Talk:Mass (liturgy)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mass (liturgy). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

I have changed the name of this page from [[Roman Mass]] to Mass (Liturgy). I have been uncomfortable for a while with this title for the following reasons:

The use of the word Roman in this context mirrors the approach used by some small fundamentalist protestant sects (eg, the Free Presbyterian Church, Seventh-day Adventists, etc) who use the tag Roman and Romanish as a term of abuse. For example, Roman priest, Roman idolatry etc. I very much doubt that that was the intention of the author here but a reader seeing the title might view a POV agenda that actually wasn't there in the text.
I also very much doubt that that was the original author's intention, the term 'Roman' in this sense is used by persons who object to the word 'Catholic' being used synonymously with 'Roman Catholic', as there are many Christians who consider themselves 'Catholic' but do not belong to the Church of Rome.Quill 21:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term Mass is not just used by the Roman Catholic faith. Some High Anglicans, for example, call their religious service a Mass. (Yes I know this page is specifically about the RC Mass but there is no reason why other christian faiths who call their ceremony Mass cannot link to here. Roman Mass precludes that.

As do a great many High Church Episcopalians, a few High Lutherans, and a whole lot of Orthodox. I think your argument supports naming the page Roman Mass, even though you meant to argue against it.Quill 21:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think Mass (Liturgy) is a more NPOV title than Roman Mass. The latter may be technically correct (though that is a whole issue in itself) but it carries too much POV baggage. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:54 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Disagree. Using the title Mass(Liturgy) to refer to an article that is exclusively about the Roman Rite denotes ownership of the term and is very POV in my opinion. Quill 21:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiPedia tries to follow the rule of least astonishment when organizing navigation between pages. By far the majority of Masses are Roman ones. If there are to be pages about Anglican masses or Eastern masses, those are the ones which should have the more awkward titles. Endomion 16:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the Paisley and Chick objections to transubstantiation; since they are objecting to that belief in particular, not the Mass in general, there's no point in quoting their views in the intro. This is what remained; I moved it here for reasons to be explained.

The emotional appeal of the rituals during Mass etc can blind followers to corruption and abuse within the Roman Catholic Church.

See ""Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal""

See ""Magdalene laundry""

There are many reasons that scandals went unnoticed or uninvestigated: tacit or explicit acceptance (as in the case of the Magdalene laundries), willful ignorance out of a general respect for the clergy ("There's no way nice Father Joe could be molesting kids, nuh-uh"), or (most probably) official coverup. The explanation in the paragraph above is simplistic and, I suspect, idiosyncratic; if this is an explanation put forth by studies of the sex abuse scandals or the Magdalene laundries, then by all means add it to those articles (with references of course). Placing it into the introductory paragraph of this article, however, is nakedly biased: it implies that this effect is one of the most important and defining facts about the Mass, which ~1 billion people would dispute. --67.69.188.80 15:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tacking it on to the end is not much of an improvement: it is still unreferenced theorizing. For comparison, here's how the above might read if it were slanted in the opposite direction:

The emotional appeal of the Mass and its rituals can spur people into doing good for their fellow human beings.

See: Society of Saint Vincent de Paul
See: Corporal works of mercy

. . . but that doesn't belong in the article either, does it. --67.69.188.80 16:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I put a few paragraphs in about the times that masses are usually offered, at least in the United States. This included Saturday evening, Sunday morning, and Sunday evening masses. If anyone has any ideas on cleaning up the wording, please feel free to make changes.

JesseG 03:40, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

The name of this article

It is just plain wrong to call an article which deals exclusively with the Roman Catholic Mass Mass (liturgy). I understand the concerns of the user who moved it originally, and have commented above.

Recent edits have made this entry more and more exclusive. I have no objection to this or to the article in its present form, only to the sense of ownership of the word MASS.

In my opinion, the best solution would be to at least comment on the mass as used by other Christian denominations.

If our lack of knowledge does not allow that, then this piece should be renamed. If Roman Mass offends some, then surely there are other options:

Mass (Roman Catholic); The Roman Catholic Mass
Mass (Roman Rite)

etc.

Quill 21:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

clearly user Quill still has it all wrong as does the individual who originally renamed this page. The correct, historical option can only be, Catholic Mass. The community of primary focus here never officially calls itself "Roman" Catholic. Only Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.185.138 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

again, the present name, i.e. Mass (litugy), is the more appropriateA ntv (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC).

Introductory words and the term Mass

I changed the introductory words to focus on the term Mass rather than more general term Eucharist (which is its own article).

Also, according to the New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm) the term Mass is uniquely associated with the Western (Roman) Church, which today is the Roman Catholic Church, and I quote: It should be noted that the name Mass (missa) applies to the Eucharistic service in the Latin rites only.

Jim Ellis 15:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Kneeling

Even in those countries where standing is normative, kneeling is required from the Epiclesis until after the Consecration (IGMR 43)

This is news to me; the English translation of the GIRM, (as not everyone reads Latin) is pretty specific that kneeling is a US practice.

Instruction 43:

The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, Orate, fraters (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise. (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps the USCCB's translation of the 2002 GIRM is incorrect? -- Essjay · Talk 21:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hello,
Sorry for the confusion I've caused. As I understand it, when translating the editio typica IGMR, the local Episcopal Conferences are allowed to make emendations to reflect regional practices. Although the US GIRM has the "In the dioceses..." clause, I think many other Episcopal Conferences have made the same or similar adaptations. My Latin skills are lamentably weak -- I cite the IGMR for its authoritative nature, rather than its readability -- but I'm pretty sure kneeling is mentioned in the editio typica, indeed from the Sanctus to the Great Amen. I've read elsewhere (although in unofficial texts) that from the Epiclesis to the elevation of the Chalice is the very minimum required: this, from what I've seen and read (again, in unofficial sources), is what deacons do, and I understand that they generally lead the posture of the faithful.

