Talk:Tridentine Mass/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Are you certain the "sermon" section is not mislabeled?

I've never heard tell of a "sermon" in a Roman Catholic church before. In my experience this has always been and still is called the "homily", which was traditionally when the priest explained the gospel (which had been read in Latin) to the lay people, who typically did not speak Latin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.81.14 (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous contribution from 24.222.81.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who has made no other contribution to Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 01:32, 16 October 2004 (UTC)

Stay with the Tridentine Mass

The reason why the New Mass fails to be truly representative of the Roman Catholic religion is not just because it is a break from Quo Primum. What makes the New Mass not representative of the Catholic Faith is the fact that it contains modernist ideas and omissions which are in direct contradiction with the Catholic theology of the Mass as defined by the Council of Trent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.76.58 (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous contribution from 66.245.76.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) whose revealing record may be checked at the History of the entry, 21-31 August 2004.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 01:32, 16 October 2004 (UTC)

Off-site links

Boy, there are a lot of them. The ones that serve as references, couldn't they be put at the bottom in footnotes? (I'm not sure how to do this, but many of the featured articles are organized like this.) Most of the others could probably be reduced, since there are plenty listed at the bottom and throughout that show the entire liturgy. It's very distracting as it is.Rigadoun 18:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but at the same time I think it should be easy for people to find the text of the mass within the article, and to use a non-polemical site like sacred-texts.com for the link.

JesseG 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

High Mass vs. Solemn High Mass

The article inaccurately amalgamates simple High Masses with Solemn High Masses. They aren't the same thing because only a priest and lay servers typically serve at a simple High Mass.--68.45.161.241 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This user should read Solemn Mass. Lima 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Status???

This article seems to be edited by a bunch of people with a lot of axes to grind, supporters and opponents of the TM. As someone who USES an encyclopaedia, the all-important introductory text as it was before I changed it left me completely in the dark regarding which version is actually used. I can't tell if it is used universally, used by anybody who wants to, used but frowned upon, used semi-clandestinely, or whatever. The section on Present status of the "Tridentine" Mass is not much better; it is written (a) so carefully as not to be be accused of POV AND (b) by so many people with POVs to semi-disguise, that it looks like a politician's answer to a direct question.

I have reverted a previous addition I made which was edited out, not because I think it is right, but because I would like my simple and clear (but probably wrong) statement to be replaced by a simple, clear, and right statement.

Things that people who aren't embroiled in this want to know from a general encyclopaedia, and near the top of the article: - what is the "official" or "approved" or "de facto approved" version of the Mass? - in roughly which percentages are the Roman and the Tridentine Masses celebrated? - in what language(s) is Mass celebrated?

Pol098 00:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed "fraternity" to "society" in two instances in the last paragraph of the section titled "Present status of the Tridentine Mass" in order to avoid confusion between the *Society* of Pius X, which is referenced in that paragraph, and the Priestly *Fraternity* of Saint Peter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.214.234 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely agree. There is not diffinitive status mentioned. Even the paragraph "Present status of TM..." is vague.... I understand that POV is a concern, but I really cant figure out what it is. The beggining makes it sound like TM is still the standard, but the Present status of... kindof indicates that it is only used in special cases when permission is granted?? This is confusing... –QuintusMaximus 02:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanksgiving after Mass

Is it certain that the Trium puerorum and the Canticle Benedicite were not required? The Ritus Servandus seems to indicate that it is. I am aware of the opinion of certain rubricists (e.g. Quarti) that it may be replaced with the "Te Deum" without incurring sin but that indicates that thanksgiving is still required. The 1962 Ritus Servandus does allow the option of other prayers of devotion at the celebrant's choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WannabeRubrician (talk • contribs) 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Yebbut why NOT?

I came to this article wondering why the Mass would be disallowed in the first place, and couldn't figure it out from the article as it stands now. Can someone in-the-know please put this information in the appropriate place? Thanks. --Doradus 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lay Participation.

