Talk:Ritual

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


hand-shaking[edit]

The introduction says "common actions like hand-shaking". With the novel coronavirus everywhere, I don't think hand-shaking is common anymore.

Mdnahas (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish?[edit]

It seems odd to me that given the prominence of various rituals in the Hebrew Bible's presentation of Israel, none of these are mentioned here (Yom Kippur, Sukkoth, etc.), especially when Ramadan is mentioned. Spikeefix (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Water rite into Ritual#Genres (Implemented)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
consensus based on no objections and implemented June 2021

Water rite is an unreferenced stub and has been for over a decade. I suggest merging it into Ritual#Genres where it would benefit from needed attention and added context.Scyrme (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since no objections were raised I have implemented this merger. Scyrme (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Proposal to merge Rite into Ritual (implemented)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of implementation of merge. Darker Dreams (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Rite nor Ritual appear to meaningfully distinguish rites from rituals, and the two words are often used interchangeably. For example, Ritual uses the term rite to describe numerous genres of ritual in Ritual#Genres; similarly, the page Rite is categorised under "Ritual" and "Religious ritual" and uses the words "rite" and "ritual" interchangeably in the text of Rite#Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Rite consists of stubby sections which could be integrated into Ritual#Religion while the lead of Rite could be added to the introduction to Ritual#Genres. Merging would eliminate the ambiguity and provide case examples for the material already present in Ritual. Scyrme (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be more inclined to narrow "rite" to something like Christian liturgical rites & cover the different varieties, by church and time, or merge there, since it seems to exist. But actually they aren't well covered at the destination (it's a redirect). I can't see much of the material now there fitting into the general anthropological approach here. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced narrowing "rite" to Christian liturgical rites in particular is a good idea: (1) the term "rite" is not used so narrowly either in the English language or on Wikipedia - narrowing it would be prescriptive rather than descriptive; (2) it would mean abandoning the comparative approach that Rite seems to be aiming for (but has yet to complete); and (3) Christian liturgy already covers the varieties of Christian liturgical rites extensively listing and linking them and describing their commonalities.
The material from Rite could add a comparative "emic" perspective to Ritual which is mentioned in the article but not yet explored. Such an "emic" perspective would still fall within the scope of an anthropological approach as I understand it. It wouldn't be unprecedented; the 'Anthropology of Religion' sidebar links to many such case examples. A "main article" link to Christian liturgy prefacing the relevant section could provide anyone who wants extensive information on Christian rites of the sort you've suggested. Scyrme (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Are we now in agreement regarding merging or do you still maintain your earlier position? Scyrme (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entry on rite seems to focus on religion, while the one on rituals clearly covers a broader array of domains, like politics. Seems like the two are different or rites is the religious subset of rituals. Kaplanovitchskyite (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kaplanovitchskyite: Both articles refer to rituals/rites (both articles uses both terms, as I noted earlier) across several domains. Rite explicitly refers to several varieties of non-religious rites in its lead section, notably rites of passage, and one of its three body sections is on Masonic rites, which aren't necessarily religious in character, so the idea that Rite only concerns the religious subset of rituals doesn't hold up. Furthermore, narrowing "rite" to religious rituals only would be prescriptive rather than descriptive; neither of these articles use the term that way and the English language doesn't either (eg. "rites of passage", a common phrase that doesn't necessarily imply a religious ritual). However, I do recognise that most of material currently included in Rites is about religious rituals, but that's also true of Ritual where the majority of its material still refers to religious practices and explanations for their significance (though other forms of ritual are also discussed). Scyrme (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaplanovitchskyite and Johnbod: I've given plenty of time for you to reply and have notified you of my responses. Unless you or someone else explicitly says otherwise, I will proceed next week under the assumption that you do not object to my responses to your comments and that there is no opposition to this merger. Scyrme (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scyrme: In my opinion, for clarity, it may be useful to keep the two entries separate, although I suspect there are ways to organize one entry so that the reader can keep in mind the distinctions being made between religiously focused Rites versus Rituals. I don't get your remark on prescriptive vs. descriptive, since one has to always make a choice and draw boundaries on what is the main reference domain of a term. I think the Rites entry clearly focuses almost entirely on religious rites. Kaplanovitchskyite (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kaplanovitchskyite: Entries are not supposed prescribe how things ought to be, but only describe them. You may think "rite" ought to be narrowly defined as "religious ritual" and "ritual" be defined more broadly, but that's not how the terms are actually used (neither on Wikipedia nor in the English language generally). You're not describing a distinction that already exists, but are instead prescribing a distinction that you think ought to be made. Reorganising the material as you suggest would mean enforcing a distinction that did not exist prior to your inventing it. The matter would be different if cited sources made this distinction, because then the articles would be describing a distinction made in referenced material, rather than imposing a distinction onto sourced material. But that is not the case here.
Regarding clarity for readers, that can easily be maintained with adjectives like "religious", "Christian", etc as needed; there's no need to impose an artificial distinction between "ritual" and "rite".
As for one article being more focused on religion than the other, I've already covered that; both articles are demonstrably mostly about religion and neither article uses "rite" to refer only to "religious ritual". You're taking us in circles. I don't really know what else to say. Scyrme (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't rites entailed in a ritual? Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopdia and the difference between both is more terminological, I think they can be merged.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would support a merge. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the swift replies! Scyrme (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now implemented this merge since the objections weren't sustained, no new objections were raised, and there was a majority in favour. -- Scyrme (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Propose merging Ceremony with Ritual[edit]

CLOSED
The community does not support a merge at this time. Closed:No Merge per STATUS QUO. GenQuest "scribble" 18:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

These topics WP:OVERLAP, are WP:REDUNDANT, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. These two articles are extremely closely related if not the same topic. Both articles outline similarities and do not substantially describe differences. The article on Ceremony tends to focus more on civil/secular activities while actively drawing parallels to religious versions of the same actions. Both articles share similar structural sections, though the versions in the Ritual article are generally much more developed. Darker Dreams (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The terms are not interchangeable. Neither article is wonderful, but they are different subjects, and a merger would bring no benefits. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you articulate the difference you see in developed Ritual and Ceremony articles? These words are dictionary synonyms. Both articles define their subjects via the other and neither makes any attempt to differentiate the subjects. The articles have parallel content, with the Ceremony article generally being an underdeveloped mirror or focusing on the secular versus the religious focus of the Ritual article. The strongest example of that parallelism is the Ceremony#Ceremonial_occasions versus Ritual#Genres. I'm not saying that these can't be different articles; but there is no evidence of it in the current text or citations and I'm not sure how that'd be done. (The current religious versus secular isn't a valid delineation - you can have religious ceremonies and secular rituals.) Darker Dreams (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"These words are dictionary synonyms" - says who? The point below is a good one; a ritual would normally follow a prescribed pattern. Generally ceremony is the wider term - I suppose all rituals are ceremonies, except in the loose usage as below, but not all ceremonies are rituals. Secular rituals are surely pretty few - one wouldn't call an American presidential inauguration a "ritual". Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"These words are dictionary synonyms" - says who? I mean, are you joking here? Nevