Liturgical Norms: The Extraordinary and the Ordinary

There is a very interesting article run by Zenit that touch on the Interpretation of Liturgical Norms. My basic opinion is that in the celebration of the Extra Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Ordinary Form, the observance of rubrics and norms are very important. The dignity of the Rite is externally manifested in the observance of the accepted and legislated norms. The intermixing of rites is definitely not a very good idea since each rite is not arbitrarily determined but it has its theological foundation. Thus intermixing of rubrics can undermine or distort the theological emphasis and foundation of the rite. However in whichever form the Mass is celebrated we have to admit that some minor variations do exist as determined by local customs. In the extra ordinary form, clarifications are easy because there is a body of accumulated norms (Most are legislated) that can be consulted. This EF has existed since the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great and in due time has accumulated a wealth of wisdom. However, the Novus Ordo Mass has exited for only forty years, thus clarifications as to norms is difficult. Here is a quote from zenit:

"Within liturgical law we must distinguish between laws applicable to the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman rite.The rites of the extraordinary form are meticulously determined, a factor which endows this form with a particular beauty, reverence and spiritual force when celebrated with due care.Over four centuries this rite generated a considerable body of jurisprudence gathered together in the volumes of authentic decrees of the former Congregation of Rites. Fortunately, this series of complex laws were frequently digested by sedulous scholars into descriptive manuals for use of priests and masters of ceremonies. Two of the best of these have been republished: A. Fortescue and J.B. O’Connell’s “The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described,” updated by Father Alcuin Reid, OSB, and the even more complete Italian “Compendio di Liturgia Pratica,” by L. Trimelloni.The interpretation of the norms of the ordinary form presents some particular difficulties. The rite’s relative youth (at least as regards its rubrics) means that there is little in the way of historical jurisprudence that could clarify any doubtful passages.There is also the difficulty that in general the rubrics quite deliberately eschew detailed descriptions of the rites so as to leave a certain degree of flexibility. For example, both the extraordinary and ordinary forms indicate that the priest pray with hands extended, but the latter rite makes no determination as to distance and position of the hands, leaving this up to the discretion of the celebrant.Also, the existence of official translations can sometimes make interpretation difficult especially when translations vary the meaning of a text, even among countries sharing the same language. We saw this discrepancy in a recent column (Dec. 4, 2007) when some liturgists interpreted the English translation of the introduction to the lectionary to conclude that the Alleluia is omitted if not sung, an inference absent from the original Latin and other modern translations."

To read the entire article visit Zenit