Talk:Mass of Paul VI/Archive 1

message: As Novus Ordo is sometimes used politically to refer to the New World Order by extreme right wingers, I have changed this name to Novus Ordo Missae, because that is the correct term that unambiguously meant to mean the Mass, not politics. FearÉIREANN 22:34 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Please don't delete cogent, relevant, well-documented material. To be productive, why not expand the sections concerning the reasons for the NOM? This entry needs information about borrowing from Eastern liturgies and how 'openness to the world' is implemented in the NOM. 207.192.130.197 10:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

message: I think there's a chance that this article may not be presented from a netural point of view (NPOV).  That is why I added the tag to this article.  It seems to me that there is an awful lot of criticism of the new mass, but I cannot find anything in the article that explores benefits of the new mass.  It seems to me that the entire article is slanted towards the older Tridentine rite of the church.
I have attended Latin Masses in the past.  I think that they are very beautiful ceremonies, and that perhaps we did lose something in switching to the new mass.  But at the same time, (and I know I'm walking into a hornet's nest here) the Tridentine mass had its flaws as well.  Part of the problem is that in the old structures, the only use some church officals had for the laity was for them to sit in the pews and keep them from flying away.  The laity were only there to "pay, pray, and obey."  It does disturb me that some traditionalists would love nothing more than to go back to that.
:JesseG 05:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: JesseG 02:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  tag 

message: I removed the warning about POV, as the entry is really not unbalanced so much as unfinished. I created within the article an outline for intended benefits that are part of the approach to the revision of the Mass. Please help to fill that section in. This entry should tell the full story: the intended benefits of the revision, and the critique of the revision. Both portions are incomplete at this time. Of course the empty outline might end up being different after content is added; it's just a suggestion of various points that are generally considered benefits of the revision. I would recommend focusing more effort on providing information about the benefits of the revision and less effort on worrying that there are criticisms provided as well. Trc | [msg] 03:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  draft schema for intended benefits 

message: This article is highly POV. Trc, you know a lot of stuff but be careful in how you express it. If you don't get the hang of NPOV then people are going to have to revert it all and then begin reworking your stuff on a temp page to see what is salvagable and what is so far from from NPOV to be unsalvagable and have to be binned. Please for your own sake tone down the promotion of your views and allow the page acknowledge that many theologians, many writers and most catholics disagree with your interpretation.
:I have added in a dispute tag. Please don't unilaterally remove it. This article clearly is disputed.  FearÉIREANN 18:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is "disputed" because some editors refuse to give any meaningful space to the criticisms of the rite of mass of Paul VI. I am quite tired of having important citations undone or removed by those who want only to present this order of mass as uniformly and exclusively good. I forget how many tildes to use. ~ ~~ Trc | [msg]
This article is disputed because one editor insists on removing anything that might balance his specious disparagements of the 1970 Roman Missal, lumping with it abuses that go against the 1970 Roman Missal, the topic of the article, and displaying the arrogant presumption of personal infallibility that has been commented on in Talk:Society of St. Pius X and above. Lima 18:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: disputed