"Novus Ordo" vs. "Ordinary Form" - What in the world do we call the Mass of Paul VI?

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings to Catholic Answers Forum,

I had recently began a new topic that asked if receiving the Sacred Precious Blood of Jesus Christ was acceptable in the Novus Ordo. It was not my intention to offend nor cause what I feel like a confrontation, and rather than stew about it, I am posting a thread about this question.

I am not sure how the forum serach function works as I am horribly inept at seraches even on the google search engine.

ElToro, I mean no disrepect, but I wished to continue the discussion in another thread.

In that thread a poster, ElToro, said that the Mass of Paul VI was known as “Ordinary Forum”. I have also hear it referred to as Novus Ordo, and have always thus called this form Novus Ordo.

I go reading some more threads and notice that the same poster , El Toro, has in his signature, that the Mass of Paul VI is known as “Ordinary Form” and not novus ordo. I do not know why I am chagrined to see Novus Ordo not capitilized. I realize that this signature is in response to my other thread, and I feel a bit attacked, not overtly, but underhandely. I felt maybe I had violated a major forum rule in referring to the Mass of Paul VI as Novus Ordo. Perhaps I need to go and pray for some humility.

I have noticed that in visting the United States of America most American Catholics call the Mass of Paul VI the Ordinary Form, but I notice that others call it Novus Ordo. I believe most English speakers call the Mass of Paul VI the Ordinary Form, but am not sure on this statistic.

Please provide Church documents in answering this question. Which is the acceptable way to call the Mass of Paul VI? May I still refer to the Mass of Paul VI as Novus Ordo? What I am looking for is not what is a personal perference, though I am interested in how many of you call the Mass of Paul VI the Ordinary From as opposed to the Novus Ordo, Mass, but official Church teaching on what to call the Mass of Paul VI.

I apologize for rambling on in this initial post, but I was a bit disconcerted when I received that response in my other thread and observed the change in the poster’s signature.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[YoungTradCath]

In his Summorum Pontificum, Benedict calls it the “Ordinary Form.”

And it really doesn’t matter to me if someone calls it the Ordinary Form or the Novus Ordo any more that if someone calls the old mass the Tridentine or the Extraordinary Form.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Welcome to the forums.

You can use either one and be correct. Do not let it bother you if some one tries to correct you and say it not one but the other.

I use both terms as well as just calling it “The Mass” so If you are useing it merely to clarify which form of the Latin Rite you are specking you are fine.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I usually use “Ordinary Form” because it’s the least controversial. Some people take “Novus Ordo” as being derogatory. I don’t think it is meant this way in the vast majority of cases, but avoiding the term helps avoid unnecessary tension

 

[TrueLight]

I use both interchangeably on here.

In real life, I use Novus Ordo.

I don’t know any traditionalists in real life who say Ordinary Form.

Although in all fairness, I don’t know what someone who attends mass in the Ordinary Form would say in real life to differentiate the two masses.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I use both interchangeably on here.

In real life, I use Novus Ordo.

I don’t know any traditionalists in real life who say Ordinary Form.

Although in all fairness, I don’t know what someone who attends mass in the Ordinary Form would say in real life to differentiate the two masses.

A problem is that “ordinary form” is a new term, and Traditionalists in particular regularly discussed liturgical matters using the term “Novus Ordo” for decades. It can be hard to break such habits, especially when there is really nothing discernable (at least to me, and I think to many Traditionalists) really wrong with the term “Novus Ordo.” Again, I personally avoid the term because of the minority of Catholics who believe it to be offensive and/or inaccurate, but I don’t adversely judge those who do use it.

 

[JRKH]

I usually use “Ordinary Form” because it’s the least controversial. Some people take “Novus Ordo” as being derogatory. I don’t think it is meant this way in the vast majority of cases, but avoiding the term helps avoid unnecessary tension

Agreed. Part of the problem stems from when we abbreviate the terms and the Novus Ordo comes out NO. Even without intending it, this can leave negative image with some people.

As already pointed out by another, the Holy Father, in his Summorum Pontificum, Used the terms “Ordinary Form” (OF) and “Extraordinary form” (EF) to describe the two approved forms of the mass.
I like these two terms precisely because they are the terms used by the Holy Father and no one can really object to them as derogatory, inaccurate or whatever. For that reason I choose to stick to “OF” and “EF” when discussing the matter.

Peace
James

 

[TrueLight]

Agreed. Part of the problem stems from when we abbreviate the terms and the Novus Ordo comes out NO. Even without intending it, this can leave negative image with some people.

As already pointed out by another, the Holy Father, in his Summorum Pontificum, Used the terms “Ordinary Form” (OF) and “Extraordinary form” (EF) to describe the two approved forms of the mass.
I like these two terms precisely because they are the terms used by the Holy Father and no one can really object to them as derogatory, inaccurate or whatever. For that reason I choose to stick to “OF” and “EF” when discussing the matter.

Peace
James

I personally find EF derogatory. I know it is used by the Pope. I am speaking of how it makes me feel.

Extraordinary - outside of the ordinary.

The OF has been ordinary for less than 50 years. How long has the Latin mass been around?

