**Newly created Catholic Mass for the Care of Creation?** Apparently Pope Leo XIV inaugurated a new mass for the care of creation. This [source](https://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Mass-for-Creation-Time..pdf) says the the Feast of Creation is September 1st (or for any other day in Creation Time, September 1st - October 4th). Concerning this new mass or feast, what is the reasoning behind this new mass and feast? What is it’s liturgical rank as a feast? And why these dates for the Feast of Creation? Any insights about this new mass would be greatly appreciated.

We have a new member in our choir (Roman Catholic Church mass choir), who is a Jacobite. Can they sing the responsorial Psalm from the [ambo](https://www.saintbernadette.com/blog.php?month=202106&id=725398092&cat=&pg=5&title=Reflecting+Heaven+Part+10%3A+T) near the altar as they are not Catholic?

Why is the Byzantine Catholic Church also called the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church? Fr. Hardon's *Catholic Dictionary* defines "Ruthenian Rite " as: >The liturgy used by the Ruthenian Catholics in Poland, the United States, and elsewhere. Said in the Slavonic language, it differs but slightly from the Byzantine Rite in the Orthodox Church. I've even seen such churches called Ukrainian.

In the now defunct Sarum Rite (Usage) of the Roman Rite one can find the title of this **Feast of the Triumph of Christ over the Devil** as celebrated on February 15th. This “historical” feast was extremely ancient and is only found in some of the more ancient Sarum Liturgical Calendars. It is now completely obsolete. Sadly enough, I can not find sources of this feast online. It existed on a few of the more ancient documents and Sarum Liturgical Calendars. I am guessing that with regards to the Sarum Liturgical Calendar some online sources state that the inclusion in liturgy calendars of several *"historical dates"* was quite common in the Middle Ages, such as the listing of the [Resurrection of Our Lord on March 27th](https://archive.org/details/cu31924092460033/page/n31/mode/2up?view=theater) . Given the fact, that historical Liturgical sources would be very difficult to non-existant about what this feast of the ***Triumph of Christ over the Devil*** actually celebrated like or what Gospel events it entailed, would anyone have any input or information on what the Sarum meant by he Triumph of Christ over the Devil. If no such information can be found, would anyone possibly have the liturgical inclination as to what the inspiration and meaning would be and why it would be placed on February 15th. As a side note, this question may be of help or interest to some: [Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47170/did-the-annunciation-and-good-friday-coincide) I would prefer a Canon or traditional type of answer. However, if no one can provide a response that is factually supported, one that is based liturgical principles and/or tradition Catholic logic will be acceptable.

In my parish (err pastorate) there has recently been some hubbub about the music directors not wanting to do "chant" any more, which I believe they refer to as "anything you can't play with a flourish on a piano". In any event, some of the more traditional minded parishioners (pastoratees?) have uncovered their plot to undermine their own sacred duties and petition the Bishop to get out of singing the antiphons at Mass. What this sounds like, and if you've never heard it before - you're probably not alone, I had never heard this. At the beginning of Mass, the cantor belts out one verse of a psalm and then the opening hymn is played. Then before communion, she belts out another verse. She always uses the same psalm tone with no accompaniment and it always seems very out of place. So I can agree with the music directors, to a point, but I think like Christianity itself, singing the antiphons during Mass isn't something that has been tried and found difficult, it's something that has been done poorly and left for dead by professional liturgists. So can anyone point me to an example of what the antiphons _should_ sound like during Mass and does anyone know what kind of leeway music directors have with them - when is it appropriate to leave them out altogether?

