I recently saw a poster in our university chapel advertising the Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin. From what I’ve heard it is usually celebrated ad orientem. Isn’t that virtually the same then as mass in the extrodinary form? except of course that the Novus Ordo in Latin will consist of dialouge between the priest and the congregation and will omit some of the prayers of the EF. Any clarification on the essential differences between Novus Ordo in Latin and the Extrodinary Form would be most appreciated.
Not at all. There are substantial differences in the prayers for starters.
The WORDS of the NO in Latin are essentially the same give or take some fairly loose translation) as the English NO. The English is meant to be a translation of the Latin.
If you compare that with an English translation of the prayers of the EF/TLM (and you can easily do a google search to find such a translation), you’ll see a big difference.
Also, Ad Orientem is completely seperate from using latin/english. Granted, most people who want the NO in Latin (and some who don’t) want ad orientem, but they are simply more options.
Besides the translation itself there are many rubrics changes, such as standing for communion under both kinds. Also a second altar in the middle of the sanctuary is needed, reading of Scripture and the distribution of Communion no longer reserved to the priest, female altar servers, the congregation makes the deacon or altar boy responses, new musical styles (instead of Gregorian Chant), elimination of altar rails.
Pope St. Pius V, Tridentine 1570. *
Pope Clement VIII in 1604. *
Pope Urban VIII in 1634. *
Pope Leo XIII, 1884 Missal (minor)
Pope Pius X in 1911. (rubrics)
Pope Benedict XV in 1920.
Pope Pius XII in 1955. (includes revised Holy Week and calendar changes)
Pope John XXIII in 1962. (Extrordinary Form)
(Vatican II 1962-1965)
Orders for Missal changes March 1965 (vernacular, option to face congregation). *
Second instruction 1967 (vernacular canon, simpler rubrics)
Additional anaphora 1968.
Pope Paul VI Novus Ordo Missae on March 22, 1970. *
- Second revision 1975 (currently in use)
- Third revision 2002, approved USA Missal changes beginning Nov. 2011
Most would probably not know the difference between the Latin OF and the EF. To them a Latin Mass is a Latin Mass. Many who are familiar with the Latin OF will easily recognize the prayers of the EF and vice versa, especially if EP 1 is used. (Can’t really compare the English versions as there is no official translation of the EF.)
Lately, they’ve been showing the Holy Father praying the Mass in Latin, and he’s saying it facing the cameras. But he could say it ad orientem as well.
Just to avoid confusion, Gregorian chant can still be used in the OF, taken from the current Graduale Romanum or Graduale Simplex.
Moreover non-Gregorian chant was common in the EF in the pre-Vatican II era: sacred polyphony, Ambrosian chant (still used in the Ambrosian rite), Mozarabic chant in the Mozarabic rite (in the area around Toledo, Spain), Beneventan chant, etc.
It can be ad orientem, so can be any vernacular OF Mass. Its exactly like any OF Mass but in Latin.
Neither were altar rails eliminated. :rolleyes:
Why would anyone call the Mass of Pope Paul VI AKA the Ordinary Form of the Mass the “novus ordo?”
I realize that saying “the Mass of Pope Paul VI” is cumbersome, even “the Pauline Mass” or “the Ordinary Form of the Mass” but that’s what the Pope calls it. Even “OF Mass” would be just fine. You correctly use EF and Extrodinary Form yet you resort to “novus ordo.” That’s unfortunate.
When I hear “novus ordo Mass” or “n.o. Mass” I hear implicit negativity directed towards the OF Mass.
new musical styles (instead of Gregorian Chant)
Gregorian Chant was not eliminated.
"In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).
Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:
“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).
Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.
An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.
Certainly, there are considerable textual differences between the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by Paul VI and the traditional or old Roman Rite. Strictly speaking the Novus Ordo refers to the ordinary of the mass of 1969, The sacramentary which contains orations and the lectionary which contains the readings followed subsequently.
The traditional Roman rite now called officially the Extraordinary form, and sometimes erroneously ‘tridentine’ from the fact that it was codified by Pius V after Trent, is that form of mass which evolved in Rome from the days of the early Christians. It has it’s own cycle of readings and psalmody linked to the feasts of the Roman chuches as well as one eucharistic prayer, the so-called Roman Canon which is itself a mixture of very early Christian elements such as the references to Abraham and the Angel which is probably a title for Christ and pre nicene, as well as later elements added during the 4th-5th centuries.
The NOM of 1969 is the product of a committee of liturgists who wished to create a New Roman rite. It maintains the structure of the traditional rite but strips away the mediaeval elements such as the preparatory and offertory prayers. Three new eucharistic prayers were written as well, based upon the so-called canon of Hippolytus, which is still controversial, the Mozarabic and Alexandrian rites and the Antichene rite.
The ceremonial of the NOM is greatly simplified, but remaons flexible enough for a celebration which can resemble the traditional rite. At the moment the Holy Father has begun a real revival of the older tradition in Rome and we see this in the Papal masses which are being restored to a much more solemn and reverent form. It sounds like the university mass mentioned above is another step in the very hopeful direction.
The only essential difference is the prayers for offertory, but those are said by the priest in inaudible voice so not apparent. Also the scriptural readings were significantly extended in 1970, and the prayers of the faithful were extended from a simple Oremus to real petitions.
Psalm 42 was omitted in 1967, also in that year the communion and concluding prayers were significantly simplified. In 1970 the Confiteor was reduced to one reciting (related to the sin the priest is one of us)
The laud responses of the faithful were allowed in the 1920’s first, that is not new.
Regardless of the language the 1970 mass can be said on that way, that it is hard to say the difference from he previous mass. The new rites allows more variations, but those are options.
I lived through it. Altar rails were eliminated at some churches. New musical forms were introduced: I played guitar at the Folk Mass. This is what I mean.
Yes, this is what I mean: Some individual buildings may have eliminated altar rails, but it was nothing intrinsic to the revision of the Mass. I lived through it too.
Who will shortly be assisting at Mass at his parish, altar rails and all.
Actually, he is saying it ad orientem. Since St. Peter’s is geographically/topographically occidented ad orientem is at the same time* versus populum*.
I stand corrected. However, many interpret the “ad orientem” position as “having the priest with his back to the people/cameras.” This is in error, of course, but some translations are just too ingrained in the modern language(s) to change.
I understand, removal of altar rails was not essential but incidental.
Yes, I know what you mean. I still use the term in that sense, though perhaps ad apsidem is more correct. Old habits…
Personally I much prefer ad orientem, always keeping in mind the concept of “liturgical east” and what it entails. The expression ad apsidem sounds far too architectural for me.
I prefer ad orientem too. I just remember reading a response from the CDWDS where they uses the term ad apsidem (I suppose because it’s less literal about the east). Still, in light of tradition and theology, I completely agree with you and use ad orientem as well.
No matter what it’s called, though, I wish the posture was assumed more often by Roman Rite priests.