Having sang [What a friend we have in Jesus](https://hymnary.org/text/what_a_friend_we_have_in_jesus_all_our_s) since childhood, sharing with Jesus my griefs (verse 1), my struggle with temptation (verse 2), and my toiling in life (verse 3) is natural for me. But when I encourage a lapsed Catholic friend (who grew up in pre-Vatican II era) to do the same with Jesus, I received a strong pushback, saying he is extremely uncomfortable seeing Jesus that way, how what he most appreciated about the Tridentine Mass is the **utmost respect** that everyone shows to God and to Christ, which is another reason he doesn't like to go to church anymore. I happened to hear him talking to his old high school friend, who to this day remains a devoted Catholic (and who also is a catechist at his parish), telling my friend that **for him missing daily mass feels like not visiting a "friend"** (he meant Jesus who is present bodily in the Eucharist). He then tried to disabuse my friend of his misconceptions of the *Novus Ordo* mass, how it's essentially unchanged doctrinally from the *Tridentine* mass, and encouraged my friend to resume his sacramental life. I don't plan to convert my friend to Protestantism but I am trying to **share the Gospel in Catholic terms**. I would be happy if my friend is willing to go to church again and to have a good relationship with Jesus, even in Catholic terms, like how his high school friend is doing. My friend is fine praying the Rosary, which is [in the same spirit](https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/h/hail-holy-queen-prayer.php) as *Salve Regina*. The *Salve Regina* text (see [here](https://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/SalveRegina.html) , along with the history and the liturgical use of the prayer) **contains similar language with *What a friend we have in Jesus* hymn but directed to Mary** > To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. followed by a request for Mary to "see" us with compassion and to "show" us Jesus: > Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us. And after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. While I personally do not have a problem with praying to Mary as an individual believer's 1. **spiritual mother** who as the second Eve has *compassion* for us, casualties of the original sin of the first Eve, who like an earthly mother *embraces* and *comforts* a crying child 2. **intercessor**, praying for our salvation, along with the angels and the saints 3. **advocate**, who points us to the One who can help us: God the Father who ***only*** through Jesus Christ His Son takes away our pain, sin, and suffering by our participating in the sacraments, I do wonder whether there is some truth in the Protestant's objection of how prayers to Mary **redirect some aspects** of a believer's relationship with Jesus. It seems to me that Catholic spirituality takes a **BOTH-AND** approach with regards to Jesus and Mary, **dividing the affections** that Protestants direct solely to Jesus. This division of affection by a Catholic seems to match the two main Catholic prayers: - **relating to Mary in the Marian prayers (Rosary, *Salve Regina*):** - as someone who understands us in our weakness like a close friend - as someone whom we are not afraid to approach, because she is "one of us" - as someone who loves us and comforts us like our earthly mother and who wants the best for us - **relating to Jesus as celebrated in the Mass:** - who is the awesome standard of holiness, thus reminds us of our sinfulness (*Kyrie Eleison*) - who is sent by the awesome glorious ruler of heaven and earth (*Sanctus*) - who is also the means of grace through His sacrifice (*Agnus Dei*, the Lamb "who takes away the sins of the world") which then explains perfectly my friend's reticence to relate to Jesus like how the hymn suggests (as a friend). This also explains his preferred attitude when going to mass (utmost respect). Given the above analysis, it now makes sense to me how Eleonore Stump labels her new Atonement Theory described in his 2018 book [*Atonement*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198813864) **Marian Interpretation** because her theory cannot be easily subsumed under any previous theories in history, though she relies heavily on Thomas Aquinas. In her account Jesus is portrayed as highly compassionate and as having complete solidarity with us in our weaknesses through complete **mind reading** in compassion & solidarity, hence the Marian aspects in *Salve Regina* ("see" and "show"). Believers no longer need to feel distant to God nor afraid of God's justice and holiness, but are instead motivated to lay our burdens to Jesus, receiving his love for us, being united with Him in the Eucharist, and agreeing to be molded to Jesus's image by being yoked with him. I try to understand a theological tradition and a spirituality in their own terms, so I want to understand the Catholic logic of the devotion to both Mary and Jesus **as Catholics understand it**. So, seeing how Catholics seem to relate to Mary as mother and "friend" but to Jesus mostly as Lord, Savior, and Exemplar, although both are united in love toward us (sojourners in exile, striving in the Church Militant), **can you help me understand the role of "friendship with Jesus" in Catholic spirituality**?

