Question To Those Pmers Who Prefer The Ef..

[fides' Jack]

I haven't read but 2 of the comments, but wanted to post my 2 cents.

First off, it's no longer rightly called the Novus Ordo - so please do away with that language. It's not the "New Order" of Mass. It's now the Ordinary Form. It was the Novus Ordo when it was new (not anymore). Also, this change in phraseology was requested by his holiness, so I don't think we can argue.

For me, the EF is extrinsically better. It is more beautiful - at least if one can understand what's going on. And the extrinsics do make a difference. They can even make the difference of eternal salvation (potentially). However, the authority of the Church is even more important. If you don't have Rome's sanction, you don't have anything. And the Ordinary as decreed by Rome is also more important (at least to me). I attend an OF parish because Rome says that's what the norm is. If the EF makes a comeback - great! I would love to even see it become the OF again - and if and when that happens, I'll go with it, because that's the norm as approved by the Church (and thus by God).

[Nihil Obstat]

I sort of take issue with the idea that, essentially, "the Pauline Missal is called ordinary, therefore we should prioritize it". Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae made clear that the traditional Missal is a treasure of enormous value which is to be preserved. How can it preserved if we do not celebrate it, honour it, and most of all, "[url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=5&l=16#x"]shine the light before men[/url]"?

I do not intend to criticize you. That is simply my perspective on attending, as exclusively as possible, the traditional Mass.

[BigJon16]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1347487714' post='2481810']
First off, it's no longer rightly called the Novus Ordo - so please do away with that language. It's not the "New Order" of Mass. It's now the Ordinary Form. It was the Novus Ordo when it was new (not anymore). Also, this change in phraseology was requested by his holiness, so I don't think we can argue.

[/quote]

Dully noted.

Alas, you see now how unfamiliar I am with liturgical norms and "phraseology."


FYI, I wouldn't argue with you about anything. The fact that that paragraph was seeping with condescension immediately turns me away from any discussion. A simple, "hey, just so you know, it isn't technically called the "Novus Ordo" anymore..." would have been fine...

Pax!


Edit: to be/sound more charitable.

Edited September 13, 2012 by BigJon16

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not see major problems in referring to it as the Novus Ordo. If you prefer "ordinary form" that is fine. Obviously that is the terminology currently in use at the Vatican. I tend to avoid that term, myself. Personal preference. Currently I favour referring to it as the Pauline Missal.
In terms of "Church time", it's only barely post-natal. Only slightly over forty years since it became obligatory by law (1971). Compared to the ~450 years since the Curial rite (use? I get a bit confused on that terminology) of the Mass has been codified into the Tridentine Missal, and the centuries before that during which it still was developing according to the organic development of the Church, I think 40 years is still adequately new. It need not be pejorative. Simply descriptive.

[Aloysius]

ordinary form and extraordinary form are the juridical terms for the two forms, that does not mean that the other terms are no longer to be used. the Holy Father coined those terms to define the status that each liturgy currently has in the Church, they are descriptive of that current juridical status, they are not descriptive of the liturgies themselves. if we extrapolated these terms into other periods of the Church, the 1962 missal was the "ordinary form" in 1962, and there was no "extraordinary form" at that point. or if we imagine in the future some change in the liturgical order may come done the line, the current Pauline Missal (the Novus Ordo) could easily become an "extraordinary form" as well, depending upon what liturgical legislation was enacted.

so yeah, Ordinary and Extraordinary are not to be definitional for what these two forms are, they are a legal categorization which was designed to ensure freedom for the Traditional liturgy. The fact that one of them is at present "ordinary" does not make it "better" or "higher priority" or anything of the sort. It simply means that it is the current default liturgy for the Roman Rite.

there is no reason we should have to believe that just because it is the current default liturgy of the Roman Rite, that it is necessarily correct that it should be so, or that there are not things that could stand to be changed or bettered (either among the abuses and loose ends found in options and allowances, or for liturgical nerds that delve into more subtle issues, in the actual ordo itself as written at the core).

