EF a different rite than OF, some say.

[Aelred_Minor]

Meh, I feel this is a non-issue. Of course there are no two different Rites, but this is rather insignificant, I think, except for perhaps the liturgy geeks. But then again, I am a liturgy geek…

I think I disagree, somewhat. While the distinctions between words like “rite”, “use”, and “form” may seem technical and of interest only to liturgy geeks and experts, I think retaining an ability to say “the Latin Rite Church still uses the Roman Rite as its most common liturgy, just a different form of it” is important. If one considers the Ordinary Form its own rite, that would mean the liturgical reform would be thought of as a more complete split with the past, the invention of an entirely new rite to essentially replace the ancient Roman one, rather than simply a reform of that ancient rite.

 

[Jegudiel]

My friend, was I even near talking about the NO per se? Was I not speaking of the behaviour of people from my observations, which would no doubt differ from yours because you do not come from where I come from. With the EF, I have not met anyone who is against the pope. With the NO, I keep hearing how those people disagree with the pope.

There you go again. You should be ashamed of yourself – but I am sure you are not. It’s so clear that your comments are intended to offend. You correctly use “EF” yet you resort to the nasty slur “NO” instead of simply typing “OF.” That’s bad form and that’s on you.

 

[TrueLight]

My friend, was I even near talking about the NO per se? Was I not speaking of the behaviour of people from my observations, which would no doubt differ from yours because you do not come from where I come from. With the EF, I have not met anyone who is against the pope. With the NO, I keep hearing how those people disagree with the pope.

SingaporeanGirl, I know you’re new and somewhat flabbergasted as to why you are getting such a hostile response from Jegudiel.

This is why.

He is very sensitive to the use of the word Novus Ordo. I don’t see anything wrong with its use.

But in all fairness, a lot of people get offended at the use of the abbreviation NO because they see it as a slur, as if saying the Novus Ordor (OF) is “no” mass, so it might be best to refrain from using that abbreviation.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[SingaporeanGirl]

SingaporeanGirl, I know you’re new and somewhat flabbergasted as to why you are getting such a hostile response from Jegudiel.

This is why.

He is very sensitive to the use of the word Novus Ordo. I don’t see anything wrong with its use.

But in all fairness, a lot of people get offended at the use of the abbreviation NO because they see it as a slur, as if saying the Novus Ordor (OF) is “no” mass, so it might be best to refrain from using that abbreviation.

Hope that clears things up.

Ah I see. Thank you. But isn’t N.O. commonly used?

 

[TrueLight]

Ah I see. Thank you. But isn’t N.O. commonly used?

It’s a discussion we constantly have on this forum. Some feel that the term Novus Ordo shouldn’t be used at all. Some say that is what most people use in real life.

Some feel we should always use "Ordinary Form (OF) for the Novus Ordo or Extraordinary Form (EF) for the TLM.

But that’s another topic.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

“Novus Ordo”

(in a French accent): Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

• PAX

 

[OraLabora]

I think I disagree, somewhat. While the distinctions between words like “rite”, “use”, and “form” may seem technical and of interest only to liturgy geeks and experts, I think retaining an ability to say “the Latin Rite Church still uses the Roman Rite as its most common liturgy, just a different form of it” is important. If one considers the Ordinary Form its own rite, that would mean the liturgical reform would be thought of as a more complete split with the past, the invention of an entirely new rite to essentially replace the ancient Roman one, rather than simply a reform of that ancient rite.

Well in the Latin Rite Church, we have the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite, the Dominican rite, the monastic rite, to name a few off the top of my head. It gets confusing especially as the Church has variously applied all these terms. Even more so as the use is subtly different in different languages. The EF and OF are sufficiently different in liturgy, lectionary and liturgical year so that it’s fair to say they are different (lower-case) rites of the same Rite.

It’s probably more accurate to say they are different rites of the same sui juris Church, the Western Church which in fact is an amalgam of active and defunct rites. We say “monastic rite” when in fact the modern monastic rite is a lot closer to the OF than the EF is.

So basically this discussion has the flavor of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Rather than take the thread off topic, I started another thread.

It seems that some believe that there are two different rites, the EF and the OF. Does anyone else believe this? Or has anyone else come across this?

They are not different rites. Pope Benedict XVI says they are not different rites. To state otherwise is to be obstinate in ignorance.