The simile regarding lay participation: "They thus acted much as foreign visitors who do not understand the local language can act today" is too subjective for an informative article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.200.85.134 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

The idea that the congregation cannot participate verbally is just not true. In practice, the lay faithful recite nearly all the responses set for the servers. JNF Tveit (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Common sense of term "Tridentine Mass"

The term "Tridentine Mass" arose extemporaneously in common parlance after the postconciliar reforms to refer to that form of the Mass which was in use immediately prior to the establishment of the postconciliar 1970 Missal. That form of the Mass is the one enshrined in the 1962 Missal of John XXIII. The blanket grouping of all those editions of the Missal published from 1570 to 1962 as "Tridentine", though it has some historical and liturgical warrant, is not in agreement with the most widespread usage.

It is true that the forms of the Mass celebrated according to the editions of the Missal published from 1570 to 1962 have Trent, i.e., Pius V and the codifications he made at the request of the Council of Trent, as a liturgical benchmark of sorts and may to that extent be labeled collectively as "Tridentine Masses". But let scholars, liturgical writers, journalists, historians, and simple Joe Sixpacks determine that, not Wikipedia. If you wish to emphasize the Trent basis of the developments made from 1570 up to 1962, then say so, but in my humble opinion, you should not authoritatively make the term refer to what it commonly does not.

--Davidulus 10:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there are sources that speak of Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal as "Tridentine Mass", since it is "Tridentine Mass"; but it is not the only form of "Tridentine Mass". I know of no sources that refer to Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal as the only "Tridentine Mass"; but Davidulus may perhaps be able to indicate one or more of them. Whether he can or not, I think the term "Tridentine Mass" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the form of Mass instituted with the 1570 edition (long before 1962) and continued in slightly revised forms down to the 1962 version (inclusive). People speak of "the Tridentine Mass that Pius V established 'in perpetuity'" (The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass), of "Pope St. Pius V's Perpetual Authorization for the Tridentine Mass" (Quo Primum Tempore), of "the document where Pope St. Pius V promulgated what we call today the 'Tridentine Mass'" (Quo Primum Smackdownum), of "the Bull Quo Primum (that) makes of the Tridentine Mass a General Law" (The Legal Status of the Traditional Latin Mass); they speak of the 1962 edition as "the Tridentine Mass in its last revision under John XXIII" (On Saying the Tridentine Mass). There thus seems to be no doubt that "Tridentine Mass" is not used exclusively of its 1962 form. Wikipedia must reflect what can be supported by verifiable citations. Lima (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have ever hung around traditionalist circles, when they say "Tridentine Mass" they mean 'the Mass as it existed prior to the Novus Ordo'. If these are Ecclesia Dei traditionalists, they will mean specifically the Mass of 1962. Ultra-traditionalists (e.g., Society of St. Pius V) will set the date earlier, 1958, 1954, or even earlier.

Lumping all Missals from 1570 to 1962 under the "Tridentine" umbrella implies a rupture of liturgical continuity both with the past (the pre-1570 usages) and with the Novus Ordo, which I do not think common usage intends to convey. It is much like historians do when they isolate a period of history under the label of the "Middle Ages" or the "Renaissance" only that with respect to the liturgy that method of taxonomy is less justifiable.

--Davidulus 12:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So even the "traditionalist circles" (not a verifiable source in Wikipedia terms) apply "Tridentine Mass" to more than the 1962 version. Lima (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The ultra-traditionalists who would consider the '54 Missal, for instance, as the last authentic Missal do so only after dismissing anything that came afterward as pertaining to the Novus Ordo or to the Bugnini-led reform, etc., etc. For them the "Tridentine Mass" IS the 1954 Mass. They would NOT use the '58 or '62 Missals and would not consider them equally "Tridentine". Just ask anyone over at Traditio.com or at the Society of St. Pius the Fifth (not to be confused with the Society of St. Pius the Tenth).--Davidulus 12:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Present regulations

Specifically with respect to the Triduum and the 1962 Missal versus the 1970 Missal, I don't believe there is any difference, since the 1955 Holy Week revision is the last revision of Holy Week (aside from some specific prayers). The liturgies of the Triduum differ substantially from both the normal Masses of Pius V thru John XXIII and Paul VI anyway.Caisson 06 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

History of responses?

