Refuting Claims of the Term “Novus Ordo” in Reference to the Mass of Paul VI: A Response to @pluant ’s Assertions

Refuting Claims of the Term “Novus Ordo” in Reference to the Mass of Paul VI: A Response to 

@pluant

’s Assertions

The X account

@pluant

has repeatedly claimed that Pope Paul VI used the term “Novus Ordo” to refer to the post-Vatican II Mass, often contrasting it with the “Traditional Latin Mass” or Tridentine Mass as a distinct and inferior rite. These claims contribute to a broader narrative among some Catholic traditionalists that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969, represents a rupture from Catholic tradition. This post refutes

@pluant

’s assertions, specifically addressing their exchanges with

@Sacerdotus

, by examining the historical, theological, and documentary evidence surrounding the terminology of the Mass. It demonstrates that Paul VI did not use “Novus Ordo” as an official title for the Mass, that the term is informal and not found in key liturgical documents, and that the Mass, by default, is traditional within the unified Roman Rite, as clarified by the Church.

See, it is not mentioning the Mass. pic.twitter.com/OEq2YBw34o

— ☧✝️Sacerdotus™⚛✡🇻🇦☧ (@Sacerdotus) May 25, 2025

@pluant

’s Claims and Context

In a series of X posts,

@pluant

has engaged with

@Sacerdotus

, asserting that the term “Novus Ordo” is an appropriate designation for the post-Vatican II Mass and implying its use by Paul VI. For example:

• On May 24, 2025,

  @pluant

  tweeted, “The Novus Ordo is already hyper clericalist. It is overloaded with options, all at the cleric’s discretion. The genius of the Old Rite is that everyone is equally a servant of the rite” (

  @pluant

  , May 24, 2025). This post uses “Novus Ordo” to contrast the Ordinary Form with the “Old Rite,” suggesting a fundamental difference in nature.
• On May 26, 2025,

  @pluant

  stated, “It’s always really been about eliminating anything vaguely traditional from the Novus Ordo” (

  @pluant

  , May 26, 2025), reinforcing the notion that the “Novus Ordo” is a deliberate departure from tradition.
• In response to

  @Sacerdotus

  ’s challenge on May 31, 2025, that “Novus Ordo Missae” does not mean “Novus Ordo Mass” and is absent from the 1970 Roman Missal,

  @pluant

  persisted in defending the term’s usage, citing Paul VI’s alleged endorsement (

  @pluant

  , May 31, 2025).

These claims align with a traditionalist narrative that the post-Vatican II Mass, often called “Novus Ordo,” is a modernist innovation, distinct from the traditional Mass.

@pluant

’s posts reflect a misunderstanding of liturgical terminology and Church teaching, as well as a rejection of the unity of the Roman Rite, which comprises two expressions: the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

Refutation: The Term “Novus Ordo” in Official Usage

Contrary to

@pluant

’s assertions, the term “Novus Ordo” is not an official title used by the Church or Pope Paul VI to designate the revised Roman Missal of 1969. The following points clarify this:

1. Official Documents and Paul VI’s Terminology:
   • The apostolic constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969), promulgated by Paul VI, does not use “Novus Ordo” or “Novus Ordo Missae” to describe the revised Mass. Instead, it refers to the “Roman Missal, renewed by decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council” (Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum) (Paul VI, 1969). This emphasizes continuity with the Roman Rite, not a new or separate liturgy.
   • In his November 26, 1969, general audience address, Paul VI described the revised Mass as a “new rite of the Mass” but clarified, “It is not a new Mass, but a new form of celebration” (Paul VI, 1969). This statement, cited by

     @Sanothomas

     , underscores that Paul VI viewed the reform as a development within the existing Roman Rite, not a novel creation. The phrase “novus Ordo Missae” appears in a 1976 address, but only descriptively, as “the new Order has been promulgated” (novus Ordo promulgatus est), not as an official title (Paul VI, 1976).
   • The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) and other liturgical documents, such as the 1970, 1975, and 2002 editions of the Missal, consistently use “Roman Missal” or “Order of Mass” (Ordo Missae), without adopting “Novus Ordo” as a formal term (GIRM, 2002).
2. Origin of “Novus Ordo”:
   • The term “Novus Ordo Missae” emerged in the context of the 1969 Ordo Missae (Order of Mass), a liturgical book outlining the revised rite. However, it was not an official title but a shorthand used by some liturgists and critics, notably in the “Ottaviani Intervention” (1969), where Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci critiqued the “Novus Ordo Missae” as a departure from Trent’s theology (Ottaviani & Bacci, 1969). The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded on November 12, 1969, calling their critique “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional, and false,” and Paul VI incorporated some of their feedback into the final Missal, indicating responsiveness rather than endorsement of the term (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1969).
   • Yves Chiron notes that the term gained traction among traditionalists as a pejorative label, not as an official designation, and was rarely used by Paul VI except in passing (Chiron, 2021). The Church’s preference, as clarified by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum (2007), is to refer to the 1969 Missal as the Ordinary Form and the 1962 Missal as the Extraordinary Form, emphasizing their unity within the Roman Rite (Benedict XVI, 2007).
3. Church Teaching on the Unity of the Roman Rite:
   • The Church teaches that the Roman Rite has one Mass with two valid expressions, both traditional by nature. Benedict XVI stated, “The two Roman Missals, although four centuries have intervened, embrace one and the same tradition” (GIRM, 6). The Ordinary Form retains the essential structure of the Tridentine Mass, including the Penitential Rite, Gloria, Scripture readings, Roman Canon, and Communion Rite, with adaptations for accessibility and inculturation (Faggioli, 2012).
   • @pluant

