Question To Those Pmers Who Prefer The Ef..

[BigJon16]

So, one question...and I dont mean this to spark a debate, I just can't help but have one question about all this "Traditional" stuff...


If the Novus Ordo is so..."wrong"... then why is it that the most common Mass of the current Church is the NO? Is the Pope wrong when he celebrates Mass in the NO? Am I wrong for being a fan of the NO?


Trust me, I do have my own gripes with certain ways the Novus Ordo is celebrated, but in my opinion, I think it can be celebrated in a way that keeps this "spirit of the liturgy" that so many say it lacks.

If the Church were to officially return back to the traditional liturgy, I would have no objections, but I don't see the NO as such a "horrendous insult" (in the words of one traditionalist that I've heard--no one from PM, luckily).


I guess my question is, if we trust the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church, than what makes the NO so "wrong" in the eyes of many traditionalists?

Again, not meaning to debate, just and honest question that would bring me much peace if someone could give a bit of insight.

I think the EF is really beautiful and would love to attend one sooner than later, but I just feel an uneasiness about the way some traditionalists seem to look down upon the NO and those who prefer it.

The same feeling also goes in the other direction, the way that some more contemporary minded people seem to look down on those who love the EF.


Thanks guys! And ah...how do you say... "Dominus Vobiscum!"

Edited September 8, 2012 by BigJon16

[CatherineM]

The NO isn't wrong. That's not why some people prefer the EF. Okay some people do.

Why do some people prefer classical music?

[eagle_eye222001]

I think most people attack the N.O. because they are not attacking N.O. itself, as much as they are attacking the rampant abuses within it.

Very few people I think would legit argue against a properly celebrated N.O. In the same way, few modern people would legit argue against the EF when they realize how a proper Mass should be. In that case, their argument has much more to do with how they think Mass should be celebrated, contrasted with how the Church thinks Mass should be celebrated.


Having extensively experience both with a wide range of experience on the N.O. side, I prefer a Mass properly celebrated whether it be EF or OF.

I am just as much against an improperly done EF, as I am against an improperly done OF.



Unfortunately, since there is a wide range of abuses at N.O. Masses, "traditionalist" tend to incorrectly lump these abuses as stemming from the inherent fault of the N.O. itself. This is unfortunate as the N.O. just came out at a bad time culturally and had issues as it was implemented. The Church is only now really beginning to recover from this.

[Slappo]

Not all traditionalists hate or despise the Novus Ordo...

I prefer the traditional mass because I like many of the prayers that were removed or greatly reduced in the move from EF to NO. The NO does not, for example, have the prayers at the foot of the altar or the prayer to the trinity during the offertory. The washing of hands is reduced to a single sentence in the OF, whereas the EF it is a more elaborate prayer of cleansing and purification.

[Nihil Obstat]

I have written about this before and I am rather too tired to do it again right now, but one issue I have is the complete renovation of the propers for the Pauline Missal.

I am going to copy and paste some stuff I wrote in a discussion on Reddit a few weeks ago:



"Anyway yes, when done 'perfectly', the actual order of the Mass is quite similar. You'd have to be quite well informed to notice the differences. That in and of itself shows that the ordo specifically can be corrected- the reform of the reform.
On the other hand, I am not sure that the revision of the Propers can be corrected with the Pauline Missal as the starting point. I think a reform of the reform, a systematic one, must use the traditional Propers as a starting point."

"The Propers, we could say, really form the essential character of the Mass. They are what makes our Roman Mass Roman, and they're what make eastern Masses typically eastern. They form the heard of the Missal, much more so than the order itself does.
Typically the traditional propers are 1500 years old or older. Some are rather more recent, for instance added feast days. [i]This[/i] is organic development: the adding of local feasts, special propers composed for the feast, perhaps even a new preface. Interestingly enough, [i]this[/i] is also authentic inculturation, where a local church receives permission to celebrate a feast day for a particularly popular local saint. Anyway, I'm getting side tracked.
So the propers themselves form the part of the Mass that characterizes it, for us, as Roman. We're talking about the prayers themselves, as well as the traditional Gregorian melodies. They're inseparable, as far as liturgical subjects go. The ideal is that the Propers should be chanted according to the traditional melody. The ideal is not always realized, but it should always be worked towards. The melodies are found in the Graduale Romanum, but there are simplified systems in the Simplex (I think? I get confused on the details there).
So if we accept the Propers as forming the characteristic heart of the missal, and that they represent authentic organic development, it's certainly jarring what happened during the liturgical 'reform'. Basically, the propers were thrown out entirely.
Out of all our traditional propers, most completely disappeared. Some were heavily paraphrased, and therefore are not substantially the same anymore. A small minority were unchanged or only changed in minor ways. [i]Tiny minority. [/i]If you're talking to someone who really knows liturgy, this, more than anything else, is what constitutes a rupture between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass. 1500+ years of legitimate, organic development were literally thrown away over a five year period, and replaced with, essentially, a complete fabrication. Completely artificial. Some of these new propers perhaps are valuable. Perhaps. But the starting point, for the sake of the integrity of the Roman Rite, [i]must[/i] be the traditional Propers. The new Pauline propers have more in common with the neo-Gallican reform Masses of previous centuries, at least according to Laszlo Dobszay, whom I trust (and I'm not quite sure where to start on doing that research myself in any case)."



