Extraordinary vs Ordinary

[marthaferretti]

I’ve noticed some comments pointing out that because the pope used ‘extraordinary’ when he assigned a new name to the TLM, it was his intention that the EF would be celebrated much less commonly than what he termed the OF of the Mass.

My question is why those making these comments don’t take issue with the frequency of use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion?

If the celebration of the TLM is supposed to be extraordinary, i.e. uncommon, shouldn’t extraordinary used in the description of laymen distributing Holy Communion mean their use is also uncommon?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

This is the way it was explained to me.

First, we have to remember that the Church does not use words the same way we do sometimes. For the Church, ordinary means the “normal way”. In other words, the way it will be done. A Bishop, Priest or Deacon, by nature are ordinary ministers of communion, basically because it’s a function of the ‘job’.

An “extra” ordinary minister of communion, is used when the Bishop and/or priest decides that that they are needed. Now, there is a lot of room for argument here on what “needed” means and whether or not Communion should be received under both species (which often facilitates teh “need” for more EM’s, etc, but that’s another thread or 2 ).

As far as the Mass is concerned- the Ordinary Form (OF), or the missal of Paul VI, is now the “normal” Mass to be followed by all in the Church (unless allowed, as in the FSSP, et. al.). It is what most of us expect when we go to a Catholic Mass.

The Missal of John XXII form 1962 (EF) is “extra” ordinary, because it is not the normal way of doing things, since the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI. It is to be preserved as part of our Tradition, but is no longer the usual way.

So, to sum up, we need to remember to think as the Church does, especially when words can have more than one connotation.

 

[bben15]

I don’t know where in Summorum Pontificum it says that the TLM should be celebrated less frequently than the OF. The Novus Ordo is assigned the term “Ordinary Form” because it is the official Mass of the Church, as of now, The TLM is assigned the term “Extraordinary Form” because it is not the official Mass of the Church, but it used to be 40 years ago.

EMHC’s actually are meant to be used on a case-by-case basis, not at every Mass. Priests overuse EMHCs so the laity can “participate” more in the Mass. However, they’re really only meant for huge Masses, where there aren’t enough priests or deacons to distribute the Eucharist. They are called “Extraordinary” because the “Ordinary” minister of Communion is a member of the clergy.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I don’t know where in Summorum Pontificum it says that the TLM should be celebrated less frequently than the OF. The Novus Ordo is assigned the term “Ordinary Form” because it is the official Mass of the Church, as of now, The TLM is assigned the term “Extraordinary Form” because it is not the official Mass of the Church, but it used to be 40 years ago.

EMHC’s actually are meant to be used on a case-by-case basis, not at every Mass. Priests overuse EMHCs so the laity can “participate” more in the Mass. However, they’re really only meant for huge Masses, where there aren’t enough priests or deacons to distribute the Eucharist. They are called “Extraordinary” because the “Ordinary” minister of Communion is a member of the clergy.

You really need to learn how to keep these unfounded opinions to yourself. You have no right to disparage priests for using EMHC how THEY see fit. And unless/until you know the directives from the Bishop of your diocese regarding the use of said ministers, it will serve you well to not share such opinions.

 

[bben15]

You really need to learn how to keep these unfounded opinions to yourself. You have no right to disparage priests for using EMHC how THEY see fit. And unless/until you know the directives from the Bishop of your diocese regarding the use of said ministers, it will serve you well to not share such opinions.

Keep my opinions to myself? Do I not have a right to express my opinion simply because you do not agree with it?

If you want to have a discussion over whether EMHCs are being “over-used”, we can. But please do not treat my opinion as if it is nothing simply because you don’t agree with it.

 

[Elizium23]

The thing is that Church documents are not always worth the paper they’re printed on when it comes to implementation. Many of the things which were exhorted in the document Sacrosanctum Concilium were ignored and left in disuse. EMHC usage is regulated, most recently, by the document Redemptionis Sacramentum. It is supposed to ensure that use of EMHCs is safe, legal, and rare. But the decision lies largely with the pastors and the presiders of individual liturgies, and when you’re far from Rome, many things get changed for pastoral reasons. IMHO, the EF of the Roman Rite should be much more common, but there are many priests and even bishops who, for whatever reasons, have blocked that implementation. It is genuinely hard for me to reconcile the letter of the law with the implementation it sees around the world in run-of-the-mill parishes. It is my wish that all in the hierarchy be faithful to the wishes of Rome and the architects of these important documents, but we live in an imperfect world and I accept these decisions in humble obedience.

