Which Term Do You Use When You Speak of The Latin Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duke_of_Mantua
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Duke_of_Mantua

Guest
I personally like The Mass of All Time: It sounds epic and timeless.

:highprayer:

Many Catholics don’t have a clue so I then respond with “The Latin Mass”

🤷
 
It depends on the context.

I don’t like saying “the Latin Mass”, because it ties the extraordinary form to the Latin language and has an implication that the ordinary form is not said in Latin. If I am writing about it online I often say the EF, but used to say the Mass of Bl. Pope John XXIII.
 
I use EF of the Mass. On rare occassion I use TLM.

Since Mass of the Ages and Mass of all Time pertain equally to the ordinary and extraordinary form, they aren’t very useful as a descriptor.
 
It depends who I am speaking with. It is common for Traditionalists, who are speaking to one another, to refer to it as “the Mass”. But if I am speaking to someone who is not Traditional, I will refer to it as the Traditional Mass, or “true Mass” if I am trying to get their goat.
 
I use the Mass of 1962 or the Mass of Bl John XXIII.

I really hate the way “extraordinary form” seems to have become the common epithet. Yes, His Holiness used that phrase in Summorum Pontificum, but only in the same breath as one of the terms above*. It also makes it sound as if there will only ever be one extraordinary form, and I am not sure I want to place such a limit on this or future popes. :twocents:

(* And much less frequently. 2 or 3 extraordinary forms vs 7ish for the terms above)

tee
 
I have used the “Traditional Latin Mass” or TLM for short, for so long now, it just sounds right.👍
 
The Holy Father has also called it “usus antiquor” which I half-like, but I have also heard it referred to as the “Classical Roman rite”, which I quite like the ring of.
 
I use the Mass of 1962 or the Mass of Bl John XXIII.

I really hate the way “extraordinary form” seems to have become the common epithet. Yes, His Holiness used that phrase in Summorum Pontificum,…

tee
Let’s not forget that when our new Pope was Cardinal Ratzinger, he called the new Mass “a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”. Kind of catchy, isn’t it? 😉
 
Let’s not forget that when our new Pope was Cardinal Ratzinger, he called the new Mass “a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”. Kind of catchy, isn’t it? 😉
And I would be likewise uncomfortable if that phrase became a common epithet for the current Mass (which, whatever anyone might say about it, is still the primary means of providing the Eucharist – The Source and Summit to the Christian life).

(FTR, I hate the stoopid term *Novus Ordo *:rolleyes: too)

tee
 
Just as there is “Coke Classic”, I prefer the “Classical Use” 🙂
 
It depends who I am speaking with. It is common for Traditionalists, who are speaking to one another, to refer to it as “the Mass”. But if I am speaking to someone who is not Traditional, I will refer to it as the Traditional Mass, or “true Mass” if I am trying to get their goat.
So are you saying that the Novus Ordo is not “The Mass” While I prefer the Novus Ordo, I certainly consider myself to be a traditional orthodox Catholic in every sense of the word. Look at the benefits the vernacular has when evangelizing in countries where people do not have the benefit of an educational system that we have. Many are illiterate. Their being able to understand what is going on is a great benefit to those who are evangelizing in these countries. Don’t look at just your own back yard. Remember the Church is among other things Universal.
Prayers and Blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
I really hate the way “extraordinary form” seems to have become the common epithet. Yes, His Holiness used that phrase in Summorum Pontificum, but only in the same breath as one of the terms above*. It also makes it sound as if there will only ever be one extraordinary form, and I am not sure I want to place such a limit on this or future popes.
But the same can be said of the “ordinary form.” Come to think of it, there are already many “ordinary forms,” for different vernaculars and different canons.

You did bring up a good point, though.
 
[Please don’t hijack this thread, but: ]
But the same can be said of the “ordinary form.” Come to think of it, there are already many “ordinary forms,” for different vernaculars and different canons.

You did bring up a good point, though.
I would disagree. There is one “ordinary form”, or as they say in Latin *editio typica *-- The current Missal, the Mass, the one with respect to which others must distinguish themselves. And it should not require a stoopid retronymic adjective like “ordinary form” or novus ordo.

(I go on the same rant about doughnuts, my favorite flavor of which should not require an adjective like “home cut” or “plain” or whatever – It is a doughnut (without adjectives))

tee
 
But the same can be said of the “ordinary form.” Come to think of it, there are already many “ordinary forms,” for different vernaculars and different canons.

You did bring up a good point, though.
Which begs the question: so is the “ordinary form” just ordinary?
 
Which begs the question: so is the “ordinary form” just ordinary?
Until and unless you both agree on the definition of ordinary, as you are discussing it, you will both be talking over the others head.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
I tend to use “The Latin Mass” when I speak of The Latin Mass. 🙂

I then tend to use “the English-language Mass” when speaking of the Novus Ordo, because if I were to use “the English Mass” it makes me wonder if someone might confuse English with Anglican.

Silly maybe, but that’s just how my brain works. 😛

~~ the phoenix
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top