Tuesday, May 29, 2012


Which image below is out of whack for either the Reformed Ordinary Form Mass or the Unreformed Ordinary Form Mass in terms of the banquet aspect of sharing in the Cross of Christ first and then His glorious resurrection? And what is it that is out of whack in terms of who it is that gives us Holy Communion even in a sacramental way?

What's in a name? Everything! What other name could there be for your computer's mouse; lump of coal or Peter-Paul Mound? These simply don't work. The mouse is the perfect name and is in continuity with what it is and what it does! It cannot be improved upon.

The two current names for the two forms of our one Latin Rite Mass simply doesn't cut the mustard! Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form? We all know that in English Ordinary and Extraordinary have different meanings to the ears that hear it and the eyes that see it and thus opens the Mass in either form to manipulation either positive or negative depending on one's perspective on the two Masses of the one Roman Rite.

So here is my decree that henceforth on this blog, the two forms of the one Latin Rite will be called the following with the initials indicated too!

The current name for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass will hence forth be known as Unreformed Ordinary Form of the Mass of the one Latin Rite, UOF for short.

The current name for the Ordinary Form of the Mass will henceforth be known as the Reformed Ordinary Form of the Mass, ROF for short.

My purpose in doing this is to show that in the one Roman Rite, there is currently the unreformed rite and the reformed rite but they are the same rite and the reformed rite is a reform of the unreformed rite.

Therefore none of us should worship either form of the one Latin Rite, but see them both as the means by which we are given by the Church (Head and members) to worship God, thank Him and to experience in an un-bloody way the One Sacrifice of Christ during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and at the Rite of Holy Communion, experience the Eucharistic Banquet which is our Risen Lord, Jesus Christ and He is made palatable as Food and Drink for the Soul. But this banquet is other-worldly and unlike those banquets we have at home at our dinner table, for at this Banquet we who receive our Risen Lord do not received Him in order that he become a part of us like ordinary food does, but rather that God makes us a part of Himself in Christ and through the Church. Ordinary food doesn't do that. And ordinary banquets don't center on the food and drink on the table as an object of worship for that would be idolatry for Christians. But in the Eucharistic Banquet, the Food and Drink we receive is to be adored, glorified and worshiped for it is not food in the ordinary sense, but in the extraordinary sense of this Food and Drink being our Risen and Glorified Lord's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. So let us rid ourselves of any notion of earthly food and drink and ordinary earthly banquets, suppers, meals. lunches, breakfasts and snacks, let alone fast food means of consuming food and drink.

Therefore the highly stylized bread and wine of either form of the Mass points to Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, not just to the qualities of the accidents which remain after the bread and wine is consecrated, although those accidents do indicate symbolically what our Lord does for the soul in which He abides through Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Eucharist. But the soul in receiving this "Bread and Wine" does not make Jesus a part of the soul, but Jesus makes the soul a part of Himself of which our adoption into Holy Mother Church does the same thing through Holy Baptism and Confirmation.

Therefore the need to be in a state of grace to receive our Lord is absolutely necessary for a worthy Holy Communion and the graces this reception in meant to bring to the soul. Unworthily receiving our Lord complicates the "disgrace" of the sinner's soul rather than heals it; It would be like receiving our Lord into a cesspool of contamination, an unworthy vessel for so great a Savior.

Therefore we attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but do not avail ourselves to the means by which God strengthens our full communion with Him in the Church, the reception of Holy Communion, for in fact our serious or mortal sins have caused us to break communion with the Church and our Lord, which needs sacramental absolution to bring the sin-sick soul back to its pristine baptismal beauty. No one should receive Holy Communion without baptism, for that would the same thing as a baptized Christian receiving Holy Communion in a state of unforgiven mortal sin. The soul is not properly prepared to be a pristine vessel for our Lord's most Sacred Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a memorial of Holy Thursday's Last Supper; it is a memorial of the One Sacrifice of Christ on Good Friday. Memorial must be understood within the context of the Jew's remembering the events of their Exodus from slavery, not just a historical remembrance of a past event, but God bringing that event forward to the present through their remembering of that event in a liturgical way and prefigures the Cross and Resurrection of our Divine Savior.

Finally, we must also acknowledge that the Latin word for soul is "anima" which is feminine. It is interesting to know that our Lord is the Bridegroom of the Church which is always described in the feminine, Holy Mother, she, her, bride, etc even though the Church is comprised of men and women. However, the soul of a man or a woman is always feminine, even for a man as the soul is an image of the feminine Church, the Bride of Christ. Gender is important for the Church and for the soul--many formed in the poor catechesis and liturgical translation of the Latin into the vernacular simply don't know this stuff do they? But it is fascinating that the soul of man is feminine to receive the soul's Bridegroom, our Lord!


rcg said...

I think Pin used to do a Roll On the Floor Liturgy, (ROFL) when he was a minister. Maybe you should propose a Roman Ordinary Form Latin Mass Ordinary for the future unified Missal.

Anonymous said...

how about
the M (Mass)
and the TM (Tweaked Mass)

Using the word 'ordinary' implies that there is something else that is outside of the ordinary. Drives me nuts

Just kiddin' around... do like your point, and the further explanations actually!


ytc said...


I hate that word, "reform." It sweepingly implies positivity.

We all know the OF as is is a failure of an over-extended experiment on most levels.


