What's a Traditionalist doing qt your typical Novus Ordo type First Communion catechism classes? Help!

[Cristiano]

You know I do understand not using the term “Novus Ordo Parish” or “Novus Ordo Catholic” because one may not want to be defined that way.

The fact is that all the diocesan parishes in the Latin church are by definition “Novus Ordo parishes”

However, I wholeheartedly disagree that one can’t sue the term “Novus Ordo”. There is no Church document that says that just because we can speak of the Extraordinary and Ordinary forms of the Roman rite, that we cannot also refer to the Ordinary form as the “Novus Ordo” or the EF as the TLM. I only see this insisted upon on CAF.

In fact, Archbishop DiNoia himself used the term recently.

So can we stop jumping on anyone who uses the term “Novus Ordo”?

Only when it comes to people that use it in a proper manner (e.g. to specify the liturgy or rituals associated with the liturgy)

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

The fact is that all the diocesan parishes in the Latin church are by definition “Novus Ordo parishes”

Actually, no. There are some that have purely the TLM.

 

[Cider]

No, we must take these classes so that our son can receive his First Communion.
it is called “Catechism”, or “First Communion” preperation classes.

The bigger question is why isn’t your son at an orthodox school in the first place, then you wouldn’t be dealing with sitting in this class that you have issues with.

 

[TheDoctor]

So can we stop jumping on anyone who uses the term “Novus Ordo”?

Context, context, context.

There is a difference between the OP who is using the term is a semi-derogatory manner (at least that is how I read it but I could be wrong) and the good ArchBishop who is using it to clear up a misunderstanding.

It would be nice if we could stop jumping on people, period. But then, Brother JR would have nothing further to teach us.

 

[JReducation]

You know I do understand not using the term “Novus Ordo Parish” or “Novus Ordo Catholic” because one may not want to be defined that way.

However, I wholeheartedly disagree that one can’t sue the term “Novus Ordo”. There is no Church document that says that just because we can speak of the Extraordinary and Ordinary forms of the Roman rite, that we cannot also refer to the Ordinary form as the “Novus Ordo” or the EF as the TLM. I only see this insisted upon on CAF.

In fact, Archbishop DiNoia himself used the term recently.

So can we stop jumping on anyone who uses the term “Novus Ordo”?

The problematic term is “novus ordo parish” because there is no such thing. If a child were to ask what other kinds of parishes are there, what’s the answer?

The next question is, are they Catholic?

The next question is, what’st he difference?

This is where you get into trouble, because you cannot describe any parish in schismatic terms, such as “one is more faithful to tradition than the other because it celebrates the Tridentine form.”

It is best to simply call it what it is, a Catholic parish. If one really wants to be specific one can describe it or state what Church it belongs to. Is it Roman Catholic or Melkite Catholic and so forth.

As to referring to the Pauline mass the Novus Order mass, there does not need to be an official document against it. As you grow older in the Catholic Church, you will find that we have very few binding documents on most things. Either the documents are transient or they are non existent. This are done or not done out of tradition with lower case.

The term “novus ordo” was used for the Ordo when the it was revised. I remember it. It was a little orange book and it said Novus Ordo Missae. The New Order of the Mass. This was the hybrid mass.

Later, it was revised again. The next little book was a little yellow one and it said, Ordo Missae.

The revision of 2002 was simply called Ordo Missae again.

The last edition issued in 2011 is called the Ordo Missae Romanum.

Among them, there are at least 50 other ordos that were issued between 1970 and 2012. When the Archbishop referred to the Novus Ordo, he was referring to the original ordo. When you say that to a group of scholars, they know to exclude all of the other ordos issues later and those issued to specific countries and specific religious communities. When you say it to the laity, they simply assume that it means that mass in the language of the people or the mass ad populum. They don’t really understand that the term “novus ordo” only applies to one edition of the Roman Missal issued by Pope Paul VI. It does not apply to any of the editions issued by Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict.

