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

[Anathama_Sit]

You seem to be one of the very rare exceptions where you were not using “novus ordo” as a known invective. Thank you for your kind comments.

Greetings ElToro,

Please understand that I am in no way intending to be using the term “Novus Ordo Missae” as a known invective. I have gone to several of those Masses in which it was done solemnly and with great reverance. I am thankful that there are both forms in the Church today. It is a blessing to be able to choose the form of the Mass in which one feels comfortable attending.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Good point. Probably because “NO” is even more of an invective than “novus ordo.”

By the way there is no “tlm.” That’s just a contrived name for the EF Mass.

ElToro,

This is the very reason why I choose not to abbreviate Novus Ordo Missae. I do not personally care for abbreviations myself, as they can cause confusion. I do respect as to why the objections rise when otheres choose to abbreviate Novus Ordo Missae or Novus Ordo.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[ElToro]

I agree with the poster who pointed out that in real life people refer to NO/OF as ‘the mass’, and to TLM/EF as ‘Latin mass’. I actually do the same, it is easier and it doesn’t confuse people who are not familiar and/or not interested in this.

My parish priest who is FSSP calls the EF ‘the old rite’. Obviously, that is the translation of the Usus Antiquior. I don’t know what the status of that term is at the moment, but a number of traditionally minded bloggers that I follow use that term. Any thoughts?

“Old rite” may not be the most definitive label, but it’s not an invective like “novus ordo” either. I suppose it might momentarily confuse a few but there is nothing nasty about it.

 

[ElToro]

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.

 

[ElToro]

Get over it. Novus Ordo is not a slur. the Mass of Pope Paul has been referred to by that title since its inception and. so by or reason it has been being slurred from the being, even by the ones that promulgated it.

Those that find it offensive are looking for a reason to be offended. So Use Novus Ordro. Use Ordinary Form. Use Extraordinary Form. Use Old Latin Mass. Use Tridentine Mass. Because no matter what words you use it how you use them and you can be just as offensive with any of the terms if that is your goal.

On a happy note we had a visiting priest at my parish today celebrating the -]Novus Ordo/-] Ordinary Form of the Mass and it was wonderful.

It’s a slur. Some of the excuses given for using “novus ordo” or “n.o.” on this forum are rather laughable. The fact they are offered is proof that some just want to offend others.

 

[ElToro]

…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…

My signature is not in response to your other thread. No matter how you try to package an argument, the use of “novus ordo” (particularly on these forums) is typically as an invective. I have actually seen postings where some use “EF” and “NO.” Would it have been too difficult to type “EF” and “OF”? Obviously not, but like many they wanted to take a little shot at the OF. I find that to be disgusting.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I have actually seen postings where some use “EF” and “NO.” Would it have been too difficult to type “EF” and “OF”? Obviously not, but like many they wanted to take a little shot at the OF. I find that to be disgusting.

I think that calling it ‘disgusting’ is a bit too much. People tend to use several terms and use them interchangeably. For example, it has never occured to me that using EF and NO would be a problem, and that using EF and OF would make sense. I have learned something on this thread and I will stick to this in the future.
But you are obviously very sensitive when it comes to this issue and I suspect that your anger is directed towards people who prefer the form that you do not. That is what comes across in your posts, at least to me. In such circumstances it is common for people to look for all kinds of offence. I wonder if it would be more helpful if you could look into this, rather than obsess over terminology, when it is obvious that the matter has not been settled and that people can use several terms for the mass in question.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

It’s a slur. Some of the excuses given for using “novus ordo” or “n.o.” on this forum are rather laughable. The fact they are offered is proof that some just want to offend others.

I attend a parish that only celebrates one form of the Mass. It a Novus Ordo. I have only attended Mass a handful of times In the Old Form. 'I love the Mass and it matters not to me which form is used.

Guess what, the name of both forms is the Roman Rite. Since there are 2 forms of that Rite since Pope Paul gave us the New Form, and gave it the same name as the old form. Also Pope Benedict did not Give names to the 2 forms, he use different words to to identify which form he was referring to. Novus Ordo or Ordinary form or interchangeable. If you choose to be offfended by the use of Novus Ordo so be it. Personally I have better things to be concerned with.

What I find laughable is the some on here state they are Offended by the use of words that the Mass has been called for nearly 40 years. And if that is the worst you have to be offended about then count your blessings and if its not then let it go cause you have bigger problems so work on them.

Oh and by the way the Mass of Pope Paul is corrected Named the Roman Rite of the Mass. Any other “names” given would just be given to tell it from other Roman Rites of the Mass like the TLM.

 

[agnes_therese]

It’s a slur. Some of the excuses given for using “novus ordo” or “n.o.” on this forum are rather laughable. The fact they are offered is proof that some just want to offend others.

You can’t really make the blanket statement “it’s a slur” unless you’ve been able to read the mind of every single person who has ever used the term. It would be more accurate to say “it strikes me as a slur.”

Also, a reason is not always the same as an excuse, unless you choose to interpret it that way.

