IMO Catholics loyal to Magisterium ought not use terms "NO" or "TLM".

[Godefridus]

The Roman Rite or Latin Rite is one Church, and it has one liturgy, one ritual, and this is the liturgy promulgated in continuity with the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. Just as the Byzantine Church has the Byzantine or Greek Rite of the Mass, so the Roman Church has the Roman or Latin Rite of the Mass. The "Tridentine" missal is not a "Tridentine Rite" - there is no such thing, any more than there is a "Tridentine Church".

(little point - I understand the words "Novus Ordo" come from Paul VI. But as someone stated in Catholicforum.com, "That term should no longer be in use. Post Vatican II liturgical changes are not new anymore, they are the norm.")

Both terms in the moniker "Novus Ordo" (as it is used now) are an insult that should not be accepted or perpetuated by Catholics. In the first place, there is nothing "novel" about the missal of Paul VI in the sense of having been invented by the Council fathers (with perhaps the sole exception of the prayer of the Mystery of Faith, which traditionalists scarcely have a problem with). There is nothing in the current Roman Rite which does not have venerable roots in the history in the Catholic Church, whether the use of the vernacular, the kiss of peace, the other three Eucharistic prayers, the audible participation of the whole congregation in certain prayers, the reception of Communion in the hand, or the reception of Communion from the cup.

Yet the charge of "archaism" also falls flat, as it was not "old age" but rather the faciliation of the worship of the Father that determined the Council fathers' choice of ancient elements to restore to the universal liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Those elements that are actually novel in concrete practice are abuses that have their origin in dissenting professors that have staffed universities and seminaries in the last forty years--but that's an old debate.

The word "Ordo" has also become distorted into something wholly other than its original meaning. It has taken on a metaphysical significance, when originally it was meant to refer merely to the external rubrics of the ritual. Every time the Rite of Pius V was revised prior to 1962 it was a "Novus Ordo Missae".

There are much more accurate and appropriate terms to refer to the standard rite of the Mass. I have already (intentionally) used several of them. They are:

• The Mass/Rite of Sacrosanctum Concilium
• The Mass/Rite of Paul VI
• The Mass/Rite of Vatican II (I would love to see the phrase "Vaticanine Mass" come into popular use)
• The Mass/Rite of 2002 or [year of last revision]
• The current/standard/official Mass/Rite (or Missa Normativa)

For similar reasons, "Traditional Latin Mass" is both misleading and counterproductive to the worthy Catholic effort to lobby for a more correct and worthy celebration of the current Mass. Importantly, "TLM" ought to be the name of the official rite, but at present such is impossible because the way the Mass is often celebrated makes it unworthy of the title. Magisterium-loyal Catholics in-the-know understand that the Mass really ought to be celebrated in Latin more often than in the vernacular; and that it ought to be absolutely traditional, with the itch for novelty completely expelled from parish celebrations.

Using "TLM" as the normative title of the Mass of 1962 has, IMO, the disastrous effect of putting in the minds of both conservative and liberal Catholics the false notion that the Mass of 1962 has an exclusive claim to the descriptors "traditional" or "Latin". Moreover, the word "traditional" can give the mistaken impression that the Mass of 1962 is normative for Catholics.

As stated before, the Mass of Pius V is not a separate rite (like the Byzantine rite) and, though it is noble, does not warrant the same degree of homage as does the Byzantine rite.

This is not because the Tridentine Mass is less beautiful than the Byzantine rite; but because where the Byzantine rite is autonomous from the Roman rite, the Tridentine Mass is not. What we call the Tridentine Mass are the supressed rubrics and calendar of the current Mass. They are not two different things; they are the same thing at two distinct times of the Church's history: its universal form of worship.

It is the fault of liberal corruptions that the current rite and the Tridentine Mass appear as different than they do. But this is an accident of history, not something proper to their natures. So far as externals go, the Tridentine Mass is closer to the "real thing" than the schlock most Catholics get in their parishes. But the current Mass as celebrated in places such as the Brompton Oratory in London is the real thing, and they surpass the Tridentine Mass by incorporating the noble goals as stated by Sacrosanctum Concilium while being a development in continuity, not break, from the past.

• The Mass of Trent/Tridentine Mass
• The Indult Mass (true, but perhaps needlessly insulting to those with an affection for it)
• The Mass of 1962
• The Mass of Pius V

[arieh0310]

Originally Posted by Godefridus

Both terms in the moniker "Novus Ordo" (as it is used now) are an insult that should not be accepted or perpetuated by Catholics. In the first place, there is nothing "novel" about the missal of Paul VI in the sense of having been invented by the Council fathers (with perhaps the sole exception of the prayer of the Mystery of Faith, which traditionalists scarcely have a problem with). There is nothing in the current Roman Rite which does not have venerable roots in the history in the Catholic Church, whether the use of the vernacular, the kiss of peace, the other three Eucharistic prayers, the audible participation of the whole congregation in certain prayers, the reception of Communion in the hand, or the reception of Communion from the cup.