On the plus side, whether one calls it the NO or the OF it is not schismatic language. NO parish is schismatic language, because it implies that there are two kinds of parishes and two kinds of Catholics in one Latin Church. A better choice would be mainstream parish and traditionalist parish. I don’t really like that one too well either, because it makes the traditionalist sound like a splinter group. But it’s better than NO parish and Trad parish or TLM parish.

Again, don’t look to see an official statement from the Vatican on most questions concerning Catholicism. There are not that many, while there are official practices, customs and positions that have never been put on paper. The normal Catholic practice is to put on paper only what needs to be addressed. Anything that everyone gets, is rarely discussed. And don’t look for ex-Cathedra statements either. Aside from canonizations, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, there are no others. There are many infallible statements that come from the Ordinary Magisterium.

To look for official documents and infallible statements on too many things is as far from Catholic tradition as one can get. We don’t operate that way. If it’s an issue, the Church writes about it. If it’s not, she just goes along with the practice in place or with the recommendations of theologians.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Holly3278]

Why am I there, one might ask, and not at a FSSP/SSPX/Christ the King First Communion catechism classes? My wife. God knows I love her, but that is where her family goes, so I go too, for now, anyhow. But anyways, I really need some advise from whoever. Here are the issues.

First of all, I’m being really “good” (the liberals would say “tolerant”) about keeping my cool, as any “orthodox” Catholic would in the particular environment I find myself in.
But when is being “cool” an issue"? And what would you do, if you were me?Here are the difficulies:

The catechisis is centered around almost “feeling”. How do you “feel” about “sin”, for example. What do you think “sin” is?

Or “What did you get out of Adam & Eve in the garden of Eden”? How do you feel about
Abraham, etc. And, what is emphasized is ,* “There is no correct answer”.*The teachers have yet to say what sin is. What should I do?

The topics are great, such as, “Why does God allow bad things to happen”. And we all give opinions and reflections. but in all this process, never is one told what the Church teaches.

Question 1:: Should I triumphantly say, The Church teaches…"

Question 2: What should First Communion Catechism classes be teaching?

Thanks.

No offense but you seem to have this grudge against parishes and people who prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I am a traditional Catholic but I’ll be honest, I have only ever been to Ordinary Form Masses and so that is what I currently prefer.

But yeah, your post just seems to be rather uncharitable towards those who prefer the Ordinary Form or towards parishes that primarily celebrate the Ordinary Form.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that there aren’t parishes out there that primarily celebrate the Ordinary Form that aren’t unorthodox. I am sure there are quite a few (more than I’d like) parishes out there that primarily celebrate the Ordinary Form that are unorthodox in certain ways and often in more ways than one. Thankfully most of the parishes in my diocese that celebrate the Ordinary Form are very orthodox in nature and any liturgical abuses that I have noticed are very minor in nature.

I am not sure if orthodoxy is more commonly found in parishes that primarily have the Extraordinary Form or not but I suspect that might be the case since many traditinoal Catholics who prefer the Extraordinary Form are very orthodox in nature. However, there are some parishes that only have the Extraordinary Form that are very unorthodox in nature. The most unorthodox I can think of that are like this are the Sedevacantists but then again, they are not in communion with Rome and would not be listed on a Catholic diocese’s website. I guess I am just trying to say that traditional Catholics are not immune to heterodoxy.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

On the plus side, whether one calls it the NO or the OF it is not schismatic language. NO parish is schismatic language, because it implies that there are two kinds of parishes and two kinds of Catholics in one Latin Church.

Sorry, but to me it implies that the church being referred to has the Novus Ordo said exclusively at it. Nothing schismatic (nor are any insults intended) about that. Maybe you read it as one thing, but that doesn’t make it schismatic… it just means that you think differently than someone else.

 

[Cider]

NO parish is schismatic language, because it implies that there are two kinds of parishes and two kinds of Catholics in one Latin Church.

