Names for the Mass

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Hi all. I’m a little confused about the nomenclature for masses.

Normally I use Novus Ordo as the term for the new or just the New Mass but I know some people find it offensive and it did start out as a pejorative term.

I also usually refer to the previous mass as the Tridentine, Latin (because of it’s use of Latin) and the Gregorian ( I was told this is a better descriptor than Tridentine) Mass. But some people are offended by this and prefer the terms Benedict used.

Which leads me to Ordinary and Extraordinary form. Which seems weird since mass should ALWAYS be extraordinary. These two terms I don’t like and seem cumbersome but my friend has insisted that they are the official terms.

I also know Orthodox of the Western Rite refer to the Latin mass as “Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great”. And on wikipedia the novus ordo is referred to as the “Mass of Pope Paul VI”

So with this menagerie of terms… what is correct for each mass?

Thanks!

 

[SonCatcher]

Which leads me to Ordinary and Extraordinary form. Which seems weird since mass should ALWAYS be extraordinary.

I have the same issue with “Ordinary Time”

I also know Orthodox of the Western Rite refer to the Latin mass as “Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great”. And on wikipedia the novus ordo is referred to as the “Mass of Pope Paul VI”

So with this menagerie of terms… what is correct for each mass?

Thanks!

I prefer to show up when Jesus is there to worrying about such details, personally.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I just call it “mass” and “latin mass”.

 

[runningdude]

I prefer to write our the proper name of each, which I think would be the “Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite”, and the “Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite”, which were the terms used by Pope Benedict when he “liberated” the ancient Order of the Mass.

I believe the it best to refer to these by a proper name, because in some discussions, people are highly disrespectful of the “OF”, or the “Novus Ordo”, but speak highly of an EF, and disparage anyone who doesn’t want a return to the “EF”. Both the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite, and the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite, though, confer the sacrament of the Eucharist, and to lightly through around initials when referring to such a sacred act I think is disrespectful.

The important thing is to give the proper dignity to the Latin Rite, whichever its form.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I have the same issue with “Ordinary Time”

Yeah. Me too.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut runningdude!

 

[Joe_5859]

Personally, I don’t get hung up on it too much, but I tend to stick with Ordinary Form (OF) and Extraordinary Form (EF) because that is (most closely) the terminology that Benedict uses in Summorum Pontificum.

All the other terms tend to either be emotionally charged and/or inaccurate. For example, look at the term “Latin Mass”. Well, the official language of the OF is also Latin and the OF can be said in Latin at any time.

Now, look at “Tridentine Mass”. The EF is not exactly the same Mass that was produced following the Council of Trent. It has undergone several editions.

How about the term “Novus Order”? Well, I have a difficult time calling something “new” that has been around for 40 years. It’s not new anymore.

It really doesn’t bother me personally to see people use NO, TLM, or what have you. But, for consistency’s sake, I’ll stick with OF and EF.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Other nicknames are Pauline Mass or Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Ultimately it is the Roman Missal. Since there are two forms right now, that is why they refer to it as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal, and the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Missal. Ordinary is meant to be “regular” or one that is used commonly, and not the English connotation that its plain and bland.

 

[Digitonomy]

I prefer to write our the proper name of each, which I think would be the “Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite”, and the “Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite”, which were the terms used by Pope Benedict when he “liberated” the ancient Order of the Mass.

Benedict actually used a number of terms to describe the different forms of the mass - although it’s pretty clear that he wasn’t annointing them with proper names, just using descriptive phrases. Still, extraordinary form and ordinary form are the terms that have been seized on by many Catholics, so I suppose using them as proper names is probably better than calling them the “ancient usage” and the “new rite,” or some of the other terms Benedict used. I would vote for Mass of Paul VI as the most proper and formal name of the new form, if not the most practical name. As far as abbreviating, I agree that caution should always be considered if you have a very sensitive audience - for the same reason that “Xmas” probably shouldn’t be used in announcing the parish gift drive for the local orphanage. However, I think most on these boards are mature enough to tolerate those who abbreviate OF, EF, TLM, NO, etc.

Here are some other terms used by the Holy Father in Summorum Pontificum:

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.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church…

Art. 9. § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it…

Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

[From the accompanying letter:]
In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass…At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level…

This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear…

it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite…

The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior,…

the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage…

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture…

Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

 

[TheMc]

Hi all. I’m a little confused about the nomenclature for masses.

Normally I use Novus Ordo as the term for the new or just the New Mass but I know some people find it offensive and it did start out as a pejorative term.

I also usually refer to the previous mass as the Tridentine, Latin (because of it’s use of Latin) and the Gregorian ( I was told this is a better descriptor than Tridentine) Mass. But some people are offended by this and prefer the terms Benedict used.

Which leads me to Ordinary and Extraordinary form. Which seems weird since mass should ALWAYS be extraordinary. These two terms I don’t like and seem cumbersome but my friend has insisted that they are the official terms.

I believe that your friend is right. Ordinary and Extraordinary form(s) is the most correct way to refer to them. I believe the rationale behind the names is: The “OF” is the “ordinary” (normal) way that Christ is brought to us in the mass, while the “EF” is the “extraordinary” way that he is brought to us. This is not referring to the importance, availability, frequency of these masses, but to what I mentioned above.

Ps. It’s not correct, but I usually call it the “latin mass” in conversation.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Since this seems to have become an opinion poll, :twocents: :

I prefer the terms the Mass and the Gregorian Rite (but I admit people hardly ever know what I am talking about when I use the latter).

I think the terms “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form” sound stoopid. His holiness hardly ever used those terms and who knows why people latched onto them? :whacky: Same goes for *novus *so-called ordo.

:twocents:
tee
Who may regret wading into this thread even more than the one about crcmc*s**n

 

[Pregustator]

I think the terms “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form” sound stoopid. His holiness hardly ever used those terms and who knows why people latched onto them? Same goes for novus so-called ordo.

I hear you. This Catholic Answers Forum lingo by which people run around dropping "EF"s and "OF"s everywhere is new to me. I use “EF” and “OF” only in this forum, because that’s what users of this forum seem to understand (and which some of them, bizarrely, positively demand of the rest of us “because that’s what the Pope calls them”, so they insist). Anywhere else I simply refer to the “OF” as “Mass” and the “EF” as the “Tridentine Mass” or even more simply as the “Latin Mass”.

 

[johnnykins]

Personally, I like to call the EF “The Mass of Blessed John XXIII”

Anything to mind bend the happy clappy crowd!

Oh dear, for my penance: two Our Fathers and two Hail Marys.