What Vatican II requirements called for the Novus Ordo?

First of all, I don’t attend the Tridentine Mass. If one was nearby I would check it out, but I have not felt the need to seek one out. So in that sense I am not dissatisfied with the N.O. (when done properly and reverently). I just say this so that I don’t get pigeonholed as a 1962 Missal diehard.

Now that that’s out of the way, I would like to know if Vatican II changes (NOT “spirit of Vatican II”) required the 1970 Mass? If so, what changes required the 1970 Mass? If not, why was the 1970 Mass brought out?

If one looks at Sacrosanctum concilium (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) one finds numerous generic statements of what the liturgy should offer and of the involvement of those who attend. There were no specific directives regarding the reform other than “full, active, conscious participation” of the laity was the goal of the reform.

Having said that, the council fathers then left it in the hands of the experts to find a way to carry out the reform of the Liturgy. Pope Paul VI had a direct hand in many of the decisions that were made, and bishops from around the world had input via votes on various aspects of the reform.

What we got is a work that attempts to bring together those aspects of ancint liturgies that worked along with aspects of the Mass of Pius V (the Tridentine Mass) that were effective.

Deacon Ed

[quote=VociMike]Now that that’s out of the way, I would like to know if Vatican II changes (NOT “spirit of Vatican II”) required the 1970 Mass? If so, what changes required the 1970 Mass? If not, why was the 1970 Mass brought out?
[/quote]

In a nutshell - NO.

The basic changes requested by Sacrosanctum Concilium were that vernacular could be used more often, concelebration was approved, as were the so-called “prayers of the faithful” during Mass.

The Council also requested that the liturgy be “simplified.”

Basically, all of these requests were assimilated into the liturgy by 1965, and anyone with a copy of that Ordo Missae can tell that it is very much the same as the 1962 Ordo, which is very much the same as the 1870 Ordo, which is pretty much a duplicate of the 1574 Ordo Missae.

Pope Paul VI chose to gather a group of professional liturgists into a “Consillium”, and revise the entire Mass from top to bottom. This went way past what the Council actually intended, but isn’t to say that there were many fruits to come out of the current Roman Missal. Somewhere in-between, the bishops fell asleep at the wheel.

The NOVUS Ordo was NEVER called for at VII. The Council called for the reform and simplification of the RITES. How are we to understand this word?

One has to remember that Pope St. Pius X, Pope Pius XII and even Pope John XXIII (especially) were trying to streemline the Rites of the church meaning the RUBRICS for the liturgy and divine office. No one called for a NEW RITE of Mass or NEW RITES of Sacraments. That would have been UNTHINKABLE!

Sacrosanctum Consilium (sp?) called for the PRESERVATION and the FOSTERING of the TRADITIONAL Rites of the Church NOT their abolishon for Protestantised (council of Pistoia) Ecumanical rites acceptable to Protestants!

[quote=muledog]In a nutshell - NO.

The basic changes requested by Sacrosanctum Concilium were that vernacular could be used more often, concelebration was approved, as were the so-called “prayers of the faithful” during Mass.

The Council also requested that the liturgy be “simplified.”

Basically, all of these requests were assimilated into the liturgy by 1965, and anyone with a copy of that Ordo Missae can tell that it is very much the same as the 1962 Ordo, which is very much the same as the 1870 Ordo, which is pretty much a duplicate of the 1574 Ordo Missae.

Pope Paul VI chose to gather a group of professional liturgists into a “Consillium”, and revise the entire Mass from top to bottom. This went way past what the Council actually intended, but isn’t to say that there were many fruits to come out of the current Roman Missal. Somewhere in-between, the bishops fell asleep at the wheel.
[/quote]

I actually have a copy of a Maryknoll missal from that era, published in 1965 and would be glad to post anything from it that anyone would be interested in seeing.

[quote=Deacon Ed]Having said that, the council fathers then left it in the hands of the experts to find a way to carry out the reform of the Liturgy.
[/quote]

Ah, yes—experts. :wink:

Experts built the Titanic. Amateurs built the ark. :slight_smile:

Pax vobiscum!

