Liturgy with little Vernacular with Latin?

[HomeschoolDad]

whatistrue:

“Uphill struggle”? Please stop pretending to be an oppressed victim. In may cases, the “uphill struggle” is to find enough people that want the EF to make it feasible to allocate the time and staff (including a priest who can say it) necessary to schedule one. That is not suppression, it is demographics.

Many Bishops oppose this. I know of at least one Bishop whom I won’t name that basically said that in his diocese TLM won’t be celebrated. Only ones doing so are non-diocesan Priests and he tried to stop that on multiple occasions. And I heard about more cases. But this is not to say Traditional Catholics are only ones who are victims to some sort of oppression of course. We live in imperfect world. Charismatic Catholics are sometimes oppressed, sometimes Eastern Catholics are, sometimes Ordinary Form Catholics are and so on. However it still does happen.

Then this bishop is at variance with the mind of the Church. Rome urges bishops to be generous in providing for the TLM, and any priest has the prerogative to celebrate the TLM at will — no permission needed — but add to this, as a practical matter, he would have to follow the direction of his pastor (if he were not the pastor himself) and his bishop. Put another way, a parochial vicar or associate pastor couldn’t come out one Sunday and start celebrating the TLM of his own initiative, saying “I have the right” — he does, but he also has the obligation to obey those superiors who have directed that the OF be celebrated in this time and place. It would be kind of like a bi-ritual priest in a Roman Rite parish insisting that he will only celebrate the Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy, and refusing to celebrate either the TLM/EF or the OF.

 

[otjm]

Then again, I have a graduate degree in linguistics and am fluent in a few languages. So perhaps it just comes more easily to me.

Given that I am about twice your age, yes, my experiences are a bit different. And not to pick a bone, but my guess (from experience) is that in part, you have a graduate degree in linguistics because it comes more easily to you. What I would give…

I have never had the opportunity to take a spoken language class and many times have wished, because of work choices, to have had the ability to speak fluently in Spanish. Not something I would consider pursuing at this point in life.

(I turn 38 today and am feeling rather old)

Thanks for a bit of humor. I just returned from a hunting trip in central Montana which started out the first morning with the temperature 31 degrees below freezing; walking through snow drifts up hill that had me stepping up to my knees. My “performance” physically indicates that may be my last hunting trip.

That is old.

 

[dochawk]

Take for example Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom-

Actually, a better analogy would be referring to someone as a “negro” in the twenty-first century.

The word came into use in place of something offensive, and has itself been replaced at least twice.

(Similarly for “moron” and “mentally retarded”).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Actually, a better analogy would be referring to someone as a “negro” in the twenty-first century.

I think analogy of Liturgy and Liturgy is closer than Liturgy and race, but granted, that’s just my opinion. But that shifts argument from “Novus Ordo no longer exists” to “terminology is improper” and that makes big difference. Even then as I am OF-attending Catholic I get an N-word pass

It’s understandable that if term “EF” is offensive to someone they’d use Novus Ordo and not Ordinary Form etc. I have no knowledge of anyone being offended by use of Novus Ordo beside some people on the Internet. Term is used by Clergy and Laity and I don’t think official name of Liturgy should be compared to racial slur. Imo it’s much better to just not be offended than to be, but to each their own. Of course, same goes for those offended by term EF.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

dochawk:

Actually, a better analogy would be referring to someone as a “negro” in the twenty-first century.

I think analogy of Liturgy and Liturgy is closer than Liturgy and race, but granted, that’s just my opinion. But that shifts argument from “Novus Ordo no longer exists” to “terminology is improper” and that makes big difference. Even then as I am OF-attending Catholic I get an N-word pass

It’s understandable that if term “EF” is offensive to someone they’d use Novus Ordo and not Ordinary Form etc. I have no knowledge of anyone being offended by use of Novus Ordo beside some people on the Internet. Term is used by Clergy and Laity and I don’t think official name of Liturgy should be compared to racial slur. Imo it’s much better to just not be offended than to be, but to each their own. Of course, same goes for those offended by term EF.

I prefer the terms “Novus Ordo” or “New Mass”, and “Traditional Latin Mass” myself — “Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form” were just made-up terms to denote the difference between the two rites in a diplomatic, neutral fashion, kind of like how the country now known as North Macedonia was referred to by the United Nations as “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” for several years after its independence. They had to find something uniform to call it, that would be the least likely to upset people on either side, a compromise, if you will.

At one time the term “Tridentine Latin Mass” was more common, but it’s really not a good term (aside from historical precision) because nobody knows what “Tridentine” means, and IMHO it sounds vaguely sectarian or denominational.

I don’t see why people get so agitated over the term “Novus Ordo”, but they do, and it’s just become a reality of CAF life that the term is to be avoided on these forums. As I said the other day, I have heard priests, both traditionalists and others, speak of “the Novus Ordo” in a totally non-judgmental, unironic fashion. Different people are offended by different things.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

At one time the term “Tridentine Latin Mass” was more common, but it’s really not a good term (aside from historical precision) because nobody knows what “Tridentine” means, and IMHO it sounds vaguely sectarian or denominational.

In my country “Tridentine” tends to be best way to explain it except by very imprecise “Latin Mass” which is not how OF is viewed. I guess to random Catholic term “Old Latin Mass” for TLM would be helpful and Novus Ordo would be called “Roman Catholic Mass” to differentiate it from Eastern Catholic Liturgies. I’ve only heard OF and EF terminology being used by Priest who celebrates TLM where I study (but that is not country in which I live).

