Poll: What should we call the "old Mass?"

Father Zuhlsdorf is running the following poll on his blog:

What should we call Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal?

Tridentine Mass

classical Mass

Latin Mass

pre-Conciliar Mass

Mass of all time

the true Mass

extraordinary form/use (forma extraodinaria)

usus antiquior

vetus ordo

older form of Mass

Mass of Bl. John XXIII

immemorial Mass

Mass of St. Pius V

traditional Mass

Johannine Mass

Traditional Latin Mass or TLM

To vote, visit his blog: wdtprs.com/blog/2007/09/poll-what-should-we-call-the-older-mass-continuation/

Since the pope has called it the Extraordinary Form, I think we should too.

How about The True Mass?

EF!

Choice 1: EF
Choice 2: because of its familiarity, TLM

:twocents:

I prefer the Missal of John XXIII or Missal of 1962.

I do not believe his holiness uses the phrase forma extraordinaria/“extraordinary form” except he has specified the Missale B. Ioannis XXIII/“Missal of Bl. John XXIII” in the same or preceding breath.

Also: Though it is uncertain from the Latin, far be it from me to bind any present future pope to allowing only a single identifiable “extraordinary form” – If another(s) should be allowed, we would just be back to this same question (What to call extraordinary form A, what to call extraordinary form B, et cetera?).

Of course, I also seem to be in the minority of preferring Current Missal or Missal of 2000 over the so-called “novus ordo

tee

We couldn’t because it’s not the only one. The Mass of Paul VI is also a true Mass, as are the Divine Liturgies of the sub juris Churches (Melkite, Maronite, Byzantine, etc.).

I think EF, since that’s what the Holy Father appears to reference it as.

I just tell people we go to the Latin Mass. They know what I am meaning.

I doubt the “Ordinary/Extraordinary” terminology will ever catch on. It works well on a Papal document, but the wording is probably too technical and bulky for most people to get comfortable with.

If we want to be historically correct then we could call it the “Gregorian Mass”, or the “Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great” if we want to link it to the Eastern Liturgies. The misleading term “Tridentine” will probably remain the standard, though at least its the most familiar.

The “Traditional Latin Mass” or simply the “Traditional Mass” will also remain common, though personally I prefer the “Classical Latin Mass”. Of course the simplified form of this, the “Latin Mass”, will also remain common, but it is another misleading term since the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in Latin (the Novus Ordo is ordinarily celebrated in Latin- vernacular is by indult).

The “Old/New” classification will probably still be used, as will the “Pre-concillar/Post-concillar” even though that is not entirely correct.

What I would prefer though is a system of terminology that all the Liturgical Rites can fit into. I propose a system that does this, while being faithful to the classification the Holy See uses. Recall the “Anglican Use of the Roman Rite” that was created for High Church Anglicans who converted to Catholicism:

Gregorian Use of the Roman Rite
Pauline Use of the Roman Rite
Anglican Use of the Roman Rite
Ambrosian Use of the Roman Rite
Mozarabic Use of the Roman Rite

ect.

<<How about The True Mass?>>

Do you mean to imply that the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom or Addai and Mari (for example) are FALSE masses?

Fie, RomingCatholic!

<>

Neither the Ambrosian nor Mozarabic Liturgies CAN be called “Uses of the Roman Rite” at all.

Neither are based on it; though the Ambrosian Rite has some striking parallels, the Mozarabic Rite is quite different from the Roman, even if clearly western.

I still like “Traditional Latin Mass”, or TLM. “Extraordinary Form of the Latin Right” just don’t feel right. Maybe in time.

DustinsDad

Ok, fine, they are Rites by themselves. My mistake. Although now there are “Ordinary/Extraordinary” Uses for each of these Rites because of reforms to bring them closer to the Novus Ordo. I’ve heard that some in the Archdiocese of Milan are thinking of forming a Priestly Fraternity of St. Ambrose to celebrate the traditional form of the Ambrosian Rite.

As a side note, the Ambrosian Rite is probably a primitive form of the Roman Rite.

Yep, just voted for that one. If you look at these threads, it is the term used almost exclusively. We are familiar with it, and it seems accurate.

EF is a “compromise” (or a sell out) to those Bishops who hate the TLM and are worried Bugnini’s “reforms” are about to be trashed.

The correct term is the “Traditional Roman Rite of Mass”, for this Rite of Mass is the one that developed over time naturally without the aid of human hands or “liturgical experts”.

Ken

Well, in a way it also undermined the progressive bishops. Calling the new and old Masses mere uses or forms of the single Roman Rite allowed the Holy Father to say that the TLM was never abolished and was the right of every priest to celebrate if he so wishes.

How about “the pure Mass.” No diluted, changed, interpreted (or misinterpreted).

I prefer Tridentine, but that MIGHT just be because I think the word sounds cool. :stuck_out_tongue: People also know what you mean if you say Latin Mass, usually. I don’t like the fancier terms.

Classical Use :wink:

<<How about “the pure Mass.” No diluted, changed, interpreted (or misinterpreted).>>

Does you mean to imply the other 22 or so Liturgies used by Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are “impure masses”?

The Holy Father has stated his preferred terminology: extraordinary or ordinary form, Missal of Bl John 23 or Paul 6.

If we say we are obedient to him, what are we discussing here?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.