I have been going on for YEARS – nay, rather, DECADES – now about how trads and others should NOT use the term “Latin Mass”, just by itself, to describe Mass in the Extraordinary Form, the Usus Antiquior, the Pian Rite, etc.
“Latin Mass” can refer to the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form.
I know that this is common. I know that there is even a fine Latin Mass Society in England, which has been doing yeoman’s work for decades.
Look at this confusing article – with a couple contributors, and I suspect language problems – and you will see why in journalism and even from a prelate, we can get confusion.
I am prompted to ask, does anyone have any idea what anything means or people are saying anymore?
This is from CNA.
Vatican City, Feb 18, 2014 / 12:13 am (CNA/EWTN News).- During a recent interview, Archbishop Arthur Roche [Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, former head of ICEL, former Bishop of Leeds] spoke on the significance of the Traditional Latin Mass, [did he?] explaining that the Mass nourishes us, and that the special rite brings us together in a unique way.
“It’s a common language, [Latin… right? I’ll bet the question had to do with “Latin Mass”… and he heard “Mass in Latin” when the question was about the TLM… keep reading…] as it were, that brings us together, that holds us together,” the archbishop noted during a Feb. 13 interview with CNA, adding that “the Latin Mass…is a beautiful expression of the worship of God.” [Indeed.]
Archbishop Arthur Roche is the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and is helping to organize a special conference commemorating the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s apostolic constitution “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” [Just the other day, CNS put out a snarky tweet that the conference wasn’t going to be about the Extraordinary Form.]
[…]
Speaking of the Traditional Latin Mass, [oh?] the archbishop highlighted that it “will always be a part of the Roman rite” because it maintains “the language in which the Roman rite is written – whether it be the ordinary or indeed the extraordinary form.” [I am pretty sure he was talking about Mass in the Latin language, not the TLM.]
“It is the way in which the Church expresses itself,” he explained, observing how there has been an increase in use of Gregorian chant during Mass, “especially at international events.”
Drawing attention to the special international reach of the city of Rome, Archbishop Roche went on to say that “people from throughout the world, from every continent and from the different hemispheres, come together to share Mass and are joined together in that common expression of the singing of the Latin part of the Mass.” [He is talking about the Latin, not the Form.]
Turning his attention to Pope Francis take on the rite, the archbishop explained that “the Pope hasn’t expressed anything about the extraordinary form nor in fact about the ordinary form either.” [Jesuits are not, in general, much interested in liturgy.]
[…]
Read the rest there.
People, reconsider your use of “Latin Mass” to describe the older, traditional form. The Novus Ordo is – according to the will of the Council Fathers – to be in Latin as well. Mass celebrated in Latin in the Novus Ordo is “Latin Mass”. Let’s be clear. I think this dodgy term produced a confused article.
Also, the differences between the two Forms (or “Rites, as I think) are even more manifest when both Forms are in Latin, because – when side by side – you see how the changes to the texts reveal the change in the theology.
