Novus Ordo Mass

[ProVobis]

Or, as I have seen posted here several times, “NO priests” and even “NO sacraments.”

You’re right but while we’re on the topic, unfortunately the expression has extended to more than that, including “it’s a Novus Ordo thing” or “Novus Ordo architecture,” or other similar references, clearly a rupture to the continuity of the Church. But who can deny there were attempted measures taken to dismember or dismantle the Roman Missal among other things? What Pope Benedict seems to be saying IMO that these measures were not legitimate and that the Roman Missal in its pure and pristine Latin form was never abrogated.

 

[Draper]

One priest I came in contact with (a Byzantine Catholic priest who craved bi-ritual faculties so he could celebrate the EF Mass) who refused to refer to the EF Mass as the EF Mass or the Extraordinary Mass.

He said “it sounds too much like extraordinary minister of holy communion” He would only refer to it as the “tlm.”

After failing as a pastor he realized his bi-ritual dream and he’s not serving in a monastery – a good fit for him…

 

[Digitonomy]

Pope Benedict XVI purposefully gave us the monikers “Ordinary Form of the Mass or OF Mass” (for the Mass of Pope Paul XVI) and “Extraordinary Form of the Mass or EF Mass” (for the Tridentine Mass) because he was aware that labels like “novus ordo” and “traditional latin mass” are not only inaccurate, they’re highly divisive.

I’m sorry, but while that is a common enough belief on this forum, it’s simply revisionist history. Pope Benedict used those phrases to describe these two forms of the mass, but he used a variety of other phrases as well. He also didn’t specifically capitalize the phrases (although they were sometimes capitalized in the quasi-German capitalization practice of many Vatican writings) There is no indication that he intended these to be actual titles for the two forms.

 

[Draper]

I’m sorry, but while that is a common enough belief on this forum, it’s simply revisionist history. Pope Benedict used those phrases to describe these two forms of the mass, but he used a variety of other phrases as well. He also didn’t specifically capitalize the phrases (although they were sometimes capitalized in the quasi-German capitalization practice of many Vatican writings) There is no indication that he intended these to be actual titles for the two forms.

Nothing to be sorry about. Your charge about “revisionist history” in bunkum. Pope Benedict XVI specifically gave us the OF and EF monikers to avoid division and to underscore the continuity of the Mass.

 

[dans0622]

Pope Benedict XVI purposefully gave us the monikers “Ordinary Form of the Mass or OF Mass” (for the Mass of Pope Paul XVI) and “Extraordinary Form of the Mass or EF Mass” (for the Tridentine Mass) because he was aware that labels like “novus ordo” and “traditional latin mass” are not only inaccurate, they’re highly divisive.

…

Hello,

Yes, he used those terms at least once but I don’t recall him explaining the rationale in that way, or ever “asking us” to use the same terms.

As for the good points in the new Mass, I think the best one is the fact that everybody tends to be “on the same page” instead of the priest doing/reading one thing, choir maybe doing something else, and people in the pew doing either one, or neither.

Dan

 

[TimothyH]

The terms ordinary and extraordinary are used because they are the most accurate.

In the context of the Church, ordinary does not mean uninteresting, dull or bland. It means common, normal and expected. Extraordinary does not mean remarkable or exciting but means not normal or commonplace, not expected.

The ordinary form is supposed to be the daily, normal, expected form of the Mass. The extraordinary form should not be daily, normal, expected or commonplace.

As was said by Brother JR, the EF should not be our daily bread.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

I’m sorry, but while that is a common enough belief on this forum, it’s simply revisionist history. Pope Benedict used those phrases to describe these two forms of the mass, but he used a variety of other phrases as well. He also didn’t specifically capitalize the phrases (although they were sometimes capitalized in the quasi-German capitalization practice of many Vatican writings) There is no indication that he intended these to be actual titles for the two forms.

I believe he also used the term expressio as well as forma in his Latin Summorum Pontificum document, which unfortunately has only been translated into Hungarian on the Vatican website. Anglophones as usual form their own meanings as far as extraordinaria and ordinaria are concerned, though it is true there was a followup letter which clarified the original in English but left the rather vague ordinary and extraordinary terms in them. It is clear, however, there were fewer restrictions on using the 1962 liturgical books, economic issues aside.

… the EF should not be our daily bread.

If it’s the same Catholic Mass, why should it make a difference?

BTW, in Polish, ordinaria can also be translated as “crude” or “mere.”

.

 

[dans0622]

… The ordinary form is supposed to be the daily, normal, expected form of the Mass. The extraordinary form should not be daily, normal, expected or commonplace.

As was said by Brother JR, the EF should not be our daily bread. …

Hello,

Looking at the Latin Church as a whole, yes, the ordinary form is the ordinary form. In some parishes/communities, though, the extraordinary form is the only form and that is the way it is supposed to be. Pope Benedict’s usage of “extraordinary” in this context should not be seen in the same way as that term is used in, for example, “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”

I would say that if a person wants the extraordinary form to be his daily bread, that’s fine. Who am I to put a limit on his legitimate aspirations regarding this form of the liturgy?

