Sooo… whaddya call that Mass, anyway? You know, all that old fashioned stuff?

Under another entry someone brought up the question of what to call the older form of Mass. 

I guess by now regular readers here are used to seeing me write "the older form of Mass".  I am comfortable with that for the most part, though I vary from time time how I describe it.

Here is the comment from that other entry with my emphases and commments.

 

Apologies if this question has already been addressed on a previous post,    but how do we best describe the two forms of Mass in the Roman rite ?  [I don't know.  And we don't have to chose only one way, either.  I will rate these, on pure impulse on a scale of 1-10 (1 being wretched and to be shunned and 10 being music to my ears.]

I find "forma ordinaria"  and "forma extraordinaria"  a bit of a mouthful.  [6 - yah... even in English this is a bit much.]

Equally,  I can’t bring myself to talk about the Pauline and Johannine Missals[5 - though it could be fun to use "Iohannine" once in a while, in a closed circle of the well-informed, just to tweak any claim that life really began with Pope John XXIII.]

The "Tridentine"  Mass  is very coomonly used,  but is misleading.  [6 - Misleading, but now so common that it instantly gets the point across.]

Here in England,  some people refer to the "immemorial" Mass,  or Mass "of all time".  [1 or even - 1 - To much like drowning in syrup for me.]

Otherwise,  the Traditional Mass.  [3 - ho hum]

But what about  "vetus ordo"  (as opposed to "novus ordo") ?  [6 - Vetus could be clever and fun in the right circles.  It also harks to my use of "older form" and "newer form", though on a somewhat limited scale.  Not a lot of people are going to know that vetus means "old".]

"Usus antiquor"  seems to be the preferred terminology,   but in that case what do you call the  modern  Mass ?  [6 - You would say usus recentior, I suppose.  See my statement above.]

The "classical" rite can’t be correct,  in my opinion,  because  it’s not "classical"  (which to me means ancient Greece and ancient Rome),  and it’s not strictly a "rite" :  [4 - Nah... doesn't do it for me at all.]

There is also "pre-Conciliar" [4] and "Mass of Pius V" [2] and "the Latin Mass" [ARRGH... - 5] and "the true Mass" [1].

I think we should vary our language a little. 

For the time being, I will probably stick closely to the "older form" and the "newer form" [8]

 

{democracy:18}

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Sooo… whaddya call that Mass, anyway? You know, all that old fashioned stuff?

  1. L_D says:

    I voted “forma extraordinaria” which is what I generally call it. On occasion I might refer to it as the Mass of the Ages or perhaps the historical Roman rite (for a more general sense). What I mean by the phrase “the historical Roman rite” is to refer to that prayer which is substantially the fruit of organic development through the ages in contrast with the missal (and set of rituals) that is marked by scholarly redaction and revisionism.

  2. Melchior Cano says:

    I always liked Michael Davies use of “Carolingian-Gregorian Rite”

  3. Agustin says:

    How about “1962 mass” vs. “1970 mass”? It’s pretty plain, but it gets the point across, and is easy to say. It’s even easier to write than say.

    It also doesn’t imply any preference for either.

  4. Jon says:

    Favorite shorthand – TLM.

  5. I like “The Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great” myself,
    as it puts the historic Roman use right up there with
    the great Eastern Rites,
    such as The Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and would
    foster true ecumenism with the other ancient churches.

    One could argue that the rite wasn’t “invented”
    by St. Gregory, but neither was the Byzantine invented
    by St. Chrysostom.

    The Byzantine liturgy has had minor developmental
    changes through time as well, but it remains
    essentially rooted in the 4th-5th centuries.

    The Roman Rite is likewise rooted to the 4th-7th
    centuries despite later “additions”.

    The Canon remains essentially the same since the
    time of Gregory the Great….so I think it would
    be a dignified name for it.

  6. Karen Russell says:

    I voted for “Tridentine Mass” because, despite the inaccuracies, it it the most firmly entrenched and easily recognized title. Otherwise, I would probably go with Mass of Blessed John xxiii. And I like Agustin’s suggestion above using dates–short, simple, and not carrying a lot of emotional baggage.

    I would stay far away from “traditional” mass. I once had a customer come into the Catholic shop where I was volunteering, who thought the hymns in “Glory and Praise” were “traditional.”

    “Glory and Praise” was published–I think–in the 70′s, and she was probably born in the 80′s, so yes, I could see how she arrived at that conclusion.

  7. Henry Edwards says:

    Father Z, I cannot vote because your 15 choices omit the one completely descriptive and unambigous name that all interested Catholics understand immediately:

    TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS

    with (as Jon mentions) the similarly universal abbreviation TLM.

    The 3 words together are fully descriptive, and each is necessary — since a “Latin Mass” could be a Novus Ordo, and some would argue that a Novus Ordo Mass can be a “traditional Mass”.

    So cancel your poll. Not only does it omit the single generally understood name, it also omits the name that’s uniquely best if one wants to be accurately descriptive rather than merely understandable:

    MASS OF ST. GREGORY THE GREAT

    (for the reasons Matt enumerates)

  8. mollie says:

    I use Classical Liturgy or Ancient Liturgy.

  9. sigil7 says:

    I had one seminary liturgy professor refer to it as the “Franco-Rhenish Roman rite”. How’s that for a mouthful??

  10. jane in memphis says:

    Extraordinary and Ordinary

  11. Joshua says:

    I always like Msgr. Gamber’s “ritus modernus” for the Newer Mass, and “ritus Romanus” for the Old, but of course in light of the MP that would have to be “usus” and even then it could sound too polemical.

    It think Usus Antiquior is the best among the choices

  12. Rob in Maine says:

    I voted for “extraordinary form/use (forma extraodinaria).” I think it’s important to refer to the Mass it the way His Holiness does in his motu propio.

    It is important to call this what they are. One of the surest way to denigrate something is to call it something different than what it is. A spiteful example is to mispronounce someone’s name on purpose.

    It’s important to refer to the extraordinary expression as that because it is part of our CURRENT RITE. It’s not the “old way”, it’s an expression of the PRESENT TIMES. I think that is what His Holiness was trying to get across.

