Jump to content

Talk:Mass of Paul VI/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

This article has gone off the deep end, with contributers refrencing each other in a way that is very confusing for the reader.

I'm moving the older contributions to archives

For new Talks please KISS --Emes 10:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revision

I've tried to delete some unqualified sentence. --Emes 10:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revision II

I've done a full rewrite of the article; much of the old content has been retained, but in a reworded/clarified form. Please leave your Questions/Comments/Insults here. -- Essjay · Talk 00:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


Question for Dominick: You removed a link to two screen captures of EWTN's "Ask an Expert" Q&A. The screen captures in question are of Fr. Levis saying that the Novus Ordo Missae is a "complete fabrication," followed by an edited version of that answer. I would like to see proof of this "denial." Seattle Catholic linked to the "complete fabrication" post with a link entitled "EWTN Expert on the Novus Ordo Mass." Traditio.com and Novus Ordo Watch (two sedevacantist outfits) also linked to it. But most importantly, I "reported" on it before any of them because I saw the Q&A posts -- both of them, the original "complete fabrication" post and the edited version -- with my own eyes at EWTN's website. One of those screen captures at the link you deleted is my own; the other was taken by someone else. If EWTN is "denying" this, then some serious liars work for them. So: did EWTN lie on top of editing Fr. Levis's post? Used2BAnonymous 10:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no response to you, however the response from Fr. Levis was in error. Your website seems to be one of the few to carry this "revelation". Dominick (TALK) 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the fisheaters link, it is to a monograph website, inserted in violation of wikipedia guidelines by the website owner. Dominick (TALK) 17:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For the story behind the slanderous accusations from Dominick and JG of Borg regarding the EWTN screen shots, see this page and, especially, the associated discussion page (half way down) Used2BAnonymous 21:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For the story behind Used2BAnonymous's false accusations, spamming, consensus ignoring, and POV pushing, see [this RFC page] (unsigned User:Jgofborg) oops, sorry about that JG of Borg 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How silly this is. Ok sorting this out. Dominick (TALK) 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The "external links" section is manifestly excessive. WP:EL suggests good reasons for including links; what we seem to have here is a rehash of the argument which the article describes (and describes well) via offsite forks. In my view there should be a small number (one or two) links to authorities describing / supporting the establishment view, and a similar number of sites to authorities (i.e. not monographs) presenting the dissenting view. And those should really be sources, not external links. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


I express no opinion for or against this view by Just zis Guy, you know?. I just don't understand Samuel J. Howard's justification for removing it. I have therefore reverted. Lima 12:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I just made a mistake and removed instead of restoring stuff I thought had been anonymously removed.--Samuel J. Howard 00:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

I added a section on how The Liturgy of the Eucharist had changed when the Mass was revised. Aside from the language used, I think the changes made there are major ones. Probably 80% of that part of the Mass was said silently by the priest, as opposed to today when it's all said aloud.
JesseG 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Archbishop Bugnini

The sentence which Lima and I disagree about reads as follows:

"Many Traditionalists regard it as very significant that one of the churchmen most heavily involved in the liturgical reform was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who remains a controversial figure in the eyes of some."

I can't see that this is POV. Surely the fact is that trads do indeed look upon Bugnini as a villain figure, and that, for that reason, he is controversial. As to whether there is any substance in the rumours against him, the merits or otherwise of the evidence are discussed in the article on Bugnini himself, from which the wikireader can draw their own conclusions. Ancus 12:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We need, I think, something more concrete than the vague "controversial figure". I hope Ancus will agree with my revision specifying the Traditionalists' accusations against him. Lima 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Text merge needing verification

I'm making Tridentine a dab page and mergine text to appropriate places. This content, if true, seems like it might fit in this article. (Note: I didn't write this.) Gimmetrow 14:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger showed great interest in supporting the traditional Catholic movement, himself offering the Traditional "Tridentine" Mass for groups such as the Fraternity of St. Peter. In the preface to "La reforme Liturgique en question" by french liturgist Klaus Gamber, then Cardinal Ratzinger called the new rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI, "a banal on the spot fabrication." He meant that it had been formed by a commission of liturgical experts rather than changing by the traditional practice of "organic development." He wrote, "In its [the liturgical movement after Vatican II] practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation."

