Loading ...
It’s a sad thing. All yesterday I had a good, meaty philosophical post that I want to write bouncing around in my head, waiting to be written. I never got around to it. Now I’m leaving on a short trip, so it looks like this isn’t going to happen right away. (I can hear the general sighs of disappointment!) But to tide you all over, I thought I should post an overflow question from the last thread that really calls for further attention.
The issue is with the term ‘Novus Catholic.’ It’s just a standard term within circles of Traditional Catholics for referring to anyone who primarily assists at the Novus Ordo Mass. Sometimes it is used just as a term of abuse, though I don’t use it that way on this blog. But even while discouraging insults and childish taunts, I recognize the need for having a term to refer to this group of Catholics. Admittedly they’re the much larger group, as compared to Traditional Catholics, but that’s irrelevant. It’s a group of people, they have significant commonalities among them, and we sometimes have reason to refer to them (I mean in normal conversation, not in name-calling.)
Now, I was basically happy with the term ‘Novus Catholic.’ Since the official name of the Mass they like is the ‘Novus Ordo Mass’ it seems natural enough to call them ‘Novus Catholics.’ True, I can’t recall hearing any Novus Ordo devotees calling themselves ‘Novus Catholics,’ but of course they wouldn’t because they don’t call themselves anything. To them, Traditional Catholics are such a fringe group that they rarely feel a need to distinguish themselves from it, and if they ever did, negation would seem to suffice. “I’m not a Latin Massgoer,” or “I don’t go to the Old Mass” or for the most savvy, “I prefer the Novus Ordo/ordinary form of the Mass.” They don’t think of themselves as a group per se.
To those who stand outside of it, though, they seem clearly to be a group, with distinguishing characteristics and cultural trends and so forth. Particularly if you looked at them in the development of all Catholic history, they would definitely stand out as a group with their own defining characteristics. So even if they don’t need a word for themselves, we need one, just for purposes of ordinary discourse. We picked ‘Novus.’ But now it seems that a lot of them aren’t happy with that choice.
A few different sorts of objections arose in the last thread. One seemed to be mainly an objection to labeling Novus Ordo Massgoers as a group at all, merely because they are large and diverse. I reject that one. Obviously you’ll find a fair amount of variety in a group so large, including some exceptions to almost any ‘trend’ you might identify. But that’s true of almost any group we might name, and part of being a sensible language user is learning how to deal with generalizations of this kind. That objection is thrown out.
A second objection involved pragmatics. One person claims that it is confusing to talk about people as ‘Novus’ when it is properly the name of a Mass. It doesn’t seem that confusing to me — usually the context makes the meaning fairly obvious — but I guess it could cause some confusion when the adjective is inserted into a phrase without much context.
But the third objection is more complicated, and does touch on some issues of significance to both groups. The term ‘Novus Catholic’ suggests a break with the traditions of the past. It implies that a new kind of Catholic was invented at Vatican II, not in continuity with the Catholics of the past. Traditional Catholics will be inclined to answer that indeed, Novus Catholics have in significant ways broken continuity with the Catholics of old, and thus the name is fitting. I think that’s true to a great degree, and to anyone sensible of the sadness of being a “New Catholic” we might give a helpful suggestion: become a Traditional Catholic! There was never a better (or easier) time to jump on the bandwagon!
Still, insofar as their “newness” is one of the least happy characteristics of these Catholics, I suppose it’s not entirely unreasonable to ask that we not name them for it. Those who understand the implications will be offended, and those who don’t will be trained to think that “newness” isn’t a bad thing at all, which is already what’s happened to a significant degree merely from the existence of “the new Mass.” We don’t normally like to reinforce people’s worst qualities by turning them into names. Some may want to keep using the name precisely in order to make the people of the Novus Ordo Mass uncomfortable, but if that’s really the main reason, I’m prepared to let it go, in the interests of establishing better relations.
I don’t want to turn this into a fight about just how new the New Catholics are. There’s no black-and-white answer to that; they’re not so new that they cease to be Roman Catholics at all, of course, and thus they really are rightful heirs of our long and glorious Catholic history. Still, the discontinuity is significant enough that a host of customs and devotions have been basically lost to most American Catholics, and the strong and recognizable Catholic culture that once existed in America has been reduced to a pale shadow of its former self. Traditional Catholics aren’t worked up over nothing when they distinguish themselves from that group, but their counterparts are still not wrong to insist that they too have a share in the heritage and tradition of the Church.
I guess for me, at the end of the day, the counterbalancing factors are 1) convenience, and 2) courtesy. For the first, the bottom line is that it would be nice not to have to make up a whole new name when most Traditional Catholics are already used to this one. Single-handedly changing language is never easy, and the mere fact that people have somewhat agreed on this one is itself a powerful reason to keep using it. Perhaps I should reiterate here that this is the official name of the preferred Mass of the people in question, so it’s hardly as if it were chosen as a taunt. It may have been a mistake on the Council’s part to choose that name for their missals; a quote offered from Pope Benedict at the end of the last thread suggests that it probably was. But anyway, it doesn’t seem like the best way to fix that problem is by fussing at the Traditional Catholics who merely pick up the name from the missal and apply it to the users of that same missal.
On the other hand, I am swayed by considerations of courtesy. It’s not very nice to go on calling people by a name if they don’t like it. I don’t like it when people use these ‘EF’ and ‘OF’ terms to refer to the different Masses (in part because they’re too cute-sounding, and in part because that division seems designed to mark the Traditional Catholics as ‘extraordinary’, a term that can be laudatory but in this case is more likely to be heard as a synonym for ‘freakish.’) I don’t want to antagonize others unnecessarily by saddling them with a name that they really hate.
