I was looking through a schedule for masses on the Assumption at a nearby church, and I was surprised how they refer to the masses. This is the photo. I just didn’t think a church referring to the OF as the novus ordo was really a correct way to call it.
I attend a TLM parish now, but at the Ordinary Form parish where I was baptized at, the priest there referred to the OF as the Novus Ordo to me.
Some people don’t like it, and some do use it as a pejorative, but that definitely doesn’t seem to be the case here.
I believe Pope Francis has used the term “Novus Ordo”.
They just want to let people know I guess what Mass they will be attending. They can choose according to the specifics.
Yah that was why I was wondering was because I really have only seen people refer to it in a negative manor using this term.
The official line of the Catholic Church is that the rite generally in use, based on the 1970 Missale Romanum (revised 2002), is the Ordinary Form. The rite largely the same as that used before 1969 is properly called the Extraordinary Form. Those parishes that rebelled against the introduction of the 1970 rite describe their Extraordinary Form Mass as “the Traditional Latin Mass” and the Ordinary Form as “Novus Ordo”. The Church has held out the hand of unity to these parishes and the Extraordinary Form is now permitted for public Masses. However, as the language suggests, they consider themselves a semi-detached part of the Church.
This is a church that offers regular TLM. Their parishioners all understand the Church Latin and probably call the Ordinary Form the “Novus Ordo”. It’s targeted at the audience reading it.
I can tell you right now that if the term “Novus Ordo” appeared in the bulletins of most churches that don’t offer regular TLM, most parishioners would have absolutely no idea what “Novus Ordo” meant.
I don’t see why not. It is an accurate description. I don’t think there are any rules on this. Popes and Roman departments have used it a lot–just search for “novus ordo” on the Vatican website and you’ll get pages of examples (the vast majority of which refer to the Mass).
It is perfectly fine to call it the Novus Ordo.
It’s fine to do so - just not common.
The interim Order of Mass from 1965, and initially the 1970 Order of Mass were called by St. Paul VI the Novus Ordo Missae, the new Order of Mass. It was certainly not a pejorative term. One might respond that fifty years later, it is no longer new, but historically speaking, it certainly still is, and some use the term in that fashion. This is without even getting into discussions about the significant changes in the text and structure of the new Mass, in comparison with not only the missal of 1570, but earlier texts.
That said, I restrict my use of the term to private conversations with those who are familiar with such things. I think that it is more prudent to use the term Ordinary Form when speaking or qwiting publicly.
That’s a bit of an extreme judgement, don’t you think? Parishes that offer the TLM consider themselves somehow ‘semi-detached’ from the Church? I would doubt that.
That’s what it is. Why hide it?
According to the Moto Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI it was never forbidden. It sounds like you consider those who attend the Tridentine Mass to be flirting with schism. They aren’t, and those who maintained use of the Tridentine mass weren’t by necessity rebellious since it’s use wasn’t forbidden. Although it’s practical if not total suppression was exceedingly cruel.
It seems fine to me. I just wonder how long it has to be around before it’s no longer “new”. At some point it starts to sound silly.
The proper terms, per the Church, are “Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form”, but I think in this case, people know what they mean. (Yes, there are places that use Novus Ordo as a pejorative, but that’s not apparent here or in most parish settings - usually just online or select groups.)
It’s akin to parishes that advertise their Saturday “vigil” Masses… technically, they don’t have a vigil Mass; they have Sunday Mass (or maybe an anticipated Mass). Even though “vigil” is technically incorrect, people still understand and few are concerned.
It’s not wrong. And neither is calling the Traditional Latin Mass the Vetus Ordo. Just don’t call it the Tridentine Mass as there’s no such thing.
Of course there is, it just isn’t used anywhere in the Church today.
Myself, this is why I prefer using the terms ‘Pauline Mass’ and ‘Johannine Mass’, and if I’m so fortunate as to experience any of the pre-Bugnini Holy Week liturgies: ‘Pian Mass’.
Pope Benedict, in using these terms, was not giving an official name to either form of the Mass. It was merely a descriptive term.
It is not “the proper term”.
This Pope Bendedict’s original use of the term:
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.
It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy. The conditions for the use of this Missal laid down by the previous documents Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei are now replaced as follows:
What exactly would a vigil mass be then? Is the Easter Vigil technically a Vigil?