What do you think of Novus Ordo Missae?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexandra_G
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alexandra_G

Guest
I prefer Vetus Ordo. It has more seriousness in it. Well, my parish church is a Novus Ordo Missae, and I am the titular organist there (despite my young age and the fact that I am a girl), but I really can’t stand lots of things of Novus Ordo (for example: guitars in the church)…
 
I was brought into the Church through a novus ordo mass at a campus ministry (with a guitar). I know people don’t like it (they have their reasons and most are good) but it is what brought me into the Faith. A few years later I prefer the TLM, and outside of a college ministry context I would not really enjoy having a guitar playing. But I don’t hate the novus ordo.
 
Hello Alexandra, welcome to the forums.

I would note that we have many, many, many, MANY threads already discussing the OF and EF Masses. (“Novus Ordo” is often used in a derogatory context.)

We also have many, many, many, MANY threads about guitar music and other non-chant music at Mass.

You may want to use the search function to read some of the past threads if you are interested in what people think, as this topic has come up so often that many forum posters feel it’s the proverbial “beating the dead horse” to have the discussion again.

As for what I think, as the other poster said, it’s an approved rite of the Mass. I don’t give it much thought beyond that.
 
Neither do I. But, well, there are few things that I don’t like of it. I don’t hate it but I don’t love it at the same time.
 
I prefer a weekday novus ordo mass to a sunday novus ordo mass. No instruments or overly produced singing. You also get a similar silence to a TLM in my experience if that makes any sense.
 
I think that is fair to some degree. I guess the implication is that if we didn’t change to the novus ordo then we wouldn’t be losing people and there would be a higher belief in the real presence? Which I am not sure we can really prove. I don’t think it helped, but the culturally upheaval of the 60s and 70s was going to draw people away anyways in my opinion. Maybe the Church would have been in a better position to respond, but it is speculation.
 
(A) it matters enough for Pope Benedict to have issued a Motu Proprio for those whose attachment is elsewhere

(B) This is a discussion forum. We can (and do) discuss things that don’t matter.
 
IF, shortly after the conclusion of Vatican II, the ordinary form Mass had been introduced just as it is now practiced in my former parish today, there would hardly have been a murmur.

The parish does use some Latin, such as in the Sanctus. Patens are held by the altar servers for communicants whether receiving on the hand or the tongue; there is reverence and times of silence, and prayers after Mass so there is not a mad rush for the parking lot.
So, if there had been a Tridentine Mass on one Sunday, and that kind of OF Mass on the following Sunday, it would not have drawn much comment except that the new form was somewhat easier to follow.

But things did not happen that way. We went through a whole variety of weekly changes which left everyone wondering ‘what next.’ After a few decades of confusion, things settled down, happily so,
 
When we stripped from our liturgy, we stripped and took away from what is God’s. The mass is the sacrifice at Calvary. The priest and the faithful face same direction and it is all vertical, pointing to heaven. Just as in the Old Testament where the faithful needed a priest to atone and offer the sacrifice on their behalf, the same is true today. The priest is offering the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary to God the Father in the mass. The priest is doing this for him and us, because we cannot do it, only the priest. Jesus is going to God the Father to atone for us. So our participation in the mass is us kneeling in prayer as in mass, heaven and earth meet and Jesus is atoning to the Father for us.

However, many in the pews today just sit back and go through the motions. We receive Jesus in Sacrament then kneel in prayer for 2 minutes. . . . Most folks who just go to mass and do not study their catechism or read and study their faith, really have no clue what the mass is, why it is necessary, who it is for, etc.
 
Last edited:
c4csp said:
Archbishop Bugnini was the main architect of new mass. Let us never forget his words during Vatican II.
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.”
Click to expand...
This quote keeps getting pulled out as “proof” that Bugnini was looking to protestantize the Mass. A close look at what he actually said, however, disproves this… at least with regard to the above quoted.

First of all, the context wasn’t him talking about the Mass in general, but about variations on certain prayers in the the Good Friday services - one prayer in particular… a single prayer.

