We have had a poll going for a while on what we might best all Holy Mass according to the 1962 typical edition of the Missale Romanum.
Distinguished frequent reader and commenter Henry suggested that we have a run off between the top choices according to the poll.
Here were the final results when I closed the primary.
What should we call Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal?
- Tridentine Mass – 420 – 19%
- classical Mass – 45 – 2%
- Latin Mass – 55 – 3%
- pre-Conciliar Mass – 16 – 1%
- Mass of all time 60 – 3%
- the true Mass 74 – 3%
- extraordinary form/use (forma extraodinaria) – 394 – 18%
- usus antiquior – 109 – 5%
- vetus ordo – 52 – 2%
- older form of Mass – 73 – 3%
- Mass of Bl. John XXIII – 167 – 8%
- immemorial Mass – 16 – 1%
- Mass of St. Pius V – 35 – 2%
- traditional Mass – 143 – 7%
- Johannine Mass – 21 – 1%
- Traditional Latin Mass or TLM – 498 – 23%
Total Votes: 2184 Started: 21 September 2007
Here is our run-off between the top three results. I took only those which garnered double-digit percentages.
I humbly request other bloggers to link to this, so that we can obtain richer results.
Remember: There is no right or wrong term. Just choose from among these three the better of the three choices.
I will leave this open for voting for one week, till 4 October:
Loading ...
I voted for “extraordinary form” because that’s what I understand the motu proprio to call it, and I prefer to stick to the technical terms and vocabulary (along with “introit” rather than “gathering song”), even though “Traditional Latin Mass” is more pleasing to the tongue and the ear.
I am glad to see that none of the Latin terms are in the running . . . they sound a bit snooty.
I voted for “traditional Latin Mass/TLM” because (a) it is accurate, (b) it is understood by most readers and listeners (at least those that I am likely to encounter!), and (c) it needs no additional explanation, while “extraordinary form/use” does (i.e., it doesn’t stand on its own — “extraordinary use” of what?). Plus TLM is a handy shorthand.
The drift seems to be toward “Traditional Latin Mass.” This may be spitting into the wind, but here’s why I didn’t vote for that.
“Traditional” — I don’t want to concede that the current rite of the Mass isn’t supposed to be…traditional. I realize many who really favor the extraordinary form are very negative about the newer, ordinary form. But I believe it ill behooves us to concede this ground. Realize there are folks who oppose tradition, who want to say, “yes, keep your dusty old tradition–ick!–away from the new form of the Mass!”
But to be Catholic is to be traditional, and therefore, the term “traditional” must equally apply to both forms of the Mass. That this is not yet the case requires not movement away from “traditionalizing” the newer form of Mass, but toward that.
“Latin” — I offer a similar argument to the prior one: there are those, even bishops(!), who operate on the false notion that “old Mass equals Latin, new Mass is not-Latin.” Wrong, wrong, wrong! Both forms of the Roman Rite are the Latin Mass. It’s amazing but true that many people who should know better, think Latin is somehow an intrusion, an alien thing, in the celebration of the Mass according to the current, ordinary usage.
So I’d say, even if we called the former usage the “Traditional” Mass, I’d still balk at calling it, “Traditional Latin Mass,” because Latin belongs equally to both. This plays into the hands of those, as in my first point, who truly want to be rid of all that “old stuff.” I see no reason to help their cause.
“Tridentine” is more likely than “extraordinary use” since it’s more familiar and shorter, but I don’t like that choice because it perpetuates a really unhelpful misunderstanding — that this form of the Mass is only 500 years or so old.
So–of these choices, I vote for “extraordinary use.” But I can tell you, in my own choice of language, I tend to say, “older form of Mass,” because it’s shorter, and that usually wins, all things being equal.
I voted for “extraordinary use” for several reasons but Fr. Fox already listed them more eloquently that I could have. Thank you, Padre.
It seems to me that “Traditional Latin Mass” and “Tridentine Mass” accurately specify a certain form of liturgy, whereas “Extraordinary Form” is really just a nonspecific term that is assigned to the Traditional Latin Mass by current legislation.
It is remotely conceivable that the term “Extraordinary Form” could in the future be reassigned to mean the Novus Ordo Mass or some other form of mass.
It is my opinion, therefore, that “Extraordinary Form” is an unsuitable term for specifying the Traditional Latin Mass in general.
Tridentine Mass seems to be the best choice since the vast majority of the Mass was codified by Pope St. Pius V at the Council of Trent.
Tridentine Mass shows both accuracy and respect for an ancient mass that was codified pretty much as it is today during the Trent Council.
God bless you.
I dislike Tridentine Mass and TLM for the same reasons as Fr Fox, so I voted for extraordinary use. In fact, I find that I say older form or more ancient form about as often as I say extraordinary form.
“Tridentine” is understood by all the laics I encounter. A lot of the terms we use may seem to “date” the Mass, such as “Mass of Blessed John XXIII.” However, I see nothing wrong with denoting the Mass by the time of it’s codification by St. Pius V. I’ve been saying “Tridentine” all the years that I’ve been saying this Mass, so I will continue to do so.
BTW, practically speaking, “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” is kind of long to put on the top of a bulletin Mass schedule. Besides, most people would not know what that means. They’d say, “Yes, but what time is the Tridentine Mass, Father?”
“Extraordinary form…” is far to clunky. I’ve already gotten tired of hearing. One has to force themselves to say it, and it never flows well in conversation, or speech.
I use the term “Tridentine” quite often, but only due to the commonality of the term. I like it for that reason; that is, everyone knows to what you are referring. I dislike the term, however, for the reasons stated above; namely, because it perpetuates the myth that this Mass was invented at Trent when in fact it predates Trent by a millennium.
So I am voting for ‘Traditional Latin Mass’ and pray for the day when we no longer have to distinguish it from any ‘non-traditional’ liturgy (due to the lack of existence of any such liturgy).
Or as one priest calls it: the ordinary form of former times!!
The Council of Trent pulled together all the variations occuring in the ancient mass which had been in place since before Pope St Gregory the Great,and unified the mass into one solid Rite.
This is why we should use the term Tridentine Mass.
If it had not been for the Council we would most likely be calling it one of the Classical Rites as opposed to the unity which Trent gave the Mass and the Church.
Trent exemplified the essence of the Four Marks of the Church, particularly in codifying the Tridentine Mass.
God bless you.
Or instead of “extraordinary form” how about
SUPER FANTASTIC FORM!
I agree with Fr Fox. If the ordinary form isn’t traditional, we shouldn’t be using it. “Latin” belongs to both forms.
Personally I prefer “Tridentine” because it’s one word and it’s distinctive. “Extraordinary form” is two words, one of them long, and it (incorrectly) suggests that this form is only to be used rarely.
Nonetheless, as far as I know the Holy Father has called it the “extraordinary form”, not the Tridentine or the Traditional Latin Mass or the TLM. So perhaps we should use the same terms he does.
This has been a most fascinating debate.
I’ve enjoyed everyone’s comments.
I know Father Z said there’s no reason to stick with using any one expression, but now it’s a question of choosing one name which gets the message across.
The novus ordo of Paul VI can, of course, be celebrated in Latin. Anytime. Anywhere.
The “new” Mass is just as valid as the “old” Mass.
But when we use the word “traditional”, we all know what we mean :
The Mass we always knew, the unequivocally Catholic Mass, celebrated in the same way throughout the world, the Mass of all those centuries, the Mass which has been handed
down to us :
The Traditional Latin Mass.
While I would rather “Extraordinary Form” for its technical correctness, I have to go with “Tridintine Mass” as this term is supported by “venerable” (40 years of) convention.
