On "extraordinary form" as the name of the Mass

[sw85]

(I had started posting these thoughts on another thread which was locked before I could click Submit, so I apologize if they seem to be without context).

I have often seen newcomers to this forum chastised for not using the phrases “the Ordinary Form” and “the Extraordinary Form” of the Mass, with some even going so far as to insist that these are the proper names given to them by the Church.

Let us briefly review what Summorum Pontificum actually said in this regard (emphasis mine):

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.

It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.

§3 For those faithful or priests who request it, the pastor should allow celebrations in this extraordinary form also in special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

And then, from the subsequent letter to the bishops:

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, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.

These are every appearance of the word Latin word “extraordinaria” or its English translation in both letters. Note that at no point is it referred to as “the Extraordinary Form” – merely as “an extraordinary form.”

Pope Benedict presumably referred to it as “the extraordinary form” not to establish a legally-binding name in perpetuity or to enable people to spray tedious and pedantic anathemas all over those who don’t use that title for it or to inaugurate 1984-style a whole new liturgical vocabulary to displace what had previously existed. It was simply to indicate its status relative to the “ordinary form,” which is to say, that it is extra-ordinary, an exception to the normative rule. Note that the traditional Latin Mass is not, then, the only “form” which can be said to be extraordinary: the same could be said of the Anglican Use Mass. (Which, granted, didn’t exist at the time, but that’s just the point: it’s not a label about a particular form of the Mass but an expression concerning the normativity of it).

So it is really not inappropriate to refer to the extraordinary form of the Mass as “the traditional Latin Mass” or the “Mass of St. Pius V” (or, correspondingly, “the Mass according to the Missal of St. John XXIII”) or the “usus antiquior” as the current Holy Father has usually called it. Nor would it strictly be inappropriate to refer to the ordinary form of the Mass as the “Mass of Ven. Paul VI” or the “usus recentior” or even, dare I say it, the “Novus Ordo” (granted, it’s gratingly imprecise – Paul VI coined the term to refer to the new Ordo Missae, not the Missal altogether – but then no one but him has ever used the phrase in that way!).

And, given that, we should perhaps refrain from bludgeoning newcomers to this forum for failing to conform themselves to the usage of a linguistic term which the Church herself has not even demanded of them, and which she herself does not consistently use, however much those newcomers’ occasional vulgarity might annoy us.

It is good to endeavor to think with the Church, but we should avoid trying to anticipate her thoughts for her.

 

[Zipply]

True. Plus it has no precedent. As terminology, it is a banal, on the spot production.

 

[glendab]

Hello SW85.

(I had started posting these thoughts on another thread which was locked before I could click Submit, so I apologize if they seem to be without context)…And, given that, we should perhaps refrain from bludgeoning newcomers to this forum for failing to conform themselves to the usage of a linguistic term which the Church herself has not even demanded of them, and which she herself does not consistently use, however much those newcomers’ occasional vulgarity might annoy us.

It is good to endeavor to think with the Church, but we should avoid trying to anticipate her thoughts for her.

Very nice. Very good. And charitably presented.

You are correct that some here feel a compulsion almost to correct every fault and failing they find in others. They perpetually seek out the splinter in the eyes of all here.

Glenda

 

[dshix]

It appears to me that saying “the extraordinary form” is the most precise and least confusing way to refer to the Mass according to the Missal of St. John XXIII, simply because it is widely understood and it is not likely to be confused with the SSPX or other different things.

However, I personally have not been witness to others being unkindly corrected to use the “proper” term. I definitely agree that that’s not necessary.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Why I believe “Ordinary Form” is preferable to Novus Ordo, and why some users of “Novus Ordo” (or more accurately, people who use the label “NO”) in fact bear correction, is the habit of some to misuse the label “NO” by referring to the “NO Mass,” “NO priests,” “NO parishes,” and “NO sacraments” – not-so-subtly appearing to undermine the legitimacy of post-Conciliar liturgies, rituals, and ordination.

 

[ProVobis]

In my neck of the woods, they are more specifically labelled English Mass, Spanish Mass, etc. Even at the parishes the EF is celebrated, it is either labelled the Tridentine Mass or Latin Mass. This is especially noted in bulletins during Holy Days.

 

[OraLabora]

In my neck of the woods, they are more specifically labelled English Mass, Spanish Mass, etc. Even at the parishes the EF is celebrated, it is either labelled the Tridentine Mass or Latin Mass. This is especially noted in bulletins during Holy Days.

