Talk:Canon of the Mass

}}

[Untitled]
This article is almost entirely a transcription of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, right down to the list of "modern works", the most recent of which was published in 1907, the second most recent in 1902, all the rest in the nineteenth century. Is this appropriate for a Wikipedia article? Lima 11:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is ample precedent for it. See Catholic Encyclopedia and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Catholic. &mdash; MSchmahl 11:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC) PS. The current article is a work-in-progress, and I will probably end up modifying much of the text.

Recent edits
I stumbled on this page earlier today and found the lead to be somewhat confusing and ambiguous. I thus tried to simplify it and aimed to provide a straightforward definition, based upon the Catholic Encyclopedia which it references. The revision was based upon the following text, quoted verbatum from the Catholic Encyclopedia: The rubrics of our present Missal leave no doubt as to the limits of the Canon in modern times. It begins at the "Te Igitur" and ends with the Amen before the Embolism of the Pater Noster (omnis honor et gloria, per omnia sæcula sæculorum, Amen). The Missal has the title "Canon Missæ" printed after the Sanctus, and the Rubrics say: "After the Preface the Canon of the Mass begins secretly" (Rubr. Gen., XII, 6). The ninth title of the "Ritus cel. Missam" is headed: "Of the Canon from the Consecration to the Lord's Prayer". The next title is: "Of the Lord's Prayer and the rest to the Communion." It does go on to say in the next sentence that "Neither of these limits, however, was always so fixed. ", but as of ~1910, the Canon appears to have been well defined. The present tense should also be used when referring to the Tridentine form of the Mass, as this form was "never abrogated," and remains (present tense) an "extraordinary" form of the Roman Rite. LotR 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Pope Clement VIII altered the Canon"
Did he alter the canon or some of the rubrics associated with the canon? As far as I can tell from the link provided, he did not change any of the words of the canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.125.18 (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cavendish says that the king was mentioned in the Canon before 1604, and so there was in that year a change in the text. I think he is mistaken.  He does not specify on which of the three printings in 1570 he bases his observations.  Lima (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Canon, "cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et Rege nostro N." was used in England at the beginning of the nineteenth century: see p. xxxiii of The Roman missal for the use of the laity : containing the Masses appointed to be said throughout the year (1806). Lima (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Luther?
It says here that Martin Luther didn't agree with the Canon of the Mass... does anyone know why? Shark96z (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because with his own Deutsche Messe, Luther deeply modified the Canon of the Mass. For example he removed any words about the sacrifical value of the Eucharist, the intercessions, the idea of Communion with the whole Church on the earth and in the heaven and he also modified also the rite itself, for example Luther saparated the consecration of the Bread from the one of Wine. I suggest you a simple but good text as Prayers of the Eucharist by Jasper and Cuming, isbn 0814660851 A ntv (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Saint Cyprian, Pope Victor I, and Latin
I changed this:


 * On the basis of the uncertain attribution to him of a treatise found among the writings of Saint Cyprian, it is sometimes said that Pope Victor I (190–202) may have been the first Pope to write in Latin.

to this:


 * On the basis of the uncertain attribution of a treatise found among the writings of Saint Cyprian, it is sometimes said that Pope Victor I (190–202) may have been the first Pope to write in Latin.

The original phrasing is quite ambiguous&mdash;is the attribution to St. Cyprian or to Victor I? As it can be read either way it is impossible to be certain without a citation, which is sorely lacking. Perhaps the later Jungmann reference applies here, too, but that is not online and therefore not able to be checked just now. --Kbh3rd talk 04:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)