The Use of "Novus Ordo"

[dochawk]

All later modifications were fitted into the old arrangement,

Which utterly ignores that the Liturgy of Rome was used by some other dioceses, but not universal.

The canon itself is a red herring. Plain and simply, the liturgy of Rome was not the universal liturgy of he western church until after Trent.

How much or little the liturgy of Rome before Trent changed over time has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

And the claim that entire liturgy was essentially unchanged from the first liturgy, including the change in language to Latin along the way, is simply laughable.

From, roughly, the time of St. Gregory we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details.

No, we don’t.

In fact, by Trent do to the abuse of wha tis now known as the “low Mass”, we are no longer even sure which parts were the people’s, and which parts the priest’s, resulting in the Tridentine usage of having the priest recite them all.

Here you are totally mistaken. Divine providence prepared the Roman Empire to use it and its language as the vehicle of God’s work.

In other words, there is no point in having a discussion, as you’ve personally decided God’s will . . . and what the Church teaches, even if those pesky guys in white hats have realized it . . .

Ignorance is just ignorance. Nothing more.

With this, I’m simply going to listen to Thumper’s daddy and bow out . . .

 

[otjm]

The Mass was celebrated in the vernacular in areas throughout Europe well up to the time of Trent. The issue of the language of the Mass is a discipline, not a doctrine; and in fact the Mass (often referred to by other names) has been celebrated throughout much of the non-European world in languages other than Latin since the time of the Apostles.

Again, these issues were time specific. We now have again gone back to the languages of the people.

 

[otjm]

Again, you comment is dragged out of a time 78 years previous; which amounts to 4 generations. So what? F. N=Muller wrote in a time specific era; and so did Pope Pius VI. Fine and dandy: that was specific to their time, had nothing to do or say about the 1400 years of the Church after the Ascension, and is simply dredged out of mothballs and passed around as if it were some universal statement of doctrine.

It is not. The language(s) of the Mass is/are a disciplinary matter.

The bishops of the world were well aware that somewhere between a majority and a vast majority of the people in the pews had little or no clue as to what was being said in the greater majority of the Mass; that is why 50% or better were thumbing their beads or reading pious booklets of novenas. When Sacrosanctum Concilium said the bishops wanted active participation they were not talking about arm waving; they were talking about people praying the Mass along with the Priest. It wasn’t about rotely responding with memorized phrases to something which the priest said; it was understanding not only the response, but all that had gone before it.

 

[dochawk]

Reality can get hard for some people. I do understand.

Apparently not . . . but I do appreciate the irony . . .

 

[otjm]

"“As to the point you bring up, firstly just like today, most of those who attend the Latin Mass are not not ignorant idiots as you want to claim, they can follow in the vernacular on the other page in the missal.”

I would like you to specifically reference where I said anyone was an ignorant idiot; and if you cannot do so, I suggest you apologize. I have no clue as to how old you are, but I was born in 1946 and have attended far more EF Masses than I could possibly count. The simple fact whether you care to agree or not is that the majority of people did not have missals - they were expensive, and people were not encouraged to have them; and the vast majority of people did not speak Latin, nor did they read or write it. The result was that the “fulfilled their obligation”, but their participation was minimal.

Your comment about “dead language” according to Fr.Meager is not what I listen to in the Gospels; Christ could read that “dead language” and recite it aloud to those in the synagogue; it was the liturgical language, but hardly “dead”. And it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

and you keep going back to comments made by various popes as if they were binding; they were not; but they were situated in time and place and last I checked this is not the mid 1700’s. So what if the Pope said that at that time? The Church - 2,147 bishops, signed on to allow vernacular to some degree; and the Church has realized that vernacular is what the people want - and have wanted. That is why it has spread like wildfire.

My mother died 5 years ago at the age of 97. Until she was no longer able to drive, she would drive @ 10 miles to go to daily Mass. About 15 or 20 years ago I asked her what she thought about Vatican 2 - note, what she thought; not what she liked or disliked. She immediately exclaimed “Oh! The Mass in English!” and she was the one, when we could barely afford it, who saw that my siblings and I had a missal. I again expect an apology for your comment.
(continued)

 

[otjm]

(continued)

The mind of the Church is not solely within the hierarchy, as history has well shown. And the mind of the Church is exemplified by the way that Catholics have taken to the Mass in their native language. And I, like my mother, father, two brothers and a sister can all testify to the fact that we all are more involved in hearing the Mass in English, all of us having had to read it while the priest said it in Latin. None of us “hate Latin”. We simply can participate far more fully in English.