Anyone reading the text of the Mass and having never been to an actual Mass would be surprised--as I was--that the people do not actually respond. What is the history of this? I would bet money that at the time of Trent the responses were actually made by all the faithful. When did it go out of practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.28.158 (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is some variability in this, depending on where you are. Some parishes I have been to there is no external participation (no responses) by the lay faithful in the pew. Other places, like my parish, have lay response/chant to the ordinary parts, other than the prayers at the foot of the altar, in High Masses, and a 100% dialogue Mass for Low Mass. Caisson 06 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ad Orientem

There really ought to be greater information on the topic of Ad Orientem, there could even be a stub article on the subject. ADM (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's not unique to the EF. It should be it's own topic. ALL Catholic and Orthodox Rites are supposed to be Ad Orientem per their individual regulation and traditional practice. Caisson 06 (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioned in article

I find it remarkable that ad orientem is not mentioned at all in this article. The only mention of the direction a priest faces is in a caption that describes a versus populum altar but not in those words. Elizium23 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not mentioned because not required for the Tridentine Mass: even explicitly the Tridentine Missal allows altars "versus populum". See Mass of Paul VI#Liturgical orientation. Esoglou (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a notable feature of this Mass because it is (1) a widespread feature, (2) different from the vast majority of Ordinary Form Masses which are versus populum and (3) controversial now that there is a "new way" of doing things. The caption that I mentioned is nonsensical without the context that many Masses are ad orientem. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tridentine Mass is the TRUE Mass

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

---

The catechism of the council of Trent says what the words for the consectration of the chalice should be. The Novus Ordo mass says which shall be shed for ALL. It should be For Many. The latin words are Pro Multis Pro=for and Multis=MANY. Thus without a valid consecration the Mass is not valid. So the Novus Ordo Mass is not valid, while the traditional Latin Mass is valid and is always to be allowed for all priests to say; Pope Pius V in Quo Prium said that not even a POPE could take that right away from a priest. We must pray and fight for the restoration of the true Mass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.224.224.70 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2004 (UTC)

This comment is inserted out of chronological order – Anonymous contribution from 170.224.224.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) whose only other contribution was to redirect Creation myth to the "Creation" disambiguation page at the entry Cosmology— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 01:32, 16 October 2004 (UTC)

I wonder what makes 170.224.224.70 feel that he or she is worthy to judge whether or not the Trdientine Mass or any other form of Mass is true or not. –JesseG 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Novus Ordo Mass uses the Latin words "pro multis" in the consecration - same as the Tridentine Mass. The English translation (and some others) renders this "for all," when the literal translation is "for many." This is a translation issue and is (sometimes hotly) debated, but it is not a reason to declare the Novus Ordo Mass invalid. –Darryn 03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This comment is inserted out of chronological order – Hey Darryn. I would love to smear you for being stupid, but I won't. Let it suffice to say that the Novus Ordo "mass" is in the venacular, not Latin, therefore in the Novus Ordo "mass" the translation is all there is. It is translated "pro omnibus" and that is clearly wrong and just one of the many things which makes the Novus Ordo "mass" completely invalid and a waste of people's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.34.191 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this thinking is it fails to comprehend that Jesus did in fact die to save ALL of mankind, but NOT ALL will be saved. It's really just quibbling about semantics. I'm not sure what this has to do with thei editing of this topic –Caisson 06 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This fragment was a polemic about the English language translation. The English language translation of the typical Latin phrase qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum is, in the 2011 Roman Missal, 3rd ed., "which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins". See 2006 letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze. The translated fragment, pro multis, became useless as a polemic for English speaking traditionalist Catholics in 2011. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

When did the term "Tridentine Mass" first come into common usage?

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

---

It would seem to be that prior to 1970 nobody would have used the term "Tridentine Mass" (nor Traditional Mass, etc., for that matter). So does anyone know when people starting using the term "Tridentine" to distinguish it from the New Mass? LotR 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Tridentine Mass" is a headfake by the Novus Ordo to distract people from the authentic and traditional Latin Mass taught to us by the Apostles. The Vatican II heretics invented "Tridentine Mass" to try and give authority to their "Novus Ordo" "mass", which is not authentic, traditional or apostolic whatsoever. Instead the Novus Ordo "mass" and its authors intend to argue that the "Tridentine Mass" was a similar invention, which of course is a complete lie. The Tridentine Mass is simply the same Mass from apostolic times, codified by the Pope at the time because, like today, there were Bishops and Priests who were inventing their own, heretical and incompatible versions of a "mass". You see, the 20th century was not the first period where modernism and liberalism attempted to derail the authentic and true work of Christ. The devil and his apprentices have been busy for centuries trying to destroy the Traditional Latin Mass because they know that it is the core of the strength of the Roman Catholic Church which they so passionately despise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.34.191 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Google Ngram of Tridentine Mass, there was some use in the second-half of the 19th century and the term was used mid-20th century with a marked increase beginning in the mid-1960s. The earliest use found in Google Books is in 1869. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Gregorian Rite?

