Why aren't people using the terms the Pope used?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In the Motu Proprio the Holy Father used the terms Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form of the Mass because he sees them as two different expressions of the same Mass.

Yet here it seems many still use the terms TLM (which is incorrect anyways as it is really referring to the 1962 revision of the Missal) and the NO.

What is it about the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form that people do not like?

 

[ribbit]

At least in my case, it is force of habit. While I am trying, I am simply not yet used to referring to the two forms using the ‘new’ names. And I don’t think anything has come out indicating that it is now improper to use the terms NO or TLM or that His Holiness expects the terminology to change. But I could be wrong about that.

 

[arieh0310]

I use the term Traditional Latin Mass because Ordinary and Extraordinary Form seems to me to be a juridical term to reintegrate the TLM into the life of the Church. I don’t want the NO to be the ordinary form of mass for the Latin Rite, I want the mass that has grown organically over the course of 15 centuries and formed the lives of innumerable saints to be the ordinary expression of Catholic worship.

 

[deigloriam]

I couldn’t agree more with the previous post.

 

[arieh0310]

Notice too that the Holy Father is using other terminology. In Spe Salvi he called the “extraordinary form” of baptism the “classical form” in paragraph 10.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

What is it about the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form that people do not like?

His Holiness has a great sense of humour. He is teasing Traditionalists about the extraordinary ministers of holy communion.

 

[francesco920]

The reason is because, as Father Zuhlsdorf has often pointed out, the Pope’s use of the terms “Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form” deals with a juridical question only:
Father Zuhlsdorf:

…by stating in *Summorum Pontificum *that there are two uses of one Roman Rite, Benedict has made a juridical distinction. This is critical to understand how Benedict derestricted the older form of Mass so elegantly.

By saying that, considered juridically, there is only one Rite in two uses, Benedict eliminated the need to grant special faculties (canonical “permission to say Mass” coming from proper authority) to say the older Mass. If a faculty can be given, it can be withheld or withdrawn. By saying that there is just one rite, juridically, Benedict has seen to it that if a priest has the faculty to say Mass in the Roman Rite at all, then he has the faculty to say either Mass, the older or newer form or use. This is a juridical distinction.

Benedict is not, I believe, saying that there is no longer a question of whether or not the Novus Ordo is, considered historically, liturgically, theologically, etc., a different Rite. This was an elegant *juridical *solution.

I think the question remains open about whether or not the Novus Ordo is really a different rite.

Frankly, I think it probably is. I think the changes made were different enough to constitute it as a different rite. I frankly think that that is what Benedict XVI thinks too, based on what I have read and also knowing the great esteem and harmony he has with Klaus Gamber.
A lot more study of this needs to be done and I sincerely think the door is still open for that study. The need is sure there!

That said, I thank His Holiness for the elegant juridical solution in *Summorum Pontificum *of considering there to be one Roman Rite, juridically considered.

Source

 

[havemercy]

Because while the Classical Roman Rite is extraordinary indeed, the “ordinary form” is not, in my uneducated but sensitive opinion, an organic development from the Church’s liturgical past. The liturgy was taken and mutilated, tossed together, and watered down, and super-imposed on the Church’s already matured liturgical tradition. I simply don’t take those terms seriously, as if they held intrinsic value. They’re good to hide behind in hostile territory, but they are ultimately meaningless insofar as they represent the reality as it is.

In my opinion, Benedict’s terminology in his motu proprio does not constitute a theological or Traditional statement, but a political one. I find it hard to believe that B16 sincerely believes that both “forms” share the same ethos. So far in his pontificate almost every move of the Holy Father’s seems to be geared toward the long-term - this is why Benedict’s motu proprio is so pastoral and harmless. He saw his predecessor Paul weep and so he knows that if he were to act rashly, and promulgate/abrogate something so influential in the life of the Church as the Novus Ordo Missae the Church would, like in 1970, be thrown into another identity crisis: more souls would probably be lost than gained, and more hearts would harden with pride and avarice than soften with charity and fidelity to God’s Fatherly plan.

