I was alerted to this by a reader.
On ZENIT Fr. Edward McNamara often gives useful answers to liturgical questions. Here is tackles the older, Extraordinary Use of the Roman Rite.
Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments.
Complications of 2 Forms in 1 Rite
And More on Mass IntentionsROME, SEPT. 9, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: I am the parish priest for a dual-form parish and some of the complications are currently unavoidable. I have returned the tabernacle to the center and shifted the presider’s chair to the side. The free-standing altar is used for both forms, with the placement of altar cards and candles in the traditional form and the resetting of the altar for the celebration of the ordinary form. I’ve returned the altar rail in two spots and cushions for kneeling at the reception of Communion. Part of the "experiment" of Pope Benedict XVI lies in the "working" of both forms where the fervor and piety authentic to the Roman rite can be regained, nurtured and renewed. It is a pastoral chore to prepare a decent homily with different working ordos. [It is a sacrifice, to be sure… but in the end it will pay off a hundred fold!] It gets very interesting when the feasts don’t match (Baptism of the Lord vs. Holy Family) and when the seasons clash (Septuagesima vs. Ordinary Time); there’s more work for the parish priest. [Something a lot of people really don’t understand.] The rather stilted English of the Douay-Rheims also presents some challenges, yet it is often preferable to the Revised New American Bible. In the midst of the mayhem, there seems to be no guidance as to how a solemn high Mass would be celebrated when the order of subdeacon no longer exists. One might punt and use an instituted acolyte but that presumes training. [Well… any of the roles at Holy Mass presume that. And it isn’t rocket science. It just takes some practice.] The use of the deacon (transitional or permanent) requires even more training. The suggestion to use priests in the functions as was often done presumes a liturgical fluency that simply doesn’t exist at present.[Give it time.] In addition, the celebration of the Easter triduum in the extraordinary form is so ornamented that the presence of a master of ceremonies (archpriest) seems required. [Yes, very useful indeed.] Adding to that conundrum, the present discipline of the Church in celebrating a true vigil presents a clear conflict where two communities celebrate two forms under one parish priest in one parish church. Is there any Roman guidance for local adaptation? — W.S., Pennsylvania
A: [Fr. M responds] When Benedict XVI took the initiative of allowing the universal celebration of John XXIII’s missal he foresaw that some practical problems would arise. For this reason he increased the authority of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" precisely to address these issues. Consultations can be made to the commission at the Vatican. [Actually, I think they had that authority before under their previous faculties. But let us move along…]
This commission, along with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, is working on an instruction which will help clear up some of the difficulties that arise from having two forms of the Roman rite at the same time. [Hmmm…] Such questions constantly arrive at the desk of Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, the commission president.
Indeed, in a recent interview the cardinal said that he has more work now than when he was prefect of the Congregation for Clergy.
Closer to home, a priest desiring to celebrate the extraordinary form may also consult with those institutes dedicated to its celebration. They already have long experience in this field. They are also able to provide useful resources for training priests and ministers.
Regarding some of the questions at hand, it is an open question if an instituted acolyte may perform the duties formally reserved to the subdeacon. On the one hand the extraordinary form considers subdeacon as a member of the clergy, whereas the instituted acolyte is certainly a lay ministry. On the other hand many of the liturgical duties of the subdeacon were transferred to the ministry of acolyte. The editor of the new edition of the classic Trimelloni liturgical manual opines that it is possible to use the instituted acolyte for this purpose. [In fact, when Paul VI reduced the order of Acolyte, he said that the roles shifted to the Acolyte and that the Acolyte could even be called "Subdeacon". I think this is the best solution in the absence of a deacon or, in the absence of a deacon, a priest, to take the role.]
