"Extraordinary" Form

[rben20]

Hello all,

I know this question might seem silly, but was does the Holy Father mean when he refers to the Mass as the Extraordinary form. Does that mean it should only be used lightly or once in a blue moon? Or does it simply refer to another form of equal usage? I ask because if they are truly equal to each other, it certainly doesn’t appear to be the case amongst the churches as the Mass is not widely offered. Also, I had a Catholic say that if we (traditionalists) are to get mad at the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers because they are that…Extraordinary…then we shouldn’t get mad that the EF of the Mass is not used amongst the churches as it is just that…Extraordinary. Is that true?

 

[thistle]

Hello all,

I know this question might seem silly, but was does the Holy Father mean when he refers to the Mass as the Extraordinary form. Does that mean it should only be used lightly or once in a blue moon? Or does it simply refer to another form of equal usage? I ask because if they are truly equal to each other, it certainly doesn’t appear to be the case amongst the churches as the Mass is not widely offered. Also, I had a Catholic say that if we (traditionalists) are to get mad at the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers because they are that…Extraordinary…then we shouldn’t get mad that the EF of the Mass is not used amongst the churches as it is just that…Extraordinary. Is that true?

The Novus Ordo Mass is the Ordinary Form.
The Traditional Latin Mass is the Extraordinary Form.

By the way there are no Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. The lay people who distribute are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
Only the priest at Mass is a Eucharistic Minister.

 

[sulkow82]

Hello all,
I know this question might seem silly, but was does the Holy Father mean when he refers to the Mass as the Extraordinary form.

When the Pope refers to the Extraordinary Form, he is talking about the Tridentine Mass. It is referred to in this manner not to say that it is inferior in any way. It simply called this because it is not the text for the Mass which is in dominant use (however, still perfectly valid).

Does that mean it should only be used lightly or once in a blue moon? Or does it simply refer to another form of equal usage?

This is actually being hotly debated from time to time. The Pope actually wishes to bring the Tridentine Mass back. He wants it at least readily available for anyone who wants to attend. There are some Traditionalists who argue that the N.O. (the form in dominant use) is the form which should be used from time to time, or possibly even scrapped and decommissioned.

I ask because if they are truly equal to each other, it certainly doesn’t appear to be the case amongst the churches as the Mass is not widely offered.

The Tridentine Mass (EF) is the standard in that it has the most history backing it. It also is the form which most clearly expresses the Catholic faith. During the late '60s through the '80s what’s now the EF was “mothballed” but never decommissioned. Pope John Paul II encouraged the use of the EF, but was largely ignored. Pope Benedict XVI more strongly supports the EF and is using it as part of his reforms to revitalize the Church. So while you don’t see it rather common now, it will become more common in the near future (say the next 10 years).

Others argue that bringing back the EF is fine, but no need to make it the dominant form again. Just update the N.O. so it more accurately expresses the faith (this is what Pope Benedict is doing and we’ll see in Nov. of next year).

Also, I had a Catholic say that if we (traditionalists) are to get mad at the use of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers because they are that…Extraordinary…then we shouldn’t get mad that the EF of the Mass is not used amongst the churches as it is just that…Extraordinary. Is that true?

Strange argument and frankly I think this is comparing “apples and oranges.” I personally see the use of EEM is a logistics tool to efficiently get the Eucharist served to the faithful. The Tridentine Latin Mass is a core statement of our faith and an active way we worship the Lord. To make them equal is to not understand the situation and distort it completely.

 

[HCC]

It is clear, Pope Benedict either wants the Extraordinary Form to become the norm, (or Ordinary Form), or that we should greatly learn from it.

I base this on his desire to see a Latin Mass in every parish, his celebration of the TLM himself and his comment referring to the Ordinary Form as having been made in a factory and bearing the qualities of a cheap product. The Holy Father has called the New Mass, “banal.”

I agree with sulkow82, TLM will continue to spread. I have been attending since I was 16, in 1991 and I remember the sparse listings even 12 years ago for a valid Latin Mass in the US. Now there is at least 1 or 2 in every state and many more in major cities. Look at the growth amongst young Catholics. It is really incredible. Deo Gratias!

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is clear, Pope Benedict either wants the Extraordinary Form to become the norm, (or Ordinary Form), or that we should greatly learn from it.

This is absolutely not true. Pope Benedict never said he wants to reinstate the TLM as the Ordinary Form.

I base this on his desire to see a Latin Mass in every parish, his celebration of the TLM himself and his comment referring to the Ordinary Form as having been made in a factory and bearing the qualities of a cheap product. The Holy Father has called the New Mass, “banal.”

You are making a personal conclusion and judgment on something he never said. Please do not spread misinformation. The Holy Father in fact said that the OF and the EF are equal.

Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum says the following:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

 

[HCC]

This is absolutely not true. Pope Benedict never said he wants to reinstate the TLM as the Ordinary Form.

