Justification on the Changes of the Mass

[Wisely]

I'm looking for the reasons (especially theological) why did the Novus Ordo Missae changed this:

-Priest facing people
-No Incense
-No Sub-deacons
-No Gregorian Chant
-45 Mins - 1 Hour long

The Old Mass was very beautiful and spiritual, why did it have to change? Are there any theological reasons?

[DavidFilmer]

Originally Posted by Wisely

-Priest facing people

This is not part of Novus Ordo. The priest could move to the other side of the Altar and face away from the people if he pleased; there is no rule otherwise.

-No Incense

My Parish does incense on "special" days, and always at the 11:00 Sunday Mass. There is no rule against doing it for every service; the priest could do this if he wanted to.

-No Sub-deacons

We have Eucharistic ministers (who, like subdeacons, are non-ordained laypeople). The title changed, but the role is essentially the same.

-No Gregorian Chant

My Parish chants the Sanctus at EVERY Mass (even weekday Mass). There is no rule against Gregorian chant. Any priest could do it at every Mass if he pleased.

-45 Mins - 1 Hour long

45 minutes maybe for a weekday Mass with a very short homily (or none at all - it is not required on non-obligatory days).

The Old Mass was very beautiful and spiritual, why did it have to change? Are there any theological reasons?

I think Novus Ordo can be beautiful and spiritual if conducted in such a manner. I have been to many such Masses. But when you drag in clapping and hand-holding and such, and electric guitars, banjos, and drum machines, and folks show up for Mass in shorts and t-shirts, the reverence of the Mass suffers. But, of course, the reverence of the Old Mass would also suffer if people did that kind of thing.

[snarflemike]

You should read what the new Liturgy was meant to be like, before it was hijacked by people who had an agenda not in line with the Council.

http://www.adoremus.org/1298-VatIIMass.html

[triumphguy]

I've been to lots of low masses in my time that were 20 minutes and had no incense, and lots of OF masses that are more than 1 hour and include incense.

Some of the minor orders were dispensed with.

No porters or exorcists in seminaries anymore.

[Wisely]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

I've been to lots of low masses in my time that were 20 minutes and had no incense, and lots of OF masses that are more than 1 hour and include incense.


Some of the minor orders were dispensed with.

No porters or exorcists in seminaries anymore.

Its good that you've experienced solemn OF Masses.
But I'm talking about the "average" parish.
And I want to know the "whys", the reason or the theology behind the changes.

Edit: Also.. Why did the sub-diaconate dissapear? It wasn't good enough?

[DavidFilmer]

Originally Posted by Wisely

Also.. Why did the sub-diaconate dissapear? It wasn't good enough?

Subdeacons were usually (if not always) seminarians. They did not receive Holy Orders (so they were laypeople), yet they could not marry, and were obligated to pray the full Divine Office daily (which was no problem for a seminarian - these things are already expected of them).

I don't know if you have heard, but the Church is in a bit of a crisis these days because of a shortage of vocations. That means fewer seminarians as well. The Church responds to this challenge in a number of ways. One way is to examine duties which were previously reserved to priests and seminarians, and try to figure out which of those duties can be handled just as well by ordinary laypeople, without compromising any doctrine or theology.

And, besides, practically nobody knew what a "subdeacon" was.

[bmonk]

Originally Posted by Wisely

I'm looking for the reasons (especially theological) why did the Novus Ordo Missae changed this:

-Priest facing people
-No Incense
-No Sub-deacons
-No Gregorian Chant
-45 Mins - 1 Hour long

The Old Mass was very beautiful and spiritual, why did it have to change? Are there any theological reasons?

Some I cannot answer, especially the priest facing the people, except perhaps that it is hard to participate when so much of what is being done is hidden by the priest himself? This is also the reason for the vernacular--to allow a more active participation by those who do not understand Latin.

Some "changes" you list have no theological justification, as they are not really changes. For example, incense and Gregorian chant are both allowed, even encouraged at times. How can their prohibition be justified, when they are not prohibited? Was incense ever required for Mass, apart from Solemn Mass?

The suppression of Subdeacons, like that of the minor orders of Porters and Exorcists, was that these orders no longer had functions as the Church had developed. Subdeacons originally aided the Deacons in their ministry of distributing alms to the poor--but other structures now were involved in that work. Similarly, Porters were needed to be sure that government spies or other non-baptized were kept out of the worshiping community, but that was not needed. Exorcists only really came back into a function when RCIA was reformed, and even now it's a rite within the liturgy of the CHurch, especially at the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Sundays of Lent, the scrutinies, where the Priests do the service.

The length of the "average" liturgy was not decreed; it's simply a result of the rites in question and the community celebrating it. Some weekday masses are about 30 minutes; Sunday masses are usually 45-60 minutes--but in, say, Africa, a liturgy can go well over 2 hours.

The old Mass was, or could be, solemn, beautiful, and spiritual. But there was also a certain disconnect--that's why there were so many devotions developed for the laity to be involved in, and why, for example, bells called their attention to the "essential" moments such as the consecration. There were many excessive symbols and actions that had crept in, and could be removed lest they draw attention from the core of the Mass, the Eucharistic Sacrifice Jesus gave us to "remember," "take, and eat." The Novo Ordo can be equally solemn, beautiful and spiritual.

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by bmonk

Some I cannot answer, especially the priest facing the people........

The celebrant facing the people was the norm (ad orientem and versus populum) until the use of private masses became very common. The VII restored the position of the main altar away from the walls (altars became attached to the walls because of the side the chapels and the direction of the facade of the new churches was not facing east anymore but west).

[tafan]

Why the obsession with long masses? Me, I think that a normal Sunday mass is about right at an hour in lenght, and I think this falls into the range of either form. I think a normal daily mass of 20-25 minutes is about right, and this too falls in the range of either norm.

[adrift]

Originally Posted by tafan

Why the obsession with long masses? Me, I think that a normal Sunday mass is about right at an hour in length, and I think this falls into the range of either form. I think a normal daily mass of 20-25 minutes is about right, and this too falls in the range of either norm.

I agree. The mass I attended Sunday was one hour and twenty minutes long. I didn't mind it was very beautiful. The homily was the right length about 15 minutes. There was a commissioning of the Extraordinary Ministers of Communion.
Forty years ago we went to a Sunday Mass that lasted 25 minutes The local Church had a no frill mass at 7. Another Mass starts at 8:30 so the 7 last about fifty minutes. It has no singing accept for a beginning and end song. This Mass is necessary during skiing season because it allows workers at the ski area to attend Mass. During the Summer it allows for the works on the river to attend.

I don't find the length of Mass much different before VII. I remember that a low Mass was short where the high Mass was longer. I don't remember either lasting more than an hour.