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

[tee_eff_em]

Pnewton, it’s a legitimate complaint and I think the Holy Father has been very instrumental in changing the terminology to Ordinary Form. I’m with you in keeping with the Holy Father’s wishes in this respect. We should be using the OF acronym.

But officially, since the Motu Proprio, it’s the Ordinary Form.

:twocents: I likewise disagree with what I consider the stoopid terminology ordinary form, extraordinary form, OF, EF.

In *Summorum Pontificum *the holy father uses the phrase ordinaria expressio, (referring to the “Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI”) precisely once (and uses the phrase *forma ordinaria *not at all). He likewise uses the phrase *extraordinaria expressio / forma extraordinaria *a handful of times, but never except in the same breath as a reference to the “Roman Missal of 1962” or “Roman Missal of Bl John XXIII” (and occassionally uses one of those designations without calling it “extraordinary”).

I repeat: IMHO it is stoopid that people have become attached to these “OF/EF” terms.

tee

 

[pnewton]

I mean come on, give me a break, how much more petty can you get?

Then you and everyone else would not to a thread entitled, “What is Traditionalist like about the Old Mass?”

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps on a handful of occassions, but the Servant of God did not call it the *

N

ovus Ordo Missae*, he called it the *

n

ovus Ordo Missae *(if you get the difference).

That is the point I was trying (poorly) to make about honest translation.

 

[malphono]

I am [thread=2077]long on record[/thread] in agreement with [user]pnewton[/user], except that my primary objection to the term is that it is not how the Church denotes the Mass.

Perhaps on a handful of occassions, but the Servant of God did not call it the *

N

ovus Ordo Missae*, he called it the *

n

ovus Ordo Missae *(if you get the difference). …

In which case, there should be no objection to using “nO.”

In any case, levity aside, normally I will use EF and OF, but there are times when, for the sake of clarify, I will use Novus Ordo (usually spelled out, not abbreviated). Even though I’ve never been (and never will be) a fan of the OF, I try to avoid “NO” mainly because I’m uncomfortable with it’s acronymic properties.

OTOH, I’m not thrilled with the abbreviation “TLM” either, and never use it. It is, of course, true that it’s more-or-less accurate, but it’s also true that it has been co-opted and over-used by the so-called “rad-trads” for the past 40+ years for the furtherance of an agenda. I’m uncomfortable with that as well.

A liturgical purist I may be but a rad-trad I am not.

 

[palmas85]

Then you and everyone else would not to a thread entitled, “What is Traditionalist like about the Old Mass?”

Whats wrong with calling the Traditional Mass the old Mass? ** It is the old Mass.** After the Pauline came out that is exactly what just about everybody called it. The old Mass. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing perjorative in it. Merely accurate and descriptive. Thats all.

Of course I’m not at all sure exactly what you were trying to say in your that post, but thats another story.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’m sure that in the world in genaral and the faith in particular there are a million things more important to worry about than if someone calls the Pauline Rite the novus Ordo or Novus Ordo.

I mean come on, give me a break, how much more petty can you get?

“Petty”? I don’t mean to be. But I do admit perhaps it reveals a bit of the intellectual snob in me.

:twocents: I think people sound just plain unintelligent when they use goofy words in place of proper terms* which presumably exist. In the same way that I think people (whom I otherwise know to be intelligent) sound unintelligent when they mispronounce words (eg “nucular” for “nuclear”).

Yes, when Karl Keating uses the moniker *Novus Ordo *I think it sounds unintelligent. When Fr Z uses it, I think it sounds unintelligent. When Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos uses it, lending it an air of legitimacy, it makes me cringe.

(* NB, however, I have not claimed to know an exhaustive list of “proper terms” – I just don’t know any reason that *Novus Ordo *or “OF” should be among them, the tyranny of the masses aside)

PS.
Who else thinks it ironic that the Mass which is typically celebrated in the vernacular is referred to by a Latin name, and the Mass celebrated exclusively in Latin is referred to by an English name?

tee

 

[LaRoza]

PS.
Who else thinks it ironic that the Mass which is typically celebrated in the vernacular is referred to by a Latin name, and the Mass celebrated exclusively in Latin is referred to by an English name?

tee

There is no irony.

