The Extraordinary Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joy2day
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joy2day

Guest
Ok, can anyone explain what is ‘the Extraordinary Form’ of the Mass? I know it gets discussed here, but I don’t know what it means in practicality. Is it any different from the usual mass on Sunday’s/during the week?

Thanking you in advance.
 
The EF Mass is how Mass was celebrated prior to Vatican II. It is said in Latin, the Priests faces away from the people, etc. Most of it is the same (not counting the Latin).
 
Hello,

If you can’t go to such a Mass in person, you can go to this website, watch the daily, “Extraordinary Form” Mass, and see for yourself. There are significant differences but the basic “outline” of the Mass is the same in both forms.

livemass.org/LiveMass/daily.html

Dan
 
There are two forms of the same right - the Latin Rite.

The Extraordinary form is celebrated in the Latin language, there are differences in gestures for both the priest and laity and, in general, the laity is less involved in terms of external responses in the EF.

There are no theological differences between the two… there are as Cardinal Ratzinger once stated “different spiritual and theological emphases” which stylistically appeal to different people differently, but neither is superior to the other in terms of the celebration of the Eucharist.
 
Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. 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, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. 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. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. 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. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Peace,
Ed
 
Joy2day said:
Ok, can anyone explain what is ‘the Extraordinary Form’ of the Mass? I know it gets discussed here, but I don’t know what it means in practicality. Is it any different from the usual mass on Sunday’s/during the week?

Thanking you in advance.
Click to expand...
The Latin Mass or the Tridentine Mass is the Mass that has been celebrated in the Roman rite essentially unchanged since Gregory the Great reformed the Canon in the sixth century. This has been the universal liturgy of the Roman rite from that time until Vatican II created the Novus Ordo Mass in the 1960’s. This is the “Ordinary Form” that you are most likely familiar with.

The Novus Ordo Mass is** NOT** just an English translation of the Tridentine Mass. It is substantially different.
 
Among the most apparent differences is the basix texts of the mass. While the basic outlines are the same, prayers were ommitted (e.g. Munda cor meum) or altered (e.g. Confiteor), usually to a briefer form. The lectionary is very different. The new mass has three principle readings (Reading I, Reading II and Gospel) whereas the old mass had two readings (Epistle and Gospel). Additionally, the new mass lectionary contains a three-year cycle whereas the old mass had the same readings each year. The new mass also generally has more outward congregational participation (e.g. in the old mass the congregation does not normally recite the Confiteor). Those are at least some of the most obvious differences.

(The EF and OF masses side-by-side.)

There are also differences between how the two forms of mass are usually celebrated rather than the forms themselves. In my experience, these include celebrating mass facing the congregation, singing traditional Protestant-style hymns (I don’t know the proper name for the genre, but you know what I mean) or contemporary-style hymns rather than the mass propers, using vernacular languages, employing lay readers and EMHCs, approaching communion in single-file lines rather than in rows (at a railing), less “smells and bells” and so on. Many of these practices could be applied to the EF mass, whether licitly or illicitly, but are not because of the sensibilities of those interested in the old mass.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
(The EF and OF masses side-by-side.)
Click to expand...
No disrespect intended but this is a completely disingenuous comparison.

Look at the Gloria and Credo, for example. It’s exactly the same in the Latin, yet it shows differences in your example. There are other instances of such “differences.” There are some legitimate differences between the forms but if one is to compare, it should be done with the originals, not in the translations. It’s a mistake done by many to unfairly discredit one form or the other, even to the point of calling one form invalid, which of course it isn’t.

The English (or Spanish, for that matter) subform, of course, is another story.
 
ProVobis said:
No disrespect intended but this is a completely disingenuous comparison.

Look at the Gloria and Credo, for example. It’s exactly the same in the Latin, yet it shows differences in your example. There are other instances of such “differences.” There are some legitimate differences between the forms but if one is to compare, it should be done with the originals, not in the translations. It’s a mistake done by many to unfairly discredit one form or the other, even to the point of calling one form invalid, which of course it isn’t.

The English (or Spanish, for that matter) subform, of course, is another story.
Click to expand...
Thanks PV.
 
ProVobis said:
No disrespect intended but this is a completely disingenuous comparison.

Look at the Gloria and Credo, for example. It’s exactly the same in the Latin, yet it shows differences in your example. There are other instances of such “differences.” There are some legitimate differences between the forms but if one is to compare, it should be done with the originals, not in the translations. It’s a mistake done by many to unfairly discredit one form or the other, even to the point of calling one form invalid, which of course it isn’t.

The English (or Spanish, for that matter) subform, of course, is another story.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that the author intended any such thing. The author is likely using whatever translation for the EF in the missal they had on hand (since there is no official translation) and using the former official English translation (note the "also with you"s). The author cannot be faulted for not making his own translation of the EF. So I think it is disingenuous for you to say that the comparison is disingenuous, especially since the author nowhere discredits or calls the new mass invalid. While it would be ideal for comparison purposes to translate the EF text in conformity with the English translation of the OF where possible, the comparison on that page suffices to convey the differences.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
I don’t think that the author intended any such thing. The author is likely using whatever translation for the EF in the missal they had on hand (since there is no official translation) and using the former official English translation (note the "also with you"s). The author cannot be faulted for not making his own translation of the EF. So I think it is disingenuous for you to say that the comparison is disingenuous, especially since the author nowhere discredits or calls the new mass invalid. While it would be ideal for comparison purposes to translate the EF text in conformity with the English translation of the OF where possible, the comparison on that page suffices to convey the differences.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with the assertion that one form is invalid then?
 
