Novus Ordo

I’ve heard that the New Order of the Mass was designed to imitate the liturgy used by the ancient Church and bring the Mass closer to what it was like in those days is this true?

The II Vatican Council saw particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy for the following reasons:

[list]
*]to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful
*]to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ
*]to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.
[/list]

the idea that to return to ancient liturgical practices as somehow ideal was denounced by Pius XII.

  1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof.

[quote]

  1. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world
    [/quote]

it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See

it is pretty clear that the post vatican II liturgy has mostly been one of discontinuity and not reform.

As was noted, the primary goal of the reform of the Liturgy was to encourage more active participation on the part of the laity. There were aspects of the ancient liturgies that were put into the Mass of Paul VI such as the offertory procession, the general intercessions, and standing for communion. While it is certainly true that Pius XII did condemn antiquinarianism, he did not condemn the selective restoration of ancient practices provided they served some real purpose and were not simply put there because they were old.

Deacon Ed

First, it was good to see that the constitution decree on the Sacred liturgy was quoted by Oat Soda. I think not enough study of this document has been done by those who have criticized the Novus Ordo itself as opposed to criticising the abuses of the Novus Ordo.

However, I think we should also consider the fact that this is a Constitution Decree of the Church. As a Catholic we are called to believe that this decree is binding for all and is the fruit of the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium of the Church, that is the teaching Authority of the Pope and bishops in communion with the Pope.

The Novus Ordo is the choosen norm of the Liturgy of the Church rooted in this document of the Church Council known as Vatican II. I have read time and time again how Pope Paul VI lamented the Novus Ordo, yet the fact remains no Pope has decreed a doing away with this liturgical celebration and I have heard or read at any time Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI speaking out or writing anything that said the theology upon which the constitution on the Scared Liturgy and thus the Novus Ordo was wrong.

If this is the case don’t we as Roman Catholics have a moral obligation to accept the Novus Ordo as the normative liturgical celebration of the Eucharist? Also, as Roman Catholics, do we not have the moral obligation to accepted Authoirty of the Local Ordinary’s decision to allow or deny the indult of allowing the celebration of the TLM? After all, isn’t it the local bishop’s responsibility and authority to impliment the Univeral Church’s directives for proper celebration of the Liturgy?

We may see a new English Translation of the Roman Missal next year I found this on Wikipedia under Novous Ordo:

Preparing a better English translation

On 28 March 2001, the Holy See issued the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam “on the use of vernacular languages in the publication of the books of the Roman liturgy”. This included the requirement that, in translations of the liturgical texts (the originals of which are always in Latin), “the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.” The following year, the third typical edition in Latin of the revised Roman Missal was released, an edition announced in 2000. (The “typical edition” of a liturgical text is that to which editions by other publishers must conform.)

These two texts made clear the need for a new official English translation of the Roman Missal, particularly because the previous one was at some points an adaptation rather than strictly a translation. An example is the rendering of “Et cum spiritu tuo” as “And also with you.” A revised translation may therefore make more evident to English speakers that the Second Vatican Council revision of the Ordinary of the Mass left most of the text unchanged.

The body responsible for producing English translations of liturgical texts of the Roman rite is the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL). It promptly began work on a completely new translation of the Roman Missal, intending it not to be a rushed job. On 2 February 2004, ICEL Chairman Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, England issued a first draft of the Ordo Missae part of the Missal; a definitive version of the Missal is expected to become available no earlier than 2007.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo#Preparing_a_better_English_translation

We have to remember that when we think of Vatican II we have to keep in our minds two terms:

  1. resourcemont (french)
  2. renovatione (italian)

In a read of SC you will see that the Council Fathers felt that the patristic forms that are intrinsic to the liturgy had over time been lost through the years of the liturgy taking on the garp of the time. Thus, in a sense each age added a veil of itself to the liturgy and in some instances this veil covered some essential partistic forms that the Council Fathers felt were necessary in our modern time. Hence, resourcemont was needed in the liturgy. This is not to be confused with antiquarianism as stated in another post but a clearing away of some dust to let the partistic forms shine forth. Unfortunatelly in praxis renovatione was applied in large numbers and the novilty that comes with renovation caused some problems with the practical application of the liturgy which is just recently begining to be fixed. So, while the liturgy was not “designed” to imitate the liturgies of the early Church it was theoretically an attempt to let the patristic forms of the liturgy shin forth once again so that the Sacra Doctrina can be more fully experienced by the faithful.

