Talk:Roman Missal

Bull or Apostolic Constitution
Apostolic Constitutions have the following characteristics: (1) they come immediately from the Supreme Pontiff, (2) they are presented motu proprio, (3) the solemn form of a Bull is attached to them, (4) they deal with matters of greater importance, namely, the welfare of the Church or the greater part thereof. An Apostolic Constitution can therefore be referred to also as a Bull. The name "Apostolic Constitution" indicates the provenance and authority of the document. The name "Bull" refers to the outward form of a document to which a lead seal is attached. Lima (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad link: 2002 third typical edition of the Roman Missal (plain text)
The first "full text" external link titled "2002 third typical edition of the Roman Missal (plain text)" is a faulty link that directs to a online Bible resource in German. Can somebody fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloonanw (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed some weeks ago that the Biblia Clerus site no longer gives the text. I think it is likely that this was in connection with the publication of the 2008 reprinting of the 2002 edition with corrections.  The site also undergoes rearrangements from time to time.  So was the text dropped because of no longer being up to date (in which case we can hope that it will reappear in improved form, with the 2008 corrections)?  Or was it dropped for copyright reasons?  I have searched the site, and the text of the Missal is nowhere on it any longer.  I hesitate to remove the link.  But if someone else removes it, I will not object.  Lima (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found the new position of the text on the Biblia Clerus site. Perhaps it was never removed, only moved.  It has not been updated to 2008.  Lima (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Edition in use anywhere?
Hello, is the Third Edition of the Missal in use anywhere? I have read about different dioceses preparing to use the new missal in the future but not of any that are using it now. I think it would be good if this article talked more about why and when the new missal will be used. Loves Macs  (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean the revised English translation of the Roman Missal. In the original language the edition you speak of has been in use ever since it appeared in 2002.  Some vernacular translations followed very soon afterwards.  The various English-speaking conferences of bishops have been working on a new English translation of the whole of the Missal and, according to an Australian source I read, this will probably come into use in early 2011.  If you want to read the part that is called the Order of Mass (what used to be called the Ordinary of the Mass), you can find it on the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. For copyright and other reasons, publication of this is restricted at present.  For more information, you can read Mass of Paul VI.  There you will see that in Southern Africa they jumped the gun by introducing the new translation of the Order of Mass before the rest of the Missal was ready, but learned that this was a mistake.  Another section of the English translation, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, has already been more readily available for some years.  Internet sites that carry it are indicated in the article General Instruction of the Roman Missal.  Esoglou (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for explaining all of this. Loves  Macs  (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that the new Roman Missal Third Edition is now in mandatory use throughout the United States and presumably the other English speaking countries since Advent 1, November 30, 2012, should not this fact and a review of the changes in the new Roman Missal Third Edition be explored in this article? Thanks. Gladfelteri (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Roman Missal Changes Blog?
Our Sunday Visitor (osv.com) is a Catholic publisher of a weekly newspaper and several magazines. It has a new blog at romanmissalchanges.com to aggregate roman missal news from around the Web. It identifies itself as the owner of the blog but does not use the blog as a sales tool or traffic driver to osv.com. Does Our Sunday Visitor meet notability criteria to permit a link to this blog in External Links? 70.164.151.138 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume that you are referring to this link. Since it is devoted not to the Roman Missal as such but to pending changes in the English translation in liturgical use, changes that will be brought into effect within the current year, I think that, especially because of not being of permanent interest, it is not suitable for inclusion in this article.  (My opinion.)  Esoglou (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How many languages?
It's worth including on this page how many languages the Roman Missal is published in, perhaps providing additional details on each language where possible. I encourage anyone who has a good source for that to put it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.129.114 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Roman Missal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111007085526/http://www.scross.co.za/2008/12/mass-translations-a-missed-opportunity/Judith to http://www.scross.co.za/2008/12/mass-translations-a-missed-opportunity/Judith

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roman Missal. 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/20121101124024/http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0262r.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Messale Romano
The text of the (Latin) Missale Romanum is unaffected by changes to translations such as the English Roman Missal, the Italian Messale Romano, the French Missel romain, the Polish Mszał rzymski, the Esperanto Roma Meslibro, ... Bealtainemí (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Italian translation was made international. The Roman Missal also has different language for individual countries.2601:447:4101:5780:F567:8DBC:2614:89F8 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sez who? Apart from yourself.  Bealtainemí (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Says other sources..2601:447:4101:5780:F567:8DBC:2614:89F8 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Please don't use "apart from yourself" anymore.2601:447:4101:5780:F567:8DBC:2614:89F8 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These don't say that, for instance, the English Roman Missal is changed or must be changed. Still less that the one really authoritative text, the Latin, must be changed. Do you think that, because the Italian bishops chose per tutti ("for all")  in their version of the consecration narrative, the English text must change from "for many"?  Or that the original Latin text must be changed from pro multis to pro omnibus?
 * I apologize for offending. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SkyWarrior  03:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Roman Missal → Roman missal – I do not understand why it should have a capital "m", as it is simply the word "missal" with the adjective "Roman". Veverve (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it is the name of the book in English (in Latin: Missale Romanum). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking around found this paragraph from the Liturgical books of the Roman Rite which lists the seven liturgical books: "...the Missal, the Pontifical, the Liturgy of the Hours (in earlier editions called the Breviary), the Ritual, the Martyrology, the Gradual, and the Antiphonary. Another sevenfold list indicates, instead of the last two, the Cæremoniale Episcoporum, and the Memoriale Rituum." Randy Kryn (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2021 (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.

Disambiguation/see also link at top of page
This is a total rookie question, but how would one add a link to the general wikipedia page for Missal at the top of an article where it would be difficult to simply insert the word into the existing prose. Alternatively, could "Missal" in the first three words of the article ("The Roman Missal") be made to hyperlink or is that against style rules?

The “New” English Translation for the Third Edition of This Book
I have a copy of the original Roman Missal in English (as in from circa 1960). The translation of everything regular for a Catholic Mass is actually about the same as the translation in English for the third edition, so the third edition of the Roman Missal is partly the edition changed back to the original according to its English translation. Cbsteffen (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)