Why the Novus Ordo in the first place?

[StillWondering]

The actual lanauge/s used in a given parish or mass is up to the pastoral discretion of the Priest. Some use a lot of Latin; some don’t use any.

I heard that it is permissible for congregations of bishops to determine how permissible the vernacular would be within their pastoral jurisdiction. While I can see priest deciding how much vernacular to use on the practical level. I think it is limited by the congregation of bishops in that region. In the states, the congregation allowed full use for latin rite, right?

 

[StillWondering]

How sad it is to read that. Do Catholics understand the Mass better now than they did in, say, 1959?

• I think it would very easy to show that Catholics in 2009 are amazingly ignorant.
• Showing that they knew more in 1959 would be harder, but that’s what I would expect to find.
• Even if there turned out that there is little difference, the liturgical “reform” would still be a failure on its own terms.

.

I think for the first part, Catholics being ignorant is the fault of catechist and lack of good role models foremost. To determine the effectiveness of the NO Mass, we need to look at the NO Mass directly not the people who are affected by so many things. Many prayers are prayed out load. That sounds like more opportunities for Catholics to understand. If they don’t choose to listen, that’s not the fault of the NO. Each person receiving communion is received individually where they have time to bow, to receive and to step away. It seems to promote the personal as well as the communal relationship with Christ when we receive Him. That seems good too. If people fail to grasp the moment, that is not the blame of the NO. I love communion rails, but a priest can zip by and we lost that time slowing down moment of receiving the Blessed Sacrament. Well that is the fault of the priest, not the fault of the old system unless the old system dictates that a priest just zips by.

We need to be clear at to what are the true fruits of each action, not a wishy washy connection.

 

[ASD]

I think for the first part, Catholics being ignorant is the fault of catechist and lack of good role models …

No doubt you’re right. It’s another one of the weird ironies of NO/OF: If everything is in plain English and in plain sight, how is it possible that Catholics are so ignorant? I think part of the explanation is the assumption that, because everything is in plain English and in plain sight, old-fashioned Catechism isn’t really necessary any more. It’s easy to imagine why people would think that; but, evidently it’s wrong.

To determine the effectiveness of the NO Mass, we need to look at the NO Mass directly not the people who are affected by so many things.

That’s exactly the kind of thing uncool conservatives were saying in 1964: If Catholics don’t understand Mass as well as “reformers” think they should, don’t blame the ancient Mass. However, the “reformers” insisted that they could improve the situation. They failed us.

Many prayers are prayed out load. That sounds like more opportunities for Catholics to understand.

Of course, your’re right. However, the odd thing is that there’s a very fine line between

• familiar language that’s easy to understand and remember, and
• mind-numbing banality that goes in one ear and out the other

Also, dumbed-down translations can bleach out so much that, although people understand what’s said, in fact very little is said.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[ProVobis]

\Therefore it is a “New Order” given the two thousand year history of the Church. Perhaps those who take offence are trying to suppress the term to hide the novelty of which it addresses.\

In the bull Quo primum, Pius V refers to the Tridentine Missal it promulgated as a “new rite of Mass.”

But that would make it contradictory to the canons of Trent which anathematized any pastor of the Church to create new rites, wouldn’t it?

 

[Lennox]

It’s offensive because the Pope wants it to be called the “Ordinary Form.”

I agree for a very simple reason. I have never come across a single person (and I mean not one) that did not knowingly use the phrase “novus ordo” or particularly “NO” in a pejorative manner.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I agree for a very simple reason. I have never come across a single person (and I mean not one) that did not knowingly use the phrase “novus ordo” or particularly “NO” in a pejorative manner.

I have frequently used the form NO, and I mean no more than the Ordinary Form.

Being Eastern, I have no vested interest in terminology.

 

[Ockham]

I agree for a very simple reason. I have never come across a single person (and I mean not one) that did not knowingly use the phrase “novus ordo” or particularly “NO” in a pejorative manner.

Who has used the term in a perjorative manner here?

 

[Lennox]

Who has used the term in a pejorative manner here?

Anyone who uses the term.

I’ve never met anyone who could explain why they use “novus ordo” or “NO” instead of “Ordinary Form”, “OF”, “Pauline” or “Mass of Pope Paul VI.” They’ll try to explain why it’s OK to use “novus ordo” or “NO” instead of “Ordinary Form”, “OF”, “Pauline” or “Mass of Pope Paul VI” (which it is not), but they’ll never explain why they use it.

 

[ibkc]

I have frequently used the form NO, and I mean no more than the Ordinary Form.

Yep. Me too. The only times I’ve ever been told it’s offensive is in this thread, and in a couple of other threads in the past by a user who has been banned multiple times and keeps signing back up to hammer his favorite topics, one of which is the offensiveness of the term “Novus Ordo”.

I wonder if the same people who are offended by “Novus Ordo” are also offended by “Usus Antiquor”.

 

[Ockham]

Anyone who uses the term.

I’ve never met anyone who could explain why they use “novus ordo” or “NO” instead of “Ordinary Form”, “OF”, “Pauline” or “Mass of Pope Paul VI.” They’ll try to explain why it’s OK to use “novus ordo” or “NO” instead of “Ordinary Form”, “OF”, “Pauline” or “Mass of Pope Paul VI” (which it is not), but they’ll never explain why they use it.

In merely two posts you went from stating you’ve never met anyone who does not use the term in a perjorative manner to then saying anyone who uses the term does so in such a way. Not great logic on display here.

