First a note from Robert Royal: Normally, we do not publish columns under pseudonyms. It's a good rule, morally as well as editorially, for people to stand up in public for their ideas. But this column is so helpful about the "liturgy wars" that we decided to suspend the rule this time. The author, be assured, is a priest known to us for decades as a solid citizen, but who, for several reasons, wishes to remain anonymous. He is a North American priest who teaches in a seminary, does parish work, and celebrates both forms of the Roman rite.
Now for today's column, The 'Polar Unity' of the Two Forms of the Roman Rite, by Fr. 'Amare Nesciri' ...
The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (2007) of Pope Benedict XVI introduced into the contemporary ecclesial vocabulary a distinction that has since become both fruitful and contentious: the "Ordinary Form" and the "Extraordinary Form" of the one Roman Rite. Benedict was at pains to insist that these are not two rites but two usages of the same lex orandi. The Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI after the Second Vatican Council constitutes the Ordinary Form; the Missal of Pope John XXIII (1962), standing in organic continuity with the Tridentine codification of Pope Pius V, may be celebrated as the Extraordinary Form.
Benedict's claim was juridical and pastoral, but its deeper import is theological. The coexistence of the two forms within one rite can be understood as a "polar unity" in the sense articulated by Hans Urs von Balthasar: a living tension of complementary principles whose unity is not the flattening of difference but its orchestration.
Benedict himself rejected the hermeneutic of rupture that would pit preconciliar and postconciliar liturgy against one another. In his famous 2005 address to the Roman Curia, he contrasted a "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" with a "hermeneutic of reform in continuity."
The liturgy, precisely because it is the Church's most public act of faith, must embody this continuity in a way that is not merely conceptual but sacramental. The two forms of the Roman Rite thus stand as a visible sign that tradition is not a museum piece nor a revolutionary program, but a living stream whose depth and breadth can be perceived only by holding together its historical strata.
To interpret this polarity in a richer theological key, it is helpful to turn to Balthasar's account of the Marian and Petrine dimensions of the Church. For Balthasar, the Church is first Marian before she is Petrine. Mary, in her fiat and her immaculate receptivity, embodies the Church's contemplative, bridal, and receptive essence. Peter, in his confession and commission, embodies the Church's apostolic, juridical, and governing mission.
These two dimensions are inseparable; yet they are not identical. The Marian dimension grounds the Petrine; the Petrine serves the Marian. The Church is not an institution that happens to have a mystical interior; she is a mystery that necessarily assumes institutional form.

If one applies this polarity to the liturgy, the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms may be seen as sacramental embodiments of Marian and Petrine accents within the one Roman Rite. The Extraordinary Form, with its hieratic language, ritual density, and pronounced orientation toward transcendence, gives privileged expression to the Marian dimension: receptivity, silence, adoration, and the primacy of divine action. The Ordinary Form, especially as envisioned by the Council's Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, gives heightened visibility to the Petrine dimension: proclamation, pastoral intelligibility, missionary outreach, and the gathered assembly's audible participation in the apostolic faith.
This is not to reduce either form to a caricature. Both forms are Marian and Petrine; both are contemplative and apostolic. Yet each manifests a particular accent. In the Extraordinary Form, the priest's orientation ad orientem, his subdued voice in the Canon, and the stability of the ...

The ‘Polar Unity’ of the Two Forms of the Roman Rite