You’re right: there is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo Catholic.” As far as I know, “Novus Ordo” isn’t even a legitimate term that the Church herself uses. The experiential difference between living a traditionalist Latin Catholic life and going to the Ordinary Form most of the time doesn’t mean it’s valid to categorize Catholics according to their mere preferences.

Saying “I’m a Novus Ordo Catholic” is like saying “I’m a Divine Mercy Chaplet Catholic.” Okay, fine, you pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet a lot; good for you. That is not a reflection of some basic identity that differs from that of other Catholics.

When someone says, "I am not a “novus ordo Catholic,” I see that as a problem.

Indeed.

The Catholic Church has many rites.

Welcome to the forums!

There is even the Carmelite rite and Dominican rite besides the syro malabar etc.

A quick correction: “Syro-Malabar” identifies a self-governing church, not a rite. They are Catholic because they are in communion with Rome. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church uses the Chaldean Rite.

I agree that it is Roman, but to call it Latin is a bit strange. Maybe they should term it Roman Rite and not Latin Rite. There would be less confusion then?

It would also be more accurate. Technically it is called the Roman Rite.

There are actually many Latin Rites, in that - as you identified - there are several rites in use in the Latin Church today: the Roman Rite is one and is by far the most common. But the Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite still exist, as do the Carthusian Rite, the Dominican Rite, etc.

The most common one is called the Roman Rite because it is the rite used in the Diocese of Rome, which the vast majority of dioceses of the Latin Church use as well.

If one rite with two forms is a good enough explination for the Holy Father it’s good enough for me. Its this whole rupture mentality the the mad trads have in common with the like of Hans Küng, that the church either started or stopped in the 1960’s depending on your views. The reality being that VII is only the most recent in a long line of Councils.

Well said. A hermeneutic of continuity is the key here.

If one considers the Ordinary Form its own rite, that would mean the liturgical reform would be thought of as a more complete split with the past, the invention of an entirely new rite to essentially replace the ancient Roman one, rather than simply a reform of that ancient rite.

Exactly. Not to get conspiratorial, but I honestly feel that many traditionalist Latin Catholics know that, at least unconsciously/instinctively. I think there’s something quite subversive and wrong about speaking that way, for precisely the reason you explained.

Latin is the official language of the Church.

Of the Latin Church. Not of the whole Catholic Church.

The Latin rite is only one of many Roman Catholic Masses.

The problem with this assertion is that there is no “Latin Rite.” The Latin Church has several approved rites. The one most commonly celebrated - either according to the Missal of Paul VI or (in the extraordinary form) the Missal of John XXIII - is called the Roman Rite. It is called so because it is the Mass as it is celebrated in the Diocese of Rome.

To call it the Roman Rite would be to diminish the other Masses.

Why? It is Roman; it’s Mass as celebrated in the Church of Rome.

 

[TrueLight]

Well in the Latin Rite Church, we have the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite, the Dominican rite, the monastic rite, to name a few off the top of my head. It gets confusing especially as the Church has variously applied all these terms. Even more so as the use is subtly different in different languages. The EF and OF are sufficiently different in liturgy, lectionary and liturgical year so that it’s fair to say they are different (lower-case) rites of the same Rite.

It’s probably more accurate to say they are different rites of the same sui juris Church, the Western Church which in fact is an amalgam of active and defunct rites. We say “monastic rite” when in fact the modern monastic rite is a lot closer to the OF than the EF is.

So basically this discussion has the flavor of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.

I love this answer!

"The EF and OF are sufficiently different in liturgy, lectionary and liturgical year so that it’s fair to say they are different (lower-case) rites of the same Rite. "

I have always felt this way but here is the problem.

The EF came first. Yes, I know there were some changes over the centuries, but it is the one closest to the Tridentine. So if there are going to be two rites (lower case), then the OF should be the additional rite.

Ready to be flamed.

 

[maryjk]

My friend, was I even near talking about the NO per se? Was I not speaking of the behaviour of people from my observations, which would no doubt differ from yours because you do not come from where I come from. With the EF, I have not met anyone who is against the pope. With the NO, I keep hearing how those people disagree with the pope.

SingaporeanGirl, I know you’re new and somewhat flabbergasted as to why you are getting such a hostile response from Jegudiel.

This is why.

He is very sensitive to the use of the word Novus Ordo. I don’t see anything wrong with its use.

