The Use of "Novus Ordo"

[neophyte]

It is the term used by the SSPX, who describe that form of the Mass as ‘evil’. For that reason it seems sensible to me that people who do not agree with them to use another term, whatever its origins.

For that reason it seems sensible to me use that term more diligently, to prevent schismatics from co-opting language to which they are not entitled.

 

[Crusader13]

I’ve never used the term Novus Ordo simply out of disdain or because I believed the title was pejorative in its origins. I thought it was the proper title of this particular form of the mass.

I know there are many on here who use that term as well, but I don’t believe it to be a negative reference to the Ordinary Form of the mass. In fact Novus Ordo sounds more respectful than Ordinary Form. If I were actively trying to disparage one form of the mass over the other, I feel Ordinary Form would be the more pejorative of the two.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I call it the Novus Ordo simply because it’s new compared to the Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy. I love using the word Extraordinary and Ordinary when comparing the two masses though.

 

[Mi_Rose]

I don’t mind if people use Novus Ordo. I don’t like it when they abbreviate it to NO because of what no means in English. Sometimes it comes across as no mass.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

“Novus Ordo” is merely a descriptive term, and Pope Paul VI used it himself (Novus Ordo Missae) in referring to the promulgation of the New Mass. It has no pejorative connotations whatsoever, unless the user doesn’t like the Novus Ordo in the first place. I say “traditional Latin Mass” in referring to the missal of Pope St Pius V; nobody knows what “Tridentine” means. Personally I dislike the use of the terms “Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form”.

A diocese in Italy banned the traditional Latin Mass because it was becoming too popular among the young people. Hmmm… first the TLM is “not popular enough”, now it’s “too popular”… can’t win either way!

Italian Bishop doubles down on ban of traditional Latin Mass - LifeSite

Bishop Napolioni of Cremona’s actions ‘stunned’ the former prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

www.lifesitenews.com

 

[TheLittleLady]

It is intended as a pejorative.

Use the terms that the Church uses: Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

I love the idea of using it because it is pejorative! I love my NO mass! Honestly, if people want to disparage where I have come home, I take their language as an honour.

 

[LisaB]

It is intended as a pejorative.

Use the terms that the Church uses: Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.

I’ve read many posts that used Novus Ordo as merely descriptive, not pejorative. So, while sometimes it’s intended as you say, this is simply not true for everyone. Some people perceive it as a pejorative though.

 

[Pitcairn17]

The problem arises when some use “NO” in contexts like “NO parish,” “NO sacraments,” “NO priests,” etc. - trying to further an agenda of disparagement.

 

[Neithan]

It’s outdated now and does have pejorative connotations. Ordinary Form is the proper descriptor.

 

[FOG]

Use of the term doesn’t bother me…although it seems a tad silly…what’s it been, well over half a century before this “New Order” was brought about?..How old does it have to be to not be new anymore.

But, while I do not get in an uproar over the use of the term, I do get offended when people who prefer the Extraordinary Form, assume that the Ordinary Form is less reverent.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I have a disability, it has a name. There is also a very well known term that was used casually for decades, even centuries, it is even used in jest by some of us with the disability.

The term is also considered as terrible a pejorative as is the “n-word”.

When one describes a person such as myself, it is far better to use the correct term, not to just take a chance because some people may be okay with the archaic term.

 

[dochawk]

It’s just short for the “Novus Ordo Missæ”, that’s “New Order of the Mass” as was called by Pope St Paul VI himself.

And then not used by the the Missals published by subsequent Popes, as it was no longer new . . .

Today, while some use it (incorrectly) due to Pope Paul’s historic usage, it is typically used in a dismissive and condescending way.

But unless the speaker/writer is referring to the missals actually labeled as such, it is incorrect.

“negro”, “colored”, “moron”, and “mentally retarded” were all unoffensive when introduced, and all but “negro” were deliberately introduced specifically to get away from terms that have become pejorative . . .

Then again, “Christian” was initially used as a derogatory term . . .

 

[runningdude]

It was called a “novus ordo missae”. It is not a proper noun

 

[dochawk]

It was the ordinary form for over a thousand years.

???

1570 to 1968 is “less than 400”, not “over a thousand” . . .

The liturgy as not uniform thought the western church before 1570, nor was the use of latin universal . . .

 

[Neithan]

What’s wrong with Latin? It’s also developed in the Roman church and is not exactly the same as it was in ancient Rome. It’s good to have a standard language that is free of any particular cultural attachments (although there is a translation in Esperanto). The Syriac rite is the closest to Aramaic. It’s interesting that Hebrew did not become a liturgical language for any particular church.

 

[giuseppe96]

Even so, I don’t see any reason why it should be offensive. Who cares what rad trads think? I’m a TLM goer, and I don’t think any less of the Mass of Paul VI whether it’s called the Ordinary Form or the Novus Ordo. It only pains me to see the abuses it’s so commonly subject to.

 

[on_the_hill]

Agreed. 99% of the time when you see novus ordo you can assume it’s followed by “”less reverent,” or some such drivel.

 

[angel12]

Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome.

I hope you’re not insinuating that those who prefer Mass in the vernacular have “hatred for the Latin language?”

 

[otjm]

The Dom died in 1875. Yes, he was a great liturgist for his time, and did wonders in reviving the Benedictine Order in France. He also was a product of this time, and there has been a tremendous amount of liturgical research since then; in addition to which, on December 4th, 1963, 2,147 bishops of the world voted in favor of the final draft of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy - and 4 voted against it.

And it is extremely unlikely that we are going to adopt the Dom’s stance in the future.