There are two elements, as I see it, in what is here said about Cardinal Ratzinger.

The first seems to me to be quite an exaggeration: calling "great interest in supporting the traditional Catholic movement" the fact that he (how many times?) offered Mass in the 1962 form for the Fraternity of St. Peter and perhaps similar groups not in dispute with the Holy See. It would be far more significant if he had even once offered Mass in the 1962 form for a group of the ordinary faithful. What he actually did does not, as far as I can discern, indicate any special support for "the traditional movement".

The second concerns a curious interpretation of what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his preface to the French translation (La Réforme liturgique en question) of the book Die Reform der Römischen Liturgie. The person who wrote the above text would have us believe that Cardinal Ratzinger called the 1970 Roman Missal "a banal on the spot fabrication", expecting us to swallow the notion that a revision that took I do not know exactly how many years to prepare could be described as "on the spot". What Cardinal Ratzinger actually wrote can be read, for example, here. He was, of course, talking not about the revision, but of how the revision was all too widely misapplied in actual practice ("dans sa réalisation concrète"), turning the liturgy into a show, trying to make religion interesting through fashionable nonsense and seductive moral maxims - truly "a banal on the spot fabrication" and not the liturgy of the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger at no point of the preface proposed a return to the pre-1972 liturgy. He called instead for "a new spiritual impetus", so as to wrest the liturgy from the whims of parish priests and their "liturgical teams" and return it to being a community activity of the Church ("une nouvelle impulsion spirituelle est nécessaire pour que la liturgie soit à nouveau pour nous une activité communautaire de l’Église et qu’elle soit arrachée à l’arbitraire des curés et de leurs équipes liturgiques").

What Cardinal Ratzinger condemned was the do-it-yourself "liturgies", the can-you-top-this showmanship that pays little attention to the texts and norms prescribed by the Church. In fact, what he wrote was in support of the Mass of Paul VI against these aberrations.

The writer of the Wikipedia text claims instead to know what Cardinal Ratzinger really meant, and that he meant something quite different from what he seemed to mean: "He meant that it (not the malpractice of certain parishes, as one would think from the context, but the 1970 Roman Missal) had been formed by a commission of liturgical experts rather than changing by the traditional practice of 'organic development'." This quite unfounded statement I attribute not to bad faith, only to wishful thinking. Lima 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think any of it fits in the "criticism of practices introduced after 1970" section, please add it. One other point from the Tridentine text that may fit this article: it mentioned that the Second Vatican Council "called for a continuation of Latin in the Mass and Gregorian Chant and did not call for wholesale changes to the rite of Mass. Instead, the council fathers of Vatican II spoke of the use of vernacular languages in the Mass and more active participation of the faithful." Gimmetrow 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone would agree with the implicit claim that there have been "wholesale changes to the rite of Mass". "Called for" is somewhat too strong: what the Council decreed on the use of Latin was: "The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the vernacular ... may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in ..." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36). And on Gregorian chant: "The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services" (ibid., 116). The emphases are mine. Lima 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally I think if someone has taken the trouble to add coherent text, it probably contains something worth preserving. (This is why I object to people reverting two weeks of edits.) I removed a lot of text from Tridentine to make it a dab page, and that text had a couple ideas that weren't really mentioned well elewhere. One of those ideas is that Vatican II encouraged preserving Latin/Chant, which isn't preserved. That criticism may not be valid, but it seems likely that some people make that criticism. Gimmetrow 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sacrosanctum Concilium called for the use of Latin/Chant in the mass above other forms. So it is correct to state that Vatican II encouraged the preservation of Latin/Chant. Roydosan 12:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the criticisim states that current practice is not in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium. Gimmetrow 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it is a fair criticism. Roydosan 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Liturgical Music in the USA

Congregational participation of hymn singing seems to run hot and cold, depending on what church you happen be in, what age group is present, what time of day it is (at 8:00 AM hardly anybody feels like singing). I don't know how many settings there are for the Lord Have Mercy, or the Gloria but if you know a certain one and attend Mass at another parish you just might hear one that you're not familiar with. Even if you can read music you won't find it in the Hymnal.

