Br JR, would this (or rather Novus Ordo Missae) be any more awkward than Pope Benedict’s reference to the older Mass in UE as Usus Antiquior? Just an honest question. I know the term Novus Ordo offends many.
Antiquior in law does not have the same meaning as it does in conversation. In Roman Law is means “older”. Many people who are not familiar with the vocabulary of Canon Law think that it means “ancient”. That’s not how the term is used in law.
Usus Antiquior actually means the older used form, which is very awkward when you translate it literally into English. I flows much better into the Romance languages. In English, a smoother translation would be “the older form”. Just leave out the word “use”. We know that it was used.
The problem with Novus Ordo or NO is not the term, but the who. You’ll hear the priests from the Society of St. Peter (FSSP) use it when they teach the mass, simply because it’s it’s more specific than “the ordinary form”. It’s more specific because most people attending such a workshop knows what the term means. When they say it, no one is offended. They are not being dismissive of the Ordinary Form Mass.
When a Traditionalist layman uses the term, I tend to be a little skeptical and sensitive. Too often, there is a spiritual snobbery behind it. Whatever form of the mass we prefer, we must avoid spiritual arrogance.
The interim Mass of 1964-1969 also had the option for use of vernacular, ad populum, hymns, etc. Pope Benedict specifically pointed to Mass of Paul VI (as you did) but as Br JR said or implied, the norm has now become the 2002* Roman Missal.
- Br JR, is this the typical edition?
This would be typical edition.
Oh JR! What a beautiful explaination:
I don’t believe you’ve left anything out. Good job.
Oh if only both were available at the parish where I am and done properly…(sigh)…I’d be really close to heaven.
Glenda
It would be nice. It’s not always practical. I volunteer at a parish that has seven masses every weekend. There are two problems that make the Extraordinary Form difficult to introduce.
First: All 7 masses are full. The church is small. I seats 800. This leads to the next problem.
Second: The parish has only two priests. A priest should only celebrate two masses at most. With two priests, this adds up to four masses on Sunday a rented priest for the fifth Sunday mass and the two priests for the two Saturday masses.
If you added an EF mass, who’s going to celebrate it? That’s the first problem. The second problem is that rules do not allow you to bump 800 people who attend the mass in the Ordinary Form for 100 who want a mass in the Extraordinary Form. The Ordinary Form is a right. The Extraordinary Form is NOT a right. Many people do not get this. Pope Benedict deliberately used this legal term, “out of the ordinary”. If something is a right, then it’s ordinary for that person or that population.
Catholics have a right to the mass. We do not have a right to the mass in a form or language of our choice. We have to take what the Church can reasonably provide. The Church has a duty to provide whatever is reasonable.
Bumping 700/800 people for 100 people and one priest who want an EF mass does not sound very reasonable.
This would make it inconvenient to have the EF in every parish. Where I live, we have what I call clusters. These are celebrations of the EF in several parishes that are accessible from different points in the diocese. The people who attend the mass at St. X may come from four or five parishes within a smaller radius, rather than driving across the state.
