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

[Sure]

I have a priest friend who is devoted to the traditional mass, yet has to say the NO almost exclusively. He has told me that saying the new mass is a cross he must bear, but he celebrates the NO with as much dignity and reverence and tradition as possible.

I can’t read Benedict’s mind, but that kind of experience isn’t unique.

But there are also now priests who joyfully celebrate both. There is an order in Chicago, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, who are dedicated to the restoration of the sacred. They have just been given their second parish and they have many vocations. They joyfully celebrate both forms of the Mass and have been doing so since 1989.

 

[Sure]

I do fully support the Holy Father, but the intro letter to SP sure doesn’t look like a complete program for liturgical reform. The former Cardinal Ratzinger has been critical of the NO, has called for a reform of the reform, called for the freedom of the TLM, etc. Now as pope he has freed the TLM, is introducing ad orientem in papal masses, is using traditional vestments, and even used the Classical form of Baptism as an example in Spe Salvi rather than the new form of Baptism. Something more is up that what is indicated in that letter. I am going to use the writings of Ratzinger to inform me of what I think Benedict’s liturgical intentions are. He has called the NO a banal, on the spot fabrication before, I think he still means it.

Calling for a reform of the reform is not the same as calling for the elimination of a form of the Mass.

By the way, when did he introduce ad orientum…I haven’t seen anything on that.

 

[arieh0310]

By the way, when did he introduce ad orientum…I haven’t seen anything on that.

conversiaddominum.com/2007/11/05/an-east-of-faith/

 

[Sure]

conversiaddominum.com/2007/11/05/an-east-of-faith/

But this was not ad orientum in the classical sense with the congregation and celebrant facing in the same direction, liturgical east. This was the Pope facing geographical east and also facing the people. The only change from more recent Masses was the arrangement of the candlesticks. As far as I have heard the Pope still usually celebrates Mass versus populem.

 

[arieh0310]

But this was not ad orientum in the classical sense with the congregation and celebrant facing in the same direction, liturgical east. This was the Pope facing geographical east and also facing the people. The only change from more recent Masses was the arrangement of the candlesticks. As far as I have heard the Pope still usually celebrates Mass versus populem.

But read that passage for Spirit of the Liturgy. This is the “bridge” solution to reintroduce ad orientem while not abruptly reorienting church architecture again. By placing a large crucifix directly in front of the celebrate returns the focus on the true actor of the mass, Christ, and off the priest. It creates an “interior east of faith” as Ratzinger put it.

 

[MrS]

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

Like Ordinary form of Altar boys, and extraordinary “form” of girl altar boys.

By the way, our “ordinary” form yesterday… two priests, one deacon, four altar boys in black and white…
was EXTRAORDINARY!!!

(lots of Latin, Lots of chant, Lots of reverence… very Vertical!!)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

I only know of three liturgies for the Byzantine rite.

The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom
The Divine Liturgy of St Basil the Great
The Divine Liturgy of St James

Yes, they are ordinary but the priest does not get to chose when he will celebrate them. It is layed out by the Church when each will be celebrated. The Divine Liturgy of St James only one day a year (I believe) so it is never done (or very rarely done) in a parish.

As for the Maronites, the Ordinary Form has four basic and many other optional anaphoras too, which I believe is something that many traditionalist dislike about it.

 

[Sure]

But read that passage for Spirit of the Liturgy. This is the “bridge” solution to reintroduce ad orientem while not abruptly reorienting church architecture again. By placing a large crucifix directly in front of the celebrate returns the focus on the true actor of the mass, Christ, and off the priest. It creates an “interior east of faith” as Ratzinger put it.

Yes, I agree. I thought you were saying he was actually celebrating ad orientum…which I think would be something new.

I am noticing more crucifixes on the altars these days…facing the celebrant, of course.

 

[manwithblackhat]

“Why aren’t people using the terms the Pope used?”

I haven’t read what’s written so far, but I don’t have all day, so I’ll give you the short answer here. The long one will have to wait until I write it at my blog: manwithblackhat.blogspot.com/

They don’t use it because it’s… well, people ASSUME that the Holy Father gave the names “ordinary” and “extraordinary” to the two different forms of the Roman Rite. He did not. These were not titles, but designations of their juridical status relative to each other. Most people read papal decrees to find whatever “bullet points” they’re looking for and call it a day. They should actually READ the motu proprio as if it had a beginning, a middle, and an end. Somewhere in the process, people will learn the names that each form of the Mass already had.

(Hey, that answer wasn’t so short, was it? But it was good, huh?)

 

[otjm]

I doubt he wanted the creating of a new Mass, if he already knew the consequences that would come from said action.

Well, let’s substitutethe words “the creating of a new Mass” with the words “to give man free will” and see what the results are.

Oh.

And it is not a “new Mass”; it has the same general parts that the EF has; introductory prayers, readings from scripture, and offeratory, a consecration, prayers after consecration, communion, and final prayers.

