Novus so-called Ordo ?

tee_eff_em · #1 Jun 7, '04, 7:17 am

Am I the only one who takes offense at (what seem to be) so many references in these fora to the "Novus Ordo"?

That is: To the best of my knowledge, the Church herself does not refer to the current Mass by this name, and I would prefer others refrain from doing so as well. (Just as we do not want posters to refer to "prots", "rad-trads", et cetera) Holy Mother Church refers to the current Mass as the Ordo Missae. If you need to be more specific, I suppose you could call it the "Ordo Missae of 2001", or the Ordo Missae editio typica tertia (though I do not know that the Church finds need to do so).

(NB: I welcome correction if I am mistaken)

Or am I just all alone out on my limb here?

(Disclaimer: I love the traditional Latin Mass. But I also love the current Mass, even if I wish it were more frequently and universally celebrated with reverence)

Apologia100 · #2 Jun 7, '04, 7:26 am

I wonder if the Apostles, most of whom spoke exclusively in Aramaic, would consider the Tridentine Mass "Novus Ordo"? Just an interesting perspective.

dcs · #3 Jun 7, '04, 7:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apologia100

I wonder if the Apostles, most of whom spoke exclusively in Aramaic, would consider the Tridentine Mass "Novus Ordo"? Just an interesting perspective.

If they spoke exclusively in Aramaic, why did they write in Greek?

'Sides, don't you recall that they had the charism of glossolalia?

If the Apostles went forward in time 1500 years to the time of the "Tridentine" Mass, they might find it a bit odd -- but one should keep in mind that the traditional Mass evolved slowly over those 1500 years. It wasn't created out of whole cloth, but built up slowly over time. So very few people would have noticed anything change within their lifetimes.

#4 Jun 7, '04, 7:42 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcs

If they spoke exclusively in Aramaic, why did they write in Greek?

'Sides, don't you recall that they had the charism of glossolalia?

If the Apostles went forward in time 1500 years to the time of the "Tridentine" Mass, they might find it a bit odd -- but one should keep in mind that the traditional Mass evolved slowly over those 1500 years. It wasn't created out of whole cloth, but built up slowly over time. So very few people would have noticed anything change within their lifetimes.

The reason they wrote in Greek was because Greek was the common language at the time.

Blessing and Peace,
DigitalDeacon

Ham1 · #5 Jun 7, '04, 8:16 am

Right On, Tee!

From now on let's all join in calling it what it is, the Ordo Missae.

jremaley · #6 Jun 7, '04, 10:00 am

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

You are most certainly not alone. This has been a pet peeve of mine for several years now. I have been meaning to post this same question but just have not had the time.
I take extreme offence every time I see or here the term Novus Ordor. Personally I see it as derogatory slang term by “Schismatic Traditionalist” that separates us into two different Churches, a traditional 1962 missal Tridentine liturgy Church and the current “Post Vatican II” Church. It really drives me crazy; there is not a “Traditional” Church and a “Novus Ordo” Church. I do not belong to some “New Order” I belong to the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The term “Novus Ordo” was never used by itself in any Church documents. It was always followed by Missae as in the propagation of the first revised missal after Vatican II, Novus Ordo Missae. Simply because it was the New Order of the Mass. But for the last 40 years it is the “Norm”, the "Ordo Missae", the Order of the Mass.

The Latin Rite (Roman) Church does have two approved Liturgies of the Mass, the current (standard or norm) Ordo Missae and by indult (special permission) the 1962 (Latin) missal. But it is still one Church with two liturgies not two churches.

As “tee_eff_em” I would like to know if anyone else feels this way. Well probably not to the extreme I do but this whole Traditional Church vs. New Order Church just drives me nuts. I enjoy reading and participating when I can in the liturgical debates on this forum. I just wish we could come up with a different term other then “Novus Ordo” for the Church and the current Liturgy. In all fairness it is quite possible that most people are not using Novus Ordo in a derogatory way or even inferring two separate Churches. But I know that is how it is widely used by “Schismatic Traditionalist” and it bothers me when I see it so widely used in these discussions.

Thanks for letting me vent. I am curious in what other people think even if it’s just to tell me to take a chill pill.

BTW
I have no problem with the indult allowing the use of 1962 missal just the term “Novus Ordo”. I do occasionally attend a traditional indult Mass and enjoy it.

+veritas+ · #7 Jun 7, '04, 10:48 am

Thanks for the information, I have never heard the post-Vatican II Mass ever called anything other than Novus Ordo... Not from extreme traditionalists either, just your average committed and orthodox Catholics. We never thought we were being segregationalist or anything, I guess we just needed to differentiate between parishes, as we live in a diocese that has a thriving traditional (not to mean "traditionalist"!) population.

I often wondered about using that title myself though, "New Order" just sounds too Aldeous Huxley for me

I will try to remember Ordo Missae now...

Blessings,

+veritas+

dcs · #8 Jun 7, '04, 11:41 am

Ordo Missae just means "Order of Mass." Novus Ordo Missae simply means "New Order of Mass." It has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo Seclorum or any of that nonsense. I see no reason why it should be an offensive term. The Novus Ordo is new and it is an Order of Mass. So "Novus Ordo Missae" is simply descriptive and everyone who sees the term will know exactly what you're talking about, unlike using the term "Ordo Missae."

Ham1 · #9 Jun 7, '04, 12:09 pm

So, how is Ordo Missae or Order of the Mass ambiguous? When one says "ordo missae" one is obviously referring to the current "order of the mass" as defined by Rome. There should be no confusion between the "order of the mass" and the "OLD order of the mass."

jremaley · #10 Jun 7, '04, 12:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcs

The Novus Ordo is new and it is an Order of Mass.

Hi dcs

My problem is that “Novus Ordo” by itself is being taken out of context unless you add Missae. There is not a Novus Ordo, a New Order there in only a Novus Ordo Missae a New Order of the Mass, the current Mass.

Sorry to be such a blockhead.

James_2:24 · #11 Jun 7, '04, 12:28 pm

I don't see anything offensive about the term "Novus Ordo"... I have always used and never really found offensive... Its just the term i always knew. I did know in the back of my mind that this wasn't an OFFICIAL term. But then again neither is Roman Catholic Church and many of us use that term...

dcs · #12 Jun 7, '04, 1:01 pm

I personally like to use NOM as it is short and to the point.

NOM = Novus Ordo Missae
TLM = Traditional Latin Mass

**JimG** · #13 Jun 7, '04, 1:15 pm

I just call it "the Mass." If it's necessary to distinguish it from the older form, I call it the "current Mass."

The only thing that bothers me is that it is often no longer capitalized, but that's just me.

(To me, "mass" is the "m" in e=mc2)

JimG

goat · #14 Jun 7, '04, 1:30 pm

A bit pedantic, if you ask me. "Tridentine" is also somewhat of a misnomer, but I don't think many are offended by its use in referral to the pre-Vatican II Order of Mass.

goat · #15 Jun 7, '04, 1:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tee_eff_em

If you need to be more specific, I suppose you could call it the "Ordo Missae of 2001"

Speaking of being pedantic...

I think we are still using the 1970 Order of Mass in the U.S., as the translation of the 2001 Missale Romanum is still awaiting approval.