Syriac Christianity (as well as with other oriental orthodoxy denominations) today use Arabic as their liturgical language. It is known that they have been using Arabic since the times of Muslim invasions, as early as second half of 8th Century (as suggested here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7304/when-did-arabic-enter-into-usage-as-a-liturgical-language-among-orthodox-christi , *The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque* by Sidney Griffith also mentioned the same). But why did they turn into Arabic instead of keeping Aramaic as their liturgical language? Is it because: - Arabic became the *lingua franca* and it is easier to reach common people (non-priest) if they use Arabic instead of Aramaic. - If it is so, I wonder why? Was the influence of Arabs so strong that they have to use Arabic? Or was the use of Aramaic banned during the Muslims rule? Why can't they maintain the usage of Aramaic, as the Muslims do (until now) with Arabic as their liturgical language? - Also, if this was the case, doesn't this mean Syriac Christianity was the first Christianity to "localized" their language to every day man, not Protestant Christianity? - Syriac Christian priests were involved in intense theological debates and discussions with the dominationg Muslim theologians. So they use Arabic to make it easier for their Muslim friends to understand their points. - Or maybe both? Or are there any other reasons? I hope I layed out my question/explanation clear, since English is not my mother tounge.

Background = I recently went to a Lebanese festival at a Maronite church and was curious about the difference between that Eastern Catholic Rite and the Melkite rite. When asking about Maronites, I got this main answer: "Melkites primarily worship with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom while Maronites use the Liturgy of St. James" While I have grown up going to Melkite masses and am therefore familiar with the St. John Chrysostom liturgy, I am not sure what a St. James liturgy is. I also tried asking my Catholic in-laws and they didn't know either. So I come here to ask the question Question = What is a "St. James" liturgy mass and how does it differ from a "St. John Chrysostom" liturgy?

I'm listening and following compline that was livestreamed here but the final Marian antiphon at the end doesn't seem to the prescribed Marian antiphon in my Monastic Diurnal. Can someone explain what they are singing here? According to my Monastic Diurnal, it says *From Feb 2, even if the Feast of Purification has been transferred, through Wed of Holy Week*: the Antiphon is Ave, Regina caelorum. https://kerkdienstgemist.nl/stations/1972/events/recording/174223800001972

Inspired by [my answer here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/104930/10672) , I wonder how the LDS church celebrates Jesus's Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection in terms of liturgies and/or practices during the Holy Week. How does it compare with the Catholic liturgies for the [Paschal Triduum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_Triduum) which include the following liturgies to help the faithful to internalize what Jesus went through during the defining moments of his life since we believers are **in union with Him** in suffering, death, and resurrection? - **Holy Thursday mass** on Thursday evening (the stripping of the altar followed with a solemn procession to the [altar of repose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altar_of_repose)) - **Good Friday mass** (without the glory and without consecration) - **Easter Vigil** (focusing on the Paschal candle being the light that shines in the darkness) - **Easter Sunday** (celebrating the resurrection with special readings, hymns, and prayers, first day of the [Easter Octave](https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/easter-octave/)) See this article [*Liturgical Highlights: Holy Week and the Sacred Triduum*](https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/liturgical-highlights-holy-week-and-sacred-triduum/) for details and examples on how the faithful prepare for the liturgies at home and at church.

Is there the expectation among the early Christians to give a 10% of their income to the Church?

**What are the correct liturgical bows that the clergy and faithful expected to do in Catholic churches and while at mass?** When I was younger, all Catholics that entered a Catholic church always genuflected towards the Blessed Sacrament, before going to their place and knelt down in prayer. At one time, priests always genuflected before entering the sanctuary. This would be true for readers and extraordinary ministers. Nowadays things seem to have all changed. Almost everyone seems to just do some sort of little head bowing, if they do anything all. There seems to be a lack of concrete liturgical rules gouverning external gestures at Catholic masses and in Catholic churches. Are there any liturgical rules concerning bowing in church and mass. I would be greatly interested in knowing what are the liturgical bows of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (Mass of Pope St. Pius V) and the Ordinary Form of the Mass (Mass of Pope Paul VI).

Archibishop Cupich asked his flock to not kneel before receiving communion: [Cardinal Cupich Asks Catholics ‘to Receive Holy Communion Standing’ in Chicago Archdiocese](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/cardinal-cupich-asks-catholics-to-receive-holy-communion-standing-in-chicago-archdiocese?) . But I took a personal vow to always receive communion kneeling and on the tongue. In general, should a Catholic follow his or her own conscience in matters like this or abide by the reasoned dictates of an Archbishop? Or, to put another way, what level of fealty does a Catholic have to their Bishop in personal liturgical practices which are allowed by canon law?

