Talk:Pontifical High Mass

Query

Isn't a pontifical high mass a mass celebrated by any primate or patriarch? Fishhead64 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Churches don't really use the "high" and "low" distinction, and wouldn't typically call the Liturgy "Mass" either. If I understand your question, the answer is that I think this is a fairly distinct western phrase. Gimmetrow 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Eastern Churches, in fact, do draw the distinction [between pontifical and non-pontifical Mass -ed], but refer to the equivalent as "Hierarchical Divine Liturgy." It, too, has its own unique ceremonies given the presence of a bishop/metropolitan.patriarch, or many of the same.HarvardOxon 02:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Anglo-Catholic version of the Anglican tradition, in any event, I have attended masses celebrated by metropolitans and a primate which were designated "pontifical high masses," which is why I ask. Fishhead64 04:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is about a form of Tridentine Mass. The 1970 reform of the Roman Missal abolished the cut-and-dried distinction between High Mass and Low Mass. So if the word "high" is removed from Fishhead's question and "Latin" added ("Isn't a pontifical mass a mass celebrated by any Latin primate or patriarch?"), the present-day answer is: "Yes, even if the bishop celebrating the Mass does not have the rank of primate or patriarch." (I presume Fishhead is not asking about Anglican practice, which he knows best.) Lima 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And thus the trouble with synonymous expressions. I pulled out my Ritual Notes and there was a whole section on the ceremonial associated with a "pontifical high mass" in the Anglican tradition, in this case referrring to a mass celebrated by a diocesan, metropolitan, or primate from his/her throne. Given the current ambiguous title of the article, I felt it was appropriate to append a brief explanation of this alternative use of the expression. Fishhead64 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the real reason why traditionally the Epistle and Gospel are read in both Greek and Latin in a Papal Pontifical Mass is that Greek was the original language of the Church of Rome and that the practice dates back to the transition time when both Greek and Latin speakers made up the assemblied Roman congregation at a papal mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.152.174 (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Eastern rite sentence

Why did someone remove Eastern rite from the pic comment? Please don't remove, if you don't know a thing aobut the subject.Smith2006 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow simplified on the grounds that the ordinary reader would be unable to "note" the presence of Eastern-rite clergy in the picture. Smith2006, who claims to "know a thing about the subject", implies that he can easily distinguish the Easterners from the Latins in the picture (can he really? - by the way, I can, being in almost daily contact with Eastern-rite clergy, and so I suppose I do know some little thing about it); but the article must take into account readers who in Smith2006's judgement "don't know a thing about the subject". I agree with Gimmetrow. Lima 12:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was my reason. If you want to add text explaining what identifies the Easterns in the picture, that would be fine (at least in this article, where it fits); my attempts to do that made the caption too long. Gimmetrow 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The figure at the bottom right, where the candle flame is, is an Eastern Deacon, which is evident from the way he is wearing a Stole. Western Deacons wear their Stole over the left shoulder pinned under the right arm, and all under the Dalmatic. Eastern Deacons wear the Stole over the Sticharion, which is more or less equivalent to the Dalmatic. It is looped under the right arm and then both ends hang over the left shoulder (front and back) again. 128.100.110.82 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The term Eastern rite is no longer used, because it implies that the only differences between the western and eastern churches is that of ritual, while most scholars now which to emphasize that the eastern churches have a complete religious tradition of their own, their own theological understanding, their own forms of piety, their own monastic traditions, etc, hence the preferred terms now is eastern churches, not eastern rite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.152.174 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