And I will just head off one response here before it is made. I'm not saying that the Novus Ordo is not part of the Roman Rite. The Holy Father has made it clear that it is. I am mostly reproducing my understanding of Laszlo Dobszay's argument that, while legally and canonically it may be the Roman Rite, speaking simply as a liturgy it is rather more difficult to truly call it Roman, and again, it has more in common with the illicit Gallican reform Masses produced during the Enlightenment.

I would sort of rather not debate this, however I am fine with further discussion on whatever I have said.

[Nihil Obstat]

Besides my main point about the propers, in no particular order:[list]
[*]I do not think that complete vernacularization was necessary or beneficial. I think perhaps that a reform of the reform, with the traditional propers as its basis, might allow such things as the penitential prayers and final blessing in the vernacular, while retaining a Latin canon and propers.
[*]I think ad orientem worship is preferable by far, both pastorally and theologically.
[*]The wholesale abandonment of Gregorian chant was extremely harmful, and one of our first priorities should be bringing it back to its deserved place of honour. Whatever that takes.
[*]The complete rearrangement of the calendar and the cycle of readings was perhaps too radical, and might be rethought with the traditional arrangement as a starting point, but also introducing a system which, in a subtler way, offers some more scriptural readings. This could foster the legitimate inculturation I mentioned above, allowing for local feasts and variants. Laszlo Dobszay went into enormous detail on this, some of which went over my head, but if I am remembering correctly he suggested a modified cycle of readings, with the Gospel mostly retaining the one year cycle of the Tridentine missal, and somewhat more variation, especially on weekdays, of the Old Testament. I can refer back to the books if you want to hear more on that, because I do not think I could do his full position justice, and it was really quite ingenious.
[/list]

Edited September 8, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Groo the Wanderer]

there are aspects of both forms I prefer over aspects of the other. one day they will likely be merged to get the best of both

[ardillacid]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1347068599' post='2480114']
The NO isn't wrong. That's not why some people prefer the EF. Okay some people do.

Why do some people prefer classical music?
[/quote]Because they have never heard Anders Frieden

[Groo the Wanderer]

I agree with Nihil's last post except the cycle of readings. The NO has a far expanded lectionary which I believe is quite beneficial. I would like to the see the 'last gospel' reading and the St Michael prayer added back to the end of the Mass though

[sixpence]

[Winchester]

[img]http://t.fireden.net/t/fireden.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/q.jpg[/img]

[Winchester]

[img]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23769032.jpg[/img]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347112695' post='2480241']
I agree with Nihil's last post except the cycle of readings. The NO has a far expanded lectionary which I believe is quite beneficial. I would like to the see the 'last gospel' reading and the St Michael prayer added back to the end of the Mass though
[/quote]

I don't think the extended cycle is irredeemable, and I'm willing to accept simply prima facie that the larger volume of readings the Council requested is objectively a good thing, but I do think that at least for the Gospels a shorter cycle is beneficial. It allows for regularity from year to year, and besides that not all Gospel passages are necessarily suited to be liturgical pericopes.
Essentially, I think it was done ham-handedly and easily could be re-reformed with more grace and elegance.

[Groo the Wanderer]

could be yes. some of the flow between the 1st, 2nd, and gospel readings is not always smooth. it would be worth having another look at the selections and making adjustments where necessary. the Church is ALWAYS in need of renewal, from day 1










see? this can be discussed civilly pholks

Edited September 8, 2012 by Groo the Wanderer

[Tantum Ergo]

[color=#282828][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][quote]If the Novus Ordo is so..."wrong"... then why is it that the most common Mass of the current Church is the NO? Is the Pope wrong when he celebrates Mass in the NO? Am I wrong for being a fan of the NO?[/font][/color]
[/quote]
I prefer the EF, and I don't think the Novus Ordo is "wrong" at all. I was raised Novus Ordo and only recently went to the EF when I met my husband. I prefer the EF because in general it is celebrated in a manner that is more reverent. But I'm not saying that Novus Ordo can't be reverent, or that the Novus Ordo is inherently less reverent than the EF. I agree that the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in a way that keeps the "spirit of the Liturgy."

Since I am new to the EF, I don't have a very strong understanding of it liturgically. But in fact, the mystery of the EF is one reason it appeals to me. To me it more strongly shows the mystery of God.

Plus, I love Gregorian chant. It really makes me feel as though I am caught up in heaven and I can concentrate on God and prayer better. The Christian pop music they play at many NO parishes really irritates me and distracts me from prayer.


[color=#282828][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][quote]I think the EF is really beautiful and would love to attend one sooner than later, but I just feel an uneasiness about the way some traditionalists seem to look down upon the NO and those who prefer it.[/quote][/font][/color]
[color=#282828][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Believe me, I feel this uneasiness too. It does bother me how many people at EF parishes can be very prideful. But the people are not the reason I go to the EF. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][quote]The same feeling also goes in the other direction, the way that some more contemporary minded people seem to look down on those who love the EF.[/quote][/font][/color]
[color=#282828][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I get this too. Many women don't understand the veil. They say they would never wear one because they don't want to look like they're trying to be holier than everyone else. [/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][quote][/font][/color][color=#282828]I guess my question is, if we trust the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church, than what makes the NO so "wrong" in the eyes of many traditionalists?[/quote][/color]
[color=#282828]I think as eagle_eye said, many people (I hesitate to call them "traditionalists") may incorrectly lump the abuses of the Novus Ordo as stemming inherently from the Novus Ordo itself.[/color]

I have also heard some complain that the Novus Ordo is a sign that the Church is conforming herself to the heresy of Modernism. I obviously don't agree with them.

There are a myriad of reasons why people go to the EF, but not all of them are because "the Novus Ordo is wrong."