Talk:Christian liturgy

Link

I think the link to liturgy (which now describes liturgy in general) should be somehow incorporated into this article. Perharps in some short definition in the beginning? (I'm not feeling competent to write it myself.) Vojta 08:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what a paraliturgy is? All I can find on it are pictures of events and lesson plans for Catholic schools. The word is not in the dictionary and I can't find it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. --obo 23:49, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A paraliturgy is a Catholic liturgy of the Roman Rite not found in one of the four liturgical books.

Bias

Someone really needs to edit this entry. I may do so if I can find the time. It simply displays incredible Roman Catholic bias. It is like writing a history of Judaism from the perspective of Orthodox Jews only. Has the writer ever entertained one single thought that the church in which he was raised (or converted to) is other than the True Church? It's just not acceptable as a general reference. Readers be forewarned.

I'm not Roman Catholic, and I don't see it - it looks to me like a fair sampling of RC, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and few others that have strongly liturgical traditions. And you refer to "the writer" when it has more than one. But why don't you try contributing instead of just grousing? Carlo 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Someone really need to edit this entry." Sadly, in the WikiUniverse, the only "Someone" there is, is you. --Sean Lotz 05:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the only bias I noted was in the list of names used by Anglicans for Communion toward the more Anglo-Catholic & ritualist side of the Church of England, hence my adding the two names found in the Book of Common Prayer & a link to the Churchmanship article to explain that the names are variable within the CofE. By the way, while describing the edit I accidentally hit send before I could finish my description; sorry about that. Nusrich 06 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Submit external website

Whatever one might think of the Catholic Encyclopedia external link, it is limited by having been published in 1908, and so has no concept of developments in the last century, including Vatican II and the major changes within the Roman Catholic Church. Hence, I would like to submit an external link Liturgy website. This is a contemporary liturgical website which includes Celebrating Eucharist, as far as I know the only online "ceremonial guide" - a contemporary explanation and guide with theory and practice for the Eucharist and other liturgies in Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and other denominations. --Alcuinz 05:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As there has been no disagreement with my comment above after more than a week, I am placing the site as an external link. --Alcuinz 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Dogmatic Value" section

Is this taken primarily from the Catholic Encyclopedia? The whole tone is decidedly POV/Roman. --Midnite Critic 12:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire Liturgical science sections, titles and all, appears to have been taken from here: http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/r/rites.html, which claims copyright: "CatholiCity.com © 1996-2007 The Mary Foundation" Stephen 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

There is a strong POV on this article, toward the Roman Catholic direction (references to priest, canon law, etc, taken as normative and assumed; the patterns of worship used in many Protestant churches summarily dismissed). Pastordavid 10:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? If this is so, please correct it, as you are a protestant pastor! If not, don't claim for POV, please!

First, sign your entries. Second, it IS POV, and not only POV, but dated POV. --Midnite Critic 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Then, as the person said, correct it. Carlo 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okie-dokie... --Midnite Critic 13:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree about the POV comments and would suggest that the history section (Labeled History of the Roman Catholic Mass (Liturgy)) be made into History of the Liturgy. This history is MY history as well and I am not RC. Again (as I have commented multiple times), why do we focus on our differences before we focus on our commonalities? I would suggest STARTING with the history, as well. I like chronological order. Reverend Mommy 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Oh, yeah. Dearest Midnite Critic, I volunteer to help edit. I excel at adding my two cents worth. =o) Reverend Mommy 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Hee-hee. You too, huh? <g></g> --Midnite Critic 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions in Reworking Article

I suggest we use a structure like this (No more than a sentence or two for each -- each actually could use their own article, IMHO, but I'm a Liturgy Geek):

• History of the Liturgy
  • From Jewish to Christian Rite
    • The Chaborah Meal
    • The Passover Meal
  • The Institution Narrative
    • 1 Corinthians 11
    • Synoptics
    • John
  • Justin the Martyr stuff
  • Irenaeus stuff
  • Anaphora of Hippolytus
    • The Patristic Approach to the Eucharistic Sacrifice
  • Ambrose and Augustine
  • Anaphora of Addai and Mari
  • Liturgy of St. James
    • Mozarabic and Gallican Rite
    • The compromises leading to the Western Rite
  • The Berengarian Controversy and Medieval Eucharistic Theologies
  • Aquinas
  • Reformation
  • Modern Developments