There is an old saying that no one should have to watch either sausage or legislation being made. Your comment by Cardinal Bacci is not “the mind of the Church”; it was his opinion as Sacrosanctum Concilium was being debated. The mind of the Church was expressed by the 2,147 bishops who voted for it; and as there were only 4 who voted against it, either he was one of the 4, or he signed on in spite of his objections. That is the mind of the Church; please quit abusing the term. Further, that was his speech in October of 1962; it was 14 months later that the document came to final vote.

The EF has a primary focus on the aspect of God Transcendent; the OF brings back the other part of the equation - God immanent. Neither Mass denigrates the primary aspect of the other form, and I believe it was Pope Benedict XVI who said that each form could enrich the other. I fully support people who want to attend the EF, but the fact remains that those who were born in the mid 1960’s and later have no experience of it and the vast majority express no interest in doing so. That may be why there is little or no growth in parishes adopting the EF or including one in their schedule. And that may be why a parish near me has 11 Masses on the weekend, 1 in Vietnamese; 3 in Spanish, 6 in English, and one, the EF, at 6:45 a.m.Sunday morning. The demand for the EF is minimal, but sufficient that the pastor makes it available.

 

[runningdude]

However, you did try to say it was the proper name given by the Pope, which is incorrect.

You would also be heartbroken by the abuses to the liturgy that occt befot the newer form was introduced. Priests that abuse the new liturgy did not suddenly lose their reverence in the switch from the old.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I have one more thing to say. Whether the Mass is said in the vernacular or Latin, we must recognize the Body of Christ is present. Whether the priest is facing the East or the people, we must worship the Body of Christ. Put your personal preferences aside when attending Mass.

 

[abucs]

Pope Pius XII points out that “the use of the Latin language affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine.” (Mediator Dei)

Those of us living in foreign countries would prefer a Latin mass exactly as it would be a sign of unity and brotherhood. I think it also is a connection to the long history of the church which again fosters a culture of unity and brotherhood.

 

[edwest211]

Pope Benedict

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

 

[MagdalenaRita]

You would also be heartbroken by the abuses to the liturgy that occt befot the newer form was introduced. Priests that abuse the new liturgy did not suddenly lose their reverence in the switch from the old.

I think the difference in the abuses in the EF compared with abuses in the OF is the rubrics were more strict in the EF and there wasn’t so many “options” in the liturgy, which both made it a little more challenging to move into too severe of an abuse. Compared with today in the OF, some times the abuses are just so outrageous.

Also, when the OF first came out many of the priests at that time continued with the same respect and reverence that had been shown to the EF, so you rarely saw abuses in the OF in the beginning. It is what has happened over time, over the years that has caused so much of the OF Mass to become lax.

Fortunately I think we are starting to see many younger priests coming up who want to restore that reverence and stop the abuses, whether it be the OF or the EF. It is challenging and an uphill battle for them though.

 

[giuseppe96]

What abuses before the council are you referring to? I doubt they were as frequent and abhorrent as they are today.

 

[Mi_Rose]

Abuses included 15 minute masses. Many times the altar boys could not keep up. A complaint by older people I know was that after Vatican II the mass took so long!

 

[edwest211]

That is sheer nonsense. I was at mass before Vatican II and it always took an hour, the same for miles around.

 

[angel12]

That is sheer nonsense. I was at mass before Vatican II and it always took an hour, the same for miles around.

People’s real experiences are “sheer nonsense?” I don’t think so. My mother attended Mass for decades before Vatican II. Some of them were glorious. Some of them . . . not so much.

 

[giuseppe96]

How many clown masses have you heard of before Vatican II? Or the sacred host being dropped and trampled on due to careless priests, laity, and lay ministers?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

We probably hear from about the same clown Mass over and over.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

What these types of debates inevitably devolve into is a one side saying they’re better than the other. Pope Benedict wrote that both liturgies are un need of reform. There was a need for change, and Paul VI rightly introduced reform. But it is not complete, because the fruits of the language used in Vatican II are indeed evident.

But that does not in any way dictate a return, for that would be denying the liturgical necessity of reform to the Tridentine liturgy.

I’m a very new convert, so I don’t have much experience with this. However I can tell you that it was the Novis Ordo that drew me in. But it was done in a reverential manner, ad orientem, Latin ordinary, english propers, all Gregorian Chant. It is my firm belief that this was the intention of liturgical reform. And it is a way forward of bridging the ever-widening gulf between the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

 

[giuseppe96]

And the irreverence towards the Blessed Sacrament, announcements for finances after communion, holding hands during the Our Father, replacing holy water with sand during Lent? I’ve witnessed each of these abuses myself. They’re not uncommon in the OF. I’ve yet to see such things in the EF.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

If there was only the EF it would have it’s own unique abuses, besides illicit Masses in SSPX chapels (in the past) and by sedevacantists.