Ordinary Form / Novus Ordo - question for Eastern Catholics

[twf]

I’ve often noticed disparaging remarks on this board directed towards the so called Novus Ordo mass, more properly termed the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite or the Mass of Paul VI. I will begin by stating that I can not blame these individuals for their comments as many Latin Catholics make similar, or even more harsh comments on a frequent basis elsewhere on this forum. My question is, do my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters have an intrinsic problem with this usage of the Roman Rite itself, or is it more, as is the case for many Latins, a problem with how it has often be implemented in practice?
Put another way, would I hear the same comments directed towards an Ordinary Form/NO mass celebrated as follows:
-Prayers chanted in Latin (traditional Gregorian chant)
-Mass celebrated ad orientem
-Heavy use of incense
-Proper anitphons chanted in place of “contemporary” hymns
-Holy Communion distributed only by priests and deacons present
-Holy Communion received on the tongue

All of the above are perfectly valid options for the OF mass and I have seen them used more than once. In fact, Rome has made it repeatedly clear that this is the IDEAL. The masses I witnessed in Rome were stunning - far more so than any Extraordinary Form/TLM mass I’ve ever been to. When I was there during Holy Week 2009, from what I saw, the Holy Father’s norm is to chant the OF mass in Latin, but with the Italian vernacular employed for the readings and homily. The Holy Father, of course, distributes holy communion ONLY on the tongue if you wish to receive from him personally.
In my own Latin archdiocese in Canada, the Sunday high mass is, for the most part chanted/sung, with several key parts often sung in Latin polyphony by the choir. The faithful have the option of receiving at the altar rail, and EMHCs are sparingly used as other priests come in to assist the main presider.

This isn’t an Eastern topic - but as I have noticed quite a number of negative remarks, whether snide or otherwise, directed towards the OF mass on this board, I wanted to clarify if, from an Eastern perspective, it is a problem with the rite itself, or with the implementation in many areas. I believe that this is an important topic as I’ve come across many Eastern ORTHODOX board members who single out the OF mass as a stumbling block for unity.

 

[JamestheOlder]

This is very well asked, in a calm and serious manner. Thank you for that.

It will be interesting to hear the response, because many of the other (Eastern) forms of the Mass are quite different than either the Latin OF or EF.

I am a supporter of the properly celebrated Novus Ordo; I value it highly for the inclusion of much Scripture, all in the vernacular. The valuable inclusion of the Psalms, for example, corelate directly to their use in the Liturgy of the Hours.

I will be watching this thread for reponses which, hopefully, will be as measured as your question.

Peace.

 

[malphono]

I’ll take a stab at this.

When the Novus Ordo is mentioned in this forum, it’s often (perhaps usually) done for comparative purposes, as it has become the post-conciliar “standard” from which the neo-latinizations that (contrary to the opinion of some here) do continue to infect certain of the Oriental (non-Byzantine) Churches (and, to far lesser extent) even the Eastern (Byzantine) Churches, flow. In some ways (not in all), and some times (not always), the terms “Novus Ordo” and “post-Conciliar” can be read in this forum as being synonymous.

That said, it normally has no direct bearing on the Usus Antiquior-Novus Ordo debates (or battles, as the case may be) that go on in other fora here. (Notice that there are a number of people in this forum who criticize the Usus Antiquior with equal or sometimes greater zeal.)

Personally, I sometimes attend Latin churches, but only for Usus Antiquior. It’s certainly no secret here that I am not a fan of the Novus Ordo, and never have been since day one of its appearance. Even less am I a fan of its influence on the Orient and East.

That’s my :twocents: at least for the moment.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I suppose an even better question, from my point of view, is what did the Latin Catholic Church have against the Traditional Rite that it felt it needed to so completely overhaul things with the Novus Ordo?

Serving in a language that all can understand - they could have translated the traditional Mass into English and keep the Latin as well.

Too many ritualistic motions? Who said so? What about the sense of awe?

Was the Novus Ordo an adaptation to . . . what exactly?

The Orthodox Churches themselves were very much against Rome’s introduction of the Novus Ordo.

The idea that the NO is somehow a return to the early Church liturgy is, well, nonsense. If anything, the earliest Eastern liturgies were longer than the later liturgies that were pruned.

In any event, it seems that Latin Catholics accepted the NO because “Rome said so.” And also perhaps because they agreed with the reasoning behind it?

Anyway, I think that before we can discuss what this or that person has against the NO, we should have an explanation as to why it was brought in in the first place.

