Early Mass compared to Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses

Hey guys,

So recently, my priest (a liberal Novus Ordo priest) said that the Novus Ordo is closer to the Mass of the Early Church compared to the Tridentine Mass. He also said that the Tridentine Mass had no epiclesis, and I’m working on a little essay refuting that, but what do you all think of the former issue?

I think he’s fairly close to being right.
They stood, they received in the hand, the Holy didn’t even come until centuries later, there’s lots to study about.


I suppose it all depends on where in the Early Church the priest is referring to. At at what time period. Different ways of worshiping sprang up at different times and at different places. Some pretty early too (ie. the Thomas Christians).

1 Like

There is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo priest”.


He’d be right. The OF mass was specifically designed to conform more with the earliest forms of the liturgy. The major differences between the OF and the earliest liturgies we know enough about are that the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are celebrated one right after the other with catechumens permitted to stay for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and some things that have been added over the ages, such as the Gloria. But then, that’s the same for the EF as well.


I believe that the ancient Roman Rite did have an epiclesis that gradually got dropped… though some may dispute that.


ten characters

And this

ten characters

Since I have my semantic hat (nee biretta on :grinning:) at the moment, noting that you self-identify as a “Traditional Latin-Rite Catholic” I would venture a guess that most everyone here including myself is a “traditional Catholic” as is your priest although we may be of different rites.

Darn that auto correct!!:crazy_face:

Oops, I didn’t catch that. That could start a whole new discussion on valid matter for the Eucharist :joy:

You’ve triggered everyone by calling the priest a “Novus Ordo priest.” Don’t let it bother you though.

1 Like

They didn’t receive communion on the bare and as a lot of people like to nowadays. They put a cloth over thee hands and then brought their heads down to it to consume it. They would never dare touch the Eucharist with their bare hands.


They definitely held the host where bread was used. The breaking of the bread was usually done in a member’s house. After consecration during Communion it was passed from one person to another by hands.

Later when bishop of Rome was established, the bishop would break a portion of the bread, packed it with clothes and send to nearby priests/followers on nearby towns by horseback - thus Communion. It was the same bread.

I was not there of course, so this is entirely based on hearsay and tradition.

But receiving on the tongue was definitely not the original method.

God bless.


The Novus Ordo isn’t as much like the early church mass as one might think.

First off, EVERYBODY faced east, including the priests. There was no versus populum mass.

Second, some of the Deacons guarded the doors to watch who entered. They only let baptized people in the room. Anyone else was left out.

Speaking of room, it was not just “around the dining room table” as some might say. Houses back then were rather sizeable and included courtyards as well an assembly room. They would have the liturgy in this assembly room, and they would “convene themselves modestly in the places of brethren” and “in a manner pleasing and ordered with care.” Harley what I would call informal.

The men and women also were separated from each other, and if one was found not sitting in his proper place, the Deacon would “rebuke him, and make him rise and sit in his fitting place.”

“Likewise, the Deacon ought to see that there are none who whisper or sleep or laugh or nod off.” There’s a lot of that going on in Novus Ordo Churches today!

All these quotes (one of them is modified to make grammatical sense) are taken from Didiscslia, a document written around 250 AD.


No one is triggered.

Don’t you think if this youngster is writing essays etc, he requires fact, not fiction.

A Priest is a Priest.

End of story


They grabbed bread, ripped right off a loaf or a flat bread at the Last Supper.

1 Like

Difference is, they were bishops, not laymen. They were set aside to consecrate and to touch the Eucharist.


It’s sort of like calling a priest of the Eastern Rite an “eastern priest.”

1 Like

Correct. It was the Passover meal. There is nothing in Jewish/Hebrew culture that indicates that the father of the family puts food in other people’s mouths.
The Apostles were laymen.
Everyone touched the Eucharist.
People made the bread in homes and used it. It was not until CENTURIES later that the notion that people were unworthy to tough it came about, and thus, the innovation of hard, (some would say sterile) hosts for fear of crumbs.

This poster knows this, but refuses to believe it.
I’m out.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.