Talk:Mass in the Catholic Church

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Theology High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance). Catholicism Top‑importance Mass in the Catholic Church is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Text and/or other creative content from Mass (Catholic Church) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mass (Catholic Church) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Perhaps some mention should be made of the vast differences between catholic masses on the two continents, as NA masses take much greater influence from protestant ceremonies and ten to focus on the words of the priest, as opposed to the european tradition of primary focus on sacramental celebration and reflection. --NEMT 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well I don't find such "vast differences". References? A ntv (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the split from Mass (liturgy), what about to change the images? But I've no found on Commons a good image of a Mass being celebrated in a standard church without any peculiarity. A ntv (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that table is a little off. I remember reading that a priest can perform three masses on a Sunday, and I know that is almost always what is done at my parish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.183.225 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the table Mass in the Catholic Church#Summary table regarding priests with pastoral responsibilities, the greatest number of masses permitted is four on a "Sunday or Holy Day with permission of the Pope through the Local Ordinary." Is this the limit per priest or per church or per parish? St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York has nine masses each Sunday [1]. --Ellmist (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The limit is per-priest only. St. Patrick's probably has at least three priests with such a schedule. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly glanced over the

I notice there's one in the table, but no footnote. I found it on this dif, but it was removed, fyi...Smarkflea (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it; Esoglou is not ... here ... to justify why he removed it in the first place. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111028050759/http://www.fdlc.org:80/Liturgy_Resources/Liturgy_of_the_Hours6.htm to http://www.fdlc.org/Liturgy_Resources/Liturgy_of_the_Hours6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Should all occurrences of "Mass" be capitalized in this article? Looking at Google scholar, I can't tell what style is predominant. EyeTripleE (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:DOCTCAPS ("Doctrinal topics, canonical religious ideas, and procedural systems that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith or field are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth (as a common noun), original sin, transubstantiation, and method acting") makes it tempting to not capitalise. However, the relevant section of the Catechism introduces the title "Mass" as "The Holy Mass". I would argue that this use of the definite article, in what would reasonably be considered a definitive source, should be interpreted as making Mass a proper noun. Per the MOS, therefore, "philosophies, theories, movements, doctrines, methods, processes, systems of thought and practice, and fields of study are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name," so it should be capitalised. Thoughts? Triptothecottage (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

To Aid Future maintenance, the following text that had been comment out of the "Roman Rite Mass" section (formerly "Overview") has been removed and placed here for reference. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of the approved forms of Mass used in the Roman Catholic Church. Another approved form commonly seen is the Extraordinary Form in Latin, a language used for the Mass since the late second century. For the history of this form see Pre-Tridentine Mass, Tridentine Mass and Mass of Paul VI. For Mass in other Latin liturgical rites see the articles on the respective rites. For more general information on the Mass see Mass (liturgy). For attention to the presence of children at Mass, see Directory for Masses with Children.

• With an historical perspective that was not possible for the bishops at the Council of Trent (1545-1563),^[1] the bishops at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) called for the renewal of the Roman Rite,^[2] based on historical and Biblical studies carried out over the previous century.

• SHOULDN'T THIS BE SAID IN THE APPROPRIATE PARTS OF THE ARTICLE, RATHER THAN SINGLED OUT AS MOST IMPORTANT, CONTRARY TO THE CURRENT CATECHISM?. The Council of Trent reaffirmed traditional Christian teaching that the Mass is the same Sacrifice of Calvary offered in an unbloody manner: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different ... And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner... this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." ^[3] The Council declared that Jesus instituted the Mass at his Last Supper: "He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught."^[4]

The Catholic Church sees the Mass as the most perfect way it has to offer latria (adoration) to God. The Church believes that "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it."^[5] It is also Catholic belief that in objective reality, not merely symbolically, the wheaten bread and grape wine are converted into Christ's body and blood, a conversion referred to as transubstantiation, so that the whole Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the Eucharist, though the empirical appearances of the bread and wine remain the same.^[6][7] In its official declarations, the Catholic Church does not use the term "accidents", associated with Aristotelian philosophy, but instead speaks of the "appearances" (in Latin, species)^[8] and, as shown for instance in the Latin text of the Nicene Creed, in which the Son is said to have the same substantia as the Father, the word "substance" was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West.^[9]

The pandemy of COVID-19 has been followed by a temporary suspension of the liturgical celebrations in order to prevent the spread of the virus. At the end of the lockdown, in many countries, it was signed a memorandum of understanding between the public authority and the representatives of the main religions active into the respective jurisdictions.

