The Ordinary Form

Why are we allowed to criticize the Ordinary Form when the Council of Trent said:

-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be** contemned**, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

My emphasis added.

Um, because there is a difference between condemning, criticizing, or questioning, first of all. Second, there is a difference between ‘condemning’ the approved OF done validly and licitly and ‘condemning’ not the Mass itself but invalid and illicit abuses of that Mass. Thirdly, there is also a difference between ‘condemning’ the Mass and questioning words or actions which may not be invalid or illicit per se but which are innovations or experiments that are not specified and were not ‘organic’ to the liturgy, but added on without any other consideration than, "I think practice X is good, so we’re going to do it on MY turf.’

I for one am not going to say that the OF is invalid or illicit though as a matter of preference (based on my age and other reasonable factors) I prefer the EF. That is a personal preference, just as some people ‘prefer’ a early morning Mass to a later Mass, or Sunday Mass to Saturday Mass. ALL of those Masses are equally good and valid in and of themselves, but I may legitimately prefer any one of them based on all sorts of factors, including whether I am a morning or ‘night’ person, whether I have job duties on a Sat. or Sunday, whether I like the particulars of a given Mass (organ or guitar, ‘low’ versus ‘high’, younger people versus older people, more ‘hands on’ or more ‘contemplative’, etc.)

Very few people actually think that the OF is not valid–and those people are almost to a man SV, not the kind of traditionalist Catholic who is perfectly loyal to our Pope and perfectly accepting of both forms of Mass.

Unfortunately, because many of the SV people like the EF (and think it ONLY is valid), some people think that ANY person who expresses a ‘preference’ for the EF is DISSING the OF or questioning its validity.

Let’s imagine there is a huge group of people who hate dogs (nasty people) and all of them love vanilla ice cream, and only vanilla ice cream.

Now suppose a person who is new comes into town and orders vanilla ice cream because he happens to like vanilla ice cream. . . and suddenly is surrounded by people screaming at him" Why do you hate dogs?" Boy, is he confused. He just likes vanilla ice cream. . .but because a big loud group has identified itself with vanilla ice cream, he gets ‘tarred with the same brush’ for a preference for vanilla ice cream which has nothing to do with him hating dogs. (in fact, he loves them).

Now you see what 90+ percent of those of us who identify as traditionalists have to deal with–people think because we ‘prefer’ one Mass we’re Pope haters and “OF haters”, just because one loud group says that they are Pope haters and OF haters --oh, and they just happen to ‘prefer’ the EF.’

Thanks. That helped a lot. Are condemn and contemn synonymous? Contemn means to despise or to disdain.

They’re similar in meaning. I, for one, made the mistake up until I read your post :p. “Contemn” would be related to “contempt”.

Of course you do realize that when that was written, the Tridentine Mass was the Ordinary Form. The Mass of Ages!.

Of course you do realize that when that was written, the Tridentine Mass was the Ordinary Form. The Mass of Ages!.

And as I always say to the “Mass of Ages” line: What are the Eastern Liturgies? Chopped liver?

To extend Bpbasilphx’s line:

Sure the Forma Extraordinaria is beautiful on its own right, but what about the other Rites/Uses of the Western, Eastern and Oriental Churches that are older than it (such as the Holy Qurbana or the Liturgy of St. James, for instance)? Should they not share in the glory by being called the Liturgies of the Ages? :wink:

Because it simply wasn’t in the context of the discussion. Nor was it meant to exclude the East. Tell me, if I were to read a commentary on the Divine liturgy and it’s beauty, would it mention the Western rites? or what? are we just chopped liver?

This reminds of the PC nonesense that our culture is going through. Whatever you do, don’t talk about the glory of the Western rite without mentioning the Eastern liturgies! They might feel left out :rolleyes:

Perhaps I should wander over to the Eastern forums, and make sure that we aren’t forgotten! :rolleyes:

(N.B - I was raised with both the Latin rite as well as the Ukrainian Catholic Church, being of Ukrainian stock myself. I certainly think that both the liturgies beautiful beyond comprehension - but this tendancy of the Easterners to always want to assert themselves is extremely annoying - especially when it is uncalled for.)

This is kind of an aside but I believe relevant. I didn’t even know there WAS an Eastern rite until I was in grad school in 1977 and a classmate was married according to the Eastern rite (by dispensation at a Latin rite church). My only exposure to the East was when another classmate invited me to attend the Orthodox Holy Saturday liturgy (Sorry folks. I know there is a correct name but I can’t remember it) in New Orleans in 1976.

You won’t find many Eastern Catholic churches in the Deep South - certainly not in Louisiana. CAF has been real eye-opening for me. I honestly had no idea that there were other rites. The settlement pattern for south Lousiana is overwhelmingly Western European with Vietnamese and Filipinos (both Latin rite). We have some Lebanese here and once a year there is a a Mass of St. Charbel (Sharbel?) celebrated but that is it. Sometimes folks just respond out of plain, simple ignorance.

Because it simply wasn’t in the context of the discussion. Nor was it meant to exclude the East. Tell me, if I were to read a commentary on the Divine liturgy and it’s beauty, would it mention the Western rites? or what? are we just chopped liver?

**The name of this site is “Traditional Catholicism,” not “Traditional Latin Catholicism.”

The qualifer “Latin” is neither understood nor implied here.

Eastern Churches are just as traditional. And in my experience, most of the people who go around calling the Pian Missal (in whatever recension) the “mass of the ages” have for the most part had no experience, or even knowlege, of the Eastern liturgies.**

First, the canonical penalty of “anathema” no longer applies. Most things that can occur anathema have been changed to simple excommunication. Second, criticizing the Mass is not one of those things that can have one excommunicated.

Now the principle still exists that one can stray to heresy by condemning the Sacramental grace through the Mass. But to use Trent as a reason to squelch criticism of the Latin Rite is simply unreasonable.

My experience has been just the opposite. Many traditionalists, in their thirst for orthodox and traditional liturgy often seek out eastern liturgies when there is no Tridentine mass present.

In any case, no one had slighted the Eastern rites in this thread, and your comment was completely uncalled for. One can confidently call the traditional mass the “mass of the ages” without taking away from the glory of the just as venerable liturgical traditions of the East.

The qualifier Roman is right there under the forum name.

Traditional Catholicism
Forum for discussion of traditional** Roman **Catholic spirituality

Absolutely. And it ought be repeated, whenever possible.

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