I think only Deacon Ed has answered the OP’s question. Other than that, there has been a lot of posts about how Pope Paul VI and the bishops were all wrong to change the Mass. The NO is not bad, nor is it “completely revised from top to bottom”. People seem to think that the Tridentine Mass (which I love, by the way) was an ex-cathedra statement that can never be changed. That is simply not the case and the only people who believe that are the schismatics who don’t believe in the authority of the pope.

In Christ,
Rand

As I have said, I have never been to a Tridentine Mass (at least, not since I was a kid). So perhaps somebody could go through the changes that the N.O. made and indicate how they provided for more “actuosa participatio”.

BTW, this just occurred to me. Am I correct that the older rite just had one Eucharistic Prayer, while the N.O has four? If this is correct, how does this equate to a simplification of the rites?

[quote=VociMike]As I have said, I have never been to a Tridentine Mass (at least, not since I was a kid). So perhaps somebody could go through the changes that the N.O. made and indicate how they provided for more “actuosa participatio”.

BTW, this just occurred to me. Am I correct that the older rite just had one Eucharistic Prayer, while the N.O has four? If this is correct, how does this equate to a simplification of the rites?
[/quote]

The major changes are the reduction in duplicate prayers (for example, the Confetior was said twice, the prayers at the foot of the altar originated in the private vesting prayers of the priest, and so on) and the elimination of the the final Gospel (which was always the same). There were additional options for the Penitential Rite beyond just the Confetior, the addition of several Eucharistic Prayers – four are “ordinary” while there are also several Eucharistic Prayers for use with children and several for reconciliation. While these are, indeed, “composed prayers” we have to remember that there wasn’t a formal setting of the Eucharistic Prayer until the 4th or 5th century. Prior to that the bishop or priest prayed “as best he was able.”

Note that many of the Eastern Catholic Churches (other than the Byzantine Churches) have a large number of Eucharistic Prayers, so this really isn’t anything new.

The consilium also restored the offertory procession and the General Intercessions from older liturgies in an effort to increase both sign and symbol of lay participation. If we look at the increase in lay ministry within the Mass we also see a sign of greater “active participation.” Originally the sub-deacon would read the Epistle, the deacon the Gospel and the priest would preach. If one was really strict, the Graduale would be read by the Acolyte! However, since members of these orders were rarely accessible to the average parish, the priest became a “one-man band” doing everything – and that was not the way it was supposed to be.

I hope this helps. Realize that it would take volumes to go through all the changes and the rationale behind them.

Deacon Ed

[quote=Deacon Ed]If one looks at Sacrosanctum concilium (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) one finds numerous generic statements of what the liturgy should offer and of the involvement of those who attend. There were no specific directives regarding the reform other than “full, active, conscious participation” of the laity was the goal of the reform.

Having said that, the council fathers then left it in the hands of the experts to find a way to carry out the reform of the Liturgy. Pope Paul VI had a direct hand in many of the decisions that were made, and bishops from around the world had input via votes on various aspects of the reform.

What we got is a work that attempts to bring together those aspects of ancint liturgies that worked along with aspects of the Mass of Pius V (the Tridentine Mass) that were effective.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

If you leave that statement as is, it is a greatly misleading one. Active participation became the “desire” of the lay and clergy. The shunned the quiet, more spiritual, involvement in the liturgy (actual spiritual participation which was not evident in the TLM for the most part),… and substituted the numerous “abuses” which have become the norms over time. B16 hopefully will be the corrective force that will reform the reform.

SC has a lot of language that is very lovely. Its goal was a Mass that was streamlined and that encouraged active participation. This concept wasn’t new, and if anything, Pius XII’s reforms of Holy Week and the introduction of the Dialogue Mass were seedbeds for SC.

The two words that would define SC, for good or ill, were “noble simplicity.” Well-meaning in concept, but oftentimes disastrous in execution, these words were taken by many progressives to an extreme. Beautiful chasubles replaced by polyester blankets, appropriate streamlining of statues became the outright elimination of them, beautiful Church structures rendered ugly, as if done by Cromwell or the Red Army. A Mass that became entertainment rather than worship (an aside, I went to the worst Mass I have ever went to… interestingly enough, not in the Diocese of Rochester, where I have lived for going on nine years, but in the Diocese of Buffalo. It seems like these affluent suburbs have the worst Masses.)