On 7 May 2020 the

The protocol forbid the use of the exorcistic sacramental of the holy water, the Mass handshake, to have choirs during liturgical celebrations, to celebrate particular Holy Rites like the Sacrament of the Confirmation. The diocesan ordinary can provide further dispositions such as the prohibition of any procession (in order to avoid human gatherings, even if Mass in open spaces are encouraged by the regulament itself).

Volunteers or collaborators of the celebrating priest are delegated to take care of the execution of the new rules but the Police is not prevented nor by the contract nor by the national law to have the right, the access in holy places and the iniziative to enforce its exectuin, e.g. in cases of a negligent internal order service.

Countries other than Italy will probably have similar understandings at a national level. Precriptions may be different from a country to another so as not to have yet the Ecumene, referred as the same Roman Catholic Liturgy celebrated all over the world. This is the main effect of this kind of reforms.

Hopefully, the WP article would dedicate a specific section to the new post COVID-19 reformated Roman Catholic Liturgy.

• I doubt if there will be any lasting changes in the Mass after the period of Covid-19 ends, but certainly if there are this would require mention in the article. Jzsj (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  At this time, implementation of liturgical changes is on a diocese-by-diocese basis in most locations such as these United States. We have some guidance from the Episcopal Conference but of course each bishop has discretion.

  Therefore there is no one set of "changes to the Mass" that we could currently identify and add to this article; we would need to treat it on a local basis, and that is a lot of articles.

  I think a more realistic treatment would be to add it to some regional COVID-19 articles and the regional "Catholic Church in X" articles with just a simple summary of what changes may be found in each region, and without going into excruciating detail about when the priest needs to sanitize his consecrated hands with that disgusting, smelly, nasty chemical, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Sirhappydude has edit warred this change to the lead. Some of this is excessive for the

I am not an expert on the subject but I believe that the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist (of the holy sacrifice), since the Eucharist is a sacrifice. And then there is no doubt that the first celebration of the Mass where the sacrifice of the Eucharist was made was at the Last Supper. But I do not know, you should see what the documents such as the councils, catechism, encyclopedias say about the Mass and what is the difference between the Mass and the Eucharist. I think the Mass is the celebration, and the Eucharist is the sacrifice. But the Mass is called too "The holy sacrifice of the Mass"... Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing renewal in the understanding of the Eucharistic Celebration or Mass, in the light of modern liturgical and biblical studies and in line with the call for renewal by the bishops at Vatican II. I would keep the lead brief and remove from it those older elements that are in flux and in jeopardy of change.^[1] Pope Francis has mentioned that we are just half way to the renewal of the Mass envisaged by Vatican II. The previous two papacies saw some reversion back to pre-Vatican II ideas. We can reflect best practices in the light of modern scholarship or leave that to the details in the article.^[2] The lead currently takes a traditionalist position with regard to some matter that is in flux. Older and more traditionalist sources will of course support such conservative choices. Jzsj (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did Benedict XVI "authorize[...] continued use of the 1962 form of the Roman Rite as "the" extraordinary form"? It seems to me that he spoke of it rather as an extraordinary form: in his letter he twice speaks of the 1962 Missal as "a" Forma extraordinaria (paragraphs 5 and 6).

And what are the other extraordinary forms? Elizium23 (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the many others that exist, for example that of 1570, none of which Pope Benedict authorized for use. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what

WP:RS term these "extraordinary forms"? Elizium23 (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Here are some reliable, secondary sources which use 'the Extraordinary Form':

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4] Elizium23 (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we agree. There is no doubt that the phrase "The Extraordinary Form" has established itself as a technical term, practically a proper name, like "Roman Rite" as opposed to "Latin liturgical rites". Perhaps you agree that Benedict XVI never, as far as I know, treated "extraordinary form" as a proper noun: he merely described the 1962 Missal as an extraordinary, non-normal form of the liturgical celebration, without conferring on it any dignifying title: he never spoke of "the Extraordinary Form".