But in all fairness, a lot of people get offended at the use of the abbreviation NO because they see it as a slur, as if saying the Novus Ordor (OF) is “no” mass, so it might be best to refrain from using that abbreviation.

Hope that clears things up.

I think it is more that SingaporeanGirl is able to use “EF” but somehow persists in using “NO.” Wouldn’t it make sense if you understand that there is an Extraordinary Form, that there would be an Ordinary Form?

To then use comments like these, “shouldn’t the NO peeps” or “from the NO an ‘MO’ (modern form),” people tend to figure the poster is intending to be hostile.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The EF came first. Yes, I know there were some changes over the centuries, but it is the one closest to the Tridentine. So if there are going to be two rites (lower case), then the OF should be the additional rite.

Ready to be flamed.

I hope no one flames you!

I think it’s a purely hypothetical question, anyway. Pope Benedict’s explanation satisfies me fully; I genuinely see continuity in the reform. As a result, the idea that they’re basically different versions of the Roman Rite strikes me as quite sensible and accurate.

Especially when you encounter a really well-done Ordinary Form Mass.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well in the Latin Rite Church, we have the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite, the Dominican rite, the monastic rite, to name a few off the top of my head. It gets confusing especially as the Church has variously applied all these terms. Even more so as the use is subtly different in different languages. The EF and OF are sufficiently different in liturgy, lectionary and liturgical year so that it’s fair to say they are different (lower-case) rites of the same Rite.

It’s probably more accurate to say they are different rites of the same sui juris Church, the Western Church which in fact is an amalgam of active and defunct rites. We say “monastic rite” when in fact the modern monastic rite is a lot closer to the OF than the EF is.

So basically this discussion has the flavor of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.

Notice that I was careful to refer to the Roman Rite as the “most common liturgy” of the Latin Rite Church. Yes, a few distinct local Rites have survived the centuries in particular locations, such as the Ambrosian Rite in Milan and the Mozarabic Rite in some Spanish cities. Both of these have been influenced by the Roman Rite over the centuries, but retain a distinct identity. On the other hand certain other historical local liturgies as well as the traditional “rites” of various religious orders are properly speaking special “Uses” of the Roman Rite. They are variations of the single Roman Rite that have been approved for certain communities, either local or religious. Or more recently there is the Anglican Use that has been authorized for formerly Anglican communities that have become Catholic.

Interestingly, the Extraordinary Form has not been labeled a “Use” of the Roman Liturgy, but has been given its own quite novel (as far as I know) category. This makes sense, since as far as I know we’ve never had a situation like this in the past, in which a Rite went through a massive and sudden transformation and some people consequently preferred to use a missal from before that transformation.

 

[OraLabora]

I love this answer!

I have always felt this way but here is the problem.

The EF came first. Yes, I know there were some changes over the centuries, but it is the one closest to the Tridentine. So if there are going to be two rites (lower case), then the OF should be the additional rite.

Ready to be flamed.

Actually the Church doesn’t in this case distinguish them in order of when they appeared on the scene. She uses the term “ordinary” (in the sense of “usual” or regular, not in the sense of “plain”), and “extraordinary” in the sense of “in certain circumstances”. The OF has superseded the EF as the regular form of the Mass. The EF, while now of widened availability since the motu proprio, is still the "extra"ordinary form of the Mass.

Roma locuta est, causa finita est. At least for now until Roma locutes again on the topic. Perhaps to give us a new hybrid OF Mass, an extraordinary form, and an extraextraordinary form

 

[SingaporeanGirl]

I think it is more that SingaporeanGirl is able to use “EF” but somehow persists in using “NO.” Wouldn’t it make sense if you understand that there is an Extraordinary Form, that there would be an Ordinary Form?

To then use comments like these, “shouldn’t the NO peeps” or “from the NO an ‘MO’ (modern form),” people tend to figure the poster is intending to be hostile.

Quite simply because no one in my facebook circle of friends uses the OF as people here seem to use. It has always been EF and NO in all conversations on fb if that sheds some light? And the OF (as they term it), has always been subjected to liturgical abuse for the most part of it that I go for. Therefore, it is not quite hard to imagine them trying to have their more modern form, with the change in the words used at Mass, ‘personalised’ liturgical gestures… hippy hoppy clapping hands. What OF is supposed to be like that?

But I won’t deny the rarer occasions when I get the OF for what it is supposed to be like.