However, I simply cannot change the practice unless there’s some kind of reasonable consensus on an alternate name. I’m not going to go around using awkward, wordy phrases in all my posts just to avoid dropping the ‘N’ word. I insist that there needs to be a name, and it must be a name that isn’t prejudiced against Traditional Catholics, either. The only suggestion I’ve heard so far is “Nordite”, offered by Maximilian Hanlon — I’ll leave it to him, if he likes, to explain why that name seems appropriate. Any other ideas? Those of you out there who do actually assist at the Novus Ordo Mass have a chance to shine here. What would you like to be called?
As I may or may not have internet access in the next few days, I beg you all to be as civil as possible in my absence. I authorize my fellow contributors to establish order on the thread if it should prove necessary.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Well, I am not a friend of any of these names. I’d like to quote pope Benedict XV, as he is also quoted at the Shrine of the Holy Whapping: “We desire that this practice… of using distinctive names by which Catholics are marked off from other Catholics, should cease; such names must be avoided… [they] are neither true nor just… they lead to great disturbance and confuse the Catholic body.”
- Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum
I haven’t read the encyclical and thus don’t know the specific context (obviously it wasn’t about Vatican II), but as applied here it just seems like an assault on common sense. Do we object to distinguishing the Franciscans from the Dominicans through language? Or the clergy from the laity? Eastern Catholics from Romans? European Catholics from American Catholics? We should try not to allow the differences between us to be sources of tension within the Church, but even insofar as this does happen, we won’t help anything by obstinately refusing to generate words for differences that obviously exist. The lines between Traditional Catholics and the other kind are not firm and bright, but the same could be said of lots of different groups that we distinguish every day through language.
as a relevant note, no council named the new Mass the “novus ordo”, and that designation could be taken as merely descriptive — implying something along the lines of “this is a new order / rite / version of the same Mass you ever knew” — rather than nominative.
Clara,
I feel I should apologize for stirring up the wasps-nest on your previous post and then walking away. Real life has come a-calling with a vengeance for me just now and consequently I haven’t had time to reply. Nor have I had time to give your post above a very thorough read through (I will later.)
Might I ask you to clarify just which cultural trends you think accompany a preference for the Pauline Mass?
And Ambrosius, apologies for mistaking you for Doctor Assinorum on the other thread.
So who picked that name for the missal, then?
BTW, though I’m still not convinced that all attendees of the “New Mass” belong in the same group, I do have some ideas for new nomenclature (at least for my confreres) but I need my lexicon, which is currently in a box. So will post on this later, as well.
Peregrinator,
Sorry, I don’t have time to respond either right now! But I’ll get to your question when I return from my little trip.
What if you’re a “Novus Catholic” by birth and want the Church to be more traditional? What would you call me?
I think there were a lot of Catholics that may not have liked the changes in the Mass when that was happening after Vatican II. And so their town church changed but they were just going to accept it. After all, you don’t protest something the Church decides! And then their kids grew up in that church and that’s how they see church.
If you were looking down at me, a “Novus Catholic” - at least according much of that list on the other thread (for instance, I’ve attended a Protestant mass a few times) - or feeling sorry for me, I say that’s crazy. I’d love to see my church having a traditional Mass. I’d love to see Catholic schools and the culture be vibrant once again. I’d love to see Saints in the homes of my friends. I’d love to see the Baltimore Catechism in Catholic families’ homes. So if there’s any implication in the term “Novus Catholic” that I’m less of a Catholic than someone who can attend a traditional Mass or had every grade in school with a nun or priest, I think that’s really unfair.
You are actually the only person I have ever encounter who uses the term “Novus Catholic” It has been my experience that a few Traditionalist will use the term “Novus Ordo Catholic”. Most do not even seem to do that. But, I never heard (or read) the term “Novus Catholic” except here.
James
Well, it’s nice to see that my suggestion has caused a whole new post. By the way, Clara, on the thread about the nature of the Catholic University, I posted some questions you might find interesting.
Now, about my suggestion, “Nordite.” I have never heard or read the expression “Novus Catholic” other than on this blog. I have heard Catholics who consistently attend Mass in the vernacular called by a variety of names. “Conciliarist” is one that comes immediately to mind, although I don’t think that name would work very well these days, since the Council was finished and implemented long before most of us were born. As I say, the term “Novus Catholic” was a bit unclear for me when I first encountered it on this blog because I typically skim what’s posted and then read the parts that seem important more slowly. When I first saw the word “Novus” while skimming, I thought that a writer was refering to the Mass until I read more slowly.
The etymology: “Nordite” is not my invention, for I’ve borrowed it from the usage of a dear friend, M.F. (he knows who he is). It’s the shortened version of “Novus-Ordo-ite.” I suggest that it is an improvement over “Novus Catholic” for the following reasons:
1. The suffix “-ite” clearly indicates that it is a personal noun.
2. By both conotation and denotation it is exactly synonomous to “Novus Catholic.”
3. It’s three syllables shorter than “Novus Catholic” and therefore requires less time to say and write or type.
4. Tobias likes it.
As I mentioned on another thread, we certainly do need a convenient term to describe the average and typical Catholic in the United States. Without a doubt, regular attendance at the Novus Ordo Missae in the vernacular is clearly the most significant factor in determining if an individual in question is seemingly average or typical. The term need not be derogatory. The gambit or spectrum of orthodox Catholicism is so wide (and has always been so) that the differing and fully legitimate varients of Catholicism are almost infinite. What do modern day Legionaries and the ancient Desert Fathers have in common? Not much, except the Orthodox Faith handed down from Christ to the Apostles to our forefathers to us.