I asked catholic.chat this question already, and was unimpressed by the responses. Apparently the Cdl. Cupich gives for outlawing kneeling while receiving communion is that it is an act of Communal Worship to stand in line and receive communion while still standing, rather than stand in line and receive communion while kneeling (or before a communion rail shoulder to shoulder with your fellow (non-mortal) sinners). Catholic.chat said: > 1. **Posture of Unity**: Standing together as a congregation can symbolize a shared commitment and active participation in the worship experience. It visually represents the unity of the faithful as they approach the altar together, highlighting their collective identity as the Body of Christ. Kneeling, while also a posture of reverence, can sometimes create a more individual experience, as it may emphasize personal humility and devotion. > > 2. **Movement Together**: When the faithful stand and process forward to receive Communion, it emphasizes the communal journey of faith. This act of moving together in a line as one body can foster a sense of belonging and shared purpose. Kneeling, on the other hand, might not have the same dynamic of movement and collective action, as individuals may kneel at different times or in different ways. > > 3. **Joy and Celebration**: Standing can convey a sense of joy and celebration, which aligns with the nature of the Eucharist as a feast. This joyful aspect can enhance the communal atmosphere of the liturgy, inviting everyone to share in the experience together. Kneeling, while reverent, might evoke a more solemn or personal tone that could detract from the communal celebration. > >4. **Inclusivity**: Standing may also be more accessible for all members of the congregation, including those with physical limitations. This inclusivity can enhance the sense of community, ensuring that everyone can participate fully in the reception of Communion. Everything on this list could be argued that it is enhanced by kneeling while receiving communion. I know the Church is not a democracy, but it usually draws on the Natural Law for first principles and this is just seems completely backwards. It also seems like the Cardinal is stressing "Communion" as communion with the congregation over "Communion" as Communion with Christ. So, I can only assume there has to be a more striking and important reason for which we should overtly ban kneeling to receive Communion which strengthens our Communion with Christ or else this would be a patently evil move on the part of Cardinal Cupich, which I, or any Catholic, would be loathe to accuse him of. So why is standing considered more communal than kneeling?

One might claim that catholic liturgy is heavily based on scripture. And in deed, e.g. the liturgy of the mass is full of direct and indirect quotes (or other allusions) from biblical texts. Some of the more obvious ones are > Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. (Direct quote from Joh 1,29) or > Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed. (Mostly from Math 8,8) A more indirect one might be > The Lord be with you. -- And with your spirit. (The first part might be found similarly in several verses, such as Ruth 2,4; 1. Chr 22,11. The response might allude to 2. Tim 4,22) My question is: **Is there an annotated text of the liturgy of the mass (or at least the ordinarium) which gives all these direct and indirect quotes and maybe also the more indirect allusions from scripture?** Since there is substantial overlap in the liturgic texts between the ordinary form of the mass and the traditional latin rite, an annotated text of the vetus ordo might also be helpful.

I just heard on [the loopCast](https://open.spotify.com/episode/72M8UH1L74eYIRfh2R9Ngn?si=8875c901459745a0) that the Jefferson diocese banned the following hymns from use at churches: - All Are Welcome - Ashes - Bread of Life - Celtic Alleluia - Covenant Hymn - For the Healing of the Nations - God Has Chosen Me - Haleluya! We Sing Your Praises - Led By the Spirit - Many and Great - Table of Plenty - Three Days https://diojeffcity.org/blog/2024/10/28/decree-prohibiting-certain-hymns-and-listing-suggested-mass-settings/ I understand the banned composers are under suspicion of some sort of malfeasance, but what was the reason for banning these songs? I don't love many of them, but I do love "Table of Plenty" - especially the John Michael Talbot version. Are these songs just bad for liturgy or are they bad in general? And what in particular is bad about each of these songs?

