends and family for a little extra smells and bells and a completely foreign language thrown in for free. I honestly believe the Liturgy should nourish us spiritually, intellectually and interactively. Now I’ve read the translations of the Tridentine Mass and I find it nice but hearing it in Latin honestly doesn’t do a thing for me but confuse me.

Frankly I really like the Eastern Divine Liturgies as they are in the vernacular and yet retain all the real teachings of the Church going all the way back to the early Church. The Tridentine Mass should do that as well. I honestly believe that was the whole rationale for the Pauline Liturgy and although I recognize the abuses I don’t believe the effort was in vain.

 

[paramedicgirl]

LilyM, I know the Novus Ordo validly confects the Eucharist if it is done “correctly”. But if you ask me this makes it all the more scandalous and sacreligious and is another reason to avoid it.
BTW I know that Eastern Catholics are not obligated to attend a Roman Mass if there is no Eastern Mass around, and Novus Ordo Catholics aren’t obligated to attend the Tridentine when there is no Novus Ordo around, so why are Traditional Catholics obligated to attend the Novus Ordo when no TLM is around?

I have never heard this before - that NO Catholics are not bound to attend a TLM if it is the only Mass around. Is this true? And if so, where can I find a reference to it?

 

[BobP123]

I have never heard this before - that NO Catholics are not bound to attend a TLM if it is the only Mass around. Is this true? And if so, where can I find a reference to it?

It seems that the same rules should apply if a Mass is a Mass.

 

[LilyM]

I have never heard this before - that NO Catholics are not bound to attend a TLM if it is the only Mass around. Is this true? And if so, where can I find a reference to it?

That’s absolutely untrue. The Sunday obligation can be fulfilled by attending any valid Mass of any Rite:

“The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.” [Canon Law # 1248.1] (C.C.C. # 2180)

So even if Ruthenian or Maronite is your only available option than you are required to attend it, as a Latin riter, let alone an NO.

Come to think of it I’m not so sure the bit about Eastern Catholics is true either. They DO have their own code of Canon Law, it is true. But if I understand correctly then the Catechism and that particular provision of it applies to them equally. In other words they would be required to attend a Latin Rite Mass if such were the only available one.

Refugium, what’s your source for these statements about the NO and the Eastern Catholics?

 

[Robster7]

Grateful Living,

I am glad to see one traditionalist who respects those who prefer the veracular mass, as I do those who prefer the Tridentine. I most recently attended a Latin Mass on All Saint’s Day, and it was beautiful with the choir singing.

But unfortunately, if I tried to follow what the priest was doing, it was impossible. You have to keep an eye on what’s going on in the missal, and if you don’t keep up or miss something, you’re lost. All of a sudden he was up to the Epistle. I completely missed almost every thing in between. Choir singing was beautiful, however.

In any case, my critique of both forms has more to do with the manner in which it may be done, rather than the rite itself.

With the Latin mass, often the priest zips thru the Latin which you cant hear, and it’s very hard to keep up. I don’t understand why it is said mostly on the quiet, and also why the priest says so fast. That hardly seems reverent.

Anyway, I am used participating with the priest in celebrating mass with the responses, etc. Maybe, the English in the translation needs to be tidied up a bit.
Of the abuses I’ve seen, they seem not be due to the rite itself, but rather the celebrant’s, liturgy committee’s, or music minister’s innovation. the veracular Mass can be celebrated reverently, as it is.

Some of the abuses seem to be turning it into entertainment (e.g., priest as comedian (not even a funny comedian)); overenthusiastic, domineering music ministries); or dropping out the Creed on Sundays (required on Sunday), or omitting the penitential rite. Far worse occurs elsewhere I’ve heard. When I questioned a priest re dropping the Creed (after giving a 20 minute homily); he said it was still a valid Mass. Another said it was a matter of time limits (Well, cut 5 minutes of your homily).

At one Mass at which there was baptism, there was no mention of baptism or the readings for the day. The pastor chose that time to discuss parish finances. I dont dispute he had to do that, but he should not have omitted the homily. Could have done a brief homily on baptism and the readings, and then done the finance talk before the final blessing. I can only imagine what the family having the baptism thought about this. Oftentimes, such times may be the only time some people may go to Mass (i.e., a family wedding, baptism, or funeral). It may be an opportunity to give them reason to rethink their lapsed faith.

However, among some of the tradiionalists (not all, by any means) I detect a strain of intolerance. Some want to abolish the vernacular mass altogether. A local newspaper in an article on the Latin Mass, had some interesting quotes from one such enthusiast.I think it gave a bad picture of traditional Catholics, as rigid and intolerant. One time when I attended a Latin Mass, I saw a van plastered with stickers. Besides pro-life stickers was one that said, “Repeal Vatican II.” Uh-huh.

I believe when John Paul II created the PriestlyFraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), which is allowed to celebrate the Sacraments in tradition Latin, he put some requirements in it. Among those were recognizing the validity of the Vatican II council decrees, and the authority of the church to call such a council. It did not require them to agree with every interpretation of them. Some of these are justified by “the spirit of Vatican II”; a sometimes misdiscerned spirit indeed!

Sorry for my windiness.

Robster7