Luke J., according to my usage, you are a Nordite who would like to practice a more traditional version of Catholicism, should the opportunity arise. I would suggest (as I’ve mentioned on another thread) that people such as yourself would do well to revive the ancient tradition of eating fish on all Fridays of the year. Such a change in diet requires no change at your local parish.
I would also propose that those who consistently attend the TLM be called “Traddies.” “Traddies” who take things too far (eg. sedevacantists) can easily be called “Radtrads.” These three neologisms (Nordite, Trady, and Radtrad) reflect my personal usage and the usage of a number of other traditionalists who studied with me at Ave Maria University.
The only difficulty with my suggestion here is that I have no neologism to suggest for those Catholics who regularly attend the Novus Ordo in Latin. This, of course, is not unexpected because such Catholics are exceedingly rare, rarer than even Traddies. I considered suggesting “Adoremusite” for such people, but that is far too many syllables. I am therefore open to suggestions from anyone who can help us fill this linguistic void.
I’ve been in this battle since the beginning, attending the Traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the private quarters of retired priests, at the side altar of St. Mary’s Hagerstown, and often simply taking refuge in a Ukrainian Byzantine parish. I have never used or heard anyone else use the term “Novus Catholic”. I don’t object to trying to find a term but I do not think this one as the politicos say “has legs”. Besides a single term obscures the vast divisions that haunt the communities that use the Rite of Paul VI. They happy slappy Pentecostal, the sixties folk singing pew sitter, and the smells and bells Adoremus crowd all have significantly different views on worship and doctrine. Rather than labor over a semantic to define them, we should devote the time to building strong, orthodox Traditional Latin Mass parishes with laity well formed spiritually and doctrinally.
This whole debate is assinine and insultnig to every Catholic. Are we subdivided and classified, like insects under glass? Is our Faith dead, that it needs an autopsy?
Are you not going against the very Pope? You are rejecting the terms he set up when you say you dislike the EF and OF terminology. You similarly reject the Pope’s statement that we are to stop differentiating among ourselves.
The Pope set up terms to define the forms of the Roman Rite- there is one Rite in two forms. The proper term to define the adherent of one rite or the other is “Catholic”.
Whoa, whoa, whoa — I did not write that last post. Someone else posted under my name, I hope accidentally.
Posting from my BlackBerry so can’t write anything long. I am rather amused by the people who are offended by the invention of terms to describe groups with different liturgical preferences. Are you similarly offended when people talk about Eastern and Roman Catholics? Are you offended when you go to a wedding and see a bride and groom side? Acknowledgement of differences needn’t mean enmity between people, nor need we deny that we have the most important things in common. It’s just a matter of having convenient ways for discussing things.
I admit to being quite startled that so many people are unfamiliar with the term ‘Novus Catholic’. How can half the people not know it while the other half claim they hear it often as a term of abuse? Very confusing. Also, it just seems to me like such an obvious and natural way to talk. If we extend from the ‘Novus Mass’ to the ‘Novus parish’ to the ‘Novus priest’ how natural is it just to talk about Novus Catholics as the people who go to Novus parishes? Why doesn’t the term ‘have legs?’
I grant some advantages to Nordite. I guess my main objection would be that, with the German roots, it sounds like it should mean ‘Northerner.’ It gives me this mental picture of Viking-type people. Maybe I could get over it. I also prefer plain ‘Trad’ to ‘Traddie’ but agree about the connotations of ‘RadTrad’.
But I’d like to hear from more Novus people about what terms they would like. Again, it’s not about looking down on people or not wanting anything to do with them. It’s just about finding convenient ways to talk about various cultural and liturgical trends that can be found within our ONE Catholic Church.
I apologize to Tobias. For some reason, no matter what I do, I am logged on as him.
Eastern and Roman Catholics are separate rites, so it is appropriate to speak of them as such. The Pope has stated that we need to end thinking of ourselves as diferentiated Catholics within the one Roman rite.
Perhaps I am reading too much into what you are saying. If so, my apologies. I have moved back and forth between the communities you are seeking to name. There are trends in both communities that I find very disturbing. One of the trends among the ‘trads’ that disturbs me is that many of them share a kind of smugness, a kind of self-righteousness. It often seems as though they begin their day with the prayer “I thank you Lord that I am not a Novus Ordo Catholic.” When they discuss the other group of Catholics the tendency is to see them as quaint, odd, or mislead and benighted, even ignorant. This debate and your attempt at nomenclature plays right into that mentality, though your intentions may not.
Incidentally, “they” have no name for you. When they speak of you at all they use an odd term: Catholic.
Quoting Clara: “I admit to being quite startled that so many people are unfamiliar with the term ‘Novus Catholic’.”
A Google search (not necessarily the final arbiter of English usage, but a good quick test) shows five hits for that exact phrase. Four are from the Society website. The fifth is from
a certain Fr. (?) Berry who raves about “Fatheaded Henotheistic Apartheid Klowns”. I’d certainly never seen or heard it before visiting this blog.
To my ear, “Novus Catholic” has a strange whiff of disdain or contempt - something about using the word “Novus” as a bald descriptor for a person. I don’t have at all the same reaction to the phrase “Novus Ordo Catholic”. Myself, I tend just to say “modern Catholic” or “modernized Catholic”, which of course has its own problems.
