What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Novus Ordo Mass?

[TraditionalistThomas]

Hello again,

Just another question. How do the Eastern Orthodox regard the Novus Ordo Mass of the Roman Catholic Church? Do they see it as a blatant rupture with tradition? Do they have no problems with it?

Through the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Thomas.

[Alpo]

Welcome to the forum.

Tridentine mass with slight modifications (removal of Filioque, insertion of epiclecis etc.) has been authorized to use in several patriarchates but nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere. I guess that answers your question.

[Gorazd]

Just my personal POV:

As it is done in practice  in local RC parishes, it is often disgusting. Probably, it can somehow be done better in theory, but in practice, that doesn't happen often.

The Tridentine Mass feels much holier to me. I never understood why they needed to do this "mess destruction". Couldn't they just celebrate the 1962 mass in the local languages?

[TraditionalistThomas]

Just my personal POV:

As it is done in practice  in local RC parishes, it is often disgusting. Probably, it can somehow be done better in theory, but in practice, that doesn't happen often.

The Tridentine Mass feels much holier to me. I never understood why they needed to do this "mess destruction". Couldn't they just celebrate the 1962 mass in the local languages?

I agree wholeheartedly with you! That is what faithful Catholics have been asking for decades. The answer? Modernism, liberalism and freemasonry infiltrating the heirachy of the Church. It indeed makes us weep.

God bless.

[Gorazd]

I agree wholeheartedly with you! That is what faithful Catholics have been asking for decades. The answer? Modernism, liberalism and freemasonry infiltrating the heirachy of the Church. It indeed makes us weep.

God bless.

We surely have a lot in common, but we also have certain differences. I mean, how did modernist and liberalist tendencies in Roman Catholicism develop? I think, they are based on rationalist, philosophical thinking. And in that, they have a lot in common with official position of the Roman Catholic Church at their time. For example, the antimodernist oath requires to swear that the existence of God can be proven be philosophical means. And already in the theology of Thomas Aquinas, philosophy is used as a means to obtain knowledge about God.

And here, I disagree. I believe that we cannot know God according to his essence. We can only know him in his energies, through revelation and through mystical experience in our way to theosis. It is important to be aware of the mystical character of our encounter with God, in order to maintain the mystical character of the eucharistical service.

The Roman Catholic "mess destruction" does have a lot to do with rationalism. For example, the Priest was made to face the people, because that would increase their understanding of the procedure, but thereby destroing the mystery of the change from bread and wine to Body and Blood of our Lord.

[Dominika]

I've attended several times Novus Ordo Mass. Too short, lack of the Holy Spirit, more speeches than prayer. However, if it was celebrated by priest, who carries about tradition, it wasn't so bad. In Novus Ordo much more depends on the priest, so sometimes the new Mass is a disaster and sometimes there are used some elements of other rites e.g. byzantine. Some things, as restoration of the majority of the readings of the Paschal Vigil, are the positive side of the liturgical reform in 60'.

But, actually, I prefer much more eastern Liturgies.
Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers. Despite these (or maybe because of these) there wasn't any mystery. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern. The Tridentine Mass isn't so ancient as Eastern Liturgies. As for me, Latin rite had lost quite a lot even before Vaticanum Secundum. I see both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass rigid, artificial and without depth.

[Aindriú]

But, actually, I prefer much more eastern Liturgies.

Should have stopped here.

Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin  so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers.

Sounds a bit like a westerner going to an eastern liturgy...

Despite these (or maybe because of these) there wasn't any mystery. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern. The Tridentine Mass isn't so ancient as Eastern Liturgies. As for me, Latin rite had lost quite a lot even before Vaticanum Secundum. I see both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass rigid, artificial and without depth.

There is a lot wrong here, and it's all rooted in personal preference and upbringing like a Western convert.

[Alpo]

Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin  so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers.

Sounds a bit like a westerner going to an eastern liturgy...

Plus we have walls to separate altar from the laity, many of clergy's prayers are silent and many local churches do not use vernacular.

[TraditionalistThomas]

But, actually, I prefer much more eastern Liturgies.
Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers. Despite these (or maybe because of these) there wasn't any mystery. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern. The Tridentine Mass isn't so ancient as Eastern Liturgies. As for me, Latin rite had lost quite a lot even before Vaticanum Secundum. I see both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass rigid, artificial and without depth.

Hey, I find this somewhat offensive. I wouldn't call the eastern Divine Liturgies "artificial" and "without depth"!

God bless.

[Michał Kalina]

nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere.

In the Philippines by Metropolitan Paul (the Antiochian one)?

[TraditionalistThomas]

Welcome to the forum.

Tridentine mass with slight modifications (removal of Filioque, insertion of epiclecis etc.) has been authorized to use in several patriarchates but nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere. I guess that answers your question.

Thanks!

Yes, I found out about this a couple of days back. I was shocked! Up until then I had no idea that some Eastern Orthodox offer a Roman (albeit modified) liturgy!

God bless.

[Alpo]

nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere.

In the Philippines by Metropolitan Paul (the Antiochian one)?

Is it some kind of interim option or permanent solution?

Anyway, it's just an exception to the rule. Orthodoxy is elsewhere more conservative than that. In fact pope Benedict XVI received a letter from patriarch of Moscow after Summorum Pontificum where patriarch commended pope's attachment to traditional liturgy.

[Michał Kalina]

Is it some kind of interim option or permanent solution?

I was supposed to be a temporary solution but IDK what is the situation now.

[Dominika]

There is a lot wrong here, and it's all rooted in personal preference and upbringing like a Western convert.

I know it can sound so offensive, it's just my very personal opinion, but as I've participated in Liturgies in various traditions, I have claim that during ages there were too many changes in Latin rite and that affects on my reception of it.

Plus we have walls to separate altar from the laity, many of clergy's prayers are silent and many local churches do not use vernacular.

I appreciate iconostasis, as it's from the Old testament, the Holiest place. I know that in medieval times also Latin rite a similar thing was existing. For me the position of priest in Eastern Liturgies is quite diffrent from Tridentine one; my Roman Catholic friends always when they come first time for an Orthodox service wonder why our clergy  "is walking and walking". When the priests in some parts of the Liturgy go through the iconostasis or turn to the faithful and give the blessing (more times than in Latin rite), I feel there is a contact between laymen and clergy.
My parish uses mainly Church Slavonic, but for me it's much more understandable than Latin (although I know Spanish). In the lands where is used one of Romance languages, Latin is maybe a perfect solution: traditional and mystical language, but they can understand many parts of the prayers. For English speaking are I don't know what would be the best idea, but e.g. for Slavic lands Church Slavonic is great (again, in my opinion).
I know some Catholics, who are pious and in some way traditional, but don't like Tridentine Mass. E.g this year one of my friends went for the Tridentine Mass on Pentecost and was dissapointed. She had been told that it would be something great, like Heaven in the Earth, but hasn't felt it during the Mass.

But, actually, I prefer much more eastern Liturgies.
Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers. Despite these (or maybe because of these) there wasn't any mystery. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern. The Tridentine Mass isn't so ancient as Eastern Liturgies. As for me, Latin rite had lost quite a lot even before Vaticanum Secundum. I see both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass rigid, artificial and without depth.

Hey, I find this somewhat offensive. I wouldn't call the eastern Divine Liturgies "artificial" and "without depth"!

God bless.

I'm sorry you might had felt resentful. I wrote it only about Tridentine Mass and Novus Ordo. I know that there are other Latin rites, but I've attended only Tridentine, Novus Ordo and Mariavite (a Polish sect from XX century), so I don't want to generalize. For example, I love mozarabic chants and some Latin chants such as Exsultet

[Agabus]

I suppose that my answer falls somewhat similar to what I said in the Assisi thread in that these days I don’t really think about NO much, except when it comes up – well – here.

My basic line of thought is that the Romans may do as the Romans may do (and the same thing for the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, etc.); it is their church, they can practice as they see fit. Inasmuch as I understand the circumstances that birthed it, I think the NO was an unnecessary break from the historic liturgy, but not the worst thing in the world. Celebrated properly the NO is not particularly beautiful, but is a reverent affair and the parishioners can draw what they may from the experience, and — leaving aside the debates about grace in non-Orthodox sacraments — they can still receive the Eucharist.

[William]

I think it's pretty lame.

[Orest]

Hello again,

Just another question. How do the Eastern Orthodox regard the Novus Ordo Mass of the Roman Catholic Church? Do they see it as a blatant rupture with tradition? Do they have no problems with it?

Through the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Thomas.

I have to be honest with you the Orthodox I know don't evn know anything about Roman Catholic churches, nevermind the services. 

[NicholasMyra]

freemasonry infiltrating the heirachy of the Church.

[Benjamin the Red]

I've never been to a prayerful N.O. Mass. They all seemed rather plain and bare-bones. Very Protestant, actually. It felt like being in a stuffy Reformed church (I say this coming from Presbyteriansm), except that there actually was an altar and a priest.

However, I have been to wonderful Latin Masses. I've attended both High and Low Masses, and found them very beautiful. Particularly the High Mass because I had more to focus on. My mind, unfortunately, tended to wander a bit during the Low Mass, with all of the silence. However, I found the silence of the Latin tradition to be very beautiful and sacred. I've never been to a Western Orthodox parish, but I do believe the Latin Mass (I think we sometimes call it the "Mass/Liturgy of St. Gregory") is served in some of them. Though, I understand they insert a Byzantine epiclesis, which really does make me sad. We complain about Latinization of the Eastern Catholics, but we shouldn't Byzantinize Western Orthodoxy. The only change needs to be the filioque, since it is a matter of doctrine.

All that, said, however...western liturgy is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there myself. I feel at home in the Byzantine liturgy moreso than any other liturgical tradition, but I certainly have a lot of respect for others, including the west.

[neon_knights]

The Novus Ordo Mass can be a beautiful rite, if properly practiced.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQnTMh9-CpI&feature=player_embedded

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO, the fault lies in how its practiced.

[Gorazd]

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO,

I respectfully disagree. The NOM offers a lot of choices, even the creed can be replaced by a song. Such options simply should not exist. Also, I think it is abhorrent that communion is handed out by laymen and -women in the NOM.

[Benjamin the Red]

The Novus Ordo Mass can be a beautiful rite, if properly practiced.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQnTMh9-CpI&feature=player_embedded

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO, the fault lies in how its practiced.