Alex

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Alex,

What I’ve always heard, and what was recently affirmed by a historian at the Gregorian in Rome I believe (I’ll have to see if I can find the link again), was that the Roman Church was trying to revise the Mass so that it more accurately reflected the use of the First Millennium Roman Rite (which was also the goal of the post-Trent reforms). This supposedly included multiple Eucharistic Canons, vernacular (Latin being the vernacular of the day), wider use of the Scriptures, simpler form, etc. I hope one day to do further research into the history of the Roman Rite, especially since I own some of the definitive works on it, but as of right now my knowledge is limited mostly to second-hand reports. My own opinion is that there wouldn’t be the problems if the abuses of the N.O. hadn’t become so widespread that people take them for being the norm.

I’m excited for the English-speaking Roman Churches that they are finally being given a beautiful and accurate translation. Now if only someone would do a similar translation of the Gregorian chant works produced by the monks of Solesmes, maintaining the traditional Gregorian melodies as much as possible, and those chants become the norm for the English-speaking Roman Churches, then I think they’d be well on their way to a proper “reform of the reform.” That’s just my opinion, for what little it’s worth.

 

[ProVobis]

Serving in a language that all can understand - they could have translated the traditional Mass into English and keep the Latin as well.

Why only English? Wouldn’t the Polish and the Dutch and the French and the Germans and the Italians and Hungarians and all the others liked to have their own translations as well? IMO, many of them wouldn’t even know the difference between the two forms even if both are in their own language. (The general flow is the same.) There are so many options in the OF they would simply think it’s just another option. And it seems as if it would be another ton of work and time to translate the TM into every single vernacular. There are enough criticisms with the existing translations as well as the new English one. And they’re more confused now than ever before.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why only English?

Alex was making a point and doesn’t have to list all the languages currently in use.

 

[JamestheOlder]

I suppose an even better question, from my point of view, is what did the Latin Catholic Church have against the Traditional Rite that it felt it needed to so completely overhaul things with the Novus Ordo?

The Orthodox Churches themselves were very much against Rome’s introduction of the Novus Ordo.
The idea that the NO is somehow a return to the early Church liturgy is, well, nonsense. If anything, the earliest Eastern liturgies were longer than the later liturgies that were pruned.
In any event, it seems that Latin Catholics accepted the NO because “Rome said so.” And also perhaps because they agreed with the reasoning behind it?

Anyway, I think that before we can discuss what this or that person has against the NO, we should have an explanation as to why it was brought in in the first place.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Could you please comment further on the highlighted portion (red) above?

Why would the Orthodox even care about the Novus Ordo? Your third sentence implies the Latin Rite was already preceded by more ancient {Eastern} Rites. Were you suggesting the Latin Church should have adopted, say, the Greek Orthodox Rite instead?Would that have made sense to anyone?

Peace. jim

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex,

What I’ve always heard, and what was recently affirmed by a historian at the Gregorian in Rome I believe (I’ll have to see if I can find the link again), was that the Roman Church was trying to revise the Mass so that it more accurately reflected the use of the First Millennium Roman Rite (which was also the goal of the post-Trent reforms). This supposedly included multiple Eucharistic Canons, vernacular (Latin being the vernacular of the day), wider use of the Scriptures, simpler form, etc. I hope one day to do further research into the history of the Roman Rite, especially since I own some of the definitive works on it, but as of right now my knowledge is limited mostly to second-hand reports. My own opinion is that there wouldn’t be the problems if the abuses of the N.O. hadn’t become so widespread that people take them for being the norm.

I’m excited for the English-speaking Roman Churches that they are finally being given a beautiful and accurate translation. Now if only someone would do a similar translation of the Gregorian chant works produced by the monks of Solesmes, maintaining the traditional Gregorian melodies as much as possible, and those chants become the norm for the English-speaking Roman Churches, then I think they’d be well on their way to a proper “reform of the reform.” That’s just my opinion, for what little it’s worth.

Hello Master Beadsman!

I’m just wondering if the desire to bring the Roman Rite closer to Protestantism wasn’t also behind the “reforms.” (And I understand that there were clergy from Protestant denominations who were involved in the liturgical consultation process.)

The laxity in terms of religious discipline that followed in the wake of the Ordus Novo doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the first millennium of the Roman Rite at all either.

And IF it was the intention of the Latin Church to approach more closely the Protestant tradition, it could have addressed more salient issues for Protestantism such as authority, decentralized government, married clergy etc.

Cheers!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Why only English? Wouldn’t the Polish and the Dutch and the French and the Germans and the Italians and Hungarians and all the others liked to have their own translations as well? IMO, many of them wouldn’t even know the difference between the two forms even if both are in their own language. (The general flow is the same.) There are so many options in the OF they would simply think it’s just another option. And it seems as if it would be another ton of work and time to translate the TM into every single vernacular. There are enough criticisms with the existing translations as well as the new English one. And they’re more confused now than ever before.

Dear ProVobis,

Please see ConstantineTG’s post above!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Alex,

Could you please comment further on the highlighted portion (red) above?

