Which is a better term: Traditional, TLM, or EF?

[4gsd]

Recently, in our Diocesan newpaper there was an article printed regarding The Tridentine Mass. There are 4 Churches in my Diocese that offer a Tridentine Mass. Throughout the article though, this Mass was referred to as "The Traditional Mass’. In some respects, I find this refrence somewhat offensive. Referring to The Tridentine Mass as “The Traditional Mass” ‘could’ imply that The Mass I just attended was…well…‘un-traditional’. It would seem to me that both forms are traditional and that by imparting qualifying adjectives (especially in print) to each Mass form, only serves to A. confuse and B. further divide in a covert suggestion that one form is better than the other form. Both forms of The Mass celebrate the Mystery of our Church. Neither should have a ‘value judgement’ attached either directly or by implication.
Thoughts ???

 

[Big_Feet]

I believe the correct terms that the church uses, and should use is the “Ordinary Form” for the 1969 missal (current form) and “Extraordinary Form” for the liturgies using the 1962 missal.

 

[4gsd]

Yes big_feet, that would have a much better description in the article I read.

 

[TrueLight]

Recently, in our Diocesan newpaper there was an article printed regarding The Tridentine Mass. There are 4 Churches in my Diocese that offer a Tridentine Mass. Throughout the article though, this Mass was referred to as "The Traditional Mass’. In some respects, I find this refrence somewhat offensive. Referring to The Tridentine Mass as “The Traditional Mass” ‘could’ imply that The Mass I just attended was…well…‘un-traditional’. It would seem to me that both forms are traditional and that by imparting qualifying adjectives (especially in print) to each Mass form, only serves to A. confuse and B. further divide in a covert suggestion that one form is better than the other form. Both forms of The Mass celebrate the Mystery of our Church. Neither should have a ‘value judgement’ attached either directly or by implication.
Thoughts ???

Whether the current term that is being used now by a small minority is Extraordinary Form, is it not the Traditional mass?

Would newspaper readers know what is meant by Forma Extraordinaria?

If you do a search all over the internet, is it not referred to as the traditional Latin mass?



And that’s about all I’m going to say, because this is going to be one of those topics I should avoid.

 

[adstrinity]

Well, if you attend the Ordinary Form, it is non-traditional. Why are you offended by that?

 

[zab]

Recently, in our Diocesan newpaper there was an article printed regarding The Tridentine Mass. There are 4 Churches in my Diocese that offer a Tridentine Mass. Throughout the article though, this Mass was referred to as "The Traditional Mass’. In some respects, I find this refrence somewhat offensive. Referring to The Tridentine Mass as “The Traditional Mass” ‘could’ imply that The Mass I just attended was…well…‘un-traditional’. It would seem to me that both forms are traditional and that by imparting qualifying adjectives (especially in print) to each Mass form, only serves to A. confuse and B. further divide in a covert suggestion that one form is better than the other form. Both forms of The Mass celebrate the Mystery of our Church. Neither should have a ‘value judgement’ attached either directly or by implication.
Thoughts ???

Are you sure that the Diocesan newspaper referred to the Tridentine Mass as “The Traditional Mass”? If so, it may have been a error in printing. I have seen it referred to as “The Traditional Latin Mass”. I have no problem with that.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I edited the title. When you start a thread, please use titles that are short and that tell the person browsing exactly what the thread is about.

Thanks

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, if you attend the Ordinary Form, it is non-traditional. Why are you offended by that?

Can you explain how following the Church and its disciplines (which the form of the Mass is) is non-traditional?

I am offended by your act of redefining what the word traditional means within the Catholic Church.

 

[odile53]

I think that what the magisterium set as a reference, the Extraordinary Form, is probably currently the most accurate description, simply because it is not ordinarily celebrated. If there is a tremendous increase in the availability of the EF Mass, so that it was as available as the Ordinary Form, the Church may have to call it something else. Personally, I hope that happy day arrives.

However, that terminology (EF and OF) works for a Catholic audience. Many non-Catholics would probably not have a clue as to what it means. So in secular media perhaps the Latin Mass would be a better reference that the noncognoscenti could understand.

Realistically speaking, there are probably a lot of Catholics who wouldn’t pick up at first on Tridentine Mass. Last weekend, I overheard a fellow parishioner refer to the Tridentine Mass, except she pronounced it Try-Den-Teen. Sounded like she was talking about chewing gum! Also, recall that every Mass said in Latin is not necessarily the Tridentine Mass, I have heard the Ordinary Form said with many parts of the canon in Latin instead of English.

Just my 2 cents on the matter!

 

[adstrinity]

Can you explain how following the Church and its disciplines (which the form of the Mass is) is non-traditional?

I am offended by your act of redefining what the word traditional means within the Catholic Church.

I do not accept your premise as the form of the Mass being a, “discipline.” Stop re-defining.

