http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun3.html

How about the name, “The Mass of St. Padre Pio” or “The Mass of the Saints” — that’s what I like to say when I’m feeling contrary. Of course, that’s not really practical. But one does get tired of having to figure out this stuff when, after all, the Novus Ordo has just been around such a short time (in the age of the Church). How about New Mass vs Mass Classic?

On the more delicate subject of Latin Mass, I fully agree that there are two Latin forms of the Mass and that we need to make a technical distinction. It’s a little confusing since when you use the Latin term, “Novus Ordo” everyone thinks of the New Mass in English and when you say the English term “Latin Mass” everyone (98%) thinks of the Traditional Latin Mass. To be conclusive I have come up with what Clara and everyone else will see as the logical solution.

Since the Traditional Latin Mass is a lot older and since the Novus Ordo was intended to be translated into the “common language” of the people, the former by right has title to “Latin Mass” and the latter, the “Latin Vulgate.”

I stumbled onto this page awhile ago when looking for something else (around the time you posted your experience of pre-Cana). I did and still do enjoy very much your articulate and witty posts. I hope we have occasion to meet some day.

Many of the difficulties cited above are based on the search for ONE term that will do for all circumstances; but language generally does not operate that way, as can be seen even in non-liturgical vocabularies.

Why not just say that at the present juncture in history, there is need of both a ‘technical term’ which aims at precision as much as possible, and also a ‘colloquial term’ which is a descriptor rather than a name, and which, though technically less precise, can in practice serve as clarification?

Re. the technical term, the Holy Father’s “the extraordinary form of the Roman rite” seems the best. This is the juridical term he has chosen to use. Moreover, SP clearly assumes that the ‘Tridentine’ Mass will be more widely celebrated than the other extraordinary forms of the rite (Norbertine, etc.): it is the most COMMON alternative to the NO, so there is a certain reasonableness in calling it THE [main] extraordinary form of the Roman rite.

Re. the colloquial clarificatory back-up, the most commonly recognized terms are still “the Tridentine Mass” or “the pre-Vatican II Mass.” But “the more ancient form of the Mass” is also an attractive way of describing it; and unlike terms which are tied to comparatively recent discrete historical events or figures (Tridentine, John XXIII, pre-Vatican II), it has the advantage of not immediately (and I would hope unecessarily) raising in the average auditor’s mind a doubt about whether the speaker rejects everything subsequent to that event/figure.

I’m uneasy talking about “compatibility” with the Catholic faith; the natural implication of that is that the Novus is incompatible with the Catholic faith, and I don’t accept that. I’d explain my preference for the old mass differently, perhaps by mentioning that it is more effective in shaping the sensibilities of the people and drawing their minds to God and the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
That’s not the same, though, as calling one “more compatible.” I prefer Romans to Phillippians, because I find it more uplifting and more instructive, but that doesn’t mean that I dub Phillippians in any way less compatible with the Catholic faith.

“I think it was implemented properly. The Fathers of the Council, remember, went home after the Council and personally implemented the reform. They could have retained Latin if they wanted to. They could have retained the ad orientem posture if the wanted to. Etc., etc. But they didn’t. They knew very well what the Council permitted, and they understood what the new liturgy was meant to accomplish. Shouldn’t we trust them?”

Well, in this case, “them” is a large and diverse group of people, particularly if you expand it beyond those who were actually at the council to include those who “helped” implement it. I think it’s pretty obvious that the implementation was not what many or most of the original Fathers of the Council envisioned. Certainly it was not what our Holy Father envisioned, and I trust him more than the others.

I don’t wish to quarrel with you, Jeff Culbreath, particularly since we have so many of the same interests at heart. Sifting through what happened at the Council and beyond, trying to decide who should be blamed for what, is confusing and troubling for all of us. But you seem to have decided that the preservation of the Church’s integrity requires the ultimate rejection of the Novus. I’ll even concede that you might possibly be right about that, and if the Holy Spirit should ultimately lead the Church in that direction I won’t be the one to mourn, but it seems to me presumptuous of us as laypeople to decree that it’s necessary. That’s all.

Since English has had a lot of influences from the so-called Romance languages then maybe somehow this usage of the word “assist” came into English in the past when referring to attending (which is what you’re really doing) Holy Mass?

Using assist, although it’s traditional, isn’t really correct because assist now means “to help” and obviously of course the priest doesn’t need any help at Mass.

But don’t hawk on me because I said that - traditionalists can use assist all they want, and I use it occasionally as well.