The 2005 England and Wales GIRM specifies kneeling at the Consecration; my hand-Missal, which has a 1973 copyright and seems to apply to the whole of the UK and Ireland, instructs kneeling in the US-fashion; and here in Scotland, although I've yet to see the translation of the IGMR, if indeed one exists yet, the practice seems to be to kneel from the Orate, fratres to the Great Amen, and then also for the Postcommunion and Blessing/Dismissal.

I've just attempted a machine translation of the IGMR, and it doesn't really make things any clearer: it's pretty much unreadable, which is only to be expected, I suppose.

Anyway, sorry again for getting in the way. I've scrutinised the History for this entry and I see you've done a lot of work for it, so I'll leave you to it and maybe take part in its organic development when it gets to that stage.

Reagrds,
--Oogaland 23:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to chase you off from good work; my worry is that the article doesn't get a "Traditionalist" POV. I removed/reworded a lot of information from the article a few days ago because it had a "we don't like the new Mass" slant, so I'm watching changes fairly closely now to make sure that POV doesn't slip back in. I think you made some excellent edits! My understanding was that standing was universal because it was the traditional posture for prayer (going back to the time of Jesus and before) and that kneeling was peculiar to the US. I'll do a bit more research, and see if I can find a "NPOV" translation of the GIRM. -- Essjay · Talk 23:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

There are two places where Kneeling is required in America. At Consecration (Sanctus to Great Amen) you must kneel universally, and in America (as is local practice) from the Angus Dei to the end of Communion. GIRM ChIII-21 Dominick 18:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have just seen that an enquiry was made last July about the exact original text of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 43, without the adaptations approved by the Holy See for the United States of America.

The first two paragraphs are as given above. Instead of the third paragraph, which begins above with "In the dioceses of the United States of America ...", there are the following three paragraphs:

They shall kneel at the consecration, unless prevented by health motives, lack of space, crowding or other good reasons. Those who do not kneel at the consecration are to make a deep bow while the priest genuflects after the consecration.

It is, however, for the Bishops Conference to adapt, in the manner laid down by law, the gestures and postures described in the Ordinary of the Mass to the culture and the acceptable traditions of peoples. Care must, however, be taken that the adaptations correspond to the meaning and nature of each part of the celebration. Where it is customary for the people to remain kneeling from after the conclusion of the Sanctus to the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, and before the Communion when the priest says, "This is the Lamb of God", it is praiseworthy for this custom to be kept.

To secure uniformity in gestures and postures in one and the same celebration, the faithful are to follow the directions that the deacon, lay minister or priest give, in accordance with what is indicated in the Missal.

As you know, there are often no exact equivalents in one language for words in another. I felt that "reasonable traditions" has quite different nuances from those of "rationabilibus traditionibus" (traditions that are in accordance with reason). "Acceptable traditions" is my attempt to find something that will make do. Others will doubtless know some better expression in English.

Lima 19:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has POV for it hardly mentions the Tridentine Mass and focuses mainly on the Novus Ordo Missae. Nor does it mention the various pre-Tridentine forms. Nor indeed does it describe the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Braga forms still in use, still less other liturgical rites formerly in use in parts of the Latin Church. It only deals with the present official form.

Reply: Assume good faith. The failure to treat unofficial forms in detail could indicate the article is simply incomplete, not deliberately POV. Or the article could be presenting the official form in proportion to the number of faithful who worship this way compared to the other rites. Endomion 16:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Even assuming good faith, the pre-1962 Mass cannot be treated as an "unofficial form" after the widely-noted *Motu Proprio* of Benedict XVI which affirmed that the ancient rite had never been abrogated and was rather an "extraordinary form" of the one Roman Mass. Extremely POV for all references to the classical Mass to have been deleted, when it clearly continues in force and informs the meaning of the simplified version. I have not edited the page, but encourage those who are informed to return this article to a more NPOV stance by explicit references to the still-valid classical rite, with proper references to the relevant authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.162.174 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Omission of gloria at funerals and weddings

Lima, It's all well and good that you can quote at length stating when the Gloria is used. However, I think it bears some mention that it is purposely omitted from funerals and only suggested to be (though, in practice it is almost always) used at weddings. I have no intention of getting in an edit war with you -- that solves nothing -- so I'd like to hear what other users think of the debate. To me, it is a glaring omission not to mention these quirks of the Church. These are, in fact, considered masses, so to completely ignore this fact on a page regarding the Mass is kinda stupid, imho. Anyone else have any thoughts? In the meantime, I'm reverting away your verbatim and superfluous quotes from GIRM. MusicMaker5376 05:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to communion in "communion with Rome"

I clicked on the wikilink for communion in the phrase "communion with Rome," hoping to get some insight into exactly what the word means in that context. Instead it just goes to the article on the Eucharist, which doesn't seem to shed much light on the situation. I'm fully aware that, at least roughly, "communion with Rome" means "part of the Roman Catholic Church," but others might not know that. -- SCZenz 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to the error. It has now been fixed. Lima 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"See also" list

The list of other articles has become a bit unwieldy, so I propose to structure it as follows: (1) the sacrament of the Eucharist, (2) historical and ritual aspects of the Roman Mass, (3) liturgy among Christians influenced by the Roman rite, (4) the Churches, east and west. Chonak 22:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Eucharist
- Eucharistic theologies contrasted