And yes I know some will say the EF is not the same as the Tridentine etc, but it’s basically the same.

 

[pnewton]

Outside of here I just say the Mass or the current Mass. If I must differentiate, i use ordinary Mass.

 

[OraLabora]

I personally find EF derogatory. I know it is used by the Pope. I am speaking of how it makes me feel.

Extraordinary - outside of the ordinary.

The OF has been ordinary for less than 50 years. How long has the Latin mass been around?

And yes I know some will say the EF is not the same as the Tridentine etc, but it’s basically the same.

EF or OF has nothing to do with how long the particular form has been around. It relates to what is now in common, ordinary usage. The Holy Father says basically that the OF is the norm, and the EF is allowed under certain conditions, basically when enough people request it to justify celebrating it.

You know there was a point when the Tridentine Mass was new… and at that point it became, essentially, the “ordinary” form of its time. Many ancient rites of the Church died at that point… Old Sarum, Beneventan, Gallican, Old Roman, etc. Basically two survived, the Latin and Ambrosian rites, in the Western Church (and the Mozarabic to a very limited extent).

Now we have the OF which is an organic development of the Mass. The EF continues to be allowed. Some prefer the OF, others the EF. I am solidly in the OF, properly celebrated (Latin, propers, etc), camp.

We should not let what is essentially an aesthetic preference become a point of division between us, otherwise we risk falling into schism.

 

[ProVobis]

Some people take “Novus Ordo” as being derogatory.

Would Novus Ordo Missae (or NOM) be less derogatory?

I now use OF (it actually is Forma Ordinaria) to distinguish between the two. Latin Mass doesn’t work as the Forma Ordinaria can be said entirely in Latin as well.

 

[OraLabora]

Would Novus Ordo Missae (or NOM) be less derogatory?

I now use OF (it actually is Forma Ordinaria) to distinguish between the two. Latin Mass doesn’t work as the Forma Ordinaria can be said entirely in Latin as well.

Yes that’s quite true and it always bugs me when folks here talk about returning to the “Latin Mass”, since the current Mass is actually meant to be said in Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

You know there was a point when the Tridentine Mass was new…

There really is no such thing as the Tridentine Mass. The Usus Antiquior goes back further than Trent. The Forma Extraordinaria is the 1961 typical edition of the Mass which was codified by Pope Pius V a few years after Trent. In that same document the Pope abrogated all liturgies brought into use after 1370 AD. The Usus Antiquior obviously was not one of them.

 

[corsair]

The terms “Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form” are just over 4 years old. Published for the first time 7/7/2007 by the Holy Father.

Until that time I had never heard it called anything else but the Novus Ordo. And because there were few if any “Indult” Masses around, it was just called “Mass”.

 

[pnewton]

EF or OF has nothing to do with how long the particular form has been around. It relates to what is now in common, ordinary usage. The Holy Father says basically that the OF is the norm, and the EF is allowed under certain conditions, basically when enough people request it to justify celebrating it.

I may be mistaken here, but I thought when there was enough people (as defined by the bishop) it was not just allowable, but mandated. I also thought that priests were granted permission to say the TLM by the Pope, enough people or not.

 

[JRKH]

I personally find EF derogatory. I know it is used by the Pope. I am speaking of how it makes me feel.

Extraordinary - outside of the ordinary.

The OF has been ordinary for less than 50 years. How long has the Latin mass been around?

And yes I know some will say the EF is not the same as the Tridentine etc, but it’s basically the same.

Well - I agree with what others have said. At one time the Tridentine form was new - an organic development and “standardization” of the Mass.
The Novus Ordo is new but again is simply an organic development of the Mass.
As far as the term "Extraordinary, this can be a complimentary term such as, “he is an extraordinary person”, or “what an extraordinary sunset”.
To answer your question about how long has the “Latin mass” been around, I’d say pretty much as long as there has bee Latin speaking Christians. the “Latin Mass” has existed in many forms and still exists in the Novus Ordo.

To me there just seems little point in arguing all of these things. It only makes Jesus and Mary sad to see us fussing over such trivialities.
The Holy Father has given us two terms that are clear and kind. It’s up to us to take them that way and to keep them that way.

Peace
James

 

[agnes_therese]

I go reading some more threads and notice that the same poster , El Toro, has in his signature, that the Mass of Paul VI is known as “Ordinary Form” and not novus ordo. I do not know why I am chagrined to see Novus Ordo not capitilized. I realize that this signature is in response to my other thread, and I feel a bit attacked, not overtly, but underhandely. I felt maybe I had violated a major forum rule in referring to the Mass of Paul VI as Novus Ordo. Perhaps I need to go and pray for some humility.

I apologize for rambling on in this initial post, but I was a bit disconcerted when I received that response in my other thread and observed the change in the poster’s signature.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

Anathama Sit –
Some folks get all in an uproar about how to refer to the two forms.Don’t worry about one person’s reaction. Even if El Toro meant it as an “attack,” that doesn’t mean you have to let it bother you. You didn’t intend any insult.

