**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.

Why do priests celebrate Mass *versus populum* (toward the congregation) and at most Masses in the Ordinary Form?

I attend the Ordinary form of the Mass. In it the entrance hymn is sung more often than the Gregorian introitus. I've been thinking about the reasons for this. In the Extraordinary form we find no entrance hymns, I think. But the entrance hymn seems to fit the Ordinary form very well. It really does, although I have even been to Requiem Masses in the Ordinary form in which the Gregorian introitus was sung. It *also* worked very well. Personally, I found that Gregorian chant works very well in the OF. Therefore, I don't know why in the Ordinary form people often choose the entrance hymn rather than the introitus in the OF. **What has been the argument for the entrance hymn in the Church? What does the Church officially say about this?**

How did the practice of wishing the sign of peace to each other during Mass start? I only saw this after I moved here to the United States. I don't recall when going to Mass on Sundays back in Brazil, that the priest told us to wish peace to each other right after finishing praying the Our Father. Jesus didn't tell the apostles to do it! He gives us this peace, through the priest. Why do we need to give it to each other at the Mass? It doesn't make sense to me.

One [option](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23290/why-are-there-differences-in-the-greeting-of-the-mass?rq=1) for the liturgical greeting at the beginning of the Mass is: >Priest: The Lord be with you. > >[or Bishop: Peace be with you.] > >All: And with your spirit. The phrase "The Lord be with you / And with your spirit." is used in other parts of the Mass too without that difference. - Where does this difference between bishop and "ordinary" priest come from? - Are there theological and/or historical reasons?

I would think it's a natural transition for Catholics who prefer the [Traditional Latin Mass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass) (TLM) to go to the [*Novus Ordo* mass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI) celebrated under [General Instruction of the Roman Missal](https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal) (GIRM) rubric **in the Latin language** while preserving as much non-GIRM-prescribed elements from TLM as much as possible, so they can be part of the post Vatican II church fully along with the vernacular *Novus Ordo* faithfuls. Yes, there will be differences from TLM, but I would think it's a much smaller price to pay for both the faithfuls and the Vatican committed to implement Vatican II. Does it even make sense? And if so, are there parishes who do this? It would also be helpful for the answer to include a brief listing of the differences.

In my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80702/are-catholics-allowed-to-believe-that-the-ef-is-objectively-better-than-the-of?noredirect=1#comment220807_80702 someone mentioned two terms reverence and imparting grace. I had to ask a new question. How can something be less reverent but impart the same graces? A Sacrament can be done/celebrated in a less reverent way but still impart the same grace(s). This confuses me. It seems to make Sacraments something that has nothing to do with what the faithful do and how they participate. Some have even said that in order to be forgiven of your mortal sins outside of Confession you need perfect contrition but in the Sacrament itself imperfect contrition is enough. I confuses me. I am only talking about cases in which a person cannot attend Confession eg. being either a non-Catholic or not being able to find a Priest. Catholic Dictionary say this about reverence: "The virtue that inclines a person to show honor and respect for persons who possess some dignity." Wiktionary: "1. Veneration; profound awe and respect, normally in a sacred context." catholic.org says this about imparting grace: "The sacraments impart grace, but, in addition, the very act of celebrating them disposes the faithful most effectively to receive this grace in a fruitful manner, to worship God rightly, and to practice charity."

This question is specific to the Novus Ordo in the Roman Catholic Church. Communion in the hand is not allowed in the Extraordinary Form. It seems that receiving communion in the hand is a liturgical abuse, as [Father Federico Bortoli](https://onepeterfive.com/communion-hand-true-story/) says of the topic, "[t]his was obviously a liturgical abuse, which put its roots down in those countries where there were already doctrinal problems regarding the Holy Eucharist: Belgium, Holland, France, and Germany." However, many bishops permit reception of communion in the hand in their dioceses, even distributing it in the hand themselves. It seems strange that this would be the case if communion in the hand were a liturgical abuse.

