www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Novus Ordo vs Tridentine Masses

I think what Taft would prefer is the Novus Ordo celebrated as it was intended to be celebrated (as opposed to what it degenerated into). I happen to have been to several Novus Ordo Masses, some in English, one in Latin, which were celebrated precisely according to the rubrics, with the priest versus apsidem, the responses sung in Gregorian chant by a well-trained schola. With regard to the one in Latin, at Brompton Oratory in London, I was amused when an American couple came in and listened for a while. The wife turned to her husband and whispered, "It's so nice to hear the old Mass being celebrated again". Which confirmed most of what I already suspected about adherents of the Tridentine Rite.

As for the Tridentine, Taft is absolutely correct in his critique--by the standards established by Sacrosanctum concilium, it's bad liturgy, and there is nothing that could be done to it, short of transforming it into something else, that would make it into good liturgy.

One forgets today that sixty or seventy years ago, the Orthodox were complaining about the Tridentine rite because of its departures from the authentic liturgical tradition. So I guess there is no pleasing some people--or put another way, some people will latch onto any cause for complaint if it suits their long-term objectives.

Let me see SuartK.

Both the Tridentine Mass and the Divine Liturgy.

1. Have much more similar liturgical calendars, than the Novus Ordo Mass, meaning saints feasts are on similar days.

2. Both the Tridentine Mass and Divine Liturgy have no female altar girls. Unlike most NO Masses.

3. Both the Tridentine and Divine Liturgy have Chant. Unlike most NO Masses.

4. Both the Tridentine Mass and Divine Liturgy have priests who "exclusively" celebrate ad-orientum. Good luck finding a NO Mass in ad-orientum.

5. Both traditional Catholics and Byzantine Catholics/Orthodox are passionate about their liturgies remaining traditional with no innovations whatsoever. In the NO Mass you have all kinds of innovations.

6. In both the Tridentine Liturgy and Divine Liturgy only men are allowed around the Holy altar. Like it was during the old testament time in the Holy of Holies.

7. In both in the Tridentine Mass and Divine Liturgy only those with consencrated hands distribute communion. Unlike in the NO Mass, where the laity from the pews give out communion.

8. And finally many disgruntled Roman Catholics state that the reason they come over to the Byzantine Rite, or become a member of the Orthodox Church is most of the time do to the Novus Ordo Mass, and it's lack of sacredness, which tells me the Novus Roman Rite Mass = Bad Liturgy!. Taft is wrong!.

If Eastern Catholics are so adamant in defending the Novus Ordo Roman Rite Mass vs the the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Than do me a favor. Get rid of your iconostasis', Byzantine chant, icons, incense, and join the spirit of Vatican 2!!. Bring your guitar to the next Divine Liturgy, and let me a average lay person give out the spoon.

Check out this image.
[img:center][Linked Image] [img805.imageshack.us] Uploaded with ImageShack.us [imageshack.us][/img]

All of what you have written can be considered secondary or even tertiary defects, easily corrected in the Novus Ordo. For instance, reforming the new liturgical calendar can be done at the stroke of a pen, same for the lectionary. With regard to girl altar boys, that's a pastoral matter, and, push comes to shove, a bishop could stop it withiin the Novus Ordo, or allow it with the Tridentine. As far as chant goes, I have no idea where you got the idea that the Tridentine Mass was chanted--most people attended the low Mass, back in the day, which either had no music at all ("silent Mass") or had some lugubrious Marian hymns played while the priest did his thing. The rubrics of the Novus Ordo actually require the celebrant to face East; that he does not is irrelevant to the discussion of the two forms. As far as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist go, it's an abuse--nothing demands it in the Novus Ordo. Basically, you have a problem discerning what is inherent in the Novus Ordo, and what has been done with it.

What you cannot get around in the Tridentine is the usurpation by the priest of the legitimate role of the deacon and the laity; the primacy of the low form of the Mass; and the absence of full and active participation on the part of the laity.

Beyond that, insofar as "bad liturgy" is concerned, those of us old enough to remember the Tridentine when it was not the "extraordinary form" can tell you that it was pretty bad, most of the time--often done in a hurried and irreverent manner, with very bad music and a cavalier disregard for rubrics and regulations. The principal virtue in a priest was the same as for a Civil War surgeon--speed: a "good" priest could mumble his way through a low Mass in less than thirty minutes, and a "great" priest could do it in fifteen. Most Roman Catholics back in the day would not be caught dead at the high Mass, except maybe at Christmas and Easter. Minimalism and legalism ruled the day, which is why the Council thought there was need for reform.

For what it's worth, I've also seen my share of bad Eastern liturgies, some of which I would call absolutely atrocious and disgraceful (and I am not including any celebrations of the RDL in that).

Nostalgia is always a very bad guide to policy. There were no golden ages. Grow up.

If inventing a new liturgy out of the blue is not contrary to tradition - I don't know what is. When did the Roman Rite have multiple eucharistic prayers? When there was any epiclesis in the Roman Rite?

Masses according to the Tridentine Missal are not celebrated now like they were in the 1960s. The "primacy of the low form of the Mass" and the "absence of full and active participation" are simply not true.

I have already commented on these deficiencies of the Novus Ordo. They, too, could be suppressed or amended (e.g., by giving primacy to the Roman Canon and linking other anaphorae to the liturgical calendar).


So, you admit that all was not well in the halcyon days of the pre-conciliar Church? Progress! However, the rubrics of the Tridentine have not changed; only the words uttered by the priest have efficacy, so the full and active participation of the people is still not found therein.

Besides, how could something barely 400 years old be "traditional"? In our neck of the woods, that's "innovation".

Where did I say that all was well "in the halcyon days of the pre-conciliar Church"? The need for reform was obvious for everybody, but nobody expected that it will end the way it ended.

The Roman Canon is at least 1600 years old. The offertory is probably 800 years old. The Tridentine Rite was not created in the 1500s the way the Pauline Mass was in 1969.

How could a thread about the Orientale Lumen Conference concerning Church Councils morph into a debate about the Roman Mass and Novus Ordo versus Tridentine!? Is this getting a "little" off topic?

As I was the one who made the comment about Fr. Taft, I think I need to clear things up.

My criticism of Fr. Taft was that I felt that he was uncharitable to those who are traditional Roman Catholics by calling them "right-wing conservative wackos" and not giving them a legitimate hearing. But I don't necessarily disagree with his overall thoughts on the state of the liturgy in the Roman Church.

StuartK is correct in his assessment of Fr. Taft's views. I discussed this topic with Fr. Taft during a break at the conference and he was quick to say that he did not support poor implementations of the Novus Ordo (he made a disparaging comment about "banjos"), but instead felt that one could properly and reverently celebrate the Novus Ordo (something I agree with him on). His main criticism of the traditional Latin Mass is that the Roman Church did not allow it to develop naturally after Trent. As he noted, liturgy is like language: no one can completely control its development over time and they shouldn't try to. So by stifling legitimate changes to the TLM for over 400 years, you had a situation where Vatican II opened floodgates, which led to many abuses of the legitimate changes made after the Council.

In general, I agree with much of Fr. Taft's assessment; I just wish he understood better how pervasive the abuses have been over the past four decades and how painful they have been to many people in the pews. While I disagree with those who want to simply return to the pre-Vatican II liturgy, I sympathize with their anguish over terrible liturgies. Like Pope Benedict, I hope that the Roman church can better integrate the many positives of the TLM with the Novus Ordo.

The application of epithets and/or insults to those with whom one might disagree is a poor method of disagreement, and is quite unlikely to strengthen whatever point one wishes to make.

Certainly it is possible to celebrate Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. But such a celebration is relatively rare.

As to Father Taft's opinion, whatever that may be (he and I have never discussed the matter), it would be much more sensible to ask him than to speculate.

Fr. Serge

Though I heartily endorse JLF's observation on the inappropriate inclusion of yet another screed on the Usus Antiquior versus the Novus Ordo, I'd like to express my appreciation of Francis' point. Anyone who knows Archimandrite Robert well, knows that he is no apologist for slipshod liturgy whether on the East or the West of the 'Great Divide'.
To our Latin brethren suffering from such liturgical dysplasia, two things: you have my sympathy AND please use sites (and they are LEGION!) devoted to this neuralgic topic to air your grievances!

Trent did a LOT of damage. 20+ local authentic western developments suppressed. 8 survivors, one of which lacked authentic development anyway (Dalmatian). Primacy of one to the near suppression of the remaining 6. Denial of change and rejection of deviations.

Trent's rubrics also encouraged latinizations in the Catholic East... by promoting the Roman missal as the "universal Liturgy of the Church" it implied defects of localized liturgies.

The actual mass promulgated called for at least one participant besides the celebrant... but was arranged so that that was all that was needed. This encouraged the disconnect leading to, in some cases, as extreme as public rosaries during the 15 minute mass...

Dear Aramis,

Where did you come about this information regarding Trent? Is there a history of sorts that delves into this question aviliable online, or can you recommend further reading?

Yours,

Bob

Basically, any good book outlining the development of liturgy in the Western Church will have what you want.

Good explanation. That's why the many traditional societies and orders, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Dominicans, to name a few are growing faster than those with progressive notions. Vocations to the Priesthood are growing! That's why the Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic monastaries, such as the Benedictines, and Carmelites, are growing. Not to mention the high number of vocations to the Priesthood in the eastern Church!

The fact is, that REVERENCE wins!
God Bless.

P.S. (This is my first post! Woohoo!)

Regarding the opinions of Fr. Robert Taft, SJ, he not only demonizes his opponents with obnoxious perjorative comments ("Right Wing Neo-Con Wackos"-I heard him use this phrase at the OL conference at Seton Hall University in June, 2010), but he has also expressed sympathy with, and support for, the positions of the hierarchical defender of "inclusive" and dumbed-down language in the English translation of the Roman Liturgy, Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa. Happily, Bp. Trautman was unsuccessful in his efforts to derail the new and dramatically-improved English translation of the Novus Ordo Liturgy.

Dn. Robert