EF a different rite than OF, some say.

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by Jegudiel

Judge me as you will -- I couldn't possibly care any less, but I have seen several others (bother here and in the real world) be very diplomatic about the novus ordo/NO matter and they were met with dug-in anger.

Sorry, but your aggressive attacks on anyone who uses the term Novus Ordo is not going to change things.

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by curlycool89

I don't wan to be calling people out or anything, but I know that some people like to call it the EF because they like to think that "extraordinary" means "better" or "remarkable" or "better than ordinary" when it doesn't. When the Church says "extraordinary", it means "that which is not ordinary" as in "not the ordinary form (OF) of the Mass".

It's the same type of language as when we say "disordered" (example - same sex attraction is disordered); we mean "not properly ordered" (as in "sexuality is properly ordered toward procreation, therefore same sex attraction is disordered").

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you comparing the calling of the Traditional Latin Mass as the Extraordinary Form to calling same-sex attraction disordered?

I'm hoping to get some clarification on this, because as it appears to me you are being highly offensive. I hope I've misunderstood you.

(and why hasn't Jegudiel jumped on this highly offensive suggestion...? "novus ordo" and all...)

+ PAX

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you comparing the calling of the Traditional Latin Mass as the Extraordinary Form to calling same-sex attraction disordered?

I'm hoping to get some clarification on this, because as it appears to me you are being highly offensive. I hope I've misunderstood you.

(and why hasn't Jegudiel jumped on this highly offensive suggestion...? "novus ordo" and all...)

+ PAX

I'm pretty sure he was just giving an example of a word that can have two different meanings. Its not entirely clear because he doesn't explicitly say the two different meanings of disordered, but why would you assume that he was directly trying to compare the EF to SSA when he clearly said "its the same type of language" showing that the comparison was to do with the language used, not to do with what is expressed by the language.

[Jegudiel]

Originally Posted by TrueLight

Sorry, but your aggressive attacks on anyone who uses the term Novus Ordo is not going to change things.

I didn't attack anyone. But I will agree, mentioning how offensive the use of NO/novus ordo is won't do anything in most cases because the only people still using such nomenclature have an agenda -- to offend others or to denigrate the OF Mass. They realize what they are doing.

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by Jegudiel

I didn't attack anyone. But I will agree, mentioning how offensive the use of NO/novus ordo is won't do anything in most cases because the only people still using such nomenclature have an agenda -- to offend others or to denigrate the OF Mass. They realize what they are doing.

See I think this is what truelight meant by attacking others. You refuse to acknowledge that there are many people who really don't have an agenda behind using it that way. Assuming that they have such an agenda and judging them for it and then refusing to believe them if they tell you otherwise feels like an attack to me. I know I would feel like I was being attacked if I used the phrase novus ordo online simply out of habit (as I almost have multiple times, even, as I mentioned before, while writing down EF for the older form of the mass) and had somebody assume I meant it as an attack against the OF. (whats funny is I just wrote down NO here while typing and had to correct myself. Trust me, it happens even to those who are trying to avoid it because they don't want to be attacked, and trust me, the reason I avoid it is because I don't want to be attacked by others, I really don't see it as an offensive term in and of itself. )

[Jegudiel]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

See I think this is what truelight meant by attacking others. You refuse to acknowledge that there are many people who really don't have an agenda behind using it that way. Assuming that they have such an agenda and judging them for it and then refusing to believe them if they tell you otherwise feels like an attack to me. I know I would feel like I was being attacked if I used the phrase novus ordo online simply out of habit (as I almost have multiple times, even, as I mentioned before, while writing down EF for the older form of the mass) and had somebody assume I meant it as an attack against the OF. (whats funny is I just wrote down NO here while typing and had to correct myself. Trust me, it happens even to those who are trying to avoid it because they don't want to be attacked, and trust me, the reason I avoid it is because I don't want to be attacked by others, I really don't see it as an offensive term in and of itself. )

Let's look at this specific situation. First we're on CAF which typically attracts those who are at least somewhat familiar with the Church. Second the individual made the effort to use "EF" yet still used "NO" rather than "OF." To suggest someone does that because they are "used" to writing "NO/novus ordo" simply does not ring true.

When advised that "NO" is viewed as a slur by many the person didn't respond in a manner like: "yeah, OK", "whoops sorry about that", "I had no idea, thanks", etc. They dug-in and insisted their use was correct. An extremely easy read.

Someone else was right though. It makes no sense to comment about how offensive "NO/novus ordo" is on a forum like because by and large they've already made the commitment to use the slur.