P
parvenu74
Guest
Father Zuhlsdorf is running the following poll on his blog:
What should we call Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal?
What should we call Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal?
- Status
S
Sr_Sally
Guest
Since the pope has called it the Extraordinary Form, I think we should too.
R
RoamingCatholik
Guest
How about The True Mass?
S
Sure
Guest
EF!
N
ncjohn
Guest
Choice 1: EF
Choice 2: because of its familiarity, TLM
Choice 2: because of its familiarity, TLM
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
:twocents:
I prefer the Missal of John XXIII or Missal of 1962.
I do not believe his holiness uses the phrase forma extraordinaria/“extraordinary form” except he has specified the Missale B. Ioannis XXIII/“Missal of Bl. John XXIII” in the same or preceding breath.
Also: Though it is uncertain from the Latin, far be it from me to bind any present future pope to allowing only a single identifiable “extraordinary form” – If another(s) should be allowed, we would just be back to this same question (What to call extraordinary form A, what to call extraordinary form B, et cetera?).
Of course, I also seem to be in the minority of preferring Current Missal or Missal of 2000 over the so-called “novus ordo”
tee
I prefer the Missal of John XXIII or Missal of 1962.
I do not believe his holiness uses the phrase forma extraordinaria/“extraordinary form” except he has specified the Missale B. Ioannis XXIII/“Missal of Bl. John XXIII” in the same or preceding breath.
Also: Though it is uncertain from the Latin, far be it from me to bind any present future pope to allowing only a single identifiable “extraordinary form” – If another(s) should be allowed, we would just be back to this same question (What to call extraordinary form A, what to call extraordinary form B, et cetera?).
Of course, I also seem to be in the minority of preferring Current Missal or Missal of 2000 over the so-called “novus ordo”
tee
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
We couldn’t because it’s not the only one. The Mass of Paul VI is also a true Mass, as are the Divine Liturgies of the sub juris Churches (Melkite, Maronite, Byzantine, etc.).
I think EF, since that’s what the Holy Father appears to reference it as.
E
Eileen_T
Guest
I just tell people we go to the Latin Mass. They know what I am meaning.
C
Caesar
Guest
I doubt the “Ordinary/Extraordinary” terminology will ever catch on. It works well on a Papal document, but the wording is probably too technical and bulky for most people to get comfortable with.
If we want to be historically correct then we could call it the “Gregorian Mass”, or the “Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great” if we want to link it to the Eastern Liturgies. The misleading term “Tridentine” will probably remain the standard, though at least its the most familiar.
The “Traditional Latin Mass” or simply the “Traditional Mass” will also remain common, though personally I prefer the “Classical Latin Mass”. Of course the simplified form of this, the “Latin Mass”, will also remain common, but it is another misleading term since the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in Latin (the Novus Ordo is ordinarily celebrated in Latin- vernacular is by indult).
The “Old/New” classification will probably still be used, as will the “Pre-concillar/Post-concillar” even though that is not entirely correct.
What I would prefer though is a system of terminology that all the Liturgical Rites can fit into. I propose a system that does this, while being faithful to the classification the Holy See uses. Recall the “Anglican Use of the Roman Rite” that was created for High Church Anglicans who converted to Catholicism:
Gregorian Use of the Roman Rite
Pauline Use of the Roman Rite
Anglican Use of the Roman Rite
Ambrosian Use of the Roman Rite
Mozarabic Use of the Roman Rite
ect.
If we want to be historically correct then we could call it the “Gregorian Mass”, or the “Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great” if we want to link it to the Eastern Liturgies. The misleading term “Tridentine” will probably remain the standard, though at least its the most familiar.
The “Traditional Latin Mass” or simply the “Traditional Mass” will also remain common, though personally I prefer the “Classical Latin Mass”. Of course the simplified form of this, the “Latin Mass”, will also remain common, but it is another misleading term since the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in Latin (the Novus Ordo is ordinarily celebrated in Latin- vernacular is by indult).