The Roman Rite and its history
- Before 1570
- 1570-1970: Tridentine Mass
- Since 1970: Mass of Paul VI
  - On the controversy about the Tridentine Mass, see Mass of Paul VI and Marcel Lefebvre.
- Pontifical High Mass
- Roman Catholic calendar of saints

Anglican and Lutheran liturgy:

Any other thoughts? The list already did have some sense of structure, but I think something like this would be clearer. Chonak 22:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright images

At Image talk:Pontifical Mass Archbishop.jpg and Image talk:Mass Rome Church Santa Trinità dei Monti.jpg I have questioned the legitimacy of posting two images here. If my doubts are baseless, I beg pardon for the trouble I cause. Lima 08:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

This article describes in detail the present form of the Mass, not that of 1570-1970, nor that of 270-670. Almost all the images describe instead one particular past form of the Mass. Shouldn't they (especially the "gallery", but also most of the others) be moved to Tridentine Mass? Lima 13:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I added an external link to the daily liturgical readings of the mass by email. The site to which the link refers is an invaluable resource for priests, deacons, members of religious and lay people to receive the liturgical reading for the day. Please do not remove this link. Raphael100 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The page you are adding links back to [[1]] which is already included. Your link is redundent with what we already have. Linking to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops site seems more 'official' than linking to your site. With you pushing the whole register by e-mail thing, it seems to me that this link fails "Links mainly intended to promote a website." Regardless of that, having two links to the same content is unacceptable. I also ask that you read WP:3RR before 'warning' me. Thanks--Andrew c 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, the link I added contains information and services which are not included on the website you cited. It links to a ministry of the church which provides the daily liturgical readings, information on the Saints which are honored this particular day, solemnities and writings of the church fathers which comment on the current readings. Especially the latter function is therefore especially interesting and useful for priests preparing the homilies for the mass. It received official support by the Catholic Church through Archbishop John P. FOLEY, President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and it contains the official readings. I am using the site myself and I clearly see the additional value compared to the site you mentioned. Given the fact that it adds not only the additional information mentioned but also additional functionality which the site of the USCCB does not provide I think it is a valuable resource for everyone reading this article, both clergy and laity. I cannot see why this additional information should be withheld from the community. Wikipedia is as valuable as the variety of information it includes. In this spirit I suggest to keep the link and ask you to respect this edit. Raphael100 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes by HarvardOxon on 28 February

I just want to express support. Lima 08:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Old mass images and article scope

Could we please stop the edit warring and discuss the matter? What is the scope of this article? According to Mass of Paul VI, that article is about the post-Vatican-II changes to the Mass; for an explanation of the current structure of the Mass, see Mass (Catholic Church). Based on that, Lima and HarvardOxon are correct that this article isn't about the Tridentine mass (which has its own article anyway). Smith2006 thinks this article is about mass in general, not just the Missal of Pope Paul VI. So which one is it? Can we settle this matter here on talk instead of constently adding and removing images? Thanks for your conisderation.-Andrew c 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the quotation I gave from the article settles the matter and that there is no need for discussion. Perhaps "edit war" is too strong an expression for two changes each by HarvardOxon and Smith2006 and one by me. However, if my hope proves groundless, then I will support Andrew c.

The article is not about the history and development of the Mass. There are many other articles on that: apart from Mass of Paul VI, Tridentine Mass, Pre-Tridentine Mass, there are articles on Sarum Rite, Dominican Rite, Cistercian Rite, Carmelite Rite, Norbertine Rite, as well as Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Gallican Rite, Celtic Rite, etc. The description of how Mass is now generally celebrated was moved here from Mass of Paul VI, enabling that article to concentrate on questions of history and acceptance. Here is not the place to describe forms that are now exceptional, such as the Tridentine and Sarum forms. The article wisely states: "For earlier forms, see Pre-Tridentine Mass and Tridentine Mass. And Andrew c. has quoted a similar statement from Mass of Paul VI. The matter should be perfectly clear without any discussion. Lima 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This articl;e is clearly about RC Mass NOW, and mentions Anglican and Lutheran practice. Having 16 photos (too many anyway, I think, especially since they do noty, for instance, sequentially show the action of Mass for instance, but just seem to be random photos of Masses thrown in), of which 15 depict the Tridentine Catholic service seems like the work of a sedevacantist propagandist. One photo of Tridentine (which is what was left) is sufficient, esp. since there is a separate whole article on Tridentine Mass. If the TRUE vandal to this page wanted to be helpful, he/she would have put a good, representative TYridentine picture, perhaps, with a good sequence of a half dozen Paul VI Mass, and a photo of an Anglican and a Lutheran service.HarvardOxon 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Smith2006 made a specific claim, that this article is about the mass as a whole. I see no section on the history of the mass, and no sections dealing with pre-Paul VI masses. On top of that, there are 2 editors claiming as much, and 2 articles claiming as much. Perhaps this article SHOULD be about the mass as a whole, but these are things that need to be discussed. Can Smith2006 please stop edit warring, and come here and discuss these things. Thanks for considering this.-Andrew c 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is on the Mass as a whole. There was a section on the history, but some monopolized this article to turn it into a copy of the Mass of Paul VI article. To call me a sedevacantist propagandist is a lie and a sin of calumnious nature. I inserted the images for non-Catholics and non-informed people to get some impressions, like those of Lima did. The entire propagandizing is done by some of you, who turn this article into an article about the 1970 Missal in its current appearances in various parts of the world. My pictures are from several years. The article is about the Mass in general, even Lutherans are mentioned. I see no reason for the hostility towards a gallery of images. The picture with the pont. Low Mass is not deleted either, is it. To turn this article into a Paul VI Missal article, is incorrect, as that has an own article.Smith2006 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the Mass as it is, not about how it was. There are other articles about earlier forms. It is unbalanced to add pictures of one earlier form, to the extent of overshadowing the present form, and at the same time to ignore other earlier forms completely. Lima 05:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lima, You are being irrational here. "The" Mass does not exist if this article is about the service called that way by Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Anglicans and High Church Lutherans. You may have monopolized this article in a way that it might only describe the Mass of Paul VI, but that is not correct. You are free to insert antique frescoes on the Mass and the Eucharist, or pictures from the Middle Ages. I do not understand why some take offense from a picture gallery. I reinserted. You guys are being irrational and very agitative against the Mass as it was in the 20th century. I never deleted the Lourdes pics and I would not delete Mozarabic Rite pic from 2006 either. This is about the ceremony in general. There is no "current" form for all Masses, no uniformity all over history and the world. You are monopolizing things to shape it to your opinion.Smith2006 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: the article is about the Mass (not just the Catholic Mass) as it is. It should stay as it is, unless support appears for Smith2006's proposal for a radical alteration. Of course he is free to write his own article on "the Mass as it was in the 20th century", a narrower field than "Tridentine Mass" and immensely narrower than "the Mass as a whole". Lima 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One may insert other rites too. But the article cannot be about the Mass of Paul VI or of the edition 2002 only. That is not justifiable in any way unless by the hatred of you all against the traditional forms of the Mass. The explanation of the Missal of Paul VI can be done at the respective article on it, not on the Mass in general, as if other forms of Mass are not licit or existent. This is not Novus Ordo-Pedia, Lima.Smith2006 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor is it Palomar-op-pedia, or excommunicated Thuc-o-pedia.HarvardOxon 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Like any encyclopedia that has separate articles on a subject and on the subject's historical background, Wikipedia must surely devote the article on the subject to an account of the present, not of the past. Because of its antiquity, the Sarum Rite was not abolished by Quo primum and is still occasionally celebrated by Catholics, even bishops. But it is part of the past, not the present. Smith seems to advocate covering only one such past form of the Mass, not the many others.