Is there a consensus among some traditionalists in the Catholic Church that it is not licit to receive communion at a Novus Ordo mass? Even an otherwise solemn Mass proclaimed by the Bishop of the diocese? Will they receive communion at a Novus Ordo Mass proclaimed entirely in Latin? Will they avoid TLM masses from Priests who have no problem with either rite?

I have been to both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. Many people at the Extraordinary form told me something that could be understood as "the EF is more reverent than the OF". They said that the OF is valid but very problematic. The discussed the "EF vs OF" a lot and I couldn't stand it. Many of them had actully studied Liturgy and knew a lot about it so they could argue for their beliefs. Even the Priest (Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest) seemed to say that the EF is more reverent but he obviously did not say that one should not attend the OF. It's like they wished the OF never existed. They discussed the question "who should be allowed as altar servers?" but that is another question. That has to do with how the OF should be celebrated but even that seemed a little like "EF vs OF". The Bishop allows for female altar servers so bassically it seems like the wanted critize the Bishop. They said very nice thing about him as a kind person but they did critisize him and the pope a lot. Everyone seem to have personal opinions about Liturgy. Many people, especially older people, have said how much problems they had with the EF back in the days. They say that it easier to focus on the Mass nowadays. Are Catholics allowed to believe that the EF or OF is objectively more reverent than the other? Allowed: That does not go against Church teaching or discipline.

Is it permissible for a priest say a Mass in the Extraordinary Form for new saints (canonized after 1962) while employing the prayers (Opening Prayer or Collect, Prayer over the Offerings and the Prayer after Communion) taken from the Mass of Paul VI? It would be so awesome to go to Mass in the Extraordinary Form using the Mass propers of some of the newer saints like St. Maximilian Kolbe .

Why did *versus populum* (the priest facing the congregation) become commonplace after Vatican II, when *ad orientem* ("facing east," with the priest's back to the congregation) was the norm before Vatican II? Did a Vatican II document prescribe *versus populum*?

The concluding rites of the holy mass in the ordinary form are somehow like this : > *If they are necessary, any brief announcements to the people follow here.* > > *Then the dismissal takes place. The Priest, facing the people and extending his hands, says:* > The Lord be with you. > > *The people reply:* > And with your spirit. > > *The Priest blesses the people, saying:* > May almighty God bless you: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. > > *The people reply:* > Amen. In several parishes, I attend or have attended mass in (in Germany), the priest wishes the congregation a good Sunday and a successful week (with only slightly varying wording). The people respond with "Thank you, the same to you!" (German: "Danke gleichfalls.") This typically takes place directly before "The Lord be with you" and is so prevalent and so highly formalised that a lot of catholics I encounter think this is an normal part of mass like the blessing or the ite missa est. My Question is: 1) How widely spread is this custom in other parts of the world? 2) Are there information of how this custom started and whether some (magisterial) voice explicitly condone or forbid it.

I've been going to Catholic (Latin Rite) Mass my whole life and am constantly surprised by the different times that people will cross themselves during the Liturgy. I only do it when the Priest says the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (and I try to hang on to Holy....Spirit for as long as it takes for him to finish the sentence (not sure if that's necessary). And doing the three crosses before the Gospel is read (which wasn't certain is _in_ the rubrics but [asked about here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50229/why-do-catholic-laity-cross-themselves-three-times-before-the-gospel-is-read) and found it to be) I've seen people cross themselves during the Penitential Rite, the Kyrie, and at other times during the Eucharistic Prayer. And crossing themselves at a Mass with the Bishop when he comes down the aisle blessing everyone (regardless of whether he has holy water). Is that just how we _catch_ his blessing? People also cross themselves after receiving communion, but as a Catechist, I was taught this is not right, so I'm not asking about that. [see this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36625/why-do-catholics-make-the-sign-of-the-cross-at-the-eucharist) I'll probably ask a follow up about crossing thyself during the Liturgy of the Hours, so no need to include that in the answer.

