Talk:Novus Ordo Missae/2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As Novus Ordo is sometimes used politically to refer to the New World Order by extreme right wingers, I have changed this name to Novus Ordo Missae, because that is the correct term that unambiguously meant to mean the Mass, not politics. FearÉIREANN 22:34 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please don't delete cogent, relevant, well-documented material. To be productive, why not expand the sections concerning the reasons for the NOM? This entry needs information about borrowing from Eastern liturgies and how 'openness to the world' is implemented in the NOM. 207.192.130.197 10:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Please read what you write about and don't just depend on hearsay.

It is unfortunate that 207.192.130.197 seems never to have read the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. He could easily access it directly in any copy of the Missal. Instead, he fills his article with quotations from secondary sources of extremely questionable accuracy and impartiality. Not a scientific attitude or objective outlook.

Take, for instance, his alleged quotation, under the title "Loss of Centrality of the tabernacle associated with the revision", from the General Instruction. If he only took the slight trouble to look up the text he would find that it says: "7. The Lord's Supper or Mass gathers together the people of God, with a priest presiding in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of such a local congregation of the Church: 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst' (Matthew 18:10). In the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present in the assembly itself, which is gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and unceasingly under the eucharistic species." Instead, he uses a misquotation of the first words as a basis for a claim that the General Instruction ignores the sacrificial character of the Mass, when in reality this very part of the General Instruction mentions the sacrificial character twice!

It is curious too how he claims to know what others intended, even if they never expressed their intentions. Note how he freely uses phrases about what some decision "is intended" or "is designed" to do, on no more secure basis than what he imagines was in the mind of others.

And then, what is the purpose of his extremely long section on "The question of passivity"? It might well have a place in an article on the pre-revision Mass liturgy, to defend it from an accusation of passivity; then his lengthy quotation from the encyclical Mediator Dei, issued in that same period, might be justified. But what is all that doing in a section of an article that is supposed to treat of criticisms of the revised liturgy?

I hope the article can be made more objective and scientific when I next look it up, which will not be soon.

CPF

I agree with the criticisms expressed against the contributor who is intent on monopolizing this article and while complaining of his allegedly well-documented material, still refuses to correct, for example, his misquotation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

In the past, this article was kept from fully expressing the motives for the revision and the critiques made of the revision. Granted, most attempts to give expression to the critiques were clumsy editorializing, but the article itself was not much better than that. From now on, this article should give expression to the motives and to the critiques, as an encyclopedia user would have a right to expect.

The very latest attempt to change the article again involved removal of helpful information, although CPF, I think it is, did add two important GIRM citations, for which I had to find the hyperlinks, which are now in the entry. [He] also referred to the wider Scripture readings, which are another motive for the revision and should be expanded upon (without taking away from the rest of the entry). He did suggest, oddly:

The revision brought into use a far wider range of readings from Scripture. It also involved omissions, alterations and additions to the prayers said at Mass, and made changes in prescribed gestures and postures. However, for the general public, ...

Emphasis added: this is not encyclopedic material. Note the implication that somehow the foregoing is not of interest to the "general public" (i.e. the Catholic faithful attending Mass).

There is a very important reality: that for a long time, this article was telling people that language and posture were 'external' to the revision. I have provided facts that show that this is simply not true. This constitutes rather a stunning reversal of fortunes for the entry. This entry will not return to an erroneous presentation, but rather will always show the motives and concerns of both 'sides'. (The enthusiasm for the vernacular should not be considered a 'critique' of the revision, as the revisers were enthusiastic about the vernacular.) Note also that I took very much into consideration CPF's earlier comments, as it was those comments which prompted me to incorporate more authoritative information. Trc | [msg] 09:12, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

@Trc: I am sorry you misunderstood my earlier attempt to help. I pointed out that the changes in the language of the Mass and in the priest’s orientation (I did not speak of posture) were external to the Ordo Missae part of the Roman Missal. I did not, of course, say they were external to the revision: they are instead the two things that most strike a superficial observer – a phrase (“superficial observer”) that I should have used instead of “general public”.