A gallery of pictures of just one past form would be out of place in an article about the Mass as it is (such as this article is). It would even unbalance an article on the history of the Mass.

It would be good if Smith2006 would refrain from attributing bad faith (motives of hatred) to other editors. Lima 10:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. I do not oppose any pictures. I do oppose making out of this article an article only on the Missal of Paul VI. I would not oppose an Anglican section even, or Sarum Rite and Mozarabic Rite pictures. Why would I? Those rites may deemed "of the past" by you, Lima, but they are not and will not be cast into the past by you. I advocate covering all expressions of Mass, past and present. I reverted. I have been called bad names by HarvardOxon who calls me a sedevacantist activist, which is a lie. Now he even insinuates that I am an adherent of the Palmar de Troya sect..... Silly people out here. Logically, I assert then that he is full of hatred towards me and the content of the pictures I inserted very long ago and which for months were left untouched until some conspirators came along who want to turn this article into a politically correct Paul VI 1970 Missal photo gallery without historical and other forms and expressions. That is against scientific pluralism.Smith2006 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if HarvardOxon has accused Smith of bad faith (I make no statement about whether he has), Smith should refrain.

By adding a whole gallery of pictures (about whose legitimacy on Wikipedia I have doubts, since I wonder if they have in large part been copied, perhaps without permission, from magazines and Internet sites), Smith insists on making the article conform to his own point of view, for which nobody else has yet expressed support. It would be good if he would now, before someone else does it, himself reverse his edit-warring re-posting of his unsupported text. Lima 10:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The "RC Mass NOW" includes the pre-1962 form, as Benedict XVI made clear in his Motu Proprio of July 7, 2007. This article focuses unduly on the "simplified" ordinary form, and so misinforms readers looking for a fair-minded NPOV approach to the mass as it exists NOW. 207.81.162.174 08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Escriva at Mass 1971.JPG

Image:Escriva at Mass 1971.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Help needed in other religion ritual articles

For Lima, Preslethe, Andrew c and anyone else who can offer advice:

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_(Latter_Day_Saints) article is in need of some collaborative advice from Wiki authors who are experienced in putting together good Wikipedia articles on religious rituals. There tends to be a feeling of some authors there that their church's policy of not discussing the contents of the ceremony outside the temple ought to carry over to Wikipedia. Frankly I've been disturbed by the neverending attacks on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored policy there.

thanks,

(Alex71va 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)alex71va)

Vigil Masses

"Before the liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII from 1951 to 1955, it was forbidden, except for Midnight Mass on Christmas night, to begin Mass more than one hour before dawn or more than one hour after midday."

This can't be right—there are a variety of vigil Masses (at _least_ the Easter Vigil) that are much older than 1950, and these would have been celebrated (as they are now) in the evening. I don't know the exact details, though, and don't have time to research it right now... but someone should correct this. /blahedo (t) 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. Prior to the reforms of Pius XII, the Easter Vigil mass was anticipated, and celebrated on Holy Saturday morning! InfernoXV 05:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Mass card"?

What is a "mass card" and why isn't it in the article? 76.235.159.239 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverence to be shown by priests while celebrating Mass

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.[2]

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. [3]

He 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. [4]

How do I incorporate this into the article? --Akj150 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have incorporated something about the duration of Mass. Exhortations by saints, though excellent in a devotional book, would be out of place in an encyclopaedia, which must limit itself to objective rules laid down in official books. Lima (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Lima --Akj150 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Duration of the celebration

I reworded this section. Akj150 (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The length of time that it takes to celebrate Mass varies considerably. While the Roman Rite liturgy is shorter than other liturgical rites, it may on solemn occasions take more than an hour and a half. The length of the homily is an obvious factor that contributes to the overall length. Other factors are the number of people receiving Communion and the number and length of the chants and other singing.