The order of subdeacon still exists in those institutes specifically dedicated to the extraordinary form. [Not sure it is really the order of subdeacon in the sense it existed before it was supressed by Paul VI… but go ahead…] It is not impossible to suppose that it could eventually be restored for all seminarians desiring to celebrate both forms of the rite. [Wow! An interesting idea. I would be for that.] Also, I see no particular difficulty in deacons or a priest performing these functions as this possibility is foreseen in the rubrics of the extraordinary form.
Regarding the readings, the Holy Father gave permission for the readings to be in the vernacular, provided that an approved translation was used. I would interpret this as a translation specifically approved for liturgical use and not just with an imprimatur. [The question remains whether the readings of the NO could be used in the vernacular instead of Latin readings from the TLM. The language of the Motu Proprio is a bit vague. I would definitely counsel against doing such a thing either way.]
It is probably permissible to use the translations approved for use before the reform when it was a fairly common practice to proclaim the Gospel first in Latin and then read a vernacular version. [Reasonable] It should also be possible to use the vernacular renditions found in the bilingual missals used by the faithful. [There were approved, after all, and are not contrary to faith and morals.]
This has the added advantage of corresponding exactly to the official text found in the Latin missal as some texts might not be found in the new vernacular lectionary exactly as they were in the Latin. [Right!]
While the full Easter triduum may be celebrated in a parish dedicated exclusively to the extraordinary form, I’d say that in a dual-form parish it is probably better to opt for the ordinary form unless the majority of parishioners prefer the extraordinary form. [I wonder. I have pondered this. It originally struck me that if the parish is usually for the NO, and the TLM is celebrated exceptionally, then it seems there should be only one celebration of the Triduum, in the NO. But Fr. McNamara introduces the desires of the people. I like that approach, though it could be very hard to gauge what the real attitude of most of the people is. If most people want the older form of Mass, however… that should say a great deal.] This is because insofar as possible the celebration of the triduum should gather the whole community together.
Finally, the question of the calendar is perhaps the hardest to resolve and will probably require much study and patience. The calendar has been historically the most flexible part of the missal, and several popes have reformed it over the centuries.
The Holy See might end up publishing a completely new edition of the missal of the extraordinary form, the “Benedict XVI Missal,” perhaps. Such a missal would leave John XXIII’s text fundamentally intact, but would add the celebrations of the new saints classified according to the traditional mode. The rubrics would probably need to be adjusted so as to take into account major feasts that have been transferred so that everybody, for example, celebrates Corpus Christi on the same day. [I think that would be a good solution. It would be sure to freak some people out, but it could be helpful. I would hope, however, that the NO calendar be adjusted back to some ancient observances of seasons and traditional feast days. I digress.]
Also, as the Holy Father suggested in his letter issued "motu propio" (on his own initiative), a few prefaces and Mass formulas (especially those coming from ancient Roman sources) could be added. These changes would help smooth out some of the difficulties in the calendar mentioned by our reader while remaining faithful to the organic development of the traditional rite as carried out by Popes such as St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII and John XXIII.
All in all, a pretty good response though he really doesn’t say all that much that will be new to readers here.
At the same time I am impressed with the priest who asked the question!
Whoever you are, WDTPRS to you, Father!
Loading ...
Hello Fr Z. –
Just posted the photos from the EF practicum in Archd of Wash held today in LaPlata, MD at http://mcitl.blogspot.com I will also send you an email to that effect.
Please invite your readers to check it out.
Gratias tibi!
Padre C
LCDR, CHC, USN
An instituted acolyte can perform the roles of a subdeacon in the EF:
http://saintbedestudio.blogspot.com/2007/03/ecclesia-dei-commission-decisions1.html
I know that some traditionalists are against the very idea of letting instituted acolytes exercise the office of subdeacon, but in this case, I see no harm in following the instructions of the PCED.
As for Fr. McNamara’s note that “The rubrics would probably need to be adjusted so as to take into account major feasts that have been transferred so that everybody, for example, celebrates Corpus Christi on the same day”, I think that this issue is important, and needs to be resolved quite soon. The PCED’s recent instruction permitting EF celebrations of Holydays of Obligation to coincide with those of the NO calendar was directed only to England and Wales and… will anyone really make use of this instruction? Nevertheless, in places where these feasts are major communal occasions, there can be tensions. Same with the celebration of a parish’s titular feast day.