Why would the Orthodox even care about the Novus Ordo? Your third sentence implies the Latin Rite was already preceded by more ancient {Eastern} Rites. Were you suggesting the Latin Church should have adopted, say, the Greek Orthodox Rite instead?Would that have made sense to anyone?

Peace. jim

The Orthodox definitely do not care for the Novus Ordo. There were comments from the Orthodox, noted in journal articles I came across years ago (and which are sometimes alluded to today) where Orthodox leaders decried the changes in the Roman Rite.

I have never suggested that the Latin Church adopt any Rite other than its own ROMAN Rite. (And it would not have made sense to anyone for Rome to have adopted the Greek Rite).

I was simply commenting that those Latin Catholics who today say the Novus Ordo reflects the ancient Roman Rite better than the Tridentine liturgy have not a leg to stand on. And I don’t know what you are alluding to when you say I’m suggesting the Latin Rite is preceded etc. I’m not even talking about the Eastern Rites.

There was nothing wrong with the Tridentine Liturgy and while the traditional Roman Rite could have been adapted etc. by the Roman Church if it so wished, the Novus Ordo was clearly a great uprooting of much Latin Church tradition.

My question is - to what purpose? Has the Latin Church made its liturgy more beautiful, mystical or meaningful for the edification of the faithful through those changes?

Those questions are for you to respond to, if you wish.

Alex

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Hello Master Beadsman!

I’m just wondering if the desire to bring the Roman Rite closer to Protestantism wasn’t also behind the “reforms.” (And I understand that there were clergy from Protestant denominations who were involved in the liturgical consultation process.)

The laxity in terms of religious discipline that followed in the wake of the Ordus Novo doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the first millennium of the Roman Rite at all either.

And IF it was the intention of the Latin Church to approach more closely the Protestant tradition, it could have addressed more salient issues for Protestantism such as authority, decentralized government, married clergy etc.

Cheers!

Alex

I’ve heard a good number of people claim that Pope Paul VI and the delegate in charge of the liturgical revisions did indeed intend to “protestantize” the Mass. However, I’ve never seen such claims substantiated by the sources. The only claim I’ve ever seen substantiated is that the intention was to make the Mass more closely reflect that of the First Millennium. Personally I don’t know. I hope to do some research into the area when I have the free time, but until then I accept the N.O. for what it is, a valid form of the Mass (and one that is quite beautiful when celebrated properly without any liturgical abuses [and soon in a MUCH better translation]). As to why they didn’t just translate the so-called “Extra-Ordinary Form,” that’s completely beyond me. I kind of wish they would’ve. It probably would’ve saved a lot of grief.

 

[malphono]

The Orthodox definitely do not care for the Novus Ordo. There were comments from the Orthodox, noted in journal articles I came across years ago (and which are sometimes alluded to today) where Orthodox leaders decried the changes in the Roman Rite.

I have never suggested that the Latin Church adopt any Rite other than its own ROMAN Rite. (And it would not have made sense to anyone for Rome to have adopted the Greek Rite).

I was simply commenting that those Latin Catholics who today say the Novus Ordo reflects the ancient Roman Rite better than the Tridentine liturgy have not a leg to stand on. And I don’t know what you are alluding to when you say I’m suggesting the Latin Rite is preceded etc. I’m not even talking about the Eastern Rites.

There was nothing wrong with the Tridentine Liturgy and while the traditional Roman Rite could have been adapted etc. by the Roman Church if it so wished, the Novus Ordo was clearly a great uprooting of much Latin Church tradition.

My question is - to what purpose? Has the Latin Church made its liturgy more beautiful, mystical or meaningful for the edification of the faithful through those changes?

Very nicely said, Alex. Quite to the point.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Why only English?

Because the English translation is the one that needs… well, to be more accurately translated. Thus, the revision.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because the English translation is the one that needs… well, to be more accurately translated. Thus, the revision.

From what we know. For all we know there are other translations that need to be updated.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I grew up with the Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass. I love it. It nourished me all these years and helped me grow. I did not choose to become a Byzantine Christian because of loathing of the Ordinary Form. I am not a Latin Rite Refugee. I’d go to an OF Mass in a heartbeat if I cannot go to a Divine Liturgy. Now the place I work doesn’t have a nearby Ukrainian parish so I would go to the RC Cathedral if its a Feast Day.

 

[Aramis]

From what we know. For all we know there are other translations that need to be updated.

The Spanish, French, and Italian committees have had a much easier task… Latin almost directly translates key word by key word. In many cases, the word is in fact rooted in the latin word.

All others, they have to make far harder judgements on how to translate… the more the language differs, the more they have to decide on word equivalence, phrase equivalence, or dynamic equivalence.

