Talk:Tridentine Mass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Mozarabic Rite[edit]

If I am not wrong the Church still allows the mass in the Mozarab rite in a certain chapel of the cathedral of Toledo, Spain. Doesn't it? -- Error

It's called the Mozarabic Rite Caisson 06 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanksgiving after Mass[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Are you certain the "sermon" section is not mislabeled?[edit]

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. (Anonymous contribution from User:24.222.81.14 who has made no other contribution to Wikipedia)

Tridentine Mass is the TRUE Mass[edit]

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. (Anonymous contribution from User:170.224.224.70 whose only other contribution was to redirect Creation myth to the "Creation" disambiguation page at the entry Cosmology)

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)

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 topicCaisson 06 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stay with the Tridentine Mass[edit]

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. (Anonymous contribution from User:66.245.76.58 whose revealing record may be checked at the History of the entry, 21-31 August 2004)


Trc, Lima[edit]

Please guys, stop the fighting. This is getting ridiculous. You both know a lot. Give the benefit of your information to wikipedians, not your attacks on each other. FearÉIREANN 18:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amen to that, a fhir Éireann. So will someone else please intervene. Surely some fair-minded person can judge whether the statements Trc insists on keeping have a foundation in truth or not. 07:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) In case the five tildes that I have typed do not work, I sign as Lima.

Trc's memory must be inaccurate. Would Trc please look up the text of the pre-1970 Roman Missal, or even just a hand missal used by the faithful in the pews. He will find that no part of the Mass was/is said on step 1 or step 2, or even on step 3 in the narrow sense. Most of the Mass was/is said on the platform reached by the steps, with the initial prayers (sign of the cross, psalm Judica, Confiteor etc.) said in front of the lowest step, not on it. This is indeed just one example of Trc's "facts" that are not really facts. Lima 18:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trc implicitly claims, I think, to attend the “Tridentine Mass”. The next time he does, hopefully next Sunday, would he please ask the priest to translate from the Missal for him – since Trc seems not to know Latin – Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, III, 1 and 4, where it says the celebrating priest is to say the initial prayers of the Mass “below” (1) or “in front of” (4) the bottom step of the altar, and Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, IV, 1, where it says the priest then “goes up to the middle of the altar” and kisses it. There is no further mention of moving from any step to another until section XII, 6, where it says that at the conclusion of the Mass the priest “goes down in front of the bottom step of the altar”, bows to the altar or genuflects, and returns to the sacristy.

Or rather, let Trc just watch how the Mass is in fact celebrated, if he really does attend the “Tridentine Mass”.

Lima 03:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Status???[edit]

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.

  • 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)

Added a link to the Text of the Mass[edit]

I added the link to the 1962 edition of the Mass from www.sacred-texts.com, and placed it right up at the top so that it would be easy to find for people wanting to see the actual text of the Mass. The reason I chose sacred-texts.com is because it has what I consider a netural point of view when it comes to the text, it is presented factually with none of the politics that can accompany the text of the Mass on other sites.
JesseG 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Off-site links[edit]

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)

Asperges[edit]

Some info has been added to the asperges section. I think some of the info is good (change during easter time), some unnecessary (about holy water being blessed previously), and some wrong. In particular, I am fairly confident that the asperges could occur before a "missa cantata", and even before a low mass though I suspect that was rare. (I also doubt a solemn Mass required 4 priests.) This is only an outline, it doesn't have to state everything. How about just the following? Gimmetrow 05:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Asperges (Sprinkling with holy water, Psalm 51:9, 3). To the accompaniment of chanted verses from Psalm 50/51 (or during Eastertide, from the Book of Ezekiel and Psalm 117/118) the priest, wearing a cope, sprinkled the altar and all in the church with holy water. This rite was only permitted at the main Mass on Sundays, and was optional even then.

