I got a note via e-mail that bears sharing with the readership.
And interesting point is raised.
My emphases:
I have a comment about your use of the term "Novus Ordo" regarding the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite…was wondering why you use it? Perhaps I’m answering my own question, but is it because it has come into common use among many Catholics, particularly those who are fond of the 1962 Roman Missal?
The reason I ask is because it seems that the term has come to be used derisively by many, and I have accordingly removed it from my own writing as a result of that use. I noticed that you use the term "Extraordinary Form" when referring to the 1962 Missal, but "Novus Ordo" when referring to the 1970 Missal…it just appears that you’re treating the 1970 Missal with less respect. I’m sure this is not the case, but wanted to make you aware of how it might appear to the reader (at least to me…).
First, I use an assortment terms for both forms of Holy Mass. I mix them up. I vary them.
I use the term "Novus Ordo" because, as you point out, lots of people use it. It is extremely common. Also, "the ordinary form of the Roman Rite" is simply too complicated. Moreover, the term was used by Holy Church herself after the Novus Ordo was issued: Novus Ordo Missae.
I am not responsible for what some traditionalists do with terminology.
It strikes me that the person who sent the question might not have seen what I have done over the years in looking at the prayers of the Novus Ordo.
In any event, I use the term "Novus Ordo" because it is easy and it works.
In discussing this, let’s keep cool heads, not pile on the person who wrote the note (which I am sure was offered to me with good will) and see if we can shed more light than heat on the issue.
