Why Hostility for the Latin Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Entwhistler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, you are perhaps being willfully ignorant.

There is the book published in 1981 posthumously by Bugnini, and then the SEPARATE book published in 1968/1969 that contains the NOVUS ORDO MISSAE.
 
The book I posted was posthumous.

Give me a link to the book you refer to.

But, it doesn’t matter. He does not get to title a Mass. No matter what his motivation was NO was NEVER an official title.
 
Vadne said:
No way it could have begun as a pejorative term when it was invented by the man responsible for its composition. Again, no nasty traditionalist conjured up the title Novus Ordo Missae. Bugnini did.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, it was immediately used as a pejorative. and again it was never an OFFICIAL title. I dare you to prove that it was.
 
Again I don’t get why people are offended by the term NO. It was an official and acceptable term used by the Church. If you are offended by that then there’s not much anyone can do about that.
 
AdamPeter said:
Again I don’t get why people are offended by the term NO. It was an official and acceptable term used by the Church. If you are offended by that then there’s not much anyone can do about that.
Click to expand...
No it was not. It is not an official title, never was.
 
First of all, “Brother”, your whole argument is based on the notion that the title Novus Ordo Missae was invented as a pejorative. That is wrong. It was invented by Bugnini. It is, by the way, an ACCURATE title. What was produced in the 1960s IS a Novus Ordo Missae. If people don’t like the title…well, can’t really blame anyone except the person responsible for it. Bugnini.

Second, “Brother,” there is no place where the Church says “here is the official title of a Mass.” That is a total red herring pet issue of yours. The “title” is what is on the cover and title page of the book. In this case, the title of the Ordinary was NOVUS ORDO MISSAE.

Now if people think it’s somehow disparaging to call something a NEW Order of Mass…well…again, not the fault of traditionalists that it is, after all, a NEW order.
 
Last edited:
What this thread is showing is not a hostility to the EF, but to the OF. If there are any hostile to the EF, it is a severe minority, but the hostility to the OF, is huge and vocal.
 
You you kidding, The Church certainly does give an official title, and NO is not it.

Second, where is that link?
 
Vadne said:
Now if people think it’s somehow disparaging to call something a NEW Order of Mass…well…again, not the fault of traditionalists that it is, after all, a NEW order.
Click to expand...
The issue is not whether it is new. The issue is the official title.
 
There is no hostility to the NO mass. There is simply a recognition of Historical facts.

The Mass is fine in and of itself, however there have been a variety of innovations that were not instituted by Vat II. That much is simply fact.
 
Again, your claim that the title Novus Ordo Missae was invented as a pejorative is false.

It was invented by Father Bugnini (he wasn’t Archbishop yet).
 
The title NO, is not a perjorative. I have no idea why you think it is. In any case I don’t intend to stop using it because one person on the internet finds it offensive.
 
Vadne said:
Again, your claim that the title Novus Ordo Missae was invented as a pejorative is false.

It was invented by Father Bugnini (he wasn’t Archbishop yet).
Click to expand...
I have already admitted to who coined the phrase. It does matter, it is not an official title.

Again, where is the link to the book you mentioned?
 
I am not your research assistant. Where’s your link to why you merit the title Brother?
 
LOL, any person versed in history know this term has been used as a pejoritve,.

But, regardless, NO is not the title of the Mass, and it is just as easy to use the term OM, so why not use that, unless there is prejudice reason to use NO?
 
Maybe “Brother” Ignatius should go edit the Wikipedia page for “Mass of Paul VI.” It talks about the book “Novus Ordo Missae” he thinks doesn’t exist.
 
I gave you the link to the book by Bugnini, published posthumously.

You have yet to give a link to the book you referenced. Is it because it does not exist under that title?

You mentioned the book, it is up to you to prove that is exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top