First Novus Ordo.... so confused.
#11
Where was this? What state? I've been to several NO masses at different parishes around NYC and never had the misfortune of seeing something like that.
Reply
#12
(05-02-2016, 08:29 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: It doesn't have to be that way.  The Novus Ordo may be celebrated with chant, bells, and incense.  The priest may use the Roman Canon as the Eucharistic prayer all the time.  They may chant the Kyrie in Greek, and have as much of the rest of the liturgy in Latin as they want.  They may celebrate the Mass ad orientem, with only traditional altars in the church.  Women may wear veils, and everyone may receive communion on the tongue, kneeling, at a communion rail, holding the cloth up against themselves as in the olden days.  The problem is that they don't have to do those things.  In other words, there are too many options.  So many groups are given accommodation, but not traditional Catholics.

Since the NO was introduced, the vast, overwhelming majority of Popes and Bishops have not celebrated the NO in a "reverent" manner, with any of the above listed items included. Since one would imagine that the Popes and Bishops are the valid interpreters of the very rite which they themselves attempted to promulgate, it would follow that the true spirit of the NO is irreverence, and that to attempt to celebrate the NO in a "reverent" manner (which is impossible because of the issues with the rite itself) is actually a violation of the spirit of the new rite. Just another reason to junk the NO altogether.
Reply
#13
I think the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in a reverent way. I find the Latin Mass to be more solitary and meditative. I try to think of the Novus Ordo as something akin to how the mass is celebrated in religious orders with lots of responsories and a more communal vibe. Perhaps this is what the motivations of the council fathers were at Vatican II - trying to bring laity further into community religious life. That's my guess, but I'm not a Vatican II expert.
Reply
#14
(05-03-2016, 07:28 AM)Pacman Wrote: I think the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in a reverent way. I find the Latin Mass to be more solitary and meditative. I try to think of the Novus Ordo as something akin to how the mass is celebrated in religious orders with lots of responsories and a more communal vibe. Perhaps this is what the motivations of the council fathers were at Vatican II - trying to bring laity further into community religious life. That's my guess, but I'm not a Vatican II expert.

I think your guess is basically accurate. They were inspired in many ways by the Byzantine rite, though this would surprise many Byzantine observers to learn. Over the centuries, and at some risk of over-simplification, the Roman Mass became a meditation on the Passion, and the Byzantine Divine Liturgy became a foretaste of the eschatological banquet. Of course the Passion and the Sacrifice of Calvary is not absent from the DL, just as the heavenly banquet is not absent from Holy Mass.

If I were to charitably interpret the intentions behind the NO, I think the reformers felt that the Roman tradition had focused on Calvary and propitiatory sacrifice, in response to Protestant heresies, to an extent that obscured the legitimate banquet aspect of the Mass. While perhaps a case could be made that this is true on the level of piety or devotion, I don't think that's an issue with the traditional Roman rites themselves. One of the main failures of the reform is that, while taking inspiration from the Byzantines, they didn't really do what Byzantines do. They did not produce a rite that suggests the heavenly banquet, but rather a simple meal. The "noble simplicity" they proffered doesn't work with the "banquet" theology. A Divine Liturgy suggests actually being in heaven with the constant singing, the abundance of icons, the clouds of incense, the ripidia, candles, and torches, the mystery of the iconostasis, the joy in the hymns, etc. The NO, by making everything optional, and generally being celebrated with an absolute minimum of ceremony, ensures this effect cannot be accomplished.

The NO, in jettisoning the particular genius of the Roman tradition, fails to clearly show forth the sacrifice, and, in misapplying the Byzantine tradition, fails to represent the eschatological banquet.
Reply
#15
(05-03-2016, 08:49 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(05-03-2016, 07:28 AM)Pacman Wrote: I think the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in a reverent way. I find the Latin Mass to be more solitary and meditative. I try to think of the Novus Ordo as something akin to how the mass is celebrated in religious orders with lots of responsories and a more communal vibe. Perhaps this is what the motivations of the council fathers were at Vatican II - trying to bring laity further into community religious life. That's my guess, but I'm not a Vatican II expert.

I think your guess is basically accurate. They were inspired in many ways by the Byzantine rite, though this would surprise many Byzantine observers to learn. Over the centuries, and at some risk of over-simplification, the Roman Mass became a meditation on the Passion, and the Byzantine Divine Liturgy became a foretaste of the eschatological banquet. Of course the Passion and the Sacrifice of Calvary is not absent from the DL, just as the heavenly banquet is not absent from Holy Mass.

