Talk:Tridentine Mass

gender segregation during Mass
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)
 * I can't comment on practices aside from where I have attended Masses, but in no German TLMs, and I have attended them in several Parish churches in Frankfurt, Berlin, Nuremberg, Regensburg, at the FSSP seminary in Wigratzbad, and in two Munich parishes, have I found segregated naves.Caisson 06 (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2019 (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)

Segregation by sex (not gender) was recommended up to the 1917 Code of Canon Law. (Canon 1262.1). It continued after that time as a local custom in many places but has since pretty much stopped. Sue De Nimes (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Page should be titled "Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite"
Given that it's most recently been referred to as such by the highest authority on the matter. "Tridentine Mass" as a name for the Mass is historically inaccurate as what is referred to as the "Tridentine Mass" is essentially the same Mass from a thousand years prior to the Council of Trent with all the extra prayers added in over the years removed that made the liturgy too long. There is also an article titled 'Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite' already so perhaps this one should be merged into that one.


 * I don't agree that it should be changed. "Extraordinary Form" is a controversial term by coined by Benedict in 2007. "Tridentine Mass" is how it is referred to in most literature and is generally accepted by other prolific Catholic groups such as the SSPX, Sedevacantist, etc. It would make more sense to simply explain the historical consistency of the Roman Rite (prior to the Novus Ordo Rite being called the "Roman Rite") in the article. 71.233.70.210 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, "Tridentine Mass" seems to be the preferred term in historical academia, as it dovetails with the Counter-Reformation theory. I think "Missal of Pope XXX" is preferable for specific references. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

refill created broken citations
Re: by Editor Veverve whose edit summary stated: they are not broken I did not have to look hard to find:
 * The Mass of the Consilium and the Mass of the Ages
 * The Mass of the Consilium and the Mass of the Ages

converted to:

or
 * God Was Worshipped Here Today
 * God Was Worshipped Here Today

converted to:

or
 * The Mass of the Apostles
 * The Mass of the Apostles

converted to:

Every one of these examples is broken:
 * 1) in the first example, the url is long dead and the domain now for sale, but, AGF, the attached title was the correct title. ReFill discarded that good title in favor of the content of the  tags in the seller's webpage
 * 2) in the second example, the url was determined to be permanently dead by InternetArchiveBot but Refill ignored that and created what appears to be a good citation until you click the linked title and end up at a 404 page
 * 3) in the third example, the result is obviously broken because emits two red error messages which were ignored by the editor who activated Refill; complaints about the y problem have been ignored by the original author and subsequent maintainers

Editors who use WP:Refill are responsible for the edits that it suggests. It is poor practice to simply accept the tool's suggestions as good edits (they very often are not) and leave behind a mess for other editors to cleanup. I shall revert Editor Veverve's revert.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While I was writing the above, Editor Veverve has made come changes that I will not revert. But, there are sill broken citations in the article that WP:Refill made that someone will have to fix.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything seems fixed now. Thanks for pointing out the problems. Veverve (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Scope of article topic
This article has a confused and overlapping scope with other articles. The hatnote claims that this article is only about the historical situation and to see Preconciliar rites after the Second Vatican Council. Yet at the end of this "Tridentine Mass" article we have "Present practice" and lots of stuff about the post-Vatican II, modern up-to-the-minute situation for the TLM. So which is it going to be? Elizium23 (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have done the split. I think the confusion was due to the Preconciliar rites after the Second Vatican Council article being created only recently. Veverve (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Pre-1955 missal and indults
“Sometimes the term "Tridentine Mass" is applied restrictively to Masses in which the final 1962 edition of the Tridentine Roman Missal is used, the only edition still authorized, under certain conditions, as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite Mass.”

I think this is incorrect. I am pretty sure the FSSP and (maybe) the ICKSP have an indult to practise the pre-1955 Holy Week, which doesn’t use the 1962 missal. Ed is the standard text editor (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)