The pre-John XXIII, indeed as regards the Holy Week texts pre-Pius XII, texts that some use are unquestionably forms of the Roman Rite. They are not the normal, the ordinary form. They are not The Extraordinary Form. They are forms that are non-ordinary, extraordinary, non-normal, anormal, in contrast to "the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy". Bealtainemí (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here where there is mention of the ordinary form as distinguished from the extraordinary form, I suggest it would be confusing to speak of "an" extraordinary form as if there were others for ordinary Masses. Jzsj (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are many ways of informing of the distinction between the two authorized forms (one generally authorized, the other only within limits) without attributing to Benedict XVI what he didn't say. If that principle is accepted. we can choose. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bealtainemí, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. We don't go back to what Benedict said, because there are ample secondary sources which document the current, common usage. Elizium23 (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is "attributing to Benedict XVI what he didn't say" then so are the US Bishops, but in each case it is to avoid confusion. Benedict may have had in mind the possibility of some future extraordinary form besides this one, but it's better to make clear to readers that at present this is "the" extraordinary form. Jzsj (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you two agree, I must let it be. You still have to provide a source for your statement that SP "authorized under certain conditions continued use of the 1962 form of the Roman Rite as the extraordinary form, while the post-Vatican II form promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 and revised by Pope John Paul II in 2002 is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite". SP itself, you tell me, cannot be cited. (I used to think that Wikipedia had a rule about acceptance of short quotations if the sense was clear, but it is not worth my while searching.) Jzsj's citation doesn't, I think, say that SP authorized use of the 1962 form "as the extraordinary form". It only says that the 1962 form is called (passive voice; by whom?) "the Extraordinary Form". I leave it all to the two of you. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I don't understand (apart from those mentioned above with regard to the prominence the article gives to a practice in some but by no means all places to hand holding as part of the Mass) is how it disallows citing from just one particular official document, but admits abundant citations from other documents of the Holy See and episcopal conferences. Perhaps some thought I denied the existence of expression "the Extraordinary Form". Its existence and wide use is an obvious undeniable fact. It is also an obvious fact, though some don't want, it seems, to admit it. that what Benedict XVI's 2007 letter mentions is "an extraordinary form". The term "the Extraordinary Form" (capitalized), which arose soon after, undoubtedly exists and is common, but it shouldn't be put in Pope Benedict's mouth. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a canon law source that specifically calls it a custom that people join hands during the Lord's Prayer, then the source can be cited. It is

I thought that the US Catholic source that follows in the article was sufficient to confirm that this is a custom. At your bidding I've furnished three more sources. Jzsj (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the basis for the claim that in an article that is not limited to the United States the claim is made that it is customary for the people present at Mass (other than the priest and the deacon) to join hands at the recitation or singing of the Our Father, customary not in a vague sense but in the canonical sense (see what the Code of Canon Law says about the canonical definition and the conditions for establishment of a canonical custom: "Can. 25 No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.")

I don't understand the deletion of reliable sources much more authoritative than this David Philippart, in particular Edward McNamara, to whom could be added, for instance, Bishop Peter Elliott's Liturgical Question Box: Answers to Common Questions about the Modern Liturgy p. 74.

I don't understand the claim made that the local bishops (of the United States, for the claim is not made on a worldwide basis) have given at least tacit approval (not just toleration) to the practice, although a source that for some reason has been deleted says that "The U.S. bishops’ conference debated a proposal by some bishops to allow the use of the orantes posture while discussing the “American Adaptations to the General Instruction to the Roman Missal” last year. Some bishops even argued that it was the best way of ridding the country of holding hands. The proposal failed to garner the required two-thirds majority of votes" – an almot two-thirds majority is far from "approval", and yet the article cites as tacit approval a USCCB statement that merely says: "No position is prescribed in the Roman Missal for an assembly gesture during the Lord's Prayer".

I don't understand why a very large space is allotted in this article to what seems to be very much an uncommon practice in the Catholic Church as a whole and that is undoubteedly controverial, in spite of the deletion of sources that mention its controversial character.

I don't understand how the article as now revised cites, it seems, in support of the "holding hands" practice an article by an unnameed Carmelite supporting instead the orantes posture and recalls the surprise felt at encountering that of "holding hands". Bealtainemí (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the word "custom", since that is open to question. But what remains seems a fair statement, in spite of traditionalists who will always be opposed. We shouldn't expect any bishops' conference to make this permissible in all dioceses, that remains the right of local bishops. I grant you that traditionalist circles in the USA will continue to oppose this and all change, and this will include bishops. If you check the Wikipedia article on Ignatius Press which Bishop Elliott writes for, you will find that it is very far left of center. All five references I give do explain why those trying to further renew the Mass in the spirit of Vatican II find this meaningful. Jzsj (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reducing the surprises by admitting that hand holding is not, as was claimed, a custom in the canonical sense. On the other hand you have increased puzzlement by adding to your earlier personal exclusion of Father McNamara an exclusion too of Bishop Elliott because some of his writings have been published by

spirit of Vatican II

".