To clarify thought, one should use the term everyone already knows.
WAC
Cor ad Cor Loquitur writes:
If the ordinary form isn’t traditional, we shouldn’t be using it.
You might be on to something here.
Anyway, other people can follow Alice down that rabbit hole if they like.
While the New Mass can be celebrated in Latin, that is the exception rather than the rule (something admitted by Paul VI in one of his general audiences — see http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM). So it is the vernacular and not Latin that is “the principal language of the Mass.” On the other hand, with very few exceptions (which may not even apply any more), the old Mass is always in Latin. So it is not wrong to identify the Latin Mass with the older rite.
I has all set to vote for “Extraordinary” when the “TLM” acronym tempted me, and I did eat thereof.
Sheepishly,
-J.
Non of the above.
The Ancient Roman Rite, or ad Dr. Cajetan Esser, OFM, said: the Ordo Romanus Antiquus.
I typically use the moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, I like to think of it as the “Mass of all time.” This is contrasted with the Novus Ordo, which I view as the “Mass of our time.”
“Latin belongs equally to both.” “Latin is [not] an intrusion, an alien thing, in the celebration of the Mass according to the current, ordinary usage.”
Isn’t it pretty to think so.
Before 1969 there was the Mass. After 1969 we have the Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae. No matter how badly you “don’t want to concede” that something isn’t traditional has no bearing on the fact of the matter. I can refuse to concede that the Ford Escort was not the official car of the Roman Army in the 1st Century, but that won’t make it so.
To be Catholic is to be traditional, and therefore, people feel guilty about all the non-traditional innovations they uphold. So, they apply the term “traditional†to things that are not. Because of this state of affairs we need to be more specific when referring to the Mass and that necessitates names like Traditional Latin Mass and my favorite: the True Mass.
I voted for TLM again.
After reading the comments, I started to realize that I use different terms for different audiences. Amongst family and friends, I use TLM or “Traditional Latin Mass”. But when talking to priests or other church staff, I use “Extraordinary Form” so that there isn’t a negative reaction to the term.
None of the three options is satisfactory, so I won’t vote in this poll, but if I had to choose, I’d probably go with “traditional Latin Mass.”
I also don’t think that any of the terms is perfect but for the sake of communication I prefer “Traditional Latin Mass” because everyone understands what you are talking about then. “Tridentine” links it too much with Trent, “extraordinary form” probably would be the best because it is the term that is used in the M.P., but let’s be honest, this probably will not catch on. “Traditional Latin Mass” rather than simply the “Latin Mass” also seems fitting because it allows for the point to continually be raised that the “ordinary form” in the Latin language should not be a strange concept but rather needs to be more widely understood as the typicum that it is.
For the sake of being provocative sometimes I say the “Vatican II Mass” and then raise the issue that this form of the Mass was celebrated at the Council, by Bl. John XXIII (also a zinger), and by the Fathers of Vatican II.
Bottom line though, I am anxious to see what God the Holy Ghost has in mind.
I use various terms interchangeably- everyone knowsa what I mean by ‘Tridentine Mass’ or ‘Traditional Latin Mass’, although for the sake of accuracy I prefer calling it the Gregorian Mass (or the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great, if we want it to show a relation to the Eastern Rites).
Actually, I like the phrase The Latin Mass simply because 99% (a conservative estimate) of all public Novus Ordo masses are said in the vernacular versus populum.
Here the liberals have shot off their own feet. Presuming that Latin liturgy would never return, they established the 1570-Latin 1970-Vernacular paradigm.
Now they try to say that it’s always been possible to say a Novus Ordo Latin mass. Yeah, right.
Both the ordinary and extraordinary forms are forms of the Latin Rite. “Extraordinary” describes its present relationship to the ordinary form, but for some 1400 years or so, this extraordinary form was, in fact, the ordinary form (and may one day become the ordinary form again). So, “extraordinary” describes not so much what it is, but how frequently it is used relative to the other form.
Fr. Fox hits the nail on the head with the other two choices.
My priest has explained several times that Pope St. Gregory the Great would be right “at home” saying the extraordinary form of the Mass. Though its origins are even more ancient than that, Pope St. Gregory the Great gave it (and all existing forms originating at least 200 years prior to that time) recognition. This Mass has grown organically since then–though remaining largely unaltered and, of course, the same in its essence. Might I then propose: the Mass of St. Gregory the Great?
The problem with any of these terms (especially the term I just made up) is that the average person on the street (and probably in the pews) wouldn’t know what any of them are–so you end up having to give a lengthy explanation most of the time. After all, when is the last time your pastor gave a homily on the history of the Mass? As WAC points out, “Tridentine” is probably the most familiar term.
We could call it–as Fr. Z does in his introductory paragraph–“Holy Mass according to the 1962 typical edition of the Missale Romanum”, which Americanized would be “Mass According to the Typcial Edition of the Roman Missal of 1962” the acronym of which is “MATER M 1962” ;-) Never mind.
Michael Drake,
Great call. The Mass of Pope St. Gregory the Great has a ring of more accuracy to it than anything else mentioned. Other than Tridentine,of course.
God bless you.
Michael: Might I then propose: the Mass of St. Gregory the Great?
Ummm… I don’t think so. And I don’t think St. Gregory would have been at all at home in the post-Tridentine form of Mass.
“Mass According to the Typcial Edition of the Roman Missal of 1962†the acronym of which is “MATER M 1962â€
Clever!
o{]:¬)
I voted with what turned out to be the majority but only because I just became aware of the poll (through Off the Record on cwnews.com). My real first choice is what I have always called it—and I still think it’s best because at least in my mind it carries no ideological freight: the Mass of 1962.
I would have thought another description, that of Conciliar Latin Mass or CLM, would be most appropriate. After all the final change to the 1962 missal took place after the Council had started with Bl. John XXIII’s Nove hisce adding the name of St. Joseph to the Canon. After the Council the 1965 rite was is use so CLM seems a most accurate term.
Michael Skelly, RBrown:
There are members of the faithful, and priests (more every year) who want to celebrate the current, “ordinary” Missal in accord with tradition and with at least some Latin. I believe the current Missal has yet to be properly celebrated outside of a few places. Done properly, it is very different from what so many rightly lament.
I want to do all I can to help that cause, and avoid doing anything that hinders it, and I presume (correctly?) that you want the same.
This may seem obscure, except I write from the perspective of a parish, where we are actively trying to do what I describe, and I cannot tell you how frequently the misperceptions I describe create problems: i.e., Tradition and Latin belong to the “old way of doing things.”
So, for my part at least, I never refer to it as either the “Traditional Latin” or “Tridentine” Mass, but generally, “older form of Mass,” or less often, “the way Mass was offered before the changes/reforms of Vatican II” or “the way Mass was offered until fairly recently.”
It is fair to say, however, that while some of us are very interested in the current Missal arriving where it needs to be, others consider the new Missal to be unsalvageable, or not worth the effort; and I suspect that which way one tends to go on that may inform some of our language about the older form v. newer form.
I prefer the term “Traditional Latin Mass” because this refers to the essence of the thing. “Extraordinary form” is just a juridical construct, which did not exist prior to 7 July, and might not exist in the future; but this form of the Mass will always be the Traditional Latin Mass.
I believe Father Fox’s objections can be overcome as follows. “Traditional” can have a number of different meanings. It may be true that the Novus Ordo is “traditional” in the sense that it can be celebrated in a way consonant with tradition, but it is not “traditional” in the primary sense, namely, that of _traditio_, of handing-on. The old form of the Mass came to us by being handed on from one generation to the next since time immemorial, with only insignificant changes at each stage; whereas the new form was substantially invented by a committee in the 1960s.