It was good to see that for a brief moment you removed the pamphleteering part of the article. It is hard to imagine how anyone can see that part, then or now, as anything other than arguing for a single side. There were two reasons why I thought the talk about some people’s enthusiasm for the vernacular belonged to that part. One was the use for them of emotive terms like “reformers”. The other was that it spoke of motives behind changes rather than the changes themselves.
Leaving that very lengthy part aside, there are a number of observations I would like to make with a view to improving the (hopefully) factual part of the article. May I please present the following:
  1. The first Internet reference in the article gives the text of the Order-of-Mass part of the Roman Missal, not the whole of the revised Missal. That is why I suggested that it be moved to just after the mention of the Order of Mass. I don’t see why you put it back where it was.
  2. The text you have restored again gives the impression that the revised Roman Missal has only two sections: Ordo Missae and Instititutio Generalis Missalis Romani (in English: Order of Mass and General Instruction of the Roman Missal). As you know, there are many other sections: Proper of Seasons, Common of Saints, etc.
  3. In this connection I mention a very minor point, by no means worth insisting on: it‘s hard to understand why you think it important to translate “Novus Ordo Missae” as “New Order of ‘’the’‘ Mass”, when the official translation of “Ordo Missae” has only “of Mass”.
  4. If the word “rubrics” is taken to mean rules and directions for the performance of a rite, “general rubrics” fits the General Instruction of the Roman Missal much better than it fits the limited rubrics found in the Order of Mass. I am not fully content with the description “brief rubrics” for the latter rubrics. Can you think of a more exact phrase? I thought of “essential rubrics”, but that would seem to indicate (wrongly) that the rules in the General Instruction need not really be taken into account. And yes, it was I who first proposed the unsatisfactory term “general rubrics” that you now want preserved; so I am only trying to improve my own imperfect contribution.
  5. It wasn’t just “for the canon of the Mass” that, before the revision, priest and people customarily faced in the same direction. The priest customarily had his back to the people throughout the Mass except when greeting them with “Dominus vobiscum”, making the “Orate fratres” exhortation and giving the final blessing. He also, of course, faced the people when preaching and perhaps reading to them a vernacular translation of the Gospel, but this was external to the “Ordo Missae” of the time, which had no mention of preaching.
  6. I beg leave to point out that “Liturgy of the Eucharist” is broader than “Canon of the Mass” and corresponds instead to what used to be called the Mass of the Faithful (a term that did not appear in the Ordo Missae). GIRM 107, in saying the priest should face the people when at that point inviting the people to pray, is only repeating a rule in the pre-revision Missal. GIRM 108 and 116 do not say the priest should face the people, only that he should face the altar, and not every altar is constructed in such a way that the towards-the-people orientation is the only one possible. It was because this section of the article was confusing rather than helpful and inaccurate rather than well-documented that I suggested it be omitted.

It was by chance that I came across the Wikipedia article, which I found so inaccurate and, above all, unbalanced that I felt drawn to offer some help. I think some progress has been made. But much more is needed.

Please take time to reflect on what I have now written. Clearly, you can devote much more time to the article than I can. I will look it up again only after several days or, perhaps more likely, after several weeks.

Please forgive me for being unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures. I do not know how to add to this comment the reference, date and hour that I see you can add. But, unlike whoever added a short comment after my first comment, I again give my initials. On the other hand, I will avoid filling in the box that, last time, produced the “shouting” header, which I by no means expected or wished. I confess, however, to having written it when still somewhat annoyed at the comment to which I was replying. But time has passed since then.

CPF 27-May-2004

tag

I think there's a chance that this article may not be presented from a netural point of view (NPOV). That is why I added the tag to this article. It seems to me that there is an awful lot of criticism of the new mass, but I cannot find anything in the article that explores benefits of the new mass. It seems to me that the entire article is slanted towards the older Tridentine rite of the church.

I have attended Latin Masses in the past. I think that they are very beautiful ceremonies, and that perhaps we did lose something in switching to the new mass. But at the same time, (and I know I'm walking into a hornet's nest here) the Tridentine mass had its flaws as well. Part of the problem is that in the old structures, the only use some church officals had for the laity was for them to sit in the pews and keep them from flying away. The laity were only there to "pay, pray, and obey." It does disturb me that some traditionalists would love nothing more than to go back to that.