I’ve never heard “Novus Catholic”, “Novus Mass”, or “Novus Priest”. The terms just don’t sound right.
Now, I have heard “Novus Ordo Catholic”, “Novus Ordo Mass”, and Novus Ordo Priest”. Not terribly often but occasionally.
Do you really know others who use the term “Novus Catholic” instead of “Novus Ordo Catholic”? While reading this blog I truly thought that you coined the term.
From the real Tobias Petrus to the computer-generated impostor ;) :
All you need to do is hit “logout” next to the name. And please sign your name or pseudonym at the bottom of your post if you still can’t change the name in the little box.
To my unintentional doppleganger:
the program is neither offering me the opportunity to enter my name, nor to logout from it. I am as confused about this as are you, I imagine.
I’m a Catholic who would enjoy participating in either form of the Latin Rite of the Mass; so long it is in line with the discipline of the Church and her character.
Joe Six Pack coined the term “Novus Catholic” on this blog, I think.
Clara, well I suppose I can settle for “trad” instead of “traddie.” Perhaps we could say “traddie” when we use the term affectionately. For example: I’m so glad that God has brought me to this community of traddies.
I also find it amusing that people are opposed to using legitimate names to distinguish different sorts of Catholics in the Latin Rite. So should we not at all distinguish between Franciscans and Carmelites? What if we’re only speaking of the lay (third order) members of those religious orders? How should we distinguish between third order Carmelites, third order Franciscans, and the laity who belong to a certain Personal Prelature?
Since when did the Church validate the “traddie” label you so passionately aspire to? Whereas the latter “labels” you speak of are so.
Yes, and you know, neither the existence of exceptional cases nor the possibility of hard-to-classify people is really a problem. So there are a few people who are on the fence, who go to both, etc. Fine. This happens with other things too. Take nationality. Most people just have one, but there are people with dual citizenship, people who are raised geographically in one country although their parents are from another, and so on. That doesn’t keep us from casually mentioning someone’s nationality when it seems relevant. If it’s an unusual, complicated case, just explain. For the purposes of discussing trends we can generalize.
The comment from fake Tobias about smugness was quite hilarious since it was followed by the most smug, self-righteous comments I’d read in awhile. But anyway it isn’t true. Novus Catholics do have names for us. ‘RadTrad’ is often used in uncomplimentary ways. ‘Latin Mass Catholic’ is more neutral. But when they need terms they find them.
Yes, there will always be rear ends on both sides of the fence. But then again there is only one fence and it goes in a complete circle…
First, I’d like to say that no one seemed to comment on Ambrosius’s note at the top: “no council named the new Mass the “novus ordo”, and that designation could be taken as merely descriptive — implying something along the lines of “this is a new order / rite / version of the same Mass you ever knew” — rather than nominative.”
A friend of mine who has Latin Mass leanings (but grew up like the majority of post-V2 Catholics) is always saying that Rome never did call it “Novus Ordo” as a name. Unfortunately, I haven’t had the time to do the historical research to prove that this is the case. Hence instead I dropped the B16 quotation, trying to imply that “Tradition” is not exclusive property of Latin Mass goers (not that I’m saying you think that Clara, but the word “traditional” as an adjective can imply that). B16 points out that if we want to look at the Latin Mass this way, we see that this particular form is only 400 years old… which in the history of the Church is not all that long either. So Benedict proposes instead that we see both as stretching back to the very beginnings of the Church - and in that sense both are about 2000 years old.
Anyway, I understand your desire for an accessible nomenclature. On the other hand, I thought that the term “Novus Catholic” was unnecessary in the last post. If you’re in America at a Catholic university, it’s likely that the Catholics surrounding you take part in the form of the liturgy that has dominated since Vatican II (notice I didn’t just say “OF”). The context further indicated this in that they had individual Lenten resolutions, rather than accepting the conventional pre-V2 penitential practices for the season of Lent. If you hadn’t said “Novus Catholic,” I still would have known what form of Mass these young women attended. By labeling them as such, the implication seeemd to be that their silly food resolutions (and failure at succeeding with them) were related to their being “Novus.”
So, two comments. One I brought up before - and I think this is a serious topic we need to consider: Do individualistic Lenten resolutions meet the same ends as well as the pre-V2 social practices of penance? As I said before, I think the decline in the virtue of penance is related to the decline of social (shared) practices of penance in the US. Secondly, how can we aid the Church in recovering a sense of the social when it comes to penance? I know a large number of my friends (none of whom are Latin Mass goers), whom William Portier would describe as “Evangelical Catholics,” refrain from eating meat on all Fridays of the year. This seems to be one step in the right direction.
I guess the conclusion of my last post is, don’t use a label unless it’s really necessary (i.e. not obvious from context and crucial to making an important distinction for the point of your post).
It’s great to have a discussion about the merits of one form of the rite or the other. How we worship as a Churh is extremely important. But I’m not sure we can transfer the debates from the forms of the rite to the people who take part in those Masses–especially since the majority of “people” taking part in the divine liturgy are the saints and angels. Thank God it’s not ALL up to us on earth!
The very act of trying to find an inoffensive term to call me is in itself offensive. I am a Catholic, you are a Catholic. I will attend either form of the mass. Why must I be insulted to be termed anything other than Catholic? I would be loathe to label you anything but my fellow Catholic. I pity you if you feel the need to segregate yourself from me.