I am not suggesting that there are only minor differences between the two in regards to prayers said; but there are more similarities between the Mass in the OF and the Mass in the EF than there are, say between either of them and Mass as it was known in 50 or even 100 AD.

 

[Ignatius]

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?

I agree. We should the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form terminology.

God Bless.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

“Why aren’t people using the terms the Pope used?”

I haven’t read what’s written so far, but I don’t have all day, so I’ll give you the short answer here. The long one will have to wait until I write it at my blog: manwithblackhat.blogspot.com/

They don’t use it because it’s… well, people ASSUME that the Holy Father gave the names “ordinary” and “extraordinary” to the two different forms of the Roman Rite. He did not. These were not titles, but designations of their juridical status relative to each other. Most people read papal decrees to find whatever “bullet points” they’re looking for and call it a day. They should actually READ the motu proprio as if it had a beginning, a middle, and an end. Somewhere in the process, people will learn the names that each form of the Mass already had.

(Hey, that answer wasn’t so short, was it? But it was good, huh?)

Hmmm, nice ad hominem attack there.

I can see what you claim about the terms Extraordinary and Ordinary in use to describe the Mass but they are no worse that Novus Ordo and Tridentine. To be totally correct we should refer to them as the 1970 Pauline Missal and the 1962 John XXIII Missal.

Novus Ordo is no more a correct name as all it means is “new order”. It is also a juridical status relative to the old order yet I see it in use all over the place. I find it funny that one can argue against the use of one juridical term over the preference of the use of another.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Hmmm, nice ad hominem attack there.

Uh, I don’t really see an ad hominem here…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Uh, I don’t really see an ad hominem here…

*"*Most people read papal decrees to find whatever “bullet points” they’re looking for and call it a day. They should actually READ the motu proprio as if it had a beginning, a middle, and an end.

This is making the assumption that those of us who hold this view, such as myself who put forward the question, have not read the MP and look for these, so-called, “bullet points” when we look at papal decrees. His point could stand without this pot-shot.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Brother David: I must point out that in my diocese, the Motu Proprio was merely “acknowledged” by our bishop.

summorumpontificum.net/2007/07/statement-of-bishop-of-baton-rouge-la.html

This was followed by a scathing article in our diocesan newspaper by the priest who was our diocesan administrator. I think my link shows that. We have one parish who under the indult celebrates the TLM - Low Mass, no choir.

We have a cathedral parish with a rector who states in the bulletin that he has celebrated the TLM in Rome. We have a choir which regularly does plainsong and sacred motets in Latin. I’m going to use the phrase TLM because the EF has been effectively halted in my diocese.

I am a state employee. “I acknowledge the Motu Proprio” is a death sentence. I will not be using the term EF until the EF is truly freed.

I simply cannot use the term EF when the Motu Proprio was merely “acknowledged”. I hope you understand.

 

[hamburglar]

I know if I mentioned to someone that I like the Extraordinary form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I would get a from people. I would then need to explain what this term means.

People understand it when I say Tridentine Latin Mass. They understand it’s in Latin, and would be like “Oh, the Mass before Vatican II?”

 

[brotherhrolf]

The Pope may be underestimating the strength of novelty in our modern culture.

Fr. Carville may be underestimating the fact that there are a whole bunch of us down here who submitted to the magesiterium of HMC when we went to the NO (OF). I would respectfully submit to Fr. C. that “novelty” is Haagen/Haus, praise bands, etc. and that there are significant numbers of Catholic south Louisianans who would love to go back to the Mass we knew as kids. Novelty indeed!

 

[kleary]

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?

The EF is the Roman Rite of Mass, that has grown organically from day one with no break from tradition.

The OF is a liturgy created by “Liturgical ‘experts’” that breaks with tradition.

The Novus Ordo should be called the “Extraordinary Form” and the TLM called the “Ordinary Form”. IMHO anyway…

Ken

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I simply cannot use the term EF when the Motu Proprio was merely “acknowledged”. I hope you understand.

No I do not understand. But it does make a little more sense than the “juridical status” argument.

Anyways I do not know what “acknowledged” means nor do I see what it has to do with the question I asked.

The EF is the Roman Rite of Mass, that has grown organically from day one with no break from tradition.

The OF is a liturgy created by “Liturgical ‘experts’” that breaks with tradition.

The Novus Ordo should be called the “Extraordinary Form” and the TLM called the “Ordinary Form”. IMHO anyway…

Ken

Again, this has nothing to do with the question asked.

If you wish to discuss this sort of thing maybe starting your own thread might be a good idea.

 

[jj2011]

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?

For one thing, what Benedict XVI called the ‘ordinary form’ is the missal promulgated in Latin by Paul VI, which is almost never used here, and has little resemblance to what passes for liturgy in a typical parish.