CHORAL MUSIC Back in the days of men's choirs, four-part harmony was used in many parishes, which was pitched for male voices and was published in sheet music that was arranged for TTBB (1st tenor, 2nd tenor, baritone, bass). After Vatican II those masses, beautiful XVI c. motets, the Liber Brevior (Gregorian Chant) were abandoned and replaced by music for mixed choirs. Today, most mixed choirs sing in unison (female voices one octave above the male voices), which sounds rather banal or oversimplified. Most choirs today cannot sing polyphonic or contrapuntal works. A few parishes that have more well-educated parishoners are likely to have a choir that can sing a few hymns in four-part SATB harmony (soprano, alto, tenor, bass).

ORGAN vs PIANO Again the parish music director is faced with the challenge of playing accompaniment on either instrument, that is if he/she can play both instruments well. A competent organist can even play classical pieces by Bach, Franck, Brahms, Charpentier, Purcell, Clarke, Boelmann, Widor, et al., but these individuals have a good chance of getting hired at a cathedral or basilica.

OTHER INSTRUMENTS USED AT MASS Over the past few years we have seen and heard guitar, clarinet, flute, trumpet, recorder, drums (both the jazz band type with cymbals), bongo drums, maracas, and something that looks like a brightly painted gourd that has parallel grooves cut into it and is rubbed with a stick creating a rasping sound. Musicwriter (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Communion in the hand

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

What would you add to what is already in the "Criticisms of practices" section? How small is the "vocal" minority: 0.1% of Catholics or less? Lima (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The Pope (Benedict XVI) favours communion in the hand, he has given it in public, and many of his liturgical advisors have tried to slowly re-implement the practice. Don't you know about them ? ADM (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't know that Benedict XVI favours communion in the hand. On the contrary, he has shown that he prefers to give communion in the mouth and to people who are kneeling. He has not opposed giving communion in the hand, which is a different matter: this form is used at the same celebrations at which he chooses to give communion in the mouth to those who go to him. I'm sorry, I know nothing specific about the "many" (how many?) of his liturgical advisors who have tried to "slowly re-implement" the practice. I think that most bishops conferences have 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) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, since communion in the hand is currently the normative practice, that was the name of the sub-section, even though I was surely thinking of the opposite approach. Anyways, since this is one of the issues that separates Traditionalists from regular Catholics, I thought it would not be a bad idea to write about it some more. I also read that some conservative Cardinals, such as Carlo Caffarra and Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne, had been trying to encourage the practice in their respective dioceses. ADM (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the opposite of true. According to canon law, and the repeated statements of the last several Cardinal Prefects of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, the normative method of receiving communion in the Latin rite is on the tongue. The ability to receive communion in the hand is given only by indult, and only in territories that have obtained that indult from the Holy See - there exist even now dioceses (and entire countries) which have either never sought this indult, or have previously implemented and since suspended the practice. Communion in the hand is commonplace, but it is absolutely not "the norm" in the eyes of the Church.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mass of Paul VI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mass of Paul VI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mass of Paul VI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mass of Paul VI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mass of Paul VI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mass of Paul VI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Calidum 04:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


