Could someone please tell me the heck this means? Many say that Novus Ordo, as we have it today in most places, is “not what the Council intended”, or the Novus Ordo “without abuses” would look like the Tridentine Mass. What??:shrug:
The Novus Ordo can look just like the Vetus Ordo (for the most part - it’s still obvious not the Vetus Ordo, but the differences aren’t striking), but, from my understanding, each bishop’s conference is allowed to make changes that reflects the cultural norms of their area, which opens it up for the freedom to “abuse” with such things as the infamous “clown Mass”.
Here’s a picture of a perfectly legal (actually, “by the book”, if you consider “the book” the original rubrics established by the Vatican, without the changes allowed by the American bishops) Novus Ordo Mass:
You are going to get a lot of answers with this. I really wish I has some documents to show you to back up what I would say. But I don’t, so therefore I am not going to give you any answers.
But please remember, a lot of the answers you get will be true. Mainly because what you ask is the truth. It would look like the TLM. But remember, some answers you get will either be wrong or “conspiracy theories”. That doesn’t mean we can pick and choose what is the truth or not, but find the facts, that is very important. For myself, I see it is true, because I have seen enough facts that show it, that I never needed to go any further than I did.
God Bless you with this, I see it as a big question because it has really helped my growth and love for the Church. I know that sounds weird, but it’s the truth.
There’s no “conspiracy”.
The Vatican simply issued a document that set up the Novus Ordo to function pretty much the same as the Vetus Ordo, with some questionable translations, but not the requirement the Mass be celebrated in the vernacular. It also allowed the bishop’s conferences for all the different areas to make pretty much any change and innovation they would like, in order to “fit” the culture of the country.
The Novus Ordo Mass looks the way it does because of the bishops around the world allows it to look the way it does, not because of anyone or anything in the Vatican, other than the fact they allowed the freedom to “banalize” the Mass.
O.K. In order for the Novus Ordo to look somewhat externally like the Tridentine Mass, you would have to eliminate many things, such as, Mass said* versus populo*, Communion standing and in the Hand, the Tabernacle on the side of the Church or out of the Church, altar girls, Mass in the vernacular, guitars and the new compositions, virtually eliminating kneeling, etc., etc. etc. But, you know these are not “abuses”–they are legal and valid options of the Novus Ordo. They are the Novus Ordo. So, to say that the Novus Ordo “without abuses” or the N.O as the “Council intended” would look like the Tridentine Mass is really, not true; is it.
Right, all of those “abuses” aren’t really “abuses” but perfectly legal.
In order to get the Novus Ordo more in line with the Vetus Ordo (the “TLM”) all of those things would have to be NOT allowed, which is also perfectly legal. That was the idea of the Novus Ordo, to make the Mass flexible to “look” different for all the different cultures around the world. Instead, it now pretty much all looks banal all around the world, with a few parishes where it looks like the Vetus Ordo.
There is no “standard Novus Ordo”, unless you accept the “standard” as what was published by the Vatican, and then the “standard” WOULD look like the Vetus Ordo.
Then why do many “conservatives” (such as Adoremus) say that all we have to do is to eliminate the “abuses” and everything would be “just as the Council intended” or Mass "as it’s “suppossed to be said”, etc.? These are NOT abuses, but options:blush:
I’m guessing he considers what the bishops allow as “abuses”, as opposed to what the Vatican itself produced.
It all comes down to the Vatican allowing the bishops the authority over the liturgy. For 500 years the liturgy was controlled by the Vatican. After the Second Vatican Council, the authority to control the liturgy was turned over to the bishops. That is when all Hell broke loose.
The trouble is Rome backs them up----has Rome said that all the things I mentioned are not allowed? No. As a matter of fact, they legalize them and then say that they are part of the “liturgical renewal”; Moreover, at least up to JPII, the Popes have said Mass with all these 'Abuses"----so can how conservatives say, including Catholic Answers, that all these things are “abuses” when :eek: the Church, through Rome have allowed them and have celebrated Mass using them??