JesseG 05:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Instead of tagging the article, why not add material exploring the benefits of the new mass? I'd greatly welcome that. I don't think the laity was disrespected previously, and I think that many laity were confused about the new Mass when it came along, but the new Mass can be described in terms of benefits. Many think that the vernacular is a benefit, that more Scripture readings are a benefit, and so on. The first part of the article should give background on those things, and the latter can list out the criticisms. I would say that it is unfinished, rather than "NPOV". Trc | [msg] 10:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A serious NPOV problem existed previously, when a group of editors consistently prevented any budding expression of the criticisms that have been made since the new Mass was promulgated. This entry must provide intelligent background on the reasons for the revision and the criticisms made of the revision. The "for" and "against" if you will — although it's not even that simple. Having a criticism of the new Mass is not necessarily being against it: when Crisis magazine prints articles about improving the liturgy that doesn't mean they are against the new Mass. Anyway, this entry will have balance now. The new Mass has generated much ink and talk, and the entry should reflect that. Trc | [msg] 10:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(I moved this section to the bottom.) I notice that you were just over at the Marcel Lefebvre entry adding editorializing and somewhat inflammatory language, such as calling people "arch-conservative". I think your concern for editorial neutrality is suspect. I am always suspicious of content that changes the tone without adding a fact. Trc | [msg] 11:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just appended a brief note to the article tag, in which I invite people (not that my invitation is necessary) to contribute more to the discussion of benefits afforded by the revised liturgy. I want to make it clear that in no way to I wish to censor that point of view. Wikipedia policy is to express clearly and plainly the different points of view in an issue that is characterized by debate or disagreement. This must, then, be our course. I welcome it. Trc | [msg] 16:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It was not my intent to editorialize the article on Marcel Lefebvre, but I was trying to correct and add some information about him. I did that because that article seemed to be slanted towards a pro-Lefebvre position as well. I felt that it did not have enough information to give people the chance to make an accurate assessment about Lefebvre. The two people who I called arch conservative were exactly that. Both men tried to derail the Second Vatican Council, and fought both John XXIII and Paul VI and all those who were in favor of reform every step of the way. I don't know if Thomas Jefferson actually said this or not, it was a quote the Jefferson character made in the movie 1776 that he felt that King George III was a tyrant even if they did not include call him a tyrant in the Declaration of Independance, so he thought they might as well call him a tyrant. And I have talked to Catholics who were treated rather badly by church officals - especially in the times before the Second Vatican Council. Why do you think that sexual abuse of children became such a crisis for the church? It was because of a long standing church policy to protect the clergy at the expense of the laity. I remember talking to an older gentleman whose grandfather left the church for a while, he didn't exactly what his grandfater's reasons were, but he said it probably wasn't hard to guess why.

Even if people were supressing the faults of the new mass, it appears to me that the pendelum swung the other way, that the article was stuffed full of criticism on the new mass, but anything on the benefits was totally removed from this article. That's why I added the tag, because what I read gave me cause to believe that this article was slanted in one direction.

JesseG 02:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I share your concern entirely. I want very much for this entry to reflect both sources of thought accurately and fairly. Please consider helping with this project. (I'm not going to comment on the other matter as it is irrelevant to this location.) Trc | [msg] 03:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

draft schema for intended benefits

I removed the warning about POV, as the entry is really not unbalanced so much as unfinished. I created within the article an outline for intended benefits that are part of the approach to the revision of the Mass. Please help to fill that section in. This entry should tell the full story: the intended benefits of the revision, and the critique of the revision. Both portions are incomplete at this time. Of course the empty outline might end up being different after content is added; it's just a suggestion of various points that are generally considered benefits of the revision. I would recommend focusing more effort on providing information about the benefits of the revision and less effort on worrying that there are criticisms provided as well. Trc | [msg] 03:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

disputed

This article is highly POV. Trc, you know a lot of stuff but be careful in how you express it. If you don't get the hang of NPOV then people are going to have to revert it all and then begin reworking your stuff on a temp page to see what is salvagable and what is so far from from NPOV to be unsalvagable and have to be binned. Please for your own sake tone down the promotion of your views and allow the page acknowledge that many theologians, many writers and most catholics disagree with your interpretation.