The mention of the blessing in the sacristy and of the sprinkling of the altar (three times in fact) was inserted only to point to these contrasts with the same rite as described in the present Roman Missal. A Solemn Mass could be celebrated without four priests only if a genuine deacon and subdeacon were available, rather than priests doing their parts, and that was almost impossible outside a seminary. (See the explanation of Solemn Mass later in this article.) If you look up the rite in a Tridentine-period Roman Missal (you will find the rite towards the end of the book, under the heading Ordo ad faciendam aquam benedictam), you will find that it mentions the deacon. I am old enough to have participated many times in the Solemn Mass of Tridentine times, but at that time I never saw the Asperges ceremony outside a seminary or monastery. I would have no objection to shortening even further, omitting facts, but including no false statements. How about just the following?

  • Asperges (Sprinkling with holy water, Psalm 51:9, 3). To the accompaniment of chanted verses from Psalm 50/51 (or during Eastertide, from the Book of Ezekiel and Psalm 117/118) the priest, wearing a cope, sprinkled the altar and all in the church with holy water. This optional rite was only permitted on Sundays. Lima 12:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression it was only done once in a church on Sunday even if there were other Masses. Assuming that was true I thought the mention of "main Mass" would help suggest the rarity/infrequency. Regarding "4 priests required", I mostly wondered if the "master of ceremonies" is actually required to be a priest? (Obviously the other roles could be taken by deacon seminarians, if available.) Gimmetrow 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing in the Roman Missal to suggest that the Asperges ceremony was allowed at only one (the main) Mass: The text of the rite begins simply with: "Die Dominica, in Sacristia praeparato sale et aqua benedicenda, Sacerdos celebraturus Missam, vel alius ad id deputatus, Alba vel Superpelliceo indutus cum Stola circa collum, primo dicit ..." What is not verifiable should not be inserted. On the other hand, it is almost unimaginable that a church would have more than one Solemn Mass on the same day; but you do not wish "Solemn Mass" to be mentioned. If you wish, you could add at the end: "and was rarely used."

Yes, someone not a priest could act as master of ceremonies, but in the situation that I think is envisaged, a parish, not a seminary or monastery, only a priest was expected to know what instructions to give. Whether priest or (in a seminary) a seminarian, the master of ceremonies always wore cassock and cotta/surplice and, even if a priest, did not wear a stole, since, among other reasons, there was no concelebration.

Lima 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed. Gimmetrow

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

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)

High Mass vs. Solemn High Mass[edit]

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)

Forthcoming General Indult/ Change in Status of Tridentine Mass within the Church[edit]

What is being reported in the Times of London (Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided the Church (Oct. 11, 2007)) would seem to provide enough information that someone familiar & knowledgeable with these issues could now start drafting some appropriate new text for this article. Wareh 13:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pending the final word on this, I agree that the text will need updating. Nice job bringing this news item to light -- looks like the change is forthcoming. LotR 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I say unless it comes out we should tread lightly. Since BXVI has been pope there have been now fewer than two other times when similar stories have been published, and it has turned out to be a false alarm.--64.93.1.67 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems now to be officially sanctioned by Pope Benedict XVI: Pope elevates Latin Mass. Benedict authorizes wider use. Traditionalists are pleased, but others see erosion of Vatican II reforms. 'Los Angeles Times', 8 July 2007 An official English translation of the letter from the Pope to Roman Catholic bishops is also online: Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio Data" Summorum Pontificum on the Use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reform of 1970 Objectivesea 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Need for a More Appropriate Word Choice[edit]

In the section "Variations of the Tridentine Mass" of the main article, the first sentence of the third paragraph reads "The 1920 typical edition of the Missal did require insertion of Pope Pius X's bull[11] on the basis of which significant changes were made in the rubrics of Mass." Could someone please provide a word choice more appropriate than the word "bull", which is clearly not the word choice that the original author of that section had intended. Thanks in Advance, (Nickel2859 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Lima, for the edifying restructuring of the third paragraph of the section “Variations of the Tridentine Mass” in the main article. It is now quit clear to even the most casual reader–such as myself–that no editorial commentary was implied by the use of the word "bull". (Nickel2859 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Lay Participation.[edit]