Mass of Paul VI → Vatican II Mass – As the Mass decreed by the Council of Trent is called the Tridentine Mass, the Mass decreed by the Second Vatican Council should be called something like Vatican II Mass. It is the Mass not of Paul VI alone but also of all his successors, especially those who changed it: John Paul II, who promulgated the third typical edition of the Vatican II Roman Missal, and Benedict XVI, who approved a revision of this third typical edition. The different editions of the Tridentine Roman Missal have in common the title Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum, and each is distinguished from the others by the further indication in the title of the Pope who had it published and of those who had earlier revised it. All the editions are therefore collectively called the Tridentine Roman Missal, while "Roman Missal of Pius V" refers to the 1570 edition alone, and "Roman Missal of John XXIII" to the 1962 edition alone. Similarly, each edition of the Vatican II Roman Missal has the title Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum, following by an indication of the pope(s) involved in its publication. "Mass of Paul VI" would mean the form of the Mass in his time, with none of the changes made by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be no objection. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. there is no support for this name in WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Evidence? Google books gives me more hits for the proposed name, [1] [2] but not significantly many, so the consistency argument above might well tip the scales. On the other hand, the natural reading of Vatican II Mass is a Mass celebrated at Vatican II. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Did you even read those hits? They consist of phrases such as "pre-Vatican II Mass" and "post-Vatican II Mass" - nobody who is Catholic actually calls the Mass, "Vatican II Mass" - except, perhaps for some rad-trads who wish to attack its legitimacy, but those people usually call it the "Novus Ordo", with derogatory connotations. Elizium23 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment: Neither name seems particularly recognisable, possibly it is to Roman Catholics. Should Roman Catholic sources be discounted as primary sources? Either way, is there a more generally recognisable name used in reliable secondary sources? Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps indeed it was Wikipedia itself that popularized the name "Mass of Paul V", at a time when Paul VI was the only pope responsible for it and when the edition of the Roman Missal was titled Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum. The title of the 2002 edition is Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II recognitum (no longer just of Paul VI). Bealtainemí (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - I have never heard anyone refer to it as the "Vatican II Mass". --PluniaZ (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Possibly Mass of Paul VI is not a perfect name, as argued. Do you have any other alternatives, though, backed by sources? Can we dig a litte deepar to find out what autoritative sources offer as options, if any? PPEMES (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The current commonly-accepted name, since the promulgation of Summorum pontificum, is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. However, the "ordinary form" moniker is an inherently moving target; it will always refer to the current form of the Mass, even if drastically reformed from the Mass of Paul VI. So while it is a valid term and topic, it is not suitable for designating a particular, specific form of the Mass. Then again, neither is "Mass of Paul VI", given that that form has already been revised three times since 1970, as well. Elizium23 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The only accurate term, valid for all and each of the successive editions is that which appears in the title of all and each, as the French and Portuguese Wikipedias have recognized. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The title of these editions is a primary source, and is irrelevant. The decisions of other language Wikipedias are also irrelevant here. Surely there are secondary sources that discuss this topic? Please see the article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The Mass of John XXIII is not the same as the Mass of Pius V, in which, for instance, the Canon makes no mention of Saint Joseph and instructs the priest to recite the Haec quotiescumque feceritis while showing the chalice to the people and after genuflecting at the close of the consecration. Use of the Pius V form is not authorized at present. Similarly, the Mass of John Paul II is not exactly the same as that of Paul VI, as Elizium23 says. The name of each form is that which appears in the relative Roman Missal. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, Bealtainemí has jogged my memory and I remember something now. In liturgical scholarship, it is quite common to refer to the Missal by its year of publication. In particular, the "[Roman Missal of 1962]" is extremely common. This is clear and unambiguous terminology, no? It is also supported by multiple WP:RS. Unfortunately, it is too specific for our needs! This particular article covers three editions of the Missal (1970, 1975, 2002) and this will only grow. If we refer to the "Missal of 1970" then we exclude the other two editions, etc. But, perhaps we should take our lumps and do it that way, if we indeed wish to conform with scholarly sources. Elizium23 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
We need a term that will cover not just one single edition. "Tridentine Mass" covers all editions that have in the title ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum (followed by the name of the Pope who authorized the particular edition, preceded by an indication of the Popes who previously had a hand in revised it from Pius V on). "Vatican II Mass" covers all editions that have in the title ex decreto sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum (followed by the name of the Pope who authorized the particular edition, preceded by that of those (so far, one only) who previously had a hand in revising it. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
What kind of term we "need" is outweighed by the actual terms which are available to us, based on current scholarship. Wikipedians cannot invent a WP:COMMONNAME, we base them on WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe that, without previous consultation or later objection, Wikipedia article titles do get changed on grounds like those here mentioned, and that the titles of Wikipedia articles are not based on "reliable sources" but are chosen to reflect the content of the sourced articles. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-Vatican II Mass

(I agree, of course, with the <judgement of> evident absence of consensus for a change of article name to "something like 'Vatican II Mass'". I regret that weight was given to the idea that the title must be based on a "reliable source": I don't suppose that either the present name or any of the previous names of the article Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion was based on a "reliable source". I think that, regrettably, there would have been no consensus either for "post-Vatican II Mass", the existence of reliable sources for which was pointed out in the discussion. All this is just a parenthetic introduction to my explanation of an edit of mine that I do not wish to be taken as an incipient edit war.)