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?

The language that is used to describe the Mass as a sacrifice is confusing to me, i. e. calling it "Sacrificial Mass." I understand that Catholics say that Jesus continually offers himself as a sacrifice before God for our sins. From Is the Mass a Sacrifice? : > He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us...So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake What is happening during this offering? Why is is called "Sacrificial Mass" if no sacrifice is taking place but just a reference to the cross?

I noticed Hebrews is really the place where the Priesthood is discussed as how the priestly ceremonies are related to the Christian faith. It seem rather complete and in depth. Hebrews says a whole lot about the priesthood and even goes into ‘great depth’ explaining things ‘difficult to understand’. It covers many great mysteries fulfilled in Christ through the priesthood. As far as I know, Catholics view the mass as kind of mystical repetition of the sacrifice of Christ. Not that Christ is sacrificed again but that his one and only past sacrifice is somehow 'redone' by himself in an unexplainable way. Catholic priests officiate in the mass so that Christ, as the high priest ‘sacrifices himself’ in the present tense. This is done in order to further sanctify those who partake of the ceremony. If this were true, I can’t fathom why the author of the Hebrews would not somewhere indicate recognition of the existence of this practice. Would he not link it into his teaching of the priesthood and the high priest? **If believers were regularly partaking in a ‘mass’ with an understanding that Christ was sacrificed over and over, why does the Epistle to the Hebrews not seem to be aware of such an important aspect of the priesthood while it explains the meaning of the priesthood?**

According to the book "The Latin Mass Explained ", all of the ancient Christian churches that exist today celebrate the mass as a literal sacrifice of Christ, indicating this was the core ritual that they all shared, even though they went their separate theological ways. The Catholic mass itself is based on the situation of the early church in Rome, since the name is from the dismissal of non-Catholics before the sacrifice of the Eucharist, so this indicates the Catholic mass has been unchanged in its essential function as a sacrifice since the earliest days of the Christians in Rome. Here is a good article showing this is what the Catholic church believes, and a run down of evidence from church fathers that this was the early belief as well. Protestantism often claims to be true to proto-Christianity, what the earliest Christians believed, and in doing so has rejected all the man made rituals built up around this essential seed of the Christian life. Yet, Protestantism, as a whole, seems to have rejected the core function of the mass (as evidenced by this question ), which seems to be consistent with our best evidence as to the early purpose of the mass. So, this is confusing to me, since this suggests that Protestantism is not holding to the core ritual of the earliest form of Christianity. How do Protestants address this apparent discrepancy between the stated intent of Protestantism vs. what the evidence seems to suggest? UPDATE: Many see this question as similar to other questions asking about the Protestant take on transubstantiatio/real presence. This question is different, since while some Protestant groups (Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican) accept a doctrine similar to transubstantiation, no Protestant groups think the eucharist/communion is a literal sacrifice. However, based on the two lines of evidence above, that all ancient churches we know of viewed the eucharist as a literal sacrifice of Christ, and there are many writings of the early church fathers saying the same thing, then it is quite unexpected that no Protestant groups hold a similar view. Since the basis of Protestantism is rejecting man made rituals to return to original Christianity, it is surprising that all Protestants reject what appears to be a doctrine that all ancient churches considered the central purpose of their religious liturgy. I'm curious how Protestants deal with this discrepancy, since I've never heard anyone address it (I've heard many address the transubstantiation question). CLARIFICATION: This question isn't about the Catholic church. I just cite it as a source of evidence I'm most familiar with. However, the issue is broader than the Catholic church. It includes churches that think the Catholic church is heretical, and visa versa. It includes churches that respect the Catholic church, and churches that don't. The weird thing, which my question is about, is that all these ancient churches have the same thing in common, which is the eucharist as a literal sacrifice of Christ, suggesting this aspect is central to original Christianity.

