Talk:Mass (liturgy)/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: again, the present name, i.e. Mass (litugy), is the more appropriateA ntv (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introductory words and the term Mass 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Omission of gloria at funerals and weddings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link to [[communion]] in "communion with Rome" 

message: 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)
thread_title: "See also" list

message: At  and  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)
thread_title:  Copyright images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: The page you are adding links back to [] 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I just want to express support.  Lima 08:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by HarvardOxon on 28 February 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Help needed in other religion ritual articles

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vigil Masses 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Lutheranism" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pre-Mass devotions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was it a hacker assault?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . Benedict XVI had also said many private liturgies during his papacy.   ADM (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: There is already a stub on FR-WP: see  (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Well, if you people insist ... See Sine populo.  Defteri (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done A ntv (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Lay participation

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Communion in the hand

message: 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  A ntv (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Deutsche Messe]] 

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

message: 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.  ADM (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded the section Reserved sacrament#Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest. A ntv (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Celebrate v/s offer mass 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of Mass 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Methodism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  improving caption under image in 'introductory rites' section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The name of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introductory words and the term Mass 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Omission of gloria at funerals and weddings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link to [[communion]] in "communion with Rome" 

message: 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)
thread_title: "See also" list

message: At  and  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)
thread_title:  Copyright images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: The page you are adding links back to [] 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I just want to express support.  Lima 08:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by HarvardOxon on 28 February 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Help needed in other religion ritual articles

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vigil Masses 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Lutheranism" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pre-Mass devotions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was it a hacker assault?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . Benedict XVI had also said many private liturgies during his papacy.   ADM (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: There is already a stub on FR-WP: see  (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Well, if you people insist ... See Sine populo.  Defteri (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done A ntv (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Lay participation

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Communion in the hand

message: 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  A ntv (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Deutsche Messe]] 

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

message: 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.  ADM (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded the section Reserved sacrament#Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest. A ntv (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Celebrate v/s offer mass 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of Mass 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Methodism 

message: Since this page seems to contain a rather complex article in and of itself regarding the Catholic Mass, would anyone support splitting (or respliting) the Catholic Mass (or Roman Rite Mass) into its own article? Specifically, I'm interested in better tying the information from the Structure of the Roman Rite of Mass into the main Catholic Church article --Zfish118 (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is best to "leave well enough alone".  As it stands, the article is almost entirely about the present form of the Roman Rite of Mass.  If that were removed, all that would remain would be the generic information at the start (lead and introductory part of "Mass in the Roman Catholic Church") and the appendix-like short bits at the end about Anglicanism and Lutheranism).  "Roman Rite Mass" is a vast subject, encompassing Mass of Paul VI, Tridentine Mass, and Pre-Tridentine Mass as well as the articles on the various elements of the texts and the rituals of the Roman Rite Mass in its various phases.  (This article gives only a summary account of the text and ritual of the present form alone of the rite.)  "Catholic Mass" is even more vast, since it involves also the various non-Roman Latin liturgical rites and, indeed, also the Eucharistic celebrations of the various Eastern Catholic Churches.  Esoglou (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: oppose: because the term Mass mainly refers to the Roman Rite Mass, there is not reason to split. A ntv (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Mass Split? 

message: Other than the fact that some churches do not use the term "mass" (many don't use the term Eucharistic either), what is the difference (if any) between Eucharistic and Mass? The answer to this should be in the 1st or 2nd sentance of the intro. If the answer is even in the article, I couldn't find it.  --şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Eucharist" refers to the prayers on the Bread and Wine and related rites, while "Mass" (or "Divine Liturgy", "Qurbana", according to the rites) is a liturgical cerimony which includes not only the Eucharistic part (which core is the anaphora (liturgy)) but also other important sections, as the "Liturgy of the Word" (readings from the Bible), the Introductory and penitentialy rites ect: these sections are well explained in the Article "Mass". However, I agree we can better explain this basic distinction (probably deemed to be obvious by who wrote the article) in the intro. A ntv (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eucharistic]] v. [[Mass (liturgy)|Mass]] 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gregorian chant.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: This section is not only unreferenced. It is highly misleading.  Put briefly my concerns are (a) The title "Mass" is used only in a small section of the Anglican Communion and is an unofficial one as far as I know; (b) The early editions of the Book of Common Prayer (1549/1552) were mainly the work of Cranmer who quite deliberately removed all distinctive marks of a medieval mass from the Communion Rite and wrote extensively against the doctrine of the Mass-to say they were loosely based on the pre-tridentine mass is a very loose use of loose; (c)The structure of the liturgy given seems to be that of the ECUSA Rite I: there is far more variation than implied here, for example the Australian First Order follows the 1552/1559/1662 with the communion coming immediately after the Words of Institution;
(d) I know of no Eucharistic rite which has ever required the use of the Athanasian Creed and even if on exists, I very much doubt whether it is ever used today.   I think the whole section could be deleted and perhaps replaced with a stub noting that some anglo-catholics use the term "mass" to refer to the Eucharist and a link to Anglican Eucharistic theology.  I could make a more detailed criticism, but I hope this is sufficient, at least for the moment.Jpacobb (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. I suppose that a simply deletion is going too far, but it is true that the points you listed (from a) to d)) should be implemented with the right references. Be bold and edit yourself the article !A ntv (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Mass in Anglicanism 