Sometimes we get so caught up in the particulars of the liturgical frorm of Vatican II we forget to recall the guiding principles for these changes. This why, in my not so humble opinion, I beleive all of us should read and study every so often the Vat II document Gadium et Spes.

A guiding principle of Vat II was the principle of “Sacramentality”. As I understand this principle it means that God is presently and active through out human history and is present and active here and now. But God, who is pure spirit, uses physical things to make His presence known.

This is why the primary Sacrament is Christ Jesus - God Incarnate. But the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, Christ is present in and through the Church. Therefore, the very nature of the Church must and does reflect the Incarnational Principle. Through the Sacraments especially the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ’s presence, God’s Loving activity is made tangible for all.

If you recall what was the goal of Vat.II it was not so much to reform the Church as it was to make the Church’s mission, to make God’s presence and the Paschal Myster clearer and more accessible and tangible to this modern world while being in this modern world.

The Liturgy itself then has the primary role of making Christ
present here and now. First through the mystery of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Second, through the proclamation of God’s revelation through the Scriptures. And third, in and through the community of the Baptized gathered together and made holy by by the holy Spirit through our sharing in Christ’s Priesthood and in Christ Jesus’ worship of the Father.

I am very sure most of use find it easy to accept the first two means in which Christ becomes present to the World. However, and I think this was a guiding influence for liturgical refore, sometimes we don’t fully appreciate the reality of Christ presence in and through the gathering of the faithful in Liturgical Worship.
The community of believers gather in worship is not only a sign of Christ presence but is a cause of Christ being made present. And the liturgical reforms which resulted in the Novus Ordo were made inorder to symbolize this reality with the growing understanding that the reality of Christ’s presence in and through us cannot be limited to the particular time and space of a particular Mass.

In the classical sense of the study of the sacraments, the action (the community gathered together as a unified body, not only symbolizes the reality present (Christ’s Real Presence) but creates this reality as well. And this was and remains the guiging principle for the Liturgical reforms - to make the sign of this reality better understood in the modern world and each of our role in making Christ’s presence and tangible reality.

[quote=starrs0]I’ve heard that the New Order of the Mass was designed to imitate the liturgy used by the ancient Church and bring the Mass closer to what it was like in those days is this true?
[/quote]

There are several theories as to why the Novus Ordo Mass was designed the way it was. One is that it would more closely resemble the Mass of the Primitive Church, apparently held by some to be an ideal time in Church history :confused: There is some evidence, various letters and early church documents that suport this theory in part… Whether or not it is valid who really knows?

Another theory is that the Liturgists at Vatican II, under the influence of the heretical mason Alfredo Bugnini, designed a Mass that was totally illicit, un Catholic in form and substance and in fact masonic in character. The apparent aim of this was to make the entire sacrifice of the Mass useless and invalid. I suppose the eventuial aim of this was to destroy the church itself. As to the validity of this argument I think the facts speak for themselves. :rotfl:

Another theory is that the six protestant observers/advisors at Vatican II, joined forces with dissidents within the church to create a Mass that was not threatening to protestants. Whether or not that one is true is open to debate. One of the big issues at Vatican II was ecumenism, and the Mass always was and still is hated and reviled by most mainstream protestant groups. Changing it’s character would certainly be a bow in the direction of ecumenical discussion and religious re-unification. In honesty, the Novus Ordo Mass does resemble in many aspects a Lutheran Service.

My own personal opinion is that in the headlong rush to modernism of the mid sixties, when everything new was good and everything old was bad, cartain factions within the Chucrh saw an opportunity to change something that they did not particularly like and took advantage of the opportunities for experimentation allowed and encouraged at the time.

