The correct terms for the TLM

[Cat]

“The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”

We could shorten that to “TEFotRR”

We could shorten “The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite” to “TOFotRR”

I suppose, all kidding aside, it does make sense to simply use EF for “The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”.

And OF for the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite”

However, “TLM” looks better in print than “EF”
But, I will have to say that I think that “OF” is preferable to “NO”

I often see BVM for our Blessed Virgin Mary, which, when I first became a Catholic seemed odd to me - sort of like a name of a car.

I have never been able to bring myself to actually use “BVM” in my writings but I understand why many do.

I can’t use BVM because in microbiology, it stands for Bacterial Vaginosis (the M doesn’t stand for anything). Yechh.

That’s the thing about using initials–they can mean different things to different folks. Eg., on TV, the abbreviation for St. Louis (Cardinals, Rams, or any sports team) is always “STL.” To me, that is the microbiology abbreviation for “stool” (poop specimen). Echh.

 

[Ockham]

they also do so in order to imply that the “new mass” does not share in that rich history and tradition. This is false.

It’s only false if you believe rich history and tradition can stem from 1969 to present.

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

I can’t use BVM because in microbiology, it stands for Bacterial Vaginosis (the M doesn’t stand for anything). Yechh.

That’s the thing about using initials–they can mean different things to different folks. Eg., on TV, the abbreviation for St. Louis (Cardinals, Rams, or any sports team) is always “STL.” To me, that is the microbiology abbreviation for “stool” (poop specimen). Echh.

Or STD.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Yes, but truth also matters. The major reason the mass which emerged following the Second Vatican Council is called the “Ordinary Form” is because it is the standard form of the liturgy in use today.

Bah. No one called it Ordinary Form (at least not as any kind of Proper Name) prior to July 2007.

tee

 

[Tsuwano]

It’s only false if you believe rich history and tradition can stem from 1969 to present.

It is false if you believe that the modern Church and the liturgy presently in use incorporates and continues the living traditions of the Church which have continued since the time of the Apostles. I do believe that.

 

[Tsuwano]

Bah. No one called it Ordinary Form (at least not as any kind of Proper Name) prior to July 2007.

tee

Fine. Who first refered to it as the “Ordinary Form?” Why? Who first refered to the pre Vatican II liturgy as the “Extraordinary Form?” Why? I’m willing to refer to the liturgies according to any distinction the Church is pleased to make. Are you?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Fine. Who first refered to it as the “Ordinary Form?” Why?

I could not say. (I can tell you who did not refer to it that way: His Holiness Benedict XVI in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.)

Who first refered to the pre Vatican II liturgy as the “Extraordinary Form?” Why?

Again, I could not say who was first. But I can say that it seems to me that *Summorum Pontificum *did not use this phrase to intend any kind of “proper name”.

I’m willing to refer to the liturgies according to any distinction the Church is pleased to make. Are you?

:twocents: Well it seems to me that the Church usually refers to the Mass or the Roman Missal, meaning the most recently promulgated edition. Only when there is the possibility of confusion or other need does it further specify (the Roman Missal of Bl John XXIII, the Roman Missal of 1970, et cetera). :twocents:

tee

 

[Tsuwano]

I could not say. (I can tell you who did not refer to it that way: His Holiness Benedict XVI in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.)

Again, I could not say who was first. But I can say that it seems to me that *Summorum Pontificum *did not use this phrase to intend any kind of “proper name”.

:twocents: Well it seems to me that the Church usually refers to the Mass or the Roman Missal, meaning the most recently promulgated edition. Only when there is the possibility of confusion or other need does it further specify (the Roman Missal of Bl John XXIII, the Roman Missal of 1970, et cetera). :twocents:

tee

I believe you are mistaken in your assertion that Pope Benedict XVI did not use these terms in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. According to article 1 of Apostolic Letter “Summorium Pontificum” issued Motu Proprio, “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 honor for its venerable and ancient usuage.”

The Holy Father continues in his “Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the world to present the “Motu Proprio” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reforms of 1970.”
He writes “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.”

I agree with you that the descriptions of the two forms of the liturgy as “Forma ordinaria” and “Forma extraordinaria” are not intended as “any kind of proper name.” I also agree with your final “two cents.” Whether Pope Benedict was the first to use these descriptions of the liturgies in question, I don’t know.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

Since Pope St. Gregory the Great codified the Mass, it has more or less looked like the TLM. If you accept the Mass as a product of Trent (a fair point), then you can also accept that its minor changes right up until the '65 Missal as generally being the same Mass. But the '70 Novus Ordo really is clearly a different kind of Mass altogether.

Consider the weight of history! If you’ve got a Mass whose traces begin 1400 years ago with its current incarnation dating to 500 years ago-- versus a Mass who dates to about 40 years ago…

then which one is the Ordinary form? Indeed, I’d claim that the TLM is the *ordinary *form of the Mass for the bulk of Christian tradition. It’s the Novus Ordo which is outside of the ordinary.

You can keep your EF/OF semantics, thankyouverymuch. It’s the Tridentine Latin Mass for me. Sure, 1962 was a while after Trent. It’s the Tridentine Mass still.

 

[MikeDunphy]

No, tee is correct. You can read Summorum Pontificum here. His Holiness does not use the phrase “Forma ordinaria” in this letter.

I believe you are mistaken in your assertion that Pope Benedict XVI did not use these terms in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. According to article 1 of Apostolic Letter “Summorium Pontificum” issued Motu Proprio, “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 honor for its venerable and ancient usuage.”

 

[Tsuwano]

No, tee is correct. You can read Summorum Pontificum here. His Holiness does not use the phrase “Forma ordinaria” in this letter.

May I point you to Article 1 of Summorum Pontificum. The term “Ordinaria expressio” is clearly used in the text, as is the term “Extraordinaria expressio.” You are correct in noting that the term “Forma ordinaria” is not used in Summorum Pontificum. In my post I stated that it is used in the “Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the bishops of the world to present the “Motu Proprio” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reforms of 1970.” This was the letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum in order to ease the fears of those bishops who may have felt the Vatican was backtracking on the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council. The Holy Father clearly states that such is not the case.

 

[Ockham]

It is false if you believe that the modern Church and the liturgy presently in use incorporates and continues the living traditions of the Church which have continued since the time of the Apostles. I do believe that.

Bugnini himself said his new creation was completely different from the Tridentine Mass. How then is it a continuation of tradition? Have you seen a Lutheran service? The NO has more in common with it than the traditional liturgy of the oldest Christian religion.

Even Catholic Churches I drive by have made a change. The correct term for our liturgy is “Most Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass”, yet I’ve seen things like “Eucharistic Service”, and “Sunday Liturgy”. Does the "spirit of Vatican II’ justify these terms? Would it be un-Catholic to change them back?

The correct term for what most Catholics do Sunday mornings would be something like:

• sleep in
• golf
• fish
• shop
• garden

 

[mangy_dog]

“The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”

We could shorten that to “TEFotRR”

We could shorten “The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite” to “TOFotRR”

I suppose, all kidding aside, it does make sense to simply use EF for “The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”.

And OF for the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite”

However, “TLM” looks better in print than “EF”
But, I will have to say that I think that “OF” is preferable to “NO”

I often see BVM for our Blessed Virgin Mary, which, when I first became a Catholic seemed odd to me - sort of like a name of a car.

I have never been able to bring myself to actually use “BVM” in my writings but I understand why many do.

WLMO…whatever lets move on.