Beautiful! That's actually the best NO Mass I've ever seen celebrated.

Except, they REALLY do need to flip the altar back around...

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO,

I respectfully disagree. The NOM offers a lot of choices, even the creed can be replaced by a song. Such options simply should not exist. Also, I think it is abhorrent that communion is handed out by laymen and -women in the NOM.

I would also have to agree with this, though. The Creed CANNOT be replaced, and "extraordinary ministers" are not acceptable.

[William]

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO,

I respectfully disagree. The NOM offers a lot of choices, even the creed can be replaced by a song. Such options simply should not exist. Also, I think it is abhorrent that communion is handed out by laymen and -women in the NOM.

Then there's the very idea behind the NOM that Eucharistic prayers should be written by a committee rather than received from the saints of old.

[ialmisry]

Welcome to the forum.

Tridentine mass with slight modifications (removal of Filioque, insertion of epiclecis etc.) has been authorized to use in several patriarchates but nobody seems to be interested in using Novus Ordo nor AFAIK it has been authorized anywhere. I guess that answers your question.

Somewhere here IIRC there is some debate about WRO Novus Ordo going on in the Phillipines.  I don't recall if we ever got to the bottom of the Truth of the matter.

[Deacon Lance]

There is nothing wrong with the rite itself IMO,

I respectfully disagree. The NOM offers a lot of choices, even the creed can be replaced by a song. Such options simply should not exist. Also, I think it is abhorrent that communion is handed out by laymen and -women in the NOM.

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.

[Gorazd]

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.

Let's presume wht you say is true, then it is even worse. How can one receive Christ, even on weekdays, without confessing the faith?

And I assure you that I saw the creed replaced by a song on Sundays and Feastdays. That was the case, for example, last Coprus Christi, when I watched the local mass and procession. Also, the priest said "for all" instead of "for many". But what disturbed me most were some strange self-written prayers.

[JamesRottnek]

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.

Let's presume wht you say is true, then it is even worse. How can one receive Christ, even on weekdays, without confessing the faith?

How did one receive Christ before the Creed was written?

[ialmisry]

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.

Let's presume wht you say is true, then it is even worse. How can one receive Christ, even on weekdays, without confessing the faith?

If you mean by the Creed, the same way they did centuries before and after Nicea I (recitation of the Creed was introduced into the DL in the fifth or sixth century in the East and latter in the West (one of the reasons the filioque did not come to a head earlier).

[NicholasMyra]

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.

I've been to Catholic churches with no creed on sunday.

[JamesRottnek]

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.

I've been to Catholic churches with no creed on sunday.

It may be liturgical abuse.

[akimori makoto]

Though, I understand they insert a Byzantine epiclesis, which really does make me sad. We complain about Latinization of the Eastern Catholics, but we shouldn't Byzantinize Western Orthodoxy. The only change needs to be the filioque, since it is a matter of doctrine.

I'm surprised by this thought of yours, Ben.

I understand your point of view, but don't you think perhaps the presence or absence of the epiklesis shines a light on many other things?

[Joseph Hazen]

Ultimately the Novus Ordo is probably what got me looking into Orthodoxy. At first I figured I just didn't care for the contemporary, hippy music and lack of reverence, I just personally preferred the Latin Mass (which I attended when I could). Then I moved closer to the Latin Mass and got to attend it every week. I began to truly see the shocking irreverence in the Novus Ordo, and saw that it wasn't so much the style in which it was presented but irreverence inherent in the way the Mass was laid out. I didn't understand why the priest was facing the wrong way in the Novus Ordo, I didn't understand who thought they had the right to change all these things.

Then, because of something else, an Orthodox friend told me "find papal infallibility in the Early Church Fathers." I looked and couldn't find it. I realized that the Novus Ordo was a result of the scholasticism so foundational in Western Christianity. When one has determined that this is the exact moment of consecration, well, everything else is up for grabs. It can be changed around. When one has a logical answer for everything, when mystery is more suspect than central and tradition really is "just the way we used to do it" and not a core aspect of who and what you are, you're ultimately going to end up with something like the Novus Ordo, given enough time. That wasn't a proper Christian attitude. That whole paradigm was contrary to what we read in Christianity in the Early Church. Christianity is not ours to make do with what we like, it's supposed to have its way and we conform to it. The Liturgy does not belong to us, we do not have the right to concoct from whole cloth a new one. Tradition is not a toy.

The realization that things were not going to get better in Roman Catholicism, because the people in general didn't have a perspective that allowed them to see what was truly wrong with their church, coupled with reading the Early Church Fathers in context and explanation of how and why Orthodoxy is different from Roman Catholicism led to my being Chrismated just over a year ago.

[Big Chris]

"extraordinary ministers" are not acceptable.

Really?  What about St. Tarcisius?

[Maria]

The novus ordo is a protestantized liturgy.

If you can find a 1904 Lutheran Hymnal, please do so. The only copy I found and studied back in 1995 was tossed into the fireplace by my then Catholic priest-confessor who also stated that he would never celebrate the Novus Ordo again. 

The recent modifications in the Novus Ordo which were sanctioned by Pope Benedict are only superficial corrections as serious errors persist throughout this heretical Lutheran Liturgy. It is sad that Catholics have been brainwashed into accepting this Protestantized liturgy. Well do I remember attending parish education courses which painted anyone who refused to accept this novel liturgy as a "reactionary" who was "holier than the Pope."

[Joseph Hazen]

"extraordinary ministers" are not acceptable.

Really?  What about St. Tarcisius?

It is a weak argument to find one example of a possible Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and hold him up as an excuse and validation for a practice now found in practically every Roman church in North America, particularly when his hagiography describes him as a member of the minor clergy and clearly says nobody else was available to take Holy Communion to prisoners.

It's also pointless, IMO, to bring up how people received Communion before the Creed was put into the Liturgy, since we're not living in a time without the Creed and it is in the Liturgy now.

[Big Chris]

It is a weak argument to find one example of a possible Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and hold him up as an excuse and validation for a practice now found in practically every Roman church in North America, particularly when his hagiography describes him as a member of the minor clergy and clearly says nobody else was available to take Holy Communion to prisoners.
.

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

[Asteriktos]

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

[Joseph Hazen]

It is a weak argument to find one example of a possible Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and hold him up as an excuse and validation for a practice now found in practically every Roman church in North America, particularly when his hagiography describes him as a member of the minor clergy and clearly says nobody else was available to take Holy Communion to prisoners.
.

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

...and is not a layperson either. At any rate I agree with Asteriktos. We're not in the same situation as the Early Church anymore, not facing the persecutions they were or the other difficulties, and we don't really have proof that this was widespread.

[Big Chris]

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

The first point is moot.  Acolyte or not, he wasn't a priest or deacon.
As to the second point, contingent upon the first, laymen were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them in some times and places in the early church.  What more need be said?

[Asteriktos]

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

The first point is moot.  Acolyte or not, he wasn't a priest or deacon.

Some disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent, for example, says he may (or may not) have been a deacon. You're gonna have to come up with a situation a bit more clear if you want to use it as an example.

As to the second point, contingent upon the first, laymen were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them in some times and places in the early church.  What more need be said?

Yet no one would be ok with that today. You can't build a theology (even a theology of practice) on abnormalities. But multiple abnormalities do show that not everything was consistent, and thus it is even more dangerous to pick and choose an example out of thin air and try to use it as an evidence that it's how things should be done today.

[Joseph Hazen]

Ok, ignoring that he was probably clergy, the other point still stands - we don't mimic every practice of the Early Church. We don't confess to the entire congregation, we don't have a bishop presiding at every Liturgy, we don't expel the catechumens at "The Doors!" and we don't let lay-people touch Holy Communion.

[Big Chris]

Ok, ignoring that he was probably clergy, the other point still stands - we don't mimic every practice of the Early Church. We don't confess to the entire congregation, we don't have a bishop presiding at every Liturgy, we don't expel the catechumens at "The Doors!" and we don't let lay-people touch Holy Communion.

So, wait.  Now you're contradicting yourself.  Only a few posts ago you waxed poetic about how the Novus Ordo was contrary to "the whole paradigm" "to what we read in Christianity in the Early Church."  But now you admit that even Orthodox Christians don't mimic every practice of the early Church.  I smell a hypocrite.

[JamesRottnek]

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

The first point is moot.  Acolyte or not, he wasn't a priest or deacon.

Some disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent, for example, says he may (or may not) have been a deacon. You're gonna have to come up with a situation a bit more clear if you want to use it as an example.

As to the second point, contingent upon the first, laymen were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them in some times and places in the early church.  What more need be said?

Yet no one would be ok with that today. You can't build a theology (even a theology of practice) on abnormalities. But multiple abnormalities do show that not everything was consistent, and thus it is even more dangerous to pick and choose an example out of thin air and try to use it as an evidence that it's how things should be done today.

Well, as I understand it, it was the norm in the Church for the first few hundred years for the Eucharist to be taken home and a piece of it consumed every day during the week.  I am under the impression that this changed as the Church grew, because some people were not treating it respectfully.

[Big Chris]

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

The first point is moot.  Acolyte or not, he wasn't a priest or deacon.

Some disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent, for example, says he may (or may not) have been a deacon. You're gonna have to come up with a situation a bit more clear if you want to use it as an example.

As to the second point, contingent upon the first, laymen were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them in some times and places in the early church.  What more need be said?

Yet no one would be ok with that today. You can't build a theology (even a theology of practice) on abnormalities. But multiple abnormalities do show that not everything was consistent, and thus it is even more dangerous to pick and choose an example out of thin air and try to use it as an evidence that it's how things should be done today.

Seriously??

Tertullian, then:

"Are we not priests as well as laypersons?  It is written: 'He made us a kingdom of priests for God and his Father.'  The Church has by its authority established the distinction between hierarchy and people, and the hierarchy in turn divides into hierarchic degrees those who are consecrated to God.  Where there is no hierarchically organized assembly, you may baptize and preside at the eucharistic celebration and be your own priest; and in fact, whereever there are three, even if they be laypersons, there is the Church."  (De Exhortatione Castitatus)

[Joseph Hazen]

So, wait.  Now you're contradicting yourself.  Only a few posts ago you waxed poetic about how the Novus Ordo was contrary to "the whole paradigm" "to what we read in Christianity in the Early Church."  But now you admit that even Orthodox Christians don't mimic every practice of the early Church.  I smell a hypocrite.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my other post. I do not demand that everything be done as it was in the Early Church. I believe that what is done in today's Church must be in line with the philosophy of the Early Church; the entire thing must be one great continually connected experience. The Novus Ordo broke with what had come before it far too much to be a continual part of Tradition, it was something new. If they had just changed a prayer here or there, or had just translated it into the vernacular, it wouldn't have been a break with previous Liturgies. Furthermore the idea of being able to change everything up, to alter whatever one saw fit, is what was contrary to the paradigm of the Early Church. The Church is conservative, preserving more than what it alters. Of course practices change, and we need to respect that. To think we can turn back the clock and do things exactly as they were centuries ago is ridiculous, because it ignores what has happened in between and how The Church has answered it. I took issue with the Roman idea that one can do so, or can play chop shop with tradition, and still maintain the same faith.