Clara,
I’m still very curious as to what you would identify as the common characterics of the group “all Catholics who are not identified as Traditional Catholics.”
It’s impossible to give a group an specific name without being able to identify common characteristics; otherwise the group is only a group in the sense that a handful of mixed candy is a group by virtue of being removed from the bin.
However, the real underlying difficulty in all this lies in the sixth paragraph of your original post, where you assert that Catholics born after Vatican II? who attend the Pauline Mass? who prefer the Pauline Mass (because attendance really doesn’t equate to preference)? are no longer in continuity with Catholics born before Vatican II or those who prefer the pre-Vatican II form of the liturgy (which two groups should not, I think necessarily be classed together.)
I think the Church would disagree that continuity has been broken. I know I do; a change in external practices does not equate with a break in continuity because external practices are just that; externals.
What has happened since the Council is that Catholic culture and catechesis in this country were allowed to decay. The Council did not cause this to happen and it didn’t happen everywhere (my “home” parish, for example escaped the abuses, and fostered Catholic culture.) There are real, describable distinctions in terms of catechesis and culture (for lack of a better word) among Catholics that make it very inaccurate to split Catholics up along liturgical lines.
With all that said, the internet will not be a part of my Holy Week, so whatever reply you give I will most likely see after Easter.
And I wish all those on this blog a most blessed Holy Week & joyous Easter!
Clara, you wrote: “I am rather amused by the people who are offended by the invention of terms to describe groups with different liturgical preferences. Are you similarly offended when people talk about Eastern and Roman Catholics? Are you offended when you go to a wedding and see a bride and groom side? Acknowledgement of differences needn’t mean enmity between people, nor need we deny that we have the most important things in common. It’s just a matter of having convenient ways for discussing things.”
The reason people are offended by the invention of terms to describe groups with different liturgical preferences is because they will always imply a judgement that one or the other group is somehow defective. The other examples you give do not do that. Whatever terms you come up with will always be fraught with emnity.
At one time I would have identified myself as a Traditionalist. I now find the term offensive as I do Novus Catholic or Liberal Catholic. Neither group is, in my opinion, Catholic. One is either Catholic or one is not Catholic. I am a Catholic who prefers the Extraordinary Form and traditional devotions, etc. However, I in no way question the validity of the Ordinary Form. It is a complete break with the past but it has what is essential: valid matter and form. You cannot be Catholic and reject the Ordinary Form as many Traditionalists do. Neither can you be Catholic and reject the Extraordinary Form as many “Novus Catholics” do. One is Catholic and holds to the teachings of the Church or one rejects them and is not Catholic. Any deviation from the truth is wrong and neither side has a monopoly on truth or any claim to infallibility.
The use of these terms serves only to divide people into camps and pit one against another. While this is not your intent, this is, in fact, they way these terms are/will be used and played out. Division is of Satan.
Unity is of God.
While Traditionalists may be Catholic, not all are.
While “Novus Catholics” may be Catholics, not all are.
One is Catholic or one is not Catholic.
Now solidly into my third decade attending what is now called the extraordinary form, I can attest that I have never heard or read the phrase “Novus Catholic” at any of the dozens of churches where I have attended the old Mass. Perhaps it is current in Ithaca, but as far as I know nowhere else.
The phrase “Novus Ordo Catholic” is used, and can have no other meaning but to convey “non-Catholic” or “not really Catholic.” It simply is not used for any other purpose.
“Neo-Catholic” is a neologism coined a few years back by one or more of the more wild-eyed traditionalist writers and it even more offensive in intent.
The attempt to categorize non-trads, or non-western rite trads on the basis of some nebulous shared characteristics is asinine; I am shocked to read that that suggestions, made by others, is being deliberately misread as an assault on the idea of categorization in iteself. “This category does not exist” is not equivalent to “no categories exist.”
It is also a way station on the road to a series of crackpot notions, which would read out of the Church those who attend the new rite occasionally, or send their children to schools where it is celebrated, and so forth. Few–and a dwindling percentage, as the old Mass becomes more widely available–of those who prefer the old Mass live lives hermetically sealed against contact with the rest of the Church, like a sort of Catholic Amish.
It is also an attitude profoundly politically stupid, even for traditionalists, since it in exactly the same fashion reads out of the Church nearly all priests and all legitimate bishops of the Roman rite.
The real Tobias Petrus writes:
Please sign your name or pseudonym at the bottom of your posts, then. This would make it easy to distinguish between us.
I must say that I’m quite surprised that people would take so much offence at a rather benign suggestion I brought forward. An incredible amount of diversity has always existed in the Church and this diversity has usually been a great blessing. The fact that different Catholics worship the same God in different ways is totally legitimate. Recognizing the reality of different groups of Catholics need not imply disrespect to anyone. Why can’t we all just recognize our legitimate differences and get along and love each other?
I must say that I am shocked at posts which automatically presume that Trads would immediately look down upon other Catholics just because said Trads make use of a neologism for those other Catholics. Surprisingly, on this thread at least, it is not the Trads who are ranting and raving on the basis of stereotypes, but rather Nordites ranting and raving against Trads on the basis of stereotypes they hold against Trads. Can we get beyond this bickering and just accept the fact that legitimate diversity has always existed in the Church, and therefore different Catholics can be identified in different ways?
