What is the Standard Mass of the Catholic Church (Latin Rite)?"

[Atreyu]

PLEASE READ THIS POST BEFORE ANSWERING.

Before you answer this question, please read this post ONLY! Don’t read any of the posts following this one, until after you have voted. The reason I am asking you to do this is because I want to know your understanding of what the standard mass now is. I don’t want you to go away and research anything, I just want to know what you think. If you really have no idea, then just guess!

clarification: by “Novus Ordo”, I mean the “ideal” Novus Ordo, following all of the directives of the GIRM & RS.

 

[Isidore_AK]

I need clarification.

When you say the Novus Ordo, do you mean the “ideal” Novus Ordo, following all of the directives of the GIRM & RS, or do you mean the monkey business at most of the parishes…?

 

[Atreyu]

I need clarification.

When you say the Novus Ordo, do you mean the “ideal” Novus Ordo, following all of the directives of the GIRM & RS, or do you mean the monkey business at most of the parishes…?

The former.

 

[Atreyu]

IF YOU’RE READING THIS AND HAVEN’T VOTED YET, CAN YOU PLEASE VOTE BEFORE READING ANY FURTHER! Of course if you don’t intend to vote, then read away.

For those that voted for the fourth option, can you please explain your vote?

 

[Aureole]

I was going to vote the “Novus Ordo” in Latin but the question is framed in such a way I couldn’t. The Catholic Church would include the Eastern Rite where the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is the standard, thus the “Novus Ordo” in Latin can’t be the standard of the Catholic Church. It could be the standard of the Roman Catholic Church though, since that would exclude the Eastern Rites.

 

[Trevelyan]

Yes, I assumed that ‘Catholic Church’ meant ‘Roman Catholic Church/Latin rite’

Option 2 (Latin NO) is included in option 1, which is just NO without specifying language, so covers Latin and vernaculars.

 

[Atreyu]

I was going to vote the “Novus Ordo” in Latin but the question is framed in such a way I couldn’t. The Catholic Church would include the Eastern Rite where the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is the standard, thus the “Novus Ordo” in Latin can’t be the standard of the Catholic Church. It could be the standard of the Roman Catholic Church though, since that would exclude the Eastern Rites.

Rats. I can’t believe I made such a rookie mistake. I’ll try and get the forum moderator to fix this asap…

 

[Atreyu]

Yes, I assumed that ‘Catholic Church’ meant ‘Roman Catholic Church/Latin rite’

Yeah that’s what I meant…

Option 2 (Latin NO) is included in option 1, which is just NO without specifying language, so covers Latin and vernaculars.

Not exactly. Option 2 is specifically the latin NO, whereas option 1 is any NO. I think there’s a subtle but mildy important difference here. The only reason I included option 2 is because this is what I used to think was the standard mass, until recently.

 

[Michael_Welter]

I voted for option 4. I don’t think the Church defines any particular Mass as “Standard”. There are several Masses that are Valid, and many that are Invalid, but none that are called Standard.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I was going to vote the “Novus Ordo” in Latin but the question is framed in such a way I couldn’t. The Catholic Church would include the Eastern Rite where the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is the standard, thus the “Novus Ordo” in Latin can’t be the standard of the Catholic Church. It could be the standard of the Roman Catholic Church though, since that would exclude the Eastern Rites.

That’s how I took it. I selected the last choice.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I need clarification.

When you say the Novus Ordo, do you mean the “ideal” Novus Ordo, following all of the directives of the GIRM & RS, or do you mean the monkey business at most of the parishes…?

Isadore:

He means the Ordo Missae 1970 which was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in Latin, not in English. The “Novus Ordo” was neither created nor promulgated by Vatican II, Vatican II only asked that the faithful be included in the Mass by suggesting that the dialogue form of the Tridentine then in use in many Western European Dioceses be used following a period of instruction both in Latin and in the the meaning of the Mass.

That’s the exact opposite of what happened. I guess teaching the faithful basic Latin would have been too difficult (Orthodox Jews learn Hebrew, but who’s counting) and instruction in the meaning of the Mass and of the the reasons the Church has done the things it was doeng probably would have been impossible as too many of the “experts” had forgotten “why”.

So it was easier to go for the vernacular and to dumb things down so people would understand them.

The English Translation used in America is about as bad as it gets, partly because it doesn’t accurately reflect the Latin, and partly because the language is very purposefully “dumbed-down” to the lowest common denominator.

You might want to look at that article by Fr. Fessio that I keep posting.

The Mass of Vatican II
Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp

And, you might want to read some of Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on the Mass, along with those of Pope John Paul II.

I love the Church, but people will generally reach as high as we give them to reach.

The Church dropped “Ember Days” after Vat II - They came from Rabbinical Judaism. The Sages used to teach that G-d judged the world 4 times a year, and that only our prayers and fasting could give the world a favorable judgement that would allow it it continue. The first converts from Judaism brought these over and created four times of the year (once each season) when the Church would pray and fast for the world and for Church.

