Why the Novus Ordo in the first place?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fish90

Guest
Why was the Novus Ordo instituted in the first place?

Why has the Vatican allowed additions to the Novus Ordo Mass in some countries but not others?

Why has the Novus Ordo lost Latin and the organ (I do not see EWTN’s Mass every Sunday)?

Is there need for a “reform of the reform” of the Novus Ordo?

Thanks in advance
 
\Why has the Novus Ordo lost Latin and the organ (I do not see EWTN’s Mass every Sunday)?\

**Where did you get that idea?

In case you’ve not heard, the Novus Ordo is promulaged in Latin, the language of the Typical Editions. It may be celebrated in whole or in part in Latin. Pope Benedict XVI does so all the time.

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.

The organ is an ADDITION to the Liturgy, and has never been required. Actually, in the Extraordinary Form, there are certain occasions when musical instruments cannot be used.

If a given parish does not use an organ, either it don’t have the money to have one, or doesn’t consider the cost of an organ and organist to be money well spent.**
 
I do not know that “why” really matters much, at least on the level of the laity. Latin is often discarded in favor of the vernacular because the vernacular is by definition the language of the people. There is a reform of sorts in the English translation in the process at this time. Also, at some point the phrase “Novus Ordo” becomes so dated (it is not “new” after fifty years) as to be offensive and inaccurate. It is the Mass of the Catholic Church (Latin Rite).
 
pnewton said:
Also, at some point the phrase “Novus Ordo” becomes so dated (it is not “new” after fifty years) as to be offensive and inaccurate.
Click to expand...
It’s offensive because the Pope wants it to be called the “Ordinary Form.”
 
I meant no offense. I wanted a discussion on these questions I had. If I had caused any offense, I apologize.

Thank you
 
fish90 said:
I meant no offense. I wanted a discussion on these questions I had. If I had caused any offense, I apologize.

Thank you
Click to expand...
No offense to me. We’re all here to learn and thanks for asking your question.
 
The use of the organ is being lost throughout all of mainline Christianity because young people aren’t being taught how to play it. In fact, we’re doing a terrible job of recruiting and developing young people to be pastoral musicians.
 
In answer to the OPs question, I would say because the Holy Spirit said so at Vatican II.
 
MusicMan said:
The use of the organ is being lost throughout all of mainline Christianity because young people aren’t being taught how to play it. In fact, we’re doing a terrible job of recruiting and developing young people to be pastoral musicians.
Click to expand...
This is true, and many of our so called organists in churches today are really pianists who have taken up the organ on their own. There are still schools of Sacred Music (In fact the school where I received one of my graduate degrees just began a degree program in Sacred Music a few years ago). The thing is they are costly. Associations like NPM offer scholarships for young people wanting to study sacred music. It would be good if dioceses could also offer incentives for young people to study the organ.
 
fish90 said:
I meant no offense. I wanted a discussion on these questions I had. If I had caused any offense, I apologize.

Thank you
Click to expand...
That’s totally understandable. Unless one has seen how the phrase is used in a patronizing manner by some, it would never occur to you. That’s why I hedged remark carefully.

The bottom line is that the changes in the Mass were aimed at making the Mass more understandable to more people. God has always come down to our level in His dealings with man. It is the defining characteristic of the Incarnation (see Phil. 2).

The criticism of this approach remains that we should try to lift ourselves to the highest level to worship God. My response to that is that we shall worship or Lord with all our mind, body and soul. The better we understand, the better we offer pure worship and not just the trappings of worship.

Another criticism is that the Mass does not always reflect the purest, most accurate theology. I believe this is legitimate, but that most people are best serviced by the current Mass. I also think that catechisis from the pulpit will more than clarify any point that is needed and is a better way to teach the people than maintaining higher accuracy in a language not understood. I recognize that my opinion is formed by my experience with a priest that accurately teaches the Catholic faith.
 
Cat said:
In answer to the OPs question, I would say because the Holy Spirit said so at Vatican II.
Click to expand...
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.
 
It’s strange why so many people take offence to the term “Novus Ordo”. I use it to describe the OF/Pauline/Bugnini Mass as it describes it accurately in historical context. The current OF was brought upon us in the late sixties and was a drastic change from the OF of the day which had been in place for centuries. 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.

To the OP’s question, unfortunately there is no quick and simple answer. This is a deep subject which cannot be fairly responded to with “because the Holy Spirit said so”. There are many books, articles, speeches, homilies, etc on the subject along with Vatican II. Use the internet to research yet keep a critical eye to what you’ll discover. For example, some people claim Bugnini was a Free Mason who secretly plotted against the Church thus created the Novus Ordo to weaken the faith.

There was certainly a movement for liturgical reform prior to Vatican II and it should be uncontested that the new Mass was bolstered from those voices. The documents of Vatican II allowed for a wide interpretation of the council’s intent. Clearly the Novus Ordo was a response to increase “active participation” however, the definition of that term is not clear either. Whether the faithful are actually particiating more fully in the NO is a matter for debate. There was also an ecumenical movement in the Vatican during this time and some believed simplifiying the Mass would encourage more Protestants to return to the flock.

Other questions that deserve to be raised include why was the Tridentine Mass suppressed once demoted to EF status? Why was the Mass which was codified by an ecumenical council at Trent drastically changed by a pastoral council at V2? Did the V2 documents even call for such action? Why were so many high altars ripped out along with Communion rails? Why are modern churches no longer built in the shape of a Cross? Why have so many parish priests and liturgical committees taken liberty with the liturgy inserting their own customization that range from improper to abuse?

Pope Benedict XVI is clearly trying to guide us back to a more reverent worship and it’s no coincidence he is making the Tridentine Mass more prominent. The question of why the NO won’t be answered here nor in the short term. History will be the ultimate judge of whether the reforms of V2 along with the NO achieved a greater good or not. In the meantime, each individual has to ask themself which form bests assists in their worship of God and Catholic life. With fair access to both forms we should listen to God’s call and answer His question directly to us.
 
fish90 said:
Why was the Novus Ordo instituted in the first place?
Click to expand...
I think SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM says it best:

III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy
21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For 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.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
 
\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."
 
Joannm said:
This is true, and many of our so called organists in churches today are really pianists who have taken up the organ on their own. There are still schools of Sacred Music (In fact the school where I received one of my graduate degrees just began a degree program in Sacred Music a few years ago). The thing is they are costly. Associations like NPM offer scholarships for young people wanting to study sacred music. It would be good if dioceses could also offer incentives for young people to study the organ.
Click to expand...
And I am nothing more, really, than a pianist who has taken up organ on my own. However, I am also a band director, and I’ve been involved with music for a very long time. I can hold my own pretty well with hymns and service music, although preludes and solo pieces need to be pretty watered down. I certainly don’t have anything resembling heel-toe pedal technique.

But, all that said, I will always choose organ over piano at (any) church where I’m given the option. And the church I play for now thinks I’m pretty good… so … get those kids on the organ!
 
How is that quote patronizing? The current OF is new, it is a new rite, novelty is new (look up the definition).
 
Ockham said:
…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.
Click to expand...
That sounds about right, like many situations when people find it necessary to start trying to control speech and thought.
Phemie said:
I think SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM says it best:
III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy
21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For 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.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
Click to expand...
Yea, I guess that’s a fair statement of intentions, FWIW.

But, it doesn’t answer some interesting questions. E.g.,
  • Why did a “reform” ideology that had been around for 100 years or so take over the Church in 1964?
  • How could it have failed so utterly to meet its own goals? Consider this part:
…so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully…
Click to expand...
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.
.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top