     ’s claim that the “Novus Ordo” is “hyper clericalist” or a modernist deviation (

     @pluant

     , May 24, 2025) ignores the sacrificial nature of the Ordinary Form, explicitly affirmed in the GIRM (e.g., “my sacrifice and yours”) and the Catechism (1366-1367). The flexibility of the Ordinary Form, such as multiple Eucharistic Prayers, reflects Vatican II’s call for active participation and cultural adaptation, not a rejection of tradition (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 37-40).

Why

@pluant

’s Claims Are Incorrect

@pluant

’s assertions are flawed for several reasons:

• Misattribution of Terminology: By claiming Paul VI used “Novus Ordo” as an official title,

  @pluant

  misrepresents the historical record. Paul VI’s rare use of “novus Ordo Missae” was descriptive, not titular, and his primary focus was on the Mass’s continuity with tradition (Paul VI, 1969). The 1970 Roman Missal and subsequent documents avoid the term, favoring “Roman Missal” or “Order of Mass” (GIRM, 2002).
• False Dichotomy:

  @pluant

  ’s contrast between the “Novus Ordo” and the “Old Rite” (

  @pluant

  , May 24, 2025) perpetuates a false dichotomy, ignoring the Church’s teaching that both forms are expressions of the same Roman Rite. This view aligns with traditionalist narratives that reject Vatican II’s legitimacy, resembling the Pharisaical legalism critiqued in Matthew 23:23 for prioritizing ritual over charity and obedience.
• Lack of Canonical Support: The insistence on “Novus Ordo” as a distinct, inferior rite lacks support in Church documents.

  @Sacerdotus

  correctly notes, “The correct term for the Mass of Paul VI is the ORDINARY FORM” (

  @Sacerdotus

  , May 31, 2025), aligning with Summorum Pontificum and the GIRM.

  @pluant

  ’s rejection of this terminology reflects a broader disobedience to Church authority, a trait noted in traditionalist circles (Ripperger, 2019).

Psychological and Ideological Context

@pluant

’s persistence in using “Novus Ordo” pejoratively may reflect psychological tendencies observed in some traditionalists, such as neurotic fixation on liturgical purity or narcissistic grandiosity in claiming superior understanding of Catholic tradition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). These traits can foster a siege mentality, where traditionalists view themselves as defenders against a “modernist” Church, as described by Naumescu (2002). This mindset may drive

@pluant

’s dismissal of the Ordinary Form as “hyper clericalist” or a tool to “eliminate” tradition (

@pluant

, May 24-26, 2025), despite the Church’s affirmation of its validity and traditional roots.

Conclusion

The claims by

@pluant

that Pope Paul VI used “Novus Ordo” to designate the post-Vatican II Mass as a distinct rite are incorrect. Official documents, including Missale Romanum (1969) and Summorum Pontificum (2007), confirm that the term is informal, not titular, and that Paul VI emphasized the Mass’s continuity with tradition. The Roman Rite comprises one Mass with two expressions—Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms—both traditional and valid.

@pluant

’s rhetoric, as seen in their X posts to

@Sacerdotus

, perpetuates a divisive narrative that contradicts Church teaching and may reflect underlying ideological or psychological rigidity. Catholics are called to unity and obedience, recognizing the Mass’s sacrificial essence across both forms, as affirmed by the Magisterium.

References

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Arlington, VA: APA.
• Benedict XVI. (2007). Summorum Pontificum. Vatican City.
• Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
• Chiron, Y. (2021). How the Novus Ordo Mass Was Made. Church Life Journal.
• Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (1969). Response to the Short Critical Study. Vatican City.
• Faggioli, M. (2012). Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning. Paulist Press.
• General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). (2002). United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
• Ottaviani, A., & Bacci, A. (1969). Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. Rome.
• Paul VI. (1969). Missale Romanum. Vatican City.
• Paul VI. (1969). General Audience Address, November 26. Vatican City.
• Paul VI. (1976). Address at Consistory, May 24. Vatican City.
• Ripperger, C. (2019). 10 Problems in the Traditional Catholic Movement. Tumblar House.
• Sacrosanctum Concilium. (1963). Vatican City: Second Vatican Council.
• Wikipedia. (2002). Traditionalist Catholicism.
• X Posts:

  @pluant

  , May 24-31, 2025;

  @Sacerdotus

  , May 31, 2025;

  @Sanothomas

  , May 30, 2025.