|
"Novus Ordo Missae" (New Order of the Mass) and Mass of Paul VI are terms used to refer to
the revised liturgy of the Mass adopted by the Roman Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. The "Ordo Missae" [1]
(literally, Order of Mass, but in English usually called the Ordinary of the Mass), the section of the Roman Missal that contains the common prayers and general rubrics for the
celebration of Mass, is accompanied by liturgical guidelines and theological
orientations under the title: "General Instruction of the Roman Missal" (GIRM).[2]
Revising the Liturgy of the Mass
Over the centuries alterations were made on various occasions to the Roman Missal[3] even in the form in which it was
promulgated by Pope Pius V in 1570,
seven years after the final session of the Council of Trent (see
Tridentine Mass). These changes however, were very small compared to
the ones put forth in the Novus Ordo Missae. At first, the changes were mostly in the text of the Mass. The way the liturgy was
carried out, to an outsider at the time, would have looked much the same as what came before (for example, Latin was used at
first, the same styles of vestments were worn, the altar was configured in almost the exact same way). Later on however the way
the rite was actually carried out was sometimes much different then what had occoured before, and was considered shocking by
some, a good change by others.
Intended benefits of the new Mass
Please add material to this section. Help this article to tell the full story of the revision of the Roman rite.
Restoring Lost Traditions
One of the things the council fathers intded with the new mass, was to restore certain lost rites and old traditions that were
used in the Roman rite previously. Some of these were
- That the congragation would take both the bread and the wine during communion. This was done by most of the church
originally, and was made mandatory later when certain groups questioned the morality of drinking wine. The Roman rite however
then mandated that the congragation take only the bread for communion to avoid the confusion that one must eat both the bread and
the wine to receive the body and the blood of Jesus (Catholic's believe that the body and the blood are fully present both in the
bread and in the wine.) Council fathers may have felt that the confusion no longer applied, although critics have claimed that
they pushed for this move to make the roman rite more compatible with eastern and protestant rites to foster further unity
between the groups.
please add more to this section later on
Borrowing from the Eastern Rites
Broader use of Scripture
- One goal of the Council fathers was to include more scriptual readings during the Mass. Instead of simply reading a section
from the gospel and a section usually from a Pauline epistle, a new reading would draw from the old testament as well. This was
also in line with the theme of restoring lost and older traditions, as the roman rite previously had three readings instead of
just two.
Openness to the world
Vernacular language
The use of vernacular languages instead of Latin
for the Mass prayers is integral to the Novus Ordo Missae (although it wasn't implimented immediately). The Apostolic
Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), which promulgated the Rite, sets aside Latin and refers to a "great diversity of
languages".[4] Using vernacular language is viewed
enthusiastically by reformers as a way of opening the Church to the world, which is an important consideration throughout the
documents of the Second Vatican Council, evident e.g. in Gaudium
et Spes §62 ,
and in the GIRM itself. For example, use of the vernacular is intended to promote greater understanding of the mysteries of the
eucharistic celebration (GIRM §13, 2003 ). The reformed liturgy is intended to recognize that "it is of the greatest importance that the celebration of the Mass, the
Lord's Supper, be so arranged that the ministers and the faithful who take their own proper part in it may more fully receive its
good effects" (GIRM §2,
1970 ).
Communal gathering
Having the priest face the people communally
A noticeable change is in the orientation of the priest in relation to the people. Before the revision of the Roman rite,
priest and people customarily faced in the same direction for the canon of the Mass, with the altar, on which a tabernacle was generally placed, constructed in a
way that made no other orientation possible. A small number of altars were different: in Rome itself there were altars in churches large — such as all four major basilicas — and small — such as the church of the Four Crowned Saints — at which the priest
faced the people throughout the Mass, and this was explicitly allowed for in the pre-revision Missal ("Ritus servandus in
celebratione Missae," VI, 3). With the revision of the Roman Missal, the orientation facing the people was encouraged: "The main
altar should be freestanding so that the ministers can easily walk around it and Mass can be celebrated facing the people"(GIRM,
§262
).
Under Pope John Paul II the GIRM now adds "which is desirable wherever possible" (2002, §299 ). Accordingly, while the orientation
facing the people is not obligatory, it is now almost universal.
At only two points does the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) prescribe that the priest should face the people,
namely, for the opening greeting and for the invitation to pray (“Orate fratres”) before beginning the eucharistic
prayer or canon of the Mass(§§86, 107 (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/documentText/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/175/Start/1),
1970 edition, or §§124, 146 (http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.htm#sect1), 2003
edition). The pre-Vatican II Ordo Missae gave the same rule at these points. Elsewhere the GIRM several times directs, again as
before the Second Vatican Council, that the priest should face the altar. Because of the changed orientation of the altar, this
now means that the priest normally faces the people throughout the eucharistic prayer, instead of having his back to them.
