SPLIT: Offended by term NO Church

[Spelling]

Novus Ordo is not the term the Catholic Church uses…

It is “Ordinary Form” of the Roman Rite.

Exactly.

I think its official name – The Mass of Pope Paul VI or even the Pauline Mass is a bit cumbersome. Pope Benedict XVI realized that (he probably also realizes how offensive “NO” and “Novus Ordo” is) so he gave us Ordinary Form (OF) and Extraordinary Form (EF.)

The very people who most stridently claim to follow the Pope certainly don’t on this matter.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

“NO” or “Novus Ordo” is offensive no matter how you slice it.

The very people that use those monikers are the people who are aware of the MP. One person says they use NO and EF. Why not OF and EF? Only one reason – they want to take a little shot at the OF. Face to face in real life, the use of NO or Novus Ordo is a dead giveaway for someone who dislikes the OF.

Actually, that’s not true. I know of a person who is 100% pro-Ordinary Form and has often put down the Tridentine Mass (EF), albeit, mildly, and he referred to the OF as guess what? Yup, you guessed it. He said “Novus Ordo”. And while he sometimes says Ordinary Form, I hear him use both.

 

[Spelling]

The term NO has become laden with anti-Pauline Missal hostility. Especially of the “Just say No to the NO” variety.

The correct term specified in a papal moto proprio, is “ordinary form.” This is both a reminder that it is, in fact, the normative mass for the Roman Rite, and also that the continued use of the EF is in fact not normative… but a special faculty granted to Roman priests by the Pontiff. Universally granted, at that. And the use of OF and EF reminds that BOTH are the Roman Mass.

 

[Spelling]

Why not just use the terms “OF” Mass and “EF” Mass? These two terms go together, as both refer to the form of the Mass.

IMO, if there is any doubt about a word, it’s best not to use it. Even if you are convinced that the word is OK, why cause someone else to stumble over it? NO apparently has negative connotations. So why use it if there is another less negative way to say something?

To me, this is kind of like insisting on saying “colored people” instead of using the currently-preferred term (African American). Why would anyone use this term that has developed a negative meaning these days?

Just be nice!

Because they cannot help but take that quiet little shot at the OF…

I totally agree with you. Ordinary Form, OF, Pauline Mass or Mass of Pope Paul VI all work and they are accurate. “NO” and “Novus Ordo” are unacceptable.

 

[Spelling]

Don’t be offended. I use it to distinguish between the two churches I attend. One’s a NO, and ones an EF.

You don’t get it.

There is no “NO church” (or even an “OF church”) There also isn’t an “EF church.” Those bishops who were concerned that the EF would lead to divisiveness were clearly accurate in some cases.

 

[Spelling]

Until 7-07-2007, the terms OF & EF weren’t even heard of. People have gotten so super sensitive that its even difficult to hold a conversation. Lighten up troops.

On come on. Consider:

No, I simply use NO and EF, TLM…

Notice he gets the “EF” part correct but he still uses the slur “NO” to describe the OF Mass? In sum, he isn’t fooling anyone.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

You don’t get it.

There is no “NO church” (or even an “OF church”) There also isn’t an “EF church.” Those bishops who were concerned that the EF would lead to divisiveness were clearly accurate in some cases.

Incorrect. A church can be used to designate the church as a whole, in which case it would be capitalized, or it can be used to refer to the single building. Now, if a particular church says nothing but the EF, then it’s an EF church. If it says the OF, then it’s an OF church. Not because they are different CHURCHES, but because it’s just used to distinguish which form is being said there.

Or would you prefer that someone says, “The one church has the Extraordinary Form and the other has the Ordinary Form” when it’s clear what the abbreviation means (except to those who want to nitpick)?

 

[Digitonomy]

The correct term specified in a papal moto proprio, is “ordinary form.”

The motu proprio did not specify a “correct term.” “Ordinary form” was one of several phrases used by the Holy Father to describe the “new rite.”

 

[Spelling]

I hope and pray that the CAF moderators will reflect on the use of “NO” and “Novus Ordo” to describe the OF Mass and collectively decide to tactfully ban the use of this offensive label. Tomorrow is First Friday. I will make it one of the intentions at my local Mass.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I hope and pray that the CAF moderators will reflect on the use of “NO” and “Novus Ordo” to describe the OF Mass and collectively decide to tactfully ban the use of this offensive label. Tomorrow is First Friday. I will make it one of the intentions at my local Mass.

This is face-palm worthy. Don’t you have better things to pray for?

 

[Spelling]

The motu proprio did not specify a “correct term.” “Ordinary form” was one of several phrases used by the Holy Father to describe the “new rite.”

The MP uses Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form. That’s the language used when the Pope introduced the MP.

I would like to say that I don’t know why people cling to using “NO” or “Novus Ordo” but I do. They cling to its use as someone else pointed out for the same reasons some still use “colored” to describe African Americans. Either they specifically want to be offensive or they just don’t want to be told what to do by those they question.

Once again though, they’re not fooling anyone, except perhaps themselves.

 

[ProVobis]

Couldn’t be that much more offensive than calling the ICRSS priests ICK, which traditionalists tend to do all the time.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Umm, you know it is just possible that people, being imperfect, sometimes have trouble communicating.