My first attempt to clarify the non-specific description "the revised Roman Missal" has been reverted. Since the Roman Missal has been revised many times, "the revised Roman Missal" does not indicate which Roman Missal. There are many good descriptions that, without having to be based on a "reliable source", unambiguously identify the Roman Missal in question. But, since the objection raised was lack of a "reliable source", I hope that the description "post-Vatican II Roman Missal", used in reliable sources will be accepted. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why you claim that the description was "non-specific" in the edit you cite: the context clearly identifies the exact year of revision of those Missal editions. Why can't we just stick to "Mass of Paul VI" or "Roman Missal of <1970, 2002, etc.>"? Elizium23 (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As I (perhaps wrongly) read it, "the third typical edition of the revised Roman Missal, published in 2002 (after being promulgated in 2000)" was the 2002 edition/revision of "the revised Roman Missal". What precisely is "the revised Roman Missal" of which a third edition appeared in 2002? The 2002 edition wasn't a third edition of itself. Sorry if I misunderstand. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What it is

Shouldn't the article state first what it is in itself and only later give additional information such as its status as the ordinary/normal form of the eucharistic liturgy? Even if it had only been granted parity with the 1972 form it would still be what it is, it would be essentially the same thing. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hyphen in "post-Vatican II"

I have twice undone a replacement of the hyphen in "post-Vatican II" with an n-dash. Am I wrong? See 1, 2. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you reconcile this with MOS:PREFIXDASH? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't, and so I must undo. I wonder where did whoever enunciated this rule for Wikipedia get that idea. I haven't found it elsewhere. Perhaps you can point me to a reliable source that enunciates it. I have, so far, only found sources that contradict the Wikipedia rule. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
If the MOS is the problem here, wouldn't the more appropriate venue for this be WT:MOS? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course, if someone wants to pursue the question. However, all that I was under strict obligation to do in Wikipedia was to observe the existing Wikipedia rule, even if mistaken. I may yet suggest an amendment, but not if I find that people like you judge the existing rule to be correct. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Bealtainemí: As for a reliable source that provides for this in non-Wikipedia contexts, though, I would point to The Chicago Manual of Style, which provides the following:[1]

En dashes with compound adjectives. The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds (see 7.82). Whereas a hyphen joins exactly two words, the en dash is intended to signal a link across more than two. Because this editorial nicety will almost certainly go unnoticed by the majority of readers, it should be used sparingly, when a more elegant solution is unavailable. As the first two examples illustrate, the distinction is most helpful with proper compounds, whose limits are made clear within the larger context by capitalization. The relationship in the third example depends to some small degree on an en dash that many readers will perceive as a hyphen connecting music and influenced. The relationships in the fourth example are less awkwardly conveyed with a comma.

the post–World War II years
Chuck Berry–style lyrics
country music–influenced lyrics (or lyrics influenced by country music)
a quasi-public–quasi-judicial body (or, better, a quasi-public, quasi-judicial body)

207.161.86.162 (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual (unlike some others) allows use of n-dash instead of hyphen, giving examples more complex than "post-Vatican II": combination phrases placed before the sign is reached and a three-element combination after the hyphen or n-dash sign. Wikipedia makes n-dash obligatory.
On Wikipedia, you were right to replace the hyphen with an n-dash. On Wikipedia, I was wrong to restore the hyphen. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2017. pp. 396–397. doi:10.7208/cmos17. ISBN 978-0-226-28705-8.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_of_Paul_VI/Archive_2&oldid=1133478752"