Cardinal Lercaro, who was the president of the Concilium charged with creating the New Rite, states that having the priest
face the people "makes for a celebration of the Eucharist which is true and more communal...."¹
For its part, the tabernacle is typically removed from the altar and relocated according to GIRM §276 (1970) that "the sacrament
should be reserved at an altar or elsewhere, in keeping with local custom, and in a part of the church that is worthy and
properly adorned."[5]
Criticisms of the Revision
Critics make several observations pertaining to the theology, prayers, and liturgical directives of the Novus Ordo Missae.
There are two different genres of criticisms lobbied against the Novus Ordo Mass, but different individuals usually use a
mixture from both genres in their personal belief systems. The first genre is criticism against the aesthetics of the Mass (ie.
criticisms that it is less beautifull, less holy feeling, more boring). The second genre is criticisms that the new Mass is
wilfully defectual in expressing Catholic belief in order to not offend Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and non Christians. The
first genre usually depends on how the Mass is performed by the person performing it. When it first was released, the New Mass
looked almost identical to the old to someone not intimately familiar with the text. However, personal leeway for the Priests and
Bishops over time has allowed many extremely radical presentations of the Mass. The second genre of criticisms are based on the
text itself, and especially in the context of what was changed and for what possible reason. Overall, critics of the second genre
believe the text and rubrical actions of the Mass were changed to attempt to mask the Catholic beliefs which weren't compatible
with protestant beliefs, such as the belief in the mass being a real sacrifice, the belief in bread being the real body and blood
of Jesus, the belief that only specially ordained class of men could effect this transubstantiation, and the belief that the work
of the sacrifice washed away sin (contrary to the protestant belief of sola fidei). Critics quote the words of Anibal Buganini, one of the principle authors of the
New Mass, which say that the goal was to remove anything that might be a "stumbling block to the separated brethren".
Sacrifice and Tabernacle de-emphasized
The General Instruction preceding the Novus Ordo Missae states: "At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called
together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic
sacrifice. For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: 'Where two or
three come together in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt
18:20 ). For at the celebration of Mass,
which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in His name; He is present in the
person of the minister, in His own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements."[6]
Critics take issue with the almost every word used in that scentence, which they see as symptomatic of the entire change in
the Mass:
- "the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ". Critics believe that
defining the Mass here as people comming together with a priest presiding seems to sudgest that every Mass must have people
watching it since the mass is essentially for the local people. Catholic belief however is that every Mass, even those said in
private, benefit all people, and are good. Prior to the Vatican Council II, certain Priests and Bishops were confused on this
point, but others were willfully against this point because they believed that the main good of the Mass was due to local people
participating. Many Popes wrote encylicals countering this notion, and also made certain laws that forced Priests to have Masses
in private, much in the same way that the congragation was only allowed to receive the host to counter the confusion around that
issue. Critics see the reason why the council fathers would have wanted the new mass to be defined in this way was to engender a
greater unity with protestants who also do not believe that a private service by a priest does any good.
- "priest presiding" Critics find this word ambigious, especially in the context of how Priests were described previously.
Catholic belief states that the priest does not merely preside, or lead a group of people for prayer at the Mass, but that he is
the only one with the power to actually turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. This belief though is
contradictory to the protestant idea of the universal priesthood (actually the protestant idea of exclusively universal
priesthood, excluding special clergy).
- "to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice" This wording too is questioned by critics, specifically the
way it says "celebrate the memorial of the lord or the eucharistic sacrifice", as if they are equal, as if the eucharistic
sacricice is simply a memorial and not a real sacrifice. Catholics believe that the Mass is a real sacrifice, the same action and
reaction as Jesus dying on the cross, but the protestant groups which still have a similar service do not believe that it is a
real sacrifice but rather do it as simply a memorial.
In keeping with the emphasis on the supper element, the priest faces the people, who together form a communal gathering
amongst themselves; the tabernacle is set aside, no longer in nobilissimo loco, which is apparently not in keeping with
liturgical tradition, a key portion of critics' observations. For example, they observe that in the liturgical and architectural
changes that were coterminous with and supported by the new theology of the Novus Ordo Missae, the tabernacle was placed in
locations lacking liturgical significance, and were also redesigned often by modern artists, a trend documented by Michael S.
Rose in his work, Ugly as Sin. In some churches it became difficult to locate the tabernacle that had always been
central. The tabernacle was always to be given the most prominent location in the Church, according to Paul VI, who, in the Latin
translation of Mysterium Fidei, called that place "the 'most prominent place' ('in nobilissimo loco')"[7] ,
[8] . The removal of the tabernacle is intimately
connected with the New Rite of Mass which is designed to emphasize the concept of a communal Jewish Seder Supper, an association emphasized to catechumens, i.e. those in
process of joining the Church, and to de-emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
Remission of sins de-emphasized
Critics propose that a primary purpose of the Mass is compromised by the new liturgy: "instead of emphasizing remission for
sins for the living and the dead, the new rite [in the prayers included and excluded] stresses the nourishment and sanctification
of those present."[9] This
relates also to the communal aspect in which the priest faces the people: there shall be a nourishing meal, rather than a prayer
session led by the priest for the remission of sins.
