Image: US Navy
Those of us who attend the NO don’t go around slamming the Latin Mass, so ask yourself why can’t you stop yourself from slamming the Novus Ordo?
It’s a valid question, and one I’d like to refine by asking sincerely: what are the Extraordinary Form Traditionalists afraid will happen if we have multiple Mass forms — and do they realize that the Latin-Rite (Roman) Catholic Church has almost always had multiple Mass forms?
I’ll address the second part of my question first, starting by pointing out that, even now, the Roman Rite has more than two Mass forms. While the OF and EF are probably the most well-known, especially in the United States, officially the Latin-Rite Church’s liturgy comes in the following Mass forms, none of which are considered separate Churches:
- The Ordinary Form (OF), which is normatively written in Latin (thus why I use “OF” instead of “Latin Mass”), and was developed during Vatican Council II;
- The Extraordinary Form (EF), which is also normatively written in Latin, and is based on the rite developed during the Council of Trent;
- The Divine Worship (DW) form, which is used by the Anglican Ordinariates;
- The Zaire Use, which is used in some locations in Africa;
- The Ambrosian Rite, which is used in some locations in Italy;
- The Mozarabic Rite, which is used in a few locations in Spain; and
- The Lyonese Rite, which used in a handful of locations in France.
In addition, many religious orders have (or have had) rites/uses that are specific to their order. All of this diversity exists in addition to the numerous local traditions and variations allowed within the various Mass forms. For example, within a half-hour’s drive I can attend OF Masses that only the most conservative would consider irreverent; a parish that exclusively uses the EF Mass; Masses that still follow 1970s- and 1980s-era practices; Masses using settings that are almost identical to contemporary Protestant “Praise and Worship” services; and even Masses that utilize Vietnamese and Korean customs in addition to (or in lieu of) Hispanic and European.
The same is arguably true for any Catholic living in a major U.S. metropolitan area. In fact, I would submit that my particular major metro is probably less diverse than average, since the Atlanta metro has a lower percentage of Catholics versus areas like New York, Chicago, or San Francisco; and that the United States is less diverse among Catholics than majority-Catholic countries such as those in Europe, Central America and South America.
And this is just the situation as it exists today, in 2024! Prior to 1570, which is when the liturgical uniformity of the Tridentine Rite was first imposed, there were even more forms of the Latin Rite. In fact, the first significant attempt at liturgical unification happened nearly a thousand years before Trent. Put another way: rites and uses within the Latin-Rite Church already had noticeable differences well before the Filoque debate fractured the Church.
Given that neither the Filoque debate nor the Protestant Reformation (which sparked the Council of Trent) meant an end to the Latin-Rite Church, I have a very hard time believing that a lack of liturgical uniformity would mean an end to it now. Thus, I cannot accept any argument that the use of the Extraordinary Form is necessary to prevent the end of the Church. Liturgical unity isn’t necessary for our faith to persevere.
In fact, I would argue that it’s quite likely that there have been multiple Mass forms since the very beginning, possibly even before the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). That Council was primarily convened to address the necessity of Christians following Jewish law, indicating that at least two different customs had already developed less than a hundred years after the time of Christ. If legal customs had already diverged, isn’t it likely that worship customs likely had diverged as well?
In its purest form, the Mass as described in Acts, Christian worship was extremely simple; in fact, for the Jewish Christians, the services described in Acts 20 were considered an ancillary service that walked hand-in-hand with the Jewish Sabbath. The Gentile Christians, on the other hand, probably did not attend Sabbath services since the Sabbath-keeping law was a Jewish one. (If they did, it likely wasn’t with the same attitude or beliefs about Sabbath services.)
Further, when the liturgical scholar moves ahead to worship as described in the Didache and the writings of Justin Martyr, the practices described are more similar to the OF than they are to the EF. In other words, the items shared between the OF and EF are the ones based on the oldest sources. The first item that’s limited to the EF only wasn’t added until the Gregorian reforms which, as I note above, happened several centuries after the Church was established.
Put another way: in terms of percentages, the greater proportion of Mass events that can be traced back to the original forms of Christian worship occur in the Ordinary Form. This assertion can be borne out simply by reading descriptions of the original Christians’ worship and comparing them to the two forms. Catholics who regularly attend the OF will easily recognize the strong similarities, but getting from there to the EF requires a fair bit of historical context and knowledge.
I would argue, then, that the Ordinary Form should thus be considered the older and more “traditional” practice. Given that it is written in Latin – all vernacular versions are translations from the Latin original – that means that the appellation of “traditional Latin Mass” properly belongs to the Ordinary Form. This is why I insist on calling the Extraordinary Form by that name.
It’s worth noting, as a sidebar, that Latin wasn’t the original language for Christian worship anyway. Greek was, and that occurred primarily because it was most common lingua franca around the time of Christ. Latin usage in the Mass — and, possibly, the entire Latin Rite — began as vernacular translations of the original Eastern (Greek) Rites, and this can still be seen today: Ecclesiastical Latin is closer to Vulgar Latin than it is to Classical Latin. Latin as a liturgical language didn’t start until the use of Latin as a vernacular began to decline in the late 400s.
Since the Latin Rite is younger than the Eastern Rites, and since the Ordinary Form has a stronger claim to the word “traditional,” I submit that EF-only arguments based on tradition are no stronger than arguments based on liturgical unity. That is, they don’t turn the Extraordinary Form into an actual necessity.
If the Extraordinary Form isn’t necessary, then, arguments in its favor rely primarily on the fact that this is the form that was used most recently in Western Civilization prior to the mid-twentieth century. Ordinary Form attendees and proponents don’t dispute this! In addition, we don’t dispute that a significant number of Catholics are spiritually “fed” by the Extraordinary Form.
What we dispute is the idea that the Extraordinary Form should be the normative form. In other words, we believe it should be exactly as it’s named: extraordinary. The Ordinary Form should be the most common form, followed by local usages and rites that adhere to various cultural customs; and absent extraordinary circumstances — there’s that word again — the Ordinary Form is the one that should be used for catechetical instruction.
I have never met a single Ordinary Form (or Divine Worship) attendee who believes that the Extraordinary Form should be completely suppressed. Even Pope Francis hasn’t said that. The point of Traditionis custodes was that the Extraordinary Form has become a weapon in the hands of sedevacantists. Combating those factions means that the Extraordinary Form should be treated as an exception rather than the rule; the Ordinary Form should be the normative form.
If Extraordinary Form adherents don’t care for the restrictions of Traditionis custodes, I would submit that it falls to them to stop its misuse by the sedevacantists. Once that stops, chances are good that the worst of the restrictions will also ease. The attitudes of many bishops certainly suggest that is the case.
That said, keeping the EF extraordinary means that it will, over time, become a less common occurrence. I’ve pointed out earlier, though, that “less common” doesn’t mean something will vanish. Rites and usages evolve over time, but they generally have to be specifically suppressed (something that has not happened to the EF and likely will not happen) before they vanish completely, and the enormity of written record means that even they aren’t completely forgotten.
So, I’ll ask the EF-only proponents again: what are you so afraid of? Lack of liturgical uniformity has always existed, and the “traditional Latin” Mass is actually the Ordinary Form. Neither threaten the existence of the Church or even, of the Extraordinary Form itself. There’s no reason to think that you might not be “fed” in the Church of the future. So why are you acting as though you might be?