What is the difference between the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass which was offered universally till Vat-2

Is it true what some say that the Mass was drastically changed after Vatican2? Why did Cardinal Ratzinger comment: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy” (Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI) (Milestones, p. 147)
In his Address to the Parish Priests and Clergy of Rome on February 14, 2013, given during his staggering announcement that he was abdicating the papacy, Pope Benedict went beyond this already explosive admission. He conceded what traditionalists have been contending since the post-conciliar crisis began: that the entire program of “updating” the Church in the name of the Council had been a disaster.

This matter is really bogging me out. Serious answers would be appreciated.

First off - a technical correction. The Trent missal was NOT used universally in the Catholic Church, nor even the Roman Church Sui Iuris.

The Dominicans had their own missal, used within their priories. It’s essentially the mass of Rome circa 1250 AD.
Several other orders of Religious had their own missals with different rites: Norbertines, Carmelites,
The Dioceses of Toledo (Spain), Braga (Portugul), and Milan (Italy) had their own rites, which differ from the Roman of Trent.
The Dalmatian was a translation of the Trent Missal into Old Church Slavonic.

All of the western rites shared the same basics, and all were in latin save the Dalmatian:
A series of introductory prayers
An epistle reading, a psalmody, an alleluia, and a Gospel reading.
The Preparation of the Gifts (in the dominican, this is done before the mass)
The liturgy of the Eucharist with a single anaphora
The prayers of thanksgiving and the dismissal.
The Roman/Trent acquired a bunch of accretions that are properly outside the mass

The specifics varied as to what introductory prayers and in what order, and likewise the thanksgiving prayers; the anaphora text (consecration) varied very slightly.

The Ordinary form differs in that it has 10+ approved anaphora texts (Eucharistic Prayers); 4 approved for daily use. EP I is derived from the Trent text. It also changes to a 3 reading format: Old Testament, Psalmody, New Testament, Alleluia, Gospel. There are numerous rubrical relaxations - the majority of the postural rubrics for the clergy are absent. Permission to use the Apostle’s Creed instead of the Credo is present for masses for children; in Greek and Slavonic, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed is used. The distinctions of High, Sung, and low mass are absent; instead, the decisions on what to sing are less codified, allowing for a wider spectrum. Further, the reading cycle was changed to be 3 years long, to use more of the bible as readings, and to align the readings into themes. Also, the whole consecration is done audibly, as was proper for the pre-V II Ambrosian Rite (of Milan).

A note further on the Creed: after trent, at least 3 creeds were in use:
1 - The Roman Credo - the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with the filioque added
2 - The Mozarabic Credo - the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with et filios added (tiny difference, but still)
3 - The Nicene-Constantinopolitan - In Slavonic; it’s used because the Slavonic translation becomes heretical when i Synu is added.

After Vatican II, the apostle’s creed is allowed for children’s masses, and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan is used in Greek, Slavonic, and a few other languages, where the wording translated to latin procedit and english proceeds implies origination rather than transmission.

And this is entirely before referencing the 20+ other churches in full communion with Rome - almost all of whom use a 2 reading system - Epistle, Alleluia, Gospel. All of whom have multiple anaphorae (ranging from 2 or 3 for Byzantines, through 15+ for one of the Syrian rite churches).

A correction to my own post: The Ambrosian Rite (of Milan) apparently has had a three reading system for centuries - Prophet, Psalm, Epistle, Alleluia, Gospel.

I stumbled across note of this in the dominican liturgy blog at newliturgicalmovement.org/2007/03/detailed-explanation-of-ambrosian-rite.html#.Uz55pa1dUv4

It is interesting to note that the Reader reads the prophets, the subdeacon the epistle, the deacon the gospel.

I think that it is not true that the Latin rite Mass was “drastically” changed by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. It was shortened somewhat, and the use of the vernacular instead of Latin sounds very different. The liberalism which crept into the Church is not directly related to the revised liturgy or to Vatican II.

Have you read his resignation speech?
He doesn’t say any such thing.

This matter is really bogging me out. Serious answers would be appreciated.

