The Novus Ordo Missae

[OraProMe]

Please discuss and justify your answer with reference to the pro's and con's of the Newer and Older forms of the Mass.

Edited December 12, 2009 by OraProMe

[mortify]

To the author of the thread, why do you raise such topics? Do you like creating discord among Catholics?

[OraProMe]

[quote name='mortify' date='12 December 2009 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1260599988' post='2018925']
To the author of the thread, why do you raise such topics?
[/quote]
Because I have an interest in them.

[quote]
Do you like creating discord among Catholics?
[/quote]

Nope. As far as I'm aware the vast majority of posters on this forum "think with the Church" regardless of which Mass they attend so I doubt I could create discord even if I wanted to.

Edited December 12, 2009 by OraProMe

[mortify]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='12 December 2009 - 02:16 AM' timestamp='1260602214' post='2018966']
Because I have an interest in them.[/quote]

What interests you about it?

Why don't you share your personal opinion about the Novus Ordo Missae?

[quote]Nope. As far as I'm aware the vast majority of posters on this forum "think with the Church" regardless of which Mass they attend so I doubt I could create discord even if I wanted to.
[/quote]

I don't believe you're that naive.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='12 December 2009 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1260598714' post='2018917']
Please discuss and justify your answer with reference to the pro's and con's of the Newer and Older forms of the Mass.
[/quote]

I think looking back that, so far, the negatives outweigh the good things that have come from the Novus Ordo Mass. Before you jump on me I do think that this is due to the freedoms taken with it and not with the Mass itself (as it is directed). I voted yes that I think it might have been better had it not been adopted in the first place. But I wonder about what might have happened if this Mass was not an option.

Remember, many of the priests/bishops who are/were seen as liberal and who have contributed to the scandalous behavior in the Mass were born and formed before Vatican II happened and before this Mass existed. So I'm not entirely convinced that these same clergy would not have tried to corrupt the Mass even if the Novus Ordo didn't exist, thus they may have focused their efforts on the Tridentine Mass. That isn't to say that the Novus Ordo should have to be considered some sort of sacrificial lamb or whatever, but I wonder if the extraordinary Mass was saved the abuses because of the Novus Ordo's existence.

anyways, starting to ramble a little... I don't really know. I'm not privy to their meetings and discussions. I don't know if it was better for the Novus Ordo to be here or not. But I do believe in this discussion, that the Mass itself needs to be separated from the scandals that exist within it.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='mortify' date='12 December 2009 - 02:24 AM' timestamp='1260602690' post='2018972']
What interests you about it?

Why don't you share your personal opinion about the Novus Ordo Missae?
[/quote]
Sure. I'm not exactly the best Catholic but if it was up to me the Mass would not have been changed beyond allowing the vernacular.

[quote]
I don't believe you're that naive.
[/quote]

Can't believe I have to defend my sincerity again! Read my original posts here

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='mortify' date='12 December 2009 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1260599988' post='2018925']
To the author of the thread, why do you raise such topics? Do you like creating discord among Catholics?
[/quote]

Dude. Chill.

[OraProMe]

Rexi I want to hear your opinions You know a lot about the two forms of the Mass.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='12 December 2009 - 06:40 AM' timestamp='1260618027' post='2019016']
Rexi I want to hear your opinions You know a lot about the two forms of the Mass.
[/quote]

I think it indeed would have been preferable for the ancient Roman Rite to remain the norm. That said, I don't think the 1962 Missal should have stayed the norm. Newly canonized saints should have continued to be added, and perhaps even a few of the reforms suggested in Sacrosanctum Concilium (though certainly not all of them) should have been made. Obviously this is just my personal opinion.

[OraProMe]

Bishop Fellay mentioned a letter that the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about his desire to see both forms of the Mass mixed together into one new Roman missal that combined aspects of both liturgies. I'm assuming that this new missal he had in mind would be said in the vernacular but, as in the Novus Ordo, any priest could use the original latin if they wished I guess.

Anyway I thought that was an interesting and probably pretty good idea.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='12 December 2009 - 06:59 AM' timestamp='1260619179' post='2019022']
Bishop Fellay mentioned a letter that the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about his desire to see both forms of the Mass mixed together into one new Roman missal that combined aspects of both liturgies. I'm assuming that this new missal he had in mind would be said in the vernacular but, as in the Novus Ordo, any priest could use the original latin if they wished I guess.

Anyway I thought that was an interesting and probably pretty good idea.
[/quote]

Actually, if I recall correctly, this letter from Cardinal Ratzinger said that this imaginary future missal could be "in Latin or the vernacular". I'm not sure if he meant he thinks there should be an option of choosing the vernacular in place of Latin, or whether he was merely saying "we'll see whether the vernacular will be an option when we get there."