We started a "new tradition" a few years ago of having a Mass at the cemetery with a procession at night on All Souls Day. This year, All Souls Day is on a Saturday. According [to this](https://catholicvote.org/archdiocese-explains-how-weekend-will-affect-all-saints-day-all-souls-day-masses-this-year/) it means that the Mass is not truly an All Souls Day Mass. I'd imagine that also means that the vestments should be green and the readings from the Sunday Mass, etc... Does it also mean that the intentions ought to be regular Sunday intentions as opposed to something special that we'd be likely to do on All Souls Day? Is it inappropriate to treat the events after Mass as if it were still All Souls Day?

Of late, it has become a rule rather than exception to celebrate Holy Mass along with the Sacrament of Matrimony, in many places. It is beneficial on Sundays for the invitees who may come from far off places. But, with back-to-back Services to cater to increased number of the faithful, many churches do not allow marriage on Sundays. That puts additional burden on weekdays on churches which may have to accommodate too many number of weddings combined with Holy Mass, each running into hours. Moreover, with inter-faith marriages increasing in frequency, it becomes a matter of worry for the Celebrant to ' convince' non-Catholics (and sometimes Non-Christians) who come forward to receive Holy Communion. It is also not clear if the Holy Mass can be interluded with the prayers of Sacrament of Matrimony, with the Celebrant digressing from the Missal here and there to insert prayers ' suitable to the special occasion' My question is : What are the rules of Catholic Church on celebration of Holy Mass along with the administration of Sacrament of Matrimony ?

In the Latin Church, the [Liturgical Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_Movement) and the Second Vatican Council resulted in broad liturgical changes. To what extent has liturgy changed in the Eastern churches during the past 50 to 100 years? I am interested in any or all of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern Catholic.

Where my congregation gathers, we have a Brethren-like "house church" system, which means that we have no building for the church meeting. But the number of members is increasing and we are about to face a decision: split the members into 2 house groups, or go up and rent a hall in order to gather everyone in one place. We had a discussion about that with the elders and one argument was that > There is no reference of a christian regular gathering model in the New Testment other than house gathering (eg. Act 2:46; Rom 16:5, 14, 15; 1Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 2). And the reference of the Temple in Acts 2:6 wasn't properly a christian meeting, but a practice of Judaism transfered to Christianity at that time. But the counter-argument to the above was that > There is no doctrine at all about the **place** of gathering in the New Testment. We have doctrine about how to gather, what to do and how to do almost everything in the church meeting, how to order the meeting, even the necessity of gather, but no word is written about **where** the meeting has to take place. We only have examples and to make theology out of examples we need to (specially) consider the context, and in considering the early church context (historical, cultural, religious, thological) we see why they gathered in houses, but this is no such thing as a limit, but a solid ground for us to build upon. ## The controversy After the discussion, the question was settled: **are the examples of house gatherings in the New Testament an evidence of a theological stablishment, an oral doctrinal statement and a common sense at the early church that just houses are expected to host the Church regular gathering? Or just the natural flow that the Holy Spirit chose?** ## My questions 1. Is there any writing from a reliable source of church meeting in the early church (400AD-) outside the context of a house host? 2. Is there any writing from a reliable source that the church had a prohibition on theological grounds for hosting a meeting in a rented or built hall instead of the house context? 3. Is there any good argument about why we should host the church regular meeting in a hall building, if there is no example of that in the NT? ---------- *Sorry for my bad English, Portuguese speaker here. God bless.*

I've gone past a mormon church near my house quite a few times now and I'm keen to give it a visit. However I am prevented by the fact that I can't find any website which lists their service times or any other related information. This got me wondering, what do mormons actually get up to? I'm not even sure that they actually have a Sunday (or other day) service which is comparable to mainstream evangelical churches. After a bit of research, I've discovered that mormons have a variety of liturgies and sacramental rituals which they perform in special circumstances, and it all seems rather secretive. What I'm wondering about, is if they have some sort of "anyone is welcome" regular meeting similar to mainstream protestants. If so, what happens during this meeting? For example does it follow the usual evangelical format of - song - bible reading - sermon - (optional) Communal confession - (optional) apostles/nicene creed - (optional) lords supper - song - announcements - conclusion - song - informal mingling, doughnuts and coffee/tea and biscuits"?