Similarly, “Latin” could refer to the language or to the rite. I use the term “Latin Mass” primarily to mean “Mass of the Latin Rite”, a.k.a. Roman Rite, not just “Mass in the Latin language”. For example, the Ambrosian Mass is in Latin, but it is not _the_ Latin Mass.
So, both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass could be called “Latin”; and both the Tridentine Mass and, say, the Byzantine Liturgy or the Ambrosian Mass, could be called “Traditional”, but there is only one Traditional Latin Mass.
Father,
Why do you think Pope St.Gregory the Great would not be “be at home” with the Tridentine Mass?
Thank you.
I went with ‘Traditional Latin Mass’ and the handy shorthand ‘TLM’ since it seems to me to be the best blend of accuracy and familiarity. Besides, I’m not one who has a negative reaction to the word “Tradition” (especially upper-case ‘T’). To me “tradition” (lower case) at least implies organic growth with no ruptures and breaks. Therefore, even if it is rather different than Pope St. Gregory the Great would have known, it remains essentially the same; rather like the office of Peter itself remains the same, even though it has changed quite a bit since his time.
I think that “extraordinary use” is better. Traditional Latin Mass sounds exclusive and divisive. By saying “extraordinary use” we’re affirming the one Roman Rite while explaining that the Missal of Pius V/Bl. John XXIII is simply a more elaborate (and obviously better and more stable) version.
Fr. Z et el,
Forma Extraodinaria is a mouthful,so I prefer Usus Antiquior myself, since this demonstrates that in the Latin rite there are several usages, and yet they all belong to the same Ritual Family at least from the point of view of a juridical framework. Tridentine Mass has never been accurate, and I find that priests and laity that use the term whether they be from the left or right can often fall into the trap of the hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity that Pope Benedict has warned us about. Traditional Latin Mass has its own problems because there are several traditional Latin Masses that can be envisioned including the usages of the various religious families. Even on Christmas at least for Missa in Nocte and certainly on other occassions, when the Roman Canon is used and all the proper chants are employed even in the new rite how can that not also be considered a Traditional Latin Mass? Therefore were I to choose something for the runoff it would have to be forma extraordinaria since that term has juridical meaning though personally I prefer usus antiquior.
–Fr. Bryan Pedersen
“The true Mass” is objectionable because it implies that the N.O. (however deficient in numerous ways) is not “true”–not “valid.” “Tridentine” was fine as long as the old Missal was, in practice, in eclipse. But now the old Mass is again fully a part of the Church’s life, no shadows, no skulking, D.G.! I find myself saying “Mass according to the Missal of 1962,” believe it or not. In parish bulletins, it would be convenient to indicate which Missal will be used simply by printing the numerals “62” or “69” after the time: e.g., 9:00AM (62)…Blessedly free of emotional overtones, recriminations, or implied value judgments.
Picture yourself talking to a fellow Catholic at work who is not terribly knowledgeable about the history of the Mass or of the liturgical changes. You want to tell him about the Mass you attended on Sunday.
Do you call it the extraordinary form (or use)?
Do you call it the usus antiquior?
If someone told me he was going to the forma extraordinaria or the usus antiquior or the vetus ordo, and I weren’t familiar with those terms from blogdom, I would assume he was talking about some kind of conventicle of Latin scholars, not the Mass.
I think that it is only gracious to consider the reasons why people attached to this form are attached to it, and to choose the nomenclature accordingly.
I don’t know anyone who attends this Mass precisely because it is extraordinary; most want it to be ordinary.
I don’t know anyone who attends this Mass precisely because its Missal was issued in 1962, or by John XXIII; most would prefer an earlier Missal, were one available.
There may be some who attend it precisely because it is Tridentine (those who quote Quo Primum all the time), but many (myself included) are not particularly fond of the Spirit of Trent and the damage it did to the traditional chant melodies, iconography, sanctoral legends, sequences, local customs, et cetera.
But we all love it because it is traditional, because it is Latin, and because it is the Mass. Choosing a different name that has little to do with the actual motivation for loving this Mass seems a little patronizing – like telling people what they ought to think about it, rather than why they do.
I said “Tridentine Mass” because to me it’s clearest… I know Tridentine means the traditional form, and yet it sounds more.. I dunno.. Elegant and to the point.
The Sensum fidei is truly speaking for a change, let’s be careful to listen to it in this one case.
Note that the common folk are voting in far different proportions than what one would assume from the theological explanations and debates offered on these related threads.
“Traditional Latin Mass” just works in so many ways and for so many common sense reasons.
And everyone, no matter where they are on the Church spectrum, knows exactly what “Traditional Latin Mass” means. Its not divisive, its just a good simple description of the obvious. Why fight it?
With all due respect to our Holy Father, the Missal of
1962 probably should be called the “Ordinary Form”,
due to its antiquity. At 40 yrs old, the Novus Ordo
is still young. It is more properly the “experimental”
version and thus, the “Extraordinary Form”.
Just as we have been given a “New Order” (NO), I think we should have the “Traditional Order” (TO). Nevertheless, we should have long ago made appropriate changes, such as: Use of the vernacular for the Gospel and “Epistle”; constrained use of the Requiems; simplified prayer at the Communion of the Faithful; no longer requiring the use of a “soto voce” during the Offertory and Canon. Under all circumstances, the Priest should face the Altar (Christ) rather than the people. And, please, cut out all the dittys and self-centered hymns. As in the past, we should have 90 percent of the Masses without singing.
Fr. Pedersen: Forma Extraodinaria is a mouthful,so I prefer Usus Antiquior
Yah… because that’ll be so much clearer for people!
o{];¬)
I don’t like the term “TLM” because I have often heard it explained as “The Latin Mass” – a term which is clearly confusing at best since both the Ordinary and Extraordinary form may be said in Latin.
The term “Traditional Latin Mass” is fine – just don’t use the acronym.
Daniel: But we all love it because it is traditional, because it is Latin, and because it is the Mass. Choosing a different name that has little to do with the actual motivation for loving this Mass seems a little patronizing – like telling people what they ought to think about it, rather than why they do.
If my own finger had been poised above Father Z’s “close comments button”, I’d have been tempted to hit it after your post. Lest anyone else be attempted to say it all more precisely and succinctly. I cannot do so.
Fr. Z:
Regarding your comment about St. Gregory the Great not being at home in the post-Tridentine mass, I don’t think St. John Chrysostom, St. James, or St. Basil would have been any more at home in the liturgies named after them.
But I agree with your assessment of the proposed name. It is not a Western tradition to ascribe liturgies or anaphora to saints.
I assist at the Old Mass. Or sometimes I say the Traditional Mass. This is simple and clear. The question becomes immediately obvious – “OK; you;re going to the Old Mass, so that means I’m going to some form of NEW Mass?? And if it’s not Traditional, then WHO manufactured/authorised/composed it out of the blue???” And so on…. YOu get my drift…..
With all due respect to Fr. Fox, and following Laszlo Dobszay’s argument in “The Bugnini-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform” (http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/dobszay-bugnini.pdf),the Traditional Latin Mass implies the unity of the Missal of 1962 with the Roman Rite, before and after Trent, while there is no danger of confusing the artificially assembled “Bugnini Liturgy” with the Roman Rite in any way.
AMDG
Haha, I like that anti-spam word!!