I was surprised to learn that Ash Wednesday is not one of the Catholic Holy Days of Obligation (see [this list](https://www.omvusa.org/blog/catholic-holy-days-of-obligation/)) although it is listed [here](https://hallow.com/blog/holy-days-of-obligation/) as "important liturgical observances". I thought Catholics are obliged to go to Mass on Ash Wednesday, or do they just need to fast ([according to precept #4](http://www.stvincentschurch.com/uploads/4/2/5/8/42588219/the_precepts_of_the_catholi_church.pdf) because precept #1 says to "... attend Mass and holy days of obligation ...")? **Why not make Ash Wednesday into a "holy day of obligation"?** Wouldn't that day be at least as important (spiritually) as the 3 (out of 6 non-Sunday days) dedicated to Mary? (I'm also surprised that Good Friday is not in the list either, but I don't want to clutter this question).

The Catholic understanding of the celebration of the eucharist is that it is fundamentally a representation of Christ's sacrifice, and is a fulfillment of the Levitical sacrificial system. Are there Protestant denominations that continue this tradition of sacrificing God to Himself via the eucharist? To give some background as to why Catholics celebrate the eucharist this way, the reasoning is that sacrifice is a universal human expression of the ultimateness of God. It is not only about propitiation for sin. Mankind destructively sacrifices to God what is most materially precious to him to demonstrate that all he owns, including himself, belongs to God, and he is even willing to sacrifice his own life. The first instance of this is the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, which were not sacrifices as propitiation for sin, but rather sacrifices to indicate the supremacy of God above all created things. The Levitical sacrificial system is a continuation and elaboration of Abel's sacrifice, and sin propitiation is only one aspect of this system. That is why after Jesus' bloody sacrifice on the cross for our sins, and non bloody sacrifice during the institution of the Eucharist during the last supper, there is still a need for continual non bloody sacrifice, to still indicate God's supremacy. However, the Levitical system, and all previous sacrifices offered by humans are insufficient, since God is all sufficient and needs nothing from us, therefore nothing we can sacrifice to God is a worthy sacrifice. Jesus fixed this problem by offering God Himself, through Christ transubstantiated in the Eucharist, as a non bloody sacrifice during mass. So, that is why the Catholic church continues to offer the eucharist as a sacrifice of Christ, not because it doesn't believe Christ's death on the cross is all sufficient for forgiveness of sins, but because of the general institution of sacrifice as an expression of God's ultimateness, and only God is an adequate sacrifice for God. As a side note, this is why the Catholic understanding of the eucharistic sacrifice necessitates the doctrine of transubstantiation. If the bread and wine were not truly turned into Christ's divinity, then the eucharist would not truly be a sacrifice of God to Himself, and so we'd still have to be carrying on the Levitical animal sacrifice system, or something even more extreme.

**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).

I read in "The Latin Mass Explained" by Msgr. George J. Moorman that all known ancient Christian sects, distinct from the Catholic church, celebrate the mass as a sacrifice just like the Catholic church. This apparently is the entire point of the mass, that it is a continuation of the Judaic temple sacrifice, but since God doesn't need any created thing we can possibly sacrifice, the only sufficient sacrifice is God Himself, i.e. the doctrine of transubstantiation in the eucharist. In fact, Jesus carries out this sacrifice of himself during the last supper, even before his crucifixion. The idea is that sacrifice is not originally about atonement for sins, since sacrifice existed before the Mosaic sacrificial system. Instead, the fundamental reason is man destroying his most valuable possessions for the sake of God, indicating that all he is, is subjugated to God as the highest thing. However, nothing created equals God, so nothing is truly a sufficient sacrifice except God Himself, and so that is what is sacrificed in the mass via transubstantiation. The book has the Vatican's imprimatur and is written by a monsignor, so seems fairly trustworthy regarding official Catholic teaching on the matter. Is this book's claim correct, that all known ancient churches have the same understanding of the mass, that it is the actual sacrifice of God to Himself?

I learned recently the name "mass" comes from the Latin "misa" which means dismissal. In the early church in Rome, the preparation portion of the mass could be attended by all, but then when it came time to sacrifice the Eucharist, all non-Catholics were dismissed. > To remain until the missa or dismissal of the catechumens, is easily changed into: to remain for, or during, the Missa of the Catechumens. When the discipline of the catechumens was done away with, and there was only the one connected service, it was called by the long-familiar name, Missa, or Mass. -- "The Latin Mass Explained", Msgr. George J. Moorman My question is what changed to allow non-Catholics to now attend the sacrifice portion of the mass? What were the original concerns that kept them out, and have these concerns been addressed in some way?