[Resurrexi]

Here's the original quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, BTW:

"I believe, though, that in the long term the Roman Church must have again a single Roman rite. The existence of two official rites is for bishops and priests difficult to "manage" in practice. The Roman rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, and expanded lectionary---more choice than earlier, but not too much, an 'oratio fidelium', i.e., a fixed litany of intercessions following the Oremus before the offertory where it had its place earlier."

I really agree with most of what the Cardinal is saying here. I'm not not really a big fan of the "oratio fidelium", though it would be all right if, as Cardinal Ratzinger says here, it were a "fixed litany". And I really do like the current EF lectionary, though maybe making some of the readings longer or adding a [i]lectio[/i] to regular Sunday Masses rather than having them only on Ember Days would be an okay idea. I definitely am not in favor of a three-year cycle, though.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Resurrexi

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='12 December 2009 - 05:54 AM' timestamp='1260618869' post='2019021']
I think it indeed would have been preferable for the ancient Roman Rite to remain the norm. That said, I don't think the 1962 Missal should have stayed the norm. Newly canonized saints should have continued to be added, and perhaps even a few of the reforms suggested in Sacrosanctum Concilium (though certainly not all of them) should have been made. Obviously this is just my personal opinion.
[/quote]

I agree, things were always being changed a little bit with the Mass, I don't have a problem with changes in general.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='12 December 2009 - 06:07 AM' timestamp='1260619650' post='2019024']
Here's the original quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, BTW:

"I believe, though, that in the long term the Roman Church must have again a single Roman rite. The existence of two official rites is for bishops and priests difficult to "manage" in practice. The Roman rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, and expanded lectionary---more choice than earlier, but not too much, an 'oratio fidelium', i.e., a fixed litany of intercessions following the Oremus before the offertory where it had its place earlier."

I really agree with most of what the Cardinal is saying here. I'm not not really a big fan of the "oratio fidelium", though it would be all right if, as Cardinal Ratzinger says here, it were a "fixed litany". And I really do like the current EF lectionary, though maybe making some of the readings longer or adding a [i]lectio[/i] to regular Sunday Masses rather than having them only on Ember Days would be an okay idea. I definitely am not in favor of a three-year cycle, though.
[/quote]

yeah I posted that quote in a thread about the Mass some time ago. I think its a good idea although I'm not sure it will happen. Things like this I think will take quite a while to implement (just think how long it took to get the indult for the Latin Mass even though it was apparently never outlawed in the first place). So I'm not sure Benedict will get it done in his time as Pope, and then who knows what will happen when the next guy takes over.

[picchick]

I will defend my position after more sleep.

[Crispy]

I just took a class in Liturgy where we read the liturgical documents from Vatican II to the present day. While I didn't agree with all of my professor's explanations and interpretations of the liturgical documents, I did get some good perspective. I voted "no" b/c I think the Novus Ordo itself needn't be thrown out. I understand now that the liturgical reforms of Vatican II didn't pop out of nowhere, but that they were the culmination of hundreds of years of development (cf. Odo Casel, Lambert Beauduin, etc). I trust the Church's judgment when She says that She needs reform.

That said, I don't think that the Novus Ordo that we see today is exactly what the Church called for, neither in Vatican II nor in the preceding several hundred years. I don't mind the vernacular or new adaptations to suit the current needs of the Church. I do however disagree with the spirit dedicated to erasing all things traditional - newness for the sake of newness. That's not what the Church is about.

[Crispy]

Also, here's a sweet article by Fr. Joseph Fessio about all this. He digs into the council doc's and presents (in my opinion) a pretty balanced assessment.

[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0540.html"]The Mass of Vatican II[/url]

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='12 December 2009 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1260619650' post='2019024']
Here's the original quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, BTW:

"I believe, though, that in the long term the Roman Church must have again a single Roman rite. The existence of two official rites is for bishops and priests difficult to "manage" in practice. The Roman rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, and expanded lectionary---more choice than earlier, but not too much, an 'oratio fidelium', i.e., a fixed litany of intercessions following the Oremus before the offertory where it had its place earlier."

I really agree with most of what the Cardinal is saying here. I'm not not really a big fan of the "oratio fidelium", though it would be all right if, as Cardinal Ratzinger says here, it were a "fixed litany". And I really do like the current EF lectionary, though maybe making some of the readings longer or adding a [i]lectio[/i] to regular Sunday Masses rather than having them only on Ember Days would be an okay idea. I definitely am not in favor of a three-year cycle, though.
[/quote]

I voted No, but the above statement sounds like a very good idea.

[Apotheoun]

I voted "yes."

[Laudate_Dominum]

I would have voted WOOT! if that had been an option, but instead voted Yes.