On the Term "Extraordinary Form"

Recently a reader of this blog sent me a message of concern regarding the use of the term Extraordinary Form to describe the Mass according to the Missal of 1962. The commenter wrote:

I have a concern on constant using the EF term on this blog. In a sense provided by Summorum pontificum, that the NO and TLM are different expressions of the same lex orandi, and two forms of the Roman rite each having its own value and without any defects in any of them, I consider it unacceptable for a Traditionalist in the positive sense because it automatically implies that the NO is in no way inferior to the TLM and that it contains no defects, which in itself is deeply contrary to the main tenets of Traditionalism. So I find it very strange for this blog, which according to all other contents, surely is traditional, to constantly keep forcing this term.

Thank you for voicing the concern!

I personally think Extraordinary Form is a legitimate phrase to use to denote the TLM, for various reasons:

First, the phrase does not denote that both rites are equal or that the Novus Ordo does not have serious issues. The term denotes only that there are two expressions of the Roman Rite, which is all Benedict XVI meant to imply by using the term "Extraordinary Form"; to say there are two versions does not imply that the Ordinary Form is without problems (although it does imply the Ordinary Form is valid and licit, which neither I nor most Traditionalists deny). Benedict XVI himself did not think this language was a problem. After all, he called the Novus Ordo a "banal, on the spot production." Since he never recanted or altered this opinion, we can presume that he still thought the same at the time he gave us the terminology of Ordinary and Extraordinary.

Second, just linguistically, "Extraordinary" can signify "out of the usual" or "not normative", but it can also signify "Better than ordinary", such as "This work is of extraordinary quality." Whether or not Benedict XVI meant the term in this latter sense, it demonstrates that there is no inherent equality in using the phrase Extraordinary Form. We could even argue that it implies an inequality.

Third, neither Traditional Latin Mass nor Tridentine Mass are any more accurate. "Tridentine Mass" seems to attach the Mass too much to the Council of Trent, when in fact we know it goes back to Gregory the Great. When we say "Tridentine Mass", we unintentionally injure our own arguments because we make the Mass a thousand years younger than it is. "Traditional Latin Mass" seems to suggest that the most distinguishing fact about the traditional Mass is that it was in Latin. If Latin is the fundamental point of contention, then there is no real objection against a Novus Ordo in Latin.

Now I know those who use the terms TLM and Tridentine Mass do not mean to imply these things, and I would not dream of suggesting you do. Similarly, when I use the phrase Extraordinary Form, I do not mean to deny or minimize any of the very real issues with the Ordinary Form, nor do I think did Benedict XVI when he coined the phrase while simultaneously maintaining that the NO was a "banal, on the spot production."

Finally, we could argue that because the Roman Pontiff has himself chosen this terminology after much reflection, this is the most appropriate way to refer to it. This terminology preserves the unity of the Roman Rite while acknowledging the very real distinctions between its two expressions.

And I think Extraordinary Form is preferable to Vetus Ordo. Just my opinion. I'm not going to insist on saying EF. Sometimes I still say TLM or Tridentine Mass. But it's good food for thought.