You are making a personal conclusion and judgment on something he never said. Please do not spread misinformation. The Holy Father in fact said that the OF and the EF are equal.

Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum says the following:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

Yes, it is my opinion, as I stated and gave my reasons for it. Yes, the Holy Father has referred to the New Mass as having been “made in a factory” and has called it “banal.” I have read the quote many times. I will look for it in it’s full context and post it for you.

Here: “After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes, it is my opinion, as I stated and gave my reasons for it. Yes, the Holy Father has referred to the New Mass as having been “made in a factory” and has called it “banal.” I have read the quote many times. I will look for it in it’s full context and post it for you.

Here: “After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.

you are right. the holy father has been criticizing the NO. some people just continue to ignore the popes about this.

 

[rben20]

Where is this quote from the Pope exactly from? Was he speaking as Pope or Cardinal when he made this statement?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

you are right. the holy father has been criticizing the NO. some people just continue to ignore the popes about this.

The facts are that both Masses are VALID…some people just continue to ignore the Church on this.

 

[Timothysis]

you are right. the holy father has been criticizing the NO. some people just continue to ignore the popes about this.

Yes, and the pope was also an ardent supporter of the Vatican II Council, saying that the practicing of the Catholic faith had become “mechanical.”

So, where does that take us today?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes, and the pope was also an ardent supporter of the Vatican II Council, saying that the practicing of the Catholic faith had become “mechanical.”

So, where does that take us today?

yes, if the Council had just come out is it was intended.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, it is my opinion, as I stated and gave my reasons for it. Yes, the Holy Father has referred to the New Mass as having been “made in a factory” and has called it “banal.” I have read the quote many times. I will look for it in it’s full context and post it for you.

Here: “After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.

I’m pretty sure as the usual case around here a comment is taken out of context to support a viewpoint or agenda. No offense, but I don’t think its good Catholic attitude to be ridiculing things the Church teaches and uses. If the Pope really does believe that the current form of Mass is questionable, he will change it, no questions asked.

 

[ProVobis]

Where is this quote from the Pope exactly from? Was he speaking as Pope or Cardinal when he made this statement?

He was speaking then as Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as a high-ranking member of the Magisterium of the Church. He made the statement on more than one occasion.

 

[Credo111]

No offense, but I don’t think its good Catholic attitude to be ridiculing things the Church teaches and uses. If the Pope really does believe that the current form of Mass is questionable, he will change it, no questions asked.

The Pope has no power to change the Mass at will. The Novus Ordo Mass was the product of a Consilium comprised of “periti” (experts, some of whom included Protestant theologians) who drafted the new order of the Mass, and of bishops, who voted to approve or disapprove it. Pope Paul VI had the final say as to whether or not it would be accepted. Some Cardinals and theologians expressed grave reservations about the Novus Ordo (see Ottaviani Intervention), which caused the Pope to delay implementation of this new form of Mass for 2 years.

As to the questionable nature of modern liturgy, Cardinal Ratzinger has gone on record stating that the current situation is not satisfactory. He has never spoken against the Novus Ordo per se, but instead has focused on the liturgy, which too often ends up being irreverent and distracting. Read his “Spirit of the Liturgy,” or read Klaus Gamber’s “Reform of the Roman Liturgy,” a book critical of the reforms of the New Mass (and which is cited favorably by the Holy Father).

It’s not as simple as you state. And if there are liturgical practices that have brought harm to the faithful (communion in the hand, standing instead of kneeling, etc.), then the faithful have a duty to discuss these harms in the hopes of restoring the faith. There is nothing disobedient or wrong in doing so; rather, it’s born out of love for Holy Mother Church and the Catholic faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Pope has no power to change the Mass at will.

What part of Supreme Pontiff do you not understand?

The Novus Ordo Mass was the product of a Consilium comprised of “periti” (experts, some of whom included Protestant theologians) who drafted the new order of the Mass, and of bishops, who voted to approve or disapprove it. Pope Paul VI had the final say as to whether or not it would be accepted. Some Cardinals and theologians expressed grave reservations about the Novus Ordo (see Ottaviani Intervention), which caused the Pope to delay implementation of this new form of Mass for 2 years.

As to the questionable nature of modern liturgy, Cardinal Ratzinger has gone on record stating that the current situation is not satisfactory. He has never spoken against the Novus Ordo per se, but instead has focused on the liturgy, which too often ends up being irreverent and distracting. Read his “Spirit of the Liturgy,” or read Klaus Gamber’s “Reform of the Roman Liturgy,” a book critical of the reforms of the New Mass (and which is cited favorably by the Holy Father).

Misleading statement. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger spoke against the abuses, not the Pauline Mass. The Pauline Mass in itself has not problems.