You seem to think that the United States bishops (all or even most of them? or indeed any specific ones at all?) have "made hand holding permissible". Have they? McNamara and Elliott, who with others deplore the practice, state clearly that it has not been forbidden. A bishop who recognizes that it has not been forbidden does not thereby "make it permissible". Should this article be amplified to include lots more practices that have been introduced without being explicitly forbidden? There are many, even if we do not include those denounced as tending to the description "clown Masses" and the like. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are going beyond what I actually said here and drawing unwarranted conclusions. Why not just propose "lots more practices" and see how well covered they are in the media. Jzsj (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Heaven's sake, no. The article is bad enough already. Even someone with experience of conducting a "clown mass" does not support its use in the Catholic Church]. I just point out perplexities about what has already been added. As I did with regard to a phrase attributed to Benedict XVI. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the unique particularity of the rubrics on the priest's posture during the Our Father really irrelevant any more than so many other items mentioned in the article?

"During the recitation of the Lord's Prayer the priest is directed to extend his hands in the orans position. In the liturgy, the priest normally adopts this posture only praying aloud and alone for the congregation who are at that moment silent: otherwise he prays with joined hands. This exception was introduced by Pope Pius XII, who only in the context of his Holy Week liturgical reforms permitted the congregation to join the priest in praying the Pater noster, provided that they could pray it in Latin."

Source 1: Edward Peters, "Another Look at the Orans Issue" in CanonLaw.info, 27 February 2015

Source 2: Kenneth Doyle, "Orans Posture during Our Father" in The Boston Pilate, 14 December 2016<

Source 3: Bob Sullivan, "How should we pray the Our Father?" in Southern Nebraska Register, 26 January 2018</ref> Bealtainemí (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author shows a conservative bent here by saying that the priest is praying "alone and for the congregation" when he has his hands extended, when during the Eucharistic prayers we are repeatedly reminded that it is "we" who are praying (silently) in union with the priest. Any Catholic who attends Mass knows that there are few times during the ordinary form of the Mass when the priest "prays with joined hands". He briefly joins his hands before extending them in prayer several times during the Mass, but prays with hands folded only at one optional Introductory Rite, at the Creed, and at the Holy, Holy. Jzsj (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, the presidential prayers are not prayed by the congregation. It is an error to say them aloud or mouth along with the words as if we are the priest praying. Elizium23 (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we do not join the priest and pray aloud during the "presidential prayers". I'm sorry if you interpret me to be saying this. What specifically do you disagree with that I said? Jzsj (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, the Eucharistic prayer is presidential. Elizium23 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That I don't deny, but are you denying that the words "we pray" and "we offer" are used during the Eucharistic prayers? In editing Wikipedia, I show a preference for what will last, as distinguished from what is presently so prevalent in the Wikipedia articles on Catholic liturgy but likely to be shortened 10, 20 years from now as Trent and the Tridentine Mass give way to more thoroughly renewed liturgy. Are you saying that we are now at the end of the road in fostering full, conscious, active participation at Mass. You're fortunate if Catholics where you are fully share their Eucharistic faith, in church and after Mass. But my experience is that it will take more time to implement Vatican II, after two papacies that were stalled on the matter. Pope Francis has shown more determination to carry forward reforms of Vatican II but he is more focused on Christian living than on the liturgy. Jzsj (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, I don't know what "bent" you show, when you claim that "the author" (meaning everyone who treats of the question – do you want more examples?) "shows a conservative bent (does that mean that on the basis of your unsourced personal opinion you can exclude from Wikipedia anyone you disagree with?) when they say that the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the Mass is the one exception to the norm that the priest adopts the orans posture when praying both alone (not joining in saying the same words as the congregation) and aloud (not silently) and for the congregation (not for himself). Your remark about the priest joining his hands beforeis an obvious irrelevancy. So is your remark that the faithful are supposed to pray silently during whichever eucharistic prayer the priest chooses to use: you say you don't mean that they are supposed to use the same words of the priest; but what do you mean? Only when the priest has pronounced his prayer spoken alound will the people know what they are to say Amen to.

You have indicated that you personally disagree with what the experts say, but you haven't explained on what grounds you claim that what they say is irrelevant. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how carefully circumscribed my remark was about the "personal bent": "The author shows a conservative bent here by saying that the priest is praying "alone and for the congregation" when he has his hands extended, when during the Eucharistic prayers we are repeatedly reminded that it is "we" who are praying (silently) in union with the priest. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here on on the rest. Jzsj (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have now added further irrelevancies. The priests says: "We pray"; "we offer". Who says it? Not the congregation. The piests says it alone, says it aloud, praying for the people, not for himself alone. You may not "fully share the Eucharistic faith" taught by the Church and may want to change it, but this article isn't about your ideas of future Church teaching. It is about "Mass in the Catholic Church", "the Catholic Church", not some imagined future Church that you picture as transmuted to conform with your ideas of what it should and will be. In your visionary Church, what you object to will have simply disappeared, but that isn't the Church that the article is about. The fact that you wish to exclude is here and now a fact. It is your idea that is irrelevant to the actual Mass in the actual Catholic Church.