In the parish where I serve, the calendar is certainly a contentious issue. Given that the EF is very new to the people here, the parish priest is being insistent that we follow the Novus Ordo calendar with regards to major feasts (Holydays of Obligation and Christ the King). Now, I hate the very idea of mixing rites and calendars,and for now I and some others are resisting the idea of following the Novus Ordo calendar for these feasts. However, the impasse has made me realize that these issues can be very serious, and I’m sure that my community is not the only
one faced with this debate.
I hope that a clear instruction can come from Rome before October 26.
I do not understand this debate about using an “instituted acolyte” as a straw subdeacon, when it was not unknown that pure laymen could act as straw subdeacons minus the maniple well before the council. In fact, this occurred with specific guidance from the SCR.
I am all in favor of the following:
Finally, the question of the calendar is perhaps the hardest to resolve and will probably require much study and patience. The calendar has been historically the most flexible part of the missal, and several popes have reformed it over the centuries.
The Holy See might end up publishing a completely new edition of the missal of the extraordinary form, the “Benedict XVI Missal,” perhaps. Such a missal would leave John XXIII’s text fundamentally intact, but would add the celebrations of the new saints classified according to the traditional mode. The rubrics would probably need to be adjusted so as to take into account major feasts that have been transferred so that everybody, for example, celebrates Corpus Christi on the same day. [I think that would be a good solution. It would be sure to freak some people out, but it could be helpful. I would hope, however, that the NO calendar be adjusted back to some ancient observances of seasons and traditional feast days. I digress.]
The Calendar is completely fungible. Unlike the rigid calendarists in the Orthodox churches, we can admit that the calendar of observation of saints on earth does not correspond to some perfect disposition of observation on the altar in Heaven.
A single calendar – pruned down from the EF calendar, augemented from the OF one, would be a good thing.
Of course, that kind of thing took decades in the 16th Century – and people are very impatient with the mills of Rome.
Here’s a question, regarding the Easter Triduum. Can there be a mix? For instance, Extraordinary Form on Holy Thursday, Ordinary Form on Good Friday, EF on the Easter Vigil, or vice versa, etc.
It the new edition of the “Trimelloni” going to be translated into english? Does anyone know where to get one?
Father, this is indeed great news a “Benedict XVI Missal” for the extraordinary form, a dream it would be wonderful.
However important to the clergy, these technicalities are actually not so important as would be clear instructions about women in the sanctuary, lay ministers, the way of giving/receiving Communion, attire of the congregation, standing/kneeling/sitting in pews, when to bow, genuflect with one knee or two, silence/noise in the church before and after the Mass…..AND what about those priests and laity, and bishops, who choose to take the law into their own hands.
Dear Father Z.
This could result in a thorny situation. Here my “two cents” worth:
What is so difficult in using two calenders, one for the EF, the other for the OF of Holy Mass at the same Church?
At All Saints in Flint, MI it has been done for 19 years and the only problems occurred when someone decided to experiment, once, using the NO calender (texts) for the EF Mass also.
For Solemn High Masses a Subdeacon, as well as a Deacon are “imported”. On those occasions the NO altar is moved.
Yes, we have in Fr. Anthony Majchrowski a wonderful and accommodating, holy pastor and it takes a little extra effort, no problem. It certainly seems less difficult than introducing yet another “Form” and have to probably sooner or later contend with “experimentation” such as it is unfortunately found in many NO Masses.
We wish you Godspeed and a safe, enjoyable and productive journey to GB and IT.
AMDG
T. Amberg
PS We are most grateful that our new Bishop, Most Reverend Earl Boyea of Lansing, MI has agreed to celebrate Holy Mass for us on Sunday, September 28th at 4:00PM, the 19th Anniversary of the Most Rev. Kenneth J. Povish, RIP granting us the Indult.