For most of the second millennium, before the twentieth century brought changes beginning with Pope Pius X's encouragement of frequent Communion, the usual Mass was said exactly the same way whether people other than a server were present or not. No homily was given

when was the homily introduced? I'm guessing after Vatican II?

, and most often only the priest himself received Communion.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Might want to revise this to "on weekdays, mostly only the priest..."

Moral theologians treated on how much time the priest should dedicate to celebrating a Mass. While they recognized that some of the saints took much more time when celebrating the Mass in private, the general rule they gave was that a Mass said for the public should last no less than 20 minutes, so that the priest could be sufficiently devout, and no more than 30 minutes, as not to weary the congregation, and that a priest who said Mass in less than 15 minutes committed a grave fault, regardless of their excuse that they naturally say things fast. ^[1]

A quote of a reference book states: Jesus did not specifically state how often the Memorial of his death was to be kept. However, he instituted it on the date of the Jewish Passover, which was replaced among his disciples by the Memorial of Christ’s death. The Passover was an annual event, celebrated on Nisan 14. Similarly, the Jewish Festival of Unfermented Cakes, the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost), the Festival of Booths, or Ingathering, and the Day of Atonement were all held once a year.

"Lutheranism" section

Would I be right in saying that the sentence: "Most Lutherans outside the United States refer to their corresponding service as the Mass, but in the United States they usually call it the Holy Communion, Divine Service, the Lord's Supper or Holy Eucharist" requires citation? As an Australian Lutheran, we commonly call it three out of four of the titles listed here (the exception being "Holy Eucharist", which we don't consider wrong (by my understanding), but is just uncommon. Sem boy (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that by "outside the United States" the editor who put this in really meant "outside English-speaking countries", and concretely German-speaking and Scandinavian countries. I have altered the text accordingly. Lima (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Mass devotions

The implicit statement that, since the reform of the liturgical rites following the Second Vatican Council, holy water is no longer placed at the church entrance, and the declaration that in the same period "many" churches have been constructed with large baptistries (not just areas in which a baptismal font is found to one side, which is a very old custom) through which the people walk on the way into the worship area are just the latest of the unsourced statements inserted into this section. Since the section is entirely unsourced (and, secondarily, because it can be argued that pre-Mass devotions are off-topic in an article on the Mass), I make bold to delete it. If any wish to restore the section, would they please back up their statements with appropriate citations. Lima (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Was it a hacker assault?

Hey. Watch this image to see what happened to me:

Today in August 21 approximately at 17:27 of Central European Time I was reading the article mass (liturgy) when suddenly instead of that page a black background appeares. It contains some numbers and a message created by a person who named himself/herself Zodiac. You can imagine how shocked I was! Then I looked at the history of that article - There was no information about this event. What should I think about it? Did it really happen? Was that an enemy of catholic Church or belief in God who was as capable hacker that he left no mention in history? What is your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IoannesM (talk • contribs) 00:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a hacker, nothing magic, just somebody edited template included in the article. Add absolute positioning using CSS and you have the mess you've seen. See diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ABibleverse-nb&diff=233341850&oldid=233341147 where it was reverted. --Křžut (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Private mass

I would like to see some content on the topic of private mass (perhaps a stub), and why such a practice has been opposed in the past. ADM (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

