Why so many responses of the people in novus ordo?

[AlbertDerGrosse]

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?

Oh boy, I hope you’ve ducked for cover now that you’ve tossed this granade into the thread!

There are going to be differing opinions on this. I personally sympathize with your viewpoint here, though I’d probably use a different word than “inferior” and I would spend a lot of time nuancing my answer, or otherwise just keep this opinion to myself (which is my standard course of action). It’s also been my experience that many priests at diocesan and ICKSP Tridentine Mass parishes share in this opinion. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[thistle]

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

You may NOT view it as inferior but you may have a preference for the TLM if you wish.
The Church says the NO is valid which means it is not inferior.

 

[Dovekin]

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?

The ordinary and extraordinary forms are two forms of the mass of the ages. If you view one as “inferior” it would be because of differences of accidents, not of the substance, of the mass, if I can use that language here.

Is it a sin? Certainly not if you recognize it is a difference of taste. If by inferior, you mean to downplay the work of Christ in the ordinary form, that sounds like you are valuing personal prefernces over the action of Christ; that comes closer to sin I would think.

Is a low mass inferior to a high mass? How so? Perhaps you could find a distinction there for understanding inferiority there?

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

The ordinary and extraordinary forms are two forms of the mass of the ages. If you view one as “inferior” it would be because of differences of accidents, not of the substance, of the mass, if I can use that language here.

[…]

Is a low mass inferior to a high mass? How so? Perhaps you could find a distinction there for understanding inferiority there?

The distinction between a Low Johannine Mass and a High Johannine Mass isn’t the same as the distinction between either Johannine Mass and the Pauline Mass. The Extraordinary form isn’t the Ordinary Form with the priest turned around and speaking Latin. There are substantive differences between the two forms while there are only accidental differences between the Low and High Mass.

 

[otjm]

I am sorry that your parents spoke ill of the Mass of the Church. We refer to it, as Pope Benedict said, as the Ordinary Form; and the Mass you were going to before is referred to by him as the Extraordinary Form.

We don’t use the Protestant form of the Our Father. The Protestants use a Catholic ending, which came from the Didache, written in the second century approximately. They adopted it from that Catholic work. We do not add it at the end, but at the end of a prayer which the priest says at the end of the Our Father.

You might want to look up and read the document from Vatican 2, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which covers the changes the bishops of the world wanted; the document was passed by a vote of 2,147 to 4. As they noted there, things were added to the Mass over the centuries which they wanted removed, and things had been lost over the same centuries which they wanted back into the Mass. So we now, for example, have an Old Testament reading which parallels or is tied to (by theme) the Gospel. And an example of what was removed were the prayers at the foot of the altar, and the reading of John’s Gospel, both of which over time were added to the Mass, but previously had been said either before or after the Mass privately by the priest.

There are a number of canons of the Mass. Some are for specific occasions; some may be used for weekly Masses at the election of the priest.

The sign of peace goes back to the comment that if you have a matter (issue/disagreement/etc.) with your brother, first take care of that… So it calls us to keep in mind that we need to resolve issues; an I know of no friends/family who do not have disputes from time to time; it is a time to remember our need to reconcile.

Considering that at least in the United States, the vast majority of Masses which are said are in the Ordinary Form, it is likely you will see it elsewhere besides college. If you prefer the EF, it is far less widely available and you may need to seek it out.

 

[otjm]

Vatican 2 actually had 16 different documents, but the one that sees to have caused some people problems was Sacrosanctum Concilium. There seem to have been two main issues; the changes to the Mass all came at once, and often were simply done, with no explanation as to what and why; and the second problem was that progressives, some of whom considered tjat Vatican 2 was incomplete and there would be a Vatican 3 (which shows how little they understood Vatican 2). The Progressives took off in directions which had nothing to to with Vatican 2 and caused an excessive amount of chaos, and the result was that people who rejected what the progressives were doing blamed Vatican 2.

The actual blame should have gone to the bishops of the US as they did not step in an bring the chaos to an end. I say this, because if one looks at Poland, for example, little or none of the chaos ensued there. The changes to the Mass were made; other documents of Vatican 2 implemented, and all was done in a far more orderly fashion than in the US. 50 years later, most of that chaos has subsided.

 

[otjm]

No, it was not added for the Protestants. It was added because the Church was going back to the early form of the Mass. And no, using the prayer as noted in the Didache is not the same as using the Shepherd of Hermas. That is well beyond the issue of the prayer the Early Church used.

