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

[Adenauer]

The name on the book is Novus Ordo Missae.

Give it up, people.

The name of what “book?” The Missale Romano? I don’t think so. The Church used the moniker “Novus Ordo” many, many years ago and never since.

It goes without saying that “NO Mass” is offensive. I feel sorry for those who do not immediately recognize why it’s offensive on their own. “Novus Ordo” is clearly less offensive but it too should give way to the Mass of Pope Paul IV, the Pauline Mass or the Ordinary Form (OF) of the Mass.

I don’t understand why any Catholic would continue to call the Mass by a name that is not only inaccurate to offensive to many?

 

[palmas85]

The name of what “book?” The Missale Romano? I don’t think so. The Church used the moniker “Novus Ordo” many, many years ago and never since.

It goes without saying that “NO Mass” is offensive. I feel sorry for those who do not immediately recognize why it’s offensive on their own. “Novus Ordo” is clearly less offensive but it too should give way to the Mass of Pope Paul IV, the Pauline Mass or the Ordinary Form (OF) of the Mass.

I don’t understand why any Catholic would continue to call the Mass by a name that is not only inaccurate to offensive to many?

No one has ever explained why that name is offensive. Please, tell me.

 

[pnewton]

No one has ever explained why that name is offensive. Please, tell me.

Post one. In English, “no” is a negative adverb that negates what it modifies, as in “NO Mass” means there is not a Mass. Is this really that hard to understand?

 

[Adenauer]

No one has ever explained why that name is offensive. Please, tell me.

If you honestly do not immediately recognize on your own why “NO Mass” is offensive to many then two things come to mind.

First, if that’s truly the case then there is absolutely nothing I can type here that will help you to understand why it’s offensive and I apologize for that. Second I would really question if anyone like yourself who obviously has an interest in their faith and spends time in forums like this was being truly honest if they claimed not to know why “NO Mass” is offensive to many.

The moniker “Novus Ordo” is clearly not as offensive as “NO” nor is it used as negatively here or in other places. Still it gives me pause because people ignore the Mass’ correct names (Mass of Pope Paul IV, Pauline Mass, Ordinary Form or “OF” Mass) for a label that seems to accentuate the “newness” of the OF Mass.

 

[Adenauer]

Post one. In English, “no” is a negative adverb that negates what it modifies, as in “NO Mass” means there is not a Mass. Is this really that hard to understand?

If people are actually missing what you said, then they need our prayers.

 

[palmas85]

Post one. In English, “no” is a negative adverb that negates what it modifies, as in “NO Mass” means there is not a Mass. Is this really that hard to understand?

The poster said the term Novus Ordo was offensive, not the abbreviation NO. So your answer realy doesn’t answer anything. What is offensive about the term Novus Ordo?

 

[palmas85]

If you honestly do not immediately recognize on your own why “NO Mass” is offensive to many then two things come to mind.

First, if that’s truly the case then there is absolutely nothing I can type here that will help you to understand why it’s offensive and I apologize for that. Second I would really question if anyone like yourself who obviously has an interest in their faith and spends time in forums like this was being truly honest if they claimed not to know why “NO Mass” is offensive to many.

The moniker “Novus Ordo” is clearly not as offensive as “NO” nor is it used as negatively here or in other places. Still it gives me pause because people ignore the Mass’ correct names (Mass of Pope Paul IV, Pauline Mass, Ordinary Form or “OF” Mass) for a label that seems to accentuate the “newness” of the OF Mass.

I usually use the term Pauline Rite myself, but I still don’t understand why Novus Ordo would bother anyone anymore than calling the Traditional Rite the old Mass would bother anyone.

 

[maurin]

The poster said the term Novus Ordo was offensive, not the abbreviation NO. So your answer realy doesn’t answer anything. What is offensive about the term Novus Ordo?

could it be the last gasps of those anti Tradition?

 

[Adenauer]

The poster said the term Novus Ordo was offensive, not the abbreviation NO. So your answer realy doesn’t answer anything. What is offensive about the term Novus Ordo?

That’s not being honest. First, look at the Title of this thread.

Second, read the original post:

…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…

 

[pnewton]

The poster said the term Novus Ordo was offensive, not the abbreviation NO. So your answer realy doesn’t answer anything. What is offensive about the term Novus Ordo?

Got it. My bad. I missed what you were responding to.

 

[Adenauer]

could it be the last gasps of those anti Tradition?

What does that even mean??

 

[maurin]

What does that even mean??

could= would it be able
it= 3rd person singular subject pronoun
be= the verb “to be” unconjugated. could (see above) be replaced in this context with “appear”
the last= nothing else following
gasps= labored breaths
of those= prepositional phrase connoting ‘belonging to’
anti= against
Tradition= what was yesterday, is today and always will be.

does that clear it up for you? let me know.

