New Debate Thread For Efers

[fides' Jack]

Okay - didn't want to further hijack the once-peaceful thread going on in open mic.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1347646523' post='2482372']
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")
[/quote]

I see what you're saying, and I agree with the 1st and 3rd paragraphs. However, in the 2nd one, you say, "...describes what mass we are talking about...". They're the same Mass. They're even the same [i]rite [/i]of the same Mass.

I think the term Novus Ordo has gotten to be so negative that it's not going to carry weight in history except for people who used regularly for the last 40 years. Generally, the different forms of Mass produced by the various councils are named after the council that changed them - such as the Tridentine (which is not the same descriptively as what was called the 'Mass of 1962' - there were [i]many [/i]versions of the Tridentine form(?) of the Roman Rite of the Mass). I think that's how history will remember what we consider today as the Ordinary Form. So, the "Pauline Mass" - as someone phrased?

[Aloysius]

** "describes what [i]missal[/i] we're talking about" **
better? I was just being sloppy with the word Mass I suppose.

your point is correct in that Tridentine is not an accurate term for the Missal of 1962, because Tridentine is an all encompassing term that refers to what [i]was[/i] the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite from the time of the Council of Trent up until 1962. Among the Tridentine Missals there is the one promulgated by Pius V, there is a couple of different versions over the years, the most recent being the 1955 missal and the 1962 missal (I think prior to 1955 we can't point to any significant changes since the Council of Trent, though). So the 1962 missal is [i]a[/i] Tridentine Missal, but not [i]the[/i] Tridentine Missal.

The term "Ordinary Form" is not descriptive of what missal we are talking about, it is descriptive of the legal standing of that missal. What missal is currently the ordinary form? It's the Pauline Mass, what many refer to as the Novus Ordo (I don't think it needs to be derogatory in any way, it's a simple term, it was the new order of the mass and has been described as that colloquially for a long time). What used to be the ordinary form? The '62 missal, prior to 1969. "ordinary form" only refers to the legal status of a particular missal. So I don't think it will be the historical term going forward, especially if the Roman Rite is to continue to exist under different forms (which is the only time it is necessary to define "ordinary form" from "extraordinary form")

Edited September 14, 2012 by Aloysius

[r2Dtoo]

When I first saw the title I thought dUSt had changed the phildder again, lol

Edited September 14, 2012 by r2Dtoo

[Groo the Wanderer]

[img]http://rlv.zcache.com/play_nice_god_is_watching_magnet-p147551497533582453envtl_400.jpg[/img]

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1347648965' post='2482386']
** "describes what [i]missal[/i] we're talking about" **
better? I was just being sloppy with the word Mass I suppose.

your point is correct in that Tridentine is not an accurate term for the Missal of 1962, because Tridentine is an all encompassing term that refers to what [i]was[/i] the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite from the time of the Council of Trent up until 1962. Among the Tridentine Missals there is the one promulgated by Pius V, there is a couple of different versions over the years, the most recent being the 1955 missal and the 1962 missal (I think prior to 1955 we can't point to any significant changes since the Council of Trent, though). So the 1962 missal is [i]a[/i] Tridentine Missal, but not [i]the[/i] Tridentine Missal.

The term "Ordinary Form" is not descriptive of what missal we are talking about, it is descriptive of the legal standing of that missal. What missal is currently the ordinary form? It's the Pauline Mass, what many refer to as the Novus Ordo (I don't think it needs to be derogatory in any way, it's a simple term, it was the new order of the mass and has been described as that colloquially for a long time). What used to be the ordinary form? The '62 missal, prior to 1969. "ordinary form" only refers to the legal status of a particular missal. So I don't think it will be the historical term going forward, especially if the Roman Rite is to continue to exist under different forms (which is the only time it is necessary to define "ordinary form" from "extraordinary form")
[/quote]

1st paragraph - sorry - I was nitpicking; I know you're aware of the difference. I tend to do that a lot now, and I think it started with the term Eucharistic Minister. I'll still correct people when they say that.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. My wife said the pope's comments were made in a radio address. I need to find exactly what he said and post it here...

[Winchester]

[img]http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/4604297_700b.jpg[/img]

[Aloysius]

the terms Extraordinary Form and Ordinary form came from his Motu Proprio[i] Summorum Pontificum[/i].

[quote]The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as [b]an extraordinary form [/b]of the Liturgy of the Church.[/quote]

[i]an[/i] extraordinary form, not [i]the[/i] extraordinary form (though it is currently the only one, I don't believe the Anglican use has the same legal status)

Edited September 15, 2012 by Aloysius