Theologian Mom, I must disagree with you on one point. When Pope Pius V promulgated his Missal in 1570, he simply codified the existing liturgy as it was; he made no significant changes and introduced no novelties; whereas, Pope Paul VI when he promulgated his missal, did introduce significant and unheard of changes to the liturgy. For example, his missal gives each priest the right to choose any approved Eucharistic Prayer at any time, for any reason, even out of caprice. No known liturgical Rite in the history of the Church has ever put the choice of the greatest prayer of the liturgy completely into the hands of individual priests. Moreover, until 1969, probably because of the changing Preface, the Roman Rite was unique among all the fully legitimate Rites of the Church in that it prescribed the same Eucharistic Prayer (the Roman Canon, aka. Eucharistic Prayer I) for every day of the entire liturgical year. Therefore, while Pope Paul VI’s missal does not invalidate the Mass, nevertheless it is fabricated in some significant respects and does not have roots which go back before 1969.
“Can we get beyond this bickering and just accept the fact that legitimate diversity has always existed in the Church, and therefore different Catholics can be identified in different ways?”
Ah, “diversity” — so this has been your evil design all along, Maximilian?! Did not Pater M. and I disabuse you of this subversive notion one day over pasta? Next you will be speaking of the Mozarabic Rite, pre-Tridentine sequences, Neo-Platonism, . . . even the Valentino collection at the Ara Pacis Augustae will be defended! :) I kid, I kid.
Tobias, I’m giggling outloud. “Disabuse”? Well no. The Mozarabic Rite is not part of the Church’s liturgical tradition which pertains to me. I still love Neo-Platonism and pre-Tridentine sequences, especially the Sequence for Christmas Day which the Franciscans managed to preserve in their Missal against the future whims of the Sacred Congregation of Rites which sought to petrify the liturgy precisely as they (and only they) celebrated it. However, if you’re good, the Easter Bunny may just inspire me to go on a spiel about the farsed Kyries in the pre-Tridentine Rite of Sarum!
Yes, I too am quite stunned that this thread has turned into such a hornet’s nest. I didn’t think I still had the ability to be so unintentionally controversial, but apparently it endures… anyway, though several people have now repeated the point that giving a general name to the group I am calling ‘Novus Catholics’ is offensive, I fear I still do not see it at all. The suggestion that any term we chose would necessarily imply a harsh judgment of said Catholics seems… well, quite frankly, untrue. I’ve seen no explanation at all as to why this should necessarily be so, when it obviously isn’t true of classification generally. However, given that this is evidently a highly controversial point, it seems nothing will satisfy but a much fuller explanation of my view. And since it will be irksome to put all that in a comment box, I may as well make it a post in its own right. I will do that presently, hopefully tonight.
But meanwhile, I wanted to briefly apologize to Peregrinator, though she apparently isn’t reading at the moment. I did not forget about my promise to answer her question after I got back, but I only returned from my trip this afternoon. My other quick comments were posted from my BlackBerry, but long answers can’t easily be posted from a BlackBerry, which is why hers was deferred. Hopefully I’ll get to it in my upcoming post.
Clara, perhaps if there were not such a contentious history between the “Traditionalists” and the “Novus Catholics” it wouldn’t be such an issue. One has only to read any of the prominent “Traditionalist” blogs and web pages to see how horribly the “Novus Catholics” are viewed. The same is true of the way the “Novus Catholics” view the “Traditionalists.” Personal experiences render the terms even more fraught with negative meaning. Even if these or other terms are used with the best of intentions, they simply will not be taken that way. All they will serve to do is drive the two groups further apart and deepen the bad blood that already exists. It looks like the simple use of an adjectival noun but it’s much more than that.
Think also of some of the prominent people in each group. I don’t think all “Traditionalists” want to be associated with Bishop Williamson or the CMRI. Nor do all “Novus Catholics” belong in the same category as Richard McBrien or Womyn Church. Two groups or descriptors just won’t do it. The CMRI and Womyn Church are not Catholic yet they fit one into each group. The terms are not accurate since they both include Catholics and non-Catholics. The use of such terms puts people into a box they might not fit well in or might not want to be in.
Again, while you might only be seeking a way of describing a group of people, no more, no less, most people won’t see it that way. The issue isn’t really as simple as it seems to be.
The point was raised that using the terms “Trad Catholic” and “Novus Catholic” are the same as using the terms “Roman Catholic” and “Byzantine Catholic.” This is not so. One is either a Roman OR a Byzantine Cahtolic (as far as I know only clerics are bi-ritual. If non-clerics are also the number is very few). This is not the case with “Trad” or “Novus” Catholics. All things considered, most people fit somewhere in between.
I think the terms are inherently problematic. I don’t know what the solution is. Perhaps if the terms are used precede them with “so called” or put them in quotes. It’s what I’ve been doing when I can’t find a way around it. But I don’t think that’s a good solution either.
Clara:
When dealing with say, African Canadians or African American, the group is called such because that is the name they chose for themselves. I am offended that you would name my group. It isn’t up to you. As a Catholic who attends the Ordinary more than the Extraordinary I choose to be labelled Catholic.
If you, as one who prefers to attend the extraordinary wish to have your own distinct name, choose it for yourself, but I refuse to be labelled by someone else.
As for your amazement at the hornet’s nest you’ve created, that ranks right up there with Kelly Holloway cancelling an Abortion Debate at York University, by saying that arguing the morality of abortion islike debating the morality of a man beating his wife, and wondering why cancelling a debate at an university is upsetting intellectuals.