It’s not as simple as you state. And if there are liturgical practices that have brought harm to the faithful (communion in the hand, standing instead of kneeling, etc.), then the faithful have a duty to discuss these harms in the hopes of restoring the faith. There is nothing disobedient or wrong in doing so; rather, it’s born out of love for Holy Mother Church and the Catholic faith.

The problem here is that people are blaming Vatican II and the Mass of Pope Paul VI as the problem. The fact is, it is not the problem. There are abuses and the abuses are the problem, not the Mass itself. Even the Tridentine Mass can be abused

 

[wisdomseeker]

What part of Supreme Pontiff do you not understand?

Misleading statement. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger spoke against the abuses, not the Pauline Mass. The Pauline Mass in itself has not problems.

The problem here is that people are blaming Vatican II and the Mass of Pope Paul VI as the problem. The fact is, it is not the problem. There are abuses and the abuses are the problem, not the Mass itself. Even the Tridentine Mass can be abused

yes, he did. he has said that the NO Mass is like a circle. when the priest faces the people it becomes a closed circle. he has criticized this. the reasons there is abuse, it is because the way the Mass is today. the abuses will continue until the Mass changes to what it was before.

 

[Jehoshua]

Indeed the problem is the abuses.

However in my personal opinion (note i do consider both forms of the one roman rite co-equal and valid) the ordinary form has a lack of continuity with the past and reverence that opens a door to the liturgical abuses that are the real problem in the church. If the pauline mass was always practiced as intended with full reverence and respect for the sanctity of the paschal sacrifice then the problems wouldn’t occur, but the de-emphasis on christ towards a misguided, in my opinion, focus on the people perhaps caused by the involvement of protestant “observers” (another misguided decision i think) has led to such things as guitar masses and “praise” dances which are totally innapropriate and scandalous. A parish in my city even had a buddhist statue set up in the church!

The ordinary form can be reverent, and meaningful, but its fundamental nature leads one i away from the fundamental christocentric view of the extraordinary form, and potentially detracts from th catholic faith in that its focus on “people” rather than God has causes the entrance of so many secular errors into parts of our church (thankfully the doctrine is safeguarded as promised by our lord) and diminished its focus on the true universiality and timelessness that is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It simply doesn;t express the catholic faith with the clarity of the extraordinary form.

So as you probably guessed Im a supporter of the extraordinary form, and I can only thank God that the current pontiff is working towards both renewing and restoring the ordinary form to a form appropriate to its role AND working towards the readoption of the Extraordinary form to those who wish to use it. All the while working towards the perpetuation of orthopraxy and by doing so the perpetuation of orthodox catholic christianity.

---

Oh and its called the Extraordinary form because its not the “standard” default form of the mass, thus it is “extra” ordinary in that its use is based on the will of the congregation. Not because it is simply a rare curiosity or rarely used form or extraordinary in that sense of the word.

 

[ProVobis]

Misleading statement. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger spoke against the abuses, not the Pauline Mass. The Pauline Mass in itself has not problems.

Let’s not be in denial here. What then-Cardinal Ratzinger said about the banality and fabrication, he spoke against the basic structure of the new liturgy and how it was implemented, IMO. His intentions were reform-focused since he was in a position to do something about it. He never has even hinted that he would ban the new liturgy.

 

[Credo111]

What part of Supreme Pontiff do you not understand?

You have an overly simplistic understanding of the Pope’s authority. He is indeed the Supreme Pontiff, and, as I indicated, he had the final say as to whether or not to implement the Novus Ordo. But that does not mean he can arbitrarily change whatever he doesn’t like about it whenever he feels like it. It’s much more complex than that.

There was nothing misleading in what I wrote. I explicitly said that the Pope has not criticized the Novus Ordo Missae per se (in itself), but he has criticized the liturgy that has been the fruit of the so-called “spirit of VII.”

As to the Novus Ordo itself, I invite you to read Klaus Gamber’s “Reform of the Roman Liturgy” to learn more about exactly what was changed and removed from the EF Mass to produce the OF. Like I said, it’s a book that has been favorably cited by Card. Ratzinger. It is well known that Abp. Bugnini–a very progressive bishop–was the architect of the Novus Ordo. His desire was to downplay the sacrificial element in the Mass, and rather focus on the communal element. Many of the prayers that were removed and revisions to the Mass mirror in striking degree the changes and revisions implemented by Abp. Cranmer during the English Reformation. As you know, Cranmer rejected the Catholic faith and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and his revisions were meant to dilute the sacrificial meaning of the Mass. There is no doubt, simply by comparing the EF and the OF, that the OF is far more palatable to Protestants. This is not meant to disrespect or denigrate the OF–it is simply a fact, and you can find many Protestant theologians who have come out and said so. In fact, some Protestants have even celebrated the Novus Ordo in their churches, because they believe it better conforms to Protestant theology than the traditional Latin Mass did (which, if you’ve ever attended one, repeatedly refers to the oblationary nature of the Mass).

Whether or not you think that’s a good thing is up to you.