By "private Mass" was meant only a Mass celebrated without a congregation. When concelebration was not allowed, celebration of Mass without a congregation was common. The 1960 Code of Rubrics laid down that the term "private Masses" was to be avoided, since every properly celebrated Mass is an act of public worship: "269. Sacrosanctum Missae Sacrificium, iuxta canones et rubricas celebratum, est actus cultus publici, nomine Christi et Ecclesiae Deo redditi. Denominatio proinde «Missae privatae» vitetur." The expression is hardly ever used now, and so does not deserve an article, even a stub, of its own. The material on it is also not enough even for a stub, especially since a stub is meant to grow. Defteri (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was forbidden, really, and it seems that there has been a debate on this in recent times. For instance, Pope Paul VI defended the practice of private masses in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei. John Paul II said several private masses in papal chapels [5]. Benedict XVI had also said many private liturgies during his papacy. [6] ADM (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If we cannot say that the term is hardly even used now, there is even less to say about "private Mass", really nothing more than that the term means Mass celebrated by one priest without a congregation. Not enough even for a stub. (John XXIII didn't say use of the term was "forbidden", only that it ought to be avoided.) Defteri (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that in Paul VI's Mysterium Fidei one section is headed: "No Mass is 'Private'". He speaks of "Mass celebrated privately", but not of "private Mass". I wouldn't attribute great accuracy to the language used by the journalists of the other two sources. Defteri (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that private Mass do NOT mean a Mass celebrated by one priest without a congregation. It means a Mass that is not scheduled, i.e. a Mass that is said by the priest on his inistiative. A private Mass can be attended also by other people different the priest. The private Mass is in opposition to community (choral) Mass, not to public Mass. All Masses are public. When a source says that Pope JPII said a Private Mass for someone, it means that the Pope celebrated an additional/not-scheduled Mass. The term of "private Mass" meaning "said by the priest only" is censured: "Sacrosanctum Missae Sacrificium, iuxta canones et rubricas celebratum, est actus cultus publici, nomine Christi et Ecclesiae Deo redditi. Denominatio proinde 'Missae privatae' vitetur" (canon 269 Missal of 1963) A ntv (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "said by a priest on his own initiative", not for a congregation. Several could be going at at the same time at different altars in the same church, as was common when concelebration was not allowed. And people could stand by and assist at one or other of them. "Mass without a Congregation (was) known until Vatican Council II as Private Mass (Missa privata)" (Mass Without a Congregation: A Sign of Unity or Division?; cf. "This integrity is also preserved absolutely even in the so-called 'private Mass' at which the priest alone communicates" (the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia) etc. That is the technical sense of the term, the sense in which John XXIII used it, not the sense in which journalists use it to refer to a Mass by Pope JPII not for a large crowd but only for a dozen or so people that he invited to the Mass that he celebrated that day - not an additional Mass, an unjustified bination. Defteri (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A private Mass is a "not-scheduled" Mass. Usually the Masses said by the pope in his chapel in the apostolic palace are all private, simply because there is not a schedule for such a chapel (independently from the number of people attending or from how many Mass a priest says in a day). In private Masses people can be present and can also take the Communion. If a not-private Mass (for example the scheduled parish Mass at 8am) is without people attending (the priest alone), it remains always a not-private Mass. All other understandings, as John XXIII pointed out, are wrong. Anyway I dont consider necessary a Wiki article for this issue. A ntv (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with A ntv that no Wiki article is necessary. Here are some more sources: one, two, three, four, five, six. Defteri (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably your use of the term private meaning celebrated by the priest alone is an English use due to the protestants that used to call in this way the catholic Mass without people (see Trent 22, 6 where the term private is synonymous of unlawful: the two terms used to describe the mass without people by the reformers). But in canon law, and in not-Anglo-Saxon countries, private mass means simply "not congregational", "not scheduled". A ntv (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already a stub on FR-WP: see [7] (which would not really be objectionable in the English wiki). And the real name for this, I would think, is Sine populo. ADM (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 'sine populo' is the correct name for the Mass without people attending. (sine=without, populo=people). About the term "private Mass" also FR-WP says "La dénomination, parfois employée, de « messe privée » est donc impropre." A ntv (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you people insist ... See Sine populo. Defteri (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done A ntv (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, on the Summorum Pontificum you are right. A ntv (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lay participation

The article should maybe try to explain at one point what is actually meant by participation of the laity in the liturgical celebration. There have been controversies over this in recent times, for instance some bishops have been criticial of youth liturgies and gogo masses because they quickly tend to disintegrate into a very secular celebration. This apparently comes from a misunderstanding of Sacrosanctum Concilium, where the principle of participation is exagerated to such an extent that the Mass sheds a great deal of its eucharistic and sacrificial character. ADM (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Communion in the hand

Another liturgical topic which might deserve a separate entry is communion in the hand, which has been the object of ecclesiastical debates since the 1970s, with a silent majority that is accepting of the practice, while a vocal minority continues to oppose it. ADM (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be matter rather for Mass of Paul VI or Traditionalist Catholic. Lima (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Pope (Benedict XVI) favours communion in the hand, he has given it in public, and many of his liturgical advisors have tried to slowly re-implement the practice. Don't you know about them ? ADM (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know that Benedict XVI favours communion in the hand. On the contrary, he has shown that he prefers to give communion in the mouth and to people who are kneeling. He has not opposed giving communion in the hand, which is a different matter: this form is used at the same celebrations at which he chooses to give communion in the mouth to those who go to him. I'm sorry, I know nothing specific about the "many" (how many?) of his liturgical advisors who have tried to "slowly re-implement" the practice. I think that most bishops conferences have long since decided to permit the practice and that the practice was immediately accepted wherever it was introduced, with very few refusing to receive communion in the hand. Lima (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just mixing up the two forms of distributing the host, but I understand what you mean. ADM (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Redemptionis Sacramentum

There ought to be an article on Redemptionis Sacramentum, a valuable Church document which describes various liturgical abuses and explains how to prevent them. It keeps coming up in discussions surrounding the contemporaery liturgy. ADM (talk)

Deutsche Messe

The statement that says that the Lutheran service Essentially follows the ancient rite is false or extremely WP:POV. The Ancient Rite was deeply changed by the 1526 Deutsche Messe. Please modify the sentence saying something like: "the main structure of the ancient rite was maintained" or that "the Lutherans consider the 1526 changes as minors". It shall be clear that no Catholic could consider as valid the Deutsche Messe, because of the deep changes, particularly in the Eucharistic Prayer. See for example [8] A ntv (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Making a section that gives justice to both the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite

I tried making a simple differentiation by deleting the information which explained the structure of what the Ordinary Form is and in its place provided links to both Forms for easy access for people, especially for those who are not Catholic and are learning about the Faith. By only having what the Ordinary Form is, is not giving the other Form justice at all. Please allow my revision. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.153.54 (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest

Perhaops there should be a brief article about Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest, since this has almost turned into a new type of Catholic ritual because of the declining numbers of clergy who cannot continue to serve within the current surplus of parishes. [9][10][11][12] ADM (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the section Reserved sacrament#Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest. A ntv (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Celebrate v/s offer mass

I have rarely heard the term 'celebrate Mass', while growing up in India. It was always 'offered Mass'. However, in the US, I have only heard the term 'celebrate Mass'. Which is the right usage? Indian rediff (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "celebrate" is the most natural term to use when speaking of carrying out the ritual. In that context, it is the usual term in official documents in Latin (celebrare): the Roman Missal speaks of the "priest celebrant", and earlier editions called him simply "the celebrant"; he was never called the "priest offerer" or "the offerer". "Offer" has overtones of offering for someone or for someone's intentions. "Celebrate" seems to be the most suitable term for use in Wikipedia, though not in all circumstances. Esoglou (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

History of Mass

There must be a history section showing the evolution of the Mass. Here's a source for starters:

http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Early-Christians-Mike-Aquilina/dp/0879739428

Naturally this section will be to the eerie of Protestants who deny the historicity of the Catholic Mass. 68.42.250.113 (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Methodism

Mass in the Methodist churches differs from that of the Catholic churches. Mass is another term, in Methodist churches, for the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist.

