J
jwinch2
Guest
The Ordinary Form is the norm while the Extraordinary Form is not.
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
It differs in that the OF is the norm. If a priest is to celebrate Mass then it is the norm to celebrate this.
A priest who is ordained to a diocese or religious institute that does not exclusively use the EF can not claim that the OF is not his preference and refuse to celebrate it.
If this is so then he should join with the religious institutes that are set up for this.
I am sure that Br JR will explain this in a much better way than I did.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Then why didn’t the Holy Father call it the norm? St. John Cantius used to call the then-called NOM the Normative Mass. It’s not a derogatory term. Ordinary, on the other hand, can sound banal.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Of course I am speculating and I certainly cannot predict the future. But just recently ther was a thread on the CAF on this article from the Wall Street Journal, entitled: “Traditional Catholicism Is Winning” in which it said that the biggest gains in the Church have been among traditional Catholics. My thinking is that by bringing in a traditional group like the SSPX, it can only help strengthen the Church even more. If the SSPX is brought back into reunification, they will be able to go into parishes that may be dying now and bring them back to life.
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
While this is true, it is also true that the purpose of SP was to allow Catholics to ask for and receive the EF and that the interpretation of this should be generous towards those who want the EF. Excerpted from UE:
So, we can ask for it and it should be interpreted generously towards us who do ask. Now, I understand that he’s not saying it is an absolute right for us to receive the EF of the sacraments, but it is clear that we can ask and that interpretations of SP should be in our favor of receiving it. Please notice that the preface to this understanding of the purpose of EF invokes Pope Benedict’s rights as the Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pastor of the Church. Obviously the statements following are meant to be taken very authoritatively.
- PAX
C
Cider
Guest
And therein lies the foundation of why it’s impossible to post in this forum and discuss the EF or traditional catholic practices without a 5 paragraph qualifier about how we all love the OF too and it’s valid and good. Every single time. Because of some peoples preconceived idea of smugness if we don’t.
J
JReducation
Guest
Jwinch is correct. You are always expected to comply with that which is ordinary (the norm). The use of the term “extraordinary” is very deliberate. It liberates you from having to do it and at the same time, gives you permission to do it.
You may be right about this too. We, human beings, tend to get very smug. What always baffles me is how people expect to get to heaven while bashing and trashing a rite of the Church or a fellow Christian. The whole idea of the mass and sacraments is to get to heaven. It’s an oxymoron to beat someone up so that you can have what you believe will get you to heaven. It seems that one justifying the means to an end, which will never get any of us to heaven.
That’s why I avoid arguments on these threads. My goal is to become a saint, not to win a debate. No one ever got to heaven for taking first place on the debate team.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
J
jwinch2
Guest
He did. Please go back and read Brother JR’s posts on the subject. He already covered this much more effectively than I would be able to.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Why is it that those who love the EF are considered smug, but not those who love the OF? A deacon one time said to me that he hated the EF. Does that make him smug?
Sorry, don’t mean to derail the thread.
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Nothing in the arguments said anything about the norm. The arguments were about priestly intention (Brother J) and how priests are not sacrament machines and have their own preferences (you). Both of those arguments easily support a priest who does not want to celebrate the OF because of his preference.
- PAX
J
jwinch2
Guest
I agree that the word “Ordinary” can sound derogatory based on how it is commonly used. We have a tendency to misuse the words in our society to mean something they do not. Ordinary is as you described it: “banal” or perhaps “plain, boring, etc.” and Extraoridnary has come to mean “great, superb, etc.”. In essence we have attached value to words that were not intended to be used that way.
I believe the Church to be using them as described below.
or·di·nar·y/ˈôrdnˌerē/
Adjective: customary, regular, usual, orderly.
Noun: What is commonplace or standard.
Synonyms: common - usual - regular - normal - habitual - customary
ex·traor·di·nar·y/ikˈstrôrdnˌerē/
Adjective: Very unusual or remarkable.