Dan

 

[ProVobis]

As for the good points in the new Mass, I think the best one is the fact that everybody tends to be “on the same page” instead of the priest doing/reading one thing, choir maybe doing something else, and people in the pew doing either one, or neither.

For the record, there were many changes to the 62 Missal (actually a dismantling, there was nothing added) PRIOR to the new Mass, so it’s not necessarily what happened after 1969 that people who hadn’t left the Church were applauding. Such things as the new formula for communion reception, facing the people, amplification of the Canon, faulty translations, adding Eucharistic Prayers by the bishops, etc. were well in place before the new Mass was promulgated.

 

[Draper]

The terms ordinary and extraordinary are used because they are the most accurate.

In the context of the Church, ordinary does not mean uninteresting, dull or bland. It means common, normal and expected. Extraordinary does not mean remarkable or exciting but means not normal or commonplace, not expected.

**The ordinary form is supposed to be the daily, normal, expected form of the Mass. The extraordinary form should not be daily, normal, expected or commonplace.

As was said by Brother JR, the EF should not be our daily bread. **

-Tim-

Not really, no.

 

[Denise1957]

The ordinary form is supposed to be the daily, normal, expected form of the Mass. The extraordinary form should not be daily, normal, expected or commonplace.

As was said by Brother JR, the EF should not be our daily bread.

-Tim-

And the Church allows for those who wish to have the EF as their daily bread, even if it’s not the standard norm. There are quite a few dioceses here in the U.S. that have a daily EF offered at parishes that Catholics are allowed to attend.

 

[TimothyH]

Hello,

Looking at the Latin Church as a whole, yes, the ordinary form is the ordinary form. In some parishes/communities, though, the extraordinary form is the only form and that is the way it is supposed to be. Pope Benedict’s usage of “extraordinary” in this context should not be seen in the same way as that term is used in, for example, “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”

I would say that if a person wants the extraordinary form to be his daily bread, that’s fine. Who am I to put a limit on his legitimate aspirations regarding this form of the liturgy?

Dan

I’m sorry but the word “extraordinary” is exactly the same in terms of the form of the Mass or minister of communion. I’m not limiting anyone. The Church herself has chosen these words, not me.

The fact that the Church allows Societies of Apostolic Life and religious communities to celebrate the EF almost exclusively shows that she expects some of the faithful to prefer that particular form. For the universal Church however and the vast majority of her members, the EF should not be expected or a commonplace or everyday occurrence. for the vast majority of Christians the OF should be the normal, everyday Mass.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I believe he also used the term expressio as well as forma in his Latin Summorum Pontificum document, which unfortunately has only been translated into Hungarian on the Vatican website. Anglophones as usual form their own meanings as far as extraordinaria and ordinaria are concerned, though it is true there was a followup letter which clarified the original in English but left the rather vague ordinary and extraordinary terms in them. It is clear, however, there were fewer restrictions on using the 1962 liturgical books, economic issues aside.

If it’s the same Catholic Mass, why should it make a difference?

BTW, in Polish, ordinaria can also be translated as “crude” or “mere.”

.

It makes a difference because the Church has chosen to define the two forms of the Mass as ordinary and extraordinary. The Church has always chosen her words very carefully and used them deliberately. In using these words the Church has expressed her intent.

The Church could have used the terms old/new, Latin/vernacular or anything else but she didn’t. In using these names the Church has expressed her intent.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

The Church has always chosen her words very carefully and used them deliberately.

If that’s the case, then we have to go with what was written in the Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum, and that is Novus Ordo Missae, but according to most, that’s now considered offensive.

 

[dans0622]

I’m sorry but the word “extraordinary” is exactly the same in terms of the form of the Mass or minister of communion. I’m not limiting anyone. The Church herself has chosen these words, not me.

The fact that the Church allows Societies of Apostolic Life and religious communities to celebrate the EF almost exclusively shows that she expects some of the faithful to prefer that particular form. For the universal Church however and the vast majority of her members, the EF should not be expected or a commonplace or everyday occurrence. for the vast majority of Christians the OF should be the normal, everyday Mass. …

Yes, the word is the same. Nevertheless, that word is used in different contexts.

John Paul II referred to “general absolution” as an “extraordinary means to be used in wholly exceptional situations” (Misericordia Dei) and the Rite of Penance itself says individual confession and absolution is the “sole, ordinary means” of reconciliation (n. 31). The “extraordinary form” of the Mass can certainly be celebrated in circumstances far more common than “general absolution.” Likewise, it can be the usual way a person or community celebrates Mass but extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are to be used only in more restricted circumstances. Then there is the “extraordinary synod of bishops.” Practically, this seems to be most akin to the way Benedict used the term in Summorum pontificum. As a matter of fact, extraordinary synods are less common than ordinary ones. Yet, a Pope could decide to have as many extraordinary synods as he wanted. They would still be called “extraordinary” even if they became more common and “ordinary” in frequency.