“Latin Mass” is the one term I really object to, for the EF Mass, because in fact the normative language for the OF Mass remains Latin and I’ve been to OF Masses celebrated in Latin (as few and far between as they are). Therefore the term is too wide-ranging and makes it difficult for those of us who are students of liturgy to distinguish what the poster is talking about. For example “getting a Latin Mass in our parish” does not involve applying the norms of the Summorum Pontificum if it is an OF Mass, but it does if it’s an EF Mass.

The problem with Novus Ordo is not the term itself but that some posters do use it in a condescending and derogatory manner… it’s all a manner of context, but often those posters end up getting themselves banned anyway when they diss the OF Mass! I have no problem with persons who use the term in a respectful manner, and not to highlight that the OF Mass is somehow deficient. Different, yes. Deficient, no. Nobody can argue that the EF Mass is relatively old, and the OF Mass is relatively new (well, in Church terms the EF Mass is really in advanced middle-age, and the OF in mere infancy!).

EF and OF have one very good advantage though, ease of typing! I fancy myself a practical person so I will continue to prefer those terms for my own lazy fingers .

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW, on arguably the most visited site for EF Masses, the term EF or Extraordinary Form isn’t mentioned once. (At least I couldn’t find one instance.)

ecclesiadei.org/index.html

 

[janeway529]

“Latin Mass” is the one term I really object to, for the EF Mass, because in fact the normative language for the OF Mass remains Latin and I’ve been to OF Masses celebrated in Latin (as few and far between as they are). Therefore the term is too wide-ranging and makes it difficult for those of us who are students of liturgy to distinguish what the poster is talking about. For example “getting a Latin Mass in our parish” does not involve applying the norms of the Summorum Pontificum if it is an OF Mass, but it does if it’s an EF Mass.

The problem with Novus Ordo is not the term itself but that some posters do use it in a condescending and derogatory manner… it’s all a manner of context, but often those posters end up getting themselves banned anyway when they diss the OF Mass! I have no problem with persons who use the term in a respectful manner, and not to highlight that the OF Mass is somehow deficient. Different, yes. Deficient, no. Nobody can argue that the EF Mass is relatively old, and the OF Mass is relatively new (well, in Church terms the EF Mass is really in advanced middle-age, and the OF in mere infancy!).

EF and OF have one very good advantage though, ease of typing! I fancy myself a practical person so I will continue to prefer those terms for my own lazy fingers .

“Traditional Latin Mass” or “TLM” is really a misnomer and neologism.

 

[Denise1957]

“Traditional Latin Mass” or “TLM” is really a misnomer and neologism.

I can understand how you might think that TLM stands for “Traditional Latin Mass,” (since it was referred to in the OP as such), but actually it stands for “Tridentine Latin Mass.” Here’s an excerpt from a Wiki article on the subject:

“The term “Tridentine” is derived from the Latin word ‘Tridentus,’ which means “related to the city of Tridentum (modern-day Trent, Italy).” It was in a response to a decision of the Council of Trent that Pope Pius V promulgated the 1570 missal, making it mandatory throughout the Western Church, excepting those regions and religious orders whose existing missals dated before 1370.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I can understand how you might think that TLM stands for “Traditional Latin Mass,” (since it was referred to in the OP as such), but actually it stands for “Tridentine Latin Mass.” Here’s an excerpt from a Wiki article on the subject:

“The term “Tridentine” is derived from the Latin word ‘Tridentus,’ which means “related to the city of Tridentum (modern-day Trent, Italy).” It was in a response to a decision of the Council of Trent that Pope Pius V promulgated the 1570 missal, making it mandatory throughout the Western Church, excepting those regions and religious orders whose existing missals dated before 1370.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass

I did not read your link, but wouldn’t ‘TLM’ really be a misnomer then, since the Mass we are talking about is using the missal from 1962, not the one from 1570.

I agree with not using ‘NO’, just because I most often see it used as a pejorative.

 

[corsair]

I still do not see what the big fuss over the term “Novus Ordo” seems to be. Paul VI called it that himself. If folks are so offended I would suggest that they toughen up a skosh. Life is not smooth and bump free.

 

[Denise1957]

I did not read your link, but wouldn’t ‘TLM’ really be a misnomer then, since the Mass we are talking about is using the missal from 1962, not the one from 1570.