Remember that the Novus Ordo Mass did not immediately spring forth fully grown from Vatican II. Between 1965 and 1970, the Mass was celebrated essentially the same as it was prior to Vatican II, with a few changes, use of the vernacular, and the Priest facing the people at SOME POINTS in the Mass for example. One of the most often stated goals about the Mass at that time was that it should be responsive to the peoples needs and spiritual desires, and that rigidity in form should be avoided to allow for more freedom of expression and interpretation by various groups. This would apparently make the Mass a more pleasant and relevant worship experience for all concerned.

It is good to remember that the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Mass are NOT the only rites practiced or allowed by the Catholic Church. If I am not mistaken there are around twenty or so that are fully valid, licit and available for all Catholics to attend and receive communion at. As Latin Rite Catholics, many of us often forget that fact. :slight_smile:

One of the big issues at Vatican II was ecumenism, and the Mass always was and still is hated and reviled by most mainstream protestant groups. Changing it’s character would certainly be a bow in the direction of ecumenical discussion and religious re-unification. In honesty, the Novus Ordo Mass does resemble in many aspects a Lutheran Service.

i have some really good quotes (the rhine flows into the tiber) from various fathers during VII that would support this theory. the novus ordo mass was supposed to be more appealing to protestants. i think Paul VI really wanted to heal the divisions from the reformation and the new mass was supposed to help.

this to me is the best way to understand the normative mass. now i would seperate somewhat the normative mass vs. the goals of the liturgical movement and the VII document sacrosactum concilium. i don’t think they are completely harmonious. i will try and post them tommorrow.

The Liturgy itself then has the primary role of making Christ
present here and now.

again, this is certainly function of the liturgy, but why not quote from sacrosanctum concilium itself. this is just your interpretation.

  1. For the liturgy, “through which the work of our redemption is accomplished,” (1) most of all in the divine sacrifice of the eucharist, is the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.

or from the catechism:

1068 It is this mystery of Christ that the Church proclaims and celebrates in her liturgy so that the faithful may live from it and bear witness to it in the world:

For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that** “the work of our redemption is accomplished,”** and it is through the liturgy especially that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.4

so in the liturgy the church confesses God’s good plan for all creation above all in the paschal mystery in which Christ accomplished the work of our salvation.

so it is a celebration of the christian mystery. that is the purpose and not to appease a vengeful god.

[quote=oat soda]again, this is certainly function of the liturgy, but why not quote from sacrosanctum concilium itself. this is just your interpretation. or from the catechism: so in the liturgy the church confesses God’s good plan for all creation above all in the paschal mystery in which Christ accomplished the work of our salvation.

so it is a celebration of the christian mystery. that is the purpose and not to appease a vengeful god.
[/quote]

There’s a good little acronym to remember what the Mass is offered for-- PART: Petition, Adoration, Reparation, and Thanksgiving :thumbsup:

oat soda, thankyou for your suggestion that I should use quotes from the documents I am interpreting. Actually, I consciencously try to say away from doing that for several reasons. When I post a reply I like to sit down and let my thoughts flow (as evidence by my poor grammer and spelling). I do this with the certitude that if what I am writting is incorrect, I will be corrected by a criticism that is permeated with revelant quotes from various sources. However, if no criticsm is launch my way, then I have a pretty god idea that what I wrote has met with over all agreement and I have a reasonable grasp of the Church’s teaching on the particular subject matter.

Also, I hope to spur others to read the document from the Church and I found by speaking without the quotes does accomplish this to a limited degree. Also, if I am total convinced of my position, then I will begin to give the necessary quote from the revelant sources.

[quote=starrs0]I’ve heard that the New Order of the Mass was designed to imitate the liturgy used by the ancient Church and bring the Mass closer to what it was like in those days is this true?
[/quote]

As far as I know, there isn’t much record of what the liturgy of the early church was like, other then that they had one.

[quote=starrs0]I’ve heard that the New Order of the Mass was designed to imitate the liturgy used by the ancient Church and bring the Mass closer to what it was like in those days is this true?
[/quote]


No, this is an urban myth.

i have some really good quotes (the rhine flows into the tiber) from various fathers during VII that would support this theory. the novus ordo mass was supposed to be more appealing to protestants. i think Paul VI really wanted to heal the divisions from the reformation and the new mass was supposed to help.

this to me is the best way to understand the normative mass. now i would seperate somewhat the normative mass vs. the goals of the liturgical movement and the VII document sacrosactum concilium. i don’t think they are completely harmonious. i will try and post them tommorrow.

cough

That is absolutely crazy! Martin Luther was the heretic, and was wrong! We should not forsake any Catholicism for their sake, as it is not our fault they are out of the Church, nor is it our duty to make the Church more accessible. No, I would rather have no reconversion and true Catholicism than a full reconversion to a watered-down, Protestant-friendly Catholicism.

