FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Ranking arguments against the NO
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
When defending the proposition that the TLM is objectively better than the NO, what do you consider the 3 strongest arguments?  Rank them if possible.  Since we are probably familiar with most of them, it shouldn't be necessary to go into detail unless you have an unusual one. I'm wondering if a bunch of people answer this, we will see any patterns.
(I'll give my answer later.)

[edit: fix typo]
1) That the NO changed the law of prayer, in particular the omission and suppression of the rubrics / prayers of the TLM that emphasized reverence and Catholic beliefs.

2) The focus on modern man and not God, whether through the Mass itself or through the allowance of things that run contrary to hundreds of years of Church teachings.

3) Variety in which the Novus Ordo can be celebrated.


I guess mine are really "top 3 against NO", but the converse of each would be "top 3 for TLM".

1. Reorientation of the focus of Mass from Christ to the congregation, as evidenced by relocated tabernacles, increased lay participation, and priest facing the parishioners.

2.  Permission for Communion standing and in the hand; administered by lay persons.

2.  Permission of multiple options (prayers, canon, etc.).
So many of the bad parts of the Novus Ordo are really misinterpretations of the NO.  Things like altar girls, versus-populum worship, communion in the hand, bad translations, locking arms during the Pater and dancing the hand motions to "Peace is Flowing Like a River" during the Sign of Peace can all be lawfully done away with in the NO.  Though I think you can make a compelling point that all the pick-and-choose prayers and rubrical minimalism lend itself to the misinterpretation and invite experimentation.

So if you're going to get into an argument with somebody over which Mass is superior, stick to things that aren't matters of bad taste or practice.  Hard-and-fast problems with the NO include:
Watering down the Kalendar,
Pick-and-choose prayers rather than a universal liturgy for a universal Church,
Suppression of valuable prayers like those at the foot of the altar/final gospel/regularly-prayed confeiteor, etc.
(05-03-2010, 08:55 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]So many of the bad parts of the Novus Ordo are really misinterpretations of the NO.  Things like altar girls, versus-populum worship, communion in the hand, bad translations, locking arms during the Pater and dancing the hand motions to "Peace is Flowing Like a River" during the Sign of Peace can all be lawfully done away with in the NO.  Though I think you can make a compelling point that all the pick-and-choose prayers and rubrical minimalism lend itself to the misinterpretation and invite experimentation.

They aren't misinterpretations if they are allowed and encouraged by the hierarchy. They are a part of the NO. If they weren't true interpretations of hte NO, then they would be done away with.

And the NO can be lawfully done away with. Does that mean arguments against it aren't useful?
:blah:

If you say "the Novus Ordo allows communion in the hand", then someone's going to say "MY pastor only allows communion on the tongue, kneeling, eyes closed and tongue extended 4.71 inches after fasting a fortnight".

So stick with things that are intrinsic to the NO.
(05-03-2010, 09:22 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]:blah:

If you say "the Novus Ordo allows communion in the hand", then someone's going to say "MY pastor only allows communion on the tongue, kneeling, eyes closed and tongue extended 4.71 inches after fasting a fortnight".

So stick with things that are intrinsic to the NO.

haha fair enough.

My point though was that it is still allowed and thus a valid criticism of the Novus Ordo as a whole
I think it is fair to say that problems that are intrinsic to the NO and therefore present in every instance are likely to make stronger arguments against it than potential problems. 
The NO has no offertory
THe NO is man centered not God centered
Th NO changed the words of Christ "For Many"/for all for false ecumenical reasons.
1) The way it's structured gives priests too much leeway to celebrate it as they see fit. There are too many options.

2)Too many prayers have been watered down or outright eliminated.

3) In many ways it has an uncanny resemblance to Cranmer's "Mass". In more than a few ways, it's an affirmation of the so called Reformation, and was created by a team of liturgists headed by a man who was an enemy of the Church and was sent packing to Iran when evidence was found that he was a Freemason. He admitted he was trying to make the Mass more palatable to Protestants.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9