The Roman Rite or Latin Rite is one Church, and it has one liturgy, one ritual, and this is the liturgy promulgated in continuity with the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium. Just as the Byzantine Church has the Byzantine or Greek Rite of the Mass, so the Roman Church has the Roman or Latin Rite of the Mass. The “Tridentine” missal is not a “Tridentine Rite” - there is no such thing, any more than there is a “Tridentine Church”.
(little point - I understand the words “Novus Ordo” come from Paul VI. But as someone stated in Catholicforum.com, “That term should no longer be in use. Post Vatican II liturgical changes are not new anymore, they are the norm.”)
Both terms in the moniker “Novus Ordo” (as it is used now) are an insult that should not be accepted or perpetuated by Catholics. In the first place, there is nothing “novel” about the missal of Paul VI in the sense of having been invented by the Council fathers (with perhaps the sole exception of the prayer of the Mystery of Faith, which traditionalists scarcely have a problem with). There is nothing in the current Roman Rite which does not have venerable roots in the history in the Catholic Church, whether the use of the vernacular, the kiss of peace, the other three Eucharistic prayers, the audible participation of the whole congregation in certain prayers, the reception of Communion in the hand, or the reception of Communion from the cup.
Yet the charge of “archaism” also falls flat, as it was not “old age” but rather the faciliation of the worship of the Father that determined the Council fathers’ choice of ancient elements to restore to the universal liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Those elements that are actually novel in concrete practice are abuses that have their origin in dissenting professors that have staffed universities and seminaries in the last forty years–but that’s an old debate.
The word “Ordo” has also become distorted into something wholly other than its original meaning. It has taken on a metaphysical significance, when originally it was meant to refer merely to the external rubrics of the ritual. Every time the Rite of Pius V was revised prior to 1962 it was a “Novus Ordo Missae”.
There are much more accurate and appropriate terms to refer to the standard rite of the Mass. I have already (intentionally) used several of them. They are:[LIST]
*]The Mass/Rite of Sacrosanctum Concilium
*]The Mass/Rite of Paul VI
*]The Mass/Rite of Vatican II (I would love to see the phrase “Vaticanine Mass” come into popular use)
*]The Mass/Rite of 2002 or [year of last revision]
*]The current/standard/official Mass/Rite (or Missa Normativa)[/LIST]For similar reasons, “Traditional Latin Mass” is both misleading and counterproductive to the worthy Catholic effort to lobby for a more correct and worthy celebration of the current Mass. Importantly, “TLM” *ought *to be the name of the official rite, but at present such is impossible because the way the Mass is often celebrated makes it unworthy of the title. Magisterium-loyal Catholics in-the-know understand that the Mass really ought to be celebrated in Latin more often than in the vernacular; and that it ought to be absolutely traditional, with the itch for novelty completely expelled from parish celebrations.
Using “TLM” as the normative title of the Mass of 1962 has, IMO, the disastrous effect of putting in the minds of both conservative and liberal Catholics the false notion that the Mass of 1962 has an exclusive claim to the descriptors “traditional” or “Latin”. Moreover, the word “traditional” can give the mistaken impression that the Mass of 1962 is normative for Catholics.
As stated before, the Mass of Pius V is not a separate rite (like the Byzantine rite) and, though it is noble, does not warrant the same degree of homage as does the Byzantine rite.
This is not because the Tridentine Mass is less beautiful than the Byzantine rite; but because where the Byzantine rite is autonomous from the Roman rite, the Tridentine Mass* is not*. What we call the Tridentine Mass are the supressed rubrics and calendar of the current Mass. They are not two different things; they are the same thing at two distinct times of the Church’s history: its universal form of worship.
It is the fault of liberal corruptions that the current rite and the Tridentine Mass appear as different than they do. But this is an accident of history, not something proper to their natures. So far as externals go, the Tridentine Mass is closer to the “real thing” than the schlock most Catholics get in their parishes. But the current Mass as celebrated in places such as the Brompton Oratory in London **is **the real thing, and they surpass the Tridentine Mass by incorporating the noble goals as stated by Sacrosanctum Concilium while being a development in continuity, not break, from the past.[LIST]
*]The Mass of Trent/Tridentine Mass
*]The Indult Mass (true, but perhaps needlessly insulting to those with an affection for it)
*]The Mass of 1962
*]The Mass of Pius V[/LIST]