Awareness of Real Presence de-emphasized
Critics believe that by selective omission and emphases, awareness of the sacrificial nature of the Mass is diminished, as is
awareness of the dogmatic Catholic concept of the Real Presence, previously recognized with the prayer "Receive, Most
Holy Trinity, This Oblation," a prayer now omitted entirely.[10]
Related to this is a reduction in number, duration, and application of acts of reverence for the Eucharist: the new liturgy calls for fewer signs of
the Cross, and fewer genuflexions for both priest and faithful. Critics believe that these actions are key to participation
in the Mass. Some attribute altered patterns of reverence to changes in cultural conventions, mores, religion, dress, and ceremony in civil life, but it is possible that the Church, by invoking less reverence,
effectively exaggerates these trends. Critics also note that now the priest is the center of attention,[11] rather than the Eucharist, almost
encouraging a focus on the human rather than the divine. The previous construction of churches, not presenting, in most cases,
any easy means for the priest to face the people for Mass, confirms a liturgical norm that had existed for centuries, during
which the experience of most Latin-rite Catholics was to pray in union with the priest who would be seen clearly to lead the
people and worship with them as opposed to being seen as "performing."
Certain textual changes are seen by critics to deemphasize or hide the belief in the real presence. For example, after the
words of the consecration, the moment that Catholics believe that the bread and wine turn change substance into the body and
blood of Jesus, a prayer is inserted (possibly optionally, depending on which form one uses) which says "Christ has died, Christ
is risen, Christ will come again". Critics say this text is purposefully confusing, since they believe Christ is actually there,
in the flesh, at that very moment.
Lay Participation in the Mass
Participation by the congragation during the Mass, while not really touched upon in the text of the Novus Ordo, was one of the
main concerns of many liturgical reformers leading up to the Vatican Councill II and indeed was one of the many visible results
from the Novus Ordo changes. Advocates for the changes say that the congragation in general was too inactive before, and did not
follow properly along with the Mass. For example, many believe that the congragation should answer the prayers with the Priest,
sing along, and engage in certain actions such as the bringing up the bread and wine to the priest, a practice which was
discontinued early on in the roman rite. Various people advocated these things in order to improve the experience of the
congragation attending mass, although again critics believe that some sudgested these things in order to conform with the
prostant idea of the universal priesthood. Previous calls for more congragational participation did not prompt much action from
the Popes before Vatican II, because they wanted to avoid the impression that congragational participation was essential to the
mass for it to be complete (instead they taught that the essential sacrifice and efficacy of the Mass was due to the work
performed (ex operantis is the technical term) by the priest/bishop alone.
That all abuses be thoroughly corrected
The authorities of the Roman Catholic Church have also criticized many of the problems that have surfaced in the decades
following the promulgation of the new Rite. One problem the faithful themselves have faced is that various portions of the
hierarchy have attempted to prevent the faithful from kneeling to receive communion, as is the Latin-rite custom. Catholics in
the United States and elsewhere have had to correspond with the Roman Catholic hierarchy in order to investigate whether they may
still receive communion on their knees,[12] which, they are assured,
they may do (Redemptionis
Sacramentum §91 ).
That 25 March 2004 document listed many problems and asked: "In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in
their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or
distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all
are bound to carry it out without any favouritism." The hope in promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae was that "the faithful will
receive the new Missal as a help toward witnessing and strengthening their unity with one another; that through the new Missal
one and the same prayer in a great diversity of languages will ascend, more fragrant than any incense, to our heavenly Father,
through our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit."[13] Critics consider it plausible that it has had
the opposite effect, in declining Mass attendance, declining seminary enrollments, and a loss of reverence among the faithful.
Pope John Paul II wrote that "we must admit realistically and
with feelings of deep pain, that Christians today in large measure feel lost, confused, perplexed and even disappointed; ideas
opposed to the truth which has been revealed and always taught are being scattered abroad in abundance... the liturgy has been
tampered with..." ³
In summary, critics of the Novus Ordo Missae believe that the theology, prayers, and liturgical actions that it comprises do
not adequately support the faith. Some of those critics believe that the Novus Ordo Missae is entirely invalid, while others
consider it merely deficient.
External Links
Footnotes
- 1 Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1983, §428. Quoted in "Problems with the New Mass ".
- 2 Arlene Ooost-Zinner and Jeffrey Tucker, "Fourteen Easy Ways to Improve the Liturgy", in Crisis, May
2004, pp. 36-41.
- 3 Quoted by Romano Amerio in Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century,
1996, Sarto House, §7 ISBN
0963903212.
|