The “Old/New” classification will probably still be used, as will the “Pre-concillar/Post-concillar” even though that is not entirely correct.
What I would prefer though is a system of terminology that all the Liturgical Rites can fit into. I propose a system that does this, while being faithful to the classification the Holy See uses. Recall the “Anglican Use of the Roman Rite” that was created for High Church Anglicans who converted to Catholicism:
Gregorian Use of the Roman Rite
Pauline Use of the Roman Rite
Anglican Use of the Roman Rite
Ambrosian Use of the Roman Rite
Mozarabic Use of the Roman Rite
ect.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
<<How about The True Mass?>>
Do you mean to imply that the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom or Addai and Mari (for example) are FALSE masses?
Fie, RomingCatholic!
Do you mean to imply that the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom or Addai and Mari (for example) are FALSE masses?
Fie, RomingCatholic!
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
<>
Neither the Ambrosian nor Mozarabic Liturgies CAN be called “Uses of the Roman Rite” at all.
Neither are based on it; though the Ambrosian Rite has some striking parallels, the Mozarabic Rite is quite different from the Roman, even if clearly western.
Neither the Ambrosian nor Mozarabic Liturgies CAN be called “Uses of the Roman Rite” at all.
Neither are based on it; though the Ambrosian Rite has some striking parallels, the Mozarabic Rite is quite different from the Roman, even if clearly western.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
I still like “Traditional Latin Mass”, or TLM. “Extraordinary Form of the Latin Right” just don’t feel right. Maybe in time.
DustinsDad
C
Caesar
Guest
Ok, fine, they are Rites by themselves. My mistake. Although now there are “Ordinary/Extraordinary” Uses for each of these Rites because of reforms to bring them closer to the Novus Ordo. I’ve heard that some in the Archdiocese of Milan are thinking of forming a Priestly Fraternity of St. Ambrose to celebrate the traditional form of the Ambrosian Rite.
As a side note, the Ambrosian Rite is probably a primitive form of the Roman Rite.
S
sphilomena
Guest
Yep, just voted for that one. If you look at these threads, it is the term used almost exclusively. We are familiar with it, and it seems accurate.
K
kleary
Guest
EF is a “compromise” (or a sell out) to those Bishops who hate the TLM and are worried Bugnini’s “reforms” are about to be trashed.
The correct term is the “Traditional Roman Rite of Mass”, for this Rite of Mass is the one that developed over time naturally without the aid of human hands or “liturgical experts”.
Ken
The correct term is the “Traditional Roman Rite of Mass”, for this Rite of Mass is the one that developed over time naturally without the aid of human hands or “liturgical experts”.
Ken
C
Caesar
Guest
Well, in a way it also undermined the progressive bishops. Calling the new and old Masses mere uses or forms of the single Roman Rite allowed the Holy Father to say that the TLM was never abolished and was the right of every priest to celebrate if he so wishes.
B
BonnieBj
Guest
How about “the pure Mass.” No diluted, changed, interpreted (or misinterpreted).
L
LuxDei
Guest
I prefer Tridentine, but that MIGHT just be because I think the word sounds cool. 
People also know what you mean if you say Latin Mass, usually. I don’t like the fancier terms.
People also know what you mean if you say Latin Mass, usually. I don’t like the fancier terms.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Classical Use 
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
<<How about “the pure Mass.” No diluted, changed, interpreted (or misinterpreted).>>
Does you mean to imply the other 22 or so Liturgies used by Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are “impure masses”?
The Holy Father has stated his preferred terminology: extraordinary or ordinary form, Missal of Bl John 23 or Paul 6.
If we say we are obedient to him, what are we discussing here?
Does you mean to imply the other 22 or so Liturgies used by Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are “impure masses”?
The Holy Father has stated his preferred terminology: extraordinary or ordinary form, Missal of Bl John 23 or Paul 6.
If we say we are obedient to him, what are we discussing here?
- Status