Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 April 16
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 15 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 17 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
April 16 edit
Script during a Roman Catholic daily mass? edit
What is the script during a Roman Catholic daily mass? I'm not sure if that's the right term for it, but I am pretty sure that the daily mass follows a scripted, structured set of lines that are memorized like the Pledge of Allegiance. I know and can recite the archaic modern English Lord's Prayer, which is used during the mass, but I can't follow along everything else. Also, why does the priest alone drink all the wine during the daily mass, while the laypersons drink the wine during the Sunday mass? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Liturgy is the usual term for the "script" of a religious service; the Mass of Paul VI is probably what you're referring to in the case of a modern Roman Catholic mass. That article has links in the bottom to the actual order of business, with the wording in English and (what little is still done in that language) Latin. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Eh. I'm just going to bring a tape recorder. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also, see Missal (or "Missalette" for the shorter version designed for lay use) which are often kept on the backs of the pews next to the hymnal. Technically the missal is the published liturgy. In non-Roman Catholic churches, the liturgy is often called the "Order of Worship" while the missal is often called the "Bulletin" or something similar, but they serve the same purpose. --Jayron32 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the daily mass. There may be no hymns on a daily mass, and the priest may drink all the wine as well as only give out the body of Christ. Are you talking about the daily mass, which is shorter than the Sunday mass, or the Sunday mass? Also, one parishioner told me that the length of time may vary between priests. Some priests can do a quick mass in under 30 minutes. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- According to Fr. Leo McDowell's post here, the differences are no Gloria, no Creed, only one reading instead of two. Other changes may be down to individual church practices. Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also, the script followed during a non-Sunday mass is still called the liturgy and still published in a missal. As far as the wine-bread practice goes, see Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Any part of the Eucharist is sufficient. The wine or the body are both fully Christ, so a person is considered to have taken complete communion having taken either. It is sufficient for one to receive just the body. It is recommended to also receive the wine on a regular basis, but not required. --Jayron32 15:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with you on the wine issue except for the last point. Do you have a source for that? From my reading, neither the Eucharist in the Catholic Church nor the Blood of Christ nor the Communion under both kinds mention anything suggesting it's officially recommended the receive the wine regularly. Some may believe so, including some priests and bishops but the official view seems to be it's not necessary, for the reasons you already outlined and so they only went so far as to allow it but not in any way require or recommend it. I mentioned before I never received it at the church I went to in Malaysia, in fact the last article suggests at least in 1989 many in the US likewise didn't offfer it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- From the article I cite, quoting the Roman Missal directly, "Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father's Kingdom..." Later in the same section, it notes the sufficiency of Communion of one kind, but the tenor and tone of the actual quote from the actual Missal clearly seems to say that it provides a "fuller form as a sign" and "is more clearly evident and clear expression" to take Communion under both signs. In other words, just the bread is enough, but taking both is better. A person's salvation does not depend on the wine, but the experience of communion is better for those who get to fully partake in both kinds. That sentiment seems evident in the official missal. --Jayron32 16:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- See also this recent discussion and our Communion under both kinds article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Admittedly I haven't been to a mass for a long time, but we never drank the wine on Sundays (or on any other day of the week). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- See also this recent discussion and our Communion under both kinds article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- In terms of the wording of the missal, I would suggest a lot depends on how you intepret the different parts. The part which says:
"It is most desirable that the faithful should receive the Body of the Lord in hosts consecrated at the same Mass and should share the cup when it is permitted. Communion is thus a clearer sign of sharing in the sacrifice that is actually being celebrated."
- may seem the most clear. But that depends on how you intepret the "when it is permitted" part. To me this isn't independent from the rest of the paragraph. Therefore, unless it's actually offered, there's no need to worry about taking both kinds. Or to put it a different way, at most what you can say is it's recommend that people take both kinds when it's offered. This makes sense, since there's not much the general congregation/laity can do when both kinds aren't offered, except to lobby the priest or those higher up, which often isn't encouraged in the Catholic church and when it is, allowed, that's normally stated somewhere.
- In terms of the other parts of the missal like those you quoted, they seem to be directed at the priests and bishops making the decision whether to offer both kinds. So at most, you can say it's recommended that both kinds are offered to the laity on occasion. But even that doesn't seem entirely the whole story since it then goes on to give reasons why priests (and bishops) may not want to offer both kinds. Notably to me anyway, these reasons don't seem to be saying "these are reasons why you may want to only offer both kinds on rare occassions" but rather, "these are reasons why you may never want to offer both kinds".
- Or to put it a different way, it seems to me the Vatican was much more hedging their bets, as they often do, rather than coming down on way or the other on whether you should offer both kinds, at least on occassion. Notably the "whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted" point seems to concur with my believe that this isn't something the congregation is supposed to concern themselves with, unless both kinds are actually offered.
- Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- BTW a final thought, is that to me, none of the missal I've read seems to be suggesting the laity needs to go out of their way to ensure they receive both kinds on occassion. I was earliy mostly thinking of it never being offered in a church, in which case the only thing that can be done is to either as I said, lobby the priest etc, or to go to a different chuch neither of which IMO is going to be generally recommended (and actually I suspect we agree on this). But there is also the possibility of it only being offered on rare occassion which a perfectly observant Catholic may still miss out one. For example, if it's offered during first communion (for children I mean, baptism for adults since it's during the Easter Vigil may be something that you're generally supposed to attend if able), I'm not sure if there's any expectation you sometimes attend first communion mass. So if you're in a church with multiple morning mass services, you may perfectly acceptably miss these occassions. I'm not sure if I'd intepret the missal to mean (presuming there's no other reason you need to sometimes attend first communion mass) you need to make sure to attend first communion mass so you can receive the wine. Perhaps the most you could say is that a good observant Catholic may hope they are invited to be a god parent, or have some other reason why they would need to attend the first communion mass, but even this seems to be a case of may be, may be not. Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think the important take-away for the OP is that there is not as much uniformity between Roman Catholic churches across the world as they are expecting. I attended a Roman Catholic church weekly until I was in my teens, and the wine was offered at every Saturday and Sunday mass (I didn't attend weekday masses, so I cannot attest to that). Others report having never, or rarely, been offered the cup. It should be clear that there is not (nor should there be expected to be) a singular Catholic Mass experience shared across the world. There is a variety of experiences depending on which churches one attends. --Jayron32 01:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- BTW a final thought, is that to me, none of the missal I've read seems to be suggesting the laity needs to go out of their way to ensure they receive both kinds on occassion. I was earliy mostly thinking of it never being offered in a church, in which case the only thing that can be done is to either as I said, lobby the priest etc, or to go to a different chuch neither of which IMO is going to be generally recommended (and actually I suspect we agree on this). But there is also the possibility of it only being offered on rare occassion which a perfectly observant Catholic may still miss out one. For example, if it's offered during first communion (for children I mean, baptism for adults since it's during the Easter Vigil may be something that you're generally supposed to attend if able), I'm not sure if there's any expectation you sometimes attend first communion mass. So if you're in a church with multiple morning mass services, you may perfectly acceptably miss these occassions. I'm not sure if I'd intepret the missal to mean (presuming there's no other reason you need to sometimes attend first communion mass) you need to make sure to attend first communion mass so you can receive the wine. Perhaps the most you could say is that a good observant Catholic may hope they are invited to be a god parent, or have some other reason why they would need to attend the first communion mass, but even this seems to be a case of may be, may be not. Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- From the article I cite, quoting the Roman Missal directly, "Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father's Kingdom..." Later in the same section, it notes the sufficiency of Communion of one kind, but the tenor and tone of the actual quote from the actual Missal clearly seems to say that it provides a "fuller form as a sign" and "is more clearly evident and clear expression" to take Communion under both signs. In other words, just the bread is enough, but taking both is better. A person's salvation does not depend on the wine, but the experience of communion is better for those who get to fully partake in both kinds. That sentiment seems evident in the official missal. --Jayron32 16:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with you on the wine issue except for the last point. Do you have a source for that? From my reading, neither the Eucharist in the Catholic Church nor the Blood of Christ nor the Communion under both kinds mention anything suggesting it's officially recommended the receive the wine regularly. Some may believe so, including some priests and bishops but the official view seems to be it's not necessary, for the reasons you already outlined and so they only went so far as to allow it but not in any way require or recommend it. I mentioned before I never received it at the church I went to in Malaysia, in fact the last article suggests at least in 1989 many in the US likewise didn't offfer it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also, the script followed during a non-Sunday mass is still called the liturgy and still published in a missal. As far as the wine-bread practice goes, see Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Any part of the Eucharist is sufficient. The wine or the body are both fully Christ, so a person is considered to have taken complete communion having taken either. It is sufficient for one to receive just the body. It is recommended to also receive the wine on a regular basis, but not required. --Jayron32 15:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- According to Fr. Leo McDowell's post here, the differences are no Gloria, no Creed, only one reading instead of two. Other changes may be down to individual church practices. Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the daily mass. There may be no hymns on a daily mass, and the priest may drink all the wine as well as only give out the body of Christ. Are you talking about the daily mass, which is shorter than the Sunday mass, or the Sunday mass? Also, one parishioner told me that the length of time may vary between priests. Some priests can do a quick mass in under 30 minutes. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Will a human being be able to walk upright without being taught how to do so? edit