The first reading of the Third Sunday in Lent in Year C (today) is Ex 3, 1-8a.13-15. The new (Advent 2018) German lectionary includes also verse 10. The [French lectionary](https://www.aelf.org/2019-03-24/romain/messe) has the same. The [old German lectionary](https://www.erzabtei-beuron.de/schott/register/fastenzeit/schott_anz/index.html?file=fastenzeit%2Fwoche3%2FSonntagC.htm) , the [US lectionary](http://usccb.org/bible/readings/032419-yearc.cfm) , the [Italian lectionary](https://www.chiesacattolica.it/liturgia-del-giorno/?data-liturgia=20190324) , the [Brasil lectionary](http://liturgiadiaria.cnbb.org.br/app/user/user/UserView.php?ano=2019&mes=3&dia=24) , the [Spanish lectionary](https://oracionyliturgia.archimadrid.org/2019/03/24/24-03-2019-domingo-de-la-3a-semana-de-cuaresma/) , the current [Latin lectionary](http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/14/05/05/11-44-20_0.pdf) (Ordo lectionem Missae. Editio typica altera 1981, p. 21 (PDF 67)) does not have this verse. Where does this difference come frome? I understand that the adddition makes sense. The mission to Moses should be mentioned before Moses says to God "But when I go to the Israelites ...".

We have a new priest in our parish who does things differently. Today in Mass he invited all children to form a **circle around the altar with him and hold hands**. I know that some priests do this while the Lord's Prayer but he did this during the whole eucharistic prayer. This action is really new to me and seems very unreasonable and unworthy towards the Holy Eucharist. So my question is: Does the Canon Law allow this? Sorry for my poor English. Please feel free to ask if something is unclear.

In the [Eucharistic Prayer III](http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm) , we read: > You are indeed Holy, O Lord, and all you have created rightly gives you praise, for through your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, you give life to all things and make them holy, and you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that **from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.** I believe the above is somehow linked to the Jewish practices of sacrifices, which seem to have taken place between the morning and the evening. For instance, in [Exodus 29:38-39](https://biblehub.com/bsb/exodus/29.htm) we read: >This is what you are to offer regularly on the altar, each day: two lambs that are a year old. In the morning offer one lamb, and at twilight offer the other. Is the above implying some restriction regarding the times in which Mass can be celebrated? Mass can be normally celebrated as early as 6am, and throughout the day. The latest mass I'm aware of is celebrated at midnight - the [Midnight Mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Mass) , in Christmas. Is is possible for a Mass to be validly celebrated at, say, 3:00 am?

If Solemnities (like today August 15th) are kind of like extra Sundays, why do the vigil masses have different readings and why don't Saturday evenings have a different set of readings from the Sunday readings? And is there anything notable between the _kinds_ of readings that are in the Vigil Mass vs Mass during the day? I noticed today, for the Assumption, that the Gospel during the day was the whole Visitation, and the Vigil Mass Gospel was almost exactly the opposite (depending on ones reading of the Bible). So they seem to have something to do with each other, but I'd like to know more about the way the readings are chosen for solemnities.

Part of the mass involves the priest lifting up the Eucharist and saying the following aloud: > Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb. In the event that the priest is saying the mass using English sign language (as opposed to saying it in a verbal language and having an interpreter repeating his words in sign language), what does he do? He can't both hold up the Eucharist and say the words with his hands. Does he lift up the Eucharist, set it down, and then say those words? Does he do the opposite? Is there some other way this situation is to be handled? (I'm guessing that there's an answer somewhere in canon law, since surely someone has run into this situation).

In the Catholic Holy Mass (Ordinary Form of the Mass in the Latin rite), the prayer for peace is said more than once . But, when the priest says "Peace be with you"the faithful respond by saying "And with your spirit ", rather than saying "And with you". I wish to know why the faithful are required to pray for peace `with the spirit of the celebrant'.