  13. Daniel Muller says:

    Yes, the Traditional Latin Mass was conspicuous by its absence. However, the reason I did not vote was that the choice “1962 Mass” was not available.

    Let us remember that these days there are three uses corresponding to three Missals: the 1962 MR, the 2002 MR, and the Book of Divine Worship (the only Latin Rite Mass that is not in Latin). So, looking across the Roman or Latin Rite, terminology should not exclude the third on this list.

  14. Henry: I added that option. A little late, but better late then never.

  15. Claud says:

    I agree with some of the folks above… “Gregorian Mass”. It gets the place of its origin right, the extent of its antiquity right, and even connects it with plainchant, its proper music.

  16. Diane says:

    Thanks for doing this Fr. Z – we really needed it. It’s driving me nuts. Some of these expressions are really a keyboard full to type out every time.

  17. moretben says:

    Liturgy of St Gregory the Great, for me.

    Usus modernus for the other.

  18. EDG says:

    I voted for “older form,” but I think “1962 mass” is good. I have also seen “old rite” and “new rite” mass used, and I like those suggestions, too, even though we’re not talking about two different rites, strictly speaking.

  19. Andrew says:

    The phrase “Mass of All Time” is a typically French one (messe de toujour) and not really used that much in England – partly because its French…

  20. FrV says:

    I like the phrase the “ancient Mass,” although in saying that or Missa Saeculorum, they are phrases which drive my former seminary teacher crazy. He’s convinced that the Missal of Paul VI is the “ancient Mass” because it goes back to sources older than the Mass of St Pius V. Of course I reject that notion agreeing with the criticisms of the Pope and Gamber as to how the Missal of Paul VI was generated. Another observation I make to my former teacher is from Pius XII:

    “Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device.

    Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

    (ALL OF WHICH UNFORTUNATELY HAPPENED I NOTE TO MY TEACHER)….This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. Pius XII Mediator Dei #’s62.64

  21. wcy says:

    Fr. Z: One critique on “the older form of Mass”: it is only older because it is a part of Tradition!

    I tend to use “Traditional Mass”.

    But here is a half serious suggestion (that would probably get a 1 by Fr. Z) and would need explanation: “the Apostolic Rite” of the Roman Church. I actually do use this name in more serious academic discussions.

    First, a preface from “Feast of Faith”, by His Holiness, published 1981, to set the tone. Speaking of the name “Tridentine” Missal, he says:
    “Four hundred years is far too young an age for the Catholic liturgy – because in fact it reaches right back to Christ and the apostles and has come down to us from that time in a single, constant process.”

    Sure, we switched to Latin in the third century, but there is every reason to believe that the Roman Rite remained intact from the Greek rite used in the early Roman Church.

    We have to remember that our early Catholic brethren were very Traditional in handing down prayers. This Tradition not only included the prayer itself, but also the acceptable method of organic change in the most “holy precincts” of faith: the liturgy.

    One particular example of this rootedness in antiquity and organic change is the Roman Canon, which seems to have substantially remained intact from the 1st century. Pope St. Innocent I and other Popes have indicated that it was given by St. Peter himself. (Perhaps we should say “the Canon of St. Peter” instead of “Roman Canon” to make a point on Tradition). Also, (though I have not verified this), it seems that another Petrine Church, the Antiochene / West Syrian Church, uses a Eucharistic Prayer with substantially the same words as the Canon. Although later Popes rearranged the Canon of St. Peter, the substance of the Prayer has remained intact.

    Most liturgical historians (the Holy Father included) also agree that there was no break in liturgical history with regards to the Traditional Missal. Sure, the Roman Rite went out to France and back, but there was essentially a traceable line of organic development.

    For the reasons stated above, “the Apostolic Rite” would not be an incorrect name.

    P.S. Here is the Holy Father’s agenda with regards to Summorum Pontificum, as found in “Feast of Faith”:
    “In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than an renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history.”

  22. Brian Day says:

    While I have read some criticism (on other sites) of the term “TLM”, I voted for it because it instantly conveys the meaning of “older form”

  23. R says:

    A quibble with Fr. Z’s “ho hum”:

    It would be most unfortunate to shy away from the terminology “traditional [Latin] Mass”. The very best argument in favor of the use of the older liturgy, at least from the perspective of traditional (that word again!) Catholic theology, has to be its privileged status as a kind of liturgically encapsulated Summa of the faith of generations past (the “lex orandi”). Many Catholics today may have a deficient sense of tradition, which in the broadest sense is, of course, the repository of the Church’s faith, and thus makes demands of us all. But this is exactly why we must cling to the language of “tradition”. Even those associated with the “nouvelle theologie” (which was used, rightly or wrongly, to justify the aggiornamento) understood this. Balthasar wrote beautifully somewhere of tradition as the “memory of the Church”. Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam…

    BTW, in my view nothing is gained by capitalizing the word “traditional”. It it certainly unnecessary and therefore strikes me as somewhat pretentious, or in any event recalls the “syrup” (Fr. Z’s word) of such terms as “Immemorial”, “Classical”, etc. We don’t need to conjure up some kind of idealized, monochrome, triumphant “Tradition” in order to justify the relation between the 1962 Missal of Bl. Pope John XXIII and the broad Catholic tradition of prayer and belief. This relation is obvious (as are the deficiencies of the manufactured “tradition” of the reform), and it is critical to the argument that the use of that Missal was never forbidden (SP art. 1).

    R

  24. Serapion says:

    I voted for Tridentine Mass. Perhaps it fails to adequately describe the origins of the rite, but to call the term “misleading” is rather severe. Look at the first page of your missal: Missale Romanum ex decreto…

  25. Jakub says:

    I voted Mass of Blessed Pope John XXIII but do really prefer Mass of St. Gregory the Great

  26. I’m with Mosebach on this:

    The Mass of St. Gregory the Great

    This term describes its antiquity but also gives us a hint of its living nature in the Church.

  27. In ordinary speach, names need to communicate things to the people who hear them as well as those who use them. Use of forms the communicate to only an ingroup (and imply a value judgment about the Usus Ordinarius), e.g. “True Mass” or “Mass of All Time,” verge on the use of “pro-choice” by pro-abortion types. They seem to be a kind of politically loaded code.