I have added in a dispute tag. Please don't unilaterally remove it. This article clearly is disputed. FearÉIREANN 18:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article is "disputed" because some editors refuse to give any meaningful space to the criticisms of the rite of mass of Paul VI. I am quite tired of having important citations undone or removed by those who want only to present this order of mass as uniformly and exclusively good. I forget how many tildes to use. ~ ~~ Trc | [msg]

This article is disputed because one editor insists on removing anything that might balance his specious disparagements of the 1970 Roman Missal, lumping with it abuses that go against the 1970 Roman Missal, the topic of the article, and displaying the arrogant presumption of personal infallibility that has been commented on in Talk:Society of St. Pius X and above. Lima 18:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is a gigantic mess

This article is a gigantic mess, which follows a haphazard course often venturing into non NPOV. I think it should be protected. We need to follow these guidelines:

  • The article should have a section "support for the new mass", and "criticisms of the new mass". In the "for" section, should only be arguments for the mass, without any counter arguments by those who are against the new mass, but it should contain any counter arguments people "for" the new mass might have against those against the new mass. The same should be done on the "against" section.
  • There should be added a section listing the reasons why a new mass was promulgated, why it was felt there was a need for it. Historical precedence, connection if any to preceding liturgical reform movements.
  • One obvious issue is that there is a big difference exteranally speaking between the text and rubrics of the mass as prescribed in the book in and of itself, and the way it is actually acted out. This needs to be noted in the article, and everything should be clearly demarked on these lines. To maintain NPOV though, a statement should be added that some believe that the differences between text and action were intended by the authors, perhaps secretly, or is in fitting with their general philosophies.
  • Obviously whoever is taking someone's, quoting them, and refuting them needs to stop. This way of editing is completely non sensical. This should be avoided if there is a pro and con section.
  1. I agree fully that the article is quite unsatisfactory. I have already twice suggested that the only way to overcome the problem is to remove all polemics to a separate article, with a link to that other article placed in this. This article would then simply describe the 1970 revision of the Roman Missal, without expressing value judgements. In other words, it would become an article for an encyclopaedia, not a tract.
  2. Having "support for the new mass" and "criticisms of the new mass" sections within the article would, I submit, altogether fail to solve the problem. How do you envisage the “support” section? As “criticisms of the Tridentine Mass”? We should be thankful no such section has been put in the article on the Tridentine Mass. Then why have in this article a “criticisms” section? If the criticisms cannot be challenged item by item, the “criticisms” section will be stuffed with false statements such the attribution to Annibale Bugnini of words that are a total distortion of what he wrote. (I have a photocopy of the full text of the article in Italian that he wrote for the 19 March 1965 L’Osservatore Romano.)
  3. When unfounded criticisms are inserted in the article, there seem to be only two ways of dealing with them. One is simply to delete them, in which case the other editor will simply put them back in. The other is to preserve them, perhaps putting them in quotation marks (with or without an introductory phrase, such as “A certain contributor has claimed that ...”), and refute them. Which is the better way of dealing with them? Of course, there would be no problem, if polemics were excluded.
  4. “There should be added a section listing the reasons why a new mass was promulgated,” you say. Is it really necessary to add to the indications already in the article? The article, quoting sources, says rites were simplified, with due care to preserve their substance; elements which with the passage of time came to be duplicated or were added with but little advantage were eliminated; other elements which suffered injury through accidents of history were restored to the earlier norm of the holy Fathers; a much larger portion of the holy Scriptures is read to the people; the number of the prayers has been increased, so that the new forms might better correspond to new needs, and the text of older prayers has been restored on the basis of the ancient sources. The polemics section would have to be removed from the article to make room for developing this aspect. And yet it seems to be suggested now that the polemics should instead be expanded into two sections!
  5. The distinction should indeed be maintained between what the 1970 reform really is and the way some distort it. (There is no evidence that the “some” are anything but a small minority.) The best list of such distortions or abuses is the Holy See’s document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which is intended not just to “curb” (as one editor has put it) but to eliminate them. They might deserve a separate article; but they are not part of the 1970 reform, which is the subject of the present article.
  6. I disagree with the suggestion that “a statement should be added that some believe that the differences between text and action were intended by the authors, perhaps secretly, or is in fitting with their general philosophies.” In concrete reality, this turns out to be a circular argument: general philosophies are attributed on the basis of what are presumed to be intentions, and intentions are deduced from what are then believed to be general philosophies. An encyclopaedia article should contain only a description of verifiable facts, and should in no way be based on the too facile attribution to others of secret evil intentions.

Lima 08:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"How do you envisage the “support” section? As “criticisms of the Tridentine Mass”? We should be thankful no such section has been put in the article on the Tridentine Mass."