I discussed with a friend about the absolute minimum required to have a mass, and I found it particularly difficult to find documentation about these requirements. The obvious one (for me at least) is a priest, or someone allowed to perform a mass. We were not clear about anything else, my friend also mentioned that a priest always wears a stole when proceeding to sacraments. Is there a documented **minimal** set of elements and people required for a mass to be held? EDIT following the comments: I was hoping for a document that states something along the lines of *"in order for a mass to be licit, it must be performed by XXX and YYY, ZZZ must be used"*.

For the beginnings of an explanation regarding the correlation between Holy Mass and the Book of Revelation, one may see Scott Hahn's article here: [*The Apocalyptic Mass*](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-apocalyptic-mass) . The same author also has published a book called "The Lamb's Supper (The Mass Explained as Heaven on Earth)." The book is described here: [*The Lamb's Supper*](https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591) . The said book is written in a very popular style and it uses a lot of personal pronouns. I am hoping to obtain, if such exists, a much more rigorous theological treatise on the subject. QUESTION: Does anyone know of any much older books or theological treatises written perhaps by any of the ancient Fathers or Catholic Saints which have attempted to explain the connection between the Catholic Mass and the biblical Book of Revelation?

For Catholics, is Sunday observance necessary for salvation? Is Sunday observed in the same way as the Sabbath was observed, or is there a difference? Additionally, what about the observance of the day and the Eucharist? Is it mandatory to attend Mass *and* receive the Eucharist? If possible, I would like to know about Catholic documents or catechisms that define this. Thank you!

I was talking to a rather hardcore TLM'er last weekend who, when it was mentioned that we're having an all-city Mass next week held in an amphitheater outside of our courthouse (which I thought was cool) that only in emergencies - like a time of war - is it licit to have mass outdoors like that. I was like "we're at war with the culture" and he was like "mhmm", well anyway, the conversation didn't go so well. In any event, the previous weekend, I attended a TLM outdoors at camp and the week before I went to Mass several times in the Lucas Oil Stadium (Holy Ground now, next time Taylor Swift plays, I guess). In any event, there's gotta be some rubric around it. Is this just a "spirit of Vatican II" abuse that I've been frog-boiled into or is this actually something permitted by the US Bishops and is unique to the USA (but strangely ubiquitous) or is this a thing that can never be done under any circumstances?

**Has the Mass ever been translated and said in Sanskrit?** I remember reading some years ago about this possibility in Rome, by some Jesuit scholars, but can not find any sources to affirm that it has been done... As we know, Sanskrit is the sacred language of Hinduism, the language of classical Hindu philosophy, and of historical texts of Buddhism and Jainism. Sanskrit is also considered by many as the oldest language in the world. I believe that this would be a great evangelizing tool in the countries such as India and Tibet (China). Thus my question: **Has the Catholic Mass (in any Rite) ever been translated and said in Sanskrit?**

For example, if no Mass were celebrated worldwide this Sunday, what would happen? Is there any teaching in Catholicism about this? It doesn't necessarily have to be on a Sunday; it could be on a Friday, for instance. Thank you, I hope you can help me. Hail Mary!

A member of my Australian home group told us that he attended a Catholic mass many years ago. He was shocked when the priest consumed the bread and wine, but didn’t give any bread and wine to the congregation during mass. Would this have been a special event that my friend wasn’t aware of and was never explained to him?

I know that the Catholic Church teaches during confession the priest acts "in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ). Since the mass is meant to be a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and this occurs in the re-enactment of the Last Supper, does the priest act in persona Christi? Are there only certain points when this is the case (for instance is he not during the Homily)?

I have noticed that during the Sanctus prayer at mass, there will be a few Catholics (typically those that I would identify as being more “trad”) make the sign of the cross when “Benedictus” is sung. Is this supposed to be done (like when the priest says “have mercy on us” after the confiteor), or why do people do it?

About an hour into Matt Fradd's [6 hour podcast with Jimmy Akin](https://open.spotify.com/episode/1Pccvj2dLzmowvqIamzm1a?si=b2bbefabd87f4666) , Jimmy says that Pope Benedict XVI wanted to move the sign of peace from its current placement in the Mass to another place. Where did he want to move it to and for what reason - did he want it to be optional or made required?