The Novus Ordo

[Mark_David]

For those who prefer the Novus Ordo to pre-Vatican II Mass: What are some (or all) of the reasons that you prefer it? I’ve never attended a Traditional Mass, but I’m quite happy with the Ordinary Form, so I’m curious to hear some personal opinions regarding its benefits.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

To be honest, I probably prefer it primarily because I was raised in it and so it’s easier for me to follow. I’ve been to a couple EF Masses and found them, for the most part, extremely reverent and beautiful, but I had no idea what was going on and have a hard time convincing myself that it’s ok to read the little book in Church (even though it is, of course, actually ok) because I have a hard time focusing on both what is actually happening and reading.

The OF Mass is also reverent and beautiful (when not abused) and it’s in English, so I can participate on an intellectual level as well as a spiritual one. I am looking forward to the new translation though, the more reverent language may help to highlight the reverence and mystery that is supposed to be part of Mass.

 

[Allegra]

I like both Masses. The thing I like best about the Novus Ordo Mass is that it is in a church that is air conditioned. I also like the fact that the singing is participatory. (Even though I don’t like all the music.) At the TLM church I attend, they have an absolutely gorgeous choir and the congregation pretty much just sits there and listens without singing along. (even during the ordinary parts) My personal preference is to actually articulate the words out loud whether spoke or sung. (I prefer sung.) I don’t find read-along-in-your-head prayer to be as effective.

 

[silicasandra]

The OF Mass is also reverent and beautiful (when not abused) and it’s in English, so I can participate on an intellectual level as well as a spiritual one. I am looking forward to the new translation though, the more reverent language may help to highlight the reverence and mystery that is supposed to be part of Mass.

This is exactly how I feel. I have never been to an EF mass. I’d like to for the experience, but from what I understand and what I’ve read I think I would continue, in general, to attend the OF. Our parish is very reverent (though I’ve attended some Masses that weren’t in other parishes) so I’m sure that helps!

 

[FightingFat]

For those who prefer the Novus Ordo to pre-Vatican II Mass: What are some (or all) of the reasons that you prefer it? I’ve never attended a Traditional Mass, but I’m quite happy with the Ordinary Form, so I’m curious to hear some personal opinions regarding its benefits.

I like both as long as they’re said reverently.

I like the interaction of the Novus Ordo, I think it helps to have the readings in the vernacular, I understand why having the proper of the Mass in Latin, but I don’t see much point to having the Scripture readings in Latin. I don’t like some things about it, like the Eucharistic prayer that goes “When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come in glory” because it is pretty heretical! We’re not eating bread, or drinking a cup!!

 

[rkrispies]

Like some others have said, I was raised with only the Ordinary Form. I have been to a few EF masses, and while they were certainly said reverently, there was always something missing. Where I am right now, I only have OF available. To be honest, I would actually prefer to go to an Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy than either the OF or EF, but that option isn’t an option here.

 

[Bookcat]

It is really not the “novus ordo” it is the ordinary form of the Roman rite…(one will not find novus ordo in documents from the Holy See…but rather as Pope Benedict put it…it is the ordinary form…"…and the other is the “extraordinary form” (there are other names…such as by the Popes the Missals etc were issued…but those are good ones)

Thanks

 

[StellaMaris3]

Hi Mark David,

Sister Lucy of Fatima wanted her last revelation (3rd Secret) to be revealed to Catholics by 1960. She said the message would make sense in relation to prevailing events. Interestingly, Vatican II began 1962. However, her request was suppressed until late in the 20th Century.

