![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
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.]There is also "pre-Conciliar" [4] and "Mass of Pius V" [2] and "the Latin Mass" [ARRGH… - 5] and "the true Mass" [1].
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.]
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}
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.
Comment by L_D — 21 September 2007 @ 9:22 amI always liked Michael Davies use of “Carolingian-Gregorian Rite”
Comment by Melchior Cano — 21 September 2007 @ 9:26 amHow 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.
Comment by Agustin — 21 September 2007 @ 9:29 amFavorite shorthand – TLM.
Comment by Jon — 21 September 2007 @ 9:37 amI 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
Comment by Matt Robinson — 21 September 2007 @ 9:39 amtime of Gregory the Great….so I think it would
be a dignified name for it.
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.
Comment by Karen Russell — 21 September 2007 @ 9:46 amFather 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)
Comment by Henry Edwards — 21 September 2007 @ 9:53 amI use Classical Liturgy or Ancient Liturgy.
Comment by mollie — 21 September 2007 @ 10:02 amI had one seminary liturgy professor refer to it as the “Franco-Rhenish Roman rite”. How’s that for a mouthful??
Comment by sigil7 — 21 September 2007 @ 10:05 amExtraordinary and Ordinary
Comment by jane in memphis — 21 September 2007 @ 10:07 amI 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
Comment by Joshua — 21 September 2007 @ 10:08 amI 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 wayâ€, it’s an expression of the PRESENT TIMES. I think that is what His Holiness was trying to get across.
Comment by Rob in Maine — 21 September 2007 @ 10:13 amYes, 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.
Comment by Daniel Muller — 21 September 2007 @ 10:15 amHenry: I added that option. A little late, but better late then never.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 21 September 2007 @ 10:20 amI 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.
Comment by Claud — 21 September 2007 @ 10:41 amThanks 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.
Comment by Diane — 21 September 2007 @ 10:47 amLiturgy of St Gregory the Great, for me.
Usus modernus for the other.
Comment by moretben — 21 September 2007 @ 10:55 amI 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.
Comment by EDG — 21 September 2007 @ 10:57 amThe 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…
Comment by Andrew — 21 September 2007 @ 11:11 amI 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
Comment by FrV — 21 September 2007 @ 11:14 amFr. 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”:
Comment by wcy — 21 September 2007 @ 11:29 am“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.”
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”
Comment by Brian Day — 21 September 2007 @ 11:44 amA 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 v