[quote=MrS]If you leave that statement as is, it is a greatly misleading one. Active participation became the “desire” of the lay and clergy. The shunned the quiet, more spiritual, involvement in the liturgy (actual spiritual participation which was not evident in the TLM for the most part),… and substituted the numerous “abuses” which have become the norms over time. B16 hopefully will be the corrective force that will reform the reform.
[/quote]

I’m not sure how my statement is “a greatly misleading one.” We find this statement in SC:

  1. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people” (1 Pet. 2:9, 4-5) have a right and obligation by reason of their baptism.

Now, if you are saying that in the implementation there was an emphasis on physical and verbal activity over that of mental activity, you have a point, but one that is not as correct as you may believe.

In the Eastern tradition liturgies are to be activities that full-engage the person, body and soul. This is why incense is used so profusely, why there are bells on the censer, why people stand and sit (kneeling is generally not found in Eastern Churches on Sunday). It was this that influenced the consilium in reforming the Liturgy. They did not want to discourage mental prayer, but to encourage a more complete involvement of the laity in the Mass.

Deacon Ed

While I have no doubt you are better informed than I (being a Deacon), I still fail to see what good bringing Eastern ideas into the Western Church did. We are, after all, a different Rite. Rite?

In the Eastern tradition liturgies are to be activities that full-engage the person, body and soul. This is why incense is used so profusely, why there are bells on the censer, why people stand and sit (kneeling is generally not found in Eastern Churches on Sunday). It was this that influenced the consilium in reforming the Liturgy. They did not want to discourage mental prayer, but to encourage a more complete involvement of the laity in the Mass.

That would have been fine by me if we introduced more “smells and bells” to the Liturgy. A more complete and active involvement in this aspect would be great.

Right now I’m reading Pope Benedict XVI’s book (written while he was still Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith) “The Spirit of the Liturgy” and this is the kind of spiritual renewal we need-the one actually intended.

What we need to get rid of are “Liturgy Committees”, Sister Heterodox and Father Pushover who make the Mass into some sort of lame excuse for entertainment. Mass needs to retain that sense of mystery, not banality.

[quote=Deacon Ed]I’m not sure how my statement is “a greatly misleading one.” We find this statement in SC:Now, if you are saying that in the implementation there was an emphasis on physical and verbal activity over that of mental activity, you have a point, but one that is not as correct as you may believe.

In the Eastern tradition liturgies are to be activities that full-engage the person, body and soul. This is why incense is used so profusely, why there are bells on the censer, why people stand and sit (kneeling is generally not found in Eastern Churches on Sunday). It was this that influenced the consilium in reforming the Liturgy. They did not want to discourage mental prayer, but to encourage a more complete involvement of the laity in the Mass.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

What exactly did we take from the Eastern Rites? I’ve been to several over the years, and they are a lot more reverent by and large then are the typical Novus Ordo Masses. And don’t even bring up the Orthodox, who really put us to shame in that department.

I think it it is fairly obvious that the reforms that were actually implemented, more participation by the laity, less activity by the priest, a more communal atmosphere, reception under both species, receiving in the hand etc, while certainly early church practices, albeit in totally different circumstances and points of view, were also the same reforms called for by men like Luther, Cranmer, Calvin etc. All designed primarily to devalue the priestly class, referred to by Luther as an abomination, and elevate the laity to a sort of special priesthood where the ordained priesthood would be totally irreleveant and unnecessary. .

[quote=palmas85]What exactly did we take from the Eastern Rites? I’ve been to several over the years, and they are a lot more reverent by and large then are the typical Novus Ordo Masses. And don’t even bring up the Orthodox, who really put us to shame in that department.

