Talk:Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite

A or the
I think the article makes too much of it being an extraordinary form not the extraordinary form, considering the letter from the Pope was almost certainly written in Latin, which has neither a definite nor an indefinite article. The decision to use an rather than the was thus the translator's. +Angr 05:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Though the motu proprio was in Latin alone, the letter that accompanied the motu proprio was in six modern languages, with no Latin text. Only because some treat the term "the extraordinary form" as an official designation is it necessary to point out that this is not what the Pope wrote. Besides, the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite that he authorized is not the only one there is. You also have the form or forms used by those who reject not only the 1970 Missal but also that of 1962. Lima (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to take issue with this article as well. It makes way too much of this issue with the articles and Latin does not have any to speak of.  The Pope could have forced an article or used a demostrative or used Una Forma but he did not.  The claim that there is currently more than one extraordinary form is not well founded.  The 1962 replaced the missals that came before.  The 1970 missal did not replace the 1962 missal, nor was that older missal abrogated.  The 1962 missal did replace the 1958 missal and that missal was abrogated and supressed.  So unless you are going East to the Maronites or the Chaldeans or something as long as you are a Latin Catholic, the 1962 missa is currently the only extraordinary form there is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.232.230.164 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look up the decree making the 1962 edition the "typical" edition (the text that all printings were to follow thenceforward until further notice) you will find in it not a single word about "abrogating" or "suppressing" the previous editions.  (The text is available here.)  Although your words about the 1970 edition are equally applicable to the 1962 edition, namely that it "could have forced an article or used a demonstrative or used una forma", in fact it used no such language.  It did not juridically abrogate or suppress the previous editions, and there was no obligation whatever on priests to throw the older editions out and purchase the new edition immediately.  The only juridical difference today between the 1962 edition and the pre-1962 ones is simply that the Holy See has expressly authorized continued use of the 1962 edition, while saying nothing about use of the earlier editions.  Thus the 1962 edition is today the only expressly authorized extraordinary (i.e. non-ordinary, non-normal) form there is.  Esoglou (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

May I also point out 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. Extraordinary is never capitalized in the Church documents. Extraordinary seems to be merely descriptive whereas Usus Antiquior is vocative. The article makes too much of the term extraordinary. Ozca (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. 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/20150101041117/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100929015429/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)