The NO mass was written and intended to be said in Latin. I believe the texts of VII even stated that a goal was to increase knowledge and use of Latin by the lay people. The use of vernacular was not intended to be global, but only when needed. People used VII to bring lay people into roles not intended and to use the vernacular at all times.

In time, I think that actual meaning of VII will be seen and used. This will result in the use of Latin, the proper respect during the mass (which is often found, but a single mass lacking the proper respect is too many) and a return to the intent of VII rather than the novelties with which people played during the 70’s.

And the term doesn’t matter. I typically refer to it as the NO mass or the Pauline liturgy. There is no disrespect intended.

 

[Extempore]

No, it is not and probably not as bad, if one knows this to be false. But the question is not which is worse. Christians are supposed to be above, “If you don’t like it, that’s your problem.” We as supposed to do to others as we would have them do to us, not do to them because they do the same thing.

My intent was not to question which was “worse” but to merely point out that there are grounds to nitpick anywhere depending on how hard you look for them.

Anyhow, I suppose if people don’t like the Latin, I can just start straight up calling it the “New Mass” unless someone has a better idea.

 

[pnewton]

Let me add that my opinion in this matter is definitely just one person’s menial opinion, except the part about the subliminal message. I am sure most of the people who use it never give is a second thought. I knew I was not the only one bugged by the term and I thought it better to air this here rather than start a derailment that as has happened on numerous occasions.

 

[rfpapcun]

I notice there is also a double standard. We do not refer to the Tridentine Mass as the Old Mass. Again, I think it would be best to spell out Novus Ordo if one really likes the term. No point in giving in to sloth.

But Traditionalists do refer to the Traditional Mass as the “Old Mass.”

I shudder when I hear the Traditional Mass referred to as the Extraordinary Form. I mean, really. With all due respect to the Pope, if he calls a horse a goat, is every doing the same?! Isn’t this similar to Brave New World in which names keep changing, until we all lose our moorings.

 

[Tsuwano]

In which case, there should be no objection to using “nO.”

In any case, levity aside, normally I will use EF and OF, but there are times when, for the sake of clarify, I will use Novus Ordo (usually spelled out, not abbreviated). Even though I’ve never been (and never will be) a fan of the OF, I try to avoid “NO” mainly because I’m uncomfortable with it’s acronymic properties.

OTOH, I’m not thrilled with the abbreviation “TLM” either, and never use it. It is, of course, true that it’s more-or-less accurate, but it’s also true that it has been co-opted and over-used by the so-called “rad-trads” for the past 40+ years for the furtherance of an agenda. I’m uncomfortable with that as well.

A liturgical purist I may be but a rad-trad I am not.

You know, now that you’ve mentioned it, I’m not too thrilled about the “TLM” abbreviation either. Everytime I see those initials the first thought that comes to my mind is transcendental meditation. I think that from now on I’ll imitate your practice and refer to the rites by their proper names rather than resort to abbreviations that are so often misintrepted.

 

[ProVobis]

:twocents: I likewise disagree with what I consider the stoopid terminology ordinary form, extraordinary form, OF, EF.

Thanks for expressing your opinions, but do know that these have become the accepted terms of the two forms of the Latin rite. As long as there is no confusion as to which is which, I don’t see any problems.

 

[franklinf]

I am [thread=2077]
To me, when speaking among ourselves as Latin Rite Catholics, it is the Mass.
With no adjectives.

tee

Well then how do you differentiate between the two? They are different Masses with different rubrics. To post about the Mass would, in most cases, lead to confusion unless there was clarification.

 

[LaRoza]

Well then how do you differentiate between the two? They are different Masses with different rubrics. To post about the Mass would, in most cases, lead to confusion unless there was clarification.

Note the context.

People don’t clarify needlessly. There are many rites of the Church. Most do not consider the others unless they are in a place where the assumptions are not the same.

 

[franklinf]

Note the context.

People don’t clarify needlessly. There are many rites of the Church. Most do not consider the others unless they are in a place where the assumptions are not the same.

I’m not quite understanding what you mean. I was referring only to Latin Rite Catholics and that in order to easily reference what Mass is meant (Tridentine vs. Pauline) adjectives are often necessary.