I think it it is fairly obvious that the reforms that were actually implemented, more participation by the laity, less activity by the priest, a more communal atmosphere, reception under both species, receiving in the hand etc, while certainly early church practices, albeit in totally different circumstances and points of view, were also the same reforms called for by men like Luther, Cranmer, Calvin etc. All designed primarily to devalue the priestly class, referred to by Luther as an abomination, and elevate the laity to a sort of special priesthood where the ordained priesthood would be totally irreleveant and unnecessary. .
[/quote]

Regarding the reception of both species, the reformers REQUIRED it. The Church had PERMITTED it before (it was the norm before in ancient times, as you know), restricted it for a time, then permitted it GENERALLY again (it was always allowed for special occasions or circumstances). I fail to see how this is caving to Protestant sensibilities or how it is Protestantizing the Mass. The same with reception in the hand. This is a red herring (“It’s the Protestants, it’s the Protestants!”). The Protestant “reformers” didn’t profane an idea by calling for it or agreeing with it. That’s the error of genesis, ie, that an idea or practice was wrong simply because of its origin or genesis. AND those two particular items cannot be claimed to have their genesis in the Reformation, as they were already ancient Church practices, indeed, the most ancient. They were discontinued for a reason and now they’ve been allowed, by the competant authority, for a reason. It’s alarmist to keep running on about the Protestants in connection with the liturgy. In my neck of the woods (and I grew up a hard-shell protestant), Protestants would have been far more impressed by the Church knuckling under on “Once Saved Always Saved,” and “Salvation By Faith Alone.” I don’t buy the notion that the council or the popes at the time were kissing up to Protestants. The overwhelming number of protestants throughout the world are non-liturgical anyway. The Council called for a “noble simplicity,” not “something that won’t tick off the Protestants.” And that’s ONE of the things that I like about the Pauline Rite. Done well, it is possessed of a noble simplicity.

[quote=palmas85]What exactly did we take from the Eastern Rites? I’ve been to several over the years, and they are a lot more reverent by and large then are the typical Novus Ordo Masses. And don’t even bring up the Orthodox, who really put us to shame in that department.

I think it it is fairly obvious that the reforms that were actually implemented, more participation by the laity, less activity by the priest, a more communal atmosphere, reception under both species, receiving in the hand etc, while certainly early church practices, albeit in totally different circumstances and points of view, were also the same reforms called for by men like Luther, Cranmer, Calvin etc. All designed primarily to devalue the priestly class, referred to by Luther as an abomination, and elevate the laity to a sort of special priesthood where the ordained priesthood would be totally irreleveant and unnecessary. .
[/quote]

First, we have to recognize that there are similar desires between the Council Father and the “reformers.” Both wanted to emphasize the “priesthood of all believers” – but totally different understandings were to be conveyed by these ideas. Luther himself retained the idea of a sacramental priesthood, but those who came after him (Calvin, Zwingli, et al) were not at all in favor of such a position. Cranmer, however, is an interesting study. He did want to retain the sacramental priesthood (and, in fact, this is evident in his reform) but he also wanted to bring a greater sense of equality (egalitarianism) to the liturgy.

The Council Fathers, Pope Paul VI and the consilium members never wanted to do away with the sacramental priesthood. They were fully aware of the importance of the role of the priest in the community and in the liturgy. What they did want to get rid of is the “priest as one-man-band” where the priest did everything. They were successful at this, and the reforms reflect that very attitude. Let’s be careful to avoid being pulled into the polemics of the anti-Vatican II crowd for they have taken reality and twisted it such that it no longer accurately reflects the mindset of either the “reformers” or the consilium.

As for mentioning the Eastern Churches, we cannot consider the approach that was taken without looking at the Eastern liturgies for they were studied very carefully with an eye to what could be useful in the Latin tradition. Further, many of the interventions by Patriarch Maximos IV of the Melkite Church had direct bearing on the Liturgy and significantly influenced the consilium. Among the major points he made were the use of the vernacular in the Liturgy, communion under both species, and standing to receive communion. Communion in the hand is not a part of the the current Eastern praxis except for the clergy. In looking at the debates on this it’s interesting that the actual thnking behind the restoration of this is not at all clear. Yet, it is certainly a legitimate option that was used in the past (and, despite all claims to the contrary, never condemned, simply abandoned).

Deacon Ed

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.