    Tridentine Mass is immediately intelligible to virtually everyone. Traditional Latin Mass is okay, but I assure you, outside of the world of the conoscenti, ALL Latin Mass is “traditional” and many would assume that TLM just means “Latin Mass.”

    Say what you will, but remember that people will hear what they understand, and reporters will use the easiest form “Latin Mass.” You need something short and virtually universal to get reporters and the media to abandon “Latin Mass” when they talk about the “Extraordinary Use”–which, much as I would prefer it, will never make it into ordinary speech–much as I hope I am wrong on this.

  28. Joe says:

    I’ve been calling it the 1962 Missal. Is that so wrong?

  29. bgt says:

    I don’t hang out in exalted circles. I’m just an ordinary Catholic who appreciates the extraordinary form. If I want to tell people about the new Mass being offered at my parish, I need a term that ordinary people–Catholic and non-Catholic alike–will understand. Some fancy Latin phrase won’t cut it, nor will an historical reference. “Traditional Latin Mass” seems the best option to me. People can easily ascertain that “Traditional” refers to the rite, that “Latin” refers to the language and that “Mass” is a Catholic service. If that’s not exactly what’s meant by TLM (and I know it’s not), what harm? The term is descriptive and people get the gist. If they’re curious, they can come and learn what it’s really all about. What we don’t need is some term that is exclusionary simply because people can’t figure out what on Earth it means. JMHO.

  30. I see Fr. Z gives “vetus ordo” 6 on a scale of 1 – 10.
    Well, that’s good.
    “Vetus ordo” and “novus ordo” are what I use.

    Why ?
    Well, my thinking goes like this :
    I wanted a Latin word for the “old” ordo Missae, in the same way as people say “novus ordo” for the “new” ordo Missae.
    “Vetus” seemed as easy to use as “novus”.

    I thought “vetus” would be easily understood, as in “vetus Latina”.

    Hence, “vetus ordo”.

  31. Father Z, you forgot NCA Mass: “No Clowns Allowed Mass.”

    I give that a 10.

  32. Daniel Muller says:

    I thought “vetus” would be easily understood, as in “vetus Latina”.

    And I thought vetus would be more or less easily understood, as in “veteran.” But I have been known, for the sake of absolute clarity, to say “oldus ordo.”

  33. Thomas F. Miller says:

    The best names have referred to St. Gregory, however that simply continues the same error as “Tridentine”. At the time of St. Gregory, the Mass was already known to be ancient. The Council of Trent solemnly delared the Lass dated back to Apostolic times. The FSSP last Firday at Hanceville referref to that same fact. Therefore the “Apostolic Mass” or the “Mass of the Apostles”. The Novus Ordo can make the same claim but not at all well. Further, our purpose should not be to denigate the Novus Ordo but to enhance the belief of the Roman Catholic Church.

  34. Scott Smith says:

    I would say that it all depends on how particular one would like to be. If the Mass according the rubrics of 1962 is an organic development of tradition where as the Mass according to the rubrics of 1969 is an artificially manufactured liturgy with some tradition preserved, then one could tag the 1962 Missal with “100% Organic” while tagging the Missal of 1969 with “100% Pastoral with some Preservatives of Tradition” for being in tune with Modern Man’s need for shorter and simpler rites.

    Otherwise, in order to be understood immediately without confusion and with a modicum of simplicity, I would say that the “Older Form” of Mass is both noble and edifying confessing that the Mass is at once Traditional and that it comes before a “Newer Form” even for those who:

    1) Might think Tridentine is an add for gum and don’t know Trent was a Council. (Tridentine Mass)
    2) Might think that classical is a matter of taste only and would prefer Pop. (Classical Mass)
    3) Don’t know that the newer form can also be in Latin. (Latin Mass)
    4) Might then think that the newer form was used during the Second Vatican Council. (Pre-Conciliar Mass)
    5) Might think that the older form takes too long. (Mass of all time)
    6) might think that the newer form is not a true Mass (the true Mass )
    7) might think that the Older Form is not so extraordinary because they see it every day or because they hate it. (extraordinary form/use (forma extraodinaria)
    8) don’t know Latin at all. (usus antiquior)
    9) have a difficult time saying “Novus Ordo” without saying Nervous Disorder. (vetus ordo)
    10) don’t know who Bl. John XXIII is, let alone that he promulgated a Missal (whatever that means.) (Mass of Bl. John XXIII)
    11) have already forgotten it in there own lifetime. (immemorial Mass )
    12) don’t know who St. Pius V is, or that he promulgated a Missal. (Mass of St. Pius V)
    13) think that tradition is when something has been done at least once before. (traditional Mass)
    14) might think ( not knowing Latin at all) that a woman was Pope once. (Johannine Mass )
    15) might see the initials TLM and think that it’s a proprietary rather than a propitiatory sacrifice. (Traditional Latin Mass)

  35. Thomas F. Miller says:

    Sorry, two mistakes. I wanted to refer “the Mass”, not the “the Lass” (?), and at least one mispelling.

    The best names have referred to St. Gregory, however that simply continues the same error as “Tridentine”. At the time of St. Gregory, the Mass was already known to be ancient. The Council of Trent solemnly delared the Mass dated back to Apostolic times. The FSSP Priest last Firday in his brilliant sermon at Hanceville referred to that same fact. Therefore the “Apostolic Mass” or the “Mass of the Apostles”. The Novus Ordo can make the same claim but not at all well. Further, our purpose should not be to denigate the Novus Ordo but to enhance the belief of the Roman Catholic Church.

  36. Timothy James says:

    I don’t really understand why there’s a debate… if Benedict XVI called it the “forma extraodinaria” why would we call it anything else? “Proinde Missae Sacrificium, iuxta editionem typicam Missalis Romani a B. Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 promulgatam et numquam abrogatam, uti formam extraordinariam Liturgiae Ecclesiae, celebrare licet.” (Art. 1)

    I suppose he didn’t specifically say that it was to be called the “forma extraodinaria” but I’d still rather stick to his terminology.

  37. Jacob says:

    What should we call Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal?

    You call it the 1962 Missal, but you don’t list it as an option, Father? ;) I prefer that term most of all. It’s concise.

