Why so many responses of the people in novus ordo?

[Crocus]

Where?? It ends after “But deliver us from evil” in my Douay Rheims Bible and my Clementine Vulgate.

“For the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours now and forever” is the type of prayer that ended Jewish prayers at the time of Christ. Similar to David’s prayer in praise to God (1 Chronicles 29:10-13).

Father William Saunders of EWTN says:

In the early Church, the Christians living in the eastern half of the Roman Empire added the doxology “for thine…” to the Gospel text of the Our Father when reciting the prayer at Mass. Evidence of this practice is also found in the “Didache” (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), a first century manual of morals, worship and doctrine of the Church.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DOXOLOG.HTM

So it is an early liturgical practice of the Church. Fr. Saunders further notes in the same article linked, that in reciting The Our Father, Protestants are in fact following Tradition, while it is Catholics who use the scripture version.

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

Yes but many Protestant Bibles add it to the Lords Prayer erroneously, as it was added to the end of that much later. Let’s be real. It was added in the novus ordo to appeal to bringing Protestants in.

Using non canonical texts is not unheard of; 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manessah are used in liturgy but they also were on the margins of the canon, they are in an appendix to the Clementine Vulgate.

Te Deum is an early prayer used in liturgy but they all are cited.

To use the Didache which was scripture to many early Christians is on the same level as us using the Shepherd of Hermas.

 

[twf]

It’s not added to the Lord’s Prayer. It’s stand-alone a few moments later. Protestants traditionally prayed it as one unbroken prayer.

 

[twf]

The Roman Canon is still an option. It’s called Eucharistic Prayer I. If what you’re experiencing is very short is is likely Eucharistic Prayer II which is the shortest… there are four main Eucharistic Prayers in the OF Mass. At our cathedral the EPI (Roman Canon) is likely to be used at the 11 AM Sunday Mass… together with a good bit of Latin, polyphony, chant, incense… it’s like the Novus Ordo equivalent of a high mass. On the other hand, Eucharistic Prayer II is more likely at the 8 PM Mass which is more of a “low Mass”.

 

[Crocus]

Yes but many Protestant Bibles add it to the Lords Prayer erroneously, as it was added to the end of that much later.

Just answering the why. Not debating the should or should not. That is the job of scripture scholars for the bible, and liturgists for the Mass.

If you read the article, see it says Greek scribes sometimes added it to manuscripts before the canon was set (a reflection of their experience using it in the liturgies at the time). It is absent in most translations today, often in footnotes, as later addition to the originals. Protestant bibles that include it, simply reflect tradition (as received from early liturgical practice).

Let’s be real. It was added in the novus ordo to appeal to bringing Protestants in.

I highly doubt the doxology is what will bring Protestants in.

 

[Crocus]

why the people are required to say so much, I was always taught only the priest was responsible for the mass

I have faint memories of the Mass before Vatican II. You make me realize in a new way, that there was a conversation going on in prayer between the priest and his altar server(s).

What a responsibility those servers had! To answer in the place of the entire gathering. I remember my older brother drilling our younger brother in the responses. As a girl, it was of no concern to me that he was tired out after the lengthy sessions.

The day came that we heard the prayers of the Mass in our own language, and vocally participated with our answers. I admit some feeling of loss; as the nuns formerly taught us, we could go to any country in the world and hear the Mass in Latin, follow the translations in our missal, know what was going on. Good point, yet I have not travelled much to many countries having foreign languages.

What was new then, (Mass in the vernacular) soon became ordinary, in the sense of close, and familiar. Hearing the prayers in my own language has been an experience of growth for me. I appreciate the gift it has been to participate with my community in conscious, active contemplation on the words, phrases, sentences, in dialogue during the Mass, in my own language.

I love the Mass. I love Jesus. I want to speak to Him in words I understand. That’s why so many responses.

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

I don’t think it is the Latin that makes it a big deal. My understanding as to why it was Latin was because it is a universal Church and wherever in the world you went it would be the same mass in the same language.

 

[ProVobis]

The day came that we heard the prayers of the Mass in our own language,

So I keep hearing.

I guess it didn’t bother people how much was cut out of the Mass, Latin or no Latin?