Pray for Pope Benedict XVI!

 

[Darnok]

I’ve wondered if part of the issue is how much of the Church today grew up with the Tridentine Mass and how many grew up with the Vernacular Mass.
I am a cradle Catholic who grew up in the Post-V-II Church. I have never been to a Tridentine Mass in my life. I strongly believe that the traditional mass MUST be preserved. With the same strength that I believe that it should be preserved, I also believe that I personally am not called to be one of those who does the preserving. In fact, I don’t even know if there is a Tridentine Mass in my Diocese and I live in Hawaii.
Here’s what I’m getting at, what percentage of the Church as a whole are in a similar position as me? It would be to jarring for a lot of people who grew up only knowing the mass in the Vernacular to suddenly be told it’s a “spin off.”
I personally believe that the OF and EF terminology is B16 paying respects to Vatican II. While I see the point that traditional Catholics make that Tridentine should be called the Ordinary Form, I’m not to concerned about the fact that it’s not. I’m just happy that B16 made the move to preserve the Tridentine Mass. :extrahappy:

 

[jimmy]

In the Motu Proprio the Holy Father used the terms Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form of the Mass because he sees them as two different expressions of the same Mass.

Yet here it seems many still use the terms TLM (which is incorrect anyways as it is really referring to the 1962 revision of the Missal) and the NO.

What is it about the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form that people do not like?

Why is the one ordinary and the other extraordinary? Is it extraordinary as a great piece of pie is extraordinary? Does that mean it is very good? Why can’t they both be ordinary? The Byzantines have four liturgies and none of them are considered extraordinary. They are all ordinary. The Maronites have like seven anaphoras and none of them are extraordinary, they are all ordinary.

 

[jj2011]

Why is the one ordinary and the other extraordinary? Is it extraordinary as a great piece of pie is extraordinary? Does that mean it is very good? Why can’t they both be ordinary? The Byzantines have four liturgies and none of them are considered extraordinary. They are all ordinary. The Maronites have like seven anaphoras and none of them are extraordinary, they are all ordinary.

In the Latin church there used to be liturgical pluralism, but it was many long centuries ago. When St. Pius V imposed his missal in 1570, he allowed rites enjoying a 200 year tradition to continue, but for the most part we had one mass. In 1970, the TLM was suppressed and the Novus Ordo imposed almost everywhere.

Before 1968 most Catholics would have been completely unfamiliar with the notion of multiple anaphoras, since even many of the non-Roman rites used the Roman Canon.

I personally have no problem with liturgical pluralism, provided that there is a credible vernacular liturgy, which we obviously don’t have now.

 

[I_Believe]

In the Motu Proprio the Holy Father used the terms Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form of the Mass because he sees them as two different expressions of the same Mass.

Yet here it seems many still use the terms TLM (which is incorrect anyways as it is really referring to the 1962 revision of the Missal) and the NO.

What is it about the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form that people do not like?

Well, the 1962 Missal is the one the Pope specified, so it really isn’t incorrect to say “TLM”.

I like the term Forma Extraordinaria myself, which is more in line with what you are suggesting anyway. Keeps the latin in the recipe

 

[Extraordinary]

In the Motu Proprio the Holy Father used the terms Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form of the Mass because he sees them as two different expressions of the same Mass.

Yet here it seems many still use the terms TLM (which is incorrect anyways as it is really referring to the 1962 revision of the Missal) and the NO.

What is it about the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form that people do not like?

Well sadly, some people clearly like to refer to the Ordinary Form of the Mass as the “NO Mass.” Many of the same like to underscore what they believe is the “traditional” flavor of the Tridentine Mass.

Maybe we should refer to the Pauline Mass as the “AVM” for “Ancient Vernacular Mass?”