[Tantum Ergo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1347487714' post='2481810']For me, the EF is extrinsically better. It is more beautiful - at least if one can understand what's going on. And the extrinsics do make a difference. They can even make the difference of eternal salvation (potentially). However, the authority of the Church is even more important. If you don't have Rome's sanction, you don't have anything. And the Ordinary as decreed by Rome is also more important (at least to me). I attend an OF parish because Rome says that's what the norm is. If the EF makes a comeback - great! I would love to even see it become the OF again - and if and when that happens, I'll go with it, because that's the norm as approved by the Church (and thus by God).
[/quote]

But the Extraordinary Form IS sanctioned by Rome. There is nothing illegitimate about this Mass. Pope Benedict has widened the use of the EF to make it more available to the faithful, and he has done much to encourage it to be celebrated. One is not less obedient for attending the EF, or more obedient for attending the OF. Both are the Mass, and both are sanctioned by Rome.

(We are talking, of course, about EF masses at a parish that is in communion with Rome like FSSP, Christ the King, or even a regular diocesan parish. You are right that the traditional Mass does not come [i]before[/i] the authority of Rome. That's why I would not attend a SSPX parish, or any other schismatic parish, even if it was the only traditional Mass around and all the O.F. masses had electric guitars and disco lights).

"Ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" are descriptions coined by Pope Benedict for the two forms of the Mass. He created those terms not to give eminence to the "ordinary form," but actually as a way to protect and encourage the "extraordinary form."

For so long, many people thought the Tridentine Mass had been banned. Those who attended the Tridentine mass were attacked and had to defend themselves and explain they were not schismatic and their Mass was licit. After they had to defend themselves so much, it makes sense that many of them became prideful, and critical of the novus ordo. "Novus ordo" became almost a derogatory term among those who attended the traditional Mass. That's why Pope Benedict advised against using that term. Pope Benedict sought to bring unity back in this situation by explaining how the novus ordo was the "ordinary form" of the Mass, and the Tridentine Mass was not banned, but actually very special, the "extraordinary form" of the Mass.

How is the EF supposed to "make a comeback" if it is not celebrated? The fact that the ordinary form is the "norm" does not make make it better or more right. It is also the "norm" to go to Confession once a year. It is the "norm" to go to Mass on Sunday. It is the "norm" to fast on Good Friday. Does that mean we should not go to Confession more than once a year, or go to Mass [i]only[/i] on Sunday, or fast no other days but Ash Wednesday and Good Friday? Just because the ordinary form is the "norm" does not mean we should never attend the extraordinary form, or rarely celebrate it. It's the "extraordinary form." It's extraordinary! It's special. It holds a treasure of tradition of the Church, and should be celebrated.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Tantum Ergo

[Nihil Obstat]

It has been argued in the past, rather compellingly, that it would in fact be canonically illegal either to forbid the use of the Tridentine missal, or forbid priests to use it, because of Quo Primum.

Hence Pope Benedict's insistence that it was never abrogated, even though in a de facto sense it was in a manner of speaking all but forbidden.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1347499642' post='2481853']
FYI, I wouldn't argue with you about anything. The fact that that paragraph was seeping with condescension immediately turns me away from any discussion. A simple, "hey, just so you know, it isn't technically called the "Novus Ordo" anymore..." would have been fine...
Edit: to be/sound more charitable.
[/quote]

Sorry - I wasn't trying to be condescending. I also didn't intend my post just for you, but for everyone on this thread. Just letting people know that the official name should no longer be "Novus Ordo", and that this didn't come from me, but the pope.


[b]To everyone who took issue with my post above[/b]

I'm not trying to fight with anyone here. Nor was I trying to start an argument. My only intentions were to say that, "Hey, the pope says we shouldn't call it that anymore", and also to answer the original question - why I personally prefer the EF. There doesn't need to be an argument here.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347132412' post='2480337']
Oh man, I am assuming you haven't been to the Vigil in according to the 1962 missal, eh? The chanting of the lessons is pretty........ intense. Hugely valuable, but the sheer volume of chanting is extremely onerous.
[/quote]

Ah - yes - but didn't the '62 missal actually remove several that were there before, in the '45 missal? I think those, and the removal of the pre-Communion confiteor, were the biggest changes between the two.

