Novus Ordo Missae - Good for the Church?

[LCMS_No_More]

So, those who answered yes to the poll.

Could you explain how the NO has been good for the church, and what its good fruits have been?

I didn’t vote because the poll is public, but I will say that my very conversion to the Catholic faith is one of the fruits of the Novus Ordo. I wouldn’t have been interested in looking into the Church and what she teaches if it weren’t for the Mass being offered in a language and in a way I can see and understand. I also agree that the expanded lectionary is a positive move.

 

[wynd]

If we do not offer all of them, then we are doing to the Innovative Catholics just what has been done to us.

We must offer all. Then let the market decide. I suspect the last three will have less and less attendees but at least the more traditional of us can have the back up of stating that we tried.

Otherwise we are just as bad as the poster who stated that we should move to Nebraska or Detroit if we didn’t like that we couldn’t find an EWTN type NO.

Kind of like a Catholic Ethnic Cleansing! Do it our way or pack your bags and don’t let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!

Isn’t the “traditional” way the way the Mass is supposed to be? Just tell them Vatican II said so

 

[arieh0310]

Isn’t the “traditional” way the way the Mass is supposed to be? Just tell them Vatican II said so

There you go!! Just tell them they are being disobedient to Vatican II. “Hey, didn’t Vatican II call for the retention of Latin and that Gregorian chant be given pride of place???”

 

[netmilsmom]

There you go!! Just tell them they are being disobedient to Vatican II. “Hey, didn’t Vatican II call for the retention of Latin and that Gregorian chant be given pride of place???”

Well hey that’s worked so well all over the country

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Agreed, I think the Second Vatican Council was addressing this issue when they promulgated Sacrosanctum Concilium. The issue wasn’t the form of mass but they way in which it was celebrated.

The liturgy contains the keys that help unlock the mysteries of salvation. People sometimes can worship the keys rather than use them for their intended purpose. Just because some do not use the keys properly doesn’t mean we should just toss them or cut new ones.

++ One thing the revised Missal has given rise to is “church-shopping” - people don’t like the way the Mass is offered in their own parish, so they hunt around until they find one they approve of. Which has its funny side.

IMO, that is a very bad thing. I’m very grateful for the revised Missal as such - & voted accordingly. Besides, as has been pointed out, it’s a Mass, so, it’s good for the Church. I hope there aren’t going to be “Trent-only-ist” Catholics, corresponding to “KJV-only-ist” Protestants

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So, those who answered yes to the poll.

Could you explain how the NO has been good for the church, and what its good fruits have been?

++ I would imagine these are known to God ++

 

[John_Higgins]

I voted yes, because “Certainly!” was not one of the choices.

For those who want fruits, the converts I know (and I know several) simply would not have converted in a TLM world. So I call it a call to conversion.

If we put this in a forum less skewed toward traditionalists, I believe the affirmatives would outweigh the negatives by more than two to one.

Of course, the presider (I said that on purpose) should follow the rubrics, but I don’t see any value to having a GIRM-inator ticking off everything that’s wrong and losing the reason he/she is at the Mass.

John

 

[Unfinished]

I voted yes, because “Certainly!” was not one of the choices.

For those who want fruits, the converts I know (and I know several) simply would not have converted in a TLM world. So I call it a call to conversion.

Tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of protestants/pagans and others have converted straight to the Traditional Latin Mass. The language of the Mass has little to do with it if the truth is being taught outside of the Mass as it should be. It seems, in fact, that once the Mass was in the common language the instruction of the faithful began to fail horribly.

If you discovered something as truth, would you disregard it because you didn’t understand it right away? Hardly. No one understands everything right away, and the Latin Mass is easy to follow after one or two visits.

Not to take a tone if it sounds like I am, but I sincerely doubt that the language of the Mass has a big percentage to do with conversion. The rich history and tradition was one of the things that opened my eyes to reversion.

If we put this in a forum less skewed toward traditionalists, I believe the affirmatives would outweigh the negatives by more than two to one.

I disagree. We are comparing fruits of the different Masses. It is hard to compare what is running rampent through the Church today to many, many years of Christian tradition.

Of course, the presider (I said that on purpose) should follow the rubrics, but I don’t see any value to having a GIRM-inator ticking off everything that’s wrong and losing the reason he/she is at the Mass.

John

I concur. Traditionalists are the worst at nit picking every little detail. It gets on my nerves and I am one.

 

[John_Higgins]

Unfinished:

It seems, in fact, that once the Mass was in the common language the instruction of the faithful began to fail horribly.

Did the change to the Novus Ordo cause this? Or was it the rebellion against Church authority which came after Humanae Vitae? Or was it just the shift of outlook which happened in most of the industrialized world in the 60s and 70s?

I don’t know that we can pick this apart without a lot more sociological data.

John

 

[Holly3278]

Yes, it has been.

 

[steve_green_2]

The biggest problem for me with the NO liturgy is that it is choppy and lacks a sacred flow like the TLM or DL.