As another poster noted, until only about 4 years ago there was no ‘EF’ or "OF’ and the term NO or “Novus Ordo” was used by both ‘traditionalists’ and “moderns” without a qualm, much as “Negro” was used by my parents in the 1950s as the appropriate term for African-Americans/blacks.

Some of us are older and have our own ‘senior moment’ glitches --some are younger and having grown up in a sound-byte world of abbreviations can have learned so many they have trouble distinguishing (and don’t even get me started on people who learned to read via the infamous “whole language” method).

I don’t like seeing hurt feelings on any side, but can’t each side cut the other a little slack?

A little more charity (“the term NO makes me feel uncomfortable especially if it’s misplaced in modifying “church” instead of “Mass”, I really wish people could use the current appropriate terms of EF and OF”)

and a little more recognition and explanation (not excuses) “Gosh, I’m sorry. Thank you for pointing this out, I’m still having trouble getting it straight. To rephrase, the OF Mass. . .etc.”. . .

Turn a thread into a real dialogue and give a positive teaching moment instead of yet another opportunity for people to snipe and to erect walls where there shouldn’t be any. . .

Just my opinion here. Lord knows I’m one of the more ‘prickly’ people by nature and I practically need a 2 x 4 to the cranium to bring out my charity, but hey, I’ve recently had a couple of blows and I hope people will profit by MY throbbing head and heart and work together.

 

[Spelling]

Incorrect. A church can be used to designate the church as a whole, in which case it would be capitalized, or it can be used to refer to the single building. Now, if a particular church says nothing but the EF, then it’s an EF church. If it says the OF, then it’s an OF church. Not because they are different CHURCHES, but because it’s just used to distinguish which form is being said there.

Or would you prefer that someone says, “The one church has the Extraordinary Form and the other has the Ordinary Form” when it’s clear what the abbreviation means (except to those who want to nitpick)?

How terribly wrong you are.

Both the OF and EF are Masses of the Latin Rite. Parishes that offer either Mass are Latin Rite parishes. Suggesting one is either an OF or and EF church (sic) is not only misleading, it’s divisive.

So you know, “church” (versus Church) is typically used to define a designated (by the Catholic Church) tradition. An example in the East would be that within the Byzantine Rite of the Church, we have the Ruthenian Catholic church.

You need to speak more precisely. A single building is typically a “parish.”

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Well, someone once told me that after the Motu Proprio that Cardinal Hoyos referred to the EF as the “Gregorian Mass”. Now, according to all this hoopla, he is incorrect because we have to refer to the two forms as Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form. I just find it rather telling when one of the top men in the Church doesn’t use the designated term despite everyone claiming that there is an absolute need for it.

I don’t have a problem referring to the NO as the OF, but I tend to use the two interchangeably since they mean the same thing. I use EF and TLM interchangeably as well, as they, too, mean the same thing. I just don’t get the whole point of taking offense at such a minor thing. Perhaps a few people (whom I have yet to see) use NO as derogatory, but the majority I’m sure do not.

And before anyone says it, no, I don’t attend the TLM on a regular basis. I work for a NO/OF church and attend the NO/OF on a regular basis. Currently, I attend a TLM/EF twice a year. So, nope, I’m not one of the all EF or nothing crowd.

 

[Digitonomy]

IMO, if there is any doubt about a word, it’s best not to use it. Even if you are convinced that the word is OK, why cause someone else to stumble over it? NO apparently has negative connotations. So why use it if there is another less negative way to say something?

…Just be nice!

I think political correctness like this makes sense, but only to a point. On the one hand it’s good to be nice, on the other hand people should not take undue offense if someone benignly uses an apparently offensive term out of habit or simply because he feels it’s more accurate or appropriate to the discussion.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

How terribly wrong you are.

Both the OF and EF are Masses of the Latin Rite. Parishes that offer either Mass are Latin Rite parishes. Suggesting one is either an OF or and EF church (sic) is not only misleading, it’s divisive.

So you know, “church” (versus Church) is typically used to define a designated (by the Catholic Church) tradition. An example in the East would be that within the Byzantine Rite of the Church, we have the Ruthenian Catholic church.

You need to speak more precisely. A single building is typically a “parish.”

Incorrect again. Parish refers to the boundaries - a geographic location. Church (lowercase) refers to the building. This is something stated by our the Liturgy Coordinator, a staunch proponent of the OF.

 

[Spelling]

Incorrect again. Parish refers to the boundaries - a geographic location. Church (lowercase) refers to the building. This is something stated by our the Liturgy Coordinator, a staunch proponent of the OF.

Stick to the issue. You misused “church.”

The harder you fight to defend the use of “NO” and “Novus Ordo”, they clearer your prejudice becomes.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Problem I have with even say OF Church is that there is no such beast. Just like calling the Church postconcicular.

The Church has been postconcicular since the council in Jerusalem in the Book of Acts.

The Church is the Church, the OF and the EF are two forms of the one rite of the Mass.

You could say OF parish and EF parish to denote that one parish only uses the OF and the other parish only uses the EF but I find that most who use the term “NO” Church are doing so in a derogatory manner. Usually they also like to use the proconcicular Church term.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Stick to the issue. You misused “church.”

The harder you fight to defend the use of “NO” and “Novus Ordo”, they clearer your prejudice becomes.

This is the point where I because it’s pointless to argue with proponents of political correctness.

Actually, the thought that NO could ever be taken as the word and not the abbreviation never ever struck me until on this forum. People are just way too petty.