Serious answer: check your sources. Don’t blindly believe everything you’re told by someone who’s attacking the Church.

But if one compare both missals they are drastically different. Difference in terms of text(content), language and reverence. The traditional Mass , as I have seen on some videos seems to be more solemn than the new mass. More over Pope Benedict the 16th has admitted a degradation in liturgy of the new mass.
It is was later found that the architect of the new mass Msgr. Bugnini was a freemason. It is a well know fact that Novus Ordo worship service was written in the 1960s by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and six Protestant ministers viz. Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr. Kunneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother Max Thurian, representing respectively the World Council of Churches, the Anglican and Lutheran communions, and the French Protestant Taize community.

One would doubt the authenticity of such a liturgy.
It is also well documented that after the Consilium had met and finished replacing the Traditional Latin Mass with the New Order worship service, Dr. Smith, the Lutheran representative, publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”

I came across this statement issued by Pope (st.) Pius V: “By this our decree, to be valid IN PERPETUITY, we determine and order that NEVER shall anything be added to, omitted from, or changed in this Missal. . .At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And so as to preclude once and for all any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we herewith declare that it is in virtue of our Apostolic Authority that we decree and determine that this our present order and decree is to last in PERPETUITY and can never be legally revoked or amended at a future date. . . And if anyone would nevertheless ever dare to attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, given for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

It is not a well known fact. It is a ridiculous falsehood repeated ad nauseum by people who have an axe to grind (from such people, I assume, you have appropriated this claim). Kindly ask for some proof - not merely assertions - of this nonsense.

You are following a well-trodden path here on CAF of presenting a list of misleading/inaccurate statements regarding the mass, and - it is worth noting - not addressing the clear refutations of these statements. All of these claims have been properly debunked here and elsewhere on seemingly innumerable occasions. A search of threads will confirm this.

For the record, there are two types of spokespeople for this kind of silliness - firstly, the innocent who have been misled by others into thinking that the mass has somehow been debased (as opposed to developed); and secondly, those who are disingenuously engaged in beginning bait threads with the intent of sowing disquiet.

The former will be easily reassured, and accept the clear documentation that disproves these claims at face value; the latter, on the other hand, will ignore these documents and continue to add more and more claims without ever addressing the substance of these refutations. As I said, it’s a tired and tiring path to follow, and an unnecessary one. Best wishes.

In Christ,

If you do a side-by-side comparison of the changes found in the Novus Ordo, with the changes made by the Luther and Cranmer during the 16th Century, you will see that they are virtually identical. I grew up in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church, and our service was virtually the same as the Novus Ordo Mass. Within one generation after the changes to the Anglical Mass, they had lost the Faith and become Protestants. That is the effect of the lex orandi to the lex credenda. That is one of the reasons I never attend a Novus Ordo Mass. I personally consider it a proximate danger to the faith, which I believe is confirmed by the many polls that show the low percentage of Catholics who still accept all that the Church teaches.

from reading of Ratzinger’s and Pope Benedict’s comments outside of what you have mentioned it appears that he doesn’t have an issue with the reforms of the Vatican II, rather how those in the Church has brought about the Changes. I’m sure many people complain about how bad the music has gotten since VII but this isn’t the fault of the council rather it is the culture and the Church not working together as they should. Throughout the Churches history there has been a pendulum swing one side is too much complex music stuff that only a handful of elites can do or so much on the popular side that it is to much of the world. I would say that many in the Church are on the “popular” side of music and even some issues with making music just a utility and not something that helps us enter more deeply into the liturgy.

Music is just one example, the reforms of Vatican II in many places have been poorly lived out. Again it’s not the councils fault but rather the people after the council who were in charge of “changing” the liturgy.

correlation doesn’t imply causation. How do you know for a fact that the Novus Ordo mass actually caused Catholics to steer away from church teaching? I think this issue goes beyond our own church to other non Catholic Churches who haven’t made major changes in their liturgy. I think the people falling away from the Church is a cultural thing not because the Church “changed” it’s liturgy.

