The Reasoning Behind the Novus Ordo?

Obviously it was to create the springtime we now see with Seminaries overflowing, new parishes being built, increased reverence and sprituality … yeah… that’s the ticket…:thumbsup:

I think it is subtly designed to illustrate personal bias when parts of a document are depicted with selective quotes, such as in USMC’s record of Pope Paul VI’s address.

Omitted in entirety was the preceding line of #6, where the Pope said, “It is Christ’s will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change”

Also omitted was a very critical understanding the Pope made in numbers 11 and 12:

  1. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. ** Participation by the people is worth more**—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
  1. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19).

[quote=The Catholic]What was the reasoning behing changing the TLM to the NO?
[/quote]

  1. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

adoremus.org/SacrosanctumConcilium.html#anchor15167630

[quote=USMC]The original intent, as invisioned at the time of the council, was only to translate some of the readings into the vernacular, such as the Gospel and the Epistle; not to completely rewrite the Mass.
[/quote]

This is not true. Most of the mass was permitted to be said in the vernacular, as evidenced in the earliest document following the Council, dated 1965.

I. ORDO MISSAE (SC art. 50)
**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.

… And just look at how much unity and oneness it has helped to foster…

My priest, who kinda reminds me of General Patton in a roman collar, (and it is fitting, he is a great general for his people) told me that as a young and traditional priest, he had hoped that Vatican II would end some of the abuses that upset him so much. He said most people didn’t have missals and wouldn’t pray along with the Mass, and sometimes the priests would omit parts, change them or what have you. No one would know the difference. He did, but he knew latin. He said it was frustrating for him to witness such disrespect to our Lord.
I think people with liberal agendas just took the inital cloud of confusion and ran with it. I have been spoiled at my parish where there is a great deal of emphasis placed on reverence. Until I married my husband and went with him to visit his family in another state, I had heard about abuses here on the forums but never witnessed them until visiting his home parish. So, I can see why many people would see the NO as a mistake. But have heart! Isn’t our Holy Father B16 wonderful? God’s time seems to move more slowly then ours, but we will see the true intent of Vatican II realized. I believe His Holiness John Paul II blazed the path for HH B16 to set the ball rolling.
Sorry for the grammer errors. I am tired and my toddler didn’t nap today!

[quote=Wendy]I had heard about abuses here on the forums but never witnessed them until visiting his home parish.
[/quote]

:frowning: Isn’t that sad? Until you heard about them here, you were probably an ordinary humble worshipper. Now you have joined the ranks of the liturgy police. Where is your focus NOW? And where is your peaceful heart? And where is the judgment of your priests and fellow worshippers?

Ah, how wonderfully these forums have spawned a flock of inspectors.

I’m not criticizing you, Wendy, just being observant at where the true origination of disunity is being promoted and instigated. It’s not Vatican II.

Right, Wendy… it’s really us conservative types who have the unmitigated gaul to desire a reverent orthodox Mass that follows the rubrics… we are the true source of discontent in the Church today… how dare we make such a request…lol… the facade is starting to fall as veiled intimidation tactics are becoming more and more of a laugher. “Liturgy police”…that term is a joke… time for the modernists to come up with something new.

I would say the essential element the NO lacks is reverence and sacredness. I know there are some reverent NO Masses out there. I just haven’t been to one.

Liturgy police, haha, I hadn’t heard that one before! No, actually things like this I thank God for, because it is a chance for me to practice the virtue of charity. Besides, I believe that we are good, and are made for good, and I know that if people believed what they were doing was indeed wrong, they simply wouldn’t. They just do not know better sometimes. I get that chance to be a good example and to better myself.
I am well catechized. I can not help but notice when something is wrong. I can help how I act on those feelings. I try to remember that regardless, I am at Calvary and that is my focus.It is important that we follow the rubrics. Obedience is beautiful because it is an act of love for our creator.
And I think Vatican II WAS led by the Holy Spirit. The Chrurch can not err in her teachings. However, it can not be denied that many people took the oppurtunity to distort and abuse the new rite. Our Mass at my parish is a NO. The rubrics are followed. To me, that means that beautiful simple cross (the Mass) isn’t being adorned with tacky personalization (blatent abuses) thus making the focus the corpus, Our Lord, whom hangs on it.
Whatever that inclines you to label me, it is a label I am proud to wear.

