Loading ...
With the release of the Motu Proprio I’ve been feeling more and more the difficulty of finding appropriate terms for referring to, um, the Mass according to the 1962 missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII. All the options seem unsatisfactory in one way or another.
The phrase I just used is, of course, the most precise way to designate it, but it’s too long to be practical for use in regular conversation. The “Tridentine Mass” is more usable, but it’s unfortunate in a different way since it perpetuates the mistaken idea that this form of the Mass began with the Council of Trent just as the Novus Ordo began with Vatican II. And “Tridentine” is also a bit long and clinical-sounding to my ears, though certainly better than “the Mass according to the 1962 missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII.”
Of course anything involving “rite” should be avoided (i.e. Tridentine Rite, old rite), since it’s important to make clear that the Mass in question is not a separate rite from the Novus Ordo. They are both the Roman rite, only in different forms. Referring to the “Latin Mass” is also suboptimal, since of course the Novus can be celebrated in Latin, and really should be. It also perpetuates the mistaken notion that the Latin language is the only thing of interest to traditional Catholics, which of course it isn’t. I confess that I nevertheless do sometimes talk about the “Latin Mass”, and I’ve been trying to break that habit.
Perhaps my least favorite term is one sometimes used among traditional Catholics themselves: The Mass of All Time. That’s rather a mouthful to say, and tends to be confusing for any who aren’t already moving in circles of traditionalists. But worse than that, it seems to me distressingly jingoistic and gimmicky. I realize that the phrase is a rough translation of one used by the Council of Trent to refer to the Mass. But to take it out of context and go around with the words “of all time” constantly in your mouth makes you sound like an advertisement for a carnival game or a David Copperfield show. Cheap. Intentionally flashy. We need something more dignified for talking about the Mass.
I tentatively give the prize to “Tridentine Mass” as the least bad term, though I think it might be all right to talk about “the old Mass” in more casual settings. Designating it “old” might have the downside of making it sound like an anachronism, but I think we can work with that. After all, the Mass is old, and the idea that old things are necessarily out of date is one of the mistakes we want to combat anyway. But for very formal occasions, we probably will still need to come out with, “the Mass according to the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII.”
Clara,
I find in my reading that I rarely disagree with you, but in this case, I do.
That the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” states that “sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani” (A. 1) is true, but I think that one of two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from this—yes, do note that the Latin uses usus, which might be translated as “use.” One, the motu proprio is wrong on this point. Perhaps this is an authentic teaching of the Magisterium and in such case, I am possibly temerarious, but it quite clearly is not attempting to establish a dogmatic fact. Because of the primarily juridical nature of the clause from A. 1, its content may very well not be even an authentic teaching of the Magisterium. Two, if one disagrees with the first option, one might conclude that there are these two forms of the Roman Rite in the Missal of 1962 and the Missal of 200…–I did not check the year–but that this is so because the common meanings, admittedly never extremely precise, have been by the authority of the pontiff simply implicitly redefined, although I do admit that I am not able to articulate exactly what the new definition is. I have had a go at it, but every new definition seems inadequate; this is maybe an unfortunate consequence of certain acts of implicitly redefining certain terms. To note, three, one might simply conclude that, without redefinition, there are two forms of the same rite in the two missals; this seems reasonable when looking at the m.p., but when examining the missals and their calendars, it seems unreasonable.
All of the above is simply to establish that “rite” need not be eliminated from the terminology except for diplomatic or certain educational purposes. I am not necessary endorsing the use of the term “rite.”
Although the solution I advocate has definite problems when one begins to speak about the different rituals of the sacraments, I suggest the term “Traditional Latin Mass.” This has been used in traditional circles for some time, but I do not think that it provides any difficulties for those not in such circles. It distinguishes itself from the Novus Ordo Missae in Latin because it uses “traditional” and “Latin” to identify the Mass. No one thinks that it is the traditional Ambrosian rite. It is a bit forward because it points to the T.L.M. as being traditional, which it is; it has been handed down. Let us be honest the N.O.M. has not; it was manufactured and issued; it has only been handed down, if we should say so at all, for 37 years. It is not part of the tradition.
Is this language optimal? Probably not, but we wait for the day when the N.O.M. and the accompanying “forms” of the sacraments are no longer used—very far from now it seems—and when without any concern one may simply speak of the Mass and sacraments of the Roman Rite.
AED
Traditional Latin Mass is the only thing that works. This can be legitimately shortened to Latin Mass, when it is convenient, since the Novus Ordo is seldom celebrated in Latin.
Indeed, the celebration of the NO in Latin will probably never take off. The Motu Proprio has removed the stigma from the TLM. Anyone who is traditional enough to desire the NO in Latin now has no reason whatsoever to avoid the TLM.
TLM and LM aren’t perfect designations, but they’ll do in normal conversation and they’re the most easily understood by the public. The nuances and explanations can come later.
I too have been struggling with this issue. I have been using the term “the Ancient Liturgy” or the “Ancient Form of the Mass.” In article 10 of SP it states that a personal parish may be erected for celebrations following the “the ancient form of the Roman rite. Ancient has a nice ring to it. What do you think?
Oh, Clara! Surely MOAT is the best option.
Well, that or “old mass” is the only way to go.
Ancient Liturgy is good, Father, but to others not familiar with the timelessness of the Mass, it may sound like we attend something outdated and decrepit. I agree that Mass Of All Times is a little dramatic—something you might write in a formal treatise. When you say Tridentine, there is always someone sure to correct you—something always enjoyable to the humble. My vote is for Traditional Latin Mass when referring to It formally and Latin Mass for general use. Some people say just the letters TLM, which sounds too casual. In a similar vein, I asked a priest, once, what time he was going to say Mass. He responded, “I don’t say Mass; I offer Mass.” It may sound picky but when you think of it, the latter sounds more reverent and appropriate. Obviously we all want to put the True Mass in the best possible light.
Sorry, that above is mine.
I like the “ancient mass”.I am struggling with all the names in order to come up with the appropriate one when I begin to advertise our TLM.Someone on another blog some time ago suggested “the Divine Liturgy of Gregory the Great” which I prefer but which very few would understand to be the extraordinary roman rite or the usus antiquior.