 

[Cristiano]

I think that trying to differentiate the OF and the EF as two separate rites is just simple ignorance or dishonest choice to thrive on ignorance. I am amazed by how many Catholics try to justify their preferences by coming out with pop liturgy, pop history, and pop theology and trying to make them look as rigorous. I have quite strong preferences in regard to the liturgy and how the liturgy affects my spirituality but I would feel quite arrogant to justify my preferences based on anything but my personal religiosity and spirituality. I just know that the more I read about the liturgy the more I understand how fluid things have been and can be. I have the impression that often Catholics look at the OF and EF just as a lot of Americans look at the democratic party and the republican party, they just take a side and espouse it just because they just want to be on one side and pick a fight no matter what the details are about.

 

[rben20]

I think it might be good to celebrate the EF Mass* versus populum* as they did for many centuries at St. Peter’s Basilica.

Really misguided and ignorant comment. Pope continues to face east to this day. It is in the layout of the Basilica and had nothing to do with Ad populum…but please carry on with popcorn eating

 

[OraLabora]

Quite simply because no one in my facebook circle of friends uses the OF as people here seem to use. It has always been EF and NO in all conversations on fb if that sheds some light? And the OF (as they term it), has always been subjected to liturgical abuse for the most part of it that I go for. Therefore, it is not quite hard to imagine them trying to have their more modern form, with the change in the words used at Mass, ‘personalised’ liturgical gestures… hippy hoppy clapping hands. What OF is supposed to be like that?

But I won’t deny the rarer occasions when I get the OF for what it is supposed to be like.

The OF that I go to is in a Benedictine monastery in Gregorian chant. I have been to plenty of reverent OF Masses in Latin, French, English, Spanish, German and Italian.

The OF Mass is the principle Mass of the Church whether you like it or not. The focus of your ire should be on those who abuse it, not those who defend it, even less like myself who defend it and want to see it celebrated correctly. It remains the principle instrument the Church uses to bring us her most powerful and blessed sacrament. It behooves us as orthodox Catholics to treat the Mass reverentially even in the face of those who don’t. Even a Mass that makes us cringe and is filled with abuse! As long as the consecration is valid then we must remember that Jesus Himself is on the altar, and we therefore must remain humble and reverential towards Him, His sacrament, and His, and I emphasize His, liturgy even while those around us are irreverent.

 

[Cristiano]

Really misguided and ignorant comment. Pope continues to face east to this day. It is in the layout of the Basilica and had nothing to do with Ad populum…but please carry on with popcorn eating

Would you please explain why it is misguided and ignorant?

Did you read the post to which it was referring?

 

[thewanderer]

The OF that I go to is in a Benedictine monastery in Gregorian chant. I have been to plenty of reverent OF Masses in Latin, French, English, Spanish, German and Italian.

The OF Mass is the principle Mass of the Church whether you like it or not. The focus of your ire should be on those who abuse it, not those who defend it, even less like myself who defend it and want to see it celebrated correctly. It remains the principle instrument the Church uses to bring us her most powerful and blessed sacrament. It behooves us as orthodox Catholics to treat the Mass reverentially even in the face of those who don’t. Even a Mass that makes us cringe and is filled with abuse! As long as the consecration is valid then we must remember that Jesus Himself is on the altar, and we therefore must remain humble and reverential towards Him, His sacrament, and His, and I emphasize His, liturgy even while those around us are irreverent.

Excellent post!

 

[SingaporeanGirl]

The OF that I go to is in a Benedictine monastery in Gregorian chant. I have been to plenty of reverent OF Masses in Latin, French, English, Spanish, German and Italian.

The OF Mass is the principle Mass of the Church whether you like it or not. The focus of your ire should be on those who abuse it, not those who defend it, even less like myself who defend it and want to see it celebrated correctly. It remains the principle instrument the Church uses to bring us her most powerful and blessed sacrament. It behooves us as orthodox Catholics to treat the Mass reverentially even in the face of those who don’t. Even a Mass that makes us cringe and is filled with abuse! As long as the consecration is valid then we must remember that Jesus Himself is on the altar, and we therefore must remain humble and reverential towards Him, His sacrament, and His, and I emphasize His, liturgy even while those around us are irreverent.

Just wondering, is the Mass still valid if the Consecration was done without the Epiclesis?
And on a different occasion, the Words of Consecration for the Bread was said wrong but for the wine correctly, is the Mass still valid, and so there was only one Eucharistic Species in that case?