Sunday, 12 December 2010

"I'm sorry but I can't say the EF form" - "You what FATHER!!!!"

You can't say the Extraordinary Form? 

Nice car...but small and only 1000cc


                                             Extraordinary car, and comfortable
So if you had the option of a Skoda Fabia or a top of the range Lexus you would stick with the Skoda?

A basic sandwich - you like?

Or, if offered a sandwich you'd elect for the 'basic' rather than the club?

The Extraordinary Club Sandwich. Of course, if you prefer the basic model, you can have it

Or, maybe, you'd choose the muzak CD rather than the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart one?

OK - I think we have all got the message by now, thanks!

But one last pictorial...please????



The OF model, good, plain                                                        Or the EF?
 and   workmanlike..                                                                                                                                                                                                         

"OK, My Son, I've got it...sign me up for the next LMS Boot Camp!"

                      "Bless you, Father!"


  1. I do not think the EF actually means it is better than the OF.

  2. Paul, the point I make is that it is usually preferable to have something that is extraordinary rather than ordinary. I do not believe I have used the word "better". That is why the Holy Father gave the two forms these designations.
    It is up to the individual to decide which they prefer.

  3. For God, all of the better, not only the plain and basic. We have the right to want the best and think it is the best.

  4. What do you mean by "That is why the Holy Father gave the two forms these designations."? Because one less preferable?

    Also - the 'extraordinary minister of Holy Communion' and the 'ordinary minister of Holy Communion' - which would you prefer?

  5. Dom, the Holy Father gave the two designations to show that there are two valid forms of Mass. One is a more basic "common" form and the other is a more elaborate "uncommon" form.
    The distinction was a wise one because some in the Church had, for very many years, spread the poison that the TLM was abrogated and invalid.
    The preference aspect comes on a personal level; just as in the EF Form some people prefer a Low Mass and some prefer a High Mass. I see nothing wrong in the laity (or priests for that matter) preferring one form over the other. I happen to prefer the EF.
    Not sure I understand your last point. The designation of Extraordinary Ministers - Ministerium Extraordinarium, means exactly that. They should be employed under Extraordinary circumstances eg where a priest has real difficulties in coping with 3 parishes and 2 hospitals, EMs should be brought into play to take Holy Communion to the sick and the housebound. It was never intended that they would be a permanent fixture on the sanctuary of every church. I prefer not to have them for many reasons, not least of which, is that it appears today that many priests have delegated this part of their ministry and no longer bother to visit the dying (I speak from personal experience). This means that many people are dying without the considerable benefit of going to Confession or receiving Extreme Unction.

  6. Hi Richard. Preferring one form to another is one thing, but hinting (though subtly) that one form is superior to the other is another. I read your post as doing the latter. Perhaps I was wrong.

  7. Dom....if I am honest, you are right. I do believe that the EF is more pleasing to God than the OF. My point is that 'extraordinary' things are, normally, over and above 'ordinary' things. That is the only way that the EF Mass could be deemed 'superior'.
    Now, I plan to go into the more detailed reasons for this belief in a new post shortly (you have inspired me).
    God bless you.