Talk:Ordinary (liturgy)

Neglect?

Why J.S.Bach was not mentioned in the Music section?

I added him and Bruckner. Maybe some of the others should be removed (Zumaya, Brahms, Rheinberger), unless a complete listing is wanted; in that case many other mass-writers should appear. Did Hildegard of Bingen write a mass? I believed Machaut was the first one to do that. Apus 13:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Machaut was the first (known) to write a polyphonic mass. That said, I'm not sure Hildegard wrote one, especially of just the ordinary; I haven't heard of it. Rigadoun (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bruckner is an excellent addition! I'm not sure that Bach would be appropriate however. He only composed one Mass setting and it is so long that there is debate among musical scholars as to whether it was ever meant to be performed in a liturgical setting or merely as a concert piece. Also, when I originally wrote this article and added the names of composers, I wanted to keep it down to about four per period. I suppose we could add an additional category for the transitional period between Renaissance polyphony and the Baroque e.g. Monteverdi, Gabrieli, &c.Miguel 01:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course JSB belongs, but there does already exist an article mass (music), which I expect would be the place to talk examples of the genre, as oposed to the structure of the liturgy.Sparafucil 05:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good. I had no clue that the above article existed. Something new pops up every day. I had originally done this page as a quick reference to some other articles on the Mass. Perhaps we should revise this article in a more liturgical direction then? Miguel 18:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe best if the main article on the mass (liturgy) goes into the greatest liturgical depth. I'd be really happy to see Anglican treatment of the ordinary as such here, as well as the Eastern rite equivalent. Sparafucil 09:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Order of Mass → Ordinary (liturgy) — Since there are denominations that have the concept of the Ordinary, but sometimes do, and sometimes don't use the term "Mass" for their Eucharistic services, Ordinary (liturgy) would seem a more inclusive title than Order of Mass. It would also conform with the related Proper (liturgy). Since Ordinary (liturgy) already exists as a redirect page, an administrator needs to make the move. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jafeluv (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprised by the move, I wonder why the wording of the first line doesn't reflect that. Looking at the pages of new redirects, I wonder also if a move of a page related to so many articles should not have been discussed before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking closer, the relations are caused by two Roman Catholic templates. I think the original article was about only RC, and the redirect Ordo missae certainly. I suggest to split in two articles, one inclusive under the new name, linking to the other one about the RC missa, which most composers used in Latin as words for their settings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not only suprised but strongly opposed to this change, which was done without consultation of editors. "Ordinary (liturgy)" refers to more than the Order of Mass. It refers also to Ordinary Time and, to the Ordinary of the Divine Office. It can be used in a quite different sense, as when a writer says: "Liturgy in the broad sense covers all that was said or sung or performed in church in the past. However, I speak of liturgy in a more restricted sense of the word, limiting myself to the ordinary liturgy, such as the Liturgy of the Mass, the Rituals and the Liturgy of Hours" (Liturgy and the arts in the Middle Ages, p. 168). In fact, is "Ordinary" on its own ever used to mean Order of Mass? Is not "of the Mass" always, at least implicitly, attached to it, whenever this is the intended meaning? The earliest edition of the Tridentine Roman Missal had (in Latin) Ordinarium Missae, not Ordinarium. This was soon changed to the more classical Latin, Ordo Missae, again with the specification "of the Mass". I think the move that was here done without discussion should be speedily undone. Calling the request an "uncontested move request" was certainly over-hasty. Esoglou (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My motivation in proposing the move was to match this article with Proper (liturgy). Ordinary (liturgy) was already a redirect to this article. I've rewritten the intro to reflect the broader meaning of ordinary. While the article still needs a lot of work, hopefully the distinction between "ordinary" and "Order of Mass" as a particular type of ordinary is clearer.

Also, as for the procedure of this move, the move request was posted here and at the move request page for over a week with no comments. Dohn joe (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my mistake. This page was on my watchlist, but somehow I failed to notice the request when first posted and wrongly presumed that it had appeared only shortly before the page was moved.

However, I am still opposed to the change. Esoglou (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent revisions to the article, Esoglou. The only thing I'd change is replacing Liturgy of the Hours with Canonical hours, which is a more inclusive term for the hours - would you agree to that change?

As for your opposition to the move, do you agree that there should be a page covering the general concept of the ordinary? I would have no problem agreeing that Order of Mass might merit a page of its own (as the other commenter mentioned). I just didn't think that Ordinary (liturgy) should be a mere redirect to Order of Mass. As you pointed out, it's a much broader concept, both denominationally and in content. Dohn joe (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the context here imposes either "Liturgy of the Hours", "Divine Office", or "canonical hours". So I am indifferent to the choice between them. The body of this article is still really about the Order of Mass or, as it used to be called much more commonly among English-speaking Roman Catholics, the Ordinary of the Mass. The article has only a brief mention of the only other form of liturgy that has an ordinary in the sense that "ordinary" has in the phrase "the Ordinary of the Mass", together with a necessarily longer introduction explaining the quite wide range of meanings of "ordinary (liturgy)". I think this introductory part should be made into an independent article, which could incorporate everything in the present article except the information on the Order of Mass, which deserves an article on its own. The article on "ordinary (liturgy)" would not go into details about the Order of Mass, but would mention it and provide a link to a distinct article on it. Esoglou (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Would the article on the Order/Ordinary of Mass be Catholic-specific? And if so, should there be an article on the ordinary of the Eucharist that covers all the Western liturgical denominations? Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The content is (and in any revision that I find it possible to envisage would continue to be) basically about the Roman Rite Mass, perhaps with observations about variations in Western rites based upon the Roman. I don't think it would be practicable to include Eastern rites and perhaps not even the Mozarabic Rite. The names of the musical compositions are generally based on the first word of the Latin (or Greek for Kyrie) texts of the Roman Rite. It isn't a matter of being Catholic-specific. After all, even the Roman Catholic Church uses many rites other than the Roman. Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you be willing to propose the split of this article? Also, as to the content, do you think it currently focuses too much on the musical aspect of the ordinary? After all, we also have Mass (music), which goes into greater detail. In particular, I'd think that the current section "Music" could be deleted or moved to Mass (music), leaving a more structural discussion of the parts of the ordinary (which could also be renamed perhaps). What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best that I leave it to you to make the formal proposal that this article be split. You know the field better than I do. I knew nothing of the existence of the page with the vague title of "Ordinary (liturgy)" until that title replaced "Order of Mass". I did know of the existence of the article "Mass (music)", but I had not been interested in reading it until now. I see that it does cover the same field as the subsection in the present article on the choir parts of the Order of Mass. So that subsection could indeed be replaced by a short mention of the matter and a link to the article that deals specifically with the matter, merging into that other article anything worthwhile that is given only here. This action of reducing the present article and merging material from it into the other can of course be done without making a formal proposal. I think it is best that I leave this also to you. Esoglou (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the music part should be moved (if not already there) to Mass (music), with a proper link. Then we don't have to discuss here that Bach composed 5 masses, not one as said above under Neglect, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay - I've recreated Order of Mass, and moved various things around from this page to there and Mass (music) and Alternatim. I was juggling a lot of pages at once, so feel free to point out any glaring mistakes. Dohn joe (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. The link to Order of the Mass should be placed sooner in the article, though, because in the Roman catholic terminology the Eucharist is (only) the second part of the mass, starting with Sanctus. I am not familiar enough to do that, because it means probably to reword the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Gregorian chant.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gregorian chant.gif, 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) 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)