If I were to charitably interpret the intentions behind the NO, I think the reformers felt that the Roman tradition had focused on Calvary and propitiatory sacrifice, in response to Protestant heresies, to an extent that obscured the legitimate banquet aspect of the Mass. While perhaps a case could be made that this is true on the level of piety or devotion, I don't think that's an issue with the traditional Roman rites themselves. One of the main failures of the reform is that, while taking inspiration from the Byzantines, they didn't really do what Byzantines do. They did not produce a rite that suggests the heavenly banquet, but rather a simple meal. The "noble simplicity" they proffered doesn't work with the "banquet" theology. A Divine Liturgy suggests actually being in heaven with the constant singing, the abundance of icons, the clouds of incense, the ripidia, candles, and torches, the mystery of the iconostasis, the joy in the hymns, etc. The NO, by making everything optional, and generally being celebrated with an absolute minimum of ceremony, ensures this effect cannot be accomplished.

The NO, in jettisoning the particular genius of the Roman tradition, fails to clearly show forth the sacrifice, and, in misapplying the Byzantine tradition, fails to represent the eschatological banquet.

This is the fundamental problem with the NO.  The various changes, on their own, would generally be fine, but they don't really work together.  There were a lot of different ideas floating around during the days of the liturgical movement and reform pretty much just put them all altogether.  You provide the most fundamental examples, but even take something like the versus populum orientation of the priest.  When it was being experimented with in the '40s, the motivation was not so that the priest could engage the congregation more, but so that the congregation could better see and focus more on the sacrifice on the altar--so that they could see the sacramental actions and directly adore the sacrament.  This fit with where the Roman Rite had come (no iconostasis or rood screens, etc.).  But pair this with priests being told to encourage active participation (understood in various ways) and it easily led to the interaction between the priest and people becoming the focus.

As another example, either the simplification of the rites or a change to vernacular on their own would have led to better intelligibility and easier congregational participation, while still maintaining the sense of dignity or mystery--but put them both together and you get banality.
Reply
#16
I must be blessed with a great NO parish. they celebrate the mass very reverently. When I see what all of you are complaining about it makes me cringe.
Reply
#17
(05-02-2016, 02:22 PM)hemolymph Wrote: Sigh.
I am a longtime former atheist. I grew up in a super liberal area, in a secular household.
By the Grace of God I wondered into an SSPX chapel one day a year ago and my life was completely turned upside down.

I have to ask:  how does one "wander into an SSPX chapel"? How'd that happen? (I'm so glad it did!)

To those saying that the N.O. Mass can be offered reverently: of course it can. But it's still horribly, wretchedly defective. Valid, of course, but defective. The TLM needs to be restored everywhere. Here's why:  http://www.fisheaters.com/TLMintroduction.html  (be sure, too, to read "Gutting the Gospels" in the links section of that page!).

Also:  Traditional Catholicism 101

Reply
#18
I actually had an opposite experience this weekend... due to some family issues, we ended up going to the 5 p.m. mass at a local NO parish where we haven't been in a couple of years - the last time we went there for 5pm it was a "Life Teen" Mass ... nuf said... you can imagine my shock/awe when we walked in and the first hting my 15 year old said was Wow Mom.... INSENCE!!!  We found that they now had a proper altar, not a danish-modern dinner table and podium with the Tabernacle moved from an alcove to front and center, raised above the altar on another ornate pedestal.. candles on the altar and proper altar cloths, not somethign that looked like burlap... and most of all, it was actually QUIET when we walked in about 10 minutes before mass.  There is now a Legion of Mary and they had May crowning after Mass, complete with procession, rosary recitation and fellowship afterwards.  I can't begin to tell you how impressed I was with the turn around, and the reverence with which the Mass was celebrated...  I would suggest not judging all NO parishes the same... there may be some moving in the right direction!
Reply
#19
I've been to only OF Masses since my reception of the Sacraments of initiation six years ago aside from three EF ones. I'm admittedly still confused. Why are there mini movies being played on projector screens? Why do we need so many EMHCs? Why can't we line up in front of the priest(s) and simply wait a bit longer for everyone to receive? Why don't more people want to kneel to receive Our Lord? Etc etc.
Reply
#20
editing
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)