Thank you, Father Bailey. I do understand what you say, and certainly I have observed the phenomenon you discuss, wherein these terms are hurled back and forth as terms of abuse. And of course I absolutely agree with you that this is a sad and unfortunate thing. It’s hardly a unique situation, though… there are lots of groups of people in the world who harbor much more intense hatreds against each other. Just in general, I don’t consider a refusal to name the groups in question (and I do think these are reasonably regarded as groups, though you’re quite right that both include some very good and holy people, and some much less admirable) is any kind of solution. Far from relaxing tensions, it worsens matters by making discussion prohibitively difficult. Finding mutually agreeable terms, though, can sometimes help, which is why I was attempting to do it. (That is the answer to you, Puff. The main point of the thread was to give people like you a chance to suggest what you would prefer to be called, which makes your complaint particularly odd.)
My whole view will be explained at much greater length, though, in the post that I should be putting up soon. It’s not far from finished. Maybe then you can identify more nearly where we agree and disagree.
I prefer to be called Catholic.
One more thing. People like me, you mean Catholics right?
Why coin a term that doesn’t mean anything, that doesn’t really describe any group other than that they’re NOT something else? You argue in another comment that calling someone a “Novus Catholic” gives you “non-trivial” information about them, but I’d argue that trivial information is about the only thing you get from that term – what group of people who primarily assist at the Novus Ordo Mass in this country? With about 60 million people, that’s a very diverse group, or rather, a lot of different groups.
“I recognize the need for having a term to refer to this group of Catholics. Admittedly they’re the much larger group, as compared to Traditional Catholics, but that’s irrelevant. It’s a group of people, they have significant commonalities among them, and we sometimes have reason to refer to them”
From a scientific perspective, this is where the problem lies – it’s NOT irrelevant that they are the much larger group - your basic assumptions are way off. You are trying to say being a “Novus Catholic” is a preference when it is largely not. Additionally, Catholics who strictly attend the Novus Ordo are indeed a MUCH LARGER group than those who strictly attend the traditional service, and in a much larger group, “significant commonalities” tend to wash out. Being a “Novus Catholic” is the default position in this country, and not necessarily a choice (your own definition for it leaves out any reasons for why people “primarily assist at the Novus Ordo Mass”), and to attempt to label them as such in order to suggest that they have “things in common” that you can compare and contrast with “traditionalist” Catholics simply doesn’t hold up.
As an example, here are 4 groups that I am familiar with that you would like to label as “Novus Catholics:” 1. Cajuns who works as shrimpers and live on the bayou in Southeastern LA who attend their local country parish that their great-grandparents helped build. There is no traditional Mass offered anywhere near them. 2. Mexican laborers who live in West Texas and have to work on Sundays; they attend the nearest Catholic Church to their jobs. 3. Adults and students at an urban university in Chicago whose Catholic student organization offers the Novus Ordo in Latin. The nearest traditional Mass is impossible to get to without a car. 4. Working-class and middle-class blacks in the East Bay who attend a Novus Ordo service that violates many of the rubrics of the Novus Ordo in order to give people an “authentic” African-American worship service. There are only two traditional Masses said every Sunday for the entire diocese.
Other than attending the Novus Ordo, being Catholic, and being in the United States, these groups share very little in common. Their devotions, personal practices of their faith, and even practices within the Church community they are involved with vary greatly. (French colonial descendents don’t celebrate the same feasts nor in the same way as Hispanics do, and African-American Catholics have their own favorite saints and practices, and people who like the Novus Ordo in Latin are their own group. Except for the last group, these are also differences that existed way before there was a “traditionalist” culture.)
This is a bit like making a distinction between red-haired (RH) people and non-red-haired (NRH) people, and saying the NRH group shares significant things in common in appearance. No, not really, other than that they don’t have red hair – the group is too large to make any claims or generalizations about hair color, eye color, and skin color, other than that they are not in the RH group. The RH group does probably share certain traits – they tend to have pale skin, light eye color, and freckles. But not even everyone in the RH group fits those traits, and members of the NRH group may have the exact same traits – except for hair color – that most members of the RH group have.
Thus, my objection isn’t to the labeling, but rather to applying a label that means nothing. Or, applying a label to suggest similarities of belief, practice, etc. that simply do not exist. Recently, you’ve used the term “Novus Catholics” to describe fellow female students at (presumably) Cornell University, yet these Catholic students probably do not have all that much in common with Catholic Hispanic day-laborers in this country except that they both attend some type of Novus Ordo service. Perhaps you really mean to say, “Catholics with the means and/or access to attend private universities who also have the means and/or access to assist at traditional Catholic Masses but – most importantly - choose to primarily assist at the Novus Ordo.” But that group shares little in common with many other Catholic groups in this country, and often has little in common (in both Catholic practice and culture) with the most rapidly growing Catholic population in this country who are also quite likely to assist at Novus Ordo Masses - Hispanics.
(And most people I know who primarily assist at the Novus Ordo Mass don’t fit at all into the list that JSP gives in the previous post, other than perhaps the very last one. I think what everyone might really mean is “Catholics who choose to attend the Novus Ordo AND frequently post in blogs and forums on the internet,” although there is a great deal of variation in that group too.)
In reading back over the comments, I noticed this: “we certainly do need a convenient term to describe the average and typical Catholic in the United States.”
That’s the problem - there IS NO “average and typical Catholic” in this country, nor do I think there ever was. Is your average and typical Catholic of Hispanic, French, Italian, Irish, Polish, or German descent, keeping distinct traditions and Catholic practices that are tied to those cultures? Is your average and typical Catholic working-class, middle-class, or upper-class? Does your average and typical Catholic live in urban or suburban areas? To what ethnicity does this average and typical Catholic belong, and what is his or her education level?