You are contraddicting yourself. You say that it lacks reverence while at the same time you say that there are Masses that are reverent. Then the problem is not with the order of the Mass but with the people. I have assisted to the Novus Ordo of 1970 in Latin with Gregorian chanting that appeared much more reverent and sacred then some Novus Ordo of 1962 (a.k.a. TLM) that I have seen.

BTW Is the Mass and the consacration valid if the priest does not pronounce the Latin words in the proper manner? Is that a change in the lithurgy?

Finally someone is reminding us how the Holy Spirit drives the Church. I would also add that I firmly believe that it also drives the disciplines of the Church through history (e.g. lithurgy of the Mass, married priesthood, etc.) and not only the infallible teachings.

No contradiction. I am saying that the NO Masses I have been to, lack in reverence and sacredness. That may be the fault of the priest, and it may be the fault of the people. Or both. I believe the NO Mass is capable of being reverent; I just wish I had access to one.

The reasoning behind the Novus Ordo is a good discussion. What happens during a Council is unquestionably binding; however, the New Order liturgical changes were not specifically listed in Council Documents but were invented after the Council by post council commissions (which even included Protestants) who clearly abused the mandates of the Council. These liturgical abuses do not carry much weight and are very easy to correct.

What the Holy Father is doing is going back to the Council documents and re-implementing them properly keeping in mind not only the Second Vatican Council but all other Councils of the Church which are all equally binding.

In addition to the discussion of the reasoning it is important to consider what impact these liturgical abuses have had on the church. See in these statistics that the Church was expanding prior to the Second Vatican Council and has declined every since.

latin-mass-society.org/figures.htm

Again the Council is not to blame, but rather the dark forces that co-opted the implemtation of Council Documents.

God Bless

There was possibly a need for change. The greater number of prefaces in the NO are a good change. The ferial lectionary could have been expanded, the calendar modified slightly, even new collects, etc. added. With regard to the rubrics not having the priest recite parts proper to other ministers or the choir as at a low Mass, possibly the chanting together of the Ordinary like the Gloria and Sanctus, even offering Mass in the vernacular with parts like the Canon aloud depending on one’s point of view would have been good.

The chief problem with the NO is that it did not build much on what went before it- it was not wholly ‘organic’. Ditching prayers with a long history of use right, left and center, is not the best way to ‘reform’ a rite and restore it. It was good that the reform drew upon several ancient and diverse texts especially of the Roman rite- it would have been better had they retained most of those which they removed. IMHO, respect for liturgical tradition is the best way to reform. Moreover, there were many gems in the Roman rite, in its rubrics and prayers, evidence of its antiquity and history. Granted, I don’t know whether the significance of whether the deacon wears a folded chasuble or a dalmatic is of any interest to the laity as being remnants of ancient vesture and reminders of penitence.

While Lex orendi, lex crendendi is not always true (not to be rude, but look at the Anglicans), nevertheless the liturgy is the heart of faith. I would like to point to the East where the liturgy is paramount and deeply venerated. In the West it has not always been so, more so in the 20th century beginning with the reform of St. Pius X of the Breviary right through to those of Pius XII and John the XXIII and ultimately in the forming of the NO where the emphasis has been snip, snip, snip ‘reform’ with much of the venerable traditions of the Latin rite, and the ancient character of the Mass and the Office, the two public prayers of the Church, being discarded. One sad thing about the reforms to the Roman Rite in the whole of the 20th century is that it destroyed many links and parallels between the Eastern (particularly the Byzantine) and Western liturgies.

