Is it okay for a Church to refer to their masses as "Novus Ordo"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thomasbradley312 said:
They are but they share most of their traditions with the Eastrrn Orthodox Church.
Click to expand...
So? You correctly stated that there were a number of regional rites leading up to Trent when the Mass of Pius V was made. Why is it then surprising that say, the Greek Catholic Church shares traditions with the Greek Orthodox Church? What fault is it of the Greek Catholics that many of them schismed with the Orthodox? You seem to be suggesting they should be Latinized – why should they abandon their traditions which are as old as ours? Shall we scrap the Kyrie from the Mass and make the text Latin? Wasn’t the first form of the Nicean Creed in Greek?
Thomasbradley312 said:
However I’d much rather see the day when the entire west and east are united again.
Click to expand...
While I too hope that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches reunite, reunification does not mean everyone must be Latin rite.
 
Last edited:
I am not suggesting that.
I’m saying the number of eastern Catholics is not large enough that we should even be discussing this. And Rome is just as much to blame for the east west schism as is Constantinople. I respect the Divine Liturgy and the eastern Churches who either remained or have come back to communion but I just personally don’t think they are a large enough group to be putting on the same level as the Latin Rite.
If there was a reunification between east and west this would be a much more relevant issue.

Part of me thinks one of us is misunderstanding each other. I agree with everything you are saying.
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
They are but they share most of their traditions with the Eastrrn Orthodox Church. Most came back from being in schism and even faced persecution in spite of and we must respect that. However I’d much rather see the day when the entire west and east are united again.
Click to expand...
Most, but not all
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
Cor_ad_Cor:
The proper terms, per the Church, are “Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form”
Click to expand...
This reason ^^^^^
Click to expand...
But is it? Other than Pope Benedict’s Motu Propio, in which he first coined “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form” as descriptive terms, when has the church used this terminology? Usually, in church documents I see “Mass according to the 1962 Missal”.
 
Last edited:
Not to belittle Cor_ad_Cor but do you have a more authoritative source than an anonymous board poster?
 
TheLittleLady said:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...doc_20110513_nota-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/extraordinary-form/index.cfm
Click to expand...
This shows me that it is a term, one among many, that has been widely adopted in common usage. It doesn’t make it “per the Church, the proper term.” It does show that it is appropriate and acceptable to use the terms “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form”. Nowhere have I seen any evidence, per the Church, that other commonly used terms are less acceptable, let alone improper.

Personally, I think it is a good descriptive term and I prefer it myself. I just don’t like to see other people being told that they are doing something improper when they are not.
 
Last edited:
babochka said:
Nowhere have I seen any evidence, per the Church, that other commonly used terms are less acceptable, let alone improper.
Click to expand...
The limited “evidence” I see is the frequent use of this term now by those opposed to this form of the Mass…as well as by others who appear to be in good faith.

Sometimes a term that had no particular extra connotation for awhile, comes to take on some extra baggage. A prudent person takes that into account. Using a term such as “ordinary form” shows a level of respect intended by Pope Benedict.
 
Last edited:
That’s a no then. There is no authoritative source that says saying novus ordo is inappropriate or prohibited. Thank you.
 
commenter said:
The limited “evidence” I see is the frequent use of this term now by those opposed to this form of the Mass…as well as by others who appear to be in good faith.

Sometimes a term that had no particular extra connotation for awhile, comes to take on some extra baggage. A prudent person takes that into account. Using a term such as “ordinary form” shows a level of respect intended by Pope Benedict.
Click to expand...
And if Novus Ordo Watch starts calling itself Ordinary Form Watch am I going to have to start using the new name? Does the Church have to follow the world in everything, including PC name changes? It is the novus ordo and there is nothing wrong with saying so.
 
Sumorum Pontificum didn’t say anything about not calling it novus ordo. You can read it if you like and show me where he says not to say novus ordo because I obviously missed it in my first two readings and word search doesn’t help.
commenter said:
Sometimes a term that had no particular extra connotation for awhile, comes to take on some extra baggage.
Click to expand...
And your reasoning as to why one should call it Ordinary rather than new is following the world. PE Benedict gave no such reasoning, did he?
 
Last edited:
It’s a fine reason to call it OF if you want but it’s hardly an edict against calling it the novus ordo…which it is.
 
Last edited:
poche said:
Novus Ordo is what the rite is called.
Click to expand...
No, that simply isn’t correct.

The 1970 version indeed bore that title, as it was the New Order of the Mass.

The 2002 and later bear the title “Missale Romanum.”
MiserereMeiDei said:
Sumorum Pontificum didn’t say anything about not calling it novus ordo.
Click to expand...
It didn’t say not to call it “friztubl”, either . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top