The Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are Mutually Enriching

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic03

Well-known member
Pope Benedict said that both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass are ‘mutually enriching’.

They are both equally acceptable, beautiful, and Catholic forms of the Roman Rite that each allow the Christian to obtain all the graces necessary for salvation.

Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I think this simple posts about loving God (because that is, at the end, Liturgy) are lovely 🙂
 
Here is an Ordinary Form Mass:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here is another Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Thank you for these posts. A picture is worth a thousand words here. And this is what most of us Catholics, regardless of our personal likes or choices regarding liturgy, do believe: The Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are, indeed, mutually enriching.
 
I never really understood how the ordinary form could enrich the extraordinary, since other than the extra OT reading, the prayers and rituals are all simplified (that was the goal)–it literally has less riches on purpose (not talking about the essentials of the sacrament and sacrifice). It’s like saying a Low Mass could enrich a High Mass. It doesn’t make sense. Rather, a Low Mass can be enriched by High Mass elements, like in a Missa Cantata.

I’ve never seen OF elements added to an EF Mass, and I don’t think it’s even allowed by the rubrics. Whereas, the more flexible and optional nature of an OF Mass admits to enrichment by adding OF elements as the pictures above show.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
I never really understood how the ordinary form could enrich the extraordinary, since other than the extra OT reading, the prayers and rituals are all simplified (that was the goal)–it literally has less riches on purpose (not talking about the essentials of the sacrament and sacrifice). It’s like saying a Low Mass could enrich a High Mass. It doesn’t make sense. Rather, a Low Mass can be enriched by High Mass elements, like in a Missa Cantata.

I’ve never seen OF elements added to an EF Mass, and I don’t think it’s even allowed by the rubrics. Whereas, the more flexible and optional nature of an OF Mass admits to enrichment by adding OF elements as the pictures above show.
Click to expand...
I think the major ways the OF enriches the EF are as follows:
  • Vernacular readings during the homily/sermon
  • priest preaches more homilies vs sermons - or at least some of their sermon is tied back to the readings.
  • laity giving responses with servers during high mass
  • priests (esp Diocesan ones) taking their time while praying the Latin Mass
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Anglican Use of the Roman Rite

I do somewhat agree with Genesis on the part of enriching, though I think both are acceptable, but to be mutual means that each Form has to bring out the beauty of each other. I think if one is focusing on the similarity of the rite, then yes it’s mutually enriching, but if one is focusing on the differences of the rite, then both mass would end up standing out from each other, where one ends up being better than the other depending on your comparison.
 
Genesis315 said:
I never really understood how the ordinary form could enrich the extraordinary,
Click to expand...
Here’s an indirect way.
The great majority of people who now choose to check out the EF were already attending the OF for years. Some of them had converted to the Catholic Faith, partly because they found the OF compatible with their prior Protestant background; then later checked out and liked the EF.

So the OF helps the EF by providing a steady stream of inquirers to the EF. Some like it, and remain. Think of the OF as a bridge for some people.
 
Last edited:
It comes down to how you are called. Some religious are drawn to monastic seclusion. Some are drawn to missionary work. Some are called to the extraordinary form of worship. Others are called to the inclusive aspect of the ordinary form.
 
I don’t agree with the statement. They each serve important and similar functions side by side, but any mutual enrichment is pretty superficial.

I also think you could make similar arguments about the Zaire and Anglican Uses.
 
When he says they are “mutually enriching”, his point is not that they both enrich the Church. His point is that they can enrich each other.

In our parish, both forms are offered. Some ways that I have seen the EF bleed into the OF:
  • Most (if not all) servers are male
  • Dalmatic, biretta, maniple, and amice vestments are used
  • Frontal is used on the altar to make it look more like a tomb and less like a table
  • Priests holds thumbs and forefingers together from consecration to ablutions
  • Slight bows during Creed and Gloria as in the EF
  • More Latin chant during Ordinary parts of the Mass
  • More signs of the Cross over Hosts/Chalice
    We have not gotten to having our OF Mass ad orientem yet, but that may happen.
As far as how our OF has bled into our EF Mass:
  • Deacon help distribute Holy Communion (they are not Ordinary Ministers of HC in the EF)
  • Seminarian chanting Epistle
  • Vernacular readings
  • People chanting the Pater Noster along with the Priest
Honestly, I don’t see as much influence of the OF on the EF. Most people coming to an EF Mass are wanting something different. Most people going from an EF to an OF want more immediate participation and understanding. The different forms each play their part in leading souls of varying temperaments to Eternal Reward. I think people are wrong when they say either form is absolutely more sanctifying for every person. Most people would find one form more helpful than the other.
 
Last edited:
Windmill said:
Honestly, I don’t see as much influence of the OF on the EF. Most people coming to an EF Mass are wanting something different. The different forms each play their part in leading souls of varying temperaments to Eternal Reward. I think people are wrong when they say either form is absolutely more sanctifying for every person. Most people would find one form more helpful than the other.
Click to expand...
I think this is very true although I do know more than a few people who move between both forms. I think in time the OF may be celebrated partly ad orientem - given that the rubrics already envisage this. However, there are still more than a few people with “baggage” from their experiences of the “old mass” who would strongly oppose this. It’s important that their voices aren’t ignored or dismissed as being “spittle flecked nutties” since their feelings are very genuine and arise out of experience. I have also already seen more use of Latin in the sanctus, memorial acclamation and agnus dei.

Besides the use of the vernacular, where I think the EF could be enriched by the OF is in the three year cycle of readings and the greater number of Eucharistic Prayers. Certainly when it comes to the Eucharistic Prayer, as a celebrant, it’s nice to be able not just to vary things but also to select a prayer which fits in well with a particular mass. At the moment, the Canon (EP I) is getting quite a but if airtime because it fits well with the solemn nature of the Triduum and Easter Octave. During Lent, the two Eucharistic Prayers for Reconciliation come into their own, while during Ordinary Time I like to use my personal favourite EP IV with it’s recounting of the history of salvation.

certainly, I would definitely agree though that it simply comes down to which one any particular person find more helpful for their spiritual life - as you rightly said, it doesn’t make either more sanctifying simply more helpful.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top