Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?

[Acolyte]

While obviously less reverent and lacking compared to the TLM, I believe the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) is a valid Roman Catholic Mass.

Feel free to agree or to argue otherwise. I will say I'd be delighted if the OF were to be phased out and we were to return to the TLM as the sole Roman Rite.

[Larry]

This is a rather complex question that isn't easy to answer. I believe that the NO, when celebrated by a valid priest with a valid intention, makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary. Unfortunately that isn't good enough, because the same thing was true of the first liturgy of Cranmer that was imposed in England in 1549. Like the NO, a Catholic priest could say the Cranmerian liturgy and objectively make the Sacrifice present. But was it a Catholic Mass? Emphatically not.

The Novus Ordo was created by a committee of liturgical modernists that deliberately removed all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the liturgy and made it ambiguous in order to please Protestants(this is of public record). This committee even wanted the Roman Canon(Canon I) removed, but at the behest of Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI overruled the committee and kept the Roman Canon. So perhaps it's still a Catholic rite when Canon I is used; the other canons are extremely problematic from a traditional Catholic perspective. My answer is to avoid the NO and go only to the TLM, or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy(which I almost exclusively attend these days). But it's not an easy question to answer.

[Chestertonian]

I think it is valid but lacking.  the Novus ordo is like a dusty old glass box... there is a lot of dust over it, lots of scratches, so it is hard to see the treasure inside.  Not as much light can get through.  Whereas the TLM is like a freshly polished, pure glass box where the treasure is clearly visible without any extra effort. But the treasure is still there either way--the Eucharist.

[Bonaventure]

No. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, it is a "bastard rite."

[Jayne]

While obviously less reverent and lacking compared to the TLM, I believe the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) is a valid Roman Catholic Mass.

I agree. 

I would like to see the NO abrogated and replaced by the 1965 rite while, at the same time, access to the TLM is improved so that it is a realistic option for most Catholics to attend.

[Maximilian]

No. We can examine all the minute details, and that is a worth endeavor, and when we've put together the pieces, we can see that essential elements are lacking. However, what is even more important, is to look at the bigger picture. What is the spirit of the NO? What is the intention? It is not a Catholic spirit. It is not a Catholic intention. It is the spirit of man, intending to worship itself.

[LouisIX]

What do you mean by "Roman Catholic Mass"?  That is is promulgated by the Catholic Church?  That it is valid?  That it is adequately congruent and reflective of the Catholic tradition?

[Bonaventure]

What do you mean by "Roman Catholic Mass"?  That is is promulgated by the Catholic Church?  That it is valid?  That it is adequately congruent and reflective of the Catholic tradition?

Validity and liciety are two different things.

Regardless of its sacramental validity, it is a bastard rite. Holy Mother Church does not give her flock bastard liturgies. Ergo

[bben15]

Is it a valid Mass? Yes, and the Church regularly celebrates it.

However, is it distinctively Catholic? If you ask me, then no. The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo. The NO cannot be called distinctly Catholic because it's almost the same as a Lutheran or Anglican service. So, I have to say that it is just a Mass, not a Catholic Mass.

Plus, it was promulgated for ecumenism, not for the spiritual good of the Catholic faithful. A Catholic Mass is meant to bring people closer to Catholicism. The Novus Ordo does the opposite.   

The TLM is distinctively Catholic, while the NO is not.

[Chestertonian]

The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo.

not....exactly.

[Kaesekopf]

The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo.

not....exactly.

1600.  Only off by 20%.  Not bad.

[bben15]

While obviously less reverent and lacking compared to the TLM, I believe the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) is a valid Roman Catholic Mass.

I agree. 

I would like to see the NO abrogated and replaced by the 1965 rite while, at the same time, access to the TLM is improved so that it is a realistic option for most Catholics to attend.

I would love to see the NO abrogated and the pre-1955 Missal to be used, or at least the 1962 Missal. But, the 1965 is better than the Novus Ordo.

[Maximilian]

The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo.

not....exactly.

1600.  Only off by 20%.  Not bad.

I don't understand your point. Are trying to say that the Mass was first invented in 365 AD?

[Jayne]

While obviously less reverent and lacking compared to the TLM, I believe the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) is a valid Roman Catholic Mass.

I agree. 

I would like to see the NO abrogated and replaced by the 1965 rite while, at the same time, access to the TLM is improved so that it is a realistic option for most Catholics to attend.

I would love to see the NO abrogated and the pre-1955 Missal to be used, or at least the 1962 Missal. But, the 1965 is better than the Novus Ordo.

I think that the majority of Catholics have become so attached to using vernacular that the transition to the TLM would be difficult for them.  The 1965 rite would be an easier adjustment for them while avoiding the major problems with the NO.

[Kaesekopf]

The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo.

not....exactly.

1600.  Only off by 20%.  Not bad.

I don't understand your point. Are trying to say that the Mass was first invented in 365 AD?

A few things because I'm dumb.

1)  I should have said "1300", since the codification of the Mass was around 600 (with Pope St Gregory the Great).

2)  I was trying to be a little humorous, but that failed when my thinking was off.

3)  Mass was first said by Jesus, obviously, but codified in 600.