Fr. Z.,
I learn an enormous amount from this kind of post; not necessarily about the “theory” but very much so about the practicalities of bringing that “theory” into reality (probably a wrong choice of words but I’m doing my best here!). It reminds me to pray for our priests.
Thanks for all you do!
Papabile says: “it was not unknown that pure laymen could act as straw subdeacons minus the maniple well before the council.”
The example I’m thinking of is certainly WELL before the Council – before the Council of Trent, in fact. But in his book “Voices of Morebath” I am sure that Eamonn Duffy wrote that the “Parish Clerk” (i.e. a person equating to the sacristan), who was a layman, assisted the Priest and wore sub-deacon’s vestments? Admittedly this was in a very small rural parish in the 16th century, but does it not show that laymen serving as sub-deacon was an ancient practice?
The question of acolyte vs. subdeacon perhaps can be facilitated by reference to eastern practice. As such the office of acolyte does not exist, but rather is part of the duties of the subdeacon, who are very plentiful in Russian parishes. Because it is not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but rather a minor order in the east, training of certain acolytes to function as subdeacons could be an answer for OF usage in parishes using both forms.
Nov 2 is a Sunday this year, and All Souls Day in the ordinary form takes precedence of Sunday, but in the extraordinary form is transferred to Nov 3.
In the past we (i.e. the schola I sing with) have sung the Mass of All Souls in the evening of Nov 2, according to the ordinary form (which form has been the sole use in the parish in question). But the priest has been learning the older form and proposes this year to use it instead. However, presumably the e.f. Mass of All Souls should not be said on Nov. 2, according to the rubrics: the Sunday Office continues until Compline.
I suppose (since the Office itself isn\’t said publicly in this parish) that we could \”anticipate\” All Souls after the Mass(es) of Sunday have been said.. maybe. Or say a solemn votive Requiem instead, which would be almost the same anyway.
I don\’t know what will end up happening, but this is another little example of the problem mentioned in the original post.
The avilability of the Sacred Triduum in the Extraordinary Form is a very sensitive issue. As Fr. McNamara recegognizes, in a dual form parish the Ordinary Form will almost certainly be used. He suggests putting the matter to a vote of the parishoners. I wonder why we who cherish and require the Extraordinary Form need someone else’s permission. Until Summorum Pontificum we were second class citizens at best. Fr. McNamara’s solution simply solves his problem by imposing on us the same second class status. In the diocese where I am located we struggled to obtain a Traditional Latin Mass parish in order to ensure we could celebrate the Sacred Triduum in the Extraordinary Form.
Does anyone know if the Legionaries of Christ celebrate Mass in both forms? Are they are trained in both forms as well?
“No” in reply to Sean’s two questions about the Legionaries and the TLM.
Nonetheless, they can learn and offer it “on their own time.”
“The calendar has been historically the most flexible part of the missal, and several popes have reformed it over the centuries.”
This is true as far as the feasts of the Saints fixed to a particular day goes, and no-one should have any problems with this. The city of Rome itself had different Calendars for several of the major basilicas, and the churches of the religious orders had proper Calendars as well. However, the “Calendar” of the Proper of the Seasons is an absolutely fixed quantity common to every single rite and use of the Latin church; different churches may have had different Saints on the same day, but Septuagesima was always Septuagesima for everybody at the same time.
This is also one of the areas of greatest non-continuity in the post-Conciliar reform, especially since the changes to the Proper of the Seasons were not even remotedly contemplated by the Council itself. It is very much to be desired that in a future reform, extremely ancient features of the Proprium de Tempore, (Septuagesima, the Ember Days, the Octave of Pentecost etc.) be reintegrated into the post-Conciliar Rite.