  38. A Finn says:

    Well, I cannot say anything for English, but at least here in Finland we have been tasting different options and have come to the conclusion that “ordinary” and “extraordinary” (in Finnish, naturally) are too difficult to use as such; they do not really answer the question why. And certainly talking about the “Latin Mass” is silly because of the fact that the “Pauline Mass” can also be celebrated in Latin (and should much more).

    My solution has been to use words “old-formed Mass (vanhamuotoinen messu)” and “new-formed Mass (uusimuotoinen messu)”, the different forms being used as adjectives. This is good, because the same is applicable also when ever other Sacraments are celebrated, like: old-formed baptism. (My wife and I got married in a new-form Mass in Latin – sadly not in a “Latin Mass” as this term is normally used.)

    - “Old” and “new” tell us something essential, old having been there a longer time.
    - “Form” tells us that it’s about the form of the liturgy, not language, not anything superior/inferior.
    - And then, in this way, one is able to use the same structure for all the sacraments…

    PS. There is actually a Bishop somewhere who is using the word “Tridentine” for the old and “Vaticanine” for the new… ;)

  39. Fr. Harrie says:

    I would suggest to call it:
    (classical) Latin Mass Rite 1962, that’s how I announce it in the parochial magazine

  40. Cathy says:

    Why not simply Ordinary Rite and Extraordinary Rite (as we are all Latin Rite).

    The following is making the Catholic email circuit:

    Calling Doctor Benedict

    The recent papal document Summorum Pontificum designates what was formally called the New Mass as the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite, and the Traditional Mass as the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

    The length of these new titles will demand that they be abbreviated in Latin Rite circles as simply the Ordinary Rite and the Extraordinary Rite;

    or the O.R. and the E.R.

    Gives a whole new meaning to that famous Mother Teresa quote: “The Church is not a country club for saints, but a hospital for sinners.”

  41. Stephen M. Collins says:

    1) I agree that “extraordinary form” is probably the best, especially if it were commonly agreed and universally understood by its abreviation – EF – which in English is the reverse of the Latin! And we’ve already seen how the whole concept of “extraordinary” gets confused and confalted in American circles!

    2) Any term that uses the Latin language is great for any of us who are already fond of Latin, but it could be a red flag to anyone else who might consider attending some time – just to see what it’s all about.

    3) I chose “Traditional Latin Mass” because that is what we’ve called it in our parish since we began having it regularly many years ago, and we are simply continuing on rather than making too much of a big deal about 14 September 2007. Its abreviation is also appealing.

  42. L_D says:

    Thomas,
    I prefer forma ordinaria and forma extraordinaria, but along the lines of what you were saying I might refer to the forma extraordinaria as the historical Roman rite. This may sound charged and rhetorical to many which is why I only use it in situations where I’m hoping to instigate a discussion.
    Even if one believes that the forma ordinaria is “more traditional” based on the naive scholarship of the 1950′s and early 60′s, the fact cannot be denied that the “antique” aspects of this liturgy are the result of scholarly construction, not historical development. Another thing is that the architects of this Mass themselves describe it as engineered to suite the sensibilities of modern man. Since the “modern” mentality that they refer to is the spirit of the 1960′s and 70′s, and since their revisionism is based on the scholarship of that time, it seems fitting to refer to it as the Mass of the 1960′s and 70′s. The historical Roman rite is expressive of an organic and living history that spans nearly 2,000 years, the Mass of the 1960′s and 70′s already smacks of that time period and is in many respects “irrelevant” to contemporary man (persons I should say).
    I am not trying to be snide in the least btw; I believe this to be a fair assessment.

  43. Deborah says:

    I prefer Traditional Latin Mass/TLM.

    Two main reasons:

    1) Traditional Latin Mass, best represents the Mass which has maintained the hermeneutic of continuity of Tradition whereas the Modern Mass represents a hermeneutic of rupture of Tradition (Pope Benedict XVI has critiqued the Modern Mass this way as well.) The rupture from Tradition in the Modern Mass is precisely the impetus behind a movement for a reform of the reform – therefore is not deserving of being called “Traditional”.

    2) Traditional Latin Mass, also does not restrict the possibilities for organic development whereas 1962 Mass does (again just my opinion).

    Finally, if speaking to someone I would word it this way, “the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite called the Traditional Latin Mass”.

    Deborah

  44. Thomas says:

    The Mass of the Future!

  45. Marco says:

    The Holy Father has shown us the way: Roman Rite Extraordinary Use. Naming is important within the Biblical narrative and the Church. So it is important what we call it and that the way we use language express our loyality and obedience to the Holy Father.

    Read my thoughts here.

  46. John says:

    Dear Father Zuhlsdorf,

    “Rite” is defined [Oxford] as “a religious or other solemn ceremony or act: the rite of communion; a body of customary observances characteristic of a church…”

    I didn’t vote because “Roman Rite” wasn’t a choice. :(

    Respectfully, John

  47. Demerzel says:

    Hmm… what about the placement of the placement of the word ‘use’ behind, like Classical Use and Pauline Use?

  48. Jonathan Bennett says:

    If we want to be historically accurate, the term Gregorian Mass is probably the most accurate. I prefer to use Tridentine purely out of convenience, though I realize this is not technically correct. In certain circles other terms can be used, but for the sake of simplicity, Tridentine is probably best.

    Classical is also good, it conveys a sense of antiquity and cultural significance.

  49. Paul says:

    I agree with Marco. We should generally stick to the language of Summorum Pontificum. Since it’s official, no-one can criticize it, who isn’t really willing to go out on a limb. It also immediately reminds anyone hostile of the Holy Father’s support for it.

    Historically speaking Romano-Frankish Mass is correct–since many of the most beloved parts of the Extraordinary Form–like its magnificent and noble offertory–were imported into it on the basis of the Gallican liturgical sensibilities of Northern Europe, after kings like Charlemagne decreed replacement of the Gallican Rite with the sparer Roman Rite. But this term is so ugly it should never be used outside special contexts and the classroom.

    The Romantic in me likes the “Mass of St. Gregory the Great;” it’s very beautiful, even if historically it’s a stretch. But it’s so unusual, it has little chance of ever prevailing.

