Tridentine / Novus Ordo / Latin Mass differences

A while back I attended a Latin Mass. I’m a Catholic from Post Vatican II so I’ve never had any experience with a Tridentine Mass.
I think what I attended was a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin.

The priest was not facing the congregation and I had to kneel to take communion.

Can someone explain to m the difference (other than the Liturgy itself) between a Tridentine Mass and a Novus Ordo Mass and a Latin Mass.

Thanks

[quote=Intrigued Latin]A while back I attended a Latin Mass. I’m a Catholic from Post Vatican II so I’ve never had any experience with a Tridentine Mass.
I think what I attended was a Novus Ordo Mass in Latin.

The priest was not facing the congregation and I had to kneel to take communion.

Can someone explain to m the difference (other than the Liturgy itself) between a Tridentine Mass and a Novus Ordo Mass and a Latin Mass.

Thanks
[/quote]

I found this geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html today, and I think you may find it useful if you wish to examine the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass. The site that hosts this comparison chart seems to be schismatic at best, so I would caution against reading anything else on the site. But the chart is a good way to see the two orders of the Mass site by side in English. There is a site which lists both orders of the Mass in Latin found here latinliturgy.com/masstexts.html on a legitmate website. lol.

Now, as for the difference betwen a “Tridentine, Novus Ordo, and Latin” Mass, there essentially is none since both are valid orders of the same Mass. The Sacrifice offered at the Tridentine Mass is the same Sacrifice offered at the Novus Ordo Mass, so the only difference is in form. Now as for Latin, the Second Vatican Council affirmed that Latin is the normal language for the Mass, and that the use of the vernacular during Mass is permitted. The Novus Ordo can be celebrated entirely in Latin, and the priest is EXPECTED to celebrate Mass ad orientem (note that in the GIRM, the instructions are written under the assumption that the priest is facing the High Altar and that he is celebrating in Latin). Permission was given for the priest to say Mass facing the people, and now that has become the norm in America.

Despite the protestations of the USCCB (particularly the bishop of my diocese, who was instrumental in the promulgation of the new ‘national norm’), the Vatican has affirmed that one may kneel during communion and one may not be denied communion while kneeling (thankfully this has never happened to me, but it has happened to a friend of mine who knelt to receive Our Lord at a Mass celebrated by our bishop).

So… with all that said, the only thing that has changed is the form. Both orders of Mass are equally valid and equally beautiful, and both are to be celebrated Ad Orientem and in Latin unless there’s a good reason not to.

The USCCB is a joke, and Rome trumps them every time. It is no surprise your Bishop, a Bishop elevated to the level of Bishop during the time Abp. Jadot was papal nuncio of the US, a man who suggested some of the worst men to be elevated to the level of Bishop under Pope Paul VI and the first couple of years of Pope John Paul II, resulted in a Bishops that wanted to stamp out kneel for communion. Sadly in my diocese, one of the two parishes that still knealt for communion stopped this reverental practice a couple of weeks ago, and this parish that has less than 150 parshoners will possibly fade away because of this.

[quote=JNB]The USCCB is a joke, and Rome trumps them every time. It is no surprise your Bishop, a Bishop elevated to the level of Bishop during the time Abp. Jadot was papal nuncio of the US, a man who suggested some of the worst men to be elevated to the level of Bishop under Pope Paul VI and the first couple of years of Pope John Paul II, resulted in a Bishops that wanted to stamp out kneel for communion. Sadly in my diocese, one of the two parishes that still knealt for communion stopped this reverental practice a couple of weeks ago, and this parish that has less than 150 parshoners will possibly fade away because of this.
[/quote]

I’m very, very sorry to hear that :frowning: Even though His Grace has been on a crusade (a rampage, really) to stamp out kneeling, everyone at the parish where Chant Mass is offered kneels, and many still receive the Eucharist while kneeling. We go with the word from the higher authority, not our liturgically clueless bishop. lol. Someone petitioned Rome for permission to kneel in our parish, and the dispensation to ignore the diocesan norm was granted :smiley: Hehe. Our singers and servers prostrate themselves before the Blessed Sacrament, too. I bet he reaaaaally hates that.

Here is a comparision of the Traditional Latin Mass and Novus Ordo:

latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

The differences are the world.

The Tridentine Latin Mass was first initiated by Our Lord at the Last Supper; it was slowly improved by pious popes at holy councils. It gravitates around the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. The prayers (if you study them closely) render great homage to our Creator

The Novus Ordo was hastily thrown together by a committe at the 2nd VC. This committe included a freemason and two Protestants. The liturgy was devised to increase greater human participation in the 'Paschal Supper".

Notice the difference.

BTW, this is not meant to offend anyone or the preference; I just trying to make known the truth.

  • Joe

[quote=Marines]The differences are the world.

