Does the Church have a preference in terms of the form of the Mass? I have heard people say that the Church prefers the Tridentine Mass but have not seen any post-Vatican II documentation attesting to such a statement.
if that were true there would have been no reform of the Missal, and we would still be celebrating that rite universally.
I think the designation of ordinary form for the current form and extraordinary form for the older form speaks for itself.
It is called extraordinary because when a soul assists at such a beautiful Traditional Mass they say: "Wow, that is extraordinary…I don’t have the words to explain such holiness and beauty!!!"
In what way? As in the “ordinary” is preferred, or the “extraordinary” is preferred?
But extraordinary ministers of holy communion are also “extraordinary” and the “ordinary” ministers are the priests, deacons, bishops, etc… So are we using “extraordinary” and “ordinary” in the same sense here?
BTW, I don’t mean to introduce the value of EMHCs, so please don’t comment on that. Just discussing terminology here.
Ordinary and extraordinary are used in the same sense as EMHCs and Bishops. It means usual. Extraordinary does not mean ‘wow’, it just means additional to the usual.
Rats!. I thought maybe they were ready to escort us in with dancing girls bearing urns of incense.