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

People also forget I think that the Mass of Paul Vl is and originally was in Latin. I’ve heard of it being said in Latin. Calling the Mass of Pius V and the 1962 typical edition by John XXlll the “Latin Mass” is a misnomer somewhat since even following the Second Vatican Council, the Mass of Pius V was permitted very much in the vernacular.
I kind of never really understood it, I hear of priests now being expected to say mass in English and Spanish or French or other languages depending on the local community. I often wondered, how much easier it would be if you didn’t have to have this. I don’t know why there is a Spanish church in my town. Also there is French one though they don’t do masses in French anymore; but it’s like why separate us based on language? If we all had the same language of mass you wouldn’t need this separation; anywhere you went it’s the same.
I can understand I suppose the appeal of understanding it and it probably makes it easier for parents with children, but I just at times wonder if having it in the vernacular really has brought people into the church like I think it was intended?
I could be wrong it just is kind of how it was always explained to me.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

It sounds like your biggest grievance here is not knowing what’s going on and/or being unfamiliar with the responses and the body positions of the laity. Have you considered getting a hold of a Novus Ordo missal? You don’t even need to shell out the big bucks for a fancy one, just buy those disposable seasonal paperback ones many parishes buy in bulk. You might even convince the parish to sell you one of theirs if you ask nicely. As you learn the sit/stand/kneel positions just mark them in pencil in the margin and eventually it’ll become second nature to you. This is precisely what I had to do when I was first becoming acquainted with the Tridentine Mass!

 

[ProVobis]

I just at times wonder if having it in the vernacular really has brought people into the church like I think it was intended?

I guess there’s not much dispute about people preferring everything in their language. My cousins in Poland prefer me to write them in Polish. But it’s more than vocabulary. There are nuances in the language spoken. Not to mention a certain mystery in the foreign tongue which only a few really desire. It’s probably more tolerated in literature and such. Too bad the liturgy has lost its mystery appeal.

 

[Crocus]

I guess it didn’t bother people how much was cut out of the Mass, Latin or no Latin?

When the change came, I don’t remember anyone say there was anything cut out. My parents continued to observe the discipline of the Church, led family rosary, took us on local pilgrimage, simple stuff, and to them, the Mass was still the Mass I suppose.

at times wonder if having it in the vernacular really has brought people into the church like I think it was intended?

I don’t think bringing more people into the Church was a major objective of the liturgy, if at all. I think the liturgy was constructed to serve the needs of the people already involved in regular worship.

 

[thistle]

There are two things you should be aware of:

1. If what we were taught contradicts what the Church teaches then we were taught wrongly. The Church position trumps any position of any individual/group. In the case of the Mass the Church says BOTH the EF and OF are VALID Masses. Now we may prefer one over the other but we may not say one is invalid or lacks reverence.
2. The FORM of the Mass is not doctrinal. It falls under disciplinary law. The only things in the Mass that cannot change is the consecration and the priest receiving. Everything else, including the language, can be changed.

 

[Augustinian]

In the traditional form, often the servers say the parts of the people, but the people sometime do to. Well before the novus ordo, “dialogue masses” became popular where the people all said the server parts.

During a Latin Mass, the servers said of lot, too

 

[ProVobis]

the Mass was still the Mass I suppose.

Most of the silent prayers and gestures were removed so I guess not too many missed those. Technically they could cut the Mass to just the Eucharistic Prayer but I don’t think people would feel too happy with that either.

 

[Crocus]

Most of the silent prayers and gestures were removed so I guess not too many missed those. Technically they could cut the Mass to just the Eucharistic Prayer but I don’t think people would feel they are getting their money’s worth. Just sayin’

Sorry that you miss certain silent prayers and gestures that were in the pre Vatican II mass. However your statement seems dismissive of the full character of the Mass itself in which we gather, petition, prepare, receive twofold (Word and Body) give thanks, and are sent forth. I wish you would withdraw the comment about “money’s worth” as it is simply insulting to God’s people; the Mass is not a paid performance for an audience.

 

[ProVobis]

Ok, changed it. Sorry if it offended you and your “likes.”

And I’m done with this thread. It’s pointless IMO.

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

Okay here’s a question and I’m still kind of new here so I don’t mean to offend anyone but if I accept the novus ordo as a legitimate Mass but view it as inferior to the Mass of the Ages, is that a sin?
I probably think this way because of how I was taught growing up but I must admit it is how I feel at this point.

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

Well yah most things in the novus ordo are in the mass of the ages just not spoken. For example the Prayer over the Offerings in the novus ordo is called the Secret in the traditional Mass and the priest says it quietly. Never really understood why it was called the Secret when its printed right in our hand missals haha

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

Well yah most things in the novus ordo are in the mass of the ages just not spoken. For example the Prayer over the Offerings in the novus ordo is called the Secret in the traditional Mass and the priest says it quietly. Never really understood why it was called the Secret when its printed right in our hand missals haha

Depends on how “traditional” you want to get. There are pre-Tridentine sacramentaries that refer to the prayer as Oratio super oblationes secreta (Silent prayer over the offerings), which were subsequently shortened to La secreta. The manner in which the prayer should be prayed (en secreto) isn’t the actual name of the prayer (oratio super oblationes). Not only is this one small detail the so-called Novus Ordo got right but the “traditional” English cognate “The Secret” in our 1962 hand missals really should say something like “The Silent/Quiet”.