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition

Definition of TRADITION

1
a**:** an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b**:** a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

2
: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

3
: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

4
: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

— tra·di·tion·al -ˈdish-nəl, -ˈdi-shə-nəl*adjective*
— tra·di·tion·al·lyadverb
— tra·di·tion·less -ˈdi-shən-ləs*adjective*

The OF of the Mass that has been around for only 50 years does not follow the definition. I’m not saying it’s not valid, I’m saying it’s not traditional.

 

[Aramis]

Adstrinity:

the missal in use in 1962 was not the same one as in 1950, nor either of them as 1900… and neither of them was the one approved by the Council of Trent. Small changes, a rubric here, a rubric there, occasionally a wording… and that before accounting for circum-liturgical accretions like the Leonine prayers.

There was a near constant tinkering with the Roman Missal by the popes throughout time.

So it was no more “traditional” in that sense than the current OF missal.

 

[adstrinity]

Adstrinity:

the missal in use in 1962 was not the same one as in 1950, nor either of them as 1900… and neither of them was the one approved by the Council of Trent. Small changes, a rubric here, a rubric there, occasionally a wording… and that before accounting for circum-liturgical accretions like the Leonine prayers.

Yes, I know this. Like I said, these changes came about organically.

There was a near constant tinkering with the Roman Missal by the popes throughout time.

This I do not know.

So it was no more “traditional” in that sense than the current OF missal.

No, this is where you are wrong. An entire council was held to re-define parts of the Mass, literally, to re-define actual parts: Mass of the Catechumens and Mass of the Faithful are now Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist, etc. These changes did not come about naturally by the laity (as, I have heard, was the reason we hear the Gospel of John after every EF Low Mass) but were done by a comittee.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, this is where you are wrong. An entire council was held to re-define parts of the Mass, literally, to re-define actual parts: Mass of the Catechumens and Mass of the Faithful are now Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist, etc. These changes did not come about naturally by the laity (as, I have heard, was the reason we hear the Gospel of John after every EF Low Mass) but were done by a comittee.

What council was this? There was no such thing.

Anyways, how is a council non-traditional?

It is sad to see a people calling the Eucharistic liturgy in any form non-traditional.

 

[adstrinity]

What council was this? There was no such thing.

Anyways, how is a council non-traditional?

It is sad to see a people calling the Eucharistic liturgy in any form non-traditional.

The Second Vatican Council.

I didn’t say a council is non-traditional, but, a council stepping in and saying that the Mass is going to be celebrated a new way, i.e., not the way that it has been done, is non-traditional.

 

[Aeolian]

Recently, in our Diocesan newpaper there was an article printed regarding The Tridentine Mass. There are 4 Churches in my Diocese that offer a Tridentine Mass. Throughout the article though, this Mass was referred to as "The Traditional Mass’. In some respects, I find this refrence somewhat offensive. Referring to The Tridentine Mass as “The Traditional Mass” ‘could’ imply that The Mass I just attended was…well…‘un-traditional’. It would seem to me that both forms are traditional and that by imparting qualifying adjectives (especially in print) to each Mass form, only serves to A. confuse and B. further divide in a covert suggestion that one form is better than the other form. Both forms of The Mass celebrate the Mystery of our Church. Neither should have a ‘value judgement’ attached either directly or by implication.
Thoughts ???

“EF”

That’s what Pope Benedict XVI told us to use.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Second Vatican Council.

I didn’t say a council is non-traditional, but, a council stepping in and saying that the Mass is going to be celebrated a new way, i.e., not the way that it has been done, is non-traditional.

So you think the council was called to “re-define” the Mass?

Can you point to which documents do this.

 

[4gsd]

My point, is that when a newspaper refers to something as traditional, it could add fuel to the debate that “the other” is un-traditional. If, viewed in the context of history, yes, possibly calling what was done in the past as traditional is accurate. However, both forms of our Mass are part of our Churches tradition. In the context of the article, to a lay reader and even to some Catholics, the use of the term traditional could be read as a “value judgement” on the EF Mass. BOTH are traditional forms of our Mass.
Perhaps I am finding fault with the editor of the article !
As a Catholic I do have some problems when our Church practices are reduced to “pre” or “post” Vatican II. It reminds me of American politics…right or left. Very divisive.

 

[Morgan_Hiver]

The EF is the Traditional Mass. Whether you accept it or not doesn’t change the fact that it is the traditional mass. I’m surprised that calling it the Extraordinary (remarkable) Form doesn’t offend you more, or that fact that they call the Novus (NEW) Ordo (order) the Ordinary Form. What sounds so reverent about an ordinary mass?

 

[Paxvobis]

I refer to it as the Traditional Latin Mass.

It’s funny to me how people call the TLM “THE Extraordinary Form” when Pope Benedict in the Motu Proprio as “AN extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church.” That said, I think that any of these terms (Traditional, TLM, or EF) would be appropriate. Simply calling it the Latin Mass is vague since the Novus Ordo can also be celebrated in Latin.

Speaking of the Novus Ordo, I think it’s unfortunate that that term has been turned into an insult against the ordinary form of the Mass in the Roman Rite.

 

[Morgan_Hiver]

Or perhaps it is unfortunate that there is something there which can be easily insulted?