Maybe I'm being stupid here, but isn't that what everyone (including especially the RCs) means by "mass"? How is what the Methodists do any different? Marnanel (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that whoever put it in meant that, unlike certain other Protestants, Methodists do not reject use of the term "Mass" for the Eucharist. Esoglou (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never once heard or seen a Methodist Church refer to the celebration of Holy Communion as "Mass".. I am a Catholic, former United Methodist, so I have had my fill of masses and protestant services.. why is there even a Methodist section in this article? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My gut instinct is to agree with 'Willthacheerleader18'. I've never heard Methodists refer to the communion service as 'mass'. So I've put a 'fact' tag on the disputed claim. I've also removed an existing reference, as that reference is about the practice of just one local church, not about the notability of the term 'mass' applied to the worldwide Methodist movement. If there is no development in the next few weeks, I propose that we simply delete the section. On the other hand if 'Methodist mass' is notable, then presumably someone who knows the topic can find a high-quality supporting reference. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Medieval Mass image

Can anyone find out what is the smoke-like object appearing above the priest's hand? Esoglou (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is a figure of a evanescent little man, which in the paintings of late middle age is the image for the "soul". Actually the painting is taken from the book "Old St. Paul's Cathedral di William Benham" at plate 22, where the explanation of the image is <>A PONTIFICAL MASS. "Ad te levavi animam meam." From a Missal of the Fifteenth Century. British Museum, 19897.<>. The Latin sentence "Ad te levavi animam meam" means "to Thee I lifted up my soul", which is the Introit of the first Sunday of Advent in Roman rite. Quite surely the picture is a Miniature taken from the page of Missal concerning that Sunday, and the picture itself is representing the Introt of that Mass, showing the soul of the priest that is lifted up towards God (there is also the image of God the Father, appearing as a miracle).

From the celebrant vestments and the other friars vestments we could say that they are Dominican friars. An because they are friars, I don't think the painting represents an abbot, thus having pastoral and mitre he is probably a bishop. PS: due to the lack of deacons and subdeacons, it is not a Pontifical MassA ntv (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The hypothesis that the priest's soul is represented may be correct, although, whatever it is, it is not obviously being "lifted up". For that, the hands should be positioned differently. I shamefacedly admit that I did not notice earlier the presence of a crosier (a pastoral) as well as a mitre at the right of the picture. But I think Latin bishops wore a ring already in the 15th century. Wasn't it one of the differences that the Byzantines called errors? So I think it only likely that the priest at the altar is a bishop. An element in favour of it being a bishop is the heading "A Pontifical Mass" - although, as you say, the celebration obviously is not a full-scale Pontifical Mass.

I am not convinced that the tonsured assistants are Dominicans (Blackfriars). The one further from us might be thought to have the Dominican habit, but the one nearer, holding the long staff (does it go right over his shoulder? It's not another crosier, surely) is not wearing the Dominican white habit with black outer cloak. (Did they/do they wear the black cloak in choir?) Perhaps all clerics, not just monks and friars, wore (or were supposed to wear) the full tonsure in the 15th century. As you see, I am still puzzled by the picture. But thanks for your help. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the movements of the hands of the priest during the Mass should follow strict rules, so you cannot expect a different position of the hands. What is lifted up is the soul, represented by the evanescent little man, while the priest is correctly celebrating. The soul raised (levo in latin) towards the Lord, and actually the evanescent little man is going towards God. There is an other particular confirming that the celebrant was a bishop: he wears a dalmatic under the Chasuble, and this use is proper only of the bishop. The tonsure was typical of all clerics, so it is not representative. From the vestments of the friars, which can change in fashion during the centuries, it is not easy to determine the order, so my was only a guess. Anyway they look friars and not monks, so without abbot. The definition of the image is too low to check if there is a ring on the right hand: maybe there is. A ntv (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on noticing the dalmatic, which is a convincing point. The moment of the Mass would be, according to the Tridentine rules, which may not have been those of the fifteenth-century in whatever place the miniature was painted, would be just before communion, since the host is on the paten. The position of the hands at that point also did not conform to the Tridentine rules. It seems likely that the miniature painter did not aim to give an exact representation of any particular moment of any particular Mass. So I think you can well say it represents a Mass celebrated by a bishop, even a High Mass rather than a Low Mass, since the painter may have thought, not just out of laziness but also for the sake of artistic simplicity, that the two-member choir without any ministers, but with mitre and crosier, was quite enough to represent the celebration. So I have no intention of insisting on any particular interpretation, or of excluding any particular interpretation. Esoglou (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In the standard traditional Masses the host was carried on the altar at the beginning of the Mass, and during the offertory only taken, blessed and put back in the paten. In the painting there in no trace of the corporal, so it should be at the beginning of the Mass. By the way, the rules for the movements of the hands in the dominican rite were different from the roman rite. Thus it is probable the painting represent the moment of the Mass when it is sang the Introt (i.e. the beginning). A ntv (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I took it that the absence of the corporal (as well as of the missal) was part of the artist's simplification. You know that in the Dominican rite of Low Mass the corporal is spread at the beginning. Also that the introit (called the officium) is said at the missal on the right or Epistle side of the altar, not in the middle. You know also that in the Dominican offertory rite the paten with the host remains on the chalice until the prayer Suscipe, sancta Trinitas, hanc oblationem, after which the priest removes the paten and host from the chalice, slides the host on to the corporal and places the paten partly under the corporal, taking it from there again only at the embolism after the Our Father. As you say, in the standard traditional (Tridentine) Masses the host is carried to the altar at the beginning, but it remains on the paten on top of the chalice and covered with the pall and the chalice veil until the offertory, when the veil is removed, the chalice is placed a little to the right and the paten and host are held at chest height for the Suscipe, sancte Pater prayer, after which the host is placed directly on the corporal and the paten partly under the corporal, as in the Dominican Rite. The Dominican Rite does not envisage the priest raising joined hands as in the picture, but only iunctis manibus ante pectus. If the Dominican Rite is indeed what is represented, the artist has taken considerable liberties with his presentation of it. Esoglou (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

