The "N.O." Mass - objections to the term

[brotherhrolf]

The EF is specifically the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the 62 Missal. The “TLM” around the time when the “NO” was introduced hardly resembled the pre-Vatican II Mass. That’s why I prefer the EF terminology.

I guess I could use a similar argument for using the term OF.

I made my First Communion in 1958. There is virtually no difference between the Missal I received then and the Missal I received when I was Confirmed in 1963. If I can remember when the Council was convened, it stands to reason that what I call the TLM was just that. I understand that there were slight differences in my mother’s generation - particularly in regards to fasting regulations.

I’ve watched Bishop Sheen’s narrated Solemn High Mass for Easter Sunday 1940 on You Tube. Funny, it was pretty much as I remembered it in the early 1960s. I fail to see how different the TLM was before 1962. I was an altar boy before 1962, after 1962 and when the NO was being stealthily introduced before 1969.

Now, if you want to see “difference”, take a look at the 1965 Missal and what actually took place. That’s difference.

 

[pnewton]

May I suggest --you be considerate enough not to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Now I think everyone knows that I am far from the first to bring this up. It has come up many times, some time rather heatedly. Some get really ticked at the term. I think it would truly be a molehill to all if there were not groups that question the effacacy of the Mass and believe truly for it to be NO Mass at all. I have seen the term used on some traditionalist sites as a deliberate pun. If one uses the term, they should not be surprised if some one here takes them for a sedevacantist or schismatic by mistake. Most of us who have been here a while know who is and is not, but it could mislead new people.

 

[Walking_Home]

Now I think everyone knows that I am far from the first to bring this up. It has come up many times, some time rather heatedly. Some get really ticked at the term. I think it would truly be a molehill to all if there were not groups that question the effacacy of the Mass and believe truly for it to be NO Mass at all. I have seen the term used on some traditionalist sites as a deliberate pun. If one uses the term, they should not be surprised if some one here takes them for a sedevacantist or schismatic by mistake. Most of us who have been here a while know who is and is not, but it could mislead new people.

---

It seems pnewton --the mistake would be on the part of those who would associate the use of NO with sedes or schismatic. Now a way to mislead new people would be --for someone here to make it a point of associating the abbreviation NO with sedes or schismatics.

 

[malphono]

I made my First Communion in 1958. There is virtually no difference between the Missal I received then and the Missal I received when I was Confirmed in 1963. If I can remember when the Council was convened, it stands to reason that what I call the TLM was just that. I understand that there were slight differences in my mother’s generation - particularly in regards to fasting regulations.

I’ve watched Bishop Sheen’s narrated Solemn High Mass for Easter Sunday 1940 on You Tube. Funny, it was pretty much as I remembered it in the early 1960s. I fail to see how different the TLM was before 1962. I was an altar boy before 1962, after 1962 and when the NO was being stealthily introduced before 1969.

Now, if you want to see “difference”, take a look at the 1965 Missal and what actually took place. That’s difference.

I can’t speak for ProVobis’ intent, but I read the comment as meaning exactly that: the Missal of 1962 (pre-conciliar) vs the so-called “interim Missal of 1965” (post-conciliar).

 

[pnewton]

---

It seems pnewton --the mistake would be on the part of those who would associate the use of NO with sedes or schismatic. Now a way to mislead new people would be --for someone here to make it a point of associating the abbreviation NO with sedes or schismatics.

Yes, it would be a mistake. I should have made that more clear. I by no means intend to mislead anyone. In fact, I stated directly twice so far (now three times) that those that use the term usually do so without any thought to the fact is spells a real English word. However, this association is one I have seen made deliberately.

 

[maurin]

Now I think everyone knows that I am far from the first to bring this up. It has come up many times, some time rather heatedly. Some get really ticked at the term. I think it would truly be a molehill to all if there were not groups that question the effacacy of the Mass and believe truly for it to be NO Mass at all. I have seen the term used on some traditionalist sites as a deliberate pun. If one uses the term, they should not be surprised if some one here takes them for a sedevacantist or schismatic by mistake. Most of us who have been here a while know who is and is not, but it could mislead new people.

Not a very good argument. One could make the argument (not that I am doing so, mind you) also that “Ordinary Form” of the Mass is also appropriate: as ordinary as many protestant “services” are. One could also make the argument that “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass is also appropriate: there is nothing ‘ordinary’ about the Cult of God.

One could–and many already have–make the argument that this whole thread is an exercise in banality.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes, it would be a mistake. I should have made that more clear. I by no means intend to mislead anyone. In fact, I stated directly twice so far (now three times) that those that use the term usually do so without any thought to the fact is spells a real English word. However, this association is one I have seen made deliberately.

---

Well pnewton – I don’t know what sites you have been in that you got the the idea that the abbreviation NO meant no Mass. But you did bring it here --where it may well make an impression on some new member who will then associate someone who uses the term NO --with denial of the Mass.

