Why Novus ordo and not just vernacular

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jragzz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jragzz123

Guest
Why was a whole new mass written instead of just translating the Latin mass to English? I’ve attend eastern catholic Mass, Latin mass, and some orthodox liturgies and I’ve noticed that they all seem similar but Novus Ordo doesn’t share a good chunk of the rituals present in these ancient liturgies. I guess I’m confused on why instead of sticking with the traditional we just wrote something new.
 
Why? Partially because there was little call for the parishioners to be actively involved in the mass. It was very common for Rosaries to be prayed during the mass. Even though Latin is the language of the Church (a dead language preserves the living faith), precious few understood it and simply zoned out.

We are now invited to actively participate in the entirety of the sacrifice. But some find fault in everything. Just watch!
 
Any study of a pre-Conciliar ceremonial will reveal why. The amount of liturgical minutiae that had accreted in the older rite over time is mind boggling. It really was in need of simplification.
 
The OP suggests that the OF Mass stands out and that the EF Mass is more similar to the various Eastern liturgies. I think that’s an oversimplification.
If you attend a “reverent” more traditional Novus Ordo / OF Mass with chant and incense, it is easier to see that the OF Mass shares elements with the Eastern liturgies that are not present in the EF Mass. Examples would include the degree of active participation, use of the vernacular, completely sung/spoken prayers, an explicit epiclesis…
 
An OF mass with incense and a chanting choir is one of the most spiritually fulfilling experiences I’ve ever had. Far more so than Latin Mass for me. That is just my experience but there is something to be said for the OF.
 
The Extraordinary Form had acquired centuries of alterations, additions, etc. and was in need of pruning - that was at least one thought behind things.
 
Last edited:
I’ve heard that it’s a return to a more ancient form but I’m confused on why it looks so different from orthodox and eastern Catholicism which trace their roots very far back as well. If Novus ordo was a more ancient form why is it almost unrecognizable in comparison to other ancient liturgies? That’s why I’m confused.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
The Extraordinary Form had acquired centuries of alterations, additions, etc.
Click to expand...
Such as what? The Council of Trent made some minor adjustments but the Missal of 1570 was not that much different than the Missal of 1962, language and all. As far as I know there were no liturgical committees on the parish level before 1962.
 
Last edited:
Were there not substantial changes in 1604, 1634, 1884, and 1920? Not to mention the missal itself codified in 1570 had already acquired over a fourteen hundred years’ innovations from the time of the Apostles.
 
Last edited:
Before the Council of Trent there were changes, that is true. There were also many Reformers writing their own liturgies, which was one of the reasons the Council of Trent was called. Quo Primum promulgated one liturgy and one language for the Latin Rite. Maybe someone here can point out the changes since then but I’m almost sure one can easily use the 1570 Missal to follow the 1962 Mass.
 
I’ve long wished for the option of having the Extraordinary Form in the vernacular.

Some have suggested the Anglican Ordinate as something similar to that, but the closest one is hours away from me.
 
Last edited:
I’d suggest watching Bishop Barron’s video linked above. And look at, among others, the Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition. (St. Hippolytus).
 
JulianN said:
The early Church.
Click to expand...
ConcernedConvert said:
Do we know exactly what that liturgy was?
Click to expand...
Exactly, no. But scholars do have a good idea. Much, much better than scholars did in the sixteenth century, for sure.

It should be pointed out that one of the goals of the Council of Trent was to bring the Liturgy back in line with ancient practice. They had a rather faulty understanding of what ancient practice was, though. A lot of the historical sources that scholars now used were unknown or lost at that time.
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
An OF mass with incense and a chanting choir
Click to expand...
One of the reforms done “in the spirit of Trent” was the abolition of Gregorian Chant by Pope Gregory XIII, who also commissioned the creation of the calendar we use today. He commissioned Palestrina to rework the chant repertoire to fit his taste. Palestrina didn’t have the heart or the desire to do so, so he passed the task on to a student who came up with “Reformed Gregorian Chant”, which was just plain awful and unpopular.

A rival chant was devised in France called “Neogallican Chant” (no connection whatsoever with Gallican Chant), and this lasted until the nineteenth century, when the Benedictine monks of Solesme started out to recreate Gregorian Chant based on their study of documentary evidence, filling in the gaps with their best guesses based on later musical traditions. There are some things that we can never know about the original Gregorian chant because it wasn’t or couldn’t be documented at that time, or because what documentation existed was lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top