 

[pnewton]

could it be the last gasps of those anti Tradition?

Try to realize that not everyone who disagrees with you or another Catholic is necessarily anti-anything. We should not use a label to over generalize. For example, I am anti the SSPX only in the sense of their schismatic nature (I use the term as and adjective only, not as a statement of canonical status). In many areas, I totally agree with them. I wish they were in full, regular communion (again, no comment on status) so that the gifts and talents they bring might fully serve the Church. I support their desire, and that of many others, to have the Latin Mass they desire more readily available. But catch me on another topic I might blend in with those who are are more, shall we say, liberal. In no case I do anything but embrace Church Tradition, as I see and as the Church is teaching it.

 

[Adenauer]

could= would it be able
it= 3rd person singular subject pronoun
be= the verb “to be” unconjugated. could (see above) be replaced in this context with “appear”
the last= nothing else following
gasps= labored breaths
of those= prepositional phrase connoting ‘belonging to’
anti= against
Tradition= what was yesterday, is today and always will be.

does that clear it up for you? let me know.

Why the arrogance and sarcasm? I really don’t know what your posting means:

could it be the last gasps of those anti Tradition?

What does this mean in context to the Mass of Pope Paul IV? What do you mean by “Tradition?” Sacred Tradition or the customs and traditions of man?

 

[maurin]

Why the arrogance and sarcasm? I really don’t know what your posting means:

What does this mean in context to the Mass of Pope Paul IV? What do you mean by “Tradition?” Sacred Tradition or the customs and traditions of man?

no arrogance, no sarcasm. I provided a kind of “diagraming” of the sentence.

Tradition=Sacred Tradition.

 

[Adenauer]

Anyone who reacts negatively to someone questioning or condemning the use of the label “NO Mass” needs to look inwardly for the source of their reaction.

 

[Adenauer]

no arrogance, no sarcasm. I provided a kind of “diagraming” of the sentence.

Tradition=Sacred Tradition.

Referring to the Mass of Pope Paul IV as the “NO Mass” has nothing to do with the Church’s dogmatic deposit of faith. It’s more about poor judgment or the desire to denigrate than anything else.

 

[Walking_Home]

Anyone who reacts negatively to someone questioning or condemning the use of the label “NO Mass” needs to look inwardly for the source of their reaction.

---

Or it could also be the other way around. Anyone who reacts negatively to someone using the label “NO Mass” needs to look inwardly for the source of their reaction.

 

[maurin]

Referring to the Mass of Pope Paul IV as the “NO Mass” has nothing to do with the Church’s dogmatic deposit of faith.

although the NO Mass has everything to do with the Church’s dogmatic deposit of Faith.

It’s more about poor judgment or the desire to denigrate than anything else.

yes, I agree that, of course in my opinion, the NO Mass does that. But I do accept it as a valid Mass because the Pope does.

 

[palmas85]

Why the arrogance and sarcasm? I really don’t know what your posting means:

What does this mean in context to the Mass of Pope Paul IV? What do you mean by “Tradition?” Sacred Tradition or the customs and traditions of man?

There is often the presumption on these forums, particularly so on this one it seems, that people are either rabid traditionalists or rabid liberals with very little in between. Someone who holds to traditional views is often viewed as some sort of neanderthal, grunting away in sheer ignorance of the incredible advances in theological understanding that came about only after Vatican II. They are seen as retrobates interested only in turning back the hands of time to when things were in their limited minds somehow better and more holy. They are thought to believe that Vatican II was an invalid council probably brought forth due to the influence of satanic masses in the Vatican basement.

Conversely liberals are often seen as dancing on the edge of heresy at best and paganism or outright athiesm at worst. They are thought to have totally abandoned anything remotely Catholic in their quest to impose a new faith and a new order that bears no relation, thankfully, to the old. Their only concern is thought to be that Vatican II didn’t go anywhere near far enough.

For some reason discussions over the Mass, Traditonal versus Pauline, Old versus New seems to inflame the passions of just about everyone involved, and often I am starting to believe for no good reason whatsoever.

The current thread for example while seemingly starting off innocently enough has degenerated into almost a bare knuckle brawl over what abbreviations are and are not offensive. NO is bad but nO is apparently OK. The using of NO acxtually means the poster thinks there is no Mass:bigyikes: Don’t say Novus Ordo beacuse it denotes that the Pauline Rite or the Ordinary Form or the shudder Novus Ordo Mass is well, new.

Well it is new. Something less than forty years old can scarcely be considered to be old, especially in Church history.

As I see it the whole things is pretty silly. Political correctness gone mad.