I don’t think there has ever been an official document which said certain people “should” attend the ordinary form or “should” attend the extraordinary form only a certain number of times. *Summorum pontificum *certainly didn’t. It used “should” in regard to pastors providing to the faithful access to the older form, as a matter of fact.

One could argue that the limitation of one extraordinary form Mass per Sunday (in a typical, diocesan parish) is a way of saying people “should” attend the ordinary form. It’s not a strong argument, though, since any person can attend the extraordinary form every week and nobody has a right to say “you should attend the ordinary form.”

Dan

 

[CalCatholic]

Pope Benedict XVI purposefully gave us the monikers “Ordinary Form of the Mass or OF Mass” (for the Mass of Pope Paul XVI) and “Extraordinary Form of the Mass or EF Mass” (for the Tridentine Mass) because he was aware that labels like “novus ordo” and “traditional latin mass” are not only inaccurate, they’re highly divisive.

Some good things about the OF Mass? There are plenty.

It’s in a Language I Can Understand: While I certainly appreciate the Latin language, I do prefer to focus on the Mass in a truly serious manner which I cannot do when I must use a missalette to translate.

The Penitential Rite: Some suggest the EF has no PR, others suggest that function is filled by the celebrant and the server for the entire congregation. Either way I find it extremely cathartic for me to personally take part in the PR and humbling that everyone else present is also personally taking part in the PR.

Enlarged Reading Cycles: This goes without saying. The OF exposes the faithful to FAR more of the Bible with its three cycles. This may be the #1 reason why I prefer the OF – greater exposure to God’s word within the context of the Mass.

More Readings on Sundays: Again, this goes without saying. The readings from the OT and NT epistles, the sung responsorial Psalm and the proclaimed Gospel are a definite improvement of the EF offering.

Lay Readers: This is one area that I think involvement from the laity is a most positive addition to the Mass. To me it underscores the importance of reading and studying the Bible by all members of the Church.

Eucharistic Prayer Collection: The Roman Canon is still my favorite, but in no way is it optimal for all Masses given the other EPs that now exist. I appreciate how the OF allows a priest to pick the EF which best matches that day’s Mass and his own homily.

Sign of Peace: An important and humbling yet joyous part of the Mass. When visiting celebrants employ it at the daily EWTN Mass, it fills a gap and makes a most positive contribution to the Mass.

Allowance of EMsHC: Until we are choke-full with an abundance of priests and deacons once again at all Masses, there are times where the allowance of EMsHC (in a non-abusive manner per the Church) is a good thing.

Receiving the Precious Blood from the Chalice: The improved sign value of receiving under both species in this matter is very important to me. Perhaps it makes me feel more like I am at the table?

The 46 approved Saturday Masses for the BVM: I REALLY appreciate these 46 individual Masses for the Blessed Virgin Mary (and their optional readings) that are approved for Saturdays.

 

[ProVobis]

I would still love to see the Anglican Use project expanded to include a full Latin version. When the compilation began, there was talk of reviving the Sarum Rite (in Latin) for just that purpose. Sadly, that idea seems to have gone nowhere.

Sad indeed.

 

[Draper]

I would still love to see the Anglican Use project expanded to include a full Latin version. When the compilation began, there was talk of reviving the Sarum Rite (in Latin) for just that purpose. Sadly, that idea seems to have gone nowhere.

Why? If you want it in Latin, go to the EF.

I would very much like to attend an AU Mass – but in English. That’s the whole point.

 

[Digitonomy]

Pope Benedict XVI purposefully gave us the monikers “Ordinary Form of the Mass or OF Mass” (for the Mass of Pope Paul XVI) and “Extraordinary Form of the Mass or EF Mass” (for the Tridentine Mass) because he was aware that labels like “novus ordo” and “traditional latin mass” are not only inaccurate, they’re highly divisive.

Perhaps he gave us the monikers “ancient usage,” “old missal,” “former usage,” “new books,” and “new rite” to provide more accuracy and avoid division as well.:ehh:

 

[Phemie]

It makes a difference because the Church has chosen to define the two forms of the Mass as ordinary and extraordinary. The Church has always chosen her words very carefully and used them deliberately. In using these words the Church has expressed her intent.

The Church could have used the terms old/new, Latin/vernacular or anything else but she didn’t. In using these names the Church has expressed her intent.

-Tim-

The problem is that the words “ordinary” and “extraordinary” usually mean something different in English than what Pope Benedict intended.

In a parish where “Eucharistic Minister” has been commonly used as the term for EMHC, by priests and laity alike, see the reaction you get when you talk about “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.” “What makes them so special?” is the question I’ve heard repeatedly. It takes a lot of explanation to get them to understand what “extraordinary” means in that term.

Call the Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal the “extraordinary form” and some interpret that it should be rarely used and others interpret that it’s “extra special and better than the other form”. If I hear “ordinary” form I expect that it’s the Mass I would routinely attend in a regular parish with a diocesan priest. Others interpret it to mean “nothing special.”