 

[otjm]

Well, yes and no. latin is not the language of the universal Church… The universal Church includes all of the 20+ Eastern Rites, all of which are in union with Rome. and there are a number of languages used in those Churches.

Latin became the language of the Church in Rome and throughout Europe after the persecution of the Church ceased during the reign of Constantine, and became the language of the Roman Rite; so where missionaries from the Roman Rite moved out into the rest of the world, they brought with them their language. That, however, did not change the language of the other Rites. The Roman Rite happens to be the largest, by far, of any of the other rites, and since the Chair of Peter is in Rome, that is the language in which documents for the universal Church are prepared. And so if there is something which applies to all Rites, it will start with a Latin document.

However, one may go to any number of countries and attend Mass (often referred to as Holy Mysteries or Divine Mysteries) and attend Mass, for example, in the Maronite Rite, or the Ruthenian Rite, and hear not a word of Latin. Prior to Vatican 2, one could only hear the Mass in Latin if one was at a Roman Rite Mass, say, in Jordan (assuming one was to be had).

 

[otjm]

The Mass is said for and with the people in their native language because it is not for the convenience of the priest, but for the participation of the people. The reason that priests may have to say Mass in more than one language (e.g. Spanish) is because there are large populations of Catholics within the US who do not speak fluent English. In some parts of Canada, the Mass may be both in French for the French speaking population, and in English for the English speaking population, as both are large enough to warrant their own tongue. Allegedly, ever since the Tower of Babel we have had a multitude of languages. And again, the vast majority of bishops of the world wanted at least part of the Mass in the native tongue of the people. The OF may be said entirely in the native tongue, with several prayers said either in Latin or Greek optionally.

There is no documentation anywhere showing that the bishops of the world wanted the vernacular “to bring people into the Church”. They wanted it because Mass was not something to be endured; it was something to be prayed by the people with the priest. Prior to Vatican 2 the majority of people did not have a missal with Latin on one side and a translation on the other in my parish - and I grew up in a rich suburb of the major city in my state. In poorer parish, very few had one. People would go and “fulfill their obligation” while saying a rosary, or reading from a booklet of s devotion, or simply being present. The bishops wanted people to actively participate in Mass.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps the Mass has lost its mystery appeal for you. I would suggest getting the book by Brant Pitre “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist”. That speaks of the true mystery of the Mass. I highly recommend it.

 

[otjm]

If you look in the Bible, there is one place where the form of the Mass is set out: Luke 24: 27 and following. Scripture (and homily - given by none other than Christ) and Eucharist.

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

I wasn’t trying too.
I am trying to open up to the Ordinary Form but it is a slow process. I was raised in an area in Missouri where there are a lot of SSPX sympathizers and my parents only ever brought me to their masses. I was homeschooled and limited to what I can view online. I have younger siblings raised the same way but all of my sacraments were done in the SSPX and some of the things I was taught were so negative about the current Church and even like other Christian’s constantly referred to as “heretics”. It really from a young age has been the rhetoric I have known. So I apologize but everything I’ve known until recently has made me feel like it is inferior. Actually I was kind of taught never to attend the novus ordo but I am trying to get out of that bubble. It’s a lonely place. I have some freedom now in college and my parents didn’t want me going away probably for this reason but I am just trying to learn about the Church which seems I was under false impressions my whole life. Thank you all for understanding my situation. It’s just hard to adjust I suppose.

 

[otjm]

Actually, referring to the EF as the “Mass of the Ages” is an insult not only to the OF but to all of the forms of the Mass in the other Rites.

And you may view it as inferior. The Church does not. I understand your viewpoint, as you have alluded to your parents’ feelings. There is a small minority of Catholics, from very conservative to arch conservative (and by that, I am including the SSPX) who feel this way. I have no doubt, were there such a thing as a time machine, that if these people were transported back to somewhere between 300 and 600 AD to attend Mass, that they would be horrified. But that was far closer to what Christ did, and gave to the Apostles, than the EF - or for that matter, the OF. Yet it would be every bit as legitimate and valid.

When one gets into feelings, one needs to tread carefully, as feelings can (and often do) change about matters. And feelings can be generated for reasons that are not always the best grounds for decisions; occasionally, not even valid grounds for making decisions.

The EF is what you have been brought up in, and it has a strong sense to it of God transcendent. The OF has brought forward a sense of God immanent (and some say has lost the sense of God transcendent, to which I disagree) and often with those who say that, is somewhere between disliked and disparaged. Certainly it is no sin to like one form over the other. But disparaging one or the other is to disparage Christ. God certainly is transcendent - even the Jews got that one right. God is also immanent, in Christ.