What happened after the Council was something else entirely; in the place of liturgy as a fruit of development came a fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy.

This is just a portion of the glowingly positive preface by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber. This book is a blistering attack of the Novus Ordo and Pope Paul VI for promulgating it. He conclusively shows, through history, that the NO is a falsification of true liturgy and liturgical development.

I think we who oppose the NO as a fabrication are in good company.

[AJV]

Originally Posted by Godefridus

The Roman Rite or Latin Rite is one Church, and it has one liturgy, one ritual, and this is the liturgy promulgated in continuity with the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium.

If you would consider the Latin Rite as a whole, you might also wish to consider that even today there are religious orders and palces that use (reformed) liturgies that are not the Roman liturgy but still they are the Latin rite. I can see though your point, on having two Roman liturgies.

Both terms in the moniker "Novus Ordo" (as it is used now) are an insult that should not be accepted or perpetuated by Catholics. In the first place, there is nothing "novel" about the missal of Paul VI in the sense of having been invented by the Council fathers (with perhaps the sole exception of the prayer of the Mystery of Faith, which traditionalists scarcely have a problem with). There is nothing in the current Roman Rite which does not have venerable roots in the history in the Catholic Church, whether the use of the vernacular, the kiss of peace, the other three Eucharistic prayers, the audible participation of the whole congregation in certain prayers, the reception of Communion in the hand, or the reception of Communion from the cup.

Umm yes there is in a way.Vernacular, kiss of peace, audible participation, under both kinds, OK. 3 pentinetial rites? 4 Eucharistic Prayers [ignore those special ones for now]? Never heard of in the Roman Rite- which goes for variability on other thing like the prefaces. Moreover the Eucharistic Prayers are compositions. II is based on Hippolytus and IV has many features in common with the Coptic St. Basil (though it is not St. Basil) and III takes inspiration from the Mozarabic liturgy Post- sanctus and Post-pridie for some parts, but they are basically compositions.

Yet the charge of "archaism" also falls flat, as it was not "old age" but rather the faciliation of the worship of the Father that determined the Council fathers' choice of ancient elements to restore to the universal liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church.

One migh disagree that the NO is envisioned by SC. But anyway, it is not merely restorations, some of which are very welcome, but supressions. The reason given for supression for many of the prayers was that they were the accumulations of the centuries that needed to make way for a purer usuage. Items from them might be retained for "pastoral effectiveness" but otherwise no. The elements in themselves I feel are orthodox. But sometimes one can't help wondering whether they were needed. And even archeologically wise the thing fails because certain very ancient elements are once again removed. Sometimes one could see a benefit (new lectionary) but at other times it leave one scratching one's head (like the Libera Nos)

The word "Ordo" has also become distorted into something wholly other than its original meaning. It has taken on a metaphysical significance, when originally it was meant to refer merely to the external rubrics of the ritual. Every time the Rite of Pius V was revised prior to 1962 it was a "Novus Ordo Missae".

Except that it wasn't as drastic a change as the Missal of 1970.

It is the fault of liberal corruptions that the current rite and the Tridentine Mass appear as different than they do. But this is an accident of history, not something proper to their natures. So far as externals go, the Tridentine Mass is closer to the "real thing" than the schlock most Catholics get in their parishes. But the current Mass as celebrated in places such as the Brompton Oratory in London is the real thing, and they surpass the Tridentine Mass by incorporating the noble goals as stated by Sacrosanctum Concilium while being a development in continuity, not break, from the past.

I don't mean to be rude but you will be looking in vain if you're looking for continuity in the NO. It is a continuity in some ways but it is also a break in many. Some of the changes are good, but that can't be said of all.

[AlexV]

The Roman Rite hasn't had ONE liturgy for a LONG time.


Nor is unity among Christians/Catholics/Roman Riters determined by everyone doing exactly the same thing.


Even Pius V made room for quite a bit of variety. Paris was still publishing their own Missal in the 18th century, and Rome knew about it. No schisms, no outcry.


"Novus Ordo" is the term Rome used. Not me. They haven't used it for some time, admittedly, and yes, "Tridentine" is problematic (makes you think the Mass originated at Trent) and "Traditional" is problematic...for many reasons...but we need convenient lingo. Missal of 62, Missal of 02 might work...then again, who uses the Missal of 02? Certainly not most of the USA.