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)

Rearrangement of photos[edit]

I took the liberty of rearranging 3 existing photos to sections where they are far more appropriate. Hopefully the rearrangements are self-explanatory:

  1. Moved "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" (a nostalgic image found in children's missals ca. early-to-mid-20th Century) from "Present status of the Tridentine Mass" to "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar"
  2. Moved "Pre-Vatican II Latin Rite Altar" from to "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar/Sign of the Cross" to "The Priest at the Altar"
  3. Finally, I moved the recent "Pontifical High Mass" photo (ca. 2006) from last slot in the "Gallery" to "Present status of the Tridentine Mass"

LotR 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yebbut why NOT?[edit]

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)

History of responses?[edit]

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)

Complete List of Tridentine Masses in North America[edit]

Does this section really belong in this article? Why have a section devoted to one of the many publications about the Tridentine Mass? This article is about the Tridentine Mass, not about publications about the Tridentine Mass. The rest of the article maintains NPOV; however, the section on this publication seems to have a very strong POV, and I'm affraid the strong POV in this section of the article would undermine the rest of the article's credibility. I'm going to suggest that we remove this section, which is after all about a publication and not about the Tridentine Mass itself. Dgf32 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In the article I have moved the reference to "External links". It could be argued that, even there, it is just linkspam. The same editor has inserted information about that website and publication in Traditionalist Catholic and Summorum Pontificum, as well as here. Lima (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The amount of time it takes to say the Tridentine Mass[edit]

St. Alphonsus:

"We come now to inquire how much time is requisite for the saying of Mass in a proper manner. F. Molina says (Instruct, de Sacr. tract. 3. c. 14.) that an hour ought not to be considered too long. Nevertheless Cardinal Lambertini, (Notif. 29. n. 30.) agreeably to the general opinion of other authors, maintains that Mass ought not to exceed half an hour, nor to be less than a third of an hour; because, as he says, it cannot be celebrated with suitable reverence in less than a third; and if prolonged beyond half an hour, it becomes tedious to those who assist at it. ... "Father Gobato (tract. 3. cap. 23. §. 3. n. 814.) speaking of the shortest time required by the learned for the celebration of Mass, says, it is generally understood to be about half an hour.[1]


St. Vincent de Paul pronounced the words of the Mass in a gentle voice, not very low nor very high, and in a manner at once unconstrained and devout. He recited them neither very slowly nor very rapidly, but as was suitable to the sanctity of the action, so that his Mass did not ordinarily exceed half an hour in length. But the interior spirit which accompanied his words and actions was singular, on account of its unusual tenderness. He said the Confiteor, In spiritu humilitatis, Nobis quoque peccatoribus, Domine, non sum dignus and similar prayers with great contrition and humility. His devotion rose especially while reading the Holy Gospel. When he came to any word spoken by Christ, he uttered it in a more tender and more loving voice; and when he met with the words Amen dico vobis, he gave marked attention to what followed. In fine, he did everything with such modesty, gravity and tenderness, as moved all present to devotion; and so, persons who did not know him were often heard to exclaim: "Ah! here is a priest who says Mass well! He must surely be a Saint!"


In saying Mass, he [St. Philip Neri] uttered the words with so much devotion that he often made those weep who listened to him. When he had finished he withdrew immediately to his room, but with such abstraction that he often passed close to persons without perceiving them, and his face was so pale that he seemed rather dead than alive. His Mass, when said in public, was rather short than long, that he might not weary the people, so that those who were in haste were glad to see him come out of the sacristy; but when it was in his private oratory, it lasted not less than four hours. [2]


He [St. John Vianney] was speaking one day with deep sadness of the difficulty of corresponding with the sanctity of a priest's vocation, when the young ecclesiastic with whom he was conversing said to him, "But still, M. le Cure, there are many good men among the clergy." "What do you say, my friend ?" replied M. Vianney. "Assuredly there are many good men among us! Where should they be found, if not among us ?" "But," continued he, with increasing animation, "to say Mass, one ought to be a seraph," and he began to weep bitterly.