===Canonici in habitu diaconi eius brachia sustentante===Josef A Jungmann SJ in his book The Early Liturgy (Notre Dame, 1959) p. 131, states that the custom of having attendants walking on either side of a royal personage on formal occassions is mentioned as early as II KIngs 5:18 where Naaman the Syrian asks as the prophet Elijah's pardon when his king enters tghe temple of Remmom 'leaning on my arm for support'--the very words used in the Caeremoniale episcoporum for this function. He notes that references to it are also found in the Gospel of Peter (35-40). Jungmann maintains that from the Oriental royal courts this tradition entered into the Roman imperial court ritual and from there into the papal becoming an exclusively imperial and papal prerogative by the Middle Ages. By the seventh century two deacons always are said to accompany the pope, sustentantes eum. But not only mitered cardinal deacons sustain the pope this way, but ordinary deacons also sustain archbishops, bishops and mitered abbots. I have been informed by a Serbian Orthodox deacon that he has also sustained his bishop in a similiar manner. The British monarch is sustained by the Anglian bishops of Bath and Wells and of Durham from the moment he/she enters Westminster Abbey for his/her coronation until he/she leaves again and the queen consort is similiarly accompanyied by Anglican bishops. Frederick Barbarossa was said to have accompanied at his imperial coronation by two German bishops, so the custom appears to has survived in the imperial court ritual as well. This is a very ancient ritual well-spread. Some reference to it should made in connection with such rituals as the pontifical and papal solemn masses, as well as other solemn occasions such as solemn vespers and processions.67.52.199.50 (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)(Marquette}

description of the blessing (i.e., different form used by a bishop)

Near the end of a celebration of a Tridentine Mass, the celebrant gives the blessing. Please indicate where on Wikipedia the expanded form used by a bishop is described. In giving the actual blessing, a bishop makes (via movement of his right hand) 3 crosses going from left to right (in invoking Father, Son, Holy Ghost respectively); a non-bishop still invokes Father, Son, and Holy Ghost but only makes one (usually larger) cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.52.3 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 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: consensus not to move. (non-admin closure) KSFT ^(t|c) 05:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Pontifical High Mass → Papal High Mass – Plenty of sources seem to confirm this as an alternative. WP:CONCISE per WP:CONSISTENCY with Papal Mass as well as most things Papal around Wikipedia. PPEMES (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 23:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This request demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the term, which is debunked by the article lede itself: a Pontifical High Mass may be celebrated by any bishop. You mention "plenty of sources" which you do not cite. I can likewise cite plenty of sources which disprove your assertion, the Catholic Encyclopedia for starters. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a mere grammatics consistency concern. Are you saying Papal mass should also be spelled Pontifical mass? PPEMES (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at here. A Papal Mass is a specialized format of a Pontifical Mass. All Papal Masses are Pontifical Masses, but not all Pontifical Masses are Papal Masses. In particular, also, Papal Mass describes both the extraordinary form up through 1962 and the modern ordinary form ceremonials. This article you are proposing to move describes only the extraordinary form, because in the ordinary form, there are no sharp distinctions between "high Mass" and "low Mass" and the use of pontificals. Elizium23 (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Are we not to treat "pontifical" as a synonym to "papal" per wiktionary:pontifical? PPEMES (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you somehow miss definition 1.1? "Of or pertaining to a bishop; episcopal." Elizium23 (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Pontifical university, does it pertain to the pope or some other bishop? If does pertain to the pope, does that mean that pontifical high mass would then be the only instance where pontifical refers to a bishop (but not the pope)? Or are there any more examples? PPEMES (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Why do you bring up red herrings? This will only cloud the issue at hand. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just trying to discern whether this article may not simply be called "solemn papal mass" per consistency with "papal mass", or whether in fact papal mass should be moved to "pontifical mass" then? It's originally a pure linguistic consistency concern. PPEMES (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As I just explained to you, these articles are on different topics, with different scopes. Elizium23 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So I gather here "pontifical" pertains to pontiff, and not the pope specifically, and that's why it should stay? PPEMES (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Elizium23. Changing to papal changes the context of the article. And to answer PPEMES's question above, that is exactly my understanding. Pontifical (and pontiff) can refer to any bishop, not just the pope, whereas papal refers exclusively to the pope. CThomas³ (talk) 03:08, 11 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.