-Well yeah obviously it would include some criticisms of the tridentine mass which predated it and were a motivation for change, it would also include new innovations that people thought were good and why. I don't see any problem with having a clear and distinct support and criticism section. As far as either side having blatantly false statements, that can be worked through better by forcing it to cite a source, rather then adding an opposing scentence. We can put the actual source in the statement.

"3. When unfounded criticisms are inserted in the article, there seem to be only two ways of dealing with them. One is simply to delete them, in which case the other editor will simply put them back in. The other is to preserve them, perhaps putting them in quotation marks (with or without an introductory phrase, such as “A certain contributor has claimed that ...”), and refute them. Which is the better way of dealing with them? Of course, there would be no problem, if polemics were excluded"

Unfounded criticisms? What is unfounded or not is NPOV. Obviously writing the article to be critical would be wrong, but saying that people have critisims, however unfounded, should not be deleted.

"4. “There should be added a section listing the reasons why a new mass was promulgated,” you say. Is it really necessary to add to the indications already in the article? The article, quoting sources, says rites were simplified, with due care to preserve their substance; elements which with the passage of time came to be duplicated or were added with but little advantage were eliminated; other elements which suffered injury through accidents of history were restored to the earlier norm of the holy Fathers; a much larger portion of the holy Scriptures is read to the people; the number of the prayers has been increased, so that the new forms might better correspond to new needs, and the text of older prayers has been restored on the basis of the ancient sources. The polemics section would have to be removed from the article to make room for developing this aspect. And yet it seems to be suggested now that the polemics should instead be expanded into two sections!"

Umm, disregard the size warnings, there is plenty of room for all sections. Those reasons you talk about only hint at parts of larger movements, the history of the liturgical reform movement, etc. Its illuminating to talk about all the currents that led into the development of the novus ordo.

"5. The distinction should indeed be maintained between what the 1970 reform really is and the way some distort it. (There is no evidence that the “some” are anything but a small minority.) The best list of such distortions or abuses is the Holy See’s document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which is intended not just to “curb” (as one editor has put it) but to eliminate them. They might deserve a separate article; but they are not part of the 1970 reform, which is the subject of the present article."

Yes obviously I am going to ensure the article makes quiet clear that there are two phenomenons at work here, one being the actual text of the missal, the other being how it was actually acted upon, including all things that were percieved as abuses. I had previously made this distinction very clearly and well in the article but the article has since been drastically changed by polemics from either side.

"In concrete reality, this turns out to be a circular argument: general philosophies are attributed on the basis of what are presumed to be intentions, and intentions are deduced from what are then believed to be general philosophies. An encyclopaedia article should contain only a description of verifiable facts, and should in no way be based on the too facile attribution to others of secret evil intentions."

Yeah I didn't say this part clearly. Let me try and make myself more clear. With regards to the second phenomenon, "how the new mass was actually acted out in many countries", there are always elements that evolve that some say is an abuse when they come out, such as "altar girls", but the fact that they were tolerated and encouraged by either the Bishop or Pope at the time shows that they were not de facto abuses according to the Bishop or Pope.

I don't think the part explaining Pope Pius XII easter changes in detail is necessary, as it has little to do with the motives and movement of the novus ordo change.

This last section was added by a 67.180.61.179 user. Would he/she please sign, at least with initials or a pseudonym, so as to mark off where a section ends, and a new one can begin.

On point 3. Of course, the fact that people have criticisms should not be deleted. What is wrong is to declare that unfounded allegations and false attributions should be left unchallenged. These allegations and attributions often cite as their source the Internet sites they are copied from, but that still leaves them unfounded and false. Take as an example the Bugnini attribution that is repeated in good or bad faith on many sites.

On point 5. The optional presence of “altar girls” is not an abuse against the Mass liturgy. An official interpretation of the Code of Canon Law has declared female altar servers permissible, though, of course, not obligatory. Some people’s dislike for them could perhaps be dealt with in the article. What is out of place is to treat as part of the revised liturgy abuses against it, such as those that Redemptionis Sacramentum has explicitly condemned.