In US I trust it’s different.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

At one time the term “Tridentine Latin Mass” was more common, but it’s really not a good term (aside from historical precision) because nobody knows what “Tridentine” means, and IMHO it sounds vaguely sectarian or denominational.

In my country “Tridentine” tends to be best way to explain it except by very imprecise “Latin Mass” which is not how OF is viewed. I guess to random Catholic term “Old Latin Mass” for TLM would be helpful and Novus Ordo would be called “Roman Catholic Mass” to differentiate it from Eastern Catholic Liturgies. I’ve only heard OF and EF terminology being used by Priest who celebrates TLM where I study (but that is not country in which I live).

In US I trust it’s different.

In the US, at least in my circles, you never, ever hear the word “Tridentine” anymore. It is historically precise (i.e., “coming from the Council of Trent and its liturgical directives”) but otherwise it is confusing and means nothing. American Catholics are not known for their awareness of Church history.

As an accessible, commonly understood shorthand, in everyday dealings with both Catholics and non-Catholics (i.e., explaining to the latter why I go to the Mass I go to), I just say “regular Mass in English” or “Latin Mass”. Both are somewhat imprecise, but they get the basic idea across. The OF in Latin is so uncommon as hardly even needing to be discussed. I do not get into the nitty-gritty of the two different Missals (pre-1969 and post-1969) with non-Catholics unless they want to know more, and they never do.

 

[OraLabora]

“Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form” were just made-up terms to denote the difference between the two rites in a diplomatic, neutral fashion

Well no. Pope Benedict did not use those words carelessly. He meant by Ordinary Form the form that would the form ordinarily used for Mass (i.e. the majority of Masses) and Extraordinary form for Mass used less frequently, or exceptionally. Summorum Pontificum clearly spells it out:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

By the above, the Extraordinary Form is not meant to supplant the Ordinary Form which continues to be the most frequent expression of the Eucharistic liturgy. Similarly the Ordinary Form is not meant to displace the Extraordinary Form from its place in Tradition, and a liturgical space is created by SP so that it may continue to occupy that place.

The Holy Father was in fact using very precise language with a very precise meaning.

 

[otjm]

“Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form” were just made-up terms to denote the difference between the two rites in a diplomatic, neutral fashion,

The terms were used specifically by Pope Benedict 16 in his extension of the EF; and I for one would not accuse him of using “just made up terms”. He was specific in the use of the Ordinary Form as it is (and was at the time he was writing) the most widely used form of the Mass, and the EF was clearly not widely said - and still isn’t. If anyone was capable of and likely to use the term Novus Ordo, it would be him, and he clearly chose to not do so.

Perhaps there was a message there. He was well aware of the heat that was being exchanged over th two forms of the Mass.

As an aside, OrbisNonSufficit noted that Novus Ordo offends people on the internet. It is my humble opinion that most people attending the OF have no clue as to the original tern and would not know what one was talking about unless the context was crystal clear - and perhaps not then.

However, the offense tends to be that the term is used by those who prefer the EF, and they seem almost to harbor a rancor to the OF; using the NO term comes across (or in too many cases, is fairly clear) to be dismissive of it. I find no one who attends the OF and is on the internet referring to that Mass as the NO.

Corrected for a typo.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

“Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form” were just made-up terms to denote the difference between the two rites in a diplomatic, neutral fashion,

The terms were used specifically by Pope Benedict 16 in his extension of the EF; and I for one would not accuse him of using “just made up terms”. He was specific in the use of the Ordinary Form as it is (and was at the time he was writing) the most widely used form of the Mass, and the EF was clearly not widely said - and still isn’t. If anyone was capable of and likely to use the term Novus Ordo, it would be him, and he clearly chose to not do so.

Perhaps there was a message there. He was well aware of the heat that was being exchanged over th two forms of the Mass.

“Made-up” is not necessarily pejorative (though it can sound that way). Were the terms used before? I don’t think so. “Neologisms” might sound better. It’s like the old story about Hadacol cough syrup — “well, they ‘had-a-col’ it something!”.

If Benedict thought it was time to create two fairly neutral-sounding terms for the 1969+ and 1962 missals, that was his prerogative.

In daily life, I just call them “the new (or “regular”) Mass in English” and “Traditional Latin Mass” myself. Unless I am talking to a priest or an exceptionally well-informed layperson, nobody has the slightest idea what “Novus Ordo” means.

 

[OraLabora]

If Benedict thought it was time to create two fairly neutral-sounding terms for the 1969+ and 1962 missals, that was his prerogative.

They weren’t just terms indicating two different forms of the Mass. They were terms specifying which form of the Mass would be the predominant liturgy, and which form would be the exceptional liturgy. My experience with the Vatican, and things like the GIRM and GILH is that it uses very specific language with a very specific meaning.

The meaning here is that 1) there are two distinct forms of the Mass and 2) indicating the intended form that will be ordinarily used without requiring any special considerations, and the intended form that will be extraordinarily used if a specific and defined set of circumstances allow it.

So no, not just new terms to identify two different liturgies, but to identify them and indicate under which circumstances they are to be used. He could have used synonyms, I suppose (such as “regular” form vs “exceptional” form), but the point is that the terms convey more than just liturgical difference. A reading of SP will make that crystal clear.