Indeed, if you read Sister Lucy’s message from Heaven, you can see can how it can be related directly to Vatican II. Some Traditional Catholics also state that Vatican II was hijacked by Freemasons/ Communists to usurp Catholicism and destroy it from within (by infiltrating it with non-Traditional and liberal – some even say heretical – precepts into Catholicism via Vatican II). Even the Pope at the time tried to end Vatican II after seeing what liberal direction it was taking but his protests were ignored. Moreover, the fact that Vatican II instigated the removal of the Traditional Catholic Mass as the ordinary Mass in favor of the Protestant-like Novus Ordo – The New Order Mass – gives some credence to this notion. In fact, the Catholic Mass is the very heart of the Catholic Church – if you change the mass, you can in fact nullify the Mass and its Divine purpose/ Sacrament). Of course, the Catholic Church itself remains Holy despite the intentions of those to subvert it. However, whether Jesus accepts the Novus Ordo Mass (which is very Protestant-like), I truly don’t know. But I do know that Popes and saints and the Bible warned us of such times when “wolves” will appear as “sheep” and even deceive the “elect”. So, to be on the safe side, I personally do prefer the Traditional Catholic Mass because it was the accepted Mass prior to Vatican II. ( It is noteworthy to mention here that Cardinal Bugnini, the chief architect of the Novus Ordo Mass was a Freemason. And it is common knowledge that the Freemasons (at the highest levels) are a dedicated Luciferian group determined to annihilate Catholicism and Christians and institute the New World Order.)

The aforementioned might sound confusing and overwhelming, but take heart, many saints and popes have prophesied about such trials in the Catholic Church. One Pope even stated that the “smoke of satan” had entered the Catholic Church. And Malachi Martin warned us about this too in his many eye-opening books. Even in the 3rd Fatima secret, Sister Lucy spoke about the apostasy of many Catholics and especially the apostasy of many Catholic clergy members. We can see this all around us now with the clergy child abuse cases. Yet, Holy Mary, Mother of God is with us. We should not be afraid. At Fatima, Holy Mary asked us to pray the Rosary and make dedication to her Immaculate Heart to help protect our Catholic Church. These are powerful weapons against satan, his agents and his subterfuges.

Thus, whatever the case might be, as a Catholic, we are called to be loyal to the Holy Catholic Church; however, we must concurrently be FULLY aware and help protect the Holy Catholic Church from tricky overt and covert assaults by its enemies. But rest assured, Jesus said, “I will build my Church and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it!!”.

I hope this information was helpful and elucidating.

Pax vobis,
StellaMaris3

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I was raised with the Latin Mass and was perfectly content with it. I went to daily Mass and followed along in the missal. I feel that I ‘participated’ in the Mass as much as I do today, although to an onlooker it might not have appeared that way.

I much preferred low Masses. There was only one high Mass weekly and to me it seemed more like a performance by the choir rather than true worship. This was partly because the priest had gone on to something else while the choir was singing the words he had prayed several minutes previously. I wanted to be immersed in what was going on at the altar, not listening to music.

I like the OF (the ‘ordinary form’ of the Mass, it’s no longer novus/new) because I can watch and listen rather than read the prayers, while the missal is still there for those who find it easier to pray in that way. I like singing the songs that go along with what the priest is actually doing (although in practice sometimes the songs are poorly selected), I like that periods of silence are built in - after each reading and after Communion- although again not all parishes do this well but my pastor does.

I love being able to see what is going on since I’m a visual person, and to hear the priest say the words of the prayers and the consecration. In the past I knew by his position at the altar and his posture what he was praying but seeing and hearing it draws me into the Mass more fully.

I like that there are three scripture readings and that all three are proclaimed in English. I think it’s valuable to pray the psalms as we do between the first readings and the gospel. I don’t prepare for Mass by reading the scriptures ahead of time because I want to hear them fresh and for the first time during Mass and then reflect on them afterward. Just my own preference.

I love being able to hold out my hands and receive my Lord. It’s awesome! I did, and would again if necessary, receive on the tongue. To me, receiving in my hands feels more reverent. I’m thankful we have that option in the OF.

I’ve attended the OF in English, Spanish, French, German, and Latin. Mass in the modern languages seems just as ‘universal’ to me as Mass in Latin so that’s not an issue with me. I think revising the English translation of the Mass is a good thing.

 

[Love_Divine]

I prefer the EF because the actual sacrifice of the Mass resembles closer to the sacrifice of the mass in the Mass I grew up with in the 90s. If I grew up with the way Mass is said now, I’d never recognize it as the same in the EF.

 

[bilop]

I like both Masses. The thing I like best about the Novus Ordo Mass is that it is in a church that is air conditioned. I also like the fact that the singing is participatory. (Even though I don’t like all the music.) At the TLM church I attend, they have an absolutely gorgeous choir and the congregation pretty much just sits there and listens without singing along. (even during the ordinary parts) My personal preference is to actually articulate the words out loud whether spoke or sung. (I prefer sung.) I don’t find read-along-in-your-head prayer to be as effective.