The trouble is Rome backs them up----has Rome said that all the things I mentioned are not allowed? No. As a matter of fact, they legalize them and then say that they are part of the “liturgical renewal”; Moreover, at least up to JPII, the Popes have said Mass with all these 'Abuses"----so can how conservatives say, including Catholic Answers, that all these things are “abuses” when the Church, through Rome have allowed them and have celebrated Mass using them??
The problem is that generally the SSPXers who are making these claims of conspiracies and liturgical abuses have little respect for the authority of the Vatican. The SSPX was started by Lefabvre blatantly disobeying a direct command from the pope. Those who attend SSPX Masses go against the Vatican, who said the SSPX Mass is illicit (forbidden) and it cannot be used to fulfill Sunday obligation.
If the SSPX church does not like something, even if the Vatican okays it, they declare it an “abuse” or an “affront to God”. However they have no authority to do this.
So when it comes to who to listen to, I would suggest listening to the Vatican who, until God declares otherwise, still hold the Keys to the Kingdom.
So the TLM is the Vetus Ordo now? What is the translation of that, out of curiosity?
And I though that the NO was originally to be said in Latin with the readings and homily in the venacular? Was it originally meant to be done facing the congregation or facing the high altar (can’t remember the Latin term)?
So… are the Latin NOs that are around closer to the Mass of V2 than the NOs that are current?
NOTE: Jean Anthony, if these questions should be in Sacrament and Liturgy, would you please split it off?
It’s not true that none of the novelties of the NO are abuses - clown masses? Halloween masses? Liturgical dancing (least in the US)? Meddling with the recipe used for the Eucharist? Glass vessels? Pouring the Precious Blood into other vessels AFTER Consecration? Heresy preached from the pulpit? These are in no way legitimate options offered within the NO.
Yes, the Vatican stands behind the bishops having the right to change the liturgy, given to them by the Second Vatican Council.
To call them “abuses” is a matter of opinion. They are quite legal, but someone could still hold the opinion that they are “abusive”, despite the legality of the usage. It’s purely semantics.
What, exactly, are you getting at here, anyway?
“Vetus Ordo” means “Old Order”, in contrast to “Novus Ordo” meaning “New Order”. I like using Vetus Ordo for the “TLM” since we use Novus Ordo to refer to the “modern” Mass.
Yes, the original documents of the Novus Ordo had it being celebrated in Latin, ad orientum, that is, facing the altar. The American bishops (and every other Bishop’s Conference around the world, apparently) provided an “indult” (that is, official permission) to celebrate the Mass in a variety of languages, ad popularum, that is, facing the people assisting at the Mass, with a variety of musical instruments allowed to be used, etc.
During the Second Vatican Council, the Novus Ordo was never celebrated - it hadn’t been invented yet! Every day the Vetus Ordo was celebrated, using the Missal of John XXIII, from 1962.
The powers of the bishops are only as strong as they are willing to use them to control wayward priests and bishops that perform such things as “clown Masses” and use glass vessels, etc.
As for a “Halloween Mass”, I attend one every year! I like to fulfill my Feast Day Obligation for All Saints Day on All Hallow’s Eve, and my parish obliges with the opportunity by celebrating a “Halloween Mass”, that is a beautiful Mass, Litany of the Saints, but NOBODY dressed as devils passing out Eucharist like it was candy!
Sure, the Bishops may be too weak or unwilling to crack down on these things, doesn’t make 'em any more legitimate.
Abuses can be extended to changing the words of the liturgy. Vernacular can make this very easy to do.
[quote=KofC660]It also allowed the bishop’s conferences for all the different areas to make pretty much any change and innovation they would like, in order to “fit” the culture of the country.
Could you cite this document, please?
[quote=elzoro]In order for the Novus Ordo to look somewhat externally like the Tridentine Mass, you would have to eliminate many things, such as, Mass said versus populo, Communion standing and in the Hand, the Tabernacle on the side of the Church or out of the Church, altar girls, Mass in the vernacular, guitars and the new compositions, virtually eliminating kneeling, etc., etc. etc. But, you know these are not “abuses”–they are legal and valid options of the Novus Ordo.