[Nihil Obstat]

Has the pope actually, directly said anywhere that "Novus Ordo" is not appropriate terminology? From what I can recall the extent of his remarks on the subject is simply to introduce the "OF/EF" terms.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347645197' post='2482365']
Has the pope actually, directly said anywhere that "Novus Ordo" is not appropriate terminology? From what I can recall the extent of his remarks on the subject is simply to introduce the "OF/EF" terms.
[/quote]

Good question. And I guess it falls on me to provide the evidence. I was under the impression that he had, but only as an indirect comment after the release (and reaction) of Summorum Pontificum.

I'll [i]try[/i] to look for it later. I don't have much time these days. I make no promises.

Edit: I believe the comment was made in the spirit of viewing both forms as really the same thing - and how we shouldn't separate them in our terminology (i.e. calling them the Latin/Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo).

Edited September 14, 2012 by fides' Jack

[Aloysius]

Yeah, as I said, the introduction of the OF/EF terminology is to define the juridical place each liturgy has within the Church; nothing more. There is still a wide range of terminology to refer to the 1969/Pauline/Novus Ordo Mass and the 1962/Traditional Latin Mass/Tridentine Mass/Johannine Mass.

It would be correct to say that the Novus Ordo is currently the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The term "ordinary form" refers to its legal standing, the term "Novus Ordo" describes what mass we are talking about. We could imagine a day when some new hybrid missal became the norm (some have speculated that this is the ultimate direction Benedict would like to see); if such an event were to happen, we'd say "The Novus Ordo used to be the Ordinary Form. Now the Hybrid Missal is the Ordinary Form"

(and yes, I know it won't be "new" forever, but it's gotten that monicker and I think it's stuck with it forever. just like how the modernists that Pius IX was syllabizing against are no longer modern to us now, they were still "modernists")

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1347645137' post='2482362']
Ah - yes - but didn't the '62 missal actually remove several that were there before, in the '45 missal? I think those, and the removal of the pre-Communion confiteor, were the biggest changes between the two.
[/quote]

Yes, I think that was one of the changes made during the tweaking of the Holy Week rubrics. There were others, but I am not really qualified to discuss them in any detail.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1347646337' post='2482370']
Good question. And I guess it falls on me to provide the evidence. I was under the impression that he had, but only as an indirect comment after the release (and reaction) of Summorum Pontificum.

I'll [i]try[/i] to look for it later. I don't have much time these days. I make no promises.

Edit: I believe the comment was made in the spirit of viewing both forms as really the same thing - and how we shouldn't separate them in our terminology (i.e. calling them the Latin/Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo).
[/quote]

I will have to see the specific comments before I can respond. You know as well as the rest of us that tiny changes in tone and structure can lead to widely diverging interpretations. Intended or not.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347647341' post='2482375']
Yes, I think that was one of the changes made during the tweaking of the Holy Week rubrics. There were others, but I am not really qualified to discuss them in any detail.
[/quote]
"tweaking" is probably the understatement of the century. but that's a ten page long discussion that would derail this thread lol. suffice it to say, Holy Week rubrics were not just tweaked, they were fundamentally altered. You might be able to find pre-'55 Holy Week videos around the internet perhaps, I think the SSPV does them... nowhere are they done licitly, of course, but it's fascinating to see how things used to be done, anyway. I should probably preserve your innocence by not telling you who was involved in the 1955 Holy Week reform.

the liturgical calendar was the main thing that was altered in the pre-'62 years, though, and only a little bit of tweaking of the actual ordinary. of course that had the effect of making the Last Gospel never change because the calendar had been simplified so much there was never any need for a different Last Gospel than the beginning of St. John, and they removed the second confiteor (though that's quite a pesky thing, it still can't be gotten rid of after all this time in many places lol)