Additional matter. It was because of the false claim that there were only minimal changes to the Roman Missal from the time of Pius V to that of Paul VI that I wrote at length about the Pius XII revision of the Triduum Sacrum and Vigil of Pentecost liturgy (and could have written longer, since I possess copies of the Roman Missal from before and after the change). Besides, the Pius XII changes had very much to do with the motives and movement that led to the Paul VI changes, which in several matters simply applied to the rest of the Missal what Pius XII introduced into the part he revised. Who knows too what changes Pius X would have introduced, had he lived long enough to do more than raise the status of Sundays in comparison to celebrations of saints, reform plainchant, and ease the regulations on daily and early communion? He died before publication of that complete novelty of his: adapting and systematizing canon law into a code.

I will compress the Pius XII section as soon as I can. In spite of attempts at different times, I find that the article is at present unavailable. I have also found it impossible until now to upload this comment to the discussion page.

Lima 23:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Take as an example the Bugnini attribution that is repeated in good or bad faith on many sites." The best way here is to actualy include the direct quote of Bugnini. However, I think this problem will be mostly mitigated by the clear seperation of the pro and con arguments.

"On point 5. The optional presence of “altar girls” is not an abuse against the Mass liturgy". There is on one hand the issue of the missal changes in and of themselves, which have nothing to do with Altar girls. But as part of the changes which occoured since the 1970's, Altar girls are lumped in by people in an argument who simply lump that stuff altogether as the "new mass". Another side would argue against them and say that Altar girls and all the rest are all good, but still another side would argue against the anti new mass side and say that the new mass is good but altar girls are an "abuse", or a bad thing done in an unauthorized way (especially before they were explicitly authorized, remember: they were done with ambigious legality for a long time in the US).

"What is out of place is to treat as part of the revised liturgy abuses against it, such as those that Redemptionis Sacramentum has explicitly condemned." Unfortunately this cannot be true, for these reasons

  • In the arguments of almost anyone that I've ever seen argue both pro and against the new mass, both sides lump together both what was changed in the text in and of itself and the extraneous changes which occoured since 1970. The only arguments that I've seen that argue about the textual changes in and of itself, especially in the present time, are things like the Critical Study of the New Mass and the present day arguments of the SSPX. If these two phenonenon weren't so intertwined it would be better to have seperate articles but they are.
  • There is a blurry line between "extraneous" practices and those that are authorized, as in the example of altar girls. Practices, tolerated without censure by certain bishops for a while have gradually become tolerated by the Pope and church officially.

"It was because of the false claim that there were only minimal changes to the Roman Missal from the time of Pius V to that of Paul VI that I wrote at length about the Pius XII revision of the Triduum Sacrum and Vigil of Pentecost liturgy (and could have written longer, since I possess copies of the Roman Missal from before and after the change). "

I don't think this will be needed in the final cleaned up article. 67.180.61.179 00:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) Actually I just thought of something, the liturgical movement should get its OWN article and a small summary should mention it in this article in the beggining as a predasesor for the changes.

67.180.61.179 00:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for improving the criticisms section, removing a multitude of unfounded allegations and false attributions. There are still some manifestly false statements in the text. Take for example the affirmation that the changes include “Allowing Deacons, who permanently remain as Deacons, to marry.” In fact, ordination even as a deacon is an impediment to marriage (cf. canon 1087 of the Code of Canon Law). What is actually allowed is for married men of mature age to be ordained as deacons, without being prepared for ordination as priests. Other statements are of decidedly questionable accuracy, such as the gratuitous assertion that “The amounts of the word ‘sacrifice’ are reduced ... and ‘table’ introduced.” (This is, I think, untrue; but it would take a long time to count the times “sacrifice” appears in the old Missal and in the new. It is certainly untrue that “table” on its own is ever used to mean the altar – if that is what the phrase implies.) But I am so relieved at the thought of what has been eliminated that I just leave the text untouched. The trouble will come when rabid anti-revision contributors again put in falsehoods that shriek for correction.

You may wish to remove the paragraphs that begin: “At four points the 1975 GIRM ....”; and “GIRM directs the priest to face ...” These were inserted to counter an insistent false assertion that the revised Missal directs the priest to face the people a certain number of times, including during the eucharistic prayer. But now they seem, at least to me, unnecessarily detailed.

Your revision has unfortunately left without explanation the repeated acronym GIRM. The explanation must be restored, or else the acronym must in every instance be expanded to “General Instruction of the Roman Missal”.

I also leave it to you to change the phrase “Novus Ordo” in the second paragraph of the article. It is neither an accurate nor a neutral term. It is inaccurate, since the Ordo Missae is only a small part of the Missal, and also for the reason indicated at the start of this Talk page. It is non-neutral, because generally used pejoratively by opponents of the revision.