 

[Sarabande]

As I have mentioned in the past, I had no idea that the abbreviation “N.O”/“NO” or “Novus Ordo” caused so much distress to some people until I saw it on the forums. Whenever I’ve used it, it was just to differentiate the two masses. It was also how I had heard it referred to by priests and people who had nothing against Ordinary Form of the mass. Even our parish had used the term “Latin N.O.” to show that our parish did an OF mass in Latin. It has changed to using “OF” since the Moto Proprio, but before that, I remember them using N.O.

Anyway, although it is a “force of habit”, I have tried to remember to use “OF” on these forums since I don’t believe a little term like this needs to cause unneeded stress to anyone. There was no mean intention at all for me, and in real life (not on these forums) I had never heard anyone use the term to be derogatory towards it.

Just one thing I’m concerned about. I know that we can’t help feelings and I do understand how some people would have objections towards it or feel insulted by it. But all of this brings to my mind how other terms can be interpreted in derogatory ways. For instance: the use of Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form. I know that some people consider that using EF for the TLM shows preference towards it because many people only think of the word “extraordinary” in secular realms as something wonderful and great, where as people think “ordinary” as something bland and hum-drum. Does that mean terminologies should change to make those people feel better? I personally don’t think so. Some people get all in a tether when the word “perform” is used in terms of playing music for liturgy just because of some connotations it may bring - even though the person using it means nothing derogatory.

So, for me although the feelings are valid, I usually don’t believe in changing just because it hurts some people’s feelings, but will consider modifying if it comes down to causing or avoiding major unneeded problems or debates. Basically - words only have certain powers if you grant it to them by perpetuating it. The majority of people in “real life” outside of these forums probably don’t pay attention to or don’t even know the difference between EF and OF and what N.O. is. For them, these terms will mean nothing to them. I remember explaining the difference of terms to my family who grew up with both forms and they had no idea that there was an actual terminology for these masses. A mass was a mass, was a mass to them. That was the only important term for them - “Mass”.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I neglected to post this earlier, but could you explain what you feel the difference to be? Pope Paul VI referred to it (on more than one occasion) as novus ordo*.

I feel the difference to be whether it is the case that *novus *is part of the proper name for the Mass, or whether it is the case that *novus *is merely an adjective describing the Mass (which has a proper name otherwise)?

For example, the “new” in “New York” is part of the proper name of the state and city – People would be (rightly) confused or misled if you referred to either merely by “York”. The “new” in “my new car” is merely an adjective – I described my car as “new” when I bought it in 1997, but I do not think the Better Business Bureau or other commerce watchdog would look kindly if I advertised it today as a “new car for sale”.

Indeed, as I’d previously noted, the Servant of God, Pope Paul VI, did use the phrase *novus Ordo Missae *on more than one occasion. You have noted two of them:

• Novus Ordo promulgatus est…
  vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro_lt.html

Huc spectat novus Ordo Missae
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1969/april/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19690428_due-congregazioni_lt.html

While the former does spell *

N

ovus *with a capital N, I’m not sure what can be concluded from that – It is the first word of a sentence.

Here is homework for you: How many times did the Servant of God, Pope Paul VI, refer to the *Ordo Missae *without the adjective novus? How many times times did John Paul I refer to it by each name? John Paul II? The current holy father?

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

To be honest, I am not comfortable with the term “EF” as if said Mass was in any way, shape, or form “extraordinary” the first sixteen years of my life. Gosh, those nasty memories…

Well of course at that time it was not “extraordinary” – It was “ordinary”! But today is a different story.

I cannot forget those memories. You can rename it the “OF” all you want. It will always be the “NO” to me - the Novus Ordo. That’s what it was called on the First Sunday of Advent 1969.

Can I interest you in a new car? I’ll give you a significant discount.

Now, y’all want to get serious about nomenclature? I grew up with the TLM.

Was it really called the TLM at that time? I never heard it referred to otherwise than “the Mass” (but I am not quite as elderly as you).

tee

 

[Frosty]

Was it really called the TLM at that time? I never heard it referred to otherwise than “the Mass” (but I am not quite as elderly as you).

tee

I’m a few years older than brotherhrolf and I do not recall anyone referring to the Mass that we attended in the 50’s and 60’s as the Tridentine Mass. It was simply Mass. Actually I do not recall ever hearing anyone refer to the Pauline Mass as the Novus Ordo. Again it was simply Mass. The first time I saw the term was on a website about three years ago and I had no idea what it meant.

I’m a bit confused about brotherhrolf’s many references to the first Sunday of Advent 1969. I know that was the date on which the Pauline Mass was to be implemented. There was some leeway given as to this implentation and it did not take place in all countries on the same date. In fact, in the U.S. March 22, Palm Sunday 1970 was the date of its implementation.

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878755,00.html

 

[pnewton]

One could–and many already have–make the argument that this whole thread is an exercise in banality.

That would be a moderator decision. Until then, everyone is welcome not to post if they believe it nothing but fluff. But like I said earlier, the influence of subliminal messages is pretty well established, inadvertant or not.

 

[Walking_Home]

That would be a moderator decision. Until then, everyone is welcome not to post if they believe it nothing but fluff. But like I said earlier, the influence of subliminal messages is pretty well established, inadvertant or not.