But "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion" is a uniquely Roman problem, and one I'm happy to not have to deal with. Let the Romans have them if they want, that's not my problem.

[ialmisry]

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

First, isn't the status of that Saint as an acolyte in dispute? Second, in some times and places the early Church they let laymen take the eucharist home with them (besides other sacramental differences), so I'm not sure how much weight should be given to this or that practice--whether isolated event or even a regular occurence.

The first point is moot.  Acolyte or not, he wasn't a priest or deacon.

Some disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent, for example, says he may (or may not) have been a deacon. You're gonna have to come up with a situation a bit more clear if you want to use it as an example.

As to the second point, contingent upon the first, laymen were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them in some times and places in the early church.  What more need be said?

Yet no one would be ok with that today. You can't build a theology (even a theology of practice) on abnormalities. But multiple abnormalities do show that not everything was consistent, and thus it is even more dangerous to pick and choose an example out of thin air and try to use it as an evidence that it's how things should be done today.

Seriously??

Tertullian, then:

"Are we not priests as well as laypersons?  It is written: 'He made us a kingdom of priests for God and his Father.'  The Church has by its authority established the distinction between hierarchy and people, and the hierarchy in turn divides into hierarchic degrees those who are consecrated to God.  Where there is no hierarchically organized assembly, you may baptize and preside at the eucharistic celebration and be your own priest; and in fact, whereever there are three, even if they be laypersons, there is the Church."  (De Exhortatione Castitatus)

was that before he became a Montanist, the original Pentecostals?

[Big Chris]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my other post. I do not demand that everything be done as it was in the Early Church. I believe that what is done in today's Church must be in line with the philosophy of the Early Church; the entire thing must be one great continually connected experience. The Novus Ordo broke with what had come before it far too much to be a continual part of Tradition, it was something new. If they had just changed a prayer here or there, or had just translated it into the vernacular, it wouldn't have been a break with previous Liturgies. Furthermore the idea of being able to change everything up, to alter whatever one saw fit, is what was contrary to the paradigm of the Early Church. The Church is conservative, preserving more than what it alters. Of course practices change, and we need to respect that. To think we can turn back the clock and do things exactly as they were centuries ago is ridiculous, because it ignores what has happened in between and how The Church has answered it. I took issue with the Roman idea that one can do so, or can play chop shop with tradition, and still maintain the same faith.

Your criteria that "what is done in today's Church must be in line with the philosophy of the Early Church" is sketchy, at best.  What do you mean by early Church?  Are we talking about the first-second generation of Christians? Or are we talking about the liturgy of the 7th-9th centuries (where most of the stasis in both East and West occurs)?  You'll be pleased to know that the Novus Ordo fits every criteria of the Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians (10:16-17), the Didache (chs. 9-10), not to mention the commonly cited quotation from St. Justin Martyr.  These fragments that we are fortunate to have from the earliest of Christians are the only philosophy of the early Church and its liturgical life.

What you say is still inconsistent and hypocritical.  On the one hand you are willing to allow for the historical development of the Divine Liturgy, stating that "practices change and we need to respect that," but then, on the other hand, you are unwilling and unable to grant any development in the Roman rite, much less are you able to respect those developments despite the reformed liturgy being 'in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers' (Pope John Paul II).

The Mass, just like the Divine Liturgy, is an ongoing growing thing that has been celebrated in all times and in all cultures since Christ did those strange things during the Last Supper which was a Passover seder much like the Jews still celebrate which would have probably been not in Latin (perhaps Greek) but in Hebrew and Aramaic.

[Joseph Hazen]

Your criteria that "what is done in today's Church must be in line with the philosophy of the Early Church" is sketchy, at best.

An anonymous strange Roman Catholic online isn't happy with my opinion of his church?! Forgive me for not loosing sleep.

You'll be pleased to know that the Novus Ordo fits every criteria of the Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians (10:16-17), the Didache (chs. 9-10), not to mention the commonly cited quotation from St. Justin Martyr.  These fragments that we are fortunate to have from the earliest of Christians are the only philosophy of the early Church and its liturgical life.

Your inability to grasp the distinction between organic and inorganic growth in the life of a church astounds me.

What you say is still inconsistent and hypocritical.  On the one hand you are willing to allow for the historical development of the Divine Liturgy, stating that "practices change and we need to respect that," but then, on the other hand, you are unwilling and unable to grant any development in the Roman rite,

It's not, and watch who you call hypocritical. I don't mind if the Roman Mass changes. slowly and in response to the changing world. I do mind if my church writes a brand new Mass and then says "it's just like the really old masses!" which is bull. The oldest Liturgies we have are nothing like the Novus Ordo (check out the Liturgy of St. James) I will repeat, and use small words: If the Romans had changed a few prayers, had translated to the vernacular, had changed their liturgy in the same manner that all liturgies have changed since Christendom began and not concocted a whole new thing it would not have been a big deal. Instead they produced an entirely new liturgy, one which very clearly broke with several distinctive aspects of Christian tradition.

much less are you able to respect those developments despite the reformed liturgy being 'in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers' (Pope John Paul II).

A pope can say anything he likes, that doesn't make it true.

But, just like your "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion" the Novus Ordo is, thankfully, not my problem anymore. You can have all the Liturgical dancers and "Gather us in" you like, I'll stick with The Church, and not be responding to you again.

[Maria]

Your criteria that "what is done in today's Church must be in line with the philosophy of the Early Church" is sketchy, at best.

An anonymous strange Roman Catholic online isn't happy with my opinion of his church?! Forgive me for not loosing sleep.

You'll be pleased to know that the Novus Ordo fits every criteria of the Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians (10:16-17), the Didache (chs. 9-10), not to mention the commonly cited quotation from St. Justin Martyr.  These fragments that we are fortunate to have from the earliest of Christians are the only philosophy of the early Church and its liturgical life.

Your inability to grasp the distinction between organic and inorganic growth in the life of a church astounds me.

What you say is still inconsistent and hypocritical.  On the one hand you are willing to allow for the historical development of the Divine Liturgy, stating that "practices change and we need to respect that," but then, on the other hand, you are unwilling and unable to grant any development in the Roman rite,

It's not, and watch who you call hypocritical. I don't mind if the Roman Mass changes. slowly and in response to the changing world. I do mind if my church writes a brand new Mass and then says "it's just like the really old masses!" which is bull. The oldest Liturgies we have are nothing like the Novus Ordo (check out the Liturgy of St. James) I will repeat, and use small words: If the Romans had changed a few prayers, had translated to the vernacular, had changed their liturgy in the same manner that all liturgies have changed since Christendom began and not concocted a whole new thing it would not have been a big deal. Instead they produced an entirely new liturgy, one which very clearly broke with several distinctive aspects of Christian tradition.

much less are you able to respect those developments despite the reformed liturgy being 'in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers' (Pope John Paul II).

A pope can say anything he likes, that doesn't make it true.

But, just like your "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion" the Novus Ordo is, thankfully, not my problem anymore. You can have all the Liturgical dancers and "Gather us in" you like, I'll stick with The Church, and not be responding to you again.

I agree, Joseph.

Honestly, I feel like Catholics are being cheated ... cheated with a cheap imitation of a Lutheran Liturgy ... cheated because they think that they have the truth but they have been given a lie.

Lord have mercy.

I am so glad that I left the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I am praying for Catholics, as I know from personal experience how hard it is to repent and to accept the Orthodox Church as the True Catholic Church. During my catechumenate I wept when I encountered the truth about the Holy Orthodox Church.

[JamesRottnek]

I am so glad that I left the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I am praying for Catholics, as I know from personal experience how hard it is to repent and to accept the Orthodox Church as the True Catholic Church. During my catechumenate I wept when I encountered the truth about the Holy Orthodox Church.

If you don't want me calling you "schismatic" at every turn, please stop posting things like this.

[PeterTheAleut]

I am so glad that I left the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I am praying for Catholics, as I know from personal experience how hard it is to repent and to accept the Orthodox Church as the True Catholic Church. During my catechumenate I wept when I encountered the truth about the Holy Orthodox Church.

If you don't want me calling you "schismatic" at every turn, please stop posting things like this.

If you do carry through on this threat, even against the express wishes of our site owner, you will land yourself on post moderation so fast your head will spin. So don't even think about it.

[JamesRottnek]

I am so glad that I left the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I am praying for Catholics, as I know from personal experience how hard it is to repent and to accept the Orthodox Church as the True Catholic Church. During my catechumenate I wept when I encountered the truth about the Holy Orthodox Church.

If you don't want me calling you "schismatic" at every turn, please stop posting things like this.

If you do carry through on this threat, even against the express wishes of our site owner, you will land yourself on post moderation so fast your head will spin. So don't even think about it.

So she is to continue portraying herself as a member of the Orthodox Church when, in fact, she is not?

[PeterTheAleut]

I am so glad that I left the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I am praying for Catholics, as I know from personal experience how hard it is to repent and to accept the Orthodox Church as the True Catholic Church. During my catechumenate I wept when I encountered the truth about the Holy Orthodox Church.

If you don't want me calling you "schismatic" at every turn, please stop posting things like this.

If you do carry through on this threat, even against the express wishes of our site owner, you will land yourself on post moderation so fast your head will spin. So don't even think about it.

So she is to continue portraying herself as a member of the Orthodox Church when, in fact, she is not?

1. In this post, our site owner gave you very clear instructions that you are not to engage in this behavior of calling Old Calendarists schismatics when their ecclesiastical status is irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Are you going to continue defying the wishes of our site owner when you know what the penalty for such defiance will be?

2. You are not to question moderatorial actions like this in public. You are required to use the private message system only for such questions. Question my directive in public like this again, and you will be placed on post moderation.