I’m certain that the Yupiq, for example, is dynamic equivalence… because I’ve been told of some interesting meaning wierdnesses by Yupiq speakers. And the translators were not latin scholars…

 

[ConstantineTG]

I know that there would be some changes in the Tagalog Mass, but not as much as the English ones. Some where already accurately translated while some it seems were translated from the English, or at least meant to be closer to the English. I guess because Filipinos are generally fluent in both languages, they don’t want people to be confused when the Tagalog doesn’t conform to the English.

 

[Aramis]

I guess because Filipinos are generally fluent in both languages, they don’t want people to be confused when the Tagalog doesn’t conform to the English.

I suspect the Yupiq was translated similarly for the same reasons… ALL Alaskan Yupic speakers under age 50 are bilingual (when compulsory English education was implemented), and I’ve only met one Yupic speaker who didn’t speak English. (He speaks Russian, tho’.)

 

[JamestheOlder]

I was simply commenting that those Latin Catholics who today say the Novus Ordo reflects the ancient Roman Rite better than the Tridentine liturgy have not a leg to stand on. And I don’t know what you are alluding to when you say I’m suggesting the Latin Rite is preceded etc. I’m not even talking about the Eastern Rites.

There was nothing wrong with the Tridentine Liturgy and while the traditional Roman Rite could have been adapted etc. by the Roman Church if it so wished, the Novus Ordo was clearly a great uprooting of much Latin Church tradition.

My question is - to what purpose? Has the Latin Church made its liturgy more beautiful, mystical or meaningful for the edification of the faithful through those changes?

Alex

Thanks for your response, Alex. I’m very relieved that you think the Latin Church should make its own decisions regarding its Liturgy. I will try to give you a point of view from someone who grew up with the Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM), in order to answer your questions.

First, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the Novus Ordo (NO) does not reflect the “ancient” Liturgy. I guess it depends on how far back you wish to go. I use Justyn Martyr’s description as my baseline, but there may be other descriptions of early Liturgy as well. The idea of “ad orientam”, just by itself, I think, needs to be researched with a clear eye. When would that “innovation” have been introduced? It would seem obvious to most reasonable people that Peter, Paul and the other apostles had no tabernacle nor crucifix to face…even if they knew which way was “East” in the catacombs. It would seem that, for the first three hundred years or so, under persecutions of various types, that the Church would have met in circumstances not unlike a “home” celebration of the Novus Ordo today. But, I digress…regardless of my simple questions, “ad orientam” is the “rule” of the day, both for the TLM and the NO. So be it. Amen. As someone else has noted “Rome has spoken”.

What was wrong with the Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM)? Where to begin? It was routine. It was so routine it was boring, except for maybe the one time a year (Christmas Midnight Mass) when a Solemn High Mass was celebrated with all the smells and bells. The rest of the year we were treated to a Low Mass. Have you ever been to a TLM Low Mass, Alex? I have served some that took nine minutes flat (places deleted to protect the guilty). At the parish where I served daily and Sunday Mass during elementary school, we had one High Mass on Sunday at 10:00 AM. Let’s pretend to call it a High Mass, anyway, since this parish and many others had no one schooled in Gregorian Chant, and, obviously then, no Schola Cantorum. The one other Mass on Sunday (8 AM), as well as all weekday and most Holy Day Masses were Low Masses. You know how long it takes to say Low Mass on Sunday with a large congregation? Maybe thirty minutes, if the sermon was short, even if most everyone went to Holy Communion. Boy, the priest could really zip down the altar railing; you had to be fast with the paten under the chins.

Sermons were only done on Sundays, and occasionally on major Feastdays. They usually consisted of any subject the priest desired, including, occasionally, asking for funds to repair the roof. This was true, you see, because homilies only came into being with the Novus Ordo. And now, homilies are to be based on the readings for that day, even for weekday Masses. For TLM funeral Masses (and I served plenty of those), the sermon was a eulogy…longer ones for folks who were pillars of the parish. That’s why the Novus Ordo Rite today restricts eulogies to the period after the Closing Prayer; the time after the Gospel is to be used for a homily on the Scriptures for the Funeral Mass…only.

Then there was the matter of Scriptural study and learning. The TLM offered a very limited menu, since only the Gospel for the Sunday was read in English from the pulpit. O, yes, the pulpit was needed, because there were no microphones at our parishes back in the forties and fifties to broadcast every Latin nuance of the Mass to eager ears. What you usually heard, if you were in the second pew or further back, was this sort of “buzz” or low drone, as the priest read his Latin prayers. You know there was no congregational participation, so the priest rarely had to raise his voice. And no, the “dialogue” version of the TLM was never really implemented in the US; I understand it was used in Germany, in the vernacular.

jim
(To be Continued, Next Post)