Then look at the structure and commonalities: Service of the Word

• The Invocation or "Call to worship"
  • Introit, Psalms, Hymns, spiritual songs.
• Salutation
• Collect
• Confession
  • Absolution
• Kyrie & Gloria
• Liturgical Readings (call and response)
• Alleluia Verse and other responses
• Scripture readings, culminating in a reading from one of the Gospels.
• Offering

(The offering is sometimes called the Lesser Oblation and constitutes a "Bridge" between the Service of the Word and the Service of the Table

Service of the Table

• The Creed
• The Prayers
• The Lord's Prayer
• The Anaphora
  • sursum corda
  • Sanctus
  • oblation
  • anemnesis
  • Verba
  • Epiclesis
• Commemoration of the Saints and prayers for the faithful departed.
• Intercessory prayers for the church and its leadership, and often, for earthly rulers.
• Incense

This is messy, but I did it all from memory. Let me know what you think. Reverend Mommy 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

That's great; however, probably more appropriate for an article focusing on the history of the Eucharist. IMHO, however, this article on "Christian liturgy" needs to be broader and less in-depth, covering not only the Eucharist but also the liturgy of the hours, at the least. --Midnite Critic 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comments

This feels like a start class article due to a surplus of list content and a shortage of prose content. It is definitely a good beginning, but readers would be better served with more prose. GRBerry 18:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian liturgy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080221180735/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian liturgy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119105305/http://www.saintsconstantineandelena.org/Liturgy/liturgy1.htm to http://www.saintsconstantineandelena.org/Liturgy/liturgy1.htm

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) 11:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given distinct and notable topics. Klbrain (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

---

I propose that Church service be merged into Christian liturgy. I think that the content in the Church service article can easily be explained in the context of Christian liturgy, and the Christian liturgy article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Church service will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Shmurak (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Merge, better be explained in the context of christian liturgy. --145.118.94.233 (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Support - The Chruch service article is poorly cited - Epinoia (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not see the point of two separate articles. --145.15.244.24 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Mild keep - While Christian liturgy currently looks like a list of various liturgical rites and books used by the various Christian faiths, Church service is a focused article on the formal meeting or ceremony itself, and its history. Both articles could be better, and topics are obviously linked, but there is imho room for both. Place Clichy (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep/Oppose merger: Two slightly different topics; service is a period of communal worship, while liturgy is the plan or pattern that a service operates by. Liturgy differs significantly by church. Moreover, I oppose having Church service redirect to this article because Service is a term in common usage whereas liturgy is a technical term. --Hazhk (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merger, they are different topics, as per above.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merger, they are completely different topics.----theislandpoet (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Votive Holders/Candles/Lamps

Are these in any way affected? Maybe this should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.228.189 (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

List of liturgies, or list of rites?

There is a list of rites within this article that is slowly becoming instead a list of liturgies. If we listed all the liturgies possible in the Roman Rite it would be a very long and exhaustive list (Solemn Mass, Low Mass, Votive Mass, Nuptial Mass, Rite of Baptism...) I think that we should stick to a high-level list of Rites only and not get into the weeds of individual liturgies within those Rites. There are plenty of Rites and those are the defining characteristics of different Churches. Elizium23 (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Split the list off into its own article

A number of redirects point to this article because of the list it contains, but many of them (eg. Christian liturgical rites) could equally point to Ritual family instead. While the list could be moved to that article, it would make more sense to split it and allow Christian liturgy and Ritual family to focus on the prose text which should constitute the bulk of the articles. Separating the list would also help to make it clearer as to what the best target for particular redirects is. – Scyrme (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support: a split to a list with a brief prose introduction to describe that some rites are no longer extant and that some are subordinate to broader ritual groupings seems like a good call. @Scyrme: I recommend notifying the WP Christianity Noticeboard watchers and adding notices to the talk pages of Protestant liturgy and the individual rites. This might even be worth opening as an RFC. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  RFC seems a bit much just to split a list off from a prose article; I doubt this is so controversial as to warrant that. I added a notice on the WikiProject noticeboard. I'll post on the talk pages you suggested if there's no engagement after a while. If you'd rather post notices now feel free to do so. – Scyrme (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)