Why can’t we just call it what HIS HOLINESS said we should in Summorum? Calling the Mass of Ages the “Tridentine Mass” is false, because the Mass was not created at Trent, merely re-affirmed. His Holiness, seeing the success that the 2 forms of the Litrugy of the Eastern Rite, the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil (“extraordinary”), and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (“ordinary”), knew that the Holy Spirit wanted the formerly Two Liturgical Rites to become two FORMS under one ROMAN RITE (as you all know)…so why not just call it the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Classical Roman Liturgy, Mass of Ages, yeah they’re nice, but when you start getting into “Traditional” Mass…that’s just as bad as the Church Liberals! We must be Orthodox, not conservative (and especially not liberal!), and adopt the Holy Father’s words as our own.
Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem nostram,
Bruce H
I originally voted for “traditional Mass” which I think is the opposite of what I would call the Novus Ordo which would be “contemporary Massâ€. This is something like what you see Protestants do, “traditional service†or “contemporary serviceâ€. I think it gets the point across effectively either one word or the other. Also, I like to point out to people that the “traditional Mass†which was prayed from 1570 to 1970 had the last 5 years which were to varying degrees in the vernacular. These are the “so called†transitional Missals of 1965 ane 1967. I realize these transitional missals weren’t typical editions like the 1962. But, this way when someone starts badmouthing Latin I say, Latin is not the issue. Because I’d rather have the “tradtional Mass†in English like it was for my First Holy Communion in 1967 than the “contemporary Mass†in Latin. It’t the theology of the Traditional Catholic Mass that I’m concerned about, not language. But since the MP is strictly limited to the 1962 books with no revisions, then Traditional Latin Mass is the one I’ll vote for. Because there is no permission to use the vernacular in the “traditional Mass†yet. Also, Tridentine has often been associated with the word “Riteâ€. With the Holy Father insisting on only one “Roman Rite†I think the use of Tridentine should be avoided. Lastly, I think that the ordinary vs extraordinary form is a legalistic term for the Holy Father to have to use in the MP, but is not something that will roll off people’s tongues easily anytime soon.
The best choice in my opinion is “Traditional Latin Mass”.
Others have given great explanations in the combox.
Looks like TLM is pulling away. The reason is because *TLM does convey a real sense of the apostolic and patristic roots, as well as the true organic development of the TLM.*
The reason “extraordinary” is not good: it doesn’t make sense, and the Holy Father never insisted on giving such a beautiful liturgy such a banal and insipid name. Even if he did insist on a name, we should all think before adopting it. That’s how Catholics traditionally thought (before we had this idea of strict strict strict obedience beyond matters of faith.) I find it dismaying that people say: “Because that’s what the Pope called it!”
If one reads Summorum and the letter carefully, “extraordinary” is only used as a term of art to describe the juridical nature of the TLM, and not meant to be a new name of the TLM. Thus, he introduces the Missal in another fashion, such as “Missal of Bl. John XXIII”, before going on to describe the juridical nature as “forma extraordinaria”.
Be careful! Tradition can be very much in the eye of the beholder. The London Oratory does the Novus Ordo in Latin, ad apsidam and with a first and second deacon. No doubt some think of it as a traditional Latin Mass. I have seen much the same but without the two deacons. Then there is the Dominican Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Carthusian Rite and so on. On the New liturgical Movement an argument (with pictures) was made for a revival of the Sarum Rite which was a glorious Rite which Quo Primum would have kept but Elizabeth I suppressed. These are all Traditional Latin Rites. The term is popular among many but too imprecise.
I am reminded of a college which added a new Quadrangle to their buildings. They were prudent enough to know that everyone would use a short cut across the lawn so they saw the need for a sidewalk to spare the grass. But where would everyone go? What if they put down a sidewalk and everyone went in other directions?
Then a wise man said, Why not simply grass over the entire Quad and then watch? The students will beat their own path and then we can pave the beaten path. It was a successful manouevre.
When the Pian Holy Week reforms came out in the mid 50’s the Mass of the Presanctified was re-named “Actio Liturgica.” Fine in Latin perhaps but it was a bewidered congreation who heard the priest in our church announce on Palm Sundy that on Good Friday at 3:00PM there would be a “Liturgical Action.” Not to worry! In a relatively short time it grew to be called the Good Friday Liturgy. Another “beaten path”.
Father Z, I’m afraid this time you’re the culprit. The Indult has been in effect for only two weeks and already you have to nail down a name. I suggest that you try doing what Bugninni could NEVER do which is, “Let it rest!” I’m comfortable with the “Older Use” and the “Newer Use” but by next week I might have changed my mind. It’s too soon! Let it rest!
I chose Extraordinary form/use. I think we need to look to where the Pope is trying to go with this. He wants the divisions healed and the two forms to bring their particular gifts to each other. (For example, perhaps, the increased variety of readings from the Ordinary form and the reverence and sense of worship from the Extraordinary form.) By separating the forms by time or tradition, there is less chance of them eventually standing side by side, against the world, giving true worship to God. Ordinary and Extraordinary link the forms rather than pitting them against each other.
True, the word extraordinary needs explaining but I think it is worthwhile to do so, even necessary. Otherwise we are going to be stuck with “Eucharistic Ministers” instead of the proper Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The Church uses the word extraordinary in a very specific, but definitely “non-ordinary” way. Educate those who don’t understand the term; people are smart enough to learn.
+ JMJ +
Hello, Father Zuhlsdorf—this post, along with the post on Bishop Zipfel, made two consecutive posts in Diogenes’ “Off the Record†Blog on CWN. I don’t think I’ve ever seen two simultaneous hat tips from Diogenes before. Congratulations—that must mean that not only has WDTPRS entered the major leagues (actually, that came with your “Summorum Pontificum†coverage), but that you’ve been selected for the All-Star team.
In Christ,
David M. O’Rourke writes:
Father Z, I’m afraid this time you’re the culprit. The Indult has been in effect for only two weeks and already you have to nail down a name.
It’s not an Indult. :-)
One of the reasons I like “traditional Latin Mass”/TLM is that it is one of the more popular terms for the Mass already in existence (the other being “Tridentine”). IOW, it is “traditional” to call the Mass the “traditional Latin Mass.” It’s the term that has been handed down and received, while “extraordinary form” is a novelty.
Mr. O’Rourke said: “Be careful! Tradition can be very much in the eye of the beholder.”
If “tradition” is used in the sense of bells and smells, yes, it is the eye of the beholder. But “tradition” limited to the solemnity, language, or the ad orientem position of the celebrant is superficial!
“Tradition” is the rootedness in the Apostolic and Patristic Liturgy, together with the method given us of organic development. (cf. Trent and V2). This is more or less an objective definition.
So, yes, the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Sarum, and various Romanita Rites in existence prior to Trent and V2 are “Traditional Latin Rites” because they all were rooted in the Apostolic Liturgy and are organically derived therefrom. But the Liturgy given prominence by Trent and by the Saints (Francis, Dominic, Ignatius, etc.) is that of the Church in Rome.
The reason we call the pre-1970 Missale Traditional is because it is derived from Apostolic roots, and it has organically developed since then. (cf. Ratzinger, Gamber, Trent, V2).
The reason we don’t call the Novus Ordo Missae “Traditional” (at least not yet) is best summed up in H.H. Benedict’s words:
“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
There are members of the faithful, and priests (more every year) who want to celebrate the current, “ordinary†Missal in accord with tradition and with at least some Latin. I believe the current Missal has yet to be properly celebrated outside of a few places. Done properly, it is very different from what so many rightly lament.
I want to do all I can to help that cause, and avoid doing anything that hinders it, and I presume (correctly?) that you want the same.