 

[JRKH]

I may be mistaken here, but I thought when there was enough people (as defined by the bishop) it was not just allowable, but mandated. I also thought that priests were granted permission to say the TLM by the Pope, enough people or not.

It is true that a priest no longer needs to get approval from his bishop to say the EF.
As to the Bishops responsibility I don’t think that it is actually “Mandated” as in required, but the Bishop is expected to make every reasonable effort to accommodate those requesting the EF.

Right now the problem is that there aren’t that many Diocesan priests who are trained in the the EF. I don’t know how many are inclined to learn.
The FSSP are a religious order of priests specifically trained to say the EF, but I understand that they must obtain permission from the Bishop (be invited) to come into a diocese.

Peace
James

 

[curlycool89]

Agreed. Part of the problem stems from when we abbreviate the terms and the Novus Ordo comes out NO. Even without intending it, this can leave negative image with some people.

As already pointed out by another, the Holy Father, in his Summorum Pontificum, Used the terms “Ordinary Form” (OF) and “Extraordinary form” (EF) to describe the two approved forms of the mass.
I like these two terms precisely because they are the terms used by the Holy Father and no one can really object to them as derogatory, inaccurate or whatever. For that reason I choose to stick to “OF” and “EF” when discussing the matter.

There are actual canonical (legal) reasons why the Pope used the terms “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary”. Brother JR went into detail is this thread back in May.

Basically, something that is Ordinary is essentially mandated. All diocesan priests must learn the Ordinary Form. Something that is Extraordinary cannot be mandated (diocesan priests can’t be forced to learn or celebrate the EF, or pastors cannot be forced to use EMHC).

 

[ElToro]

I wasn’t offended. But if this exchange would have taken place in real life I would have quietly walked away from you as politely as possible. The use of “novus ordo mass” in this day and age is a big time red flag in my world.

The Mass’s actual name is the Mass of Pope Paul VI. I hope no one disagrees with that. Colloquially the Mass of Pope Paul VI has also been known as the “Pauline” (“Paul-Line” not “Paul-Lean”) Mass. Though it was never the Pauline Mass’ name some also have colloquially referred to it as the “novus ordo mass” based on a description of the Mass when it was first promulgated many years ago.

Along comes the ever-brilliant Pope Benedict VXI. It’s clear he realizes that “novus ordo mass” is viewed as an invective by a growing number. It’s clear he also realizes there are several names for the Mass that preceeded the Mass of Pope Paul VI. Some refer to it as the “Tridentine Mass.” Some as the “Traditional Latin Mass.” Some as “the Mass of the Ages.” Some use invectives like “the dead mass.”

In his wisdom the Pope coined two very clean and succinct names for the two Masses. The Ordinary Form (OF) of the Mass for the Pauline Mass and the Extraordinary Form (EF) of the Mass for the Tridentine Mass. Done deal, right? Nope, some people still like to use the invectives. Some even use slurs like “NO mass.”

Since the Pope made his announcement I have never heard anyone use the label “novus ordo mass” who did not prefer the EF Mass. It’s use is a very subtle jab at the OF Mass. I have even seen people on here use “EF Mass” and still cling to using “novus ordo mass” in the same posting. To me it’s use is largely one of bigotry and in some rare cases simple ignorance.

It’s not all bad though. Its use in real life is a red flag. More often then not it’s a caution that I don’t want to discuss anything with the person using it.

Greetings to Catholic Answers Forum,

I had recently began a new topic that asked if receiving the Sacred Precious Blood of Jesus Christ was acceptable in the Novus Ordo. It was not my intention to offend nor cause what I feel like a confrontation, and rather than stew about it, I am posting a thread about this question.

I am not sure how the forum serach function works as I am horribly inept at seraches even on the google search engine.

ElToro, I mean no disrepect, but I wished to continue the discussion in another thread.

In that thread a poster, ElToro, said that the Mass of Paul VI was known as “Ordinary Forum”. I have also hear it referred to as Novus Ordo, and have always thus called this form Novus Ordo.

I go reading some more threads and notice that the same poster , El Toro, has in his signature, that the Mass of Paul VI is known as “Ordinary Form” and not novus ordo. I do not know why I am chagrined to see Novus Ordo not capitilized. I realize that this signature is in response to my other thread, and I feel a bit attacked, not overtly, but underhandely. I felt maybe I had violated a major forum rule in referring to the Mass of Paul VI as Novus Ordo. Perhaps I need to go and pray for some humility.

I have noticed that in visting the United States of America most American Catholics call the Mass of Paul VI the Ordinary Form, but I notice that others call it Novus Ordo. I believe most English speakers call the Mass of Paul VI the Ordinary Form, but am not sure on this statistic.

Please provide Church documents in answering this question. Which is the acceptable way to call the Mass of Paul VI? May I still refer to the Mass of Paul VI as Novus Ordo? What I am looking for is not what is a personal perference, though I am interested in how many of you call the Mass of Paul VI the Ordinary From as opposed to the Novus Ordo, Mass, but official Church teaching on what to call the Mass of Paul VI.

I apologize for rambling on in this initial post, but I was a bit disconcerted when I received that response in my other thread and observed the change in the poster’s signature.

God bless.
Anathama Sit