Proper use of the term Novus Ordo

[ConstantineTG]

Right and you can’t judge people’s intentions.

Anyway, I thought this was an FYI from the moderator. I didn’t realize that it was just another debate thread.

I wasn’t debating until…

 

[Warrenton]

My cringe moment is when someone refers to ‘the new mass’! How dare they? The Mass, at its core is unchanging, yet always new.

We use it because some of remember that this was what was printed on the missal in the 1970s through early 1980s.

Novus Ordo Missae was the Latin title. It is neither good nor bad, but it is what was printed on the missals, before they were superceded by the missalettes.

 

[Warrenton]

The Vatican didn’t ban using the term “Da Mazzezz of da Piplzzz”, doesn’t mean we can use it. The issue isn’t whether the term is banned or not, but the intention of people using the term.

What was the intention of the publishers, or of the bishops granting the imprimatur, on the missals that said “Peoples Mass Book” or “New Order of Mass?”

That was the “official” nomenclature for fifteen years or more. If I knew how to link an image, I’d post it. There is still one kicking around my grandmother’s house somewhere, with a copyright date of 1970.

If you want to see one, I would suggest searching ebay for “catholic” and “mass book”. I remember the abstract, dancing figures on the outside cover.

 

[philial]

I must be misunderstanding you, because it sounds like you’re suggesting that the prayer of the Mass is mere ornamentation (read discipline, not doctrine). In fact, the prayers of the Mass teach us what it means to be Catholic and help define the intentions of the Mass. They are not arbitrary.

If you mean the Holy Sacrifice is unchanging, I agree entirely.

Don’t think that preference for the EF Mass is merely a matter of aesthetics. Even when the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is celebrated in Latin with incense, chant, bells, and so on, it is not quite the same prayer, not quite as clear an exposition of Catholic theology, and (depending on the optional prayers chosen by the priest) almost seems to have a different intention than the 1962 rite.

I’m not sure what drives you to infer I’m separating the prayers of the mass from the core of the mass - is that even possible? Without the prayers - esp the Canon - there is no mass at all! It would all be a just a pantomime. No?

 

[philial]

“The Mass, at its core is unchanging, yet always new”. If you can make a statement like that, what do words mean any more, anyway?
.

Not sure quite what you mean bt that???

 

[Thomas_Casey]

This was not intended to be a debate. It was an FYI. Please do not read more or less into my original post. If you’re not clear on what I mean, please feel free to PM me.

Thanks.