This may seem obscure, except I write from the perspective of a parish, where we are actively trying to do what I describe, and I cannot tell you how frequently the misperceptions I describe create problems: i.e., Tradition and Latin belong to the “old way of doing things.â€
So, for my part at least, I never refer to it as either the “Traditional Latin†or “Tridentine†Mass, but generally, “older form of Mass,†or less often, “the way Mass was offered before the changes/reforms of Vatican II†or “the way Mass was offered until fairly recently.â€
It is fair to say, however, that while some of us are very interested in the current Missal arriving where it needs to be, others consider the new Missal to be unsalvageable, or not worth the effort; and I suspect that which way one tends to go on that may inform some of our language about the older form v. newer form.
Comment by Fr. Martin Fox —
Let me preface my comments by saying that I am not a Traditionalist. I am by education and inclination a Thomist and one who thinks that Latin should be the liturgical language of the Church. Nor am I a conservative, i.e., one who thinks that we need only to refine the status quo and wait for better times (cf JPII).
Kudos for your efforts to improve the liturgy in your parish. Pastors seem to be caught in the middle these days, leaving one group or another dissatisfied. I realize you are having to deal with the fact that for many years liberalism in parishes has encouraged the laity to play priest on Sundays. To me this has encroached on the status of the priest–one man complained to me that he is no longer permitted to clear the chalice after mass.
The only answer I know of is simply “sentire cum Ecclesia”, which is more complex and difficult than it sounds. And I think it is also helpful to point out to those who inveigh against the “old way of doing things” that the past 40 years have largely been a pastoral flop.
There are certain flaws in the Novus Ordo, some not intrinsic to it but rather a matter of custom.
EXTRINSIC (not necessary to change to the Missal).
1. Versus Populum. For years I have been telling anyone willing to listen that the sine qua non of any liturgical reform is to get the picnic table out of the sanctuary. The reason is that it undermines the priest as a mediator between God and man, the one who enters the sanctuary to offer the sacrifice. Instead it positions him, a la Protestantism, as primarily the prayer leader.
2. Latin. See Veterum Sapientia. To me the only place for the vernacular is with the readings at a parochial mass.
INTRINSIC (need a change to the Missal)
1. The very brief, ambivalent–and thus unsatisfactory–offertory.
2. The 2d EP, AKA instant consecration.
3. The Readings. There are obvious advantages to the consecutive readings because of exposure to more Scripture. On the other hand, they are seldom oriented to the feast of a Saint. Further, on Sundays they are almost almost never co-ordinated with the Breviary, excepting the antiphons for Lauds and Vespers.
4. Although the Novus Ordo Confiteor is not a disaster, I would prefer to see it expanded to more closely resemble the one found in the 1962 Missal.
I am reminded of a college which added a new Quadrangle to their buildings. They were prudent enough to know that everyone would use a short cut across the lawn so they saw the need for a sidewalk to spare the grass. But where would everyone go? What if they put down a sidewalk and everyone went in other directions?
Then a wise man said, Why not simply grass over the entire Quad and then watch? The students will beat their own path and then we can pave the beaten path. It was a successful manouevre.
Comment by David M.O’Rourke
My eight years in Rome have taught me that you have described only the first step in the process. While time is taken for watching which way the students will go, various people will be haggling over whose brother-in-law gets the contract to put down the sidewalk.
The consensus seems to be the “Traditional Latin Mass”. However, the only reason
I went with “Extraordinary Form” is because of the reference given by our Holy
Father – that is, “one Mass, two forms”.
BMP
Father Z,
Readers of your blog might be interested to know that the current Fall Sale at Oxford University Press includes Lewis & Short, which is currently available for $135.- instead of the usual list price of $225.- Go here: http://tinyurl.com/2y4wo2 to order it at the reduced price.
(Amusingly enough, my anti-spam word for posting this comment is “Buy a Lewis and Short”!)
It should be called simply the Mass. It is, after all, the pre-existing form and its name shouldn’t need to be retro-fitted with various modifiers to distinguish it from the more recent form. The real question is what to call the more recent form and for that modifiers are definitely required.
I now like AO for Ancient Order, or Anticus Ordo in Latin. It would give an easily distinguished abbreviation to balance out NO in parish bulletins, e.g. God forbid we use “Antiquus” for Older, which would have an unfortunate connotation in English.
I hope the terms “true mass” or “immemorial mass” are not meant to imply that the Western Liturgies of St. Ambrose (Milanese), Ss Isidore and Leander (Mozarabic), or the Eastern Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom or Ss Addai and Mari (for example) are “untrue masses” or chopped liver.
One ought not to confuse names with definitions.
What is the Traditional (or Tridentine) Latin Mass? Pope Benedict has defined (or declared) it to be the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. Why would anyone think he meant to name it the Extraordinary Form?
“But we all love it because it is traditional, because it is Latin, and because it is the Mass. Choosing a different name that has little to do with the actual motivation for loving this Mass seems a little patronizing – like telling people what they ought to think about it, rather than why they do.”
I just wanted Mr. Matsui’s gem to be seen again. Bravo.
“Matsui” should be “Mitsui”. I must have been thinking of a local politician. My apologies.
“While I would rather ‘Extraordinary Form’ for its technical correctness…”
Not exactly. Look at the text again, and consider…
Let’s say I have both a younger brother and an older brother. I issue a statement saying: “Kevin is my younger brother, while Jim Bob is my older brother. Now, is everyone going to call them “Younger Brother” and “Older Brother”? No, because they have names. The papal decree made a generic reference to one particular missal (which it already gave a name, with proper nouns like one would expect) as being “ordinary,” while the other (which also already had a name) being “extraordinary.” Unlike Kevin and Jim Bob, however, the Pope could wake up tomorrow and decide to switch their ordinary versus extraordinary roles, as I believe Father Aidan Nichols has proposed might happen in “Looking at the Liturgy.”
Let’s all admit it, you can’t get enough of that word “extraordinary.” Why should “communion ministers” have all the fun?
Fr Z – I hope your poll hasn’t run off the rail. When I try to look at the results there’s a rather confused display.
“One ought not to confuse names with definitions.”
Yeah, what HE said.
Father Z: Now that this has been clarified, I wonder whether all those who voted for the generic description Extraordinary Form — instead of one the two names TLM or Tridentine Mass — might be allowed to change their votes. Let me emphasize that this suggestion is entirely altruistic, offered in simple charity, since I myself would not be one of those affected.
Fr Z,
Ancient Use then?
Fr. BP
Fr. Z,
I suppose that is a mouthful as well. Touche.
–Fr. BP
Personally, as someone who has happily boycotted the Novus Ordo since 1995 (with only one exception, for a funeral), I have come to refer to the extraordinary form as “The Mass.” The NO, in my opinion, is best referred to as “The McMass” which I think a very apt analogy: the NO is a valid Mass in much the same sense that a Big Mac is valid food, but neither is very nutritious.
Neil: I have come to refer to the extraordinary form as “The Mass.â€
In 1955, not only you but everyone else simply called it The Mass. Nobody ever heard any of these tongue twisters used in ordinary conversation until after Vatican II. But one can certainly say that The Mass was as extraordinary then as it is now.
RBrown makes some interesting comments worthy of consideration on certain shortcomings of the new missal on the textual side. Personally, I would like the older offertory to come back, at least for some days (Sundays?), but the shortened form does make the basic point. I would defend the new lectionary though, and its limited integration with the breviary. It’s my understanding that the principle of the Roman Rite for so-called ordinary time is variety in expressions of prayer, rather than thematic integration. True the Novus Ordo has more integration than in the older form of mass, but to the extent it doesn’t the Novus Ordo is actually following the Roman liturgical tradition.
“[T]he NO is a valid Mass in much the same sense that a Big Mac is valid food, but neither is very nutritious.”