Those things, while foolish, trendy, and innovative, are not technically abuses. I think what most people would term abuses (certainly I would) are things like:
*]the priest changing the words of the rubrics—adding to, leaving out, or “embroidering”
*]allowing laypeople to deliver the homily
*]using improper vessels for the Sacred Species
*]using improper elements for the Sacred Species (leavened bread, honey, grape juice, etc.)
[quote=KofC660]Instead, it now pretty much all looks banal all around the world
That’s for sure.
[quote=KofC660]After the Second Vatican Council, the authority to control the liturgy was turned over to the bishops. That is when all Hell broke loose.
It certainly did.
According to the* Constitution on the Liturgy *of Vatican II the Novus Ordo was to remain in Latin with only the Epistle, Gospel and a few prayers said in the vernacular.
*Constitution on the Liturgy *# 36
(1) ** The use of the Latin language, with due respect to
particular law, is to be preserved **in the Latin rites. (2) But
since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the
liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a
wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives
and in some prayers and chants.
(3) These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Article 22:2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used.
- A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially in the readings and “the common prayer,” and also, as local conditions maywarrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
The Constitution passed on **Dec… 4, 1963. ** The following documents show how changes that **went beyond **what the Constitution called were gradually introduced.
Instruction on implementing liturgical norms
Consilium (of Sacred Congregation of Rites) - September 26, 1964
V. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR IN MASS (SC art. 54)
57. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may **introduce the vernacular **into:
a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;
b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;
c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord’s Prayer with its introduction and embolism
Tres Abhinc Annos
Second Instruction on the orderly carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy
**May 4, 1967 **
Sacred Congregation of Rites
VIII. Use of the Vernacular
28. The competent territorial authority observing those matters contained in the Constitution on the Liturgy art. 36, § 3 and § 4 may authorize use of the vernacular in liturgies celebrated with a congregation for:
a. The Canon of the Mass;b. all the rites of holy orders;
c. the reading of the Divine Office, even in choral recitation.
Instruction on Eucharistic Worship
Sacred Congregation of RitesB] May 25,196754. The Tabernacle in the Middle of the Altar or in Some Other Part of the Church
"The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a secondary altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local Ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped.
"****Mass may be celebrated facing the people ****even though there is a tabernacle on the altar, provided this is small yet adequate."
Immensae Caritatis- **January 20, 1973
**In response therefore to the preferences of several conferences of bishops, the following norms are issued on:
- special ministers for distributing communion;
- broader faculty to receive communion twice in a day;
- mitigation of the eucharistic fast in favor of the sick and the elderly;
- devotion and reverence toward the blessed sacrament whenever the host is placed in the hand.
None of the above changes were in the Constitution.
All that is fine, but the fact is that other sections set up the commission that would handle the implementation, while other sections acknowledged that experiments would need to be conducted to determine final forms, etc. Finally, it was clear that those with territorial jurisdiction would have flexibility in determining the form the changes would take in their jurisdicitons.
Much, if not most of the determination to greatly increase the vernacular components was in place well before the end of the Council and were ratified by the very same Council from which the original document came.
Beyond that, in the end it is all irrelevant. The Church always has the authority to change disciplines at will, and the the form of the liturgy, as long as the “required” parts are included, is a discipline subject to such change. The fact the changes may have exceeded what some anticipated does not make them any less valid. And it certainly does not in any way make the changes “abuses”, nor does anything in the documents condone abuses.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many want to gripe about the Mass being in the vernacular, when that is the very reason why the Mass ever came to be in Latin. There was nothing magical or “holy” about Latin; it was simply the language of the Western part of the empire, which was in many ways already separate because of Constantine having move the capitol to the East. The Church acknowledged then, as it did at Vatican II, that most people prefer to pray in the language they speak.
I thoroughly fail to understand the need of those who support the TLM to tear down the Pauline Mass to make theirs seem “superior” when the Church continues to say otherwise. As a supporter of the Pauline Mass, I feel no need to denigrate the TLM, and am glad to see that it will once more be more readiliy available for those who prefer it. To me that is a “win-win” for the Body of Christ.