I will NOT accept Missa Normativa, because it has no existence in the Roman Rite EXCEPT as the title Bugnini appended to the 1967 demonstration of the Consilium's new liturgy to an invited audience in January over three days.

It is a loaded term that ends up deprecating those for whom the "norm" or "standard" is NOT the 2002 Missal...including, presently, most of America.

Nor is a Mass the preserve of the Pope. Calling any Mass after a Pope is quite unCatholic.

Nor is it the Mass of "Vatican II". Vatican II said nothing about 13 Canons (at last count) or the virtual extinction of Latin, let alone Chant.

[Andreas Hofer]

I have no desire to start a point for point conversation, but the main problem I see with your post is that our pope (and I think we would agree that those "loyal to the magisterium" are free to agree with him) believes the Pauline missal created a new rite - not a new missal, but a new rite. So the two actually are different rites within the Latin church, a church that has since time immemorial incorporated multiple rites into its liturgical life.

[devotus]

Originally Posted by Godefridus

The Roman Rite or Latin Rite is one Church, and it has one liturgy, one ritual, and this is the liturgy promulgated in continuity with the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium.

A very FALSE statement

Below are other Valid rites of the western church (along with the NO and TLM)



- Anglican Use - Since the 1980s the Holy See has granted some former Anglican and Episcopal clergy converting with their parishes the faculty of celebrating the sacramental rites according to Anglican forms, doctrinally corrected.

• Mozarabic - The Rite of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) known from at least the 6th century, but probably with roots to the original evangelization. Beginning in the 11th century it was generally replaced by the Roman Rite, although it has remained the Rite of the Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Toledo, Spain, and six parishes which sought permission to adhere to it. Its celebration today is generally semi-private.

• Ambrosian - The Rite of the Archdiocese of Milan, Italy, thought to be of early origin and probably consolidated, but not originated, by St. Ambrose. Pope Paul VI was from this Roman Rite. It continues to be celebrated in Milan, though not by all parishes.

• Bragan - Rite of the Archdiocese of Braga, the Primatial See of Portugal, it derives from the 12th century or earlier. It continues to be of occasional use.

• Dominican - Rite of the Order of Friars Preacher (OP), founded by St. Dominic in 1215.

• Carmelite - Rite of the Order of Carmel, whose modern foundation was by St. Berthold c.1154.

• Carthusian - Rite of the Carthusian Order founded by St.
Bruno in 1084.

[maurin]

Our God is Triune: unity in distinction, distinction in unity.

We distinguish the Father, from the Son, from the Holy Spirit without separating them.

just a thought.

[guanophore]

[quote=Godefridus;1923879]The Roman Rite or Latin Rite is one Church, and it has one liturgy, one ritual, and this is the liturgy promulgated in continuity with the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. Just as the Byzantine Church has the Byzantine or Greek Rite of the Mass, so the Roman Church has the Roman or Latin Rite of the Mass. The "Tridentine" missal is not a "Tridentine Rite" - there is no such thing, any more than there is a "Tridentine Church".

I appreciate this post. One of the main things that brought me here is a Sedavacantist telling me that I am a modernist (read = heretic) because I participate in the Novus Ordo, which is Luther's Mass. I had never heard of this before, and am still not sure what it means. She also told me that I should be subject to the Magesterium of the Church, after she told me that she does not recognize any popes or teachings since Vat. II. I am still confused about all this, but reading posts like yours is helping to make sense out of it.

[AJV]

Joysong,
The Dominican and Cermelite I'm don't think have been revised at all but given up in favour of the Roman liturgy with, of course, elements proper to the Order. The Carthusians have modified theirs, as have the Ambrosian and Mozarabic. The Carthusians have introduced the 4 new Eucharistic Prayers (with their unique gestures like arms in the form of a cross after the Consecration).
A short summary of the changes to their Ordinary (hope I've got it all)

-The "I confess "has been reduced to one saying only but the wording has been retained "superbiam, cogitatione, locutione, opere et omissione". They did not have to alter it much because they only invoke the BVM like the one in the Missal of 1970. An invocation has been added to the latter part asking for the intercession of the BVM and all the saints. They have however retained their own version of the "May Almighty God have mercy" which again speaks of the intercession. They do not have alternativre pentiential rites.
The Kyie is nine fold still.

The Offertory is again completely retained. They have their own prayer at the mixing of the chalice. Otherwise it is (like it has always been) very similar to the way it occurs in the 1970 missal except that the prayer "Blessed are you..." is replaced by "In the name of the Father....." said later.
For more solemn Masses they have also kept their ceremonies: the incensing of the chalice and the host in the form of a cross then circles, and the saying of the verse form psalm 140 (may have mixed up the psalm reference, it's the one that goes "Let my prayer arise before you as incense)
followed by the Carthusian version of Orate Fratres.