So the Eucharist consecrated at a so-called “McMass” is not as “nutritious,” is that what you’re saying?
How about the “organically developed Roman Mass” in contradistinction to the “New Mass of Bugnini and Crew?”
What exactly are y’all trying to name? The Mass? Surely not. The Mass is the Mass. The rite? Surely not. We know that the rite is Roman. What exactly then is being named? The usage? The Missal? The form? The style? The language? The edition? The year?
I think the answer is given in the question: “What should we call Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal?” Answer: Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal.
David: “[T]he NO is a valid Mass in much the same sense that a Big Mac is valid food, but neither is very nutritious.â€
So the Eucharist consecrated at a so-called “McMass†is not as “nutritious,†is that what you’re saying?
Neil: No, that’s not what I’m saying. My point is about the deficiency of the 1970 Missal, not the Eucharist per se.
Do the math: a rite which deliberately obscures its true meaning and sacrificial character has been attended by 99.9% of Roman-rite Catholics for the past 40 years. There are now at least 3/4 of a billion lalapsed Catholics in the world; polls demonstrate that as many as 65% of those who remain do not believe in the real presence. The McMass is often used as a vehicle to promote heterodoxy and heteropraxis, and that’s what these people have been fed on. They have, in a spiritual sense, been starved.
Thus, the “nutritional deficiency” of the McMass is empirically manifest.
Bernard M. Collins writes:
I now like AO for Ancient Order, or Anticus Ordo in Latin.
“AO” means “adults only” to me. ;-)
I refuse to call it the Latin Mass because this is not about Latin but as long as you always say ‘traditional’ in front of it, it’s the best of the three because nobody outside church circles knows what the other two mean.
This just in – the Red Sox have won the AL East for the first time since 1995, eliminating the Yankees and ending their streak of division titles at nine. Also, the Phillies have taken sole possession of first in the NL East, and are one up with two to play on the Mets, who are on the verge of completing the biggest September collapse in baseball history.
It’s a good time to hate New York sports. :)
I’m strongly in support of “Extraordinary Form”, and just accepting the fact that we’re going to have to explain it for a while. It’s what we do: we’re still explaining what transubstantiation maens, and no faithful catholic is working particularly hard to give it a
new appellation, just explicate the contents. Same thing with the EF.
EF also has one less letter than TLM, but if you wanted to put in EFM, that would be fine.
First, and I think this is sufficient unto itself, because the Pope called it that. Second, because it appears as such in a Papal document and doesn’t risk any confusion since for some schismatics, TLM means something different than the 62 missal. Third, because it has the word ‘Extraordinary’ built right in: which means it should have some level of that which transcends the /de rigour/, and that is the right image to cultivate.
dcs writes: It’s not an Indult. :-
You are quite right of course. It is not an Indult but a Motu Proprio. An indult would be merely permissive. Among other things Summorum Pontificum states that the celebration of the EF is a right. After a long day I got to this blog at about 2:00 AM when my brain was starting to shut down for the night.
Thanks for spotting my sloppy blunder!
WCY said: If “tradition†is used in the sense of bells and smells, yes, it is the eye of the beholder. But “tradition†limited to the solemnity, language, or the ad orientem position of the celebrant is superficial!
“Tradition†is the rootedness in the Apostolic and Patristic Liturgy, together with the method given us of organic development. (cf. Trent and V2). This is more or less an objective definition. end quote.
WCY makes some valid points here but we’re not talking about a liturgical tome or an official title. We’re taling about a colloquial name which will be used by a number of people on this blog. Many will use the term without much thought. And those who like other terms likely won’t use it at all. In such a context the word “traditional” shouldn’t be made to bear too much as I think WCY is making it do (valid though his definition is in the right context).
And, “Traditional Latin Mass” simply re-inforces the unfortuante empasis on the word “Latin” when describing the Older Use. The Pope certainly avoided such teminology and Father Z quite properly rails against the term when it is found in statements by various bishops.
As a matter of fact I have some trouble with the terms Extraordianry Use and Ordianry Use. Extraordinary here can mean that the circumstances witll be relatively rare when this Use is celebrated (and this is the interpretation that most of the bishops seem to take) or Extraordinary can be used to suggest that the Older Use is superlative. An ageless treasure. Personally I tend to go for the second understanding of the word. And in the short list that we are down to I still vote for “The Tridentine Rite.”
I agree that TLM places too much of the emphasis on “Latin”. Latin is important in the Church, but takes attention from “Tradition”. Maybe “Traditional Roman Mass” would serve us better.
However, using “Traditional Mass”, “Traditional Latin Mass”, etc. in the Motu Proprio would cause immediate rejection.
My sense is that the Holy Father is being conciliatory (no pun intended.. really!), and being anywhere from ambiguous to clever, so as to disarm people against the Trad Mass. So you see names such as “Missal of Bl. John XXIII” or the Missal referred to by its juridical status. One gets the sense that he is using rhetorical tools to get his point across.
Perusing through books written by the Holy Father before his Election, one notices that he does not settle on a standard name for the TLM, but describes it in the context of its organic rootedness to the early Church. Perhaps we should do the same.
So, what’s in a name? What is being described, or its juridical authority?
I have no problem calling it the “Traditional Latin Mass”, and rather than having a problem with calling specifically labelling it as Latin, I welcome it. I realise that Latin is not the issue, however, with the very poor English translations used at times in the novus ordo Mass, and the TLM only being in Latin, I certainly have no issue in emphasising on that. I still call it “Tridentine” from force of habit, though!
“Do the math: a rite which deliberately obscures its true meaning and sacrificial character…”
“Deliberately.” So the Apostolic See did this intentionally, in the person of Paul IV, who promulgated this missal. We didn’t have this form of “McMass” in the fourth century, but the Arian heresy did very well for itself, from what I’m told.
“Thus, the ‘nutritional deficiency’ of the McMass is empirically manifest.”
Perhaps, but first you’d have to do ALL the math. And it would help if we are clear in the terminology we already have, before we start making up others. And speaking of terminology, isn’t this thread about something else entirely, or is “Novus Ordo bashing” making a comeback as a bloodsport on the internet?
I voted (both times) for ‘Extraordinary Form’, first of all because it is the Holy Father’s term, but second, because I have heard a couple of bishops (one of whom happily celebrates it on occasion) refer to the ‘Extraordinary Rite’. I’m on my very own episcopal education programme.
Meaning by context:
“What earlier generations held as extraordinary, remains extraordinary and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden considered merely ordinary.”
How about The HOLIER Mass?
I voted for ‘Tridentine’ for the following reasons:
1. Tridentine represents a specific moment in history, when the Mass was formalised and codified to address basically the same issues we confront today. This is not about fashion or snobbery, it is about the salvation of souls. One word (Tridentine), which is specific, cannot be twisted, re-interpreted or mis-translated. Another Council of Trent is highly unlikely. And to all those Latin scholars out there, what is the adjective for Vatican II?
2. ‘Extraordinary’ has different meanings in Latin than in English. I think we in the English-speaking world are perhaps too focused on our particular problems, rather than on that of the Universal Church. How does all this translate in Mandarin, Tagalog, Swahili or Spanish? Also, as we have seen in the last 40 years, what was ‘ordinary’ can, at the stroke of a pen, become almost anathema, and then, ‘extraordinary’. It is too subjective and confusing.
3. TLM is too much of a mouthful, and that is in English. In other languages it would probably be worse. And it blurs the rightful usage of the Pauline Mass in Latin for any Vatican High (or Low) Mass. What we say say now may well be critical in 1,000 years time, when another generation of liturgists are contemplating Vatican Council XIII. We need to be clear, both in our decision and in our reasoning.