[JamesRottnek]

I am so glad that I left the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I am praying for Catholics, as I know from personal experience how hard it is to repent and to accept the Orthodox Church as the True Catholic Church. During my catechumenate I wept when I encountered the truth about the Holy Orthodox Church.

If you don't want me calling you "schismatic" at every turn, please stop posting things like this.

If you do carry through on this threat, even against the express wishes of our site owner, you will land yourself on post moderation so fast your head will spin. So don't even think about it.

So she is to continue portraying herself as a member of the Orthodox Church when, in fact, she is not?

1. In this post, our site owner gave you very clear instructions that you are not to engage in this behavior of calling Old Calendarists schismatics when their ecclesiastical status is irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Are you going to continue defying the wishes of our site owner when you know what the penalty for such defiance will be?

2. You are not to question moderatorial actions like this in public. You are required to use the private message system only for such questions. Question my directive in public like this again, and you will be placed on post moderation.

I didn't call her a schismatic, nor am I questioning moderatorial actions.  I am merely saying that her behavior is deceptive.

Yes, you are questioning a moderatorial directive, and you are trying to justify your defiance of an administrator's directive. For both of these offenses, you are back on post moderation for the maximum duration of 99 days. If you wish to appeal this decision, please send me a private message.

- PeterTheAleut

[Gorazd]

How did one receive Christ before the Creed was written?

Ummm one used another wording of the creed? Surely, the creed we have now was finished on the Council of Constantinople, but there were many local creeds before that, such as the so-called Apostles' Creed still used in Rome today.

[Gorazd]

Our Holy Apostles gave their lives for the Truth, Jesus Christ. Should we not be ready to give at least a small thing, like the right to post in this forum, for the truth? Christ is risen, the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ, and anyone who calls himself a member of it, without being in communion with it, practices deception, both to the people he or she speaks to, and first of all to himself/herself. I am the first of sinners, surely much worse than all of you, but my conscience forces me to proclaim the truth. Let us call a spade a spade, a schismatic a schismatic, and ourselves and the whole world to repentance.

Maria and Fr. Anastasios, please, for the salvation of your own souls, return to the Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ, even if there are many more sinners in it than in Old Calendarist groups.

"Let us call a spade a spade..." - OK, you are trolling.

This forum allows EOs (both mainstream and hipster) and OOs (I'm not aware of any hipster OO groups) to participate on equal rights.

Each communion of Churches from these groups considers itself a one holy catholic and apostolic Church. You are not obliged to accept that but you also should not attack members of other groups without a reason. There are better places to discuss these issues than the thread about the NOM (did Fr. Anastasios's group accept NOM)?

"Our Holy Apostles gave their lives for the Truth, Jesus Christ. Should we not be ready to give at least a small thing" - yes, I will allow you to receive the crown of martyrdom if you want such. It would be much more severe than sufferings of the early Saints like crossed upside-down or boiled in hot oil - the times are harsher. You are receiving a 40-day-long warning for discussing moderator's decision in public.

MK

[arimethea]

Please keep to the topic of the Novus Ordo Mass. Anyone else who attempts to derail this topic will receive an escalation on their current status.

-Arimethea
Liturgy Section Moderator

[Big Chris]

Your inability to grasp the distinction between organic and inorganic growth in the life of a church astounds me.

I don't mind if the Roman Mass changes. slowly and in response to the changing world. I do mind if my church writes a brand new Mass and then says "it's just like the really old masses!" which is bull.

So, you would rather that Catholics continue attending Masses in Latin where virtually nothing is understood?  The only reason I attend the OCA parish that I currently do is because it's in English.  I tried attending a Greek Orthodox parish, and even knowing Greek I couldn't bear it.  The changes may have seemed abrupt, but every elderly Catholic who I have spoken to much prefers the NO to the traditional Latin - even priests and bishops.  What's more important to you - upholding tradition at the expense of personal salvation or a liturgical experience that aids in that salvation?

A pope can say anything he likes, that doesn't make it true.

Have you read Joseph Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy"?  Ratzinger was quite critical of the Novus Ordo, but his criticism nowhere concerns the fact that the Novus Ordo is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers.  The arrogance of your statement that "A pope can say anything he like..." is apparent.  It is plainly obvious to me that it is more convenient for you at this point to believe some delusion than to admit that anyone, especially a pope, has more knowledge than you concerning matters relating to liturgical development.

Furthermore, statistically speaking, there is really only a minute fraction of dissidents who share yours and other's opinion concerning the illegitimacy of the NO and its rupture with tradition.  Even Roman Catholic professors of liturgical history (see Enrico Mazza's excellent books) have maintained fidelity.

[biro]

Question: since the RCC instituted the new translation of the Mass, is there any general sentiment from the Orthodox as to whether the new one is 'better'? I am not talking about the subject of Communion, which is obviously a different matter. Just wonder if anybody's heard of any Orthodox bishop or writer of note who has commented on the new version of the RCC Mass. Thanks.

[Michał Kalina]

So, you would rather that Catholics continue attending Masses in Latin where virtually nothing is understood?  The only reason I attend the OCA parish that I currently do is because it's in English.  I tried attending a Greek Orthodox parish, and even knowing Greek I couldn't bear it.  The changes may have seemed abrupt, but every elderly Catholic who I have spoken to much prefers the NO to the traditional Latin - even priests and bishops.  What's more important to you - upholding tradition at the expense of personal salvation or a liturgical experience that aids in that salvation?

Why can't you have traditional Mass in English?

[NicholasMyra]

Ratzinger was quite critical of the Novus Ordo, but his criticism nowhere concerns the fact that the Novus Ordo is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers. 

But it's like a frankenstein version, dredged up from the forgotten depths of centuries past and imperfectly re-created by the top authority and foisted upon the laity.

[Big Chris]

Ratzinger was quite critical of the Novus Ordo, but his criticism nowhere concerns the fact that the Novus Ordo is not in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers. 

But it's like a frankenstein version, dredged up from the forgotten depths of centuries past and imperfectly re-created by the top authority and foisted upon the laity.

While I think even Paul VI would agree that the initial reform of the liturgy was poorly executed, I don't think there is any objective standard for defining the NO as "a frankenstein version" "imperfectly re-created."  If you consider the DL to be the hallmark of Christian worship, that's one thing, and to consider it the only proper worship as Orthodox Christians makes perfect sense, but as I've demonstrated above, the NO keeps faith with the earliest of Christian documents concerning the celebration of the Eucharist.  In my opinion, based on the sources I've cited, the NO is closer to the liturgy of the apostles than the DL is.  I think Wybrew's history of the development of the Orthodox liturgy demonstrates this adequately enough.  Show me where St. Paul prayed the Litany of Peace or any of the current prayers used in the DL outside of the Psalms?  I respect that the DL was an organic development through the centuries, attempting to keep the core philosophy of earliest Christianity in sight.  I just think it's hypocritical when the so-called defenders of the Ancient Faith criticize an attempt to return to Christianity's roots.

[biro]

So, you would rather that Catholics continue attending Masses in Latin where virtually nothing is understood?  The only reason I attend the OCA parish that I currently do is because it's in English.  I tried attending a Greek Orthodox parish, and even knowing Greek I couldn't bear it.  The changes may have seemed abrupt, but every elderly Catholic who I have spoken to much prefers the NO to the traditional Latin - even priests and bishops.  What's more important to you - upholding tradition at the expense of personal salvation or a liturgical experience that aids in that salvation?

Why can't you have traditional Mass in English?

Well, the Novus Ordo was supposed to be a translation of the old, but it didn't turn out that way- the rendition came out in the 1960s and was seen as of pretty bad quality by most traditionalist RCC folks. The old text of the Latin Mass was therefore used for traditional Mass, if you had a dispensation from the bishop- which was pretty tough to get, as I heard. Thus most parishes wound up using the 1960s English text, so if you wanted to hear the 'old' Mass, you had to find a church that held it in Latin.

The New Translation of the Roman Rite RCC Mass came out last year, and it is available in the local vernacular- so you can have it in English or anything else the parish needs.

 

[Michał Kalina]

Are the NOM and Latin Mass really the same thing?

[thetraditionalfrog]

Having been brought up Catholic (Conservative Novus Ordo), and then having been involved in the Catholic Traditional Movement, I can say I much preferred the Traditional Latin or "Tridentine" Mass. Without going in to great detail, let's just say there are multiple and grave issues inherent in the Novus Ordo, and in the Catholic Church in general since Vatican II. The Pslamist says "Worship the Lord in the beauty of Holiness...", I just never got a "beauty of holiness" from a Novus Ordo. The best Novus Ordo's I've seen are Pope Benedict's, EWTN's, and The NOM as offered at Holy Rosary in Indianapolis (interestingly the priest also offers the Traditional Mass daily as well). All in all, thanks, but no thanks!

While I understand the traditionalists point about maintaining latin (unity and the Decrees of Trent), I also feel that perhaps a reverent vernacular translation would have been in order perhaps leaving some latin hymnody and a few prayers (Pater Noster, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) as many ethnic Orthodox churches do now (75% English 25% Greek, Slavonic, etc). This is more in keeping with the older tradition of the church anyway. As for translation most Catholics had a Missal with latin on one page and the english on the opposite. It was BCP or "King's/Elizabethan" English. It was/is about Faith, not the Latin.

Now that I'm Orthodox, I rarely think or delve much in to the issues of Catholicism these days. I do pray for a return of tradition and sanity in the RCC. I have many friends and relatives who Catholics, and I pray for them. I am also grateful to the good priests and sisters who taught me about Our Lord, Our Lady, and the faith. I harbor no grudge or ill will toward Catholics. As I said before, I feel that rather than leaving Catholicism by becoming Orthodox, I've rather embraced it in its most full and traditional undiluted form!

[biro]

Well said.

[NicholasMyra]

AI've demonstrated above, the NO keeps faith with the earliest of Christian documents concerning the celebration of the Eucharist.

Not really. The Didache, for example, is a Jewish proselyte manual modified by Christians. We don't know if it was ever even used. The reason why the Eucharistic prayer is different from what we normally see is because they took a jewish prayer and modded it a little to keep in line with the rest of the document.

As for Justin Martyr's account, it describes the portions relevant for Marcus Aurelius to understand Christians weren't cannibals.

In my opinion, based on the sources I've cited, the NO is closer to the liturgy of the apostles than the DL is.