I truely feel that I join better with the priest in prayer at the TLM and DL.

Especially at the beginning of mass to the eucharistic prayer. In the NO, I feel, well, bored and going through the motion of responces. IT IS NOISY !!! Seems protestant.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

I agree. One of each of these per Vicariate

1. TLM
2. Latin NO
3. Vernacular NO with Latin and Greek responses
4. Vernacular NO with innovation allowed
5. LifeTeen
6. Charismatic mass

Then no one can complain about not being able to get a liturgy as they like it.
It could work if we all work together.

Yes well there is one Jesus.

Why should there be six different sacrifices?

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Did the change to the Novus Ordo cause this? Or was it the rebellion against Church authority which came after Humanae Vitae? Or was it just the shift of outlook which happened in most of the industrialized world in the 60s and 70s?

I don’t know that we can pick this apart without a lot more sociological data.

John

Hmn…it was all three.

But just because the New Mass can ‘share’ guilt with some other factors…doesnt make it any less ‘guilty’ for the decline of Church tradition.

Put it this way…

If there was a rebellion against Church authority, a dilution of morals, or a sudden shift of perspective that you mentioned…why plague the faithful with a diluted liturgy as well?

If the 60’s and 70’s were so morally shipwreck…a beacon of tradition could have been the lighthouse these ‘wandering ships’ needed.

The whole idea of 'opening the windows for some fresh air" that VII and its subsequent reforms allowed is just as flawed as the Mass they introduced.

If the world outside the Church is filthy (or questionable…as it was in the 70’s and is still in the present) wouldnt opening the windows let some flies in?

And we all know how hard it is to get rid of those flies…

 

[LilyM]

Yes well there is one Jesus.

Why should there be six different sacrifices?

A) because there always HAS been more than one Rite to celebrate the Sacrifice - Eastern Catholic Churches each have and always have had their own, there’s the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, Dominican et al.

B) if there is only to be one why does that one have to be the TLM - most of the Eastern liturgies are older (and have the advantage of being more in harmony with our separated Orthodox brothers who we are trying to entice back into communion) - and the NO is by far the most widely celebrated now, the one most people are familiar with.

By what measure therefore does the TLM have the best claim to be ‘the one’ out of the numerous options available?

 

[netmilsmom]

++ One thing the revised Missal has given rise to is “church-shopping” - people don’t like the way the Mass is offered in their own parish, so they hunt around until they find one they approve of. Which has its funny side.

IMO, that is a very bad thing.

No, it’s not “church shopping”, we all belong to the same church.
It’s free market. Those that want a traditional liturgy have been force fed innovations for years. We cried. we fought, we joined committees and volunteered only to be ticked at or dismissed.
Then we turned on EWTN or came onto CAF and learned that we have options.
We didn’t “church shop” we found parishes that gave us what we needed. We took our money and volunteer time there and those churches are thriving.
If you were given meatloaf, red cabbage and mashed potatoes every meal (nod to "A Christmas Story) and one day got steak, you may well seek out steak.
That is what the traditionalist are doing. Finding the steak.
The pity of it is that the innovative masses have become so much like the Lutheran church up the street, that weak Catholics find them interchangable. That happens in my immediate area. At my old “Catholic Community” every song is like a folk concert and the DRE is more concerned about the children having a “good experience” than teaching the CCC. The same parents who come to the “Reconcilliation” meetings when their kids are in fourth to eighth grade, are the same ones who freely admit that they don’t believe in the Real Presence and are just as happy to go to the Lutheran church if they don’t make mass.

Maybe a little free market is not a bad thing.

 

[netmilsmom]

A) because there always HAS been more than one Rite to celebrate the Sacrifice - Eastern Catholic Churches each have and always have had their own, there’s the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, Dominican et al.

B) if there is only to be one why does that one have to be the TLM - most of the Eastern liturgies are older (and have the advantage of being more in harmony with our separated Orthodox brothers who we are trying to entice back into communion) - and the NO is by far the most widely celebrated now, the one most people are familiar with.

By what measure therefore does the TLM have the best claim to be ‘the one’ out of the numerous options available?

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

A) because there always HAS been more than one Rite to celebrate the Sacrifice - Eastern Catholic Churches each have and always have had their own, there’s the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, Dominican et al.

B) if there is only to be one why does that one have to be the TLM - most of the Eastern liturgies are older (and have the advantage of being more in harmony with our separated Orthodox brothers who we are trying to entice back into communion) - and the NO is by far the most widely celebrated now, the one most people are familiar with.

By what measure therefore does the TLM have the best claim to be ‘the one’ out of the numerous options available?

A) There should be only one sacrifice. One sacrifice does not mean only one Mass/Divine Liturgy. One sacrifice just means one understanding of the Eucharist, one theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Having the last three of the aforementioned Mass “options” does not support One Eucharistic theology.

