On the RemnantNewspaper.com website, the editor of The Remnant Newspaper, Michael J. Matt, has weighed in on the debate regarding whether to call the TLM the "Extraordinary Form". He says, in part...
"Yes, I know, we’re not supposed to call [the 'Tridentine' Mass] that anymore. Now it’s the 'Extraordinary Form', which makes some sense, I suppose, given the sheer ordinariness of the New Mass. But why this insistence on 'Extraordinary Form'? God knows. Perhaps a new name was needed for the old Mass - one that doesn’t imply allegiance to the clarity of Trent over the ambiguity of Vatican II. Perhaps suggesting two forms of one Rite provided cover for the bizarre spectacle and abrupt rupture of an entirely New Mass. I don’t know. Whatever it is, for many of us the traditional Mass will always be the Tridentine Mass. This is so for a variety of reasons... It was codified at Trent by the same sainted pontiff who’d codified the 15-decade traditional rosary - St. Pius V, spiritual general of Lepanto, and the great pope who’d saved Europe from both Islam and Protestantism... ['Pioneer Traditionalists'] knew very well that important components of [the TLM] predated Trent by some 1500 years. But by referring to it as the 'Tridentine Mass' they lashed themselves to the mast of Catholic Tradition - the dogmatic Council of Trent, Quo Primum and the flagship of the Catholic fleet that would preserve the Faith of the Ages against the onslaught of Novelty, Protestantism and a burgeoning Novus Ordo Seclorum... The Extraordinary Form? Sure, but one day it will again be the only form of the Roman Rite"
One might also add that using the terms "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" may favor the idea that the differences between the two are insignificant or of little consequence. It may imply that both are equally good. Remember that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci did not seem to agree that the differences were insignificant, of little consequence, or that both were equally good when they stated that the NO "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which, by fixing definitively the 'canons' of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery" or when they stated that the NO liturgy "teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith". The Protestants who rejected the Traditional Mass but who accept the New Mass also illustrate that the differences between the two are quite significant. Further, terms such as "ordinary" and "extraordinary" seem to automatically relegate the "extraordinary form" to be used only "extraordinarily" (otherwise it would be "ordinary"), at least in the minds of the general Catholic population.
Finally, such terms tend to promote the idea that both really are two forms of the SAME rite. Without wishing to open a can of worms, one might ask: If they really are two forms of the SAME rite, what exactly then would it take to make them two different rites? Already we know that the history of development is different, the emphasis is different, the rubrics are different, the language (of typical use, not promulgation) is different, the readings are different, the calendar is different, the options are different, the gestures are frequently different, the prayers have many differences, the Bible translation is different, the architecture is typically different, the participants in the sanctuary are typically different (e.g. lectors, 'lay ministers' of Holy Communion, female 'altar boys', etc.), the priests' direction is typically different, the music is typically different, distribution of Communion is different, etc., etc. What exactly is left to officially consider the two "different" rites? And, if the TLM and the NO were officially considered different rites, wouldn't tradition-minded Catholics have more "rights" since they could choose the TLM as their rite and would then automatically be entitled to it - without needing to "jump through hoops" (e.g. Can. 214: "The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church")? Not only that, but if the two were officially considered different rites, wouldn't it be the NO adherents who had effectively changed rites, rather than those attached to the immemorial TLM? Just a thought.
Related: The Traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass vs. the New (Novus Ordo) Mass | Latin Mass Updates: 7/07 & Later
Posts