That's like saying a square block of granite is closer to Michelangelo's original King David than today's statue, because Michelangelo started with a square block of marble.

We know next to nothing about the liturgy of the apostles.

Show me where St. Paul prayed the Litany of Peace or any of the current prayers used in the DL outside of the Psalms?

Show me where in the Synoptics Jesus says he's the Bread of Life.

I respect that the DL was an organic development through the centuries, attempting to keep the core philosophy of earliest Christianity in sight.  I just think it's hypocritical when the so-called defenders of the Ancient Faith criticize an attempt to return to Christianity's roots.

The criticism is against top-down reconstructionism, whether done by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Messianic Jews, Tibetan Buddhists, etc.

[Maria]

So, you would rather that Catholics continue attending Masses in Latin where virtually nothing is understood?  The only reason I attend the OCA parish that I currently do is because it's in English.  I tried attending a Greek Orthodox parish, and even knowing Greek I couldn't bear it.  The changes may have seemed abrupt, but every elderly Catholic who I have spoken to much prefers the NO to the traditional Latin - even priests and bishops.  What's more important to you - upholding tradition at the expense of personal salvation or a liturgical experience that aids in that salvation?

Why can't you have traditional Mass in English?

As I recall, when I was a child back in 1962 or 1963, when I was in the Archdiocese of San Francisco or the Diocese of Oakland (cannot remember which one as the SF Diocese was split around that time), the Catholic bishop allowed us to have the traditional Mass in English. Then we suddenly switched to the NOM, which left a lot of folks upset after the novelty faded which only encouraged more innovations. The modus operandi was to find any type of mass that would keep youth in the parishes: Guitar NOM masses, Clown NOM masses, Beer NOM masses, and even Bikini NOM masses at the beach.

If we could have kept the traditional Mass in English (using the 1962 Missal), I think there would have been less problems. However, the blasted ICEL wrecked everything by appropriating the Lutheran Liturgy and then revised it to please the feminists by using gender neutral language. When certain bishops insisted that readers substitute "her" for "him," and "she" for "he," Apostles were often referred to as women. Sheesh.

The proper use of pronouns are important. Therefore, when the political correctness squads object to the use of masculine nouns and pronouns like king, lord, master, he, him, his, then the liturgy and scripture readings become ambiguous and ludicrous with the result that any sacredness in the Liturgy is destroyed.

When my husband and I encountered the song "Her name is Jesus" which was being sung at our local Catholic parish back in 1993, then we finally bolted and joined the Melkite Church. We would have gone to the Maronites (my ancestry) but they had long ago been latinized and even offered the NOM at their parish.

[Deacon Lance]

Are the NOM and Latin Mass really the same thing?

Yes.
Comparison of Tridentine and NO side by side.
http://www.getholy.com/files/Side_by_Side2.pdf

Translation is a seperate issue and many(most?) of ICEL's old translations stinks.

[Maria]

Are the NOM and Latin Mass really the same thing?

Yes.
Comparison of Tridentine and NO side by side.
http://www.getholy.com/files/Side_by_Side2.pdf

Translation is a seperate issue and many(most?) of ICEL's old translations stinks.

I agree with you that ICELs NO translations stink. Was this the nasty odor to which Pope Paul VI referenced as "the smoke/odor of Satan"?

There are apparently two different Latin Masses:

1. The Tridentine Latin Mass (1962)

2. The NO Latin Mass from which the English NO Mass has been rendered by the ICEL.

When I was a Roman Catholic, the Catholic bishop allowed a couple of parishes to have the NO Latin Mass once on Sundays, but he absolutely forbade the Tridentine Latin Mass to be celebrated. Later, he allowed one Tridentine Latin Mass of 1962 to be celebrated in only one parish, but carefully rotated the selected parish from one end of his diocese to the other so that devout faithful would have to spend one hour traveling to find the Mass each Sunday. Then to discourage the faithful from attending these Traditional Latin Masses, he would ask that the priest distribute communion from the NO Mass reserved hosts in the common ciborium found in the tabernacle. IOW, people who attended those Latin Masses were not getting communion from the Latin Mass but from a NO mass.

Personally, since 1973, I never attended the Latin Masses whether Traditional 1962 version or the NO version. I did attend several Tridentine Latin Masses at 6:00 AM back during the early 1970s, but the priest said a very rapid Mass which took him only 20 minutes, and he often forgot that I was even present and thus forgot to give me communion.

[Gorazd]

Are the NOM and Latin Mass really the same thing?

No. "Latin Mass" only defines the language, and many kinds of masses can be celebrated in Latin. There is Latin NOM, there is the Tridentine ("old") mass, there are Sarum, Mozarabic, etc.

[Maria]

At St. Augustine Western Rite Parish in Colorado, Archimandrite John celebrates the Gregorian Latin Mass which is almost identical to the 1962 Tridentine Latin Mass.

There were some changes made, for example, the Nicene Creed has the "filioque" omitted.

Are there any current members of St. Augustine who can supply more information on this Gregorian Latin Mass?

To my knowledge, there are no WRO parishes which celebrate a variation of the NO Mass as it is a modern Protestantized liturgy.

Nevertheless, some WRO parishes appear to have a liturgy which is a modified Anglican form. Note: Some Anglicans do not consider themselves to be Protestants. When I attended the Mass at St. Michael's Antiochian Church in Whittier, that Mass was modified from the Anglicans. Again, if there are any members from St. Michaels perhaps they can enlighten us.

[Michał Kalina]

Are the NOM and Latin Mass really the same thing?

Yes.

Are the NOM and Latin Mass really the same thing?

No.

Hmm...

[Deacon Lance]

Are the NOM and Latin Mass really the same thing?

Yes.

Are the NOM and Latin Mass really the same thing?

No.

Hmm...

I guess it depends what you mean by Latin Mass.  The NO can be Latin as the Tridentine must be.  The Mozarabic and Ambrosian Masses can also be in Latin.  When most people in the US refer to the Latin Mass they mean the Trindentine.  Are the NO and Trindentine the same thing?  Essentailly yes, I say.  Look at the link and judge for yourself. 

[Sleeper]

At St. Augustine Western Rite Parish in Colorado, Archimandrite John celebrates the Gregorian Latin Mass which is almost identical to the 1962 Tridentine Latin Mass.

There were some changes made, for example, the Nicene Creed has the "filioque" omitted.

Are there any current members of St. Augustine who can supply more information on this Gregorian Latin Mass?

To my knowledge, there are no WRO parishes which celebrate a variation of the NO Mass as it is a modern Protestantized liturgy.

Nevertheless, some WRO parishes appear to have a liturgy which is a modified Anglican form. Note: Some Anglicans do not consider themselves to be Protestants. When I attended the Mass at St. Michael's Antiochian Church in Whittier, that Mass was modified from the Anglicans. Again, if there are any members from St. Michaels perhaps they can enlighten us.

I'm not from St. Michael's, however my parish serves the Mass of St. Tikhon to which you are referring. It is definitely from the stream of Anglican's that do not identify as "Protestant." In fact, it is a direct descendant of the Scottish Non-Juror liturgy, a group that self-identified as the "catholick remnant of the British Isles" who held extensive discussions with the Orthodox Church about joining. The Mass of St. Tikhon is essentially the Tridentine Mass with certain elements from the Scottish Non-Juror tradition interpolated. It, along with the Mass of St. Gregory (essentially the Tridentine Mass in English) removes the filioque clause, contains a strengthened epiclesis, and and adds some pre-Communion prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

[Maria]

At St. Augustine Western Rite Parish in Colorado, Archimandrite John celebrates the Gregorian Latin Mass which is almost identical to the 1962 Tridentine Latin Mass.

There were some changes made, for example, the Nicene Creed has the "filioque" omitted.

Are there any current members of St. Augustine who can supply more information on this Gregorian Latin Mass?

To my knowledge, there are no WRO parishes which celebrate a variation of the NO Mass as it is a modern Protestantized liturgy.

Nevertheless, some WRO parishes appear to have a liturgy which is a modified Anglican form. Note: Some Anglicans do not consider themselves to be Protestants. When I attended the Mass at St. Michael's Antiochian Church in Whittier, that Mass was modified from the Anglicans. Again, if there are any members from St. Michaels perhaps they can enlighten us.

I'm not from St. Michael's, however my parish serves the Mass of St. Tikhon to which you are referring. It is definitely from the stream of Anglican's that do not identify as "Protestant." In fact, it is a direct descendant of the Scottish Non-Juror liturgy, a group that self-identified as the "catholick remnant of the British Isles" who held extensive discussions with the Orthodox Church about joining. The Mass of St. Tikhon is essentially the Tridentine Mass with certain elements from the Scottish Non-Juror tradition interpolated. It, along with the Mass of St. Gregory (essentially the Tridentine Mass in English) removes the filioque clause, contains a strengthened epiclesis, and and adds some pre-Communion prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Thanks for this information.

[William]

I'm not from St. Michael's, however my parish serves the Mass of St. Tikhon to which you are referring. It is definitely from the stream of Anglican's that do not identify as "Protestant." In fact, it is a direct descendant of the Scottish Non-Juror liturgy, a group that self-identified as the "catholick remnant of the British Isles" who held extensive discussions with the Orthodox Church about joining. The Mass of St. Tikhon is essentially the Tridentine Mass with certain elements from the Scottish Non-Juror tradition interpolated. It, along with the Mass of St. Gregory (essentially the Tridentine Mass in English) removes the filioque clause, contains a strengthened epiclesis, and and adds some pre-Communion prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Can you provide some more info on these Scotsmen who considered being Orthodox? Thanks.

[Sleeper]

I'm not from St. Michael's, however my parish serves the Mass of St. Tikhon to which you are referring. It is definitely from the stream of Anglican's that do not identify as "Protestant." In fact, it is a direct descendant of the Scottish Non-Juror liturgy, a group that self-identified as the "catholick remnant of the British Isles" who held extensive discussions with the Orthodox Church about joining. The Mass of St. Tikhon is essentially the Tridentine Mass with certain elements from the Scottish Non-Juror tradition interpolated. It, along with the Mass of St. Gregory (essentially the Tridentine Mass in English) removes the filioque clause, contains a strengthened epiclesis, and and adds some pre-Communion prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Can you provide some more info on these Scotsmen who considered being Orthodox? Thanks.