Lima 17:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Other statements are of decidedly questionable accuracy, such as the gratuitous assertion that “The amounts of the word ‘sacrifice’ are reduced ... and ‘table’ introduced.”"

I counted haha. In the Mass itself, the tridentine uses the word sacrifice 8 times, the new mass with Roman canon uses it 7 times and the new mass with any of the other canons use it 3 times. Ill slowly get rid of the refrences to the GIRM. What other term should I use in place of Novus Ordo? Should I use the term New Mass? Remember, once the word usage becomes widespread, you can't let its etymology or original meaning get in the way. The only two phrases I've seen used by both sides of the argument to describe the phenonemon talked about in the article is "new mass" and "novus ordo" although I might be forgetting other ones.

END OF UNSIGNED REMARKS BY 67.180.61.179

In counting the times the word “sacrifice” appears “in the Mass”, you obviously limited your search to the quite brief Order of Mass in the pre- and post-Vatican II versions of the Roman Missal. I was thinking of a much bigger task: that of counting the frequency of the word in the whole Missal: not only the Order of Mass, but also the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (and the sections of the pre-1970 Missal that it replaced), the Proper of Seasons, the Proper of Saints, the Common of Saints ... I am convinced that the result of such a count would show even more strongly that the idea formed in a reader’s mind on meeting the phrase, “The amounts of the word ‘sacrifice’ are reduced”, is quite false. Regrettably, this is not the only such baseless affirmation that is firmly believed and constantly repeated without any checking.

I think that by now, after more than a generation, “new Mass” is an outdated term. “Newer Mass” would be more exact. Objectively, what is being considered is the present form of the Mass in the Roman rite; but any description based on that fact, such as “present-day Mass”, would displease its detractors. However, there are many ways of referring to it that are accurate and at the same time will offend nobody: “the revised Mass” and “the post-1970 liturgy” are two simple ones. “The Vatican II Mass” would correspond precisely with “the Tridentine Mass”. The alternative names given at the start of the article are other possibilities. I am sure you can think of yet more.

As you well know, the Order of Mass in the revised Missal is not called “New Order of Mass” (“Novus Ordo Missae”) and never was. The term “Novus Ordo Missae” was invented and used by opponents of Paul VI’s revision, as “Papist” by opponents of the Roman Catholic Church. “Papist” can at least boast of being a more accurate description of its object than “Novus Ordo Missae” is of the revised liturgy of the Mass in its entirety.

Lima 01:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I was thinking of a much bigger task: that of counting the frequency of the word in the whole Missal: not only the Order of Mass, but also the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (and the sections of the pre-1970 Missal that it replaced), the Proper of Seasons, the Proper of Saints, the Common of Saints ... "
I've noticed you've made this point before. Obviously the main issue for most people would be primarily the changes to the Ordo of the missal. So I don't see why its important to count how many times the word sacrifice is used in the instructions on how to say the mass or in the various Saint's feast day's readings. The vast majority of all types of criticisms and support around the new mass is about the ordo, the text and rubrics of the mass itself, and not in regards to the changes to the Saint's days. Incidentally, the GIRM intro section to the mass is seen as way more scandelous then the mass itself by the "text-in-itself" genre of critics such as Cardinal Ottoviani.
As regards to your proposed alternate names for the novus ordo mass, such as Vatican 2 Mass, work. I think the main issue is brevity when it comes to which word to use in the text of the article (obviously the article title must remain Novus Ordo Missae because its the most popular word and wikipedia policy is to use the most popular word regardless of accuracy!).

END OF UNSIGNED REMARKS BY 67.180.61.179

I agree with your observation about the centrality of the two versions of the Ordo Missae. And I was thinking of examining outside the Ordo Missae precisely because, as you say, some attribute more meaning to the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (GIRM) than to the Ordo Missae. Your counting has indicated that, when the first eucharistic prayer is used, there is a reduction of just one use of the word "sacrifice". This must be through omission of the prayer for himself that the priest used to say silently before giving the blessing at the end of Mass (Placeat tibi, santa Trinitas ...). Now that I come to think of it, if you count the times people heard the word "sacrifice" at Mass, the number has actually been tripled, from 2 (Orate fratres and response) to 6!
Lima 07:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)