The Truth is the Novus Ordo (especially when infused with new movements such as LifeTeen or Charismatic movements) does not express the sole Eucharistic Theology of Sacrifice which the Church has throughout the ages upheld. Even the EO treat their Divine Liturgy in the same scope as the Traditional Roman Rite. The Novus Ordo does not focus on the sacrificial aspect. And it opens up the doors for even more error.

B) It has to be the TLM for two reasons.

1. It stresses the unity with our Latin-Rite forebears.
2. It has organically grew under the care of the Roman Church throughout the ages, since the conception of the Eucharist itself.

And on a side note…why do the Divine Liturgies of the East come into play when we are discussing the Latin Rite? As far as I have had experience with them…Eastern Rite Catholics are not very Novus Ordo friendly either.

As for the final statement concerning why the TLM stands out as the ‘face of the liturgy’.

Well the Council of Trent as well as His Holiness Pope St. Pius V made it so…at one time the Church as a whole chose to drop other liturgies in the Latin Rite in favor of the Tridentine Mass. (and ever since then the TLM has been held as the pinnacle of Catholic devotion and worship…even by Vatican II)
The TLM is the only Mass the Council fathers ever knew.

Im afraid Paul VI cannot boast such authority concerning Liturgy when compared to his countless forebears. Also…simply being a Pope does not make one an expert on the Liturgy. It is possible that Paul VI just made a mistake when it came to the Novus Ordo. Just as Popes before him have made mistakes (yes even traditional Popes of course)

2000 years of the Church ‘shaping’ our present Tridentine liturgy is not even in any way challenged by a new Liturgy written by ‘liturgical experts’ ‘protestants’ ‘modernists’ and one Pope in the 60’s.

 

[netmilsmom]

A) There should be only one sacrifice. One sacrifice does not mean only one Mass/Divine Liturgy. One sacrifice just means one understanding of the Eucharist, one theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Having the last three of the aforementioned Mass “options” does not support One Eucharistic theology.

The Truth is the Novus Ordo (especially when infused with new movements such as LifeTeen or Charismatic movements) does not express the sole Eucharistic Theology of Sacrifice which the Church has throughout the ages upheld. Even the EO treat their Divine Liturgy in the same scope as the Traditional Roman Rite. The Novus Ordo does not focus on the sacrificial aspect. And it opens up the doors for even more error.

B) It has to be the TLM for two reasons.

1. It stresses the unity with our Latin-Rite forebears.
2. It has organically grew under the care of the Roman Church throughout the ages, since the conception of the Eucharist itself.

And on a side note…why do the Divine Liturgies of the East come into play when we are discussing the Latin Rite? As far as I have had experience with them…Eastern Rite Catholics are not very Novus Ordo friendly either.

As for the final statement concerning why the TLM stands out as the ‘face of the liturgy’.

Well the Council of Trent as well as His Holiness Pope St. Pius V made it so…at one time the Church as a whole chose to drop other liturgies in the Latin Rite in favor of the Tridentine Mass. (and ever since then the TLM has been held as the pinnacle of Catholic devotion and worship…even by Vatican II)
The TLM is the only Mass the Council fathers ever knew.

Im afraid Paul VI cannot boast such authority concerning Liturgy when compared to his countless forebears. Also…simply being a Pope does not make one an expert on the Liturgy. It is possible that Paul VI just made a mistake when it came to the Novus Ordo. Just as Popes before him have made mistakes (yes even traditional Popes of course)

2000 years of the Church ‘shaping’ our present Tridentine liturgy is not even in any way challenged by a new Liturgy written by ‘liturgical experts’ ‘protestants’ ‘modernists’ and one Pope in the 60’s.

I truly respect your opinion but until the Vatican says “no more” these liturgies need to be offered.

They may well die off on their own, but the Vatican says they can be offered, so they should be offered. Let the market decide.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

I truly respect your opinion but until the Vatican says “no more” these liturgies need to be offered.

They may well die off on their own, but the Vatican says they can be offered, so they should be offered. Let the market decide.

Well thank you for your kind words. Often times debates like this merit fierce comebacks. I too respect your opinion…but im afraid the idea of “letting the markets decide” is very incompatible with Catholic Truth.

Truth isnt subjective…and the Catholic Church is not a people pleaser. Perhaps the Vatican should allow condoms now? Since I know a lot of people who prefer them.

 

[netmilsmom]

Well thank you for your kind words. Often times debates like this merit fierce comebacks. I too respect your opinion…but im afraid the idea of “letting the markets decide” is very incompatible with Catholic Truth.

Truth isnt subjective…and the Catholic Church is not a people pleaser. Perhaps the Vatican should allow condoms now? Since I know a lot of people who prefer them.

The Vatican doesn’t allow condoms.
It does allow Altar Girls. Which I feel is wrong as well.
However, all we can do is Discourage.

Just remember, those involved in the innovations are in shrinking parishes. We are breeding them out, because we do listen to the Vatican.

I really feel that 20 years from now, these we be the stories we tell our Grandchildren. About the experimentation gone wrong.
“You know when I was young there were these masses…”