Human babies crawl. When they reach a certain age, their parents usually train them in walking in some way. But what happens if the babies are never trained how to walk? Will they still be able to walk in the bipedal manner? The human skeleton seems to be conducive to walking upright, which may suggest that babies can eventually walk upright without any external guidance. Or perhaps, babies need external guidance in order to walk upright? What about talking? Instead of using "baby talk" toward a baby, the adult uses ordinary speech and never raises the pitch of the voice. Will the baby still be able to talk like a normal human being, assuming that the baby has no birth defects? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I and my then wife never talked "baby talk" to our kids, and they've grown into highly articulate adults with an excellent command of two languages. They rarely make spelling or grammatical errors in writing or speech. (Naturally.) But we still failed as parents, because they turned out to be the most unpedantic people you'd ever meet. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Most parents encourage speech, as well as walking. But riddle me this, how many children are you aware of who don't speak or walk, even having seen their parents do so? Is there even a word (in general usage) for the phenomenon? μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- And, as I've pointed out to many people who've given up trying for some goal when it all got too hard: how many children are you aware of who tried to walk but in the end gave up and decided to crawl for the rest of their lives? I suggest the answer would be: none. They just keep on till they get what they want. Giving up is not an innate but a learned behaviour, and apparently not a very useful one. But most of us seem to acquire it relatively early in life, at least in relation to some things, and then struggle (or not) with its inertia forever. Strange people, humans. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Most parents encourage speech, as well as walking. But riddle me this, how many children are you aware of who don't speak or walk, even having seen their parents do so? Is there even a word (in general usage) for the phenomenon? μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is an interesting question, because there was a case of a feral child found in Russia, not so long ago. She had been kept for all of her life until she was found at around age 7 living in a dog kennel (presumably big enough to also house a child). She had no ability to speak Russian, and acted like a dog, walking/running on all-fours, and even approximating barking sounds when vocalizing. This is, of course, an example of nurture and not nature, as her only 'friend' was the dog. This is also perfect proof that children will copy whomever is with them. Children are taught to walk by parents/guardians, only for safety reasons. Even if they are not taught, if they see you doing it, it is perfectly natural for them to pick up the skill, too. The same goes for language. They will pick up methods of communication very quickly, due to their environment and the people with whom they are. All of this is a product of observation of surroundings (nurture), and not automatic (nature). KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 22:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Oxana Malaya from Ukraine, not Russia. Documentary here. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 23:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- She was but one of many feral children. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Jack. Sorry, I should have clarified. That documentary has other cases in it, too, all equally interesting, but her case was the one that seemed to be the most relevant to the OP's question. There are, of course, many cases, which are unfortunately still being found even today. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 00:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- She was but one of many feral children. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Oxana Malaya from Ukraine, not Russia. Documentary here. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 23:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- A niece-in-law of mine showed no sign of wanting to walk at age 2. In fact, she was not even crawling. She could propel herself slowly by rolling and squirming, but showed no inclination to rely on her legs for propulsion. I don't know whether she would eventually have decided to try propelling herself with her legs on her own, but her parents hired a trainer to work with her and train her to walk. After a couple of months of training, she was walking. I'm not sure whether her condition counts as intellectual disability. Marco polo (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- For the language part, see Language_acquisition#Representation_of_language_acquisition_in_the_brain. Healthy normal humans have the ability to acquire speech, but there's no conceivable way someone would start speaking e.g. English if they'd never heard it. A few people growing up in isolation could conceivably develop their own language, similar to twin speak, but I don't know of any documented cases of that.
- For the walking part, you might be interested in The_Family_That_Walks_On_All_Fours, video clip here [1]. This shows that not all humans walk on two legs, even if they are given ample exposure to people who do walk upright. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Briefly, that family carries a dominant gene that causes several different issues, one of which is a neuro-musculature problem that makes an upright stance difficult. It's more akin to congenital deafness than being a member of the Wallendas. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but they are still humans ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Briefly, that family carries a dominant gene that causes several different issues, one of which is a neuro-musculature problem that makes an upright stance difficult. It's more akin to congenital deafness than being a member of the Wallendas. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have mentioned this recently, but as far as language acquisition is concerned, of course there would need to be multiple children raised in isolation for a language to be spontaneously developed - and it would not be related to any existing language. See Nicaraguan sign language for one spectacular (and recent) example of this. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The evidence shows that children brought up (Nicaraguan sign language in its earliest form) without exposure to language develop a mutual pidgin, which is a limited form of language, missing various natural features, but that the second generation, if they are brought up in the environment of a pidgin, develop a creole language, which has the full features of a natural language. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)