It is the same God/same Grace/same Holiness in the OF – as in the EF. To not accept the OF and say it is a “proximate danger to the faith” – in essence is rejecting the same God – you kneel to in the EF. Since the OF came to us via the Church – to reject the OF – is not to accept all that the Church teaches.

There is intrinsic and extrinsic merits to the Mass. The intrinsic merit to any valid Mass is infinite since the sacrifice offered is infinite. However, the extrinsic merit (which refers to the amount grace received from a particular Mass) is based on many factors. In this sense, all Masses are not equal. There is a good article by Fr. Ripperger, FSSP, and another shorter article by Robert Siscoe on this subject.

In addition to the extrinsic merit of the mass being greater or lesser depending on various factors, poorly written and ambiguous prayers can indeed be a danger to the Faith. That is what the principle of lex orandi lex credenda means. If a person prays watered down prayers or prayers that are ambiguous, it can easily have a negative effect on their faith - especially if they are not firmly grounded in the faith, which is unfortunately the case with many today who have not been properly catechized…

Another point is that there have been many corrections to the Novus Ordo Mass over the years (such as correcting the wrong translation of *pro multis *during the consecration, which shows that it is within the realm of possibility for errors to be present within the prayers themselves.

The Roman Canon goes all the way back to the early centures in language and form. Slight modifications have been made along the way but the early versions (beginning with Te igitur clementissime) should be most recognizable today.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but there can certainly be (an often is) a cause/effect relationship by two correlated events. So, for example, if a person gets into an automobile accident, and the next day their house burns down, the correlation of the two events would not imply causation. However, if a nuclear bomb was detonated and everyone within several blocks were instantly turned to dust, who would claim that correlation between the two did not demonstrate a cause/effect.

Regarding the Novur Ordo Mass, simply look at 1) the fact; 2) what the Church teaches and 3) the fruits.

Fact: The changes in the new Mass correspond almost identically to the changes employed by the Protestants, which led to the loss of Faith in the Protestants within one generation.

What the Church Teaches: The Church teaches that the lex orandit will effect the *lex credenda *- that is, the way someone prays will effect the way they believe.

The Fruits: Today the polls show that a majority of Catholics no longer believe what the Church teaches.

Now, I fully admit that there are other factors as well (such as the poor catechesis and the generally bad state of society), but to exclude the new Mass as a contributing factor is to ignore the obvious - especially when so many predicted that the prayers of the New Mass would lead to a watering down of the Faith.

At the same time, Trent anathematized those who would contemn the received and approved rites of the Church. Received in this context means handed down or traditional. Just sayin…

Reading all this – reminds me of the Utraquists. It seems to follow “similar” type of thinking – that one form is more conducive to Grace vs. the other. What the Utraquists applied to the form of communion (two species) – now applied to form of the Mass (EF).

No its not the same. Communion under either form contains the entire Christ, and therefore one receives the same amount of grace whether they receive under one form alone, or both. The intrinsic and extrinsic merit of the Mass corresponds to the four ends of the Mass.

Question: For what ends then is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered?

Answer: The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God for four ends: (1) To honour Him properly, and hence it is called Latreutical; (2) To thank Him for His favours, and hence it is called Eucharistical; (3) To appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory; (4) To obtain all the graces necessary for us, and hence it is called Impetratory. (Catechism of Pius X)

The intrinsic and extrinsic merit correspond to these four ends. Here is a link to the two articles I mentioned earlier. The first article is shorter, but covers basically the same points.



Same God/same Grace/same Holiness – in both the OF and EF. To make one form lesser in essence denies the entire Christ— walking in similar foot steps as the Utraquists.

Not lesser in essence; lesser in extrinsic merit. Both of the articles I linked to include many quotes to demonstrate that the extrinsic merit of all Masses is not equal.

This also explains why Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict) would say: "I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.”

Obviously, the crisis in the Church is not due to the intrinsic merit of the Mass, since the intrinsic merit is the same with all valid Masses; it is due to a lessening in the extrinsic merit - how much grace the faithful receive at the Mass - which has been greatly lessened due to the “disintegration of the liturgy”.

Then how to explain the many faithful Catholics who have **come into **the Church since the promulgation of the Ordinary Form?

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.