I agree with not using ‘NO’, just because I most often see it used as a pejorative.

Well, yes, in a sense, you’re right, and maybe Tridentine Latin Mass is also a misnomer, but the 1962 missal isn’t that different from the Mass of Pope Pius V. I have a missal for both, and there are a few differences, but not much. In fact, when I first began attending the TLM, I used the older missal (St. Andrews), but found that it was easier to follow with a more precise version, so I bought a 1962 missal, and used that instead.

I mostly attend the Novus Ordo now, and I don’t have a problem with that term, and I don’t see it as derogatory at all. Compared to the older forms of the Mass, it is still relatively new, only having been the norm since the 1970’s (or thereabouts), which, when considering the long history of the Church, isn’t a very long time.

 

[sw85]

I still do not see what the big fuss over the term “Novus Ordo” seems to be. Paul VI called it that himself. If folks are so offended I would suggest that they toughen up a skosh. Life is not smooth and bump free.

And Pope Francis has on occasion referred to the TLM as the “Vetus Ordo” suggesting that they are at least conversationally permissible.

 

[OraLabora]

Well, yes, in a sense, you’re right, and maybe Tridentine Latin Mass is also a misnomer, but the 1962 missal isn’t that different from the Mass of Pope Pius V. I have a missal for both, and there are a few differences, but not much. In fact, when I first began attending the TLM, I used the older missal (St. Andrews), but found that it was easier to follow with a more precise version, so I bought a 1962 missal, and used that instead.

I mostly attend the Novus Ordo now, and I don’t have a problem with that term, and I don’t see it as derogatory at all. Compared to the older forms of the Mass, it is still relatively new, only having been the norm since the 1970’s (or thereabouts), which, when considering the long history of the Church, isn’t a very long time.

There would be fairly substantial differences between Pius V and 1962 in rubrics, but especially, in the classification of feasts, which would make a missal from Trent fairly unusable after 1962, though one would recognize the structure, prayers, etc.

As for Novus Ordo, it’s all a matter of context. Some do use it pejoratively. Shame on them. So it’s become something of a loaded term, a bit like the word “gay”. Just because Paul VI used the term Novus Ordo in 1970 doesn’t mean that it has the same connotation today, and just because once I could say I was in a “gay mood” meaning I was happy, doesn’t mean it’s prudent for me to say that today in a social context. Well, I could say it, but it would have a totally different meaning than if I said it 40 years ago. Language evolves.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Yes, language evolves. Except Latin. The Latin words retain their meaning.

"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

And from Pope St JXXIII’s Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html#sthash.OtN97xX4.dpuf

**…"Immutable

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established…"**

 

[ProVobis]

There would be fairly substantial differences between Pius V and 1962 in rubrics, but especially, in the classification of feasts, which would make a missal from Trent fairly unusable after 1962, though one would recognize the structure, prayers, etc.

As for Novus Ordo, it’s all a matter of context.

The term actually used was Novus Ordo Missae, I suppose to differ from Novus Ordo Seclorum, used on a U.S. dollar bill, among other things. Novus Ordo (or new order) by itself doesn’t mean much. One can use it for a whole lot of things. Novus Ordo Rerum, (new order of things), for example.

 

[glendab]

Hello Saints.

Yes, language evolves. Except Latin. The Latin words retain their meaning.

"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

And from Pope St JXXIII’s Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html#sthash.OtN97xX4.dpuf

**…"Immutable

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established…"**

Agreed! 100% Go team! Yippie!

Glenda

 

[Old_Sarum]

It appears the novus ordo missae is called the ordinary form because that is what is ordinarily used, not because it must be the ordinarily used form. In fact, I’d make the case that it shouldn’t be the ordinarily used form, and the reasons why the novus ordo missae was created is for indicate it was meant for extraordinary circumstances.

 

[Cider]

In my neck of the woods, they are more specifically labelled English Mass, Spanish Mass, etc. Even at the parishes the EF is celebrated, it is either labelled the Tridentine Mass or Latin Mass. This is especially noted in bulletins during Holy Days.

Yep, I’ve never seen EF listed the name in my mass bulletins or on the churches mass times board. I’ve seen Latin listed, I’ve seen Tridentine used and I’ve seen Novus Ordo but never OF. Regardless of what the preferred terms at CAF are.