Allegra,

You should see if you can find a TLM that’s done as a dialogue Mass. There is one in NY, at St. Eugene’s in Yonkers.

The congregation joins in all the servers responses, and well as the major prayers/chants (depending on whether on not the Mass is sung).

There is no fundamental reason the congregation must remain silent in the TLM, besides the fustiness of some Traditionalists.

 

[salusanimarum17]

… I don’t like some things about it, like the Eucharistic prayer that goes “When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come in glory” because it is pretty heretical! We’re not eating bread, or drinking a cup!!

You’ll have to discuss that with St. Paul, who said as much in 1 Corinthians 11:26.

Anyway, I also tend to prefer the ordinary form, for the most part. I like the unity of action on the part of the priest and people. In the EF, at least at high Mass, he’s doing his part at the altar, the choir is singing something, usually the same as what the priest is (or will, or did recite) reciting, but it’s at different times. I don’t know who to listen to or try to follow along with–the priest/server or the choir? I do like the use of a low voice at the words of institution (at the EF) but I prefer the more audible prayers of the priest at the OF.

 

[AnneTeresa]

I made my first communion before Vat II so I remember the Latin Mass. I like knowing what the priest is praying and I like being able to participate in my own language.

It was a great relief to me when we went to English (even though there was Latin/English in the missal, it wasn’t the same as hearing in your own language). But my grandma hated it!

I also appreciate being able to see what the priest is doing instead of facing his back.

 

[Allegra]

Allegra,

You should see if you can find a TLM that’s done as a dialogue Mass. There is one in NY, at St. Eugene’s in Yonkers.

The congregation joins in all the servers responses, and well as the major prayers/chants (depending on whether on not the Mass is sung).

There is no fundamental reason the congregation must remain silent in the TLM, besides the fustiness of some Traditionalists.

Thanks! I don’t think I’ll be in Yonkers any time soon. (I live in Missouri) We have two oratories nearby that celebrate the Mass in Latin. One of them is fulltime and that’s the one I’ve been to. The other only does it twice a month or something. I don’t think the people in the congragation have to be silent, they just chose to be silent. I could sing the words by myself, but they look at me funny when I do. I suppose they really love their choir. (It is a good choir)

 

[Little_One0307]

I perfer the EF.

So the only thing that the NO Mass has got going for me is that Christ is made present on the Altar.

God bless.

 

[StellaMaris3]

It is really not the “novus ordo” it is the ordinary form of the Roman rite…(one will not find novus ordo in documents from the Holy See…but rather as Pope Benedict put it…it is the ordinary form…"…and the other is the “extraordinary form” (there are other names…such as by the Popes the Missals etc were issued…but those are good ones)

Thanks

FYI Bookcat,

That Vatican II chose to remain on a purely pastoral level, is a well documented fact. Documented, by none other than the present Pope when – as Cardinal Ratzinger – he addressed the Bishops of Chile:

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

Pax vobis.

 

[Corki]

I prefer to attend the Ordinary Form because the Extraordinary form is not offered in my parish. I think there is just one in the whole diocese each Sunday and it is very early and very far. I prefer not to spend so much of my “day of rest” driving.

I like going to my parish and attending the OF Mass. At some other parishes, it is hard to follow the Mass; the priests ad lib and I can’t concentrate as well if I can’t follow along. That’s one thing I miss about the EF; I always could follow along in the Missal.

I like that the priest faces us. Of course it isn’t the same as leading us in prayer like in the EF but it is very familiar. I feel like I am back in high school with my band director.

I like the music in the OF Mass too. Many of the songs are the same folk songs I sang in the 70s. They aren’t very theological but they make people smile and that’s what’s really important at Mass, right?

I like that the Mass is said in so many languages. At the old Mass, I can understand the parts in Latin but in the new Mass I may not understand a single word. It’s so much more multi-cultural that way.

 

[StellaMaris3]

Bookcat, here’s another article for expanding your myopic understanding of Vatican II.