Here are some excerpts of their correspondence: http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/nonjurors.htm

[neon_knights]

At St. Augustine Western Rite Parish in Colorado, Archimandrite John celebrates the Gregorian Latin Mass which is almost identical to the 1962 Tridentine Latin Mass.

There were some changes made, for example, the Nicene Creed has the "filioque" omitted.

Are there any current members of St. Augustine who can supply more information on this Gregorian Latin Mass?

To my knowledge, there are no WRO parishes which celebrate a variation of the NO Mass as it is a modern Protestantized liturgy.

Nevertheless, some WRO parishes appear to have a liturgy which is a modified Anglican form. Note: Some Anglicans do not consider themselves to be Protestants. When I attended the Mass at St. Michael's Antiochian Church in Whittier, that Mass was modified from the Anglicans. Again, if there are any members from St. Michaels perhaps they can enlighten us.

Achronos goes to St. Augustine I think.

[Apotheoun]

I found the Ukrainian Catholic document below, which compares Eastern and Western liturgies, interesting:

[Gorazd]

Apotheoun,

I am not sure about Greek Catholics, but as Orthodox Christians, we emphasize Christ's divinity and humanity equally, we also emphasize the oneness of God and his three persons equally etc. and I think that is what all Christians should do.

[William]

I'm not from St. Michael's, however my parish serves the Mass of St. Tikhon to which you are referring. It is definitely from the stream of Anglican's that do not identify as "Protestant." In fact, it is a direct descendant of the Scottish Non-Juror liturgy, a group that self-identified as the "catholick remnant of the British Isles" who held extensive discussions with the Orthodox Church about joining. The Mass of St. Tikhon is essentially the Tridentine Mass with certain elements from the Scottish Non-Juror tradition interpolated. It, along with the Mass of St. Gregory (essentially the Tridentine Mass in English) removes the filioque clause, contains a strengthened epiclesis, and and adds some pre-Communion prayers from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Can you provide some more info on these Scotsmen who considered being Orthodox? Thanks.

Here are some excerpts of their correspondence: http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/nonjurors.htm

Interesting. A shame they were so protestantized as to deny the Real Presence, though.

[Shiny]

Are there any current members of St. Augustine who can supply more information on this Gregorian Latin Mass?

As far as the changes/differences?

[Peter J]

So, you would rather that Catholics continue attending Masses in Latin where virtually nothing is understood?  The only reason I attend the OCA parish that I currently do is because it's in English.  I tried attending a Greek Orthodox parish, and even knowing Greek I couldn't bear it.  The changes may have seemed abrupt, but every elderly Catholic who I have spoken to much prefers the NO to the traditional Latin - even priests and bishops.  What's more important to you - upholding tradition at the expense of personal salvation or a liturgical experience that aids in that salvation?

Why can't you have traditional Mass in English?

That did exist briefly. I can't tell you too much about it, it was before my time.

[Peter J]

The novus ordo is a protestantized liturgy.

If you can find a 1904 Lutheran Hymnal, please do so. The only copy I found and studied back in 1995 was tossed into the fireplace by my then Catholic priest-confessor who also stated that he would never celebrate the Novus Ordo again. 

Interesting. So, I take it he was okay with the Novus Ordo before that?

[Rdunbar123]

. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern.

Hope I got the quote right. This is a matter of taste. Compare chanting to the masses in Latin by the great western composers IMO, no comparison, but then again I can't see what people saw in disco music.

[Peter J]

but then again I can't see what people saw in disco music.

Great Scott! Have you gone mad? 

[SubdeaconDavid]

It is a weak argument to find one example of a possible Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and hold him up as an excuse and validation for a practice now found in practically every Roman church in North America, particularly when his hagiography describes him as a member of the minor clergy and clearly says nobody else was available to take Holy Communion to prisoners.
.

I don't think St Tarcisius is "one example" at all but a signal to a practice that occurred much more widespread in the early church.  And by minor clergy I'm sure you meant acolyte which still isn't a priest or deacon.

...and is not a layperson either. At any rate I agree with Asteriktos. We're not in the same situation as the Early Church anymore, not facing the persecutions they were or the other difficulties, and we don't really have proof that this was widespread.

n the Early Church the catechumenate was long and rigorous and the penalties for sin severe, and the Eucharist was not taken lightly, even if for a time laymen took the Eucharist home.  It is very different from the Novus Ordo where there are no obligatory communion preparation prayers, the hour Fast means you can just about eat a sandwich on the way to mass, and the use of women in the altar and distributing communion is an unheard of innovation. Add to the mix Roman Catholic priests who don't own a cassock, or know how to use incense, or amend the prayers in the order of mass to suit the congregation and you end up with Protestantism.

[WeldeMikael]

I remember some young people coming in my RC Church, chanting with guitars for the mass... I felt like.... Am I in a Catholic church or a Protestant one   

[Rdunbar123]

The Creed cannot be replaced by a song.  However, it is only called for on Sundays and Feastdays, not weekday Masses.

I've been to Catholic churches with no creed on sunday.

It may be liturgical abuse.

As an ex RC I promise you that no creed is an abuse. It is not optional.

Quoting tags editted - MK.

[choy]

The Tridentine Mass feels much holier to me. I never understood why they needed to do this "mess destruction". Couldn't they just celebrate the 1962 mass in the local languages?

I think this is one of those things where the RC Church legislated themselves into a hole they can't get out of.  I think they mandated that the Tridentine Mass be always in Latin.

[kevlev]

I have no first-hand experience of the NO mass. What I do know of it has been gathered through youtube and literature, and all of these encounters have left me cold and unaffected. Seems like it doesn't quite know what it wants to be: too liturgical for most protestants and too irreverent for traditionalists---the El Camino of liturgies. The Tridentine, on the other hand, looks truly awe-inspiring and absolutely gorgeous. I know which one I would go for if I professed Roman Catholicism. I really mean no offense to RCs, forgive me.

[primuspilus]

the El Camino of liturgies

This made me LOL for real.

PP

[Fotios1303]

I think this is a deep destruction of liturgy.

I don't know why they done this destruction.

[primuspilus]

I think this is a deep destruction of liturgy.

I don't know why they done this destruction.

Because their "innovations" somehow constitute the continuation of the early church I'd imagine.

PP

[TinaG]

UUUUCHHHH!  I've had plenty of occasions to attend Novus Ordo masses in predominantly RC South Texas (weddings, First Communions, etc..) and I can't recall one that I didn't cringe at, especially with the use of that horrible, insipid Gather hymnal.  And don't get me started on the Communion buffet line with Eucharistic Ministers.  There are so many things I love and respect about Roman Catholicism and wish East and West could overcome their schism, but not if it meant watering down our worship,  practices or beliefs as I see in the Novus Ordo and modern Catholicism.

[rodrigo_mendoza]

Technically, I'm not yet Orthodox.  God willing, I will be received into the Church on Holy Saturday 2013.

I do have a bit of experience with the Novus Ordo Mass though.  In the 24 months before becoming an Orthodox Catecheumen [March 2012], I attended daily Mass MON-FRI [more than 500 masses] at a small [35-seat] chapel in the residential house of a religious order.  We met at 0730 to read the office of Matins [Orthros] in community and began Mass at 0800.

Each day there were approx ten priests, ten religious brothers and a regular group of 10-12 lay faithful [including myself].  The Mass itself is a brief [but by-the-book and reverently offered] Novus Ordo format.  Prayers are read, rather than sung.  There is a sermon every day and no priest offers Mass on consecutive days.  The Eucharist is always distributed by an ordained priest.  Priests and religious brothers in attendance often receive the consecrated Host in the hand.  Lay faithful receive on the tongue.  All drink from the Chalice.  

The Novus Ordo Mass is what it is.  There are a number of options which - if not kept in check by the priest - can turn it into a Ringling Brothers event.  That's never happened "here" in the two years I attended regularly.  The rector runs a tight ship and the priests take their part seriously  For the glory of God.

For the record, the Roman Catholic Church delivered me directly to the doorstep of Orthodoxy.

With gratitude.

Roddy


  

[William]

I have no first-hand experience of the NO mass. What I do know of it has been gathered through youtube and literature, and all of these encounters have left me cold and unaffected. Seems like it doesn't quite know what it wants to be: too liturgical for most protestants and too irreverent for traditionalists---the El Camino of liturgies. The Tridentine, on the other hand, looks truly awe-inspiring and absolutely gorgeous. I know which one I would go for if I professed Roman Catholicism. I really mean no offense to RCs, forgive me.

Pretty much this. None of the "liturgy is stupid" crowd is particularly satisfied with a halfway liturgy. When we were discussing this in a class of mine everybody still preferred the rock concerts they give at the megachurch in town and complained about the NO being too formal(!).

[dzheremi]

99% of the liturgies I attended during my time in the RCC were Novus Ordo liturgies. I don't like them. Out of respect for the RCs here, I won't go into too much detail about how awful they are (as that can easily be answered by appeal to either the Eastern Catholic churches or the fact that "a properly celebrated N.O. mass can be just a reverent as anything else"; as though in the hundreds of masses I attended in several different places, said by many different priests, not one managed to ever properly celebrate it -- right). I'll just say that I much prefer this to anything like this. I am lucky in that the RC church I was received into was not quite as schlocky as you might imagine a Mass with plinky piano ruining everything to be, but that is par for the course in some other RC churches I had been to. Irreverent is the word, I suppose. I feel bad for RCs, when in their own history they have had beautiful, reverent, and traditional forms of worship like the Mozarabic, the Old Roman, the Gregorian of course, and even more, but today things like this absolute garbage (or if you prefer the "Eastern" spirituality of one of the non-Latin compatriots, this) is more often what people are offered. Lord have mercy!

[akimori makoto]

this.

In what universe is this considered good music by anyone?

I am sick of Christianity being taken over by incurable and insufferable dorks trying at coolness.

[dzheremi]

Hahaha. I don't know...no universe that I want to live in, that's for sure. Did you get to the modern RC mass a bit further down in the post? It is also quite...special.

I'm sorry, any RCs who might read this. You'll have to excuse me for having a bit of fun with how terrible these things are. In reality it's not very funny; it is entirely unnecessary and gross, in fact, but hey...if you can't laugh about it, you'll just get depressed or angry or doing something crazy and impulsive like get fed up and inquire into Orthodoxy, right?

[akimori makoto]

Hahaha. I don't know...no universe that I want to live in, that's for sure. Did you get to the modern RC mass a bit further down in the post? It is also quite...special.

