I recently made Template:TridentineLatinMass considering that there's significant distinctions from the OF, such to the point that I feel it warranted its own template. For example, there's no female alter servers or responsorial psalm in the EF, and no subdeacons or gradual in the OF, so the co-existence of all four of them in the same template can be highly confusing. After making the EF template, I edited Template:CatholicMass so it would be just for the OF, but that edit got reverted. I'm going to put back a handful of changes that I made before, but I await discussion to see if it should be trimmed to just the OF, or if it should cover the OF exclusively. -- LightSpectra (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No it should not cover just the OF exclusively. That is too POV (that the OF is not descended from the EF), and removes the entire historical context. Also, not red text, at all. Looks too much like a redlink, and is explicitly against the navbox guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Firstly, mea culpa regarding the red text; seemed like a decent idea to me but I was not aware it was against the guidelines. Secondly, I don't think it's POV at all; actually, Template:CatholicMass and Template:TridentineLatinMass look so similar (even if the former were OF-exclusive) that I imagine one's prima facie impression is that they are two valid forms of the same rite. To repeat my previous point: it makes sense to split the EF and OF into two separate navboxes because they have some mutually exclusive elements. No subdeacons, asperges, gradual, or Last Gospel in the OF; and no memorial acclamation, female altar servers, responsorial psalm, or multiple EPs in the EF. I think at the very least there should be some way to designate the differences.

Might I also ask why you removed the links to historical anaphoras which correspond to EP II-IV? -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do think some way to designate some parts as being exclusive to one or the other form is a good idea, just that red text isn't the way to do it. It really only applies to some sections, so we don't really need a second template that is so duplicative. Also, I just moved the links to the anaphoras (including the Roman Canon links) up to a spot in the parts of Mass section. oknazevad (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There are several extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite. only one of which, the 1962 John XXIII form, Pope Benedict XVI authorized for continued use. For instance, the Society of St. Pius V uses an edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by a Pope of less doubtful validity than John XXIII. What they celebrate is unquestionably a form of the Roman Rite, a form that today is no longer the ordinary form.

Pope Benedict XVI stated that the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal was never juridically abrogated. Nor were the pre-1962 editions juridically abrogated. Celebration of Mass with any pre-1970 edition is a form of Mass of the Roman Rite, an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, whether it is authorized or non-authorized. Since there are several, it is inexact to speak of any one of them as the one and only extraordinary form - except when it is clear that you are speaking exclusively of the two authorized forms of the Roman Rite, in which case one can certainly refer to "the" extraordinary one. But not outside of that context.

The headings in this template do not need to and should not go into details about which forms of the Tridentine Mass are or are not still authorized by the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Outright removing a link to the article Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is a mistake, simply put, as it is a widely used term when discussing the Roman Mass in its history and practice. It is exactly the sort of link that should be included in a navbox for completeness. Legalistic arguments about abrogation are not relevant to the goal and policy if being descriptive, not prescriptive.

As for the rest of the comment, firstly, that minor splinter groups use other forms is true, but not the sort of detail that should be covered in a navbox; it's appropriate for inclusion in the linked article, though. Also, bluntly, any question to John XXIII's validity falls under WP:FRINGE, and most certainly should not influence the link selection for the navbox. SSPV is pretty sedevacantist, and explicitly not in communion with the pope. They're irrelevant to a discussion of the practices of the Catholic Church as an organization. oknazevad (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If a priest celebrates Tridentine Mass without mentioning Saint Joseph in the Canon, is that a form of the Roman Rite? It isn't the 1962 form, but isn't it nonetheless a form of the Roman Rite? Unless you indulge in prescriptive legalistic notions, what descriptive account of that Mass would you give other than saying it is a form of the Roman Rite, a form that is now, in 2014, no longer the ordinary form? You don't have to go into whatever motives may lie behind the priest's choice: that is irrelevant to the description of the Mass. Esoglou (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)