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 After all, the Mass is old, and the idea that old things are necessarily out of date is one of the mistakes we want to combat anyway.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.”
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
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.
Actually, Father, I would worry about causing confusion just with “ancient mass” even without mentioning Gregory the Great; I’ve been assisting at (here I go again) the Mass according to the 1962 missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII for a few years now, and if I saw in the bulletin that a parish was offering “the ancient mass” I would scratch my head and think, “huh, do they mean the Tridentine?” Part of the problem is that some (mainly schismatic) groups have claimed that what you find in the 1962 missal is still too recent/corrupt, so there might be danger of confusing yourselves with them (although taken in context that might not really be such a problem.) However, I agree that “ancient form of the Mass” sounds rather nice as a general descriptive term, so if we could get everyone on board with calling it that, I wouldn’t complain.
“Traditional Latin Mass” is also acceptable to me if that’s the general favorite, but I’m suspicious precisely because of the suggestion, endorsed by many, that it might often be shortened just to “Latin Mass.” I understand what you say, Jeff Culbreath, that these days Latin Masses are not generally going to be in the Novus Ordo. Even those few places where the Latin Novus is presently found (like Mother Angelica’s Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville) will likely want to switch to the traditional form once the MP takes effect. Nonetheless, I think there’s a principle at stake here. Latin is still the language of the Church. When the Novus is done in some other language, it’s a translation of the Latin. 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.
And by the way, Discipule, I chuckled a little about your bit on being chided for using the wrong terminology for things. When I first found myself in company with traditional Catholics, I felt like I could hardly open my mouth without being corrected for some ill-chosen word! Understand, I’m not complaining — their corrections were always very kind. Everyone in the Society for a Good Time (though it had not yet been so named) was interested in drawing me into the Church, and one member had another ambition as well, and anyway they were mostly converts so they’d all been through a similar period of initation. But it was indeed a humbling experience for someone who thought she knew at least a little bit about Catholicism!
For the sake of brevity and of precision, it’s best I think to refer to the two uses simply by the edition of the liturgical books they follow. So, instead of the “Novus Ordo” and the “Tranditional Latin Mass”, neither of which term is common beyond traditionalist circles (and both being somewhat tied to polemical arguments), I usually just say “the 1962 missal” and “the 2000 missal.”
I don’t like “Latin Mass” because people think that Latin is the only major difference between the two forms,when in fact it is the least area of difference.
A correction: that’s the “2002 missal,” I believe, according to the current typical edition (it’s recency being the impetus for the revised translation).
I don’t see what’s wrong with ‘Traditional (Latin/ Roman) Mass’.
I’m pleased that the MP has undercut the move made by some to introduce ‘Classical Rite’. The ‘classical’ form of something is a form which has been superseded, but which is so important, historically, that one refers back to it. The TLM has not been superceded; it is still alive.
The ‘extraordinary use’ term is going to find itself in difficulties when people realise that the traditional Norbertine, Dominican and Carthusian liturgies are also ‘extraordinary’ forms of the Roman Rite. (Whereas the Ambrosian, as I understand it, is a separate Rite>)
If the MP is implemented in full, ‘1962′ is going to have to be ditched as well, since the new saints will be added and so on. There are going to be two ‘uses’ of the Roman Rite: the one that dates back to 1969, and the Traditional Mass, that has evolved organically from Pope Gelasius to the present day.
This discussion seems sad since we will end up looking like the Protestants:
Mount Zion Bible Church
Sunday Service
Traditional Worship 8 AM
Contemporary Praise 10 AM
Why should the Mass of All Time have to have some modified name? It should just be called the Catholic Mass.
Blessed Sacrament Catholic Church
Sunday Mass Schedule
Low Mass 8 AM
High Mass 10 AM
(Novus Ordo Hootenanny 7PM, 3rd Sunday)
Well, JSP, some of us like to use language to communicate with others, not merely as a means of self-congratulation. I understand that “traditional” can sound a little quaint to our ears, but maybe we just need to learn to get over that.
And I have to agree that referring to the year of the missal in each case will start to get rather confusing, especially as more missals are issued in future years. It would be better to establish the nomenclature now, and then to stick with it.
Though I doubt “Traditional Latin Mass” will be entirely superceded, “Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite” seems to be gaining some traction.
“Nonetheless, I think there’s a principle at stake here. Latin is still the language of the Church. When the Novus is done in some other language, it’s a translation of the Latin.”
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.
Clara, Experience is often the best teacher; hence you did not bother to correct me for using the term True Mass. You could have said, “You have to be careful about using that. People may infer that you think the New Mass invalid.” You gave me the benefit of using the term correctly. I think we would all like to say True Mass. It is a great way to describe the “genuine article” that has been with the Church from the beginning and yet we have to say that every valid Novus Ordo Mass is a true Mass; so the distinction is lost.
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?”
“Yeah, I like the fact where I go to Mass the priest has his back to the people.”
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.
“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.”
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.
And by the way… I also snickered appreciatively at JSP’s little advertisement. But it was a distraction to my main point, and what would the world come to if I failed to bark at his juvenile antics, even when they are amusing?
“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.”
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?
A quick question off-topic, should someone indulge me with an answer, I would appreciate it…
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
The word assist was always used, and I have my own theory as to why. In Spanish the verb “asistir” means “to attend”, rather than “to assist” which is what you’d probably think if you’re an English speaker. French might have something similar, although I don’t know.
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.
That’s clever thinking, Andrew, but the explanation is simpler than that. We assist the priest by uniting our prayers and intentions with his throughout the Mass. So yes, women are also permitted to do this.
“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.”
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.
Clara:
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 sometimes wonder if the Holy Father also stumbled onto this page a while ago and came up with the term “Ordinary Form,” since anyone who goes to the New Mass is frequently called here a Novus Ordinarian. Either he read it here or JSP is a prophet. Either way, thanks Joe. I can now use the term without thinking I’m being offensive.
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.”
“Logical solution?” I know one student who slept through the logic course. Either that or he needs a new Joke Book.
“As the whip and the lash on a balking mule, So the lash of the tongue and the rod on the back of a wayward disciple.”
How about the “traditional Mass.” I thought thats what most of us called anyway.
The last one 4:00 pm is not me.
It’s not me either. Creepy.
Do one of you Discipuli (the one who used the term TrueMass) belong to the Ctn-jogues list? That’s the name used there. Just curious — not suggesting one name or the other.
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?
This piece in the NYTimes envisions the same high church/low church split that our Blessed Sacrament Church sign suggests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun3.html