I say all of the above as someone who attends, and loves, the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree with the poster who pointed out that in real life people refer to NO/OF as ‘the mass’, and to TLM/EF as ‘Latin mass’. I actually do the same, it is easier and it doesn’t confuse people who are not familiar and/or not interested in this.

My parish priest who is FSSP calls the EF ‘the old rite’. Obviously, that is the translation of the Usus Antiquior. I don’t know what the status of that term is at the moment, but a number of traditionally minded bloggers that I follow use that term. Any thoughts?

Antiquior is a comparative adjective so Usus Antiquior would be “the older/more ancient use.” That would remove the “newness” or “novus” aspect of the OF, IMO.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m really not sure exactly why this situation actually matters other than for a certain poster to try to garner support for his or her own personal preferences, while, might I add, using subtle language and manner of writing to demean other posters, especially in their intellect.

I use the terms Novus Ordo, Pauline, and Ordinary Form interchangeably, although most commonly I use the first and last. I use not one of those terms as an invective, and none of them, particularly not the first, have ever even struck me as if they could be considered such. Sure, some people who are Novus Ordo haters do use “Novus Ordo” as their term of choice when referring to that form of the Rite, just as some use the term “New Mass” and “Protestant Mass” and “Ordinary Form.” If someone’s going to get mad over the term “Novus Ordo,” I should say that there are other terms which really are derogatory that are used by some to refer to that form of the rite, which aren’t appropriate for this forum.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

If someone’s going to get mad over the term “Novus Ordo,” I should say that there are other terms which really are derogatory that are used by some to refer to that form of the rite, which aren’t appropriate for this forum.

Good point.

 

[revert_jen]

In the last 5 years I have never heard anyone use “novus ordo” who did not dislike the OF Mass or at least much prefer the EF Mass. Fairly good sample size too. It’s an invective these days.

Sayin’ it just doesn’t make it so. Even if you say it fifty times. It’s not known invective unless most people think it is invective. Granted that some people may, but certainly some people don’t.

I’ve heard lots of people say novus ordo that didn’t “much prefer” the EF Mass. I’ve done it myself, I believe. Personally, these days I say OF and EF because they seem to me to be more accurate, and they’re easy to type. However, I had no idea until reading this thread that the use of “novus ordo” was considered to be offensive or that NO was considered to be even more so. I still don’t have any evidence that they are offensive to anyone but you, but I’m willing to take your word for it.

I usually attend the OF, which is reverently celebrated in my parish. I also love the EF, which I attend sometimes.

In any case, you seem to have indicated that you interpret the use of “novus ordo” as sufficient evidence that a person dislikes the OF Mass. Then you say that you have never heard anyone use it unless they dislike the OF Mass. It is a bit circular.

Besides that, the virtue of charity would seem to suggest that you should put the best possible interpretation on another’s use of that (or any other) term, until you have heard them actually say that they dislike the OF Mass.

Here are some terms you have used in this thread to describe the phrase “novus ordo”::

“big time red flag in my world”
“very subtle jab”
“bigotry”
“simple ignorance”
“slur”
“known invective”
“NO is even more of an invective”
“just plain rude”
“there will always be people that wish to offend and no matter what they will stick with the “novus ordo” invective”

This is such a long and heated list that you may want to examine the possibility that you are a bit too sensitive to unintended insults. Besides, your list is inconsistent. I mean, if it is “known invective,” then it isn’t a “very subtle jab.” In any case, your contention that people using the term “wish to offend” is completely unproven at this point. There have been several people posting to this thread who have said quite plainly that they are not using it in a wish to offend. Either you think they are lying, or you think they are so psychologically mixed up that they use the term wishing to offend but don’t know it, or you need to change your reaction to the phrase.

I’m sure you genuinely believed that the term was meant to be offensive, but now you know that frequently it is not. Since you know that now, in justice you need to stop assuming that people who use the term wish to offend and attempt to be less offended when you see it. Even if people do mean to offend (and shame on them if they do!), the best way to spike their guns is to refuse to be offended.

–Jen

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Revert Jen,

I love how you have conducted discourse analysis on those posts.

 

[Cristiano]

I prefer to use the terms OF and EF, even if when used in English the connotation of ordinary and extraordinary does not overlap with the meaning given by His Holiness, he uses the Latin terms Forma Ordinaria and Forma Extraordinaria. The terms Novus Ordo and TLM while commonly accepted are still inappropriate in my mind. The first is simply an abbreviation of Novus Ordo Missae that it refers to any major changes in the order of the Mass and it is not simply related to the last one and so called Mass of Pope Paul VI. The Tridentine Latin Mass is not one unmovable order of the Mass but has been changed from 1570 to 1962, and the Traditional Latin Mass can be either the OF and the EF because the are both forms of the Mass, they are both based on Sacred Tradition, they are both forms of the Latin rite, and both can be celebrated in Latin. I have the impression that the true traditionalists usually work on aligning themselves with the tradition of using Church terminology and so they have been switching to the OF and EF terminology, while people anchored in pride and old resentments will not acknowledge the new terminology in use in the Latin Church. The last comment does not imply that the only prideful and arrogant people are some that support the TLM. There are many more, simply because of total attendance numbers, in the OF.