I'm sorry, any RCs who might read this. You'll have to excuse me for having a bit of fun with how terrible these things are. In reality it's not very funny; it is entirely unnecessary and gross, in fact, but hey...if you can't laugh about it, you'll just get depressed or angry or doing something crazy and impulsive like get fed up and inquire into Orthodoxy, right?

Yes, I watched all of them. The Coptic liturgy was beautiful, of course.

[rodrigo_mendoza]

I'm sorry, any RCs who might read this. You'll have to excuse me for having a bit of fun with how terrible these things are. In reality it's not very funny; it is entirely unnecessary and gross, in fact, but hey...if you can't laugh about it, you'll just get depressed or angry or doing something crazy and impulsive like get fed up and inquire into Orthodoxy, right?

Right.

[kevlev]

this.

In what universe is this considered good music by anyone?

I am sick of Christianity being taken over by incurable and insufferable dorks trying at coolness.

Doxology set to "Oh My Darling Clementine"?? Wow. How sad  

[dzheremi]

If you go to the, uh...composer's website, you will see the following bio:

Stephen DeCesare has proven to be one of those prolific composers whose compositions have been widely acclaimed by audiences and critics alike for their dramatic strength, passionate melodies and rich orchestrations. His works are receiving numerous performances and commissions all over the world.

On May 1st 2011, Stephen was honored by conducting his Mass of Divine Mercy in Stockbridge MA on a worldwide EWTN telecast for the beatification of John Paul II.

In addition to his work for the theater, Stephen is active in sacred and orchestral music. To date, Stephen has over 800 compositions in his compositional catalog.

Wow! Impressive, huh? He was honored to conduct his Mass on ETWN TV network. I'm really bummed that I missed it, actually. No word on whether or not he's available for children's parties, either.

[kevlev]

If you go to the, uh...composer's website, you will see the following bio:

Probably Stephen DeCesare's mother[/b]]<<<Lulz
Stephen DeCesare has proven to be one of those prolific composers whose compositions have been widely acclaimed by audiences and critics alike for their dramatic strength, passionate melodies and rich orchestrations. His works are receiving numerous performances and commissions all over the world.

On May 1st 2011, Stephen was honored by conducting his Mass of Divine Mercy in Stockbridge MA on a worldwide EWTN telecast for the beatification of John Paul II.

In addition to his work for the theater, Stephen is active in sacred and orchestral music. To date, Stephen has over 800 compositions in his compositional catalog.

Wow! Impressive, huh? He was honored to conduct his Mass on ETWN TV network. I'm really bummed that I missed it, actually. No word on whether or not he's available for children's parties, either.

LOL

Seriously though, I think we've all been waiting long enough for our churches to catch up to the profundity that was "Blues Clues". Brothers and sisters, DeCesare has arrived.

[NicholasMyra]

I thought the RC had finally phased out "world without end" in favor of "for ever and ever" or something else not ridiculous.

[choy]

I don't think the Novus Ordo in itself is bad.  It just came at a bad time when priest themselves are heavily influenced by Protestant faiths.  They see that many of the people find Protestantism, especially those of the Evangelical variety, to be very appealing.  In an effort to get people interested in Mass, they start doing these things.  A lot of it is because people want them.  It is the sorry state of our spirituality as a people when we have secularized so quickly that priests have to resort to drastic measures just to keep us interested.

[kevlev]

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

[WeldeMikael]

I don't think the Novus Ordo in itself is bad.  It just came at a bad time when priest themselves are heavily influenced by Protestant faiths.  They see that many of the people find Protestantism, especially those of the Evangelical variety, to be very appealing.  In an effort to get people interested in Mass, they start doing these things.  A lot of it is because people want them.  It is the sorry state of our spirituality as a people when we have secularized so quickly that priests have to resort to drastic measures just to keep us interested.

I agree.

[Carefree T]

At St. Augustine Western Rite Parish in Colorado, Archimandrite John celebrates the Gregorian Latin Mass which is almost identical to the 1962 Tridentine Latin Mass.

There were some changes made, for example, the Nicene Creed has the "filioque" omitted.

Are there any current members of St. Augustine who can supply more information on this Gregorian Latin Mass?

To my knowledge, there are no WRO parishes which celebrate a variation of the NO Mass as it is a modern Protestantized liturgy.

Nevertheless, some WRO parishes appear to have a liturgy which is a modified Anglican form. Note: Some Anglicans do not consider themselves to be Protestants. When I attended the Mass at St. Michael's Antiochian Church in Whittier, that Mass was modified from the Anglicans. Again, if there are any members from St. Michaels perhaps they can enlighten us.

I'm not a "member," but I've visited St. Augustine and that parish has a good relationship with my home parish of Holy Transfiguration of Christ Cathedral in Denver (our icon writer has done some beautiful icons in their church, and parishioners from each of our churches visit each other often). But I don't have any more information than you've provided already; they do the Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory "by the book" down to the vestments, chants, acolytes, etc. except that it is in English save for the last Sunday of the month when everything is in Latin.

I pray for my best friend, who is Roman Catholic and he thinks

[#1Sinner]

I don't think the Novus Ordo in itself is bad.  It just came at a bad time when priest themselves are heavily influenced by Protestant faiths.  They see that many of the people find Protestantism, especially those of the Evangelical variety, to be very appealing.  In an effort to get people interested in Mass, they start doing these things.  A lot of it is because people want them.  It is the sorry state of our spirituality as a people when we have secularized so quickly that priests have to resort to drastic measures just to keep us interested.

The Novus Ordo was intentionally stripped of unambiguous and solid Catholic doctrine and language in order to make Protestants feel more comfortable with it. The Tridentine, or better called the Gregorian Mass, has remained unchanged in its essentials since about the 6th century.

Innumerable books and studies have been done on the origin, formulation and promulgation of the Novus Ordo. It is bad in and of itself, not simply because it was promulgated poorly.

A certain traditionalist priest has recently written a book on the Paul VI Rite called "Work of Human Hands, A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI" by Father Anthony Cekada. It is a devastating work on the New Mass.

[Schultz]

I have no first-hand experience of the NO mass. What I do know of it has been gathered through youtube and literature, and all of these encounters have left me cold and unaffected. Seems like it doesn't quite know what it wants to be: too liturgical for most protestants and too irreverent for traditionalists---the El Camino of liturgies. The Tridentine, on the other hand, looks truly awe-inspiring and absolutely gorgeous. I know which one I would go for if I professed Roman Catholicism. I really mean no offense to RCs, forgive me.

High mass, yes.

Low mass, which is what most Catholics of a certain age knew of as "mass," no. 

[choy]

The Novus Ordo was intentionally stripped of unambiguous and solid Catholic doctrine and language in order to make Protestants feel more comfortable with it. The Tridentine, or better called the Gregorian Mass, has remained unchanged in its essentials since about the 6th century.

Innumerable books and studies have been done on the origin, formulation and promulgation of the Novus Ordo. It is bad in and of itself, not simply because it was promulgated poorly.

A certain traditionalist priest has recently written a book on the Paul VI Rite called "Work of Human Hands, A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI" by Father Anthony Cekada. It is a devastating work on the New Mass.

I do not see it this way.  As one who grew up with the Novus Ordo, I like it.  I do know that priests tend to introduce Evangelical elements to it today because of the current success by Evangelicals proselytizing Roman Catholics.  But I still believe it to be good and holy.  What I feel lacks in Roman Catholicism which I am trying to see if I can find it in Orthodoxy (and people here will say I will find it there, but I must undertake this journey myself) is the theological aspects apart from the Liturgy which I am guessing is what led to abuses in the first place.  I personally believe that the Reformation was successful and it has changed the Roman Catholic faith, though not to what Martin Luther has intended and what the Catholic Church will admit.  But so much of the Latin faith today is a byproduct of the Reformation, directly and indirectly.

[WPM]

Its a modernized Mass service. The past year I've been attending Protestant services because of transportation issues.

[Nephi]

I didn't attend a NO Mass until after converting to Orthodoxy, and having never been to a RC service before. I could see the Protestant influences all through it, and it was a huge let-down to be honest. I was expecting a Tridentine Mass in English (ignorant, I know), and instead got what appeared to be an abridged compilation of traditional liturgy with contemporary Evangelical worship services. The priest didn't seem to view the affair as sacred whatsoever, and instead was laughing and making funny gestures at people as he walked down the center aisle near the end of Mass - ceasing to sing (as everyone else was doing) in order to do so.

I could see it being done beautifully if one had a reverent priest, removed the campy hymns that broke up the continuity of the service (it's as if they were like "OH! We forgot to add hymns. Protestants LOVE hymns! We'll just throw them in here, and here - we'll win so many converts now!"), and got rid of the casually dressed Eucharistic Ministers.

Nonetheless, it wasn't bad.

[Christopher McAvoy]

A certain traditionalist priest has recently written a book on the Paul VI Rite called "Work of Human Hands, A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI" by Father Anthony Cekada. It is a devastating work on the New Mass.

I'm with #1sinner, that is one of my favourite books, it was one of elements in a long list of experiences and events that helped me conclude that Orthodoxy is the true faith. The Youtube videos for it are stupendous
see link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeXfbdr1jlM&list=PLDA085477E90AC096

it answers these questions:

• Why do so many churches built for the Mass of Paul VI look so "un-churchy"?
• Why does the priest face the people now for Mass?
• Why did the tabernacle disappear?
• Why are there so few statues and images?

The answer isn't fads or bad taste. It's bad theology — specifically the modernist theology of the Mass as assembly.

Naturally, understanding the Mass primarily as an assembly supper rather that as a sacrifice offered to God will have a profound influence on the externals of the rite.

Chapter Seven of Work of Human Hands examines how assembly theology affected the new legislation governing the externals of the Mass of Paul VI — church architecture, the altar, the tabernacle and the rest.

If the last Catholic church you were in looked like a food court or a Pizza Hut on the inside, you'll find the explanation here.

If only that book were required reading for the latin catholic schools or RCIA classes, there would be some reckoning.

Another book that had an equal influence and reminds of that book is

"The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church
(T&T Clark Studies in Fundamental Liturgy) by Dr. Geoffrey Hull

You can read a bit of Dr. Hulls ideas in this essay here, which is famous in traditional catholic circles.

http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2010/04/the-proto-history-of-the-roman-liturgical-reform/

Dr. Hull's book was amongst the most persuasive books to encourage one to become an Orthodox christian, or at least dedicated old latin mass goer that I ever found. It had solid bit by bit analysis of what led to the novus ordo mass and all the accompanying panolopy of theological teachings/associations promoted with it since the 60s especially but originating in some places by the 30's/40's.  It showed how the laity of the latin church was like a frog put in the warm water, with the temperature gradually increased to a steady boil...