Gregorian Chant is the same, and those who read Fr. Fessio’s article will see that.

And, The same goes for the Asperges Me…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Yeah that’s what I meant…

Not exactly. Option 2 is specifically the latin NO, whereas option 1 is any NO. I think there’s a subtle but mildy important difference here. The only reason I included option 2 is because this is what I used to think was the standard mass, until recently.

Atreyu:

Option #1 can’t be correct because the Ordo Missae 1970 was promulgate by Pope Paul VI (Hence “The Mass of Pope Paul VI”) and NOT of Vatican II.

According to Cardinal Pell and the Vatican, the Official Mass of the Western Church is the Latin Mass which is translated into the various vernaculars and then certified for use.

Sacrosanctum Concilium the documment fromVatican II on the Liturgy primarily asked for full, conscious and active participation (“actuosa participatio”“For this reason the Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at the mystery of faith should not be there as strangers or silent spectators. On the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers, they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing with devotion and full collaboration.”

The Council’s 9 suggestions about how to get there (see Paragraphs 50-58 in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. Rites are to be simplified and those things that have been duplicated with the passage of time or added with little advantage, are to be discarded.
2. The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more fully.
3. “The homily is to be highly esteemed as part of the Liturgy itself.”
4. Common Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful should be restored,
5. “In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue.”
6. Communion Hosts sufficient to that mass and for taking communion to the sick should be consecrated if possible, and communion under both species may occasionally be permitted.
7. The Liturgy of the Word is important to, and people need to be taught that showing up just for the Liturgy of the sacrifice just doesn’t cut it.
8. Concelebration is to be permitted.

9 A New rubrics for Concelebration are to be drawn up.

This does not sound like instituting the Novus Ordo to me. It sounds to me like they were trying to provide a basis for RATIONAL PEOPLE to reform the liturgy. The problem was that Liberals and other people with agendas got into the process, esp. into the translations, and the faithful have paid ever since.

But, the Council itself did not Institue the “Novus Ordo”, which is why Pope Benedict XVI could revise it with the flick of a pen if he believed he had no other choice.

In a way, I wish Pope Benedict XVI would go back to the WORDS of the Second Vatican Council and do just that, but I don’t think the Church (esp. in the USA) would survive the uproar.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So it was easier to go for the vernacular and to dumb things down so people would understand them.

Michael: I don’t usually have a quibble with your postings, but I certainly fail to see that the use of the vernacular per se is the equivalent of dumbing something down. Bad translation is an issue, of course, and the fact that our bishops kicked against the Vatican directive because they thought “the faithful wouldn’t understand” shows a somewhat insulting estimation of the faithful’s level of intelligence, as though the bishops all thought that the entire collective of God’s English speaking people rode the little bus to school. That aside, I don’t see the use of a native tongue as dumbing down. And it certainly is a benefit that the people CAN understand the words of their worship.

 

[Brendan]

But, the Council itself did not Institue the “Novus Ordo”, which is why Pope Benedict XVI could revise it with the flick of a pen if he believed he had no other choice.

The Pope could still revise the N.O. even if that pariticular Liturgy was promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.

No Council has authority over the Pope. An infallible declaration of a Council is actually an expression of Papal Infallibility.

(and liturgical specifics that apply to only one Rite or Church, such as Sacrosanctum Concillium, do not rise to that level)

Any sitting Pontif could strike Sacrosanctum Concillium away with a single declaration.

 

[Brendan]

And the Latin Church DOES have a ‘Standard’ or Normative Mass.

It is the 3rd Typical Edition of the Roman Missal (Novus Ordo) said in Latin.

That is the normal means of saying a Roman Catholic Mass, anything else requires permission.

A case could also be made from the Latin text of the GIRM than the Normative way of saying this Mass is *ad orientum *as well.

 

[Aureole]

Rats. I can’t believe I made such a rookie mistake. I’ll try and get the forum moderator to fix this asap…

But what about those of us who have already voted? We’re now locked in our votes, doomed to obscurity!

Traditional Ang, nice posts. I’ve recently read Fr. Fessio’s article and was going to link it myself but I couldn’t find it. We’ll make poor Atreyu a seasoned veteran if we keep picking on him like this. I don’t think he would mind that so much though.

 

[demerzel85]

The current Normative Mass for the Latin Rite Catholic Church is that of the Novus Ordo. When celebrated in the vernacular a basic requirement is that the translation is faithful to the Latin. The most recent Missale Romanum was issued in 2002, and there has yet to be a English Translation of it.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael: I don’t usually have a quibble with your postings, but I certainly fail to see that the use of the vernacular per se is the equivalent of dumbing something down. Bad translation is an issue, of course, and the fact that our bishops kicked against the Vatican directive because they thought “the faithful wouldn’t understand” shows a somewhat insulting estimation of the faithful’s level of intelligence, as though the bishops all thought that the entire collective of God’s English speaking people rode the little bus to school. That aside, I don’t see the use of a native tongue as dumbing down. And it certainly is a benefit that the people CAN understand the words of their worship.