Part I

---

Source: catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm

**What are Catholics to think of Vatican II?

By Raymond Taouk
**

---

*“If the Church were not divine this Council (Vatican II) would have buried it.” - Cardinal Giuseppe Siri [1]
*

Many Catholics labor under the mistaken notion that the documents of Vatican II contain the highest doctrinal authority and are therefore beyond reproach. This, however, is not the case with respect to the Churches teaching on Councils and the Magisterial authority of the Church.

Church councils are convoked for the purpose of explaining (by definitions), defending and guarding the faith (by condemnations) of the entire Church. However in contrary to this practice of the Church the Second Vatican Council refused to define or condemned but rather in a novel fashion to be a “pastoral Council” ("differing from other Councils, this one (Vatican II) was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral. – Pope Paul VI August 6, 1975, General Audience) which would put forth novel innovations which effect the very divine constitution of the Church [2] thus departing from its magisterial and infallible authority which might generally be attributed to Church Council validly convoked and approved.

Pope Paul VI made it clear in a public audience of January 12th, 1966 that the decrees of Vatican II were never stamped with the note of infallibility as he openly declared:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

Catholics are, therefore, within their rights to make reservations regarding any novelties emanating from Vatican II that are out of step with Sacred Tradition and the previous (continuous) Magisterium of the Church. Vatican II unlike previous Church Councils, did not pretend to bolster the faith of the faithful by means of clarifying those unchangeable truths of the Catholic faith, [3] but rather dealt with theological conclusions which on a number of issues were contrary to the Church teaching or at least ambiguous enough to encourage a non Catholic interpretation. As Cardinal Suenens explains “one could make an astonishing list for propositions taught yesterday, and the day before in Rome, as the only acceptable ones, and which were eliminated by the Conciliar Fathers”[4]

Bishop Butler of England publicly stated that Vatican II was in no way infallible:

“Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecumenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.” (The Tablet 26/11/1967)

The same was affirmed by Bishop Rudolf Graber who wrote in his book:

“Since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, 1974)

And again even Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in commenting on this point stated:
"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet so many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. --El Mercurio, July 17, 1988

 

[StellaMaris3]

Part II

Source: catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm

**It must not be mistaken that since the council was attended and called by the Pope that it would automatically be lead by the Holy Ghost or that it automatically is guaranteed to be infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium since only the definitions and condemnations of an ecumenical council are guaranteed by infallibility and not (necessarily) its pastoral exhortations, the Church does not hold as infallible in a council whatever is outside the solemn teachings. [5] **

**Many erroneously hold the idea that convocation of a Council is somewhat automatically a sign that it’s inspired by “the Holy Spirit” when in reality it is quite the contrary for “to call a council is a practical decision of the Pope. A person may piously believe that God inspired it. But no one can say that this is an object of faith.” [6] Catholics may rather affirm with Cardinal Manning that “to convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity, is to tempt God”[7] **

As to the role of the Holy Ghost, Cardinal Manning explains: “this office of the Holy Ghost consists in the following operations: first, in the original illumination and revelation…; secondly, in the preservation of that which was revealed, or, in the other words, in the prolongation of the light of truth by which the Church in the beginning was illuminated; thirdly, in assisting the Church to conceive, with greater fullness, explicitness, and clearness, the original truth in all its relations; fourthly, in defining that truth in words, and in the creation of a sacred terminology, which becomes a permanent tradition and a perpetual expression of the original revelation; and lastly, in the perpetual enunciation and proposition of the same immutable truth in every age.” [8]

In fact when dealing with the qualities of a True Council, St. Francis De Sales affirms the above in clearer terms saying “For what are the principal causes why general Councils assembled, save to put down and cast out the heretics, the Schismatics, the Scandalizer, as wolves from the sheepfold? As that first Assembly was held in Jerusalem to resist those who belong to the heresy of the Pharisees” [9]

Vatican I (a dogmatic council, which Vatican II was not) makes it very clear that the pope is SUBSERVIENT to the Deposit of Faith. Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI explicitly chose to withhold dogmatic authority from Vatican II. Therefore, whatever it did or however it is interpreted, it has none of the weight of the dogmatic Council of Trent and Vatican I. Rather we may say that since the Second Vatican Council has failed in its role as council and is no more than “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal”.