No it’s not schismatic language. It simply means that they only have the OF. Some only the OF, some both, some only the EF. It’s just shorthand. It’s only here on CAF that I’ve ever heard anyone have a problem with the term novus ordo. I’ve seen it used in church bulletins, on the outside of church buildings where the list the mass times on a sign ect.

 

[Cristiano]

Actually, no. There are some that have purely the TLM.

They are still “Novus Ordo” parishes. Those parishes can celebrate the EF and probably they do celebrate only the EF, but they cannot celebrate only the EF. It is a subtle but fundamental legal difference, you cannot forbid in a parish what is ordinary.

 

[OraLabora]

There really isn’t such a thing as a “Novus Ordo” parish. A parish is a geographical subdivision of the Church.

Now it may be that the demographics of a parish may have a large enough stable group plus the needed resources so that the Church can offer an Extraordinary Form Mass there as encouraged by the holy father’s motu proprio. Or it may not.

It isn’t the parish that has the label “traditionalist” or whatever, it’s the parishioners who may or may not choose to label themselves.

Some parishes, may demographically, seem more “traditional”, “orthodox”, “liberal” or “heterodox”. But they are still just parishes of one Church.

Calling a parish anything other than a parish or by it’s parish name, seems to me just an other effort by Satan to wedge a division between us. Every time we play this game, Satan wins and the Church loses.

The same thing happens when one is derogatory towards the sacraments and liturgy. And there are different ways to be disrespectful to the liturgies. One way is to use pejorative terms to refer to them, the other is to willingly introduce abuses or carelessness in their celebration. Both forms of abuse should be resisted. In this forum we can’t do much about poor liturgies other than complain.

But we can slam the door shut in Satan’s face by being respectful to those who prefer a different form of the liturgy, and by being respectful to the Church, its hierarchy, and its liturgies and sacraments regardless of form, when we discuss them.

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, but to me it implies that the church being referred to has the Novus Ordo said exclusively at it. Nothing schismatic (nor are any insults intended) about that. Maybe you read it as one thing, but that doesn’t make it schismatic… it just means that you think differently than someone else.

There are two considerations here that are important, along with the one that you point out, which is reasonable.

The first consideration is that neither tradition nor Church law refer to parishes this way. The Church identifies parishes by jurisdiction. Jurisdiction can be the specific Church to which the parish belongs or the local Church (diocese). Why change the language?

The second consideration is the way that the radical traditionalist movement is using the term these days. It is used with all kinds of negative implications. If you have doubts, go read FishEaters or the writings of Bishop Williamson. The term is used in a very schismatic manner. It is used to separate, not to identify the form of the mass celebrated in a parish. It is used in a very condescending and defiant manner. When more people use it as a negative term, then it’s not useful to us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

I think it’s important to differentiate between what is official Church language and the average language every day Joe Schmos use.

We can say we attend the Parish which is run by Franciscans, or we can say “Franciscan parish” for short. “Franciscan Parish” may not be the correct, official term, but everyone knows what is meant by that.

I wouldn’t use the term “Novus Ordo” parish because as someone else said, the majority of parishes have mass in the OF. I would though use the term “traditional parish” or even “Latin Mass Parish” to indicate that it only has the TLM.

The terms are only used for clarity

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

The second consideration is the way that the radical traditionalist movement is using the term these days. It is used with all kinds of negative implications. If you have doubts, go read FishEaters or the writings of Bishop Williamson. The term is used in a very schismatic manner. It is used to separate, not to identify the form of the mass celebrated in a parish. It is used in a very condescending and defiant manner. When more people use it as a negative term, then it’s not useful to us.

In other words, because some radicals use a term a certain way, everyone can automatically be assumed to be using it in the same manner? Really, I would say that the majority of people on CAF who use Novus Ordo could not be grouped in with the radicals and it’s very unfair to paint them that way.

Also, FE is actually my favorite forum, though I’m in no way a radical (and a good share of the members there are not radical either).

