Talk:Mass of Paul VI

De facto rename

A de facto renaming of this article is taking place. @Bealtainemí: has created a redirect named Post-Vatican II Mass (fair enough) and has begun to replace links pointing to Mass of Paul VI with the new redirect. I am not cool with this. We agreed that the current name of this article is the most appropriate one. Therefore there is no basis to arbitrarily begin renaming it per the failed proposal. Elizium23 (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That's poor behavior, @Bealtainemí:. Cut it out. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Elizium23 and PluniaZ presumed that my edits were a bad-faith attempt to circumvent the negative decision against moving to "Vatican II Mass" (not "Post-Vatican II Mass", which was not proposed nor even discussed, nor was it a positive decision that "Mass of Paul VI" was the most appropriate term possible). For more, see Talk:Post-Vatican II Mass. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note this. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bealtainemí: could you explain this and this? Veverve (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Dear Veverve, since you object, I'll revert. I thought the more common name is the more appropriate. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Apologies since I'm not sure how this works, but has the name "Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite" been considered as a title for thr page? It's a much more common name, and it's technically more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozone742 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ozone742: no; as of the promulgation of Traditionis custodes the Holy See has deprecated the terms "Ordinary Form" and "Extraordinary Form" and therefore they are projected to see usage reduced and relegated to only Traditionalist and dissenting circles. Elizium23 (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen any reference to this notion in Traditionis custodes. That letter generally refers to the forms of the Roman Rite by their particular missals. I.e. 1962 and 1970 missals. Ozone742 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Francis refers to the Mass of Paul VI as the "unique expression" of the Roman Rite, which pundits are saying is a repudiation of the dichotomy suggested by Benedict XVI. (It may also be a curious slap in the face to the Anglican Use or Divine Worship: The Missal, which is a most recently revised "expression" of the Roman Rite in its own right.) Elizium23 (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the quote, but where does he actually dismiss the terms that Benedict XVI? Just because someone took it that way doesn't really mean anything. Beyond that, I haven't seen him ever use the term "Mass of Paul VI." Instead he just seems to refer to it as the 1970 missal. It's certainly not a slap in the face to the other forms found in the Latin Church but that's a separate discussion. Ozone742 (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The most commonly-used liturgy

It seems that the liturgy used in 95% of parishes, religious communities, missions, etc. of the Catholic Church is without a doubt the most commonly-used, and it bears mention in the article so that people who are reading who haven't the faintest clue what different Masses look like, can differentiate the most commonly-used liturgy from less commonly-used ones. Elizium23 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"Beginnings of the modern revision, 1948–1962"

@Jahaza: when do you expect to have finished your research on this section? What is unsourced should be removed, as per WP:V. Veverve (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not just up to me to do the work. You need to contribute to the article not just remove stuff.--Jahaza (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"). The banner you added also says: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Either you source, or I remove. There is none of those information I could find. Veverve (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not the collaborative process through which the encyclopedia is supposed to work. Furthermore, I added a source and you removed the sourced material. Additionally, you wrote falsely in your edit summary that I stated that I did not intend to add any additional sources when I said no such thing. --Jahaza (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is not the collaborative process through which the encyclopedia is supposed to work: it definetely is. Removing unsourced claims is the best way to ensure WP:V and to avoid WP:CITOGENESIS. You must have a very good reason to oppose the removal of unsourced material.
• I added a source and you removed the sourced material: my bad, the source you added does source more than one line
• you wrote falsely in your edit summary that I stated that I did not intend to add any additional sources; yet you stated: It's not just up to me to do the work.

Veverve (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have checked your source again: only the line I had left was to be found in said source. The other information (prayer to the HR Emperor, etc.) is nowhere to be found in this source. Veverve (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that I "yet" stated a completely different thing is not proof that I said something I didn't say. --Jahaza (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You wrote: much of what you're saying isn't there is in fact there. This is false. There is no mention of any of those information apart from the last one. Otherwise, please tell me where those information are in the source. Veverve (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you intend to say where in the source the information in the list can be found, and to add sources for the other information in this section? Or are you simply WP:STONEWALLING? Veverve (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

@Ozone742: you have removed sourced info and changed other info, despite the fact those info were sourced. Veverve (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I already explained this to you. I removed a section that had nothing to do with the 1970 Missal. Meaning it had nothing to do with the article. Please explain the issue here. I edited the section on EPII because the original inferred that there is a concensus regarding its origin that isn't verified. There is no source given that shows a majority of scholars calling the Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus into question.

So I wrote the sentence using more neutral language. Ozone742 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Published when exactly?

I take it that my correction ("published by him in 1970") is the right one to make, given the later sentence "The editions of the Mass of Paul VI Roman Missal (1970, 1975, 2002)..". Harfarhs (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)