My friend, the cause of all the misery and relaxation of the priesthood is the want of due attention to the Mass. My God, how pitiable is the state of that priest who does this as an ordinary thing! There are some who have begun well, who have said Mass so devoutly for some months; and afterwards—again his voice was choked with tears. "Oh, when we consider what it is that our great God has intrusted to us, miserable creatures that we are! What does the mischief is, all this worldly news, this worldly conversation, these politics, these newspapers. We fill our heads with them; then we go and say our Mass, or our Office. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thac075 (talkcontribs) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A user by the name of Lima deleted this section, saying that weekday Mass took less than 15 min. I'm thinking every priest probably says the Mass at some different speed; would it be acceptable if I just put the opinion of St. Alphonsus? Also change the section name to "Reverence to be shown by the priest?" Akj150 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What St Alphonsus said
  • is not about "the amount of time it takes to say Mass", but about how long it ought to take;
  • holds true not only for the Tridentine Mass but also for the present form of the Roman Rite. Lima (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking there's some difference; the Novus Ordo Mass has Gospel Readings for one.--Akj150 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
So can I put back this section with the name "Reverence to be shown by the priest in celebrating Mass?"Akj150 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The Tridentine Mass also had Gospel Readings. Much of the Tridentine Mass was said silently, and since what was said aloud was in Latin and quite unintelligible to most people in English-speaking countries, priests tended just to mumble the words, and the Tridentine form was in practice quicker than the present form. I am more than old enough to remember. Just think, for instance, of how words were jumbled and mumbled so as to get through the long phrase "Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen" (not just "Corpus Christi", as now) again and again when giving Communion to one person after another lined up at the altar rails, without any pause between them. On the other hand, when the Tridentine Mass is used nowadays by priests no longer accustomed to reading Latin throughout the day at Mass and in the breviaries, and with the people by now accustomed to hear priests speak in a way that indicates understanding, the Tridentine Mass in Latin may usually take longer than the later form of Mass in English.
The name would have to be "Reverence to be shown in celebrating Mass, whether Tridentine, pre-Tridentine, post-Tridentine, Ambrosian, Carthusian, ...." It would not be specifically about Tridentine Mass and so would be out of place in this particular article. Lima (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In my experience, mostly at Holy Rosary Indianapolis, IN, but also all over the U.S., it takes 1 hour 15 minutes to 1 1/2 hours to properly celebrate a High Mass, and 30-45 for a Low Mass.Caisson 06 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

gender segregation during Mass[edit]

I don't know where to put the fact that although gender segregation was traditionally practiced, it is not practiced in American Tridentine Mass anymore, although the practice survives in Europe(correct me if i'm wrong)Akj150 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lima, do you happen to know since when the gender segregation was dropped in America?--Akj150 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I presume such separation was even less universal in America than in Europe, where it was the practice in some parishes, but not all - in spite of being recommended in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. In any case, it was not prescribed in the Missal and so is, I think, off-topic.Lima (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to hazzard a guess that it was likely between the world wars. Caisson 06 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian Rite?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

See also[edit]

