What makes the Ordinary "Form" a "form" instead of a rite?

[savedbychrist]

Exactly what criteria determine that it is a form within one rite, instead of a separate rite?

Also, is the Dominican “Rite” a rite, or a form within the Roman Rite (or neither)? It stemmed out from the EF, and is more similar to the EF than the OF is to the EF.

 

[Fauken]

Also, is the Dominican “Rite” a rite, or a form within the Roman Rite (or neither)? It stemmed out from the EF, and is more similar to the EF than the OF is to the EF.

No, it did not stem from the EF. It is at least 200 years older than the EF.

 

[CRM_Brother]

When applied to masses in the Western Church, Rites were differentiated at the Council of Trent from the standard Roman Rite primarily due to remaining unchanged for over 200 years. As such, when Trent created their version of the new Roman Rite mass, it was to cut down new and superfluous additions to the mass which had built up over time. Any mass or liturgy over two hundred years old was preserved and given a distinct status as a rite. Among these were the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, Franciscan, etc. The difference between these rites and the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms is that the Forms were created within an already existing rite. The OF was meant to replace the EF. Allowing both the EF and OF to coexist as rites would be like the Council of Trent allowing all the various pre-existing masses to be practiced as rites alongside the Tridentine liturgy. Even if you look at the modern EF in the light of Trent’s 200 year rule, it would fail. The modern EF is not the liturgy promulgated at Trent. It had been changed many times since Trent. It was the ever changing nature of the mass up to Vatican II that allowed for the creation of the OF, even within the standards of Trent. The mass celebrated at the time of the Council was only about 60-70 years old, dating from Pope Leo XIII.

 

[BartholomewB]

@savedbychrist, by coincidence, @gama232 answered your question yesterday on another thread:

Are you required to accept the Second Vatican Council? Moral Theology

I encourage the OP to ignore the weird fascination here with the SSPX. About Vatican II. It did nothing wrong, however, after it ended, dissenters decided to form organized groups to attack the Church from the inside and from the outside. To attack Western society. To corrupt it. I was there before and after Vatican II. I obeyed Holy Mother Church the first day I saw a smaller altar below the high altar. When the priest faced the people and spoke English. Obedience was required before and it was…

 

[Maximian]

t is at least 200 years older than the EF.

Are you under the impression that the EF did not exist before Trent …?

 

[Fauken]

Are you under the impression that the EF did not exist before Trent …?

That’s not what I mean. The Mass of Pius V, or the Tridentine Mass, did not exist before Trent. It is this Mass that the EF is based from, as the EF is the Mass as the Tridentine Mass with revisions done in 1962. Before Trent there were variations in the Mass depending on what city you were in, which is why groups like the Dominicans created their own rites that their members could share and celebrate in common. Regardless, the Dominican rite existed before the Council of Trent, and did not stem from the Tridentine Mass.

 

[Maximian]

The fact that Trent standardized the Roman rite does not mean it did not exist before then. There was no revision of the Roman Rite at Trent even approaching the scale of the revisions of the 1960s

 

[Fauken]

The fact that Trent standardized the Roman rite does not mean it did not exist before then. There was no revision of the Roman Rite at Trent even approaching the scale of the revisions of the 1960s

Which of the dozens of forms then that existed before Trent is the EF? How is it that they can be called the EF when they have multiple differences between each other, but the EF doesn’t? How can they be called the EF when they have elements that the EF doesn’t, and vice versa? If all of those Masses are the EF, why do the FSSP et al. require special permission to celebrate a Mass from the 1955 revisions?

 

[TomH1]

The fact that Trent standardized the Roman rite does not mean it did not exist before then. There was no revision of the Roman Rite at Trent even approaching the scale of the revisions of the 1960s

The Roman Rite, the rite of the see of Rome most definitely existed prior to the Council of Trent. However, the Tridentine Mass did not. Tridentine is an adjective derived from Trent. It was not called Tridentine prior to the Missal promulgated by Pius V.

 

[TomH1]

The OP asks about ‘forms’. However, is it true that the technically correct term is ‘use’. I understand there are various liturgical rites and different kinds of the same rite are called 'uses.

For example, the Ordinary Form, Extraordinary Form, and Ordinariate Divine Worship are all uses of the Roman Rite.

Alas, I cannot give a definitive difference between a rite and a use. Perhaps someone will come along and enlighten us.

 

[Maximian]

We call Tridentine the Mass which the Council of Trent approved, a Mass which had long pre- existed.

Likewise we call the Clementine Vulgate the Vulgate approved by Clement. This does not mean he wrote it or did more than take decisions between variants.

 

[savedbychrist]

No, it did not stem from the EF. It is at least 200 years older than the EF.

Thanks for your correction. Is it correct to say that, the Dominican Rite and the Tridentine Mass (Mass of Pius V) were developed from a common Missal?

 

[Fauken]

Is it correct to say that, the Dominican Rite and the Tridentine Mass (Mass of Pius V) were developed from a common Missal?

I’m not very up on my history regarding either, so I can’t say. Although personally, given that Pius V was a Dominican, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tridentine Mass turned it to be a bit inspired by the Dominican rite. But that’s could be my Dominican bias talking.

