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

  • Thread starter Thread starter savedbychrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. A rite is more than just a liturgy. The Byzantine Rite, for instance, has a unique spirituality, theology, set of disciplines (including a different code of canon law than the Latin Rite), hierarchy, etc. Not every rite is equally distinct, but it’s incorrect to reduce a rite to the Mass/Divine Liturgy it uses.
 
Doesn’t all this depend on WHO is responsible?

The Bishop of Rome issued the EF and the OF, so they are forms of the Roman rite.

Dominicans made adaptations to the ritual they celebrated, so these are their rite, and not a form of what Rome published.

The Sarum use was published by the bishop of Salisbury, so it is not a form. (This might be the conter example to my idea…)
 
IMHO, if one were to lay out the EF and along side it the OF, one would see where the deletions are (e.g. prayers at the foot of the altar, the Last Gospel) were removed, and where the additions are (e.g. Psalm , OT reading).

The other main issue is the language; the EF is in Latin, the OF is in the vernacular (and yes, I know it was promulgated and can be said in Latin).

Thus, it really is not a “complete re-do” it is a series of modifications of the one rite (the EF), as per the language of SC. The structure is identical; some additions over time were deleted, and some things lost over time were put back in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top