For an explanation of why I use the term see post #13 in this thread. “Novus Ordo” is translated as “New Order”. The Pauline Mass is a new order, thus the Latin phrase is an accurate description of it.

Why do you so adamantly oppose the use of the term? You are not trying to suppress free speech are you?

 

[diggerdomer]

Vatican II said nothing about a Novus Ordo or whether the Mass should be said facing the people or saying an all-vernacular, all-the-time Mass. That was a later development, some of it in contradition to the councils, but if you wish to bring the Holy Spirit into the equation, be careful.

I think care needs to be taken to say that later developments of the Church were contradictory to the Councils. What did the Church do that was contradictory to the Councils? Yes, Vatican II (the Council) did not direct the Novus Ordo or specifics such as facing the popel, vernacular, etc. Neither did Trent (the Council) direct the changes that were later promulgated. Both developments (those following Trent and those following Vatican II) were promulgated by the Magisterium (as were the Councils).

 

[Lennox]

In merely two posts you went from stating you’ve never met anyone who does not use the term in a perjorative manner to then saying anyone who uses the term does so in such a way. Not great logic on display here.

Nothing wrong with that…

 

[Lennox]

…Why do you so adamantly oppose the use of the term? You are not trying to suppress free speech are you?

I just don’t like people taking shots at the OF. It gets real old after a while.

 

[Ockham]

Nothing wrong with that…

There is actually and you end up displaying the exact behaviour you accuse others of doing (i.e. prejudice). That’s not very charitable nor good debating skills.

From my experience, most people’s objections to the NO are the abuses which have become unfortunately common. Even is said reverently and abuse-free it still isn’t my personal preference and I believe most of us live in a free country so I should be allowed to make the reasons known where relevent.

Perhaps the negativity you most certainly have experienced towards the NO would be lessened if both forms were made accessible in all parishes. Then there wouldn’t be anything to complain about and people would choose their preference instead of being forced to attend one or the other.

 

[Timothysis]

For an explanation of why I use the term see post #13 in this thread. “Novus Ordo” is translated as “New Order”. The Pauline Mass is a new order, thus the Latin phrase is an accurate description of it.

So, in order to be consistent, will you refer to the Tridentine Mass as the “New Rite,” or NR for short, since, as bpbasilphx pointed out, Pope Pius V specifically called it that in his promulgation of the 1570 missal?

And just for fun, every new edition of a missal is technically a “novus ordo,” since it is a new order of the mass from the previous missal that was previously issued. Pope John XXIII’s 1962 edition of the missal was technically a “novus ordo,” since it replaced the previous missal issued in the 1950s, much like the other earlier editions of the missal were a new order from the missal that proceeded them.

 

[Ockham]

To be consistent I call what’s new, new. In late 1960’s our liturgy underwent a massive change, thus became a new form. The liturgy that was codified (to be unchanged) at the Council of Trent thus became the old. Novus Ordo is the new, Tridentine is the old.

To stay on topic, why did we get the NO in the first place? Couldn’t it have been an option, say on Saturday nights or something?

 

[Timothysis]

The liturgy that was codified (to be unchanged) at the Council of Trent thus became the old.

If you still hold to such an erroneous opinion that Quo Primum prohibited any “change” to the missal, then that is your right. It has been shown time and time again that this is a mistaken notion that not even Pope Pius V himself held. If it makes you feel better, however, then so be it.

Novus Ordo is the new, Tridentine is the old.

The celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy is the same from the Last Supper up to and including every Mass that is being said today. While the form can and has changed over the centuries, not just since 1969, it still contains all of the necessary elements that make it distinctly catholic and a valid celebration of the Sacrifice of Christ. There is nothing “new” in the Pauline Missal; if there is, then please show us explicit examples from the missal itself.

To stay on topic, why did we get the NO in the first place? Couldn’t it have been an option, say on Saturday nights or something?

We “got” the “NO” for the same reason that we “got” the Tridientine Missal; because a council decreed it, be it the Vatican II Council or the Council of Trent.

 

[pnewton]

To stay on topic, why did we get the NO in the first place? Couldn’t it have been an option, say on Saturday nights or something?

I agree with you that we need to get back on topic. The OP used the term innocently and just is asking what I believe to be an honest and fair quesiton. I have already answered the topic and have been waiting for this topic to move on. Perhaps others here that see the value of the changes could jump in with an answer to the inquiry.

 

[Ockham]

Tim, I’m going to continue using the term Novus Ordo as I feel it best represents the changed liturgy since the sixties. There is nothing inherently derogrative, condescending, or negative about it. Those that automatically assert the contrary are usually the ones acting in prejudice, intolerance and disdain for others.

Newt’s correct, the thread should get back on topic. I have posted my theory as to why we got the NO already. Since then I recall reading something that said the spirit of evangelization was also justification for making the liturgy simpler. Missionaries going into Africa wanted a more culturally relevant and accessible form. I can’t recall where I read that but do remember thinking it was faulty logic as the Church evangelized other parts of the world with the Latin language and Tridentine Mass.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim, I’m going to continue using the term Novus Ordo as I feel it best represents the changed liturgy since the sixties. There is nothing inherently derogrative, condescending, or negative about it. Those that automatically assert the contrary are usually the ones acting in prejudice, intolerance and disdain for others.

If that’s your story, then stick with it.