  50. Fr. Anthony Forte says:

    Historically the various forms of the Roman Rite were refered to as “use”, e.g., the Use of Sarum, the Use of Paris, the Use of Rome, etc. Thus I would prefer “usus antiquior [Romae]“/”the More Ancient Use [of Rome]“. This highlights its antiquity. Personally I would avoid “Ordinary/Extraordinary” since this will be interpreted by not a few as “regular/rarely”. I also liket the suggestion of “the Liturgy of St. Gregory.” This has a nice sound to it.

  51. Chris says:

    I say old Mass and new Mass. It gets the point over and does not sound like jargon. In writing form I would say 1962 Missal and 1970 Missal.
    1962 sounds very Austin Powers…not good. and 1970 very Bee Gees…well they followed a formula.

  52. Chris says:

    I say old Mass and new Mass. It gets the point over and does not sound like jargon. In written form I would say 1962 Missal and 1970 Missal.
    1962 sounds very Austin Powers…not good. and 1970 very Bee Gees…well they followed a formula.

  53. Chris says:

    I say old Mass and new Mass. It gets the point over and does not sound like jargon. In written form I would use 1962 Missal and 1970 Missal.
    1962 sounds very Austin Powers…not good. and 1970 very Bee Gees…well they followed a formula.

  54. Fr Forte, the problem with “Liturgy of Saint Gregory” is that it is already in use.

    Firstly is the Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory Dialogos, aka Pope Gregory the Great. This is the liturgy also known as the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, used among the Eastern Orthodox during the Great Fast of Lent.

    Second, is one of the liturgies in use in the “Western Rite” of the Antiochian Archdiocese (affectionately known as “the Arabs” to other Orthodox). This Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory is almost exactly the Tridentine/Johannine Mass, with a few changes: the addition of the epiklesis from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, the addition of a triple Amen acclamation by the people, and the removal of the Filioque, of course. There may be a few other minor changes that I don’t recall. I would think the variable prefaces are not in use, and so on, as well. This “Western Rite” is somewhat controversial with some Orthodox, but that’s for elsewhere. The text of this liturgy may be read here.

    Then there are the Coptic and Armenian liturgies of the same name, about which I know nothing.

    So, Fr Forte, this popular name could lead to some confusion were you to choose to use it.

  55. Blake says:

    What about “Mass of the Council” and “Mass of the Commission”?

  56. chiara says:

    In his book “Milestones, Memoirs 1927-1977” , p.146-9, Cardinal Ratzinger stated:
    ‘There is no such thing as the Missal of Pius V created by Pius V himself. There is only a reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth.”
    Surely the Traditional Rite would be more suitable. If it is known as the Mass of Blessed John XXIII (he made minor changes) then surely when Benedict XVI makes minor changes e.g. adding Feastdays of new Saints, e.g. St Maximillan Kolbe, and some more Prefaces, which he has spoken of doing, do we all start calling it the Mass of Benedict XVI?!! All too confusing, The important thing is to emphasize its antiquity as so many people mistakenly still seem to think of it as having been around for only 400 years

  57. I regret that you did not already use what seems to me the best short name:
    ” the ‘extra’ Mass’ ” ! In my native French, “La Messe Extra” which should be
    colloquial for “la Messe Qualité Extra” ( as adverised by my butcher’s:
    “Boeuf Charolais Extra”. I do not master enough U.S. colloquialism to feel whether
    “the Mass ‘extra’” would be more attractive and unambiguous.
    please your comments at

  58. I regret that you did not already use what seems to me the best short name:
    ” the ‘extra’ Mass’ ” ! In my native French, “La Messe Extra” which should be
    colloquial for “la Messe Qualité Extra” ( as advertised by my butcher’s:
    “Boeuf Charolais Extra”. I do not master enough U.S. colloquialism to feel whether
    “the Mass ‘extra’” would be more attractive and unambiguous.
    please your comments at

  59. “So … whaddya call that Mass, anyway ?”

    It depends on who you are talking to, doesn’t it ?

    From the comments made so far, we all seem to have a personal preference.
    But would you use the same terminology for the “old” Mass, whether you were speaking to / writing to :
    The Pont. “Ecclesia Dei” Commission in Rome.
    The bishop of your diocese.
    The pastor of your parish.
    Fellow Catholics who support the “old” “Mass.
    Fellow Catholics who prefer the new Mass.
    Non Catholics who haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
    A friend or neighbour
    A relative
    The Latin Mass Society
    Una Voce
    The Editor of a Catholic newspaper
    A reporter from the Palookaville Gazette.

    I think Fr. Z talked about what gets the message across.

    Tot homines, quot sententiae …

  60. BobP says:

    –I voted for “extraordinary form/use (forma extraodinaria).” I think it’s important to refer to the Mass it the way His Holiness does in his motu propio.–

    Works for me, too. Something we can move forward with. And if they ask you what EF means, it probably means they haven’t been paying attention. Or even know who the Pope is, for that matter.

  61. Fr. A says:

    Well, from a pastoral point of view (from someone who has been saying this Mass for the last ten years in my parish), “Tridentine” seems to work the very best for people to understand what you’re saying. Is any word or phrase perfect? No; however, “Tridentine” seems to work.

  62. Francis Brennan says:

    Fr. Z.,

    Clergy hostile to Summorum Pontificum will, for once in their lives, “stick to the rubrics” and will likely refer to the 1962 rite as the Extraordinary Form because:

    - The word “extraordinary” in English has connotations of “abnormal, strange, weird, rare, uncommon, only-on-special-occasions” (which is why the correct term “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” has been unofficially suppressed in favour of “eucharistic minister”)

    - Most people consider themselves to be “ordinary” or at least not “out-of-the-ordinary,” so hopefully they will continue to associate themselves with the ordinary version

    - Taking the name of the great “Father of Vatican II” Blessed John XXIII in vain is one of the few grave sins that they still acknowledge

  63. Bernard in UK says:

    The Mass of Blessed John XXIII got my vote though the
    Mass of POPE John XIII reminds us more of who he was and
    the 1962 Mass is good for those of us who remember the 60s.
    Also gets the goat of all those “renewers” claiming Good
    Pope John for themselves alone, though of course this should
    not be a reason for incessently referring to The Mass of
    John XXIII. No. Certainly not.

