Novus Ordo Mass

[ProVobis]

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.”

Good points. That’s what immediately comes to my mind when I hear “nnth Sunday in Ordinary Time,” instead of “nnth Sunday after the Epiphany/Pentecost,” which arguably can have added meaning to the Sunday.

 

[JackVk]

I have never understood why people get so bent out of shape over the term “Novus Ordo”. I don’t see anything particularly insulting in the wording. I attend a novus ordo Mass almost every week and have NO problem with the term, or that form of the Mass.

Probably because it’s often used derisively by sedevacantists who think everyone who doesn’t attend the Tridentine Mass is under the spell of the Jew-Masons

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I think you misunderstand the issue.

The wisdom and genius of the Catholic Church has been to preserve its liturgy, prayers, documents, scripture, administrative acts, etc., in Latin. Why? Because anything written in Latin has usually been regarded as serious, pristine, neutral, universal, and immortal, among other things. Even the Missal of Pope Paul (as well as the IGMR/GRIM) were fully promulgated in Latin, with, of course, permission to substitute parts (some say all) of it in some national language. But imagine if he had promulgated a New Mass in and only in 1973 ICEL English; the whole Missal would have been easily obsoleted by now.

While the AU, as well as all the Anglican Ordinarate liturgies, may be beautiful in their own English style, there will come a time when these English styles will be harder and harder to understand. And certainly not everyone has accepted English of any kind in his/her liturgy. In fact, I understand most of the Ordinary Form Masses are said in languages other than English on a worldwide scale. So while the form may be ordinary or normative, the English Mass is far from being that.

So no one is saying the Anglican Use must be said in Latin but to make it more universal, perhaps it might be a good idea to have it preserved in Latin.

 

[babochka]

I think you misunderstand the issue.

The wisdom and genius of the Catholic Church has been to preserve its liturgy, prayers, documents, scripture, administrative acts, etc., in Latin. Why? Because anything written in Latin has usually been regarded as serious, pristine, neutral, universal, and immortal, among other things. Even the Missal of Pope Paul (as well as the IGMR/GRIM) were fully promulgated in Latin, with, of course, permission to substitute parts (some say all) of it in some national language. But imagine if he had promulgated a New Mass in and only in 1973 ICEL English; the whole Missal would have been easily obsoleted by now.

While the AU, as well as all the Anglican Ordinarate liturgies, may be beautiful in their own English style, there will come a time when these English styles will be harder and harder to understand. And certainly not everyone has accepted English of any kind in his/her liturgy. In fact, I understand most of the Ordinary Form Masses are said in languages other than English on a worldwide scale. So while the form may be ordinary or normative, the English Mass is far from being that.

So no one is saying the Anglican Use must be said in Latin but to make it more universal, perhaps it might be a good idea to have it preserved in Latin.

That was an excellent explanation. Thank you.

 

[Phemie]

Good points. That’s what immediately comes to my mind when I hear “nnth Sunday in Ordinary Time,” instead of “nnth Sunday after the Epiphany/Pentecost,” which arguably can have added meaning to the Sunday.

It was a while before I understood that “ordinary time” was “counted time” rather than “nothing special is happening on this particular Sunday.”

 

[Jennifoo]

I have been a Catholic for just over a year now and have not yet had the privilege of attending the Traditional Latin Mass. My parish as well as most of the parishes of my diocese celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass. After reading a lot of the negative talk on the internet in general about the Ordinary Mass, I find it very insulting to me and everyone who attends the Ordinary Form. I understand and agree with some of the complaints (such as lack of reverence with some people). My question is, what are some good things we can say about the Novus Ordo Mass? Personally, I like the language in the vernacular because I can more deeply participate in the liturgy. (Although I wouldn’t mind the occasional Latin being thrown in there). Also, I like how it incorporates the laity a little more.

Hi there. I’m a convert, too. This June 29th will be my 18th birthday as a Catholic!

I’ve attended both the Novus Ordo and the Extraordinary Form. While I appreciate both, I prefer the Novus Ordo because of the 3 year Cycle of Readings and the fuller participation of the laity. ( I do believe that the laity participate in the EF, albeit in a more passive manner.) I love chanting the Mass Parts, especially the Gloria, and I love to recite the Creed.

As for the question of reverence, I don’t agree that Novus Ordo Masses are less reverent in and of themselves. It largely depends on who’s there that day. I think it’s important to point out that there has been irreverence at the EF as well as liturgical abuses.

What I hate is the tendency for some Catholics to pit the EF and the Novus Ordo against each other. Sorry, but our Lord does not will that. Nor does He will that those who love Latin and those who don’t should use that as a dividing line.

God bless you.

 

[Draper]

I think you misunderstand the issue.

The wisdom and genius of the Catholic Church has been to preserve its liturgy, prayers, documents, scripture, administrative acts, etc., in Latin. Why? Because anything written in Latin has usually been regarded as serious, pristine, neutral, universal, and immortal, among other things. Even the Missal of Pope Paul (as well as the IGMR/GRIM) were fully promulgated in Latin, with, of course, permission to substitute parts (some say all) of it in some national language. But imagine if he had promulgated a New Mass in and only in 1973 ICEL English; the whole Missal would have been easily obsoleted by now.

I would suggest it’s used largely (as it is in pharmacology and science) because it’s a dead language and the meanings of words don’t drift like vernacular languages.

While the AU, as well as all the Anglican Ordinarate liturgies, may be beautiful in their own English style, there will come a time when these English styles will be harder and harder to understand. And certainly not everyone has accepted English of any kind in his/her liturgy. In fact, I understand most of the Ordinary Form Masses are said in languages other than English on a worldwide scale. So while the form may be ordinary or normative, the English Mass is far from being that.

I’m not so sure I agree. Cranmer’s gorgeous “translation” of the Mass from Latin into English (and not other languages) and the fact it has survived largely intact for nearly 500 years are big parts of what makes it so coveted by some.

So no one is saying the Anglican Use must be said in Latin but to make it more universal, perhaps it might be a good idea to have it preserved in Latin.

Seems as though it should be preserved in the language in which it was crafted – English.

 

[ProVobis]

Seems as though it should be preserved in the language in which it was crafted – English.

At the time it was crafted in heretical fashion, as many translations were, and one of those liturgies which was banned after the Council of Trent, if it hadn’t already been before that. But my point is that it was not intended for the “universal” Catholic world, even if it’s pronounced today as valid. I see you agree with me there.

I think after our little discussion, I have changed my mind about witnessing this liturgy. I think I better bow out of the conversation now.