I noticed Clara mentioned in one of her posts above that she “assisted” at Traditional Latin Mass (this is my preference at the moment).

I’ve noticed that some Traditionalist use the term “assist” when in my mind they really mean “attend”.

I am assuming that Clara is female which would mean, if my assumption is correct, that Clara couldn’t have possibly “assisted” in the common use of the term without all “hell being let loose” - nothing personal Clara.

My question then becomes why do some “Traditionalists” use the term “assist” when in fact they don’t “assist” in the Novus Ordo sense - if you will?

Pardon my off-topic question.

Gratias tibi ago et in Christo fratrem tuus,

Mark

I don’t see this as angling, Clara. It just isn’t possible to pretend the two “forms” of the Roman Rite are equally compatible with the Catholic Faith. Not without making your head explode, anyway.

“Look, I have no great love of the Novus liturgy, but I think it’s necessary to accept the reality that the Novus was bequeathed to us by a legitimate Vatican council …”

Agreed.

“… and that it’s probably here to stay.”

For the time being.

“That being the case, it’s better not to make the situation worse than it is by blaming all the problems of the 70’s and beyond on the Novus itself.”

Precisely why I never said or implied any such thing.

“We all know that the situation could have been dramatically better than it was if the thing had been implemented properly.”

I think it was implemented properly. The Fathers of the Council, remember, went home after the Council and personally implemented the reform. They could have retained Latin if they wanted to. They could have retained the ad orientem posture if the wanted to. Etc., etc. But they didn’t. They knew very well what the Council permitted, and they understood what the new liturgy was meant to accomplish. Shouldn’t we trust them?

I don’t know exactly where you want to go with this, but it reminds me in may ways of the angling of Bishop Fellay. Look, I have no great love of the Novus liturgy, but I think it’s necessary to accept the reality that the Novus was bequeathed to us by a legitimate Vatican council, and that it’s probably here to stay. That being the case, it’s better not to make the situation worse than it is by blaming all the problems of the 70’s and beyond on the Novus itself. We all know that the situation could have been dramatically better than it was if the thing had been implemented properly.

The Novus Ordo is, in its original form, a Latin Mass. The council seems to have intended for at least parts of it to remain in Latin in ordinary parishes around the world. We ratify the dastruction wrought by liberals of the post-Vatican II era when we insist that there is really only one Latin Mass.

I prefer to say, where the priest and people face the same direction, as opposed to the Novus Ordo where the priest and people face in opposite directions. Very ‘disorienting’ indeed.

Also, I share JSP’s concern regarding the traditional/contemporary worship. The sign for “Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church’ is very amusing.

Joe, it’s the same with Catholic Mass. And if we use that term alone the average person will never hear there’s something else beside what he’s use to. So, I’m all for making a broad and simple distinction. But you have to look on the bright side. Traditional Latin Mass makes those opposed to it grit their teeth. They thought they had put an end to it and now after the Motu it’s going to spread all over. You have to rub it in a little, “Yeah, I like the fact where I go to Mass the priest has his back to the people.”

Some object to the term, Mass of Saint Pius V, since it sounds like he came up with something new. How much more The 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII!

Everyone knows what Latin Mass Magazine is all about so I have no concern about Latin Mass being construed with the Novus Ordo in Latin. We know that the distinction is deeper than Latin but it is the most easily recognizable distinction and hence suitable for commonly distinguishing the two.

So much for: “What’s in a name?”

There is indeed a principle at stake, but I think the principle is this: the NO was created for the vernacular, and the TLM was not.

Much of your angst - and to be fair, the angst of many churchmen from the Holy Father down the line - derives from a search for language that affirms the NO as a liturgy wholly compatible with Catholic tradition. Unfortunately the compatibility isn’t there. The NO and the TLM share, as of September 14, a juridical and sacramental equality, but that is where the equality ends.

“The Mass of the 1962 missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII is still the extraordinary form of the Mass, and if ‘Latin Mass’ is taken to refer only to that form, it will further cement in people’s minds the mistaken idea that Latin is an extraordinary language in which to offer Mass.”

So long as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite remains, in practice, extraordinary, then Latin will remain, in practice, extraordinary. I see no problem with language corresponding with reality.

But the long term problem lies with the term “Extraordinary Form”, not with the term “Latin Mass”. In historical context the TLM is ordinary and the NO is radically extraordinary. It seems obvious that the term “Extraordinary Form” is something of a legal maneuver to give the TLM status a legitimate form of the Roman Rite. I predict that the designation will be relatively short-lived and probably superceded in our own lifetimes.