It’s just what Pope Benedict used in his motu proprio. I think it just signifies that it’s out of the ordinary, nowadays, when compared to what’s going on now.
Because most Catholics attend and seem to prefer to attend the OF, making it the most regular or “ordinary” form in practice and in name.Why not make the extraordinary into the ordinary?
After all, EMHC’s were supposed to be “extraordinary” and now are commonplace. Use the same reasoning for the extraordinary rite
Then that needs to change then
I can promise you, you’d get equally orthodox Catholics funding the same in support of the ordinary form, esp. since it is in the vernacular. Now, if we could hear the sublime prose of the EF in the vernacular, that MIGHT be a different story. But then, there is an austere beauty to the OF properly offered that would still be different from, but just as lovely as the EF.Then that needs to change then
I’d love to see advertising on TV and radio that promotes the extraordinary form, by lay groups who support the EF.
You can call it the Novus Ordo (it was called the “New Missal”, officially) or the Ordinary Form. A rose by any other name…
Know yours. The Mass sees organic growth, not discarded to make room for concoction.
You don’t seem to share Pope Benedict’s vision for both forms of the Mass. Read his letter to the bishops that accompanied the MP. Good stuff, about both forms.
You don’t have a clue how much I love H.H. BXVI, and embrace his words. If not for him, I’d never step inside a church that offers only the OF.
Trads don’t make this stuff up. Ever wonder who the wolves are ? The ones H.H. mentioned in his first Homily as Pope ?
Now read what he’s said as Pope, as Vicar of Christ and shepherd of the whole of Christ’s flock. Read the letter that accompanied the MP *SP. *I very much doubt that the OF will be going away, I doubt even more that the vernacular will be going away, and I think YOUR greatest fear is that I’m right…not the libs, not the progressives, but the ordinary, Orthodox Catholic on the middle path between two extremes.
Neither refused obedience to the Gospel, if you’re talking about the forms. It is impossible for the Church to promulgate anything that would lead the faithful into impiety. Anything the Church promulgates for the faithful IS obedience to the Gospel.
Well, the way I read 1 Timothy 3:15 the Catholic Church is called, “The House of God”. Also in Hebrews 10:21 we have a great priest over the House of God.
An excellent point. Many here keep repeating the same things the Holy Father said as personal opinions as Cardinal Ratzinger. As Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ and shepherd of the whole of Christ’s flock, his role is to serve the Church, not promote those things that he prefers. While his personal preferences for certain practices are being noted, it is important to keep in mind that he is not instituting these same preferences on the whole Church. Pope Paul VI produced his missal at the request of the Vatican II council, just as Pope Pius V produced his at the request of the Council of Trent. It is foolhardy to think that a pope would step into Peter’s shoes and start changing the practices and liturgy of the Church in the same way that an upstart CEO marches into his office and starts ordering massive changes around him. The pope’s job is to preserve the deposit of faith.
Are you sure about this?