This is not just an AD 2007 issue. The Church will endure as long as Man, or as God wills it. We need to place the flags now, or in 1,000 years time, ‘experts’ from Vatican XIII will rightfully say; “Well, in 2007 we had Clown Dance Masses and proto-wimminpriests ordained by proto-wimminbishops. Why don’t we try that?” To sum up – one word, one meaning, one tradition. Tridentine.
Neil: Do the math: a rite which deliberately obscures its true meaning and sacrificial character…
David: “Deliberately.†So the Apostolic See did this intentionally, in the person of Paul IV, who promulgated this missal.?
Well it seems obvious that the sacrificial nature of the Mass was intentionally obscured in the Novus Ordo by removing almost all of the language referring to a sacrifice, an offering, a victim, etc.
And I do suspect that Pope Paul VI intentionally issued the Novus Ordo missal.
We’re having a lotta problems here re the trads & normal roman catholics..i’m in the Birmingham Oratory Parish so all our Masses are valid anyway..have you any guidance for me handling all this?
Actually, the appelation “Tridentine” is correct. There is no clearer way to describe the ritualistic form of Mass that was mandated by the Council of Trent.
Prior to the council, western Europe had a number of different liturgical rites, some which appear as the extraordinary form in their regions of origin (e.g. Ambrosian and Mozarabic). Moreover, some of these liturgical rites had multiple forms of celebration. The city of Rome was no different.
What was commonly celebrated in Roman parishes was more elaborate. What the council of Trent mandated was NOT this form but the curial form, which was comparatively simpler. The form of Mass celebrated by the Roman Curia became the standardized form mandated by Trent. Thus, there is no better way to describe the currently recoginized extraordinary form than “Tridentine.”
Mrs Parkes: any guidance for me handling all this?
The first thing you can do is forget language like “normal Roman Catholics”. I don’t think there is such a creature, frankly.
Exercise great charity with them all and extend yourself to them. Participate in the older form of Mass also. Bridges must be built.
“Well it seems obvious…”
What is obvious is what Paul VI did. Less obvious (if at all) are his intentions. The two are not the same.
It is with the benefit of hindsight that more people come to see what some did at the time, that the official text of the reformed liturgy may lack a theological precision that is inherent in the classical, and that such imprecision could be problematic in the short term, even dangerous in the long run.
It does not follow that Paul VI deliberately wished to produce such results. That is a very serious charge to level against a Successor to Peter. His prudential judgment in matters subject to his authority is another matter, and even then, might best be left to the Almighty, before whom he now stands.
In the meantime, there is cause for rejoicing, and for examining more closely what the Holy Father has to tell us — not just in the decree, but in the explanatory letter. The commentaries of our priestly host that have appeared in The Wanderer these past few months, are most excellent regarding this subject matter. Would that they were online for all to read.
I’m always a little puzzled by claims the Ordinary use lacks theological depth. Yes, it has somewhat less emphasis on the Mass a sacrifice, but it still has more than some of the rites of the Catholic East. The Ordinary Use texts, read without invidious presuppositions, still clearly teach the Mass as sacrifice. Its weak point, arguably, is not that it lacks depth, but that it lacks a clear enough *focus.* The “stripped down” offertory and introduction of some of the new canons, often based mainly on Eastern patterns, means it cannot play its own distinctive role in the liturgical symphony of the Church quite as well. This special role of the Roman rite is, in fact, to stress the sacrificial aspect of the Mass, which is present, but less prominent, in the other rites. Note though, that this aspect of the Roman Rite did not appear all at once, but was gradually highlighted through the Early Medieval liturgical development.
NB. It’s rumored the Holy Father is considering suppressing all the new canons, but EP III, which is clearly the most “Roman” in theology, etc., after the old Roman Canon. If so, this would redress much of the weakness, especially if the older offertory were brought back at least for some days.
or is “Novus Ordo bashing†making a comeback as a bloodsport on the internet?
David, the bashing never ceased.
Whatever name is voted upon I am happiest to say, Indult R.I.P.
Wow, all those votes… you have far more voters than my blog ever had readers…
That is for good reason, of course. If anyone were to accuse me of writing much and saying little, I imagine I would have little defense…
As to the topic, TLM or 1962 Missal is what I most commonly use. “The Old Mass” when and where I am writing to an audience that is already “on the same page”.
“I’m always a little puzzled by claims the Ordinary use lacks theological depth.”
So am I, which is why I used the word “precision,” instead of “depth.”
I’ll give two examples of what people mean when they refer to this idea. One is the Confiteor at the beginning of the Mass, the other the “Libera nos” of the priest following the Pater Noster. Compare the texts of both the old and the new, in whatever language. In the old, there is a hierarchy of saints mentioned, which in the new is reduced, or cut out altogether. While their absence may not be a bad thing in and of itself, their inclusion reinforces our belief in the communion of saints, and the role of the “Church Triumphant” in the greater scheme of things, whether in the liturgy, or in life. To include them is a more precise example of this part of Catholic belief. To exclude them, then…
And that’s just one example.
It’s not just that “Tridentine” is a term people know. It’s also accurate in describing this Mass and it’s history, as Fr. Ron Williams has so beautifully expressed above.
I originally voted in favor of usus antiquior but now that the choice has narrowed I choose Traditional Latin Mass.
I would like to start a new poll. In the past, momentous eras in Church History were given names like the Age of Faith, the Renaissance, the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, etc.
I would like to start referring to the present era and the era that succeeds it (because of Summorum Pontificum) as THE RESTORATION.
Thank you again, BXVI!
Miss(es) Swan: I think you suggested the only possible item on the list.
WCY–Yes I know. I was hoping others could come up with their own entires and then we could vote. But what else would we call it but the Restoration? The Renewal? (Nah, too VII) a New Springtime? (not strong enough.) Let’s see what others can come up with.
Mr. Alexander,
Thank you for the clarification about what you mean by “precision.” It does help me understand what you mean. I would concede that holds in these cases as concerns the communion of saints. The reduction, though, in the list of saints in the Confiteor strikes my as quite defensible, since the medieval saints lists in the Confiteor are–according to Fr. Jungmann–highly variable, and before St. Bernard, who inserted the Blessed Mother’s name, no specific saint’s name was listed at all (i.e. therefore it would seem to be theologically less important in this context.)
Removing the saints’ list from the embolism after the “Pater Noster” was more radical since that was a very old Roman Rite tradition–and here it seems that again we have an “Easternization” of the Roman Rite. But to be fair to the Ordinary form, the new phrase “Expectantes beatam spem et adventum Salvatoris nostris Jesu Christ,” seems to be more precise as to the eschatological meaning of this part of the mass–which is present, but less explicit in the Extraordinary Form.
Addition to Previous post: “Jesu ChristI” of course!
I voted “Tridintine Mass” but last day reading “Feast of Faith” by Ratzinger (1981) was very nice to read
the explication he does about what we would call “Tridentine Liturgy”. Page 85 said:
There is not a such thing as a Tridentine liturgy The Council of Thent did not “make” a liturgy.
Stricly speaking, there is no such a thing, either, as the Missal of Pios V. The Misaal wich appeared in 1570
by order of PIos V fiffered only in tiny details from the first printed edition of the Roman Missal of about a hundred years earlier.” The whole book is about the Liturgy and it´s very profound, worthy to read!