 

[otjm]

Yes, it is hard. We learn first and foremost from our parents, for good or for bad.

I would suspect that when you return home, things are going to be difficult. And as your siblings grow older, they too are likely to find difficulties. I would pray that all of you remain faithful. It likely will not be an easy route.

 

[Crocus]

The EF is what you have been brought up in, and it has a strong sense to it of God transcendent. The OF has brought forward a sense of God immanent (and some say has lost the sense of God transcendent, to which I disagree) and often with those who say that, is somewhere between disliked and disparaged. Certainly it is no sin to like one form over the other. But disparaging one or the other is to disparage Christ. God certainly is transcendent - even the Jews got that one right. God is also immanent, in Christ.

I am bookmarking this thread. It’s that good. Thank you @Theprodigalson84j for starting it and for your honesty.

 

[dochawk]

In the traditional form, often the servers say the parts of the people, but the people sometime do to.

Also, by the time of trent, the Low Mass (a liturgical abuse, but that’s another story) had become the de facto norm. Along the way, with the destruction of missals when new ones were promulgated, which parts belonged to the people was quite literally lost to time. In case of doubt, knowledge of which parts belonged to the people was quite literally lost to time. Uncertainly was resolved by having the priest (and possibly the people as well) take the part.

[ok, I need to go back to the Low Mass. As mass stipends became important to monasteries, it became important for monks to knock out as many masses a day as they could, and the low mass, in which the priest usurped the people’s parts and other parts were omitted, was the answer. It then spread . . . also, note that the liturgy was far from uniform in the western church before norm; while the use of the liturgy from Rome itself was common, so was the use of local forms, the Eastern liturgy, and the vernacular]

While I’m noting thing, the norm in the OF is for the priest to face East; it’s just that in many countries, including the US, the option to instead face the congregation is almost always exercised.

hawk

 

[Dovekin]

There are substantive differences between the two forms while there are only accidental differences between the Low and High Mass.

I used the substance/accident formulation hesitantly, because I knew it might be read incorrectly. I was getting at the changes implied in Sacrosanctum Concillium:

the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

The immutable elements are the same in the ordinary and extraordinary forms, because they are immutable. One is not superior to the other, because they are the same.

Elements subject to change can be judged better or worse, but those judgments are rooted in taste. It seems wrong to me to say one form is inferior to the other because of the changeable parts, when most of us are concerned primarily with the immutable parts, the divine action of Christ for us.

The language of immutable/changing in some way tracks with substance/accidents but I would not insist on that. You may have some other definition of substance that lets you distinguish the Pauline form from the earlier forms.

I only pointed to the high/low mass distinction as a place where we might learn how to evaluate differences between forms of the mass, but I will rule out that possibility based on your judgment, if others agree. The immutable parts have not changed, so there is no inferior or superior form.

 

[mVitus]

I am trying to open up to the Ordinary Form but it is a slow process.

Usually when I read someone’s post where they’re saying they feel the OF to be inferior, I’d be readying for a debate by responding. You’re different. (In a good way.) And probably a large part if that is because you give off a vibe of sincere desire to learn and I admire that.

I really don’t have anything to say that I think would help, but I’ll say a prayer for you on this journey of yours.

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

Okay so if I got all of my sacraments from SSPX priests, does this mean I am not technically Catholic? Like have I never been baptized or confirmed? Have I never been to confession or received the Eucharist?
Some posts on here confuse me in that regard about the state of the society.
I was always taught it was the most true form of the Catholic faith and things like that. I’m starting to realize this may not be accurate.

 

[Aquinas11]

So I apologize but everything I’ve known until recently has made me feel like it is inferior.

I also attend SSPX parish and it depends what you mean by “inferior”. If by “inferior” you mean its a sin to attend NO or that its not valid for Sunday obligation, I’ve never heard that. Nobody at SSPX ever told me dont go to NO or that NO doesn’t count for Sunday obligation, and I’ve been there for several months.
If by “inferior” you mean that TLM is closer to the language/form/etc of mass prescribed in Council of Trent (infallible teaching) as compared to NO language/form/etc discussed in Vatican 2 (not infallible teaching), then I agree. To me, its not matter of one being false and other being true, its a matter of which one is closer to what was prescribed in Trent (and in case of TLM seems to be much closer). This is why Vatican 2 merely made the NO language/form/etc optional, since had they made it mandatory (i.e. outlawing TLM), that would have violated Trent.