 

[ProVobis]

The Tridentine Latin Mass is not one unmovable order of the Mass but has been changed from 1570 to 1962, and the Traditional Latin Mass can be either the OF and the EF because the are both forms of the Mass, they are both based on Sacred Tradition, they are both forms of the Latin rite, and both can be celebrated in Latin.

The codified canon of the Mass has only been changed once since 1570 to include the name of St. Joseph. That was in 1961. And one would hardly notice the difference between the Latin canon of the Missal of 1961 with the Latin EP1, save for the Mysterium Fidei of the Consecration.

 

[Cristiano]

The codified canon of the Mass has only been changed once since 1570 to include the name of St. Joseph. That was in 1961. And one would hardly notice the difference between the Latin canon of the Missal of 1961 with the Latin EP1, save for the Mysterium Fidei of the Consecration.

As far as I understand there was quite a strong opposition to add St. Joseph to the List considering that he was not a martyr. That sounds like a reaction for something that is hardly noticeable. However, my point was that even the EF underwent changes. Here I am just debating the fact that a lot of people that refuse to use the Church terminology are doing it not for the love of the Mass but for the love of what could be associated with the form, this comment still applies to both the OF and EF unbridled supporters.

 

[Digitonomy]

Antiquior is a comparative adjective so Usus Antiquior would be “the older/more ancient use.” That would remove the “newness” or “novus” aspect of the OF, IMO.

What would the Latin be if it were not comparative, but simply the “old use”?

 

[Digitonomy]

My parish priest who is FSSP calls the EF ‘the old rite’. Obviously, that is the translation of the Usus Antiquior. I don’t know what the status of that term is at the moment, but a number of traditionally minded bloggers that I follow use that term. Any thoughts?

Benedict didn’t use the precise phrase “old rite,” but he did say “new rite,” and he used a number of rather similar descriptions like “old missal,” “ancient usage,” etc, so if SP is your yardstick I think “old rite” is perfectly fine.

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church…

Art. 9. § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it…

Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

[From the accompanying letter:]
In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass…At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level…

This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear…

it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite…

The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior,…

the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage…

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture…

Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

 

[ElToro]

Sayin’ it just doesn’t make it so. Even if you say it fifty times. It’s not known invective unless most people think it is invective. Granted that some people may, but certainly some people don’t.

I’ve heard lots of people say novus ordo that didn’t “much prefer” the EF Mass. I’ve done it myself, I believe. Personally, these days I say OF and EF because they seem to me to be more accurate, and they’re easy to type. However, I had no idea until reading this thread that the use of “novus ordo” was considered to be offensive or that NO was considered to be even more so. I still don’t have any evidence that they are offensive to anyone but you, but I’m willing to take your word for it.

I usually attend the OF, which is reverently celebrated in my parish. I also love the EF, which I attend sometimes.

In any case, you seem to have indicated that you interpret the use of “novus ordo” as sufficient evidence that a person dislikes the OF Mass. Then you say that you have never heard anyone use it unless they dislike the OF Mass. It is a bit circular.

Besides that, the virtue of charity would seem to suggest that you should put the best possible interpretation on another’s use of that (or any other) term, until you have heard them actually say that they dislike the OF Mass.

Here are some terms you have used in this thread to describe the phrase “novus ordo”::

“big time red flag in my world”
“very subtle jab”
“bigotry”
“simple ignorance”
“slur”
“known invective”
“NO is even more of an invective”
“just plain rude”
“there will always be people that wish to offend and no matter what they will stick with the “novus ordo” invective”

This is such a long and heated list that you may want to examine the possibility that you are a bit too sensitive to unintended insults. Besides, your list is inconsistent. I mean, if it is “known invective,” then it isn’t a “very subtle jab.” In any case, your contention that people using the term “wish to offend” is completely unproven at this point. There have been several people posting to this thread who have said quite plainly that they are not using it in a wish to offend. Either you think they are lying, or you think they are so psychologically mixed up that they use the term wishing to offend but don’t know it, or you need to change your reaction to the phrase.

I’m sure you genuinely believed that the term was meant to be offensive, but now you know that frequently it is not. Since you know that now, in justice you need to stop assuming that people who use the term wish to offend and attempt to be less offended when you see it. Even if people do mean to offend (and shame on them if they do!), the best way to spike their guns is to refuse to be offended.

–Jen

I’ll stand by what I said. For the most part only those who prefer the EF even know the label “novus ordo.” As someone else mentioned it’s most typically “Mass” for the OF and “Latin Mass” for the EF. When someone says “novus ordo” to me in person it does set a tone – not that I typically stick around to listen any further.

When I do happen to stick around or cannot find a polite way to escape, I will ask very nicely “you mean the Ordinary Form of the Mass?” Their response to that question will say even more. If they show anger or irritation I am GONE – even if my escape isn’t as graceful as I would prefer.