People died for the faith. I don’t want to forsake it so readily for the good of Protestant heretics. After all, the Mass is the source and summit of the Faith, is it not?

Ecumenicalism is not supposed to be done on OUR side…we are the ones who are right!

[sings “Blessed Feasts of Blessed Martyrs”]

That is absolutely crazy! Martin Luther was the heretic, and was wrong! We should not forsake any Catholicism for their sake, as it is not our fault they are out of the Church, nor is it our duty to make the Church more accessible. No, I would rather have no reconversion and true Catholicism than a full reconversion to a watered-down, Protestant-friendly Catholicism.

Where exactly has the Church watered down the Faith.

Ecumenicalism is not supposed to be done on OUR side…we are the ones who are right!

Please cite the Church teachings on this. I’m assuming you mean ecumenism and not ecumenicalism. If I’m wrong, what is you definition of the latter. I believe that you don’t know what ecumenism is and that you are basing your beliefs on a false definition. Our Church has always taught that ecumenism is a good thing. It’s false ecumenism that is wrong.

That is absolutely crazy! Martin Luther was the heretic, and was wrong! We should not forsake any Catholicism for their sake, as it is not our fault they are out of the Church

he wasn’t totally wrong, he did have some valid points but took them too far, as do most heresies.

i think there is good evidence that the normative mass was designed to be ecumenical. it was one of the goals of VII -to bring all christians together. i will try and post those quotes sometime next week.

now i think the total abandoment of latin and the priest facing the people are problematic and not called for in the documents of VII but clearly are part of the new mass.

[quote=oat soda]he wasn’t totally wrong, he did have some valid points but took them too far, as do most heresies.

i think there is good evidence that the normative mass was designed to be ecumenical. it was one of the goals of VII -to bring all christians together. i will try and post those quotes sometime next week.

now i think the total abandoment of latin and the priest facing the people are problematic and not called for in the documents of VII but clearly are part of the new mass.
[/quote]

Be careful what you mean by “bring all christian together.” The catholic position is that all need to come home to Rome in the end. Also, the use of vernacular and the mass celebrated versus populum are not normative even thought that is what is normally done. The documents concerning the liturgy actualy assume latin and imply the priest ad orientem. Both of the cited “clear parts” of the liturgy are under much debate right now in the heirarchy.

Be careful what you mean by “bring all christian together.” The catholic position is that all need to come home to Rome in the end.

i could just as well say “be careful what you mean by come home to rome in the end”. i think that as we can’t accept a union with the orthodox based on thier current practice of cogeliality, we also can’t expect the converse to be true- to demand orthodox catholic union only under the current exercise of papal prmacy.

union can only come with a more precise understanding of the pope’s role as the seat of unity. no doctrines can change, but we must be open to changes at the pratical level as much of this falls outside the realm of the sacred deposit of faith.

in much the same way, i think the current mass must evolve into a form more harmonious with the liturgy of the ages -the tridentine mass.

Where exactly has the Church watered down the Faith.

My point is that if the Mass were changed to make it Protestant-friendly it was a mistake.  This point is, of course, up for debate.  I don't think it was, but if it was that is my view.

Please cite the Church teachings on this. I’m assuming you mean ecumenism and not ecumenicalism. If I’m wrong, what is you definition of the latter. I believe that you don’t know what ecumenism is and that you are basing your beliefs on a false definition. Our Church has always taught that ecumenism is a good thing. It’s false ecumenism that is wrong.

Sorry, 'tis ecumenism. Sort of like the “i” making all the difference in “same substance” and “like substance”.

Ecumenism is to bring all Christians together, is it not? If so, we should not have to give up anything to do so…we have the true beliefs, and do not concede at all to heresy.

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.