  64. Francis A. says:

    As I write these words, there are three options that have garnered
    about 190 votes each.
    One of them (the one for which I voted) is the ONLY one that any
    prudent Catholic ought to choose, because it is the one that
    our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI chose to use — the Extraordinary
    Form of the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (“Mass in the
    Extraordinary Form,” for short).

    Another option that has about 190 votes is one of the WORST possible
    choices, because it is just plain wrong: “Traditional Latin Mass.”
    This should not have even been listed as an option, and I get the
    impression (from previous comments) that it was not originally listed.
    Why is it “just plain wrong”? Because the first two words,
    “Traditional” and “Latin,” are misleading.

    1. Both the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form are TRADITIONAL.
    Catholic Tradition began with Jesus and the Apostles, and it will never
    end. EVERY approved Catholic rite is Traditional, regardless of its
    age and the language used. If someone says that only the
    Extraordinary Form is “Traditional,” he is thereby saying that the
    Ordinary Form is “Non-Traditional” or “A-Traditional” or
    “Post-Traditional” or even “Anti-Traditional” — all of which are
    wrong and insulting to the Holy See.

    2. Both the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form are LATIN. That is,
    the “editio typica” of each Missal is in Latin. Only by indult is Mass
    in the Ordinary Form celebrated in a language other than Latin. If
    someone says that the Extraordinary Form is the “Latin” form, he
    wrongly implies that the Ordinary Form is never celebrated in “Latin.”

    If someone prefers not to speak of “[Mass in] the Extraordinary Form [of
    the Roman Rite]” — whether because that is a “mouthful” or because he
    wants to mention the word, “Latin” — I could begrudgingly accept one
    accurate alternative: “[Mass in] the Latin-Only Form [of the Roman
    Rite]” (“the Latin-Only Form” for short).

    God be with all of you.

  65. leo says:

    i teach my students to call it the Old Mass as most of them dont practice anywayy they arent troubled by distinctions, they also say Holy Ghost instead of Spirit and thet where most troubled when we visited Liverpool Cathedral and they wasnt an altar rail and six electric candles on the gradines

  66. Deborah says:

    Francis A.,

    You said, “Another option that has about 190 votes is one of the WORST possible
    choices, because it is just plain wrong: “Traditional Latin Mass.”
    This should not have even been listed as an option…….If someone says that only the Extraordinary Form is “Traditional,”…..[they] are wrong and insulting to the Holy See.”

    No, you’re wrong here Francis. It was Pope Benedict XI himself, even as Cardinal Ratzinger, who has written about the Modern Latin Mass as being a rupture from tradition (“hermeneutic of discontinuity”). Therefore, obviously there is a strong case against calling the Modern Latin Mass “traditional” and using Traditional Latin Mass for the extraordinary form/use of the Roman rite which has indeed maintained the traditions passed down to us.

    Of course we can disagree on the name of the exraordinary use, however, it is a very serious and erroneous allegation to say that anyone who states the Modern Latin Mass is ruptured from tradition are “insulting to the Holy See”. This statement implies disobedience and disrespect to the Holy See which is not true and misleading to others.

    Deborah

  67. chiara says:

    Francis A You should read what the Pope wrote about the Novus Ordo in his book:From “Milestones” Memoirs 1927-1977 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. P146-9.

    The second great event at the beginning of the my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. I welcomed the fact that now we had a binding liturgical text after a period of experimentation that had often deformed the liturgy. But I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was given that what was happening was quite normal. The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries. Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a “Missal of Pius V”, created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature. The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of “liturgical reforms”. It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. The split in the Church occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most incisive manifestation in the changes of the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too, one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what still Catholic and what was no longer Catholic.
    In this confusing situation, which had become possible by the failure to produce unified liturgical legislation and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle ages, the pope decided that now the Missale Romanum –the missal of the city of Rome- was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could be preserved because its Catholic character would then be assured. In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
    But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be surely largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something “made’, not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognize the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every “community” must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and source of our life. A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of esti Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else then, is the Church to be visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds- partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the second Vatican Council.

  68. Well, as the “someone” whose (rather tentative) comment on another post seems to have sparked off this entire debate, I see that from the voting figures so far, “Tridentine Mass” seems to be well in the lead with 222 votes.
    Fr. Z’s “earlier form” has got 57 votes.
    My “vetus ordo” has got a mere 39 votes.

    Peoples’ comments have been most fascinating to read.
    Everyone seems to have taken Fr. Z’s advice : think before posting.

    Let’s hope the votes keep coming in.
    The USA is a democracy.

  69. chiara says:

    Is anyone please able to enlighten me as to how many ‘reworkings’to the Roman Missal, unorganically changed from antiquity? The only ones I am aware of are 1. the adding of St Joseph to the Canon, 2. the removal of the second Confetior andd 3. alteration of the Prayers for the Jews on Good Friday? Thanks

  70. chiara says:

    Is anyone please able to enlighten me as to how many ‘reworkings’to the Roman Missal, unorganically changed from antiquity, by Blessed John XXIII? The only ones I am aware of are 1. the adding of St Joseph to the Canon, 2. the removal of the second Confetior andd 3. alteration of the Prayers for the Jews on Good Friday? Thanks

    I apologise for leaving out an important part of my last post…’by Blessed John XXIII’

  71. CPKS says:

    The Organic Mass?

  72. Greg Smisek says:

    Dr. Peter H. Wright: I can’t bring myself to talk about the Pauline and Johannine Missals.
    Agustin: How about “1962 mass” vs. “1970 mass”?
    Chris: In written form I would use 1962 Missal and 1970 Missal.

    I’ve enjoyed this thread. I would just point out that “Johannine Missal” is not parallel to “Pauline Missal”. Rather the parallels are the following:

    Missal of St. Pius V (1570 editio typica)
    and Missal of [the Servant of God] Paul VI (1970 editio typica)

    Missal of Blessed John XXIII (31st and last revision after the 1570 editio typica, 1962)
    and Missal of [the Servant of God] John Paul II (third typical edition–latest revision of the 1970 editio typica, 2002)

    If you examine Summorum Pontificum and its cover letter, you will notice that Pope Benedict very carefully presents these parallels.