Unless things have changed since the 80’s, current seminary practice has installation as acolyte taking place in the latter half of the second year of theologate – that is, a year prior to diaconate. In the traditional form, presumably the minor order of acolyte was received earlier, in collegiate seminary (?). My only point is that currently installed acolytes are fairly far along in their theological training presumably similar to what was typical for reception of subdiaconate prior to the latter’s suppression.
Gregory: This is also one of the areas of greatest non-continuity in the post-Conciliar reform, especially since the changes to the Proper of the Seasons were not even remotedly contemplated by the Council itself.
In both attending the NO daily and studying each day’s TLM readings and propers in a 1962 missal, I’ve come to believe that a principal weakness of the 1970 missal is in its daily and Sunday cycles of scripture readings. In particular, the 1970 march of daily readings obliterates the 1962 readings carefully coordinated and crafted to support saints’ day liturgies.
The article “The Loss of Liturgical Riches in the Sanctoral Cycle” by Peter A. Kwasniewski in the Fall 2007 Latin Mass illustrates this impoverishment by examining the upcoming 1962 propers and readings for Sept. 14 (The Exaltation of the Cross) through Sept. 18 (St. Joseph of Cupertino), and concludes:
“This sequence of profoundly coordinated and mutually reinforcing prayers, readings, and propers is only one example among many of the quiet working of the Holy Spirit on the calendar year over the centuries, perfecting the liturgical expression of the mysteries of faith and intensifying its pedagogical power on receptive souls. I recall how a highly perceptive priest who celebrated the Tridentine Mass every morning told me that such treasures of beauty and order could be found throughout the calendar. We should not be surprised; we should even have expected that a liturgy that had grown organically for centuries would exhibit refinements of that degree.”
What a tragedy that such scriptural richness in the liturgy was simply tossed overboard in the chaos of the 1960s.
In a “dual-form” parish that has an active program for the catechumate, there is no provision in the Traditional Mass of Easter Vigil for their initiation into the Faith. At St John’s in McLean this past year, we used the reformed missal for the entire Triduum — Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Vigil — but it was mostly in Latin, with the altar “facing East,” and the ceremonial details from the Traditional form preserved whenever possible.
David Alexander makes a very good point about initiation into the Church. However, aside from this concern, I’m sure most parishioners would agree that special occasions such as Christmas and Easter make the solemnity of the Extraordinary Form most appropriate. The only thing you would have to leave out would be confirmation. Couldn’t this be arranged at another time?
For those in the Washington, D.C. area who do not attend the novus ordo, there was a “stational church” arrangement for the Triduum. Saint Mary’s in D.c. had Maundy Thursday; Saint John’s in Silver Spring, Md. had Good Friday; and Saint Alphonsus in Baltimore had Holy Saturday. All were High liturgies — and well attended.
On the “merging” of the calendars, I would bet my house that the majority of that “merge” would be the 1962 calendar giving way to the novelty of the day. This should be opposed. In the novus ordo, for instance, there are barely any holy days this year! (Ascension Thursday was rounded off, All Saints is optional and the Immaculate Conception is optional. Good thing both 12/25 and 1/1 are federal holidays, as those would be rounded off as well by the USCCB.)
On the question of using a layman in the role of the ordained subdeacon, why is it that folks feel they must have a Missa Solemnis? If the proper men cannot be found, have a Missa Cantata. That’s why the one-priest compromise with song and solemnity was made in the first place.
Actually, the 1962 rubrics do indeed make provision for initiation rites at the Paschal Vigil. It can be done.
Does anyone know if the Legionaries of Christ celebrate Mass in both forms? Are they are trained in both forms as well?
Comment by Sean
I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that a few years ago some of their students wanted more exposure to the thought of St Thomas.
The answer was No.
On the question of using a layman in the role of the ordained subdeacon, why is it that folks feel they must have a Missa Solemnis? If the proper men cannot be found, have a Missa Cantata. That’s why the one-priest compromise with song and solemnity was made in the first place.I don’t think this is accurate historically. The Missa Cantata with incense as we have it today dates only from the early 20th century, I believe. As jackay points out above, the practice of a layman acting as subdeacon in the Solemn Mass goes back farther.