 

[Adenauer]

I have been tempted to post this on several thread but knew the result would be a derailment of the original topic. I would like to explain my objection to the term without seeing overly politically correct. First, let me not that the most common problem is that it is simply not new anymore. A generation or more has past. The sense of newness is only in the minds of a few, who are usually prejudicial against it. Second, the term has been used as a perjorative by some here. Occasionally I can almost hear the poster spitting out the disgusting term as they type.

The reason though I most object to the term is when it is abbreviated. It is a stroke of advertising genius worthy of the best shark on Madison Avenue. NO Mass? No Mass? For those who do not believe in subliminal messages, I suggest you look into the millions that are poored into it by companies that know it’s effectiveness.

Years ago, Winston came up with the slogan, “Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.” This is grammatically incorrect (should read “as a cigarette should”). But they wanted the word like to be in the middle of their slogan, every time it was read, every time is was spoken. I know that most who abbreviate the term just do so for speed of typing. Yet every time I read NO Mass, I *feel *like there is an inherent denial of the Catholic Mass. I know this sounds vague and meaningless to many of you, but I bet if we could test reactions of people to NO Mass, as opposed to Novus Ordo Mass, I bet we would find less of a gutteral reaction to the latter.

I do not mean to criticize a soul with this post. I just wanted to point out why I think tempers sometimes run high on the subject and make people self-aware of what might be going on with them.

I have never seen anyone who prefers the OF Mass refer to it as either the “NO” or “Novus Ordo” Mass. Not one time. The way both monikers are used is sad. “NO” can be downright offensive. Mostly though it casts a bad light on the user which makes me feel rather sorry for them.

Didn’t the Pope tell us to stop using the moniker? If memory serves, “Novus Ordo” was used in some preliminary document by the Church but not since?

 

[Adenauer]

I have been tempted to post this on several thread but knew the result would be a derailment of the original topic. I would like to explain my objection to the term without seeing overly politically correct. First, let me not that the most common problem is that it is simply not new anymore. A generation or more has past. The sense of newness is only in the minds of a few, who are usually prejudicial against it. Second, the term has been used as a perjorative by some here. Occasionally I can almost hear the poster spitting out the disgusting term as they type.

The reason though I most object to the term is when it is abbreviated. It is a stroke of advertising genius worthy of the best shark on Madison Avenue. NO Mass? No Mass? For those who do not believe in subliminal messages, I suggest you look into the millions that are poored into it by companies that know it’s effectiveness.

Years ago, Winston came up with the slogan, “Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.” This is grammatically incorrect (should read “as a cigarette should”). But they wanted the word like to be in the middle of their slogan, every time it was read, every time is was spoken. I know that most who abbreviate the term just do so for speed of typing. Yet every time I read NO Mass, I *feel *like there is an inherent denial of the Catholic Mass. I know this sounds vague and meaningless to many of you, but I bet if we could test reactions of people to NO Mass, as opposed to Novus Ordo Mass, I bet we would find less of a gutteral reaction to the latter.

I do not mean to criticize a soul with this post. I just wanted to point out why I think tempers sometimes run high on the subject and make people self-aware of what might be going on with them.

I have never seen anyone who prefers the OF Mass refer to it as either the “NO” or “Novus Ordo” Mass. The way both monikers are used is sad. “NO” can be downright offensive. Mostly though it casts a bad light on the user which makes me feel sorry for them. I have only heard “NO” used in person one time. The individual was obviously trying to denigrate the OF Mass with its use. I just smiled and walked away.

Didn’t the Pope tell us to stop using the moniker? If memory serves, “Novus Ordo” was used in some preliminary document by the Church but not since?

Ever see how people react when others ask them to call it the Mass of Pope Paul IV, the Pauline Mass or the OF Mass? The excuses for non-compliance are often laced with anger. Sad situation.

 

[pnewton]

I shudder when I hear the Traditional Mass referred to as the Extraordinary Form.

Strange as it may sound, I think I agree with you. I respect the Holy Father and understand what he means, but I can’t help but think that in English the word extraordinary has conotations that are distasteful to some Traditionalists, especially in light of the decision to allow it said without restriction.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

But officially, since the Motu Proprio, it’s the Ordinary Form.

The name on the book is Novus Ordo Missae.

Give it up, people.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The name on the book is Novus Ordo Missae.

The name on what book?

tee