It is often stated that during the rebellious first session of the Council, Pope John XXIII who convoked the Council was to change his view in such a way that that he began to resemble those prophets of doom for which he had only contempt. Yet this began to change when he realized that the papacy had lost control of the process, he attempted, as Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster later revealed, to organize a group of bishops to try to force it to an end. Before the second session opened he had died. [10]

Padre Pio had hoped for the same thing for prophetically he could see the road down which it this Council would lead the Church and so Pellegrino (a lifelong friend of Padre Pio) testifies how Padre Pio counseled all the Council Fathers who came to see him, to put an end to Vatican II. [11]

 

[StellaMaris3]

Part III

Source: catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm

This Council was the first to invite non-Catholic “observers” to participate in its proceedings, who took an active part in the proceedings behind the scenes as is well pointed out by Michael Davies in his work on " Pope John’s Council". The very presence of these non Catholic observers must have had an inhibiting effect on the Council Fathers. It was the first Council to be declared “pastoral” rather than “dogmatic” if other councils, did have pastoral propositions, they were nevertheless dogmatic Councils. It was the first council that neither delimited Catholic doctrine from contemporary errors, nor issued disciplinary canons. When requested by hundreds of Council Fathers for the condemnation of Communism - certainly the principal error of the time, they were sidetracked by those in control - in clear violation of the Council’s own rules of order - as reported by Father Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and others.

It is canonically possible for a future pope to annul the outcome of the council, as it was merely a pastoral council. Cardinal Ratzinger affirms the same saying that " Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing." [12]

The history of the Church presents us with some parallel situations that we can bring forward to confirm the above.

The Council of Ephesus in 449, which was regularly called and attended by all the East and by legates from Pope St. Leo the Great, was annulled by that pope’s subsequent opposition to it and branded the “Robber’s Council” (Latrocinium).

A much better parallel we can say is the Second Council of Constantinople, held in 553. In 1934, historian Msgr. Philip Hughes described it as “the strangest of all the general councils”. [13] This Council had disastrous effects since rather than simply reiterate or elaborate upon the irreformable teaching of Chalcedon, it sought both to uphold Chalcedon and to call to account three long-dead theologians (whose works had some how offended the Monophysite heretics) two of whom had been intimately associated with Chalcedon. How could such a strategy not have generated confusion among the faithful? Indeed it did as the great historian W.H.C. Frend described it, “At the council itself the bishops turned intellectual somersaults in their efforts to uphold Chalcedon yet condemn the Three Chapters” [14]. It resulted in bringing about confusion in the minds of faithful about the controversy surrounding Monophysitism.

The same author in dealing with the Council of Constance illustrates that "this council which men at Constance (November, 1414) is the strangest in all Church history from its composition, its procedure, and the nature of what was effected through it. The full effect of the chaos of forty years was now seen. All the wildest theories about the source of ecclesiastical authority seemed likely to be realized when there descended on the town (in addition to 185 bishops) 300 doctors in theology and law, 18,000 other ecclesiastics, and a vast multitude of lay potentates, of princes, and of representatives of towns and corporations, to the number of more than a hundred thousand . . . This same council that had brought the (western) schism to an end had sown the seeds of much future dissention. Whatever the niceties of canon law that had safeguarded the legitimacy of its liquidation of a complex problem, the fact remained that the Council of Constance had judged two claimants to the papacy and condemned them, and that it had also elected a new Pope. And it had also declared, in explicit terms, that General Councils were superior to Popes and it had provided that every five years this General Council should resemble and the Pope, in some measure, give to it, an account of his stewardship. As far as the wishes of the Council of Constance went, a revolution had been achieved, and the Church in the future was to be governed in a parliamentary way, and not by the absolute, divinely given authority of its head, the Vicar of Christ. The forty years that followed the Council were to see the successive Popes - Martin V, Eugene IV, and Nicholas V, wholly taken up with the efor to destroy this new theory and to control the councils which it bred and inspired. The full fruits of the mischief were only reaped in the long drawn out dissensions of the Council of Basle (1431 - 1449). " - Hughes, Popular History of the Church, Pg. 141-3