JKirk:

I’m not quibbling with translation into English. What I’m quibbling with is the Ovrsimplification (not called for by the Council) and the Translation into language that could hardly be said to be erudite or literary, and that does not match the majesty of the original Latin text.

If you want to know what I mean, take a look at the Book of Divine Worship used by Anglican Use Catholics:

Available here:
bookofdivineworship.com/

Or the Anglican Missal (It would be easier if I could send you what I use every Sunday):

Available here:
societies.anglican.org/anglocatholic/anglicanmissal/missal.htm (propers)
anglicanbooks.com/product_info.php/products_id/54?osCsid=7c9c95f9b9148… (Enlarge the Alter Cards)

And compare them against the language used in the Ordo Missae 1970. I’m sure you’ll see that even the Modern English of the Book of Divine Worship is of a higher literary standard than the English Translation of the Ordo Missae (I won’t call it the Novus Ordo as many of its detractors are wont to do).

The Mass shouldn’t be the lowest common denomenator or purposefully designed so that no one could possibly misunderstand the words or the motions.

The Mass should be the best we can offer to God, and the language should give us just a wiff of heaven, even at the risk that someone might not understand something. The Divine Liturgy we do on earth is supposed to mirror the Heavenly Liturgy that the Apostle John describes in the Apocalypse.

Go to an Anglican Use Mass if you can (It will fulfill your Sunday Obligation), or a Divine Liturgy at an Anglican Church if you’ve already fulfilled your Sunday obligation.

And then ask yourself if one of those, or theOrdo Missae 1970 as presently translated into English and worshipped at most Catholic parishes most accurately reflects what St. John described in The Apocalypse.

I want the Mass I participate in to sound like Bishop Sheen or Malcolm Muggeridge or one of the great Catholic authors of the last century, not like something I could have wrtten in High School. And, it’s dissappointing to me that the Church with great writers such as the ones I listed above produces a Mass that sounds like cordwood coming out of my mouth instead of like the psalms of the angels.

I know there are some on this board who claim the Ordo Missae 1970 isn’t valid. To do that, you’d have to claim that Christ doesn’t keep his promises.

I just thnk the people who wrote and translated it forgot what they were mirroring and what they were bringing down to earth.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Atreyu]

But what about those of us who have already voted? We’re now locked in our votes, doomed to obscurity!

Sorry!

Traditional Ang, nice posts. I’ve recently read Fr. Fessio’s article and was going to link it myself but I couldn’t find it. We’ll make poor Atreyu a seasoned veteran if we keep picking on him like this. I don’t think he would mind that so much though.

Not much chance of that. I can try though!

 

[Atreyu]

The current Normative Mass for the Latin Rite Catholic Church is that of the Novus Ordo. When celebrated in the vernacular a basic requirement is that the translation is faithful to the Latin. The most recent Missale Romanum was issued in 2002, and there has yet to be a English Translation of it.

Good. The reason I started this poll was to get responses such as this one (and the posts of Traditional Ang) and explore them a bit. Some of my friends - whom I admire for their orthodoxy - informed me that the normative mass for the latin rite Catholic Church is actually the Traditional Latin Mass (should I call it the 1962 missal or something like that?). They claimed that this mass - sometimes called the Tridentine mass - is and has to be the normative mass (or standard mass) forever. They claim this was a proclamation at the council of Trent.

To me this opens up issues of infalliblity: if today’s standard mass is the Ordo Missae 1970, then this contradicts the statement made at the council of Trent; nullifying the proclamation (assuming my friend’s had the right of it, of course). But for me, I don’t see how a council or even a pope has the right to bind something forever in the case of what I see as a matter of church discipline. In other words, this change cannot possibly be seen as breaking the infallibility of the church, as it isn’t an issue of faith or morals, but of discipline.

To summarize, I see an apparent contradiction in that:

1. 
   *]At the council of Trent the “Traditional latin mass” was declared the normative or standard mass for the latin rite of the Catholic Church forever more. (I take this on assumption)
   *]The “Traditional latin mass” is no longer the standard mass of the latin rite of the Catholic Church.
   
   to which I see the two possible explanations:
   1. 
      *]The council of Trent overstepped the boundaries of authority in declaring a matter of discipline (ie the form of the mass) to needs be held forever more.
      *]OR the standard or normative mass of the latin rite of the Catholic Church is still the “Traditional latin mass”.
      
      Is my assumption right (did my friends get it right)? And which one of my two explanations (or am I missing something else) is a better explanation?