 

[OraLabora]

In other words, because some radicals use a term a certain way, everyone can automatically be assumed to be using it in the same manner? Really, I would say that the majority of people on CAF who use Novus Ordo could not be grouped in with the radicals and it’s very unfair to paint them that way.

Also, FE is actually my favorite forum, though I’m in no way a radical (and a good share of the members there are not radical either).

Would you go around telling people your brother is “gay” to describe him as joyful?

Somehow I doubt it. Unfortunately that happens: groups appropriate terms for their own use and make its use for the rest of us a minefield.

 

[JReducation]

I think it’s important to differentiate between what is official Church language and the average language every day Joe Schmos use.

We can say we attend the Parish which is run by Franciscans, or we can say “Franciscan parish” for short. “Franciscan Parish” may not be the correct, official term, but everyone knows what is meant by that.

I wouldn’t use the term “Novus Ordo” parish because as someone else said, the majority of parishes have mass in the OF. I would though use the term “traditional parish” or even “Latin Mass Parish” to indicate that it only has the TLM.

The terms are only used for clarity

You have struck on something that has more to do with American culture than Catholicism. Having served around the globe in different countries, I have found that the world of instant communication has triggered new forms of expression for the sake of brevity. Just think of how we say things when we chat on the internet or text. Things like LOL, IM, PM, ROTFL, 4U, etc.

When I was in Latin America, I noticed that Spanish does not lend itself to this type of “short-hand”. When writing, people will use the English abbreviations, but when speaking, they would say Ordinary Form mass, not NO. It makes not sense in that language. NO in that language is just an abbreviation that does not correspond to the way people speak. They may use the terms Extraordinary Form or the Old Mass. They would not refer to their parishes in such terms. Their parishes are simply parishes. They don’t even refer to them by the religious who run them. I remember living near a Jesuit parish and asking someone for directions to the Jesuit church. The man looked at me and said, “There is a Catholic church up the road. You may want to ask there, because the priests are Jesuits. They may know where the Jesuit Church is.” I’m still laughing.

I believe that you may have hit on something. I believe that contemporary culture, especially in the USA, tends to want to simplify and shorten language as much as possible. I truly believe that it’s an effect of technology. Text is in and rhetoric is out. If one throws our rhetoric, one throws out elaborate language usage or uses language in correctly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Would you go around telling people your brother is “gay” to describe him as joyful?

Somehow I doubt it. Unfortunately that happens: groups appropriate terms for their own use and make its use for the rest of us a minefield.

My point exactly

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Cider]

In other words, because some radicals use a term a certain way, everyone can automatically be assumed to be using it in the same manner? Really, I would say that the majority of people on CAF who use Novus Ordo could not be grouped in with the radicals and it’s very unfair to paint them that way.

Also, FE is actually my favorite forum, though I’m in no way a radical (and a good share of the members there are not radical either).

Yes, the SSPX aren’t the arbiters of the Church, except when it comes to what we are allowed to call the liturgy? Why give that power away?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Would you go around telling people your brother is “gay” to describe him as joyful?

Somehow I doubt it. Unfortunately that happens: groups appropriate terms for their own use and make its use for the rest of us a minefield.

Putting a lot of traditionalists in the same light as the homosexual activists… Hm. The comparison is beyond ridiculous. You know what, I think I’ll drop out before things degenerate even more.

 

[JReducation]

In other words, because some radicals use a term a certain way, everyone can automatically be assumed to be using it in the same manner? Really, I would say that the majority of people on CAF who use Novus Ordo could not be grouped in with the radicals and it’s very unfair to paint them that way.

OraLabora addressed this point.

Also, FE is actually my favorite forum, though I’m in no way a radical (and a good share of the members there are not radical either).

I’m not talking about the site. I’m taking about the language used by radical traditionalists. The site itself is fine. It has one of my favorite online libraries.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

Putting a lot of traditionalists in the same light as the homosexual activists… Hm. The comparison is beyond ridiculous. You know what, I think I’ll drop out before things degenerate even more.

He’s using that as an example of a word getting hijacked, not as a direct comparison.