Noun: Out of the common order
Synonyms: uncommon - unusual - singular - remarkable - exceptional
As for the rest, I am with you on that also. I complain all the time about the Church not being more clear in her documents which leads to a confusion among the faithful and even the clergy. Theologians, Canon Lawyers, and Administrators within the Church are often way to subtle for their own good and certainly for the good of others. There may be a time and place for that, but it is done far more than is necessary. So, if you want to beat the drum for the Church to write things in plainer language and to come out and say what she means instead of dancing around all sides of the situation, I will get in line right behind you.
C
Cider
Guest
Not ignoring you, but I have to leave and take the dog to the vet. I’ll back back later.
J
jwinch2
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, the Pope did but he seemed to use the word a lot to describe the “norms” of the 62 Missal.
catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/universae-ecclesia-instruction-summorum-pontificum/
J
jwinch2
Guest
If you look at the post where the word “smug” was used, I believe he was talking about English speakers who are opposed to having an OF in Spanish, Latin, etc., not people who prefer the EF.
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Good question. The charge of being prideful and smug is often leveled at those who prefer traditional practices. After receiving communion kneeling and on the tongue at an OF, I had the experience of the priest hunting me down after Mass and telling me that I was being prideful. He didn’t know me at all and all I did was kneel. Why is it that traditional practices cause such reactions?
On the other hand, I don’t have a problem pointing out banal practices at the OF, such as terrible choices in music. Perhaps that makes me “smug,” much like those who prefer classical music are considered smug and elitist to those who like pop culture.
But yeah, maybe we shouldn’t derail the thread (I’ve already been involved in a couple of derailments…)
- PAX
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
False notion:
“Do this for a commemoration of me.”
In the order of ordinary facts, a man can be said not to do anything against his will; nonetheless, such wilfullness does not negate a positive duty or obligation when existing, which in this case (as I have shown) is of Divine Institution: God commands the priest to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass and supply His faithful with the sacraments. Now if a priest doesn’t want to do that, then we have reason to worry about his soul; however, we have no reason to doubt the validity of his masses, even if he says them simply for duty’s sake.
T
TimothyH
Guest
I don’t think people realize the caution with which priests approach a new ministry or practice for this reason.
It’s one thing to open the church doors for rosary group and let them sit in the pews for an hour. It’s another entirely to start a major ministry or other highly visible undertaking. They have to feel that it will generate enough momentum to become self sustaining at some point or they simply won’t do it.
-Tim-
J
JReducation
Guest
It is not his desire to make it the norm.
The faithful have a right to ask for it and bishops have to make a reasonable effort to meet those needs. They are not expected to work miracles to make it happen. There is the is the difference. If they don’t have the priests, they can’t produce them. That would be a miracle that they can’t perform. But they have to try to help.
Actually, the person who first used that term in this context was Pope Benedict XVI. He once wrote that while he sympathized with the attachment that many people have to the EF, he also finds that many have approached their pastors with arrogance and smugness. He was referring to those people who present with, “The OF is not as holy as the EF.” That’s smugness. He’s not referring to the person who says, “The EF meets my spiritual needs.” That’s just a fact that cannot be debated.
It makes him more than smug. It makes him foolish.
No. Canon Law does not work that way. The priest who is ordained to a diocese or to one of the mainstream religious communities, knows going in that the diocese or the religious community uses the OF as its norm. He agrees to this when he promises obedience to his bishop or vows obedience to his superior.
If this is an issue for him, he should never apply to either a diocese or to a mainstream religious community, but to one of the ED institutes.
It’s similar to, but not exactly the same as the diocesan priest who whines about celibacy after the ordination. Good gravy! It was no secret that in the Latin Church, the norm for secular clergy is to be celibate. Why are you crying now?
The same question can be asked about the form of the mass. It’s no secret that your diocese or your religious community uses this form. You knew this going in. You cannot decide to change the rules to fit you. It would be the same as someone going into an ED institute and then deciding that they should alternate between EF and OF. You knew going in that it was an ED institute. You can’t change the rules now.
Basically, all of us who enter religious life and the priesthood know going in that we are joining the diocese or the community. It’s not joining us. This is their norm and we take it or leave it before making a commitment.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
- Status