After the Eucharistic Prayer: the Our Father is communcally recited with Amen. The embolism following the Our Father has been altered to the wording of the Missal of 1970, but there is no doxology ("For the kingdom...)

The Peace follows with a different prayer, and then the Agnus Dei. Also was like that in the Traditional Carhtusian liturgy (with a simpler Pax Domini)

Then the priest can say a private communion prayer. The Carthusians have retained their slightly different version of the prayer Domine Iesu Christe Fili Dei Vivi speaking of past, present and future evil, and addressing Christ as the Saviour of the world. The other prayer has been introduced form the Roman Missal Perceptio Corporis Tui.

The Carthusians never had any communion prayers other than this and still don't.

The Postcommunion rites follow as normal and are practically the same as in the Traditional Carthusian missal. The priest says "Let us bless the Lord", Carthusian version of Placeat tibi and then kisses the altar and makes the sign of the cross.

[Image of God]

I agree with OP so fervently. I believe that the TLM and the NO are two manifestations of ONE Latin Mass. The Latin Church is not divided. Even those who use the Anglican Church are part of the Latin Church and this is another manifestation of one Mass. I believe that all are one Mass, since all are Latin.

[hasikelee]

When I use the terms NO and TLM, I have in mind the description of two different forms of representations of one, Latin rite, not rites in themselves.

Now I wonder if this breeds confusion? What other terms could be used? A High Mass at the Cathedral is very different from an ordinary Sunday Mass at most parishes, for example. There must be some way to be specific.

This sounds like the way people get all antsy over using terms to describe different races. Yes, we are all human. But I am not white. Respect should be a given, but you have to describe things for the sake of clarity in conversation.

[Wendy-Kay]

Originally Posted by hasikelee

When I use the terms NO and TLM, I have in mind the description of two different forms of representations of one, Latin rite, not rites in themselves.

Now I wonder if this breeds confusion? What other terms could be used? A High Mass at the Cathedral is very different from an ordinary Sunday Mass at most parishes, for example. There must be some way to be specific.

This sounds like the way people get all antsy over using terms to describe different races. Yes, we are all human. But I am not white. Respect should be a given, but you have to describe things for the sake of clarity in conversation.

Everyone I know feels the same way as this. I go to both. When I use the terms NO and TLM, I am just referring to one or the other without any prejudice. It is simple to use "N.O" and "T.L.M" without going too in depth in simple conversation with someone. It is all intent.
EX; "Are you going to the TLM at St. John's this week?" as opposed to, "Are you going to Mass in the Rite of St Pius V to be celebrated at Saint John Neumann's this week?" I mean, one can scoff and thus make anything sound bad. I know that technically TLM isn't the correct term, but I also use words in my dialect that people have a general understanding of that denotes a friendly familiarity such as, "How's you'uns? Mighty fine!" Not proper, but it is an exchange of communication.
In charity, we are to assume that in these forums or in writing, the one writing means well. When people use the terms TLM and NO, I know by context what they mean.

[devotus]

Originally Posted by Wendy-Kay

Everyone I know feels the same way as this. I go to both. When I use the terms NO and TLM, I am just referring to one or the other without any prejudice. It is simple to use "N.O" and "T.L.M" without going too in depth in simple conversation with someone. It is all intent.
EX; "Are you going to the TLM at St. John's this week?" as opposed to, "Are you going to Mass in the Rite of St Pius V to be celebrated at Saint John Neumann's this week?" I mean, one can scoff and thus make anything sound bad. I know that technically TLM isn't the correct term, but I also use words in my dialect that people have a general understanding of that denotes a friendly familiarity such as, "How's you'uns? Mighty fine!" Not proper, but it is an exchange of communication.
In charity, we are to assume that in these forums or in writing, the one writing means well. When people use the terms TLM and NO, I know by context what they mean.

Yep.. Agree 99%

( I think TLM is just fine as TLM) but we get too hung up on terms vs communicating

[Windmill]

What about:

NO (Normative Order)

TLM (Tridentine Latin Mass)

[RobedWithLight]

I don't believe there is anything wrong in using the terms "Novus Ordo" and "Tridentine Mass" to refer to the two equally valid liturgies within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. We use such terms out of convenience, that is all. However, given the aversion of some individuals towards naming a mass after an individual, such as "Pauline Mass" for the NO, I do believe that Missa Normativa would be a good substitute for "Novus Ordo".