Grr… my html was stripped out of the above comment…
I don’t think this is accurate historically. The Missa Cantata with incense as we have it today dates only from the early 20th century, I believe. As jackay points out above, the practice of a layman acting as subdeacon in the Solemn Mass goes back farther.
Regarding Bible translations: Baronius Press will be reprinting the Knox Translation this fall (or so I’m told).
I think the Missal of Benedict XVI was going to be a replacement of the Paul VI.
I base that on the kneeling for communion discussion and new translation.
Maybe it will combine the two forms! 1 Missal, 1 Rite, two forms.
question out of the blue, but is there a rubric for a Missa Cantata minus the solemnity..i.e. Sung Mass no incense?
Joe:
Yes, that is called a Simple Missa Cantata. See the 2003 Fortescue for details. No incense or torch bearers.
I would be thrilled to see the restoration of some of the feasts and such from the old calendar.
I don’t know why we can’t keep some, like Divine Mercy Sunday, from the new calendar, while restoring most of the old.
We have lost so many observances.
In addition, with the readings that span over 3 years rather than being a reflection of the single liturgical year, I’d welcome the return to the single year rather than the readings which today are a race to cover Scripture. The ebb and flow of the liturgical year, its saints and observances, is submerged beneath the readings disassociated from the saint or time of the year.
But then again, we have very sparse recognition of feasts we DO have today. Its a rare sight to see a procession for Corpus Christi for instance.
For the standard parish, I hope we can work towards promoting reverence and understanding of the NO and the present calendar right now. This will make a better foundation for acceptance in the restoration and appreciation of the old.
Gosh, no more Ascension-Sunday-used-to-be-Thursday? That would be a start.
Tina: The ebb and flow of the liturgical year, its saints and observances, is submerged beneath the readings disassociated from the saint or time of the year.
This is what the previously cited article by Kwasniewski documents comprehensively. He argues that in liturgy
“The use of scripture is iconic, not homiletic. We are not being lectured at, but rather being summoned to worship, to bow down before mysteries. The readings are to function as verbal incense, not verbose information. That is why a relative narrow selection of Scripture passages, and usually rather shorter than longer ones, is perfectly adequate and even preferable for the sacred liturgy.”
The 1970 lectionery evidently is designed to cover Scripture as broadly as possible, with the result that the scripture readings for most days are unrelated to the feast or memorial (if any) of the day. But Kwasniewski points out that
“Not all passages are equally suited to the purpose of liturgy per se. With all due respect to the inspired word of God, probably only about 10 percent of the Bible is liturgically suitable. The other 90 percent is fertile ground for lectio divina, the practice that all of us should be engaged upon in some of the hours when we’re not at Mass.”
We have a day for “divine mercy” — the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, on the Friday after the (former) octave of Corpus Christi.
Tossing it on the Octave Day of Easter / Low Sunday would greatly interrupt the joyful nature of the resurrection.
There is logical reasoning behind the traditional calendar. Always.
How important is the season of Septuagesima? Really?
I would like to see the term “Divine Mercy Sunday” added to the Extraordinary Form as well. Note that when it was added in the Ordinary Form, no Mass texts were changed… they didn’t need to be. I believe the Gospel reading for that Sunday, in both forms of the Roman Rite, talk about the institution of the Sacrament of Penance & Reconciliation (Divine Mercy).
I would like to see the Season of Septuagesima added to the Ordinary Form, as well as the Octave of Pentecost, but that might present too many complications with the Lectionary, the numbering of the Sundays in Ordinary Time, etc.
Here’s one little thing that bugs me… Ordinary Form: Third Sunday of Easter = Extraordinary Form: Second Sunday after Easter.
Xpihs,
Define “important.”