You’re actually trying to describe a subset of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo which by my guess is white, educated, middle-class, and doesn’t self-identify strongly as Irish-American or Italian-American or whatever, not everyone who happens to most often worship in a Novus Ordo Mass. And even in that subset, as someone pointed out, it’s quite a stretch to group conservatives and liberals together.
There are other differences between Novus Ordinarians and Traditional Catholics than which form of the mass one attends. Cultural differences. Philosophical differences. And even moral differences.
And these differences aren’t absolute. However, you’re mostly likely to see a strong relationship among members of the same group.
In jest I posted the Top Ten Signs You’re a Novus Catholic list.. Certainly there are Novus Catholics who have nothing in common with that list and there are Latin Mass goers who can identify with the entire list — but in general, you there are probably statistically significant differences between the two populations.
Also, I think one major distinction that should be made among Novus Catholics is between faithful and non-faithful, or practicing and non-practicing.
Most Catholics don’t go to Mass or in any significant way try and lead Catholic lives.
Novus Catholics are Catholics trying to lead Catholic lives in a Novus way.
For instance, if you’ve ever referred to Pope John Paul II as John Paul the Great, you may be a Novus Ordinarian. (Similarly, if you have a child named John Paul, you may be a Novus Ordinarian)
If no Sunday is complete without hearing such hymns as Eagle’s Wings or Here I am Lord, you may be a Novus Ordinarian.
If you honestly prefer attending the Novus Ordo to assisting at the Traditional Mass, you definitely are a Novus Ordinarian.
If you do unnecessary servile work on Sunday (like mowing your lawn), because you don’t find it work, it’s more of a relaxation because you work in an office, you may be a Novus Ordinarian.
The “Submit” button is missing on your new post, so one cannot leave comments.
JSP wrote:
“Also, I think one major distinction that should be made among Novus Catholics is between faithful and non-faithful, or practicing and non-practicing.
“Most Catholics don’t go to Mass or in any significant way try and lead Catholic lives.
“Novus Catholics are Catholics trying to lead Catholic lives in a Novus way.”
This is another problem with using the terms Novus or Traditional. If you’re not practicing, you’re not Catholic. You may self-identify as Catholic, but you aren’t. To be Catholic entails that you are a practicing Catholic. You go to Mass. You try to lead a Catholic life.
There are people of both “parties” who are not practicing. They aren’t Catholic. There are people of both parties who reject Church teaching, [Sede Vacantists or Liberalists (in the strict sense)] are not Catholic.
You are Catholic or you are not Catholic. If one insists on useing terms of distinction, since we cannot do so by using rite as a descriptor, what about OF Catholics and EF Catholics? If you assist at the OF of Mass you are Catholic. If you assist at the EF of Mass you are Catholic. The terms don’t carry the “baggage” of Novus or Traditionalist and imply one is a practicing Catholic in union with the Pope or working toward that union. They also clearly designate which liturgy with all it’s associated practices and ways of living out the Faith one prefers.
Any thoughts?
“If you’re not practicing, you’re not Catholic. You may self-identify as Catholic, but you aren’t. To be Catholic entails that you are a practicing Catholic. You go to Mass. You try to lead a Catholic life.”
Father, it seems wrong to say that a non-practicing Catholic is not a Catholic. If you believe the Faith and have not been cut off from it by excommunication, you still belong to the Church. You are a disobedient Catholic, a lazy Catholic, a bad Catholic, an unworthy excuse for a Catholic, but you have not done anything to get yourself kicked out of the Church. The Church includes sinners as well as saints, and those sinners include people who don’t go to Church. If they aren’t Catholic, literally speaking, they are no longer under the Church’s authority.
Very good point. I am black/white on this. I find it difficult to think of non-practicing Catholics as Catholics because, although the Church has not cut them off, they have chosen to cut themselves off by choosing not to participate. But you are correct. They are still Catholics. I find it difficult to see them as such when even now so many people are dying for their faith.
Tobias Petrus, thank you for calling me on this.
I personally think this kind of labelling can be helpful on one level, but ambiguous on another. I personally have no problem identifying myself as a traditionalist, but I only use the term because it’s not as long-winded as “Catholic who prefers the extraordinary form of the liturgy.” I find that most non-trads seldom use the term. I have also come accross some French Ecclesia Dei adherants who reserved the title of “traditionalists” for themselves while calling SSPX-types “integrists”. Such labelling can get a bit silly after a while.
Regarding “Novus Catholics”: I must include myself among those who have never come accross the term except on this blog. I suppose I do sometimes say “novus ordo Catholic” but when I do I generally make the inverted commas sign with my fingers, to show I’m just using it as a helpful distinction, “for want of a better word”. For example, “I was pleasantly surprised to see books by some “novus-ordo” Catholics such as Scott Hahn on the bookstall of the Society chapel in Zurich” would not be easy to express if such a way of describing our non-trad brethren did not exist. It would be a pity if we let hang-ups about “name-calling” get in the way of clear meaning.
That said, I agree with AG that non-trads are really too diverse to lump together under one umbrella. I think the main division is not ethnic but doctrinal. There seems to me to be a world of difference between conservative Catholics of the John Paul II We Love You variety and liberals who reject the veracity of the NT, objective truth etc. It’s not quite fair on the former to tar them with the same brush as the latter (tho I sometimes do just to wind them up). I suppose I prefer to call them “neo-conservatives” and “liberals” in everyday speech.