Shouldn't we rename this article "Gregorian Rite" since it is the name Pope Benedict XVI wants Catholics to call it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geremia (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Source?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Gregorian Mass" perhaps, but there is only ONE Rite, two uses, per Summorum Pontificum.Caisson 06 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Did not the Missal organically develop before (and after) Pope Gregory? May I point out also that the instruction "Universae Ecclesiae" on the implementation of the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum." calls this form of Mass the "Usus Antiquior of the Roman Rite (#5)" and the "Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior (#8)." Usus Antiquior (antiquoir not vetus) is the only term for the Mass that is ever capitalized in the recent Church documents. Nowadays Mass according to the 1962 Missal seems to be called the extraordinary form (aside from TLM or Latin Mass) by many people, but it seems to be merely descriptive whereas Usus Antiquior is vocative. Ozca (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

@Geremia, Mike Searson, Caisson 06, and Ozca: since 1970, there are two forms of the Roman Rite Mass:

• Mass of Paul VI – the Mass performed on any day according to the ordinary form of the Roman Rite (forma ordinaria), i.e. newer use found in the 3rd edition of the 1970 revision of the Roman Missal
• Tridentine Mass – the Mass performed on any day, including the Paschal Triduum (UE, n33) which was previously excluded (SP, art. 2), according to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite (forma extraordinaria), i.e. older use (usus antiquior) found in the 1962 revision of Roman Missal in conformance with Summorum Pontificum (which abrogated Quattuor abhinc annos, Ecclesia Dei) and regulated by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei through norms such as Universae Ecclesiae which states that Catholics "who ask for" the extraordinary form "must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the" ordinary form of the Roman Rite Mass or against of the Pope "as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church" (UE, n19)

Google Ngram comparing "Gregorian Mass,Gregorian Rite,Tridentine Rite,Tridentine Mass" shows the usage but does not place that usage into context. I thought a Gregorian mass was just a chanted style of a Roman rite mass.

"Occasionally the term 'Gregorian Rite' is used when talking about the Tridentine Mass." was added on 2008-06-17.

The cited 2008 article is about a proposed name not an implemented name; it stated "Pope Benedict will reintroduce the old rite – which will be known as the 'Gregorian Rite' - [...]" Using the term "Gregorian Rite" seems to have originated with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos in 2008. According to John Zuhlsdorf in 2008, the term gregorian has various usage. The term "gregorian rite" is not found on vatican.va, it seems to be used mostly on blogs and used little in books published after 2009. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Page does not render in PDF

Generation of the document file has failed.

Status: Rendering process died with non zero code: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.216.193.13 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tridentine Mass. 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/20121101124024/http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015194912/http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm to http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116083713/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.angeluspress.org/angelus/1983_May/Ottaviani_Intervention_Pt1.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.angeluspress.org/angelus/1983_May/Ottaviani_Intervention_Pt1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720091216/http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/documents/200707031933.pdf to http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/documents/200707031933.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101124024/http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm

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) 07:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ten Commandment hypocrisy

"Thou shalt not worship false idols"

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

No mention of how this is perceived by both non and true Christians as a Christian-in-name-only religious ceremony. How exactly can this article be up to Wikipedia's standards of NPOV when it reads entirely like an official Catholic church manual or publication?