[sdecesare]

[sdecesare]

 

[sdecesare]

If you go to the, uh...composer's website, you will see the following bio:

Stephen DeCesare has proven to be one of those prolific composers whose compositions have been widely acclaimed by audiences and critics alike for their dramatic strength, passionate melodies and rich orchestrations. His works are receiving numerous performances and commissions all over the world.

On May 1st 2011, Stephen was honored by conducting his Mass of Divine Mercy in Stockbridge MA on a worldwide EWTN telecast for the beatification of John Paul II.

In addition to his work for the theater, Stephen is active in sacred and orchestral music. To date, Stephen has over 800 compositions in his compositional catalog.

Wow! Impressive, huh? He was honored to conduct his Mass on ETWN TV network. I'm really bummed that I missed it, actually. No word on whether or not he's available for children's parties, either.

I can be...if asked nicely.

tags editted - MK

[LBK]

If you go to the, uh...composer's website, you will see the following bio:

Stephen DeCesare has proven to be one of those prolific composers whose compositions have been widely acclaimed by audiences and critics alike for their dramatic strength, passionate melodies and rich orchestrations. His works are receiving numerous performances and commissions all over the world.

On May 1st 2011, Stephen was honored by conducting his Mass of Divine Mercy in Stockbridge MA on a worldwide EWTN telecast for the beatification of John Paul II.

In addition to his work for the theater, Stephen is active in sacred and orchestral music. To date, Stephen has over 800 compositions in his compositional catalog.

Wow! Impressive, huh? He was honored to conduct his Mass on ETWN TV network. I'm really bummed that I missed it, actually. No word on whether or not he's available for children's parties, either.

I can be...if asked nicely.

Self-promotion, much?

[Christopher McAvoy]

Wow! Impressive, huh? He was honored to conduct his Mass on ETWN TV network. I'm really bummed that I missed it, actually. No word on whether or not he's available for children's parties, either.

I can be...if asked nicely.

[/quote]


(capture taken from 2:46 mark of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwS9umpEkvs)

I'm certain that if you bring Pinocchio and Pope Francis along you will receive many requests to perform!

[stanley123]

Wow! Impressive, huh? He was honored to conduct his Mass on ETWN TV network. I'm really bummed that I missed it, actually. No word on whether or not he's available for children's parties, either.

I can be...if asked nicely.

(capture taken from 2:46 mark of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwS9umpEkvs)

I'm certain that if you bring Pinocchio and Pope Francis along you will receive many requests to perform!

I understand that a group of Catholics received into the Syriac Orthodox Church will be able to continue with the NO Mass.

[Cyrillic]

In answer to the question posed in the thread title, I think it's sad that the RCC threw away their beautiful liturgical traditions. The Tridentine Mass might have not been as impressive as the Divine Liturgy, but still...

[Arachne]

I've never attended a Mass, either Tridentine or NO, so I have no opinion to offer. I'm in favour of the vernacular in worship, but I've been scarred by the (all of two) happy-clappy Anglican services I've been to. Given how much I love Gregorian chant, I'd probably prefer the older style.

(I used to pass regularly outside the RC cathedral in Athens. It's a jewel of a building, and I hope it has stuck to tradition inside.)

[jmbejdl]

I've never attended a Mass, either Tridentine or NO, so I have no opinion to offer. I'm in favour of the vernacular in worship, but I've been scarred by the (all of two) happy-clappy Anglican services I've been to. Given how much I love Gregorian chant, I'd probably prefer the older style.

I've been to one NO Mass in Romania. There were none of the extreme abuses that some people here report but it felt exactly like an Anglican (not the really low Church, evangelical, happy clappy type, though) or Lutheran service. Not a patch on the Divine Liturgy. Honestly, if I was to wake up tomorrow and find the Schism had been healed, I'd still drive the 45 minutes on Sunday to get to DL rather than walk 10 minutes to the local RC parish.

James

[Alpo]

I've never attended a Mass, either Tridentine or NO, so I have no opinion to offer. I'm in favour of the vernacular in worship, but I've been scarred by the (all of two) happy-clappy Anglican services I've been to. Given how much I love Gregorian chant, I'd probably prefer the older style.

I've been to one NO Mass in Romania. There were none of the extreme abuses that some people here report but it felt exactly like an Anglican (not the really low Church, evangelical, happy clappy type, though) or Lutheran service.

That's also my experience with some Finnish NO Masses I've attended.

[Michał Kalina]

Could you make your posts slightly more expanded? There is a rule about "low content posts".

[Peter J]

I understand that a group of Catholics received into the Syriac Orthodox Church will be able to continue with the NO Mass.

Interesting ... not just because this is the first mention I've heard of the Syriac Orthodox having a Western Rite, but even more because of the rarity of hearing about a group of Catholics being received into Orthodoxy.

[sheenj]

I understand that a group of Catholics received into the Syriac Orthodox Church will be able to continue with the NO Mass.

Interesting ... not just because this is the first mention I've heard of the Syriac Orthodox having a Western Rite, but even more because of the rarity of hearing about a group of Catholics being received into Orthodoxy.

There used to be another group in India who were Western rite before the IOC-SOC Schism. They were ex-Latin Catholics from Goa who converted under St. Julius Mar Alvares. They ended up continuing under the IOC using a slightly modified form of the Tridentine mass until the 1980's, when they ran out of priests that were proficient in the WR. They then gradually folded into the Malankara Rite.

[Agabus]

I understand that a group of Catholics received into the Syriac Orthodox Church will be able to continue with the NO Mass.

Interesting ... not just because this is the first mention I've heard of the Syriac Orthodox having a Western Rite, but even more because of the rarity of hearing about a group of Catholics being received into Orthodoxy.

They were the "Renewed Ecumenical Catholic Church of Guatemala". See this.

[Papist]

Personally, I believe that the greatest problem with the NO is the way that priests celebrate it. As many have noted, the campy, clappy, "let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya my Lord" music has no place in liturgical worship. In fact, because it is just aweful music, it prabably doesn't havce any place anywhere. It's insult to the minds of the faithful, but what is much worse, it does not direct the mind to God, but rather to the "community." This is a sort of soft idolotry, where attention to God is replaced with attention to man. I'm not sure how this can be called worship in any legitimate sense. Along similar lines is the problem of the priest facing the people rather than liturgical East. In his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Cardinal Ratzinger recounts the rich Christian symbolism that accompanies the tradition of a liturgy celebrated ad orientem. It's not about facing "away from the people" but rather, about the priest leading the community in worship of God, among other things. When the priest is turned towards the people, the community is again closed in on itself, and the focus is on man rather than God. I don't think it would be terribly difficult to fix these problems, though. All the Pope would have to do is mandate that the Liturgy is celebrated with sacred music, and ad orientem. Not sure why no Pope has gotten around to doing this.

[KShaft]

I've attended several times Novus Ordo Mass. Too short, lack of the Holy Spirit, more speeches than prayer. However, if it was celebrated by priest, who carries about tradition, it wasn't so bad. In Novus Ordo much more depends on the priest, so sometimes the new Mass is a disaster and sometimes there are used some elements of other rites e.g. byzantine. Some things, as restoration of the majority of the readings of the Paschal Vigil, are the positive side of the liturgical reform in 60'.

But, actually, I prefer much more eastern Liturgies.
Once I was on Tridentine Mass on Sunday. A bit longer than Novus Ordo, but I didn't feel nothing special in the spirituality. I couldn't "enter" the atmosphere. The priest was muttering something in Latin so long time, so I understood neither the gestures nor the content of prayers. Despite these (or maybe because of these) there wasn't any mystery. The Western hymnography is fairly poor than Eastern. The Tridentine Mass isn't so ancient as Eastern Liturgies. As for me, Latin rite had lost quite a lot even before Vaticanum Secundum. I see both Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass rigid, artificial and without depth.

Good point D. The Hymnography is theology in song in the East. So is the whole Liturgy for the most part. It just isnt the same with the Western Liturgy.

[KShaft]

I think this is a deep destruction of liturgy.

I don't know why they done this destruction.

Because their "innovations" somehow constitute the continuation of the early church I'd imagine.

PP

What they "think" or rationalized in the scattered imagination of thier hearts is the continuation of the early Church, which was formed by a committe closely emulating a Lutheran "liturgy" from the begining of the 1900s.

[KShaft]

Personally, I believe that the greatest problem with the NO is the way that priests celebrate it. As many have noted, the campy, clappy, "let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya my Lord" music has no place in liturgical worship. In fact, because it is just aweful music, it prabably doesn't havce any place anywhere. It's insult to the minds of the faithful, but what is much worse, it does not direct the mind to God, but rather to the "community." This is a sort of soft idolotry, where attention to God is replaced with attention to man. I'm not sure how this can be called worship in any legitimate sense. Along similar lines is the problem of the priest facing the people rather than liturgical East. In his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Cardinal Ratzinger recounts the rich Christian symbolism that accompanies the tradition of a liturgy celebrated ad orientem. It's not about facing "away from the people" but rather, about the priest leading the community in worship of God, among other things. When the priest is turned towards the people, the community is again closed in on itself, and the focus is on man rather than God. I don't think it would be terribly difficult to fix these problems, though. All the Pope would have to do is mandate that the Liturgy is celebrated with sacred music, and ad orientem. Not sure why no Pope has gotten around to doing this.

The most reverent NO masses Ive seen were still banal XXXX (even with very good classicaly trained tenor leading the singing i.e. drowning out tone deaf parishoners)  compared to a Tridentine or more so St. John C's Liturgy. Cant polish a XXXX man. Stop with the lame XXX excuses for a piece of XXXX commiteed up by free masons.

Profanities Removed - Arimethea

You have been warned about using profanities numerous times. You are being placed on Post Moderation until you can demonstrate that you can post in a civil manner. You can appeal this through the normal channels.

Arimethea
Liturgy Section Moderator

[Gorazd]

That's also my experience with some Finnish NO Masses I've attended.

How does a Finnish NO Mass differ from a Finnish Lutheran mass? I guess the Lutherans have better music?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: What do the Eastern Orthodox think of the Novus Ordo Mass?