improving caption under image in 'introductory rites' section

The caption under the picture in the 'introductory rites' section could be improved. The altar in the image is highly ornate, far from typical in that regard. A better caption imo would be 'a highly ornate altar in a Latin rite Catholic Church in Belgium.' It's important to be specific about what is typical - the vast majority of altars wouldn't be this ornate, but perhaps, in being closer to the people, allowing for the Priest to face the people, it is typical of Latin rite altars post-Vatican II. Tjpob (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Name

I have changed the name of this page from [[Roman Mass]] to Mass (Liturgy). I have been uncomfortable for a while with this title for the following reasons:

The use of the word Roman in this context mirrors the approach used by some small fundamentalist protestant sects (eg, the Free Presbyterian Church, Seventh-day Adventists, etc) who use the tag Roman and Romanish as a term of abuse. For example, Roman priest, Roman idolatry etc. I very much doubt that that was the intention of the author here but a reader seeing the title might view a POV agenda that actually wasn't there in the text.
I also very much doubt that that was the original author's intention, the term 'Roman' in this sense is used by persons who object to the word 'Catholic' being used synonymously with 'Roman Catholic', as there are many Christians who consider themselves 'Catholic' but do not belong to the Church of Rome.Quill 21:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term Mass is not just used by the Roman Catholic faith. Some High Anglicans, for example, call their religious service a Mass. (Yes I know this page is specifically about the RC Mass but there is no reason why other christian faiths who call their ceremony Mass cannot link to here. Roman Mass precludes that.

As do a great many High Church Episcopalians, a few High Lutherans, and a whole lot of Orthodox. I think your argument supports naming the page Roman Mass, even though you meant to argue against it.Quill 21:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think Mass (Liturgy) is a more NPOV title than Roman Mass. The latter may be technically correct (though that is a whole issue in itself) but it carries too much POV baggage. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:54 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Disagree. Using the title Mass(Liturgy) to refer to an article that is exclusively about the Roman Rite denotes ownership of the term and is very POV in my opinion. Quill 21:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiPedia tries to follow the rule of least astonishment when organizing navigation between pages. By far the majority of Masses are Roman ones. If there are to be pages about Anglican masses or Eastern masses, those are the ones which should have the more awkward titles. Endomion 16:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the Paisley and Chick objections to transubstantiation; since they are objecting to that belief in particular, not the Mass in general, there's no point in quoting their views in the intro. This is what remained; I moved it here for reasons to be explained.

The emotional appeal of the rituals during Mass etc can blind followers to corruption and abuse within the Roman Catholic Church.

See ""Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal""

See ""Magdalene laundry""

There are many reasons that scandals went unnoticed or uninvestigated: tacit or explicit acceptance (as in the case of the Magdalene laundries), willful ignorance out of a general respect for the clergy ("There's no way nice Father Joe could be molesting kids, nuh-uh"), or (most probably) official coverup. The explanation in the paragraph above is simplistic and, I suspect, idiosyncratic; if this is an explanation put forth by studies of the sex abuse scandals or the Magdalene laundries, then by all means add it to those articles (with references of course). Placing it into the introductory paragraph of this article, however, is nakedly biased: it implies that this effect is one of the most important and defining facts about the Mass, which ~1 billion people would dispute. --67.69.188.80 15:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tacking it on to the end is not much of an improvement: it is still unreferenced theorizing. For comparison, here's how the above might read if it were slanted in the opposite direction:

The emotional appeal of the Mass and its rituals can spur people into doing good for their fellow human beings.

See: Society of Saint Vincent de Paul
See: Corporal works of mercy

. . . but that doesn't belong in the article either, does it. --67.69.188.80 16:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I put a few paragraphs in about the times that masses are usually offered, at least in the United States. This included Saturday evening, Sunday morning, and Sunday evening masses. If anyone has any ideas on cleaning up the wording, please feel free to make changes.

JesseG 03:40, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

The name of this article

It is just plain wrong to call an article which deals exclusively with the Roman Catholic Mass Mass (liturgy). I understand the concerns of the user who moved it originally, and have commented above.

Recent edits have made this entry more and more exclusive. I have no objection to this or to the article in its present form, only to the sense of ownership of the word MASS.

In my opinion, the best solution would be to at least comment on the mass as used by other Christian denominations.

If our lack of knowledge does not allow that, then this piece should be renamed. If Roman Mass offends some, then surely there are other options:

Mass (Roman Catholic); The Roman Catholic Mass
Mass (Roman Rite)