No, I do not believe that the new mass is invalid and I don’t see anything in my post suggesting such.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
While it would be ideal for comparison purposes to translate the EF text in conformity with the English translation of the OF where possible, the comparison on that page suffices to convey the differences.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I think you’re missing the point. That link would be of no value to someone who attends, for example, the Spanish Mass exclusively, who might otherwise be interested in the changes. And for someone who attends the Latin OF, he would have probably not heard many changes, since many of the silent prayers of the priest were removed. It might be of more value to demonstrate the visuals. Just sayin…
 
Kyrie_eleison_9 said:
…This has been the universal liturgy of the Roman rite from that time until Vatican II created the Novus Ordo Mass in the 1960’s…
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, while what we call the EF was the most widely used rite up until recently (in Church time) it was not “universal” in that it was the only rite exclusively used. The Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dominican, Carmelite and Carthusian rites were and continue to be used in the Latin Church.

Also, Vatican II created no new mass and changed nothing in the EF mass. Nada. Zip. Nothing. The council did not ever have the power to do that. The Pope created the new mass. Yes, he may have been influenced by some of the writings of the council and no, he did not craft it personally, however only the Pope has the authority to change the mass. To say “Vatican II changed…” is incorrect.
 
godisgood77 said:
There are two forms of the same right - the Latin Rite.
There are no theological differences between the two… there are as Cardinal Ratzinger once stated “different spiritual and theological emphases” which stylistically appeal to different people differently, but neither is superior to the other in terms of the celebration of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Where can I find this statement by Ratzinger?
 
Joy2day said:
Ok, can anyone explain what is ‘the Extraordinary Form’ of the Mass? I know it gets discussed here, but I don’t know what it means in practicality. Is it any different from the usual mass on Sunday’s/during the week?

Thanking you in advance.
Click to expand...
It is the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal, in latin.

It is sometimes misused to refer to the Mass according to the Dominican Missal (also in Latin). But properly, that isn’t the EF, since the EF is the 1962 Roman Missal.

The Ordinary Form is the 1969 missal, and its translations, and the two minor revisions of it since.

In both the EF and Dominican Masses, there is one epistle, and the gospel; there is no routine reading from the prophets (tho’ certain feasts do so). The priest usually stands facing the same direction as the people, except when reading to them, blessing them, or instructing them.

There are fewer options for the celebrant than in the Ordinary Form. The rubrics are much stricter. Translations are not used, except for the Dalmatian missal. (Tho’ most parishioners’ handmissals include translations.) There’s only one standard Eucharistic Prayer. Concelebration is not allowed, per se, except for a pontifical high mass.

There are 4 distinct types of mass under the EF: The Pontifical High Mass, the Solemn High Mass, the Sung Mass, and the Low Mass. A 5th is a minor variation on the low mass - and that’s the private low mass without the faithful. They differ in the rubrics, and in exactly which prayers are taken during the introit, prayers of thanksgiving, and dismissal.
 
Joy2day said:
Ok, can anyone explain what is ‘the Extraordinary Form’ of the Mass? I know it gets discussed here, but I don’t know what it means in practicality. Is it any different from the usual mass on Sunday’s/during the week?

Thanking you in advance.
Click to expand...
The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) did a great video explaining the Extraordinary Form of the Mass a few years ago. I’ve watched it several times to help gain a greater understanding of it!

youtube.com/watch?v=qXwHX39mA5E
 
TheDoctor said:
Just to be clear, while what we call the EF was the most widely used rite up until recently (in Church time) it was not “universal” in that it was the only rite exclusively used. The Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan, Dominican, Carmelite and Carthusian rites were and continue to be used in the Latin Church.

Also, Vatican II created no new mass and changed nothing in the EF mass. Nada. Zip. Nothing. The council did not ever have the power to do that. The Pope created the new mass. Yes, he may have been influenced by some of the writings of the council and no, he did not craft it personally, however only the Pope has the authority to change the mass. To say “Vatican II changed…” is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Technically, each head of rite has the nominal authority to change their missal, excepting that the Dominican head of Rite is forbidden to change anything.

The Pope is head of Rite for the Roman Rite and the Dalmatian Rite.
The Archbishops of Toledo, Braga, and Florence are the heads of rite of the Mozarabic, Bragan, and Ambrosian rites, respectively.
The Superior General of the Dominican Order is the Head of Rite of the Dominican Rite, but due to the way the rite was created, the only changes allowed are to the propers.

Also, the council fathers called upon Pope Paul VI to remove some of the accretions to the Missal, and revise the rubrics a bit. HH Paul VI did well more than the council asked him to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top