 

[Vico]

Exactly what criteria determine that it is a form within one rite, instead of a separate rite?

Also, is the Dominican “Rite” a rite, or a form within the Roman Rite (or neither)? It stemmed out from the EF, and is more similar to the EF than the OF is to the EF.

The Latin Church has several liturgies:

• Roman Rite (Extraordinary Form, Ordinary Form, Zaire Use, Anglican Use)
• Gallican Rite (Ambrosian, Braga, Hispanic, Lyonese)
• Rites of various Catholic orders

 

[phil19034]

The OP asks about ‘forms’. However, is it true that the technically correct term is ‘use’. I understand there are various liturgical rites and different kinds of the same rite are called 'uses.

For example, the Ordinary Form, Extraordinary Form, and Ordinariate Divine Worship are all uses of the Roman Rite.

Alas, I cannot give a definitive difference between a rite and a use. Perhaps someone will come along and enlighten us.

From what I understand,
“Form” means it is the exact same Rite & use, just an older version or revision of the missal and/or breviary.

“Use” is a modified missal and/or breviary that is NOT a revision but a distinct missal and/or breviary based on another Rite. Typically they were INTENDED to be limited in its “use” (i.e. only at one Cathedral, etc).

NOTE: there are some disagreement when a Use becomes a Rite. For example the Sarum Rite is also called the Sarum Use and there is disagreement of whether it was a Rite or Use at the time of the Council of Trent. However, I think today once can easily argue that it is now a Rite because it is very different from the 1962 Missal.

So in closing, I look at it like this:

• a “Form” is simply a version or revision of the same Rite/Use
• a Use is a distinct liturgy which is on the evolutionary path towards becoming its own Rite

 

[Paul_Edwards]

To be honest it is more of a language issue than everything, because the reality is obvious. I have heard from two priests of the Fraternity of St Peter about this and they said something along these lines:

Priest one said that it is only the same rite for the purpose of law and in order to distinguish itself from the eastern rites, but that in practice it is a different rite.

Priest two said there are some, like for example Pope Benedict “whom we love very much” who see them as the same rite, “I am however not of that view” he added.

It’s a language issue about how best to describe the difference. There is in law ie in theory and then there is in practice and what is obvious and observable. There is no absolute answer as such, a decision was made by Pope Benedict about how to categorize the difference decades after the new rite had already came out, but whether that was the best way to describe the difference is an open question, unlike the question of them both being equally valid of course (which they are) and that is not up for discussion on the contrary.

I think what Phil has said makes sense. The FSSP calls their mass the Extraordinary form on paper, but most of their priests (and probably all) would probably say that they see it as a different rite if you asked them.

A good question is, it is ideal to even use the term Form? We do currently use the term and it’s not a moral question and it doesn’t matter to much. We must however remember that in some ways the old rite is more like the eastern rites than it is like the new rite, as has been observed by many visitors from the eastern rites who think that one mass is so much like there’s and the other isn’t. Both masses are basically regulated by the Roman Church geographically, and it is in that sense that the new rite is part of the “Roman Rite”, but in another sense (the style itself) the old mass has a very direct Roman character whereas the new mass (which is equally valid) does not have the same explicit Roman style in practice, it is rather more implicit and spiritual

 

[gama232]

Pope Benedict XVI:

"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.”

 

[Genesis315]

The word “rite” has different meanings. As the old CE puts it:

But here we must distinguish two uses of the word. We speak of any one such religious function as a rite — the rite of the blessing of palms, the coronation rite, etc. In a slightly different sense we call the whole complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches a rite-thus we speak of the Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, and various Eastern rites.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm

In the first sense, the EF is certainly a distinct rite from the OF. In the second sense, it is not. It seems to me nowadays, where a particular rite (second sense) has multiple rites (first sense) for the same purpose, they tend to be called “uses” or “forms.”

 

[CRM_Brother]

The Dominican and Franciscan Rites were not necessarily full liturgical rites before Trent but rather common practices standardized amongst the various friaries and scholas which were then applied to the local mass of the region or diocese. This can be seen in the fact that there are no episcopal sees of the Franciscan, Dominican rites like the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites. Instead, the Prefect General is the Ordinary of their rite, just as a bishop is the ordinary of a diocese. At Trent, while the multitude of local masses were edited to form the Tridentine Mass, the Council saw the value in preserving those ancient traditions and so approved the merging of the Orders’ traditions with the new mass. This is why there are so many similarities between the Order rites and the Roman Mass, both when celebrated alongside the OF and the EF. The same care was taken after Vatican II to merge the new mass with the Orders’ traditions. The biggest difference between the Orders’ rites and the Roman rite lie in their Liturgy of the Hours, not necessarily in the Mass. The formation of the Roman breviary at Trent was based upon this long religious tradition but did not want to intrude upon the spirituality expressed within their Liturgies of the Hours so the Council created a generic one specific to the Roman rite.

 

[TomH1]

We call Tridentine the Mass which the Council of Trent approved, a Mass which had long pre- existed.

The Council of Trent approved the Rite of Rome, required it to be the standard rite throughout the Church, excepting rites of at least 200 years provenance, and Pius V made changes which he promulgated in Quo Primum. It was not hugely different but changes were made as a result of the Council of Trent.