The Tridentine Latin Mass was first initiated by Our Lord at the Last Supper; - Joe
[/quote]

Joe I would beg to differ. Latin was not the liturgical language of the Roman Empire until about the 3rd century. It was Greek.
The Latin Liturgy today was translated from Greek.

[quote=CatholicNerd]I found this geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html today, and I think you may find it useful if you wish to examine the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass. The site that hosts this comparison chart seems to be schismatic at best, so I would caution against reading anything else on the site. But the chart is a good way to see the two orders of the Mass site by side in English. There is a site which lists both orders of the Mass in Latin found here latinliturgy.com/masstexts.html on a legitmate website. lol.

Now, as for the difference betwen a “Tridentine, Novus Ordo, and Latin” Mass, there essentially is none since both are valid orders of the same Mass. The Sacrifice offered at the Tridentine Mass is the same Sacrifice offered at the Novus Ordo Mass, so the only difference is in form. Now as for Latin, the Second Vatican Council affirmed that Latin is the normal language for the Mass, and that the use of the vernacular during Mass is permitted. The Novus Ordo can be celebrated entirely in Latin, and the priest is EXPECTED to celebrate Mass ad orientem (note that in the GIRM, the instructions are written under the assumption that the priest is facing the High Altar and that he is celebrating in Latin). Permission was given for the priest to say Mass facing the people, and now that has become the norm in America.

Despite the protestations of the USCCB (particularly the bishop of my diocese, who was instrumental in the promulgation of the new ‘national norm’), the Vatican has affirmed that one may kneel during communion and one may not be denied communion while kneeling (thankfully this has never happened to me, but it has happened to a friend of mine who knelt to receive Our Lord at a Mass celebrated by our bishop).

So… with all that said, the only thing that has changed is the form. Both orders of Mass are equally valid and equally beautiful, and both are to be celebrated Ad Orientem and in Latin unless there’s a good reason not to.
[/quote]

Thank you so much for your explanation, and especially for the links. I found them very useful and educational. God bless!

On Catholic Answers today, the apologist stated that Novus Ordo was not a proper term for the Mass. He indicated that this term was adopted by the folks on the far right that look with distain on it. Very good show.

Deacon Tony SFO

[quote=Deacon Tony560]On Catholic Answers today, the apologist stated that Novus Ordo was not a proper term for the Mass. He indicated that this term was adopted by the folks on the far right that look with distain on it. Very good show.

Deacon Tony SFO
[/quote]

That is most interesting! I suppose it was called the Novus Ordo Missae at the beginning but now that it’s the normative Mass I guess it really isn’t all that new. Is it proper to call it the Mass of Paul VI? I suppose I could train myself to do that… lol

Good question. Maybe you should ask the apologist. He is from the group that provided these threads.

May God bless you,
Deacon Tony SFO

[quote=Intrigued Latin]Joe I would beg to differ. Latin was not the liturgical language of the Roman Empire until about the 3rd century. It was Greek. The Latin Liturgy today was translated from Greek.
[/quote]

This is a very misleading assertion. The modern passion over which language was “the” language of earliest Christianity in the polyglot Roman empire was not a particularly lively one then. Language, then as now, was a daily tool, and Aramaic, Greek, and Latin would all have been found at the ecclesiae in Asia Minor and Egypt (among others). The need for utile language is no where better shown than in, e.g., the Septuagint: many Jews in Christ’s lifetime read torah in Greek their whole lives, not in Hebrew (nor Aramaic), because they spoke Greek in their daily lives (Alexandria). In Rome, however, Latin was the daily and legal language, and the Church, as you know, was at Rome from very early.

The Roman liturgy, moreover, is one of the oldest and most conservative of the pre-Nicene eucharists, rather more so than Antioch or Alexandria. Bottom line: there was no “liturgical language of the Roman Empire,” and Latin was fully in use during the apostolic era. Please ref. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy.

Then you might do a little more research. Hastily thrown together? And what of the liturgical research that had occured during the 50 or more years prior to Vatican 2?

[quote=Deacon Tony560]On Catholic Answers today, the apologist stated that Novus Ordo was not a proper term for the Mass. He indicated that this term was adopted by the folks on the far right that look with distain on it. Very good show.
[/quote]

[quote=CatholicNerd]That is most interesting! I suppose it was called the Novus Ordo Missae at the beginning but now that it’s the normative Mass I guess it really isn’t all that new. Is it proper to call it the Mass of Paul VI? I suppose I could train myself to do that… lol
[/quote]

The proper name would be: Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum, auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum, editio typica tertia.

One could refer to it as the Missal of Paul VI, as that would inform most as to the ordo missae you meant. Technically, however, it should be noted that the Missal promulgated by Paul VI has been revised by John Paul II. Generally the easiest way to reference which Missal one is referring to is such: Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia. Thus, one knows which missal by the edition (tertia or third).

Pax,
Keith

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.