 

[Lawrence178]

I’ve noticed some comments pointing out that because the pope used ‘extraordinary’ when he assigned a new name to the TLM, it was his intention that the EF would be celebrated much less commonly than what he termed the OF of the Mass.

That is complete and total garbage. And if you disagree, please see the FSSP. Oh, and the ICKSP. Oh, and the Institute of the Good Shepard. Oh, and the numerous diocesan priests that celebrate the TLM regularly (or “ordinarily”).

 

[marthaferretti]

That is complete and total garbage. And if you disagree, please see the FSSP. Oh, and the ICKSP. Oh, and the Institute of the Good Shepard. Oh, and the numerous diocesan priests that celebrate the TLM regularly (or “ordinarily”).

Lawrence, I believe you misunderstand my point which is that I’ve read others (not me) contend that the pope’s use of ‘extraordinary’ means the TLM should not be the norm for the celebration of the Mass.

I contrast the interpretation of ‘extraordinary’ when applied to the celebration of the TLM and the frequency of using laymen to distribute Holy Communion at Mass, i.e. EF vs EMHC.

 

[maryjk]

EMHC’s actually are meant to be used on a case-by-case basis, not at every Mass.** Priests overuse EMHCs so the laity can “participate” more in the Mass.** However, they’re really only meant for huge Masses, where there aren’t enough priests or deacons to distribute the Eucharist. They are called “Extraordinary” because the “Ordinary” minister of Communion is a member of the clergy.

Or, being charitable, as we should be, we could say that priests schedule and use EMHC, regularly, because they can anticipate the number of people at each Mass.

I would have to imagine that priests aren’t surprised at every Mass. Generally, the same number of people attend and receive at every Mass.

Priests can plan.

 

[Neofight]

You really need to learn how to keep these unfounded opinions to yourself. You have no right to disparage priests for using EMHC how THEY see fit. And unless/until you know the directives from the Bishop of your diocese regarding the use of said ministers, it will serve you well to not share such opinions.

Please! Opinions are just that, opinion as opposed to fact. When we call to block opinions, We might as well give up this venue for an e-reader with reference books and no discussion or posing of questions, least they be opinion !

 

[Lawrence178]

Lawrence, I believe you misunderstand my point which is that I’ve read others (not me) contend that the pope’s use of ‘extraordinary’ means the TLM should not be the norm for the celebration of the Mass.

I contrast the interpretation of ‘extraordinary’ when applied to the celebration of the TLM and the frequency of using laymen to distribute Holy Communion at Mass, i.e. EF vs EMHC.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn’t mean that you adhered to that interpretation, my post was meant to address those who did adhere to it.

 

[Elizium23]

Or, being charitable, as we should be, we could say that priests schedule and use EMHC, regularly, because they can anticipate the number of people at each Mass.

I would have to imagine that priests aren’t surprised at every Mass. Generally, the same number of people attend and receive at every Mass.

Priests can plan.

No really, there are a vast number of priests out there who regularly put EMHCs into service regardless of attendance. My pastor regularly calls one up when there are 20-30 communicants. Our associate does it… slightly less often. But it’s still a common occurrence at the daily Tuesday night Mass, and this is just one sparsely attended daily with no music.

And I’d say that that is the rule more than the exception, at least in my limited experience of the western USA. Everybody does it and who’s going to stop them?

Now I would say that for our Sunday Masses it is de rigeur to employ the usual number of 2-3 EMHCs. There are hundreds of communicants and one priest, and possibly a deacon assisting, so the criterion of unduly lengthening the rite is met.

 

[bben15]

You really need to learn how to keep these unfounded opinions to yourself. You have no right to disparage priests for using EMHC how THEY see fit. And unless/until you know the directives from the Bishop of your diocese regarding the use of said ministers, it will serve you well to not share such opinions.

Are you saying I have no right to express my opinion?

 

[otjm]

I’ve noticed some comments pointing out that because the pope used ‘extraordinary’ when he assigned a new name to the TLM, it was his intention that the EF would be celebrated much less commonly than what he termed the OF of the Mass.

My question is why those making these comments don’t take issue with the frequency of use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion?

If the celebration of the TLM is supposed to be extraordinary, i.e. uncommon, shouldn’t extraordinary used in the description of laymen distributing Holy Communion mean their use is also uncommon?

