Talk:Mass (liturgy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Anglicanism
Anglicanism Portal
Mass (liturgy) is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

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:

  1. 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)
  1. 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.

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.

. . . 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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Changes by HarvardOxon on 28 February

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[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]