 

[Extraordinary]

Why is the one ordinary and the other extraordinary? Is it extraordinary as a great piece of pie is extraordinary? Does that mean it is very good? Why can’t they both be ordinary? The Byzantines have four liturgies and none of them are considered extraordinary. They are all ordinary. The Maronites have like seven anaphoras and none of them are extraordinary, they are all ordinary.

Because the Church has defined them as such.

 

[Extraordinary]

In the Latin church there used to be liturgical pluralism, but it was many long centuries ago. When St. Pius V imposed his missal in 1570, he allowed rites enjoying a 200 year tradition to continue, but for the most part we had one mass. In 1970, the TLM was suppressed and the Novus Ordo imposed almost everywhere.

Before 1968 most Catholics would have been completely unfamiliar with the notion of multiple anaphoras, since even many of the non-Roman rites used the Roman Canon.

I personally have no problem with liturgical pluralism, provided that there is a credible vernacular liturgy, which we obviously don’t have now.

That is not true.

 

[Extraordinary]

Because while the Classical Roman Rite is extraordinary indeed, the “ordinary form” is not, in my uneducated but sensitive opinion, an organic development from the Church’s liturgical past. The liturgy was taken and mutilated, tossed together, and watered down, and super-imposed on the Church’s already matured liturgical tradition. I simply don’t take those terms seriously, as if they held intrinsic value. They’re good to hide behind in hostile territory, but they are ultimately meaningless insofar as they represent the reality as it is.

In my opinion, Benedict’s terminology in his motu proprio does not constitute a theological or Traditional statement, but a political one. I find it hard to believe that B16 sincerely believes that both “forms” share the same ethos. So far in his pontificate almost every move of the Holy Father’s seems to be geared toward the long-term - this is why Benedict’s motu proprio is so pastoral and harmless. He saw his predecessor Paul weep and so he knows that if he were to act rashly, and promulgate/abrogate something so influential in the life of the Church as the Novus Ordo Missae the Church would, like in 1970, be thrown into another identity crisis: more souls would probably be lost than gained, and more hearts would harden with pride and avarice than soften with charity and fidelity to God’s Fatherly plan.

Pray for Pope Benedict XVI!

“God’s Fatherly plan” appears to be the Pauline Mass and not some hypothetical change that’s not about to happen.

You present the hypothetical almost as if it would be the Pope’s preference were it not for the political fall-out, yet his actions suggest otherwise.

 

[Extraordinary]

I use the term Traditional Latin Mass because Ordinary and Extraordinary Form seems to me to be a juridical term to reintegrate the TLM into the life of the Church. **I don’t want the NO to be the ordinary form of mass for the Latin Rite, **I want the mass that has grown organically over the course of 15 centuries and formed the lives of innumerable saints to be the ordinary expression of Catholic worship.

Yet the Pauline Mass is exactly that.

 

[I_Believe]

Well sadly, some people clearly like to refer to the Ordinary Form of the Mass as the “NO Mass.” Many of the same like to underscore what they believe is the “traditional” flavor of the Tridentine Mass.

Maybe we should refer to the Pauline Mass as the “AVM” for “Ancient Vernacular Mass?”

NO is abreviation for Novus Ordo. Why do you feel it is sad to use this abreviation ? It’s not a derogatory term. Not to argue, just asking.

And wasn’t the NO introduced as a latin liturgy ?

 

[Extraordinary]

NO is abreviation for Novus Ordo. Why do you feel it is sad to use this abreviation ? It’s not a derogatory term. Not to argue, just asking.

And wasn’t the NO introduced as a latin liturgy ?

It’s used a great deal in a pejorative manner around these parts. A few posting before you own we had the quote “…don’t want the NO to be the ordinary form of mass for the Latin Rite…”

I don’t think it would have taken too much effort to type “ordinary rite; normative, Novus Ordo or Pauline Mass.”

 

[I_Believe]

Ok, fair enough. Folks aren’t going to stop using abreviations on forums though. One could go nuts worrying about typos, grammar, and such on the internet.

Anyhow welcome to the jungle