Question about Novus Ordo Mass

I have learned that in the traditional Latin mass the laity often do not sing.

I have never been to the Latin Mass. There is only the Novus Ordo here. I noticed that many laity attending Novus Ordo don’t sing the hymns. Are laity required to sing the hymns at the Novus Ordo?

There is no such thing as a ‘Novus Ordo’ Mass, there is the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Yes the laity are meant to sing the hymns, but if an individual doesn’t wish to join in with the hymns, then that really isn’t a big issue. If you mean by the laity being required to sing the hymns that there is an obligation for individuals to sing the hymns then you are incorrect. We are meant to sing them, but we’re under no personal obligation to do so.

However we did once have a parish priest who would stop the hymn and give the congregation a good telling off for not singing, and then start the hymn again. It was generally a lot louder the second time. He was great. Then we had another priest (also great in his own way) who valued silence and contemplation, there were no hymns when he said Mass.

I wish there was a “like button” as there is on Facebook.

As for now: LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Why do people say “traditional Latin mass” but not “Novus Ordo Mass?” I have learned a lot about the Catholic faith but keep in mind that I am still new to its culture. :cool:

But that’s not actually true. “Ordinary form” is a descriptive or adjectival phrase found in Summorum Pontificum, as is “extraordinary form.” They are not capitalized and there is no indication in the document that the Pope wished to establish these as proper names or titles for the forms of the Roman Rite. These are descriptors, not titles. “Novus Ordo” is also a descriptor. Both the “Form” names and “Novus Ordo” come from Papal documents and are all descriptive in nature, so I don’t see why “Novus Ordo” is in any way technically different from saying “Ordinary form.”

I think using the terms OF and EF is fine, and I do it, but not if it means some sort of privileged status against the term Novus Ordo.

You said that very well and very charitably. :slight_smile: Thanks. :wink: :slight_smile:

Amazing how Novus Ordo supposedly doesn’t exist now. Like it was just a term made up last week.

For the record, hymns weren’t really part of the liturgy until about 1964, where they apparently replaced the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel. This was well before the Novus Ordo was introduced. The traditional Latin Mass that was approved for continued use is the Missal of 1962. Hymns are optional.

Fair points. However, as you will know in the document in which it appears it was referred to as ‘novus Ordo Missae’ . Novus is not part of the title, but simply an adjective which, in that sentence (hence starting with a lower case letter) referred to the Ordo Missae as being new (which it was then). The term ‘Ordo Missae’ was the descriptor, ‘novus’ was an adjective to place the descriptor within a timeframe relevant to when the sentence was written. It would be a bit like saying " we have a new pope" and referring to Pope Francis under the title of ‘New Pope’ throughout his entire papacy. As you will know, the term ‘Novus Ordo’ is frequently used in a pejorative manner from certain quarters and is more often used by those who choose not to attend the Pauline Mass, than by those that do.

Yes…if they value the Church’s guidance and Saint Paul’s exhortation/admonition…IMHO.
Pax Christi

**General Instruction of the Roman Missal
Chapter II: The Structure Of The Mass, Its Elements, And Its Parts
The Importance of Singing

  1. The Christian faithful who** come together as one** in expectation of the Lord’s coming are** instructed by the Apostle Paul to sing together Psalms, hymns, and spiritual canticles (cf. Col 3:16).** Singing is the sign of the heart’s joy (cf. Acts 2:46). Thus St. Augustine says rightly, “Singing is for one who loves,”[48] and there is also an ancient proverb: “Whoever sings well prays twice over.”

40.** Great importance should therefore be attached to the use of singing in the celebration of the Mass**, with due consideration for the culture of peoples and abilities of each liturgical assembly. Although it is not always necessary (e.g., in weekday Masses) to sing all the texts that are in principle meant to be sung, every care should be taken that singing by the ministers and the people not be absent in celebrations that occur on Sundays and on Holydays of Obligation.

However, in the choosing of the parts actually to be sung, preference is to be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those which are to be sung by the Priest or the Deacon or a reader, with the people replying, or by the Priest and people together.[49]

  1. The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.[50]

Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings.[51]

The Divine Command to sing is well-established in Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition of the Church. Sometimes it is a fact that the whole assembly is not meant to sing. This may be because it is a technically advanced piece or that the notation and words are not available in advance to be distributed to all the people. Sometimes the song is proper to the priest only or the cantor or choir. In these cases, we do not sing. There is a high incidence of this in the Extraordinary form. However, in the OF and other liturgies such as the Byzantine Divine Liturgies, verbal participation by the assembly is rigorously encouraged and required. While the first and foremost mode of full, conscious and active participation is interior prayer and joining oneself the the liturgical action, full participation is further realized when the assembly takes part in the singing as prescribed by the Church. This is a time-honored tradition in the liturgical life of the Church.

The Psalms are primeval examples of liturgical corporate song. They were indisputably set to music and used as the hymnal of the Jewish Temple in antiquity. Their very words exhort all the people to sing praises to the LORD. The Psalms are the highest form of prayer ever known to mankind. They figure prominently in all liturgical worship in an unbroken tradition from Temple times to the present day with the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours. The Church has always preferred song as the mode of liturgical celebration.

It is no accident that a recited Mass was known as a “Low Mass” because the spoken word is of a lower order than the sung or chanted word. With the Ordinary Form we have more options to mix-and-match song and recitation in the same liturgy, but we still have guidelines on which parts are so important that they should be rendered with music as often as possible. ProVobis has a point that hymns are optional. Hymns are the fourth and least preferred option for adding music to the liturgy. The Proper Antiphons are an integral and constitutive part of the Mass, and these should be sung by the choir or by all the people, in preference over and above mere hymns, but this guideline is more frequently observed in the breach.

It is abundantly clear to me that the Church requires us to sing just as God has commanded it in Holy Scripture from before the Church existed. Expressing prayer in the form of song is a sacred duty that we all have. We should all strive to practice and rehearse so that our prayer is a sacred offering to the LORD.

Apparently saint Augustine never wrote, "Qui bene cantat bis orat”, but he did write, “cantare amantis est.”:wink:

I understand AB wanted a revised order of Mass, but Paul VI insisted on “novus.” A revision would automatically abrogate the older version.

I don’t sing at mass, if you heard me sing, you would appreciate the fact I do not sing at mass.

The correct term is Ordo Missae and not Novus Ordo Missae

If someone does not like the NO, calling it something different is not going to change that person’s opinion of it!

Why do you refer to the Ordinary Form of the Mass at the “novus ordo?” That was never its correct name and is often seen to be a slur today.

Also, why do you refer to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to be the “traditional Latin mass.” Pope Benedict XVI was very careful in formulating those names and asking us to use them in order to avoid division.

I think some try to burnish the Extraordinary Form of the Mass by referring to it as the “traditional Latin mass.”

“Novus ordo” on the other hand is a slur that used to denigrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

“Novus ordo” was used to describe the Pauline Mass (AKA the Ordinary Form of the Mass) back when it was actually new. An analogy – an advertisement for the NEW FORDS for 1970 was very straightforward in 1970. The moniker introduced a new product line for that year. That same advertisement means something far different today. It would just be odd to describe a 1970 Ford as a NEW FORD today.

Using “novus ordo” today to describe the Ordinary Form of the Mass is a slur. The harder some defend its use, the more bigoted they are.

Cute. “NO” is highly offensive. You just gave a bit of insight into what sort of person you are.

Why not respectfully refer to it as the Pauline mass, or the Mass of Paul VI, or even the OF Mass? None of these terms carry pejorative connotations, in the way that the terms ‘NO’ or 'Novus Ordo" do.

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