I think it is a misstatement to say that the Pope intended that the EF would be celebrated much less frequently. From his accompanying letter, he expressed that he felt that it would be less frequent; there is a vast difference between an assumption and an intent. There is nothing either in SP or in his accompanying letter that would indicate that he intended that it not be celebrated frequently.

He was undoubtedly aware that those requesting the EF were in a small minority; and there is no evidence to the contrary currently that things are any different. He did set it up that priests could choose to celebrate it or not celebrate it. While he set it up that if a stable group were to request the EF, the parish priest had a duty to see if that could be arranged, he did not require that they say it, only that he encouraged them to do so. If the priest cannot say it or chooses not to say it, then it is up to the bishop to do his best to try to resolve the matter (that is, find someone who can say it); and if the bishop has troubles doing so, then it is to be sent on to Rome for assistance.

As to the issue of EMHCs, the bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese. If you feel that the bishop is going significantly beyond his authority, appealing to the priest is absolutely pointless as he is not the chief liturgist; the bishop is. If you feel that you may gain some traction speaking with the bishop, that could be the first step; but if the likelihood is that the bishop is aware of the situation in his diocese (and that is likely, if not most likely), then the likelihood of any change is minimal at best.

That leaves a petition to Rome. There have been few petitions which have succeeded in getting any changes made; and from those which did succeed it would be advisable to obtain the assistance of a canon lawyer, as going it alone is likely to result in no response at all.

The short of it is that if you don’t like it, other than complaining to someone else who does not like it, nothing will be accomplished.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Are you saying I have no right to express my opinion?

No, I am saying you need to keep UNFOUNDED opinions to yourself.

You are a self-identified, teen-age boy who is not even Catholic yet!!
How could you possibly have the personal experience to make a sweeping statement that priests who use EMHC do so only to have more laity involvement?

Having an informed opinion is fine, but when your information is from questionable sources and based on personal experiences of others it becomes gossip.

 

[ProVobis]

The Missal of John XXII form 1962 (EF) is “extra” ordinary, because it is not the normal way of doing things, since the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI. It is to be preserved as part of our Tradition, but is no longer the usual way.

The translation of the SP seemed to encourage each parish to have one EF. As a lot of parishes have more than one OF, I would think the OF would still be the “usual” way, just like Missa Lecta (Low Mass) was prior to Vatican II.

 

[maryjk]

Are you saying I have no right to express my opinion?

Of course you are allowed to have an opinion. But that isn’t what you posted.

You posted, “Priests overuse EMHCs so the laity can “participate” more in the Mass.”

That is a statement. It is written as a statement of fact, An *uncharitable *statement of fact. But nonetheless, a statement, NOT an opinion.

In addition, you were very uncharitable to our priests. Priests that use or schedule EMHC aren’t here to defend themselves. So you are taking a punch at someone that can’t punch back.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

You really need to learn how to keep these unfounded opinions to yourself. You have no right to disparage priests for using EMHC how THEY see fit. And unless/until you know the directives from the Bishop of your diocese regarding the use of said ministers, it will serve you well to not share such opinions.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Of course you are allowed to have an opinion. But that isn’t what you posted.

You posted, “Priests overuse EMHCs so the laity can “participate” more in the Mass.”

That is a statement. It is written as a statement of fact, An *uncharitable *statement of fact. But nonetheless, a statement, NOT an opinion.

In addition, you were very uncharitable to our priests. Priests that use or schedule EMHC aren’t here to defend themselves. So you are taking a punch at someone that can’t punch back.

Poor bben15 must be confused right now, because one member just told him to not share his opinion while another just said it’s fine to share your opinion but not ok to share your statements. Maybe others who disagree with Ben’s posts can just say so, instead of telling him he can’t post this or that and maybe we can leave the decision to what Ben can and cannot post up to the forum moderator?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Poor bben15 must be confused right now, because one member just told him to not share his opinion while another just said it’s fine to share your opinion but not ok to share your statements. Maybe others who disagree with Ben’s posts can just say so, instead of telling him he can’t post this or that and maybe we can leave the decision to what Ben can and cannot post up to the forum moderator?

I did not tell bben15 that he could not have opinions, I told him that he better be very careful about sharing opinions that are unfounded, and not based in his own personal experiences. When a person starts repeating things they have heard form other sources as an opinion, without any actual basis in fact, especially when they are talking about other people, it is not an opinion, it is gossip.