Talk:Summorum Pontificum

Latin Mass vs. 1962 Missal?

There's been for the past few months a lot of talk about the "Latin Mass" to signify the 1962 Missal, as though the 1970 Missal could not be said in Latin — specifically, when His Holiness spoke of using the Latin language in masses where it could not be expected that a majority of the congregation could understand a single language, I assumed (and still assume) he meant the new 2002 Missal, or failing that, the 1970 one.

Unfortunately, the popular media has appropriated the term, causing reams of confusion even among Catholic laypeople who should know better than to trust the secular Press for Church news... In that light, can we try to use more specific terms like John XXIII Mass, pre-Conciliar Mass, 1962 Mass or even Tridentine Mass rather than the more confusing — albeit more popular — Latin Mass? Wtrmute 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Latin Mass is the term that has been used not for just a few months, but for the past several decades in the vernacular to describe the Mass of 1962 Missal---and not by just the media. The SSPX/Fraternity of St Peter use the term regularly---as does the Magazine Latin Mass. Changing it here, would amount to OR as Latin Mass has been used for decades within the Church to describe the pre-Vatican II Mass.Balloonman 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC) NOTE: that doesn't mean that the Tridentine Mass isn't equally correct---but the other terms you propose have not been used in the discussions.Balloonman 15:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the length of time the term has been used, which is why I wasn't bold and came here to discuss it before changing it throughout in the article. On the other hand, because the term Latin Mass is used by sources in the Church it doesn't mean it is correct. I'm pretty sure the Vatican only uses terms like Mass according to the 1962 Typical Edition or variations on that theme. Regardless, I am willing to leave well enough alone, so I won't press the issue any further. Wtrmute 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wtrmute that the term "Latin Mass" is ambiguous, especially in this context where the usage is so important. I have frequently assisted at the Novus Ordo/Mass according to the 2002 Missal/Mass of Paul VI in Latin, and less frequently at the old Mass/Tridentine Mass/Mass according to the 1962 Missal -- also in Latin. So when someone says "Latin Mass" to me, the ambiguity is big and bold (not the experience of most, I know). If Wtrmute will not continue to champion more precise language, I will. :) Perhaps there should be a Terminology section to sort out this complicated issue for the layman, in a paragraph or two? The document itself uses the precise, if clunky, language. The.helping.people.tick 20:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, note that the Perfect Article "is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself" per Wikipedia:The perfect article. Also note that Latin Mass is a disambiguation page, which suggests to me that there is a consensus among Wikipedians that this is a term worthy of disambiguating; or that articles ought to avoid using the ambiguous term in favor of more precise terms. At this point there are only four uses of the term "Latin Mass" in the SP article. I'll see if I can change them without making the text unbearably clunky. The.helping.people.tick 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Latin Mass" should not be used (unless in an unavoidable quote) as it is just flat out incorrect. The document does not deal with "the Latin Mass" but with the Mass according to the 1962 Missal (which is always in Latin) as opposed to the 1970 Missal which may be in Latin or the vernacular. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Latin Mass" is a common term, but there really is a risk for confusion. Yes, it is true that the Novus Order (that is, the modern Roman Rite that is celebrated through most of the Latin Rite Catholic Church, a.k.a. the Ordinary Form) is rarely celebrated with Latin even in part, but the fact remains that it is technically the normative language of the new rite, and can be celebrated that way. There's no perfect expression here, but I think the most common one among traditional Catholics actually is the best: "Traditional Latin Mass." That distinguishes it adequately from the New Mass in Latin. "Extraordinary Form" (the term first employed in Summorum Pontificum) is acceptable juridical language - but it simply has not caught on very much, and is more confusing to outsiders or even uninformed Catholics. Alexander1926 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The Embargo

I heard that the Holy See released it to news outlets under embargo, but someone broke the restrictions and illicitly publicised this. Does anyone happen to know which news outlet did this? I think it might be an interesting add to the article. J.J. Bustamante 16:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There were many sources that released all or part of the document prior to the 7th. I don't really think this is all that relevant.Balloonman 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are potential political ramifications for whichever publication broke the embargo. The Holy See Press Office could confiscate their accreditation for that.J.J. Bustamante 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

All Mass, all the time

There is a lot more to SP than just the mass. Mention should be made of the Divine Office and other liturgies. Rwflammang (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Summorum Pontificum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131132834/http://www.summorumpontificum.net/2007/07/press-release-from-general-superior-of.html to http://www.summorumpontificum.net/2007/07/press-release-from-general-superior-of.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211082354/http://www.usccb.net/church-updates/UnderstandingRCCinChina.pdf to http://www.usccb.net/church-updates/UnderstandingRCCinChina.pdf
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20070710201958/http%3A//www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703915.htm to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703915.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928164058/http://www.papanews.it/default.asp to http://www.papanews.it/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219085433/http://fsspx.org/eng/index.html to http://www.fsspx.org/eng/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Traditionis Custodes

In light of the new apostolic letter, people who are wiser and more grammatically-inclined should give this page a once-over to ensure that the tense relevant to the circumstances of celebrating the Extraordinary Form is properly worded with regards to its abrogation in July 2021. If anyone wants to make sure no funny business transpires on this page (as will almost certainly happen over the coming months), I'd recommend a few more people put this on their watchlist. Finally, I might archive portions of this talk page (gotta look at the rules for that first) as many of the discussions have been dead for over four years. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)