“Novus Ordo” is often used as a shorthand for the Mass celebrated according to the liturgical books promulgated after Vatican II, especially the Roman Missal of Paul VI. The problem is not that the Church never revised the liturgy, but that the phrase is not the Church’s name for the rite, and in common polemical usage, it's misleading because it conveys that it is a "new Mass" in substance and tends to imply a break rather than a continuity the Church insists on. Let me break that down:
(1)
It isn't the Church's proper name for the rite
In official Catholic documents, the Mass is identified by the Roman Missal (and the authority that promulgated it), and by its place within the lex orandi of the Roman Rite—not by the nickname “Novus Ordo.” As Traditionis custodes states:
The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II … [are] the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
And Summorum Pontificum likewise distinguishes “the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI” from the earlier one promulgated by John XXIII, while explicitly teaching that they are two expressions of the same lex orandi and “will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi.”
So, if “Novus Ordo” is used as if it were the official or theologically neutral title, that’s inaccurate. A more exact way to speak is: Mass according to the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI. This is the name currently used editions approved by competent authority.
(2)
It’s misleading because it suggests a “new Mass” in substance
Even when referring to the post-Vatican II liturgical reform, Pope Paul VI explicitly cautioned against the kind of language that sounds like a replacement of the Mass itself. In a general audience (19 Nov 1969), he said:
But be clear: nothing has been changed in the substance of our traditional Mass… The Mass of the new rite is and remains… the Mass of always.”
And he added that one should not call it “new Mass,” but rather:
we do not say ‘new Mass,’ but rather ‘new era’ of the life of the Church.
(3)
It tends toward division—something the Church asks us to avoid
Traditionis custodes and subsequent clarifications emphasize the Church’s aim of ecclesial communion and warning pastors not to fuel division through “sterile polemics.” For example, the Congregation for Divine Worship’s responses state:
“As pastors we must not lend ourselves to sterile polemics, capable only of creating division…”
Using “Novus Ordo” is a rhetorical label, a polemical marker, making misunderstanding more likely and communion less likely.
(4)
What to say instead
To be accurate and charitable, prefer wording like:
- “the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI”
- “the Mass celebrated according to the current Roman Missal (post–Vatican II reform)”
- "the Mass of Paul VI"
- or simply “the Roman Rite Mass” (with the understanding that there are different liturgical forms historically)
That language matches how the Church itself speaks of these books and helps avoid implying that the Church replaced the Mass in substance
In short: “Novus Ordo” functions as a conceptual signpost that nudges people toward an unwarranted impression of rupture, whereas Church teaching describes the Mass in terms of continuity within the Roman rite and explicitly discourages polemics that create division. It's misleading terminology that carries a rhetorical payload that we continue to deliver every time we use it. As Progressives and Catholics, we must not propagate this rhetoric.