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Or we could have the TM and the VM, meaning the Tridentine Mass and the Vatican II Mass but that makes it sound like two different Masses when the Vatican II Mass is a renovation or recovation, depending on one's view of these sorts of things, such as what we did to pre-Vatican II Churches after Vatican II, using either description to capture one's sentiments.

ytc said...

How about the Pian Roman Mass and the Pauline Roman Mass?

Pius V: Missal of 1570
Paul VI: Missal [future coloring book? :D] of 1969

Btw, you have too many instances of the word "banquet" in your post.

William Meyer said...

But then what shall we call the Mass as celebrated by my parish? It is clearly not in either of the traditional forms. The Non-Traditional Mass (NTM).

Anonymous said...

Good precise and descriptive short names are already in common use (by folks in the know):

Gregorian Mass and Pauline Mass

But perhaps even shorter and punchier:

Mass True and Mass Lite

Though frankly, while Mass Lite is right on the money, I admittedly don't really like Mass True. So what's the best 4-letter substitute for True?

Anonymous said...


I take it the Mass in your parish is not the ordinary form:


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I've celebrated Gregorian Ordinary Form Masses in my previous parish--entirely chanted in Gregorian Chant, including all the propers.

Maybe a less incendiary way to approach the naming of the Masses is:

The Unabridged Mass
The Abridged Mass

Anonymous said...

But to be serious for a moment, if that's ok, Fr. McDonald, you ought not use the term "reformed" for the Pauline Mass. Because that would imply that it's the reform of the Gregorian Mass that was called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium. Which it simply is not. We still await the liturgical implementation of Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

In the terms "Gregorian Mass" and "Gregorian chant", the word Gregorian has entirely different meanings.

In the first, it references a type of Mass. In the second, it references a type of chant. An OF Mass celebrated ad orientem in Latin, with both the propers and ordinary in Gregorian chant, is NOT a Gregorian Mass. No informed person will call the OF Mass at Brompton Oratory (referenced above) a Gregorian Mass, though to some it probably both looked and sounded like one.

A Gregorian Mass is defined not by its language, but by its form and ceremonial action. Indeed, vernacular Gregorian Masses have been authorized at various times and places.

Father Shelton said...

In offering the Holy Mass according to both forms on a frequent basis, the present terminology does begin to seem clumsy.
I tend to say 'old Mass' and 'new Mass', but for purely practical reasons.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

RCG, I'll have you know that Presbyterians do not "roll on the floor." They are too occupied with sitting straight and quiet in their pews so the Devil does not notice them and snatch them to Hell by their feet. LOL

That fourth picture in the article looks like, "Hi, Jan. Love your hair."
"Oh, thanks, Sue. How are the kids? Hey, want some bread? How 'bout some wine with that?"
"Oh, thanks, Jan. See ya' at the kids' soccer. Bye now."

ytc said...

Gregorian Mass does not get its name Gregorian Chant. It gets its name from the same place that Gregorian Chant gets its name--that is, Pope Gregory the Great--but Gregorian Mass directly references the man for its title, not the chant.

An OF can NEVER be called a Gregorian Mass because too much of its predecessor was butchered in the "reform" to retain that title. An EF can always be called a Gregorian Mass because it has direct and explicit ties to the liturgy as Gregory influenced it.

jacob said...

Father, you seem to have forgotten, there are more than just two forms of the Roman Rite.

There is the Ordinary Form, the Extraordinary From, and the Anglican Use.

Some religious orders also have their own unique forms.

When in history was there ever really only one form in the Roman Rite?

ytc said...

The Latin Church has a somewhat loose but still defined liturgical tradition called by many the Latin Liturgical Tradition.

The LLT is made up of several Rites and Forms and Uses and variants of Rites.

1. Roman Rite is the first and obviously largest. It comes in two main flavors, the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms.
1a. The Anglican Use is similar but sufficiently different and is a type of liturgy used by disaffected and Catholicized Anglicans, and we welcome them graciously. Currently these Catholics are in the process of developing a more stable liturgy with Rome.

Rites of locales:

1. Ambrosian Rite comes also in two flavors, the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms. This is used by the Ardiocese/Patriarchy (?) of Milan.

2. Mozarbic Rite only comes in the "EF" flavor and is used in some places in Spain.

3. Bragan Rite only comes in the "EF" flavor and is used in some places in Braga, Portugal.

4. Zaire Use is used to a very limited extent in Africa.

5. Sarum Rite is a now-defunct Rite that was used in the British Isles and which is even more elaborate than the EF Roman Rite. It IS, in fact, still celebrated, but only rarely. I hear that the former Anglicans are looking at this Rite very closely...

6. Algonquin and Iroquoian Uses were used in the USA to evangelize Native Americans.

Rites of Religious:

1. Dominican Rite
2. Carmelite Rite
3. Premonstratensian Rite
4. Carthusian Rite
5. Benedictine Rite to an extent
6. Cistercian Rite
7. Roman-Syraphic Missal (Franciscan variant of the Roman Missal)

There are more but that's a basis.

Dan Z said...

Sorry, but "reformed ordinary form mass" and "unreformed ordinary form mass" sounds kind of like the punch line of an SNL skit. Are you trying to be funny or are you serious about this? I have no problem with "Ordinary Form" and "Extraordinary Form", but if you want something less, er, ordinary, how about "Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)" and "Revised Vernacular Mass (RVM)"?