    I like to speak of the 1962 Missal when referring to the older form of the Mass; however, its counterpart is not the 1970 Missal, but rather the 2002 Missal. Yet, complicating matters, there aren’t any authorized translations of the latest Missal yet, except the authorized GIRMs of the USA and England & Wales. So, at this time, the only Masses that can be celebrated completely according to the 2002 Roman Missal are those done in Latin. Up until Summorum Pontificum I referred to the latter as the “current missal” in order to avoid this difficulty, but now they’re both “current,” so I’m transitioning to new nomenclature, along with other folks.

    On a lighter note, I thought of calling the older form of the Mass “X-Mass,” but of course that’s kind of already taken, and in any case, some traditional Catholics may instead be hoping to reserve “ex-Mass” for the current, I mean newer form, of the Mass. Merry X-Mass!

  73. chiara says:

    Greg Smisek wrote:
    ‘…I like to speak of the 1962 Missal when referring to the older form of the Mass…’

    therefore, when Benedict XVI revises the 1570 editio typica ( he has said more than once that new prefaces and feastdays need to be added to the 1962 Missal) will you then refer to the Missal by the year that he makes these revisions?

  74. Personally, I think the premise of this is rather limited. It’s not a question of what to call one, but what to call them each, given their co-existence with one another. Do most people who vote on this even care about co-existence, or do they just want one of them to go away? What if that’s not an option for them?

    At my blog, I refer to the “classical” and “reformed.” The distinctions are simple, straightforward, are neither misnomers or pejoratives. Of course, mine is a minority opinion. But I remember when everybody was going around saying the Missal of Paul VI was “not really the Roman Rite.” Now they’re all on the “two-forms-of-same-rite” bandwagon.

    A vote doesn’t tell you that, does it? (By the way, as long as it is valid, EVERY Mass is a “mass of all time.”)

  75. “The Holy Father has shown us the way: Roman Rite Extraordinary Use.”

    He did not call them that. He named them after the Popes who promulgated them. He used such terminology generically, and within context. (As in saying, this is an ordinary form, and that is an extraordinary form. Not as proper nouns, you follow me?) Also, the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” have a strict canonical meaning which does not apply here. When it does, it’s applied arbitrarily by opponents of the older form. “Well, we don’t have to let you use it, because it’s the extraordinary form, you know…”

    You’re right about one thing, though. The names do matter.

  76. “The ‘classical’ rite can’t be correct, in my opinion, because it’s not ‘classical’ (which to me means ancient Greece and ancient Rome)…”

    In the strictest sense, perhaps. But the term is not always used in the strictest sense. An example would be music of the “Baroque” versus “Classical” or the “Romantic” era. Even there, “classical” is also an umbrella term. And if one refers to the “use” or “usage” as opposed to the “rite,” that takes care of that.

  77. frjimt says:

    how about calling it: “IF I DID IT?”

  78. Greg says:

    This is all great for more formal writing, but what about IM? My vote would be for J23M (John 23rd Mass – always latin) and P6LM/P6VM (for Paul 6th Latin Mass/Vernacular Mass)

  79. Greg Smisek says:

    Chiara: If it is known as the Mass of Blessed John XXIII (he made minor changes) then surely when Benedict XVI makes minor changes e.g. adding Feastdays of new Saints, e.g. St Maximillan Kolbe, and some more Prefaces, which he has spoken of doing, do we all start calling it the Mass of Benedict XVI?!!

    Personally, I prefer to speak of the “Mass of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” not of this or that Pontiff, although identifying the edition of the Missal by the Pontiff who approved it is useful.

    Chiara: … when Benedict XVI revises the 1570 editio typica ( he has said more than once that new prefaces and feastdays need to be added to the 1962 Missal) will you then refer to the Missal by the year that he makes these revisions?

    Quite possibly. However, H.H. Benedict XVI could, presumably, make minor changes to the calendar and general rubrics and add new prefaces without issuing a new edition, as has been done with both Pian and Pauline Missals before. (See Catholic Encyclopedia, “Liturgical Books“: “But the continual addition of Masses for new feasts goes on. There are few popes since Pius V who have not authorized some additions, made by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, to the Missal or its various supplements.”) But, in any event, I am banking on the terminology sorting itself out before the next Missal revision hits (be it Pian or Pauline).

    How about this?
    Missa in aeternum secundum ordinem S. Pii V. / Pauli VI.

  80. Jon says:

    I also think that there is nothing wrong with calling it the traditonal Mass or traditional form of the Mass (or TLM). This is because it is the form of the Mass which has been handed handed down to us. The newer form has many changes, most notably the multiple canons. Certainly it is traditonal in some sense, but it seems that the older form could be more properly said to be traditional, in the sense that it was handed down and gradually developed rather than subjected to committees.

  81. Ted Krasnicki says:

    I also agree that it would be fitting to call the Mass of the 1962 missal “The Mass of Saint Gregory the Great”, if for no other reason than that it shows it was not invented by the council of Trent, but rather that its form goes back to a thousand years before. Admittedly it is not a very accurate name historically, but St. Gregory did have a hand in reforming the ordo of Mass where the form of Mass in the 1962 Missal is fairly close to it. As for the 1970 invention, “The Pauline Mass” is fine.

  82. Boko Fittleworth says:

    I am very much against the terms “Mass of John XXIII” and “Iohannine Mass.” “Mass celebrated according to the Missal of John XXIII” or “according to the Iohannine Missal” is better.

    If the old Mass is the “Iohannine Mass,” wouldn’t that make the new Mass the “Johannes Pauline” Mass (as opposed to the “Pauline” Mass)?

    Clearly the distinction is between the use before the Pauline novus ordo and the use of the Pauline novus ordo.

    The Pauline use is “new” because, well, because it is, in more than one way. But is the old use “old”? Ever ancient, ever new, I’d think.

    I’m also against the term “pre-conciliar” Mass. We need to remember that there were other Councils besides VII. Also, that makes the new use post-conciliar, which could (falsely) imply that it corresponded to the wishes of the VII Conciliar Fathers, as expressed in the docs.

    My vote was for “the Traditional Mass.”

  83. Terminology Meister says:

    Fr. Z,

    You haven’t included in your new poll a rather suitable candidate:

    Mass of St. Gregory the Great.

