Technically then one can’t use “Tridentine Mass”, one can’t use “Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom”, “Mass of Paul VI” or “Mass of Pius V” etc. It is customary for Liturgies to be called by name of their first appearance. It was done in most history of the Church and still is done by Eastern Catholics at least. I don’t get why would that need to change with this exact Liturgy…What was originally called Novus Ordo is no more.
But what was originally Novus Ordo has changed enough that a new name was indicated. Hence my statement of “is no more”. And no one ever, to my knowledge, used Tridentine Mass or any of your other examples in a pejorative sense, unlike Novus Ordo, or especially NO.It is customary for Liturgies to be called by name of their first appearance.
This.And no one ever, to my knowledge, used Tridentine Mass or any of your other examples in a pejorative sense, unlike Novus Ordo, or especially NO.
I think that the issue is more that those who use the term intend them as pejorative, rather than people being offended. People here are just pointing out that the usage has become overwhelmingly pejorative, and people are more offended by that pejorative intent and attitude, than they are by the term alone.Let’s be honest. The NO debate has nothing to do with the “correctness” of the term and everything to do with emotions. People perceive a negative connotation to the term and get upset. That connotation is not intrinsic to the term NO though. Just the other day I saw a Mass schedule listed on a church website, where Masses were referred to as “Latin Mass” and “Novus Ordo”. Were they using the term as a pejorative on their own website? It’s a perfectly acceptable term. Anyone can get offended by anything.
And someone who wants to promote unity rather than divisiveness is aware of which terminology is likely to promote one over the other.Anyone can get offended by anything.
The word “new” is a relativistic temporal term, unlike any of the one’s you mentioned. Temporal terms of that nature are, by their nature, dated and limited. Our new president is not Barack Obama, even though there was a time that would have applied. A fifty year old man is not a new addition or new baby, even though there was a time those would have applied.It is customary for Liturgies to be called by name of their first appearance. It was done in most history of the Church and still is done by Eastern Catholics at least. I don’t get why would that need to change with this exact Liturgy…
I would add “private”.It’s about what you want. I would be honest and tell them why you don’t want to do it. You can be clear, firm and nice.
Even word “Christian” started as an insult. It is pretty historical for Christians to use insults they take for Lord as terms. Even so, that doesn’t change this ancient practice. I didn’t know Novus Ordo is pejorative until I joined forum and I don’t think it is solely negative.And no one ever, to my knowledge, used Tridentine Mass or any of your other examples in a pejorative sense, unlike Novus Ordo, or especially NO.
Yes. Original Missal was called Novus Ordo though. I get that it will not be “new” after hundreds of years but even Psalm mentions “new song” and it is hardly new today. It’s a name not exactly a term.The word “new” is a relativistic temporal term, unlike any of the one’s you mentioned.
But that is the question, isn’t it?It’s a name not exactly a term.
“Moron” was a medical term?!? You’re a living encyclopedia, @dochawk (and that’s meant as a compliment).Yet common usage has caused the clinical medical term “moron”, as well as the term that replaced it, to leave usage.
No one said it was only and automatically negative, just that there is a small but vocal group who uses it in that way.I didn’t know Novus Ordo is pejorative until I joined forum and I don’t think it is solely negative.
Right. That’s what I meant. To correct myself, I didn’t know Novus Ordo could be used as pejorative.No one said it was only and automatically negative, just that there is a small but vocal group who uses it in that way.