Here in Brasil (sorry about my poor English) we don´t have in portuguese yet this book, so I encourage
you who have this chance there in USA to read it, and pray about it! How we are blessed with such holly mand
as Pope and who is teaching us how to love the Church! Thank you! Julie Maria
And of course, “nostrI” I can’t decline tonight, for some reason! :-)
Barbara Swan:
I think it’s up to the future (not us) to give a name to our own age. At the beginning of the Middle Ages, someone didn’t say, “Hey, let’s take a poll and decide what to call this age. Maybe… the ‘Age of Faith.'”
So, lets call today, “October 1, 2007.”
I would say “Tridentine Mass” would be the best commonly understood terminology, but it leads to the problem that there were several revisions to the rite over the centuries (no matter what some want to believe) so “Tridentine” is actually a series of masses based on the original mass promulgated by Pius V (and he didn’t so much compose it from scratch as pick and choose from among the currently valid options to put together as more limited and standardized version).
What is actually more useful is to have parallel terms for both forms, which is why the Holy Father’s ordinary/extraordinary terminology is useful, other uses lead to strange syntax when referring to both of them simultaneously:
Old Mass/New Mass has the temporal drawback that the Old Mass was new once and the New will eventually be old as well).
Tridentine/Vatican would probably be fair if one tries to use the council which led to the mass as a reference, though I suspect that die hard fans of the extraordinary form would feel that the word “Vatican” gives it too much prestige (it is questionable if “Vatican” is the proper adjectival form, though I suspect that “Vaticanine” is a grammatical barbarism and that “Deutrovaticanie” would be have the peculiar honor of being both a more accurate and much sillier term).
“Traditional Latin Mass”/? (setting aside the historical fact that it is not “THE” Traditional Latin Mass but “A” Traditional Mass) I guess the cognate depends on your political leanings; “Traditional Vernacular Mass” might actually be a fair de facto description, but others will no doubt say (or just think) that “Modern (-ist?) Mass,” “Contemporary Mass,” “Current Mass” or “Normal Mass” are the proper cognate).
The other distinct possibility, of course, based on Benedict XVI’s ongoing statements is that we won’t have to worry about it for very long because he is getting ready to revise the extraordinary rite into an updated version which will then either be the Mass of Benedict XVI, or just complicate the nomenclature further.
Tridentine is what it’s always been called (at least what I’ve always heard). Traditional Latin Mass sounds like a sort of ‘dumbed down’ version and for some reason almost sounds less legit to me. Also sounds “old fashioned” and almost passe (which of course, it’s not) . It also sounds like “Traditionalist” , therefore making it sound like the Mass of a “faction”.
IA “extraordinary form” sounds a bit strange… though I’d go for that as a second after Tridentine.
Monica,
“Tridentine Mass”, as our Holy Father said when he was a Cardinal, is a term unknown until the mid 1960’s.
The *Mass* is Traditional and Apostolic. It stretches back to the Apostles, and its heart to St. Peter.
The *Missal* may be called “Tridentine”, because Trent gave Latin priests use of the Roman Curial Missal. But the Tridentine Missal, as Ratzinger said, is almost identical to Missals printed 100 years prior and stretches back to the Early Church. “Tridentine” implies a Missal with only 400 years history, when in fact this is not true.
Also, don’t underestimate “Traditionalists”. They come in all stripes and colors, and each group of Traditionalists has its own strengths and issues. However, they have been right on certain issues and preserved a gem given us by Saints through the centuries, while the rest of the Church was persecuting them and denying certain things confirmed in Summorum Pontificum.
The Reform of the Reform, of which Summorum Pontificum plays a huge parts, depends heavily on what Traditionalists have preserved.
The Traditional Latin Mass was the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church as it organically evolved from Christ and the Apostles down through the ages until 1969. St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Joan, St. Ignatius, St. Catherine, St. John Fisher and oh so many other saints would have been at home in this Mass. How anyone could want to throw that away and substitute the Protestantized, committee-made Rite of Paul VI we have had foisted on us is beyond me. Traditional Latin Mass does the best job of explaining the immemorial Mass of the ages.
*Fr. Matt said:* *Tridentine/Vatican would probably be fair if one tries to use the council which led to the mass as a reference*, though I suspect that die hard fans of the extraordinary form would feel that the word “Vatican†gives it too much prestige (it is questionable if “Vatican†is the proper adjectival form, though I suspect that “Vaticanine†is a grammatical barbarism and that “Deutrovaticanie†would be have the peculiar honor of being both a more accurate and much sillier term).
The Mass of Paul VI, though lawfully promulgated by a Holy Pontiff, is not the Vatican II Mass. It is a post-conciliar Mass, but *not the Mass the Council asked for.* It would be incorrect from the standpoint of the collective Council Fathers to call it “Vatican” or “Vaticanine” unless you were referring to the Holy See’s authority and not the Council.
When in doubt, return to the sources.
The *most Vatican II compliant Mass* is probably found in the Missal of 1965, which is basically the *Missal of 1962* with some indults.
So, when we say “the Mass of Vatican II”, we really mean to say “the Traditional Mass given by the Roman Popes and Saints through 2000 years and reaffirmed by V2.”
Hence, the Reform of the Reform.
I suggest “Tridentine Latin Mass”, simply because to use another term sort of negates the very Council which gave birth and its name to the Tridentine Latin Mass. It’s still the Missal of St. Pius V (even though John XXIII made amendments/changes to it). And 99% it’s still the Tridentine Latin Mass, product of the great Council of Trent which gave rise to the Catholic Counter-Reformation against Protestantism and which gave energy to all the tremendous works of God that began at that period (at least 30 famous religious Orders which helped restore religious life…the most well know being the Jesuits, Discalced Carmelites of St. Teresa of Avila reform, and the Oratorians, Ursulines, and Theatines.)
Not to use the name “Tridentine” consigns the great Council of Trent and its most visible creation to oblivion.
I would rather glorify a great council like that of Trent, rather than remove it’s name from it’s greatest contribution to Catholic life.
The Council of Trent didn’t “create” this Mass – it had been in use in Rome for 1000 years. All Trent did was impose the Roman Missal on the rest of the Western world. Prior to Trent there were innumerable different rites and uses of Mass in the West; after Trent there was (largely) uniformity. It is much more accurate to describe it as Traditional rather than Tridentine, since it wasn’t “invented” by any Pope or council, but developed organically over the centuries.
TLM has an absolute majority of votes with one day left – pretty conclusive in a three-way runoff.
I prefer the term Traditional Latin Mass.
I always loved to hear “la messe de toujours” roll off the tongue of Archbishop Lefebvre.
…as did “la nouvelle messe est un rite bâtard”…
But we won’t go there!!!
Has anyone noticed that the initials of “Extraordinary Use” are “E.U.”? And that that’s bad?
Tridentine it is.
Why are we doing this? Is it our place to name the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?
I think we’re doing this b/c the Church — which could preempt us and dictate a choice — has (so far) permitted all of these candidates, so we’re just picking a favorite within a field of permitted alternatives.
My only difficulty about “Traditional Latin Mass” is that it may tend to suggest that tradition is a free-standing source of truth, apart from the Church. This is, may I respectfully suggest, one of the errores Graecorum, and part of the reason for the splits among the proudly “autocephalous” Eastern Orthodox [sic] churches.
Obviously most people who prefer “TLM” don’t make that mistake, but, just as obviously, a few do.
I vote for “Tridentine.” I understand that the Council of Trent didn’t invent this liturgy, but it was such a great council, I’m happy to give it credit anyway. Besides, the standard speech that starts “You know, it’s actually much older than the Council of Trent…” is a great ice-breaker with newbies.
Now: how does one vote?
I prefer “the extraordinary Mass in Latin” or EML. I’m just doing it as a conversation piece, but the conversations have been good.