For the record, here is the fuller quote translated from the original Italian by L’Osservatore Romano:
“The 7th prayer [of the new rite for Good Friday] bears the title: ‘For the Unity of Christians’ (not ‘of the Church’, which was always one.) No longer used is the pariah ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’ but ‘all brethren who believe in Christ…’

Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the “Council” accomplished by using a chisel. And let’s say that often the work proceeded ‘with fear and trembling’ by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that ‘Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke’ the seventh prayer? And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices."
Click to expand...
Based off of just that quote, Bugnini hardly seems to be the liturgical villain he is often painted to be.
 
Vatican II did not reform the Roman Mass, but simply established (very) general guidelines for such a reform. The Protestant ministers present at Vatican II (not during the liturgical reforms themselves) were observers, not consultants. And liturgical historians like Fr. Robert Taft say that any Protestants who were present during the liturgical reforms had zero authority and weren’t consulted. Non-Catholic observers have been present at many Councils, and there are even instances where Non-Catholics had an influential voice at such Councils (the Orthodox at the council of Florence, for example).
 
I fail to see how any of this addresses what Bugnini actually said as quoted from the L’Osservatore Romano article.
 
I sometimes go to a TLM approved by the diocese now. It’s very good. It attracts people deeply prayerful at liturgy, any liturgy they are at. They would be prayerful at their neighborhood parish.

At the 2020 TLM everyone appears to have a good understanding of what’s going on. There’s no hurry, this is an all morning affair, with a wonderful pot luck breakfast after.

At my 1960 parish, maybe a third of the people appeared to be asleep, or prayed the rosary during Mass. The priest has to get through on time, because Mass is held 7,8,9,10,11,12.
Gotta clear the parking lot.

Many people got a lot out of it, but many had little idea what was going on at all. My pastor would have a host on your tongue before your knees hit the pad. He raced down the Communion rail faster than the altar boy could keep up.

By all means appreciate the special TLM Mass if there is one available to you. If none, ask your bishop to consider it. But don’t imagine this was what most typical parish Masses were like in 1960.
 
Last edited:
Like myself, there are many that regularly attend the OF but would rather attend the EF, but it’s not as easily available. I tend to avoid getting into debates about it, though. It’s not my place to say what the Church should do, only that I’d like to see the EF more available.
 
Last edited:
Just to lay my cards on the table here: Although I’m not necessarily a fan of the implementation of the Liturgical reforms, nor am I a fan of the liturgical abuses so rampant today, I am a fan of the Ordinary Form. I grew up serving the Ordinary Form daily from the time I was probably about 10 years old until I went off to college, and even in college I continued to serve as often as possible. I was taught to pay close attention to the prayers of the Mass, and so I made every effort to do so - memorizing large portions of both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms for my own spiritual benefit. Listening to the prayers of the Ordinary Form were a complete catechesis for me (supplemented, of course, by studying the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Today I’m happily a Maronite Catholic. I didn’t become Maronite as a “liturgical refugee,” but simply because I found Eastern (specifically Maronite) theology and spirituality ring true for me.

That being said, when I do attend Roman Masses, I typically go to a well-celebrated Ordinary Form.
 
Last edited:
c4csp said:
One problem I still have is why did he have six Protestant ministers at Vatican II for consultation with the changes?
Click to expand...
The question of the Protestant observers has been addressed quite a few times on other threads. Observers, surprisingly, are invited in order to… observe. Their role is quite passive. This goes in the reverse way too - there are permanent Catholic observers at the World Council of Churches, and, although the more anti-Catholic of our Protestant and Orthodox brethren would like to have it believed, they don’t under-handedly manipulate the proceedings any more than the Protestant observers at Vatican II did.
 
It was also pointed out on another thread that actually Protestants were invited to attend the Council of Trent.
 
Last edited:
Yes Protestants were at other councils but the question is about the intention for them being there. It is true that they were there to hear truth and hopefully come into the Catholic faith. At Vatican II however, this is not a clear cut and dry intention or result of their attendance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top