Meaning of Catholic: Why The Term "Extraordinary Form" is Wrong

+

JMJ

I have often thought of the Novus Ordo as 'the' extraordinary form of the Mass.  Extraoridinarily banal and bad. 

I came across this article Meaning of Catholic: Term ExtraOrdinary Form is Wrong by a Timothy Flanders and thought I would highlight some of the key insights.

The whole article is worthy of a careful read ... amongst many points that will be familiar to veteran Traditional Catholics, there are some new points - particularly the deceiving of Pope Paul VI.

P^3

Another and more salient point is the New Mass’ form of origin. Ratzinger famously censured the New Mass as a “banal fabrication” (French preface to Gamber’s Reform of the Roman Liturgy). The New Mass is the most extraordinary form because it was created by a committee of Catholics and Protestants, whose head famously deceived the pope to implement his own agenda. Even worse, the Pope admitted that he did not even review significant liturgical changes that he approved trusting in these “experts” who were deceiving him.

Perhaps most shocking is the fact that the New Mass mirrors point for point the Anglican Mass of Cranmer, which was created in open revolt to the Catholic Church.

The “ordinary” mode of origin for liturgy (as Reid argues convincingly and Ratzinger agrees) is a centuries old, organic development from Apostolic times. This is true for every form of the liturgy except the New Mass. Thus the New Mass is, in every way except current popularity, the most extraordinary form in history.

... the New Mass contains only 17% of the prayers contained in the Ancient Roman Rite. Moreover, the reformers specifically removed phrases (“Hell,” “sin,” “death”) that would be offensive to Modern Man or Protestants. Thus the continuity between the Latin Mass and the New Mass is incredibly strained. ... No Catholic can fail to see and feel the difference, even in the most reverently celebrated New Mass.

In conclusion, anticipating critical remarks, it should be stressed that faithful Catholics can question the non-infallible decisions of the Holy See but only for a grave cause. Ordinarily all faithful Catholics should accept every decision and ruling of the Holy See. In certain rare cases noted throughout history, the faithful have called an erring Pontiff back to the correct path for the Church. But disobedience to the local bishop or the Holy See can only be justified for a manifestly grave cause (eg. a command to commit sin).

 Indeed, liturgical “dissent” has already been twice exonerated by the Holy See. First, in Summorum Pontificum: this abrogated Paul VI’s rulings on the Mass and exonerated all those who had dissented from Missale Romanum (1969). Contrast Paul VI saying that “this [New Mass] is a law” (General Audience, November 19, 1969) with Benedict XVI stating the Ancient Roman Rite was in fact “never abrogated” (Summorum Pontificum).

Above all, let us all have charity one to another, for all faithful Catholics are doing their best in this crisis

I would add, be very grateful if you even realize that there is a crisis and its roots causes - not just the symptoms!