Zmalsberg (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Your comment here and, above all, your unsourced edit of the article, are completely out of place. They have nothing to do specifically with the Tridentine Mass article rather than with the more generic Mass (liturgy) article, and the source you cited is irrelevant even for the more generic article. You have already been told that unsourced comments on the contents of a Wikipedia article, as distinct from citations of reliable published sources that deal precisely with the subject of the Wikipedia article, are out of place everywhere in Wikipedia. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite

The article Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite mainly discusses Pope Benedict XVI's phrasing when referring to the 1962 missal that is already discussed extensively in the Tridentine Mass article. Furthermore, the Tridentine Mass article presently includes "the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite" as an alternate name for the 1962 version of the Tridentine Mass. Therefore I propose merging Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite into Tridentine Mass. Another editor above has proposed merging in the opposite direction. Thoughts? Ketone16 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's also discussed extensively in the Summorum Pontificum article, which is really where it belongs. I'd prefer simply deleting that article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge to either. We don't need a stand-alone article on this phrase. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Finnusertop. Bealtainemí (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting it to Tridentine Mass

@Finnusertop, Display name 99, Ketone16, and Bealtainemí: I re-redirected Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite before seeing this discussion (since the page history is at the lower-case version of the page, Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite). I think it makes a great deal more sense to point it to Tridentine Mass than Summorum because the Tridentine Mass is what the term refers to, and almost certainly what anyone searching for "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite" is looking for (cf. "Extraordinary Form" on Google). I've added a hatnote to Tridentine Mass clarifying the redirect in case there's ambiguity. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what in your hatnote you meant by "the term". You seem to hold that Summorum Pontificum sanctioned the use of "Extraordinary Form" (with upper-case initials) to mean "Tridentine Mass". What the document does is to write, in lower-case letters, of the 1962 form of the Tridentine Mass not as "the Extraordinary Form" but as "an extraordinary form of the Church's liturgy", "an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church" (article 1). The 1962 form has not been declared and is not the only extraordinary form of the Roman rite. Pre-1962 forms are now unauthorized, but the form that, for example, the Society of Saint Pius V uses is not the ordinary form of the Roman rite but an extraordinary form of it. If you were to add the adjective "authorized", the 1962 Tridentine form would still not be the only officially authorized extraordinary form: the Ordinariate Use and the earlier Anglican Use are also authorized extraordinary forms of the Roman rite: the Ordinariate Use has been described as "a pastoral variation of the Roman Rite for the members of the Personal Ordinariates in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the United States. [...] This is not an Anglican liturgy separate and distinct from the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church." The Benedictine liturgist Anscar J. Chupungco states that the Holy See could officially declare inculturated variants (such as, I suppose, the Zaire Use) to be "other extraordinary forms of the Roman Mass". Bealtainemí (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

My hatnote doesn't make any claim other than that the term originates in the document. "Extraordinary Form" (or "EF") in common usage refers specifically to the Tridentine Mass, and Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME. Technicalities regarding prescriptive usage can be explained at the Summorum article, provided they are reliably sourced, though perhaps the hatnote can be expanded slightly or extra detail added to the "terminology" section to account for the fringe cases you mention. —Nizolan ^(talk) 19:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Having a read through the source you linked, Chupungco also seems to assume that "Extraordinary Form" presently refers to the Tridentine Mass, and is suggesting a change from the present usage ("I would like to consider this a basis for the Holy See to declare..."). For good measure, I went through and checked the first 10 pages of Google results for "Extraordinary Form", and couldn't find a single instance where it's used to mean something else in a Catholic context. There are also over 140 articles that link to "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite", and all of the ones that I checked mean the Tridentine Mass. All in all, the usage case for the redirect seems fairly clear-cut to me. —Nizolan ^(talk) 19:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what you say of the way in which the term "the extraordinary form of the Roman rite" is generally used. I do not agree with the unsourced statement in the hatnote, that the term "Extraordinary Form" originated in the papal document. Use of this term to mean exclusively the 1962 Tridentine Mass originated not in the document itself but in a certain interpretation of it. More important, a hatnote indicating a redirect to an article is normally meant to draw attention to other Wikipedia articles that have a title similar to the redirect. There are no such articles and so there is no reason for the hatnote here. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The extraordinary form of the Roman Rite actually refers to the manner of celebration of all seven sacraments and not simply the Eucharist. Those who celebrate the EF observe its form for Confirmation, Baptism, Holy Orders, Matrimony, Penance, and Extreme Unction. They're all different in the EF. To say that this form is limited to a Mass is a disservice to the encyclopedia we are building. Please revert the redirect. Unfortunately, even the article there prior to its redirection is inadequate. But it is preferable to the status quo. Elizium23 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)