---

Just like stating the idea that NO is is used in a manner to mean no Mass. An inexperience new member – may very well get that idea implanted in their head --and associated anyone who uses the term --to mean they denial of the Mass.

 

[maurin]

That would be a moderator decision. Until then, everyone is welcome not to post if they believe it nothing but fluff. But like I said earlier, the influence of subliminal messages is pretty well established, inadvertant or not.

fluff? no. I said “an exercise in banality.” Fluff has a connotation of cuteness. Banality has the connotation of annoying and unnecessary boredom.

You haven’t commented on how one might use the term “ordinary form” in order to denigrate the Mass–which of course I haven’t and will not do. But this of course is my point–as, I believe is also WH’s post above— words can be used in manipulative ways in “living languages.” It seems we would have to continually change the name of this order of the Mass in order to keep ahead of those who wish to denigrate it: An exercise in banality.

 

[tee_eff_em]

You haven’t commented on how one might use the term “ordinary form” in order to denigrate

the Mass

–which of course I haven’t and will not do. But this of course is my point–as, I believe is also WH’s post above— words can be used in manipulative ways in “living languages.” It seems we would have to continually change the name of this order of

the Mass

in order to keep ahead of those who wish to denigrate it: An exercise in banality.

You have used a phrase twice above, and I bet I knew exactly what you were writing about both times!

No one has yet explained why anyone writing about the Mass should need or supply any kind of further designation or specification (novus ordo, OF, et cetera) when they write about the Mass which is normally celebrated according to the ordinary formula? Doesn’t “the Mass” suffice?

tee

 

[Sarabande]

But this of course is my point–as, I believe is also WH’s post above— words can be used in manipulative ways in “living languages.” It seems we would have to continually change the name of this order of the Mass in order to keep ahead of those who wish to denigrate it: An exercise in banality.

Although, if we really considered this subject banal then none of us would be on here posting.

You do make a good point, though. That’s one of the reasons why I don’t usually like to change the names of things like this. It’s like how I feel when the media began to change the term “Pro-Life” to “Anti-Abortion” because it hurt the feelings of people who were Pro-Choice. (Not that I’m calling people who don’t like the term Novus Ordo or N.O. equivalent to Pro-Choice people. That’s definitely not my meaning or intent. So let’s not read too much into it, please. )

Quite honestly, it’s amazing at how much power is given to words and how much is read into them. It brings to mind a story about a man who met the poet of a well-known and beloved poem. The man gushed all over it and talked about how much meaning there was into it, then asked the poet what he meant. He took the book of poetry, found the poem and then recited it to him. He meant exactly what was written. There was no hidden or deeper meaning that this man and others put into it.

The same with “Novus Ordo”. It’s just a term that has no derogatory or uplifting meaning, except that which is given by those who choose to read too much into it.

Unfortunately, though, because people have been offended by the term due to others who used it in a derogatory fashion, there is now this whole thread discussing their objections and people on both sides chastising the other for their thoughts on it - another amazing thing that we humans do… being able to find a debate in almost every subject no matter how minute or extraordinary. But that’s one of the beauties of being human.

 

[Sarabande]

You have used a phrase twice above, and I bet I knew exactly what you were writing about both times!

No one has yet explained why anyone writing about the Mass should need or supply any kind of further designation or specification (novus ordo, OF, et cetera) when they write about the Mass which is normally celebrated according to the ordinary formula? Doesn’t “the Mass” suffice?

tee

I agree that “the mass” should be sufficient. I don’t go and say, “I went to the OF mass today.” I just say, “I went to mass today”. But if someone is talking about both forms of the mass in one breath, you do need to be able to differentiate the other since there are some differences. Otherwise, it could be confusing. And have experienced people being confused by it - especially those who don’t know that there are these two forms.

 

[pnewton]

fluff? no. I said “an exercise in banality.” Fluff has a connotation of cuteness. Banality has the connotation of annoying and unnecessary boredom.

You haven’t commented on how one might use the term “ordinary form” in order to denigrate the Mass–which of course I haven’t and will not do.

Yes I have, at least I think I did this thread early on. I think the word “extraordinary” also carries the added connotataion similar to that of indult. It can easily have the idea of something which is allowed only to toss a bone to traditionalists. If it is such a banal topic, why does it annoy?

 

[pnewton]

It’s like how I feel when the media began to change the term “Pro-Life” to “Anti-Abortion” because it hurt the feelings of people who were Pro-Choice

I find this so incredibly funny, in an ironic way. I also started a thread a while back on this very topic, only I always like the term “anti-abortion” because of the narrowness of focus.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes I have, at least I think I did this thread early on. ** I think the word “extraordinary” also carries the added connotataion similar to that of indult. It can easily have the idea of something which is allowed only to toss a bone to traditionalists. ** If it is such a banal topic, why does it annoy?

---

Boy pnewton —now you are with the idea of placing a negative connotation to the extraordinary in the EF. An inexperience new member can not only get the wrong idea via your idea of the abbreviation NO --but also extraordinary in the EF.