You haven't given a reason for thinking irrelevant the well-sourced information about the exceptionality of the posture of the priest. You have only said you (but you aren't a reliable source) disagree with the sources. Your deletion of the information must be undone. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I removed too much about the special role of the priest in leading the celebration. But please try phrasing it in a way that will not deny that the primary impact of the Mass is on the people, not on the priest interceding that God might be more gracious toward the people. Priestliness took on new meaning in the New Testament; in this new meaning we are all a "priestly people". Other beliefs are sorely challenged by post-Vatican II scholarship in the Church. I can furnish sources on that if you wish. Jzsj (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just more original research by you. Several reliable sources state that at Mass the priest recites the Lord's Prayer in that particular way. No reliable source denies it. It is time, and more than time, to undo your unjustified deletion. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The chief reference quoted while discussing the Lord's prayer says: "the priest folds or joins his hands, ...during ... most of the Eucharistic prayer." I ask you, is this true? @Bealtainemí: Jzsj (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other generalizations are repugnant to anyone who knows that they are not entirely true, and are of no consequence here, since your point is the priest's exceptional stance at the Lord's Prayer, upon which we agree.Jzsj (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will not revert @Sundayclose: but your revert brings problems. The Mass is fundamentally a sacrifice, and the new lede ignores that fact. We need to integrate the facts in both revisions into a unified whole. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I agree that the Mass is fundamentally a sacrifice, and now that we have your input I'm good with changing the lead sentence, but without the use of the word "commemoration". In my opinion that word places too much emphasis on the "memorial" aspect of the Mass, which is a major distinction between Protestant and Catholic interpretation of the Holy Communion. Thanks for your comment. Feel free to suggest any changes. Sundayclose (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to work in Anamnesis (Christianity) somewhere. Elizium23 (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly: ""Mass in the Catholic Church, also known as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or Holy Mass, is viewed by the Catholic Church as principally a sacrifice: the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary by which the Christian can enter into the Paschal mystery." Sundayclose (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest this is moving in the wrong direction. Even the rather conservative Catechism of the Catholic Church under "What is this sacrament called?" (1328-1330) mentions first "Thanksgiving to God", then "Lord's Supper", then "Breaking of Bread", "Eucharistic assembly", "memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection", and only then "Holy Sacrifice". Both the word "holy" and the word "sacrifice" have drawbacks, as the first has overtones of mysterious, which overlooks that the Eucharistic mystery is rich, not hidden in meaning, and "sacrifice", which must be carefully distinguished from the sacrifices of the Old Law: the memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection is expiation of us not appeasement of God: "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son", and Jesus' whole life is salutary. To say otherwise would be to overlook the direction in which eucharistic theology has moved as a result of biblical and historical studies. Jzsj (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the edit by Sundayclose, which puts first what the CCC puts first. This article is about Mass in "the" Catholic Church, not in some Catholic Church as we might like it to be. The Catholic Church's own descriptions are what we should start with, not anyone's personal view of what is most important. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant passages from the Catechism

Elizium23 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church is slowly moving away from the Counter-Reformation emphasis that was not supported by historical studies (as acknowledged in GIRM 7). I suggest that the lead as it now stands best represents the understanding of the Catholic Church. Jzsj (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Write in three paragraphs how the Catholics prepare their mass 41.57.95.254 (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Mass, Nuptial has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28 § Mass, Nuptial until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Gold Mass has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28 § Gold Mass until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Rose Mass has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28 § Rose Mass until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect White Mass has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 28 § White Mass until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These three masses were removed from the article in December 2021 as being too long and US-centric. I think they would overwhelm the page in their current state, but the content does seem encyclopedic; does anyone have any thoughts on what to do with it? Restoring the content also seemed to be supported by a few editors in the above RFD; I brought up potentially creating a Mass in the United States article, but I honestly have no clue about the topic area and whether or not that would be a good idea; it didn't get any attention before the discussion got closed. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: If there are enough sources on this subject, they should exist under their own article (called Color masses or something similar), as Mass in the United States would be too broad a subject and would likely be mostly a US-centric duplication of this article. If you need help finding resources on this subject, I can see what I round up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: thought about color masses, but I thought that might end up being an arbitrary grouping; it's probably fine, though. I'll take a look at google books sometime and see what I can get, but help would also be much appreciated (I'm not Christian, I'm not very familiar with Christianity and its traditions, and I definitely know nothing about these color masses). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]