Or read what Dom Gueranger and Abp. Schuster have to say about Septuagesima, and its place in the liturgy. It is a universal custom of the Latin Rite, and is therefore by definition important. Dom Gueranger has an espcially interesting section on medieval customs of the removal of the Alleluja.
If one want to play the reductionist, one can really say this about pretty much anything. How important are the Ember Days (fourth century), the Octava of Pentecost (at least seventh century, older than the octave of Christmas)? how important is the Offertory (13th-14th century in its present form)? And when the game is over, what you get is…boring
The idea of seminarians requesting the Minor Orders is particularly interesting. If continutity is to be the guide, should the same provisions for the Minor Orders then be made for diocesan and regular seminarians who want them, of course with the understanding that the law of the Church remains that entrance to the clerical state, with its encumbant rights and responsibilities, remains with the office of Deacon, as those orders who are devoted solely to the extraordinary form? Doesn’t Summorum Pontificum in making all of the Sacraments available to all of the faithful according to the books in force in 1962 necessarily include the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and the right to the 1962 form of the Sacrament include all seminarians who are deemed worthy of Ordination?
Dr Fratantuono wrote: “Actually, the 1962 rubrics do indeed make provision for initiation rites at the Paschal Vigil. It can be done.”
Since there are remnants of the old “scrutinies” in the traditional propers for Lent, I don’t doubt that it can be done. But how? Please reply here, or e-mail me privately (manwithblackhat at yahoo dot com) with the details, or to point to a reference.
Thanks.
I’ve always been a bit puzzled as to what the advantage of having “ordinary time” is…or even really what ordinary time is, aside for being Sundays that don’t fit into any other liturgical season. It kind of makes those Sundays seem unimportant.
IMO, “Septuagesima” and “Sundays after Pentecost” rate higher on the cool-ometer than “Ordinary Time” does :)
“Ordinary Time” does not mean in what it means in conversational American English.
It really is best understood as “ordinally counted time”.
The ordinal count runs forward from end of Christmastide through the day before Lent, and then (functionally) runs backward from Advent to Pentecost. It is designed to reduce the issue of optional weeks in the EF, especially with a view towards having a series of eschatologically oriented Sundays complete the year before Advent.
What we call the Nth Sunday of Ordinary Time is really the Sunday of the Nth Week of Ordinally Counted Time….which helps explain why there is no First Sunday of Ordinary Time, among other things.
Count me as one who supports the elimination of pre-Lent as a liturgical season. That said, i believe the Eastern approach of having a 2-week phase-in of abstinence (preceded by a week of no abstinence) has merit, and would have been a more effective tool against the excesses of Carnival season than the basically liturgical approach taken in the West. Just my tuppence.
Re: “Ordinary Time” – I think this name only exists in translations, and not even all of them. The Latin typical edition of the Roman Missal calls it “tempus per annum” (~time throughout the year), and this term has been adopted in some European languages (German: “Zeit im Jahreskreis”; Dutch: “Tijd door het jaar”). Portuguese has “Common Time” (“Tempo Comum”). The original Latin “tempus per annum” is actually also used in the extraordinary form, at least in the Breviary.
I’m no priest or scholar, but the new calendar always struck me as one of the worst things about the ordinary form.
How about the Ordinary Form of the Mass with the Old Calendar/Lectionary. Now that would be Continuity.
Dear Dr Henry Edwards,
What about the mutilation of the collects, communions and post communion prayers? The degree with which these were either eliminated or significantly altered is truly astonishing. I would not recommend reading Fr Cekada as he is a sedevacantist but his little booklet from Tan called “Problem of the prayers of the modern Mass” is eye-opening.
Liam,
Yes, I understand that “Ordinary” refers to “ordinal” as in counted time. In other words, a season in the church with no specific reference. Nothing specific…. nothing special…. ordinary.
Michael
The previous ordinal numbering system was similarly ordinary – there was no substantive connection to the referents.