Some things in the NO are very beautiful. Take for example the Eucharistic Prayer 3- it is no Roman Canon, but the reference from Malachi about the sacrifice been offered from the rising of the sun to its setting (currently translated as “from East to West”) is very beautiful. Troped Kyries especially after the manner of their fixed medieval counterparts are also beautiful. The reintroduction of the prayers of the faithful is another good thing, though it may clash with its replacements in the classical liturgy, and not having fixed forms is not the best of ideas. But there was no need for the joining of the priest’s Confiteor with that of the people’s, no reason to have new Penitential Rites which have little basis even in antiquity. While reform of the rubrics was important, there was no reason to replace the fixed and prescribed actions of the Ritus Servandus. There was no reason to ditch an offertory of Frankish and Mozarabic additions (while retaining the one or two purely Roman prayers) and replace it with a form based on Jewish prayer of blessing, even though the Jewish grace was used as the basis for early Offertory and Eucharistic Prayers (and if anyone would like some examples, I can try to type them out and post them).

However, I know some people have a problem with the Mass texts- I don’t. The changes were lamentable but they are not heretical. They are lamentable IMO because they fail to build onto liturgical tradition. But most of the omissions of the NO are also found in other liturgies- liturgies which have been deemed valid and which are sometimes just earlier versions of the Roman Rite form the 12th/13th/14th centuries. For example, the omission of the psalm Iudaica Me, the changing of the Offertory (several rites have different prayers and the Carthusian doesn’t even have an Offertory). And the Pope has the authority to change the liturgy. I do not believe that the Church is led astray by the NO. IMHO, one can’t put two liturgies side by side and say: this contains X prayer and so is better.

The Mass facing the people was one of the more sorry changes in my personal opinion and was based on ideas that have now been found to be erroneous. I have read that the second altar placed in front of the High Altar to allow versus populum was officially allowed as early as 1957 by the interpretation of a decree in the same year.

It certainly wasn’t untouchable especially in the area of the Communicantes from the 6th to the 15th centuries. Even until the 18th centuries in diocesan Uses persisted the custom of adding other saints to the Communicantes.

The Mass is a great Mystery, and holy, in any of the languages of the earth. Being already a Mystery, it does not need any mystifications such as the unknown tongue. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians has things to teach about prayer in unknown tongues.

karen marie

What was the “reasoning” in Switching to the Trident Mass in the first place? I ask this because many people seem to believe that the Trident Mass was inscribed on the back of the Ten commandments when Moses brought them down form My Sinai. in reality this Mass was a change in the way the Mass was celebrated itself.

There has been a lot of liturgical abuse done in the “Spirit of Vatican II” but its main purpose was noble-that is to make our liturgy more in line with the way it was celebrated in the early Church-not to rely on the way it was celebrated in the 16th Century.

I believe that Pope Paul VI (Memoriae Aeternae) contradicted himself when he said that the rite of Mass was “revised” as Vatican II instructed, whereas later he would, as quoted by USMC, describe it as a new rite entirely.

Therefore, by his own logic, we can conclude that the Pontiff went definatively beyond the mandate of the Council, which only called for revision of the old rite, by promulgation of a new rite entirely (not mandated).

There has been a lot of liturgical abuse done in the “Spirit of Vatican II” but its main purpose was noble-that is to make our liturgy more in line with the way it was celebrated in the early Church-not to rely on the way it was celebrated in the 16th Century.

Therefore do you claim that the Tridentine Mass was not in line with more ancient liturgies? Would you say that the Mass was somehow unfaithful? Certainly it required revision - otherwise the Council would not have called for it - but your wording makes it seem that you believe us to have been lost with regards to ancient traditions.

I’m not so sure WHY we shoulod go back to the early Church liturgy (I can understand in terms of making it more accessible et al. but that could have been done and was done to an extent with a little clearing up of the rubrics).

Just to note that St. Pius V codified the liturgy in use primarily because the Middle Ages was an age of innovation in liturgy (take for example the tropes- everything was troped)- the TLM did not suddenly appear from nowhere in the 16th century. Of the top of my head, a few of the ancient things (4th-6th century) in the TLM were the prayer ‘Aufer a nobis’, the prayer ‘Deus qui humanae’ the Sanctus and the Canon.

The Tridentine was a product of the 16th Century? I beg to differ.

The Old Sarum Rite

This is the Ordinary of the Mass for the Old Sarum Rite, a medieval rite of Mass. I believe you shall find the Tridentine older than is agrued herein.

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.