message: Apparently I have made a wide-ranging edit.  In fact, it has two objectives: (i) I considered that the vague phrase "traditional (=highchurch) christian denominations" was potentially misleading, and so have pulled the specific denominations forward from later in the article; and (ii) I have removed the main contents of the short "For more information" paragraphs to a hatnote and omitted the more specific Catholic ones since they are covered in the Mass (catholic church) where they logically belong.
The note
:"
puzzles me since it does not state what the important differences are.  I propose to replace it with a quotation from ´´Unitatis Redintegratio" which states that the western churches and ecclesiastical communities lack the sacrament of orders and "have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic Ministry". (sect. 22) but will do this as a second edit. Jpacobb (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments and edits User:Jpacobb. In my opinion, this addition is not really needed because it only portrays the Catholic perspective on the term. If you wish to keep that paragraph, however, you might want to balance it with the Lutheran view on the Catholic use of the term, as delineated in this citation. The reference that you cited above, by Douglas R. Jones, was only added to demonstrate that some Anglicans retain the use of the term Mass. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your comments and explanations, they are much appreciated.  I incline to keep the final paragraph I have just added even though I included it in the lead section on the basis of a misunderstanding.  I sense it is a relevant point in its own right as a statement about current views.  For the moment I am not going to add a reference to Lutheran attitudes.  The quotation you suggest refers to 16th century attitudes and can be paralleled by quotes from Anglican sources from the same time.  While you can certainly find individual Lutherans and Anglicans today who would sympathise with these opinions, I suspect that the Church authorities would be far more cautious.  Jpacobb (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome User:Jpacobb, my pleasure! I understand your line of reasoning. However, per WP:NPOV, I still find it necessary to balance the final paragraph of the introduction with Lutheran and Anglican attitudes. To address the issue you presented, I will preface the statement with the word "historically." After all, issues such as these were the reason for the Reformation and led to the formation of the Lutheran Church in the first place. In addition, I added a modern reference from the Lutheran Church that addresses the Catholic Mass from their point of view; this official statement is meant to corroborate the historical reference. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to lead section 

message: i think it is equal to praying the rosary 4 to 6 times in comparison. Rosary prayer  would be equivalent to 1/3 of the time in Liturgy of the Mass. It would come from my idea.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.209.15 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalent to the Holy Rosary Prayer? 

message: Satanists have similar masses and fits in the [liturgy] note.  This article only represents the christian based mass and needs to be expanded upon.  There's plenty of crediable information on Satanic masses.  e.g. BLACK_MASS and so onhttps://www.google.com/search?q=black+mass&oq=black+mass&aqs=chrome..69i57.1920j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=satanic+mass.  Right now this only represents one form (christanity) version of mass nor should said exclusion be entertained.
:It is my contention that the practices of an extreme minority are not significant enough for a place in this article. They may, however have a place in the Black Mass article. Furthermore, the masses described in this article are Christian masses, whereas Satanists do not make this claim. Rklawton (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is to say, an article about Christian masses naturally excludes non-Christian masses just like articles about submarines exclude facts about the Oort cloud. Rklawton (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

text: It's truly subjective that this article in a "finders keepers" first way the page is, and required to be about "Christian mass".  Satanists have similar masses.  In fact of them are very similar to Christian masses and even on those respected pages could be noted and visa versa (on the Satanic Mass pages).  Those particular groups such as Catholic Mass, Lutheran mass, and Christian mass all have their own pages but the "general" page here should support Religious diversity.  Satanic mass deserves space on this page in whatever space it's necessary to discuss it to a similar level as the others posted and then link to more detailed masses such as Black Mass in similar spaces as others have been.  It's just "where".  Alphabetical?  Does that put Satanism at the bottom?  Do we put "Satanism" then under it "Theistic" and "Atheistic" similar to how Christianity placed it?  If we call out "Atheistic Satanism" as a distinct religion alphabetically it should even be above Christianity but that that could get a lot of "feedback".  The current form is only a "Christian Mass page" and by the definition of Liturgy Satanism should also be here (and the Liturgy page.  This page is going to be included in the WikProject Satanism as the others.ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:UNDUE and you'll better understand the basis for my objection to the two edits I reverted. Your temple is so tiny and so atypical of the subject that mentioning it in these particular articles would violate UNDUE. As a result, trying to insert your temple's views into these articles violates our NPOV policies. Editing these articles directly to represent your temple's views violates our Conflict of Interest policies. Persisting in promoting your agenda in violation of our policies constitutes disruptive editing. Any of these can (and likely will) result in you (and not just your account) being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Since your religious group is stated to be atheistic, I think that your Temple's understanding and practice of a "Mass" is so different from a traditional Christian understanding (which is about sacrament and sacrifice) that I don't think the way the term is being used is in any way similar. It might warrant a separate article but I would be curious to know what similarity you see...it's not just about buying a worship book and replacing "God" with "Satan". That is just saying a prayer, that isn't a Mass. And since you are atheistic, I don't even know who or what divinity you'd be directing prayers to. Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

text: WP:DUE is my primary concern here. Rklawton (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of including information on Satanic Masses