    As others have said, this neatly matches the Byzantine terminology, e.g.,
    Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

  84. RC says:

    “E-Mass” and “Extra-Mass” sound good for casual use. “Classical” is good too — and it would be nice to use the same term in English as in, e.g., German. Otherwise, the Pope said to call it the Extraordinary Form, so I’m gonna call it the Extraordinary Form.

  85. “Common Use” (Pauline Mass) and “Uncommon Use” (Johannine Mass)

  86. Calvin Hazelwood says:

    If “Tridentine” wins, can you next do a poll on how we should pronounce “Tridentine”?

  87. Sue Sims says:

    I like TLM, not because it’s the most accurate or the best per se, but just because (hangs head in shame) it’s the quickest recognisable way to write or say it, and I, like so many others, am always pressed for time. If ‘EF’ were to catch on, that would certainly be better…but it hasn’t yet. And I’m afraid that even the Holy Father (HF?) can’t alter language at will.

  88. Very interesting question!

    Terms like Tridentine, classical, Mass of All Time, vetus ordo, immemorial Mass, Mass of St. Pius V, traditional Mass, traditional Latin Mass (TLM) are all factually incorrect.

    The John XXIII Missal was none of these. It didn’t even last five years.

    The ’62 Missal was a transitional production, the fruit of 14 years of tinkering by Bugnini’s “Reform Commission,” intended merely to bring together what had been done piecemeal so far, so that the whole thing could be finished off for good at the Council.

    I was one of “The Nine,” by the way. We were bounced out of SSPX in 1983 because (among other things) we refused to celebrate Mass using this Bugnini production. You can find some articles about the John XXIII Mass on our web site, http://www.traditionalmass.org

    So, “Mass of John XXIII” probably the most accurate term on your list.

    But I suggest something snappier: “The Motu Mass.”

  89. BK says:

    The “Sensum fidei” says

    “Traditional Latin Mass or TLM”

    This is the first time I can recall that I’d agree completely with the common sense of the Sensum fidei.

  90. AALEX1 says:

    How about “The” Mass?

  91. WCY says:

    No one seems to like my suggestion of "Apostolic Mass"… Except Mr. Thomas Miller. That’s OK though.

    Some quotes to address Francis A.’s concerns:

    "In the period before the appearance of the new Missal, when the old Missal was already stigmatized as antiquated, there was a loss of the awareness of “rite”, i.e., that there is a prescribed liturgical form and that liturgy can only be liturgy to the extent that it is beyond the manipulation of those who celebrate it. Even the official new books, which are excellent in many ways, occasionally show far too many signs of being drawn up by academics and reinforce the notion that a liturgical book can be “made” like any other book."
    Ratzinger, Feast of the Faith, p. 85

    "In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history."
    Ratzinger, Feast of the Faith, p. 87

    "The prohibition of the missal (TLM) that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic."
    Ratzinger, Milestones

    Gathering from the quotes above, we can glean that:

    1. the TLM is a continuous (organic) growth from Ancient Sacramentaries
    2. therefore, the TLM is Traditional (ancient origin + organic growth = Traditional)
    3. the New Mass is a Roman Mass (perhaps it is simply because of Ecclesiastical origin, perhaps like a subdeacon was/is a Major Order [bishop, priest, deacon, subdeacon] based on Ecclesiastical authority.. the implication here, of course, is that anything of Apostolic authority is of Divine authority, just like the deacon or the TLM)
    4. the New Mass has to be reformed to be more Traditional

    So, knowing the above… what does Summorum Pontificum mean to do? It means to pull the New Mass in a more Traditional ("Traditional" as in "Traditional Latin Mass") direction. Look at the second quote above if you question this. The first quote is also helpful.

    Now, the balance of the equation: the New Mass Missal will help add legitimate changes to the Traditional Missal.

    Does the Holy Father pray that there will eventually be only one Missal? Perhaps… But only through an organic acceptance in the Church. Remember, the Church does not impose, the work of grace does not impose. This is the example of His Holiness, Benedict.

  92. WCY says:

    AALEX1 suggested: How about “The” Mass?
    THE = "Traditional, Holy, and Extraordinary"?
    As in the Traditional, Holy, and Extraordinary Mass?

  93. How about:

    “Common Usage” or “Pauline Usage” = 1970 Mass

    “Uncommon Usage” or “Johannine Usage” = 1962 Mass

  94. chiara says:

    Another quote from the Holy Father’s preface which he wrote for Mons Gamber’s ‘The Reform of the Roman Rite”
    I also believe that the Holy Father intends to change the ‘fabricated’ Novus Ordo cf Paul VI so that it return to the Tradition of the Catholic Church. The Pope indeed speaks very stong words about the post-Concilliar Liturgy

    “… But perhaps the following will be useful, J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great
    Liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a “liturgy” which is the fruit of development….

    What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it- as in a manufacturing process- with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy.”

  95. LeonG says:

    This Mass should be called what it is – Bugnini’s transitory Latin Mass – since there can be no doubt he intended it to be just another stage in the liturgical transformation from Latin to a mongrel multi-lingual “bastard” rite. We should insist on a return to the pre-1955 rite and take any subsequent “organic” modifications to the form very carefully without protestant novelties and strictly in line with Roman Catholic liturgical norms and values.

  96. joe says:

    Seems like most of the liturgies were distinguished by country/region or person of origin. Maybe an option for voting should include “Roman,” such as Ancient Roman Rite, or if needs be, Ancient Roman Form.

  97. “This Mass should be called what it is – Bugnini’s transitory Latin Mass…”

    Wasn’t Bugnini removed from his curial position under the pontificate of John XXIII, and only brought back under Paul VI? Further, weren’t the reforms of the mid-50s influenced less by Bugnini, than by persons such as Dom Casal, and the liturgical movement at places like Maria Laach? After all, Bugnini was no more than a parish priest until after the War. The liturgical movement had been around for quite a while by then.

  98. Why it’s the TurnBackTheClock-OverturningOfVaticanII-TheWorstThingThat’sEverHappenedToMeIn MyEntireLife-ICriedAllNight-AndTheyStillWon’tOrdainWombyns form of the Mass.

    At least that’s what Richard Rohr and Joan Chittister told me.