Mike Searson holds that articles linked to in the body of an article should not be given under "See also", at least if mentioned multiple times (the actual links are only one per article). I think that someone interested in, for instance, Tridentine Mass would appreciate a listing of articles on closely related topics, such as Mass of Paul VI and Pre-Tridentine Mass. I recognize that Mike may well be right, and I wrong. Please enlighten me. Lima (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm just saying...but don't take my word for it at all: [4][5] I wasn't trying to be a jerk just preventing further conflict down the road.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The first link says: "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense", which doesn't help me very much. The other link doesn't seem to me to me to cast any light on the question of what should be put in a "See also" section. Sorry for being so obtuse. And of course I didn't think you are a jerk. Far from it. And I am not at all maintaining that I am right and you wrong. As I said, I am just seeking enlightenment.
I wondered whether I should preface this with "Dude," but since I come from a country where the expression is not used, I have no idea how that imitation would be taken. You probably know the joke about the Australian who objected to another Australian calling him "mate": "Don't call me "mate", mate. I'm no mate of yours, mate." Lima (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. Try this one[6] fourth bullet point. Again, I don't personally agree with it, but I've seen that hold up articles at FAC, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems to speak only about excessive links within the body of an article, not about the construction of a "See also" appendix. Yes, I know you may well consider the "See also" to be part of the body of the article. I do not. That's why I used the word "appendix". Would it not be best for us to let the matter rest for a couple of days. Who knows what might happen in that time: perhaps I might even change my mind! Lima (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I was speaking to the fact that certain terms were wikilinked multiple times, Lefebrve had 5 or 6! However, I still don't think we need a "See Also" section as everything is already linked from the article. I've been told that on every article I've taken to Good Article or Featured Status.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether in the body of the article the same term was wikilinked several times (as in the past) or only once (as is rightly done now) seems irrelevant to the question of the appropriateness of having a "See Also" section, which has its own usefulness. In my opinion, it would be useful here. Lima (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:3O: The WP:SEEALSO section in the Manual of Style definitely indicates that See also links are to be used to link articles that are not already mentioned in the present article, and should be limited in number. A better solution would be to create a portal or navigation template to organize the relevant articles. Both solutions are fairly easy on either a 'read the description' basis or a 'find one already in use that uses the parameters you need' basis. Let me know here or on my talk if you would like any help creating either of those. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lima (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PapalMass1.JPG[edit]

The image Image:PapalMass1.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Common sense of term "Tridentine Mass"[edit]

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)

Ad Orientem[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Present regulations[edit]

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)

St. Cecilia[edit]

It is not possible that the picture that the picture of St. Cecilia shows the manner in which the altar of that church was arranged in 1700, since there would have necessarily been a crucifix on any such altar in 1700, as prescribed by liturgical law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.198.191 (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is put on or taken off the altar, the altar is still oriented as it was in 1700. See, for instance, this account. Lima (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of honesty it should be added that not only did the priest orient himself eastward but so did the people. This would put the people with their back to the priest. Also the phrase "one of many churches in Rome" is is vague and tries to give the impression that this was common. It would be more believable to cite some sort of historical record or authority for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.250.4 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank you, Lima, for such a wonderful article page on the traditional Mass. I'v added to the external lists the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. I a member!

Regarding the list of saints, sometimes we come across "Confessor". This usually means that the saint witnessed by word or deed to Christ and again is historical. Often meant to be in contrast to martyr, and nothing more.

It often means that The Mass for Confessor (White Vesments) is used. If the Saint is a Martyr (Red). If it is a lady a different Mass is used: Virgin or Morther.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Latin Traditional Mass:

The Missal is divided into sections.

1st. The Ordinary of The Mass.

2nd. Common of Saints.

3rd. The Seasons.

4th. Proper of Saints.

Before Mass the priest will consult The Ordo in The Sacrasty for the correct Mass to Offer. It will tell him if the day is of the season or if it is of a saint. Then he will go to the Missal and arrange the ribbons to mark the sections accordingly. If for instance; there is a special devotion to Saint Philomena in the diocese then in the Ordo it will tell him that that Mass is to be said. It will tell him which common of saints to follow. I.E. Mass "Cognovi..." (refering to the Mass of a holy woman not a martyr). He will mark this in the Missal. He will mark the feast day in the proper. He will mark the Ordinary of the Mass, and place the Missal closed with the ribbons facing the centre of the altar, the Missal placed at the Epistle side. He will be directed to choose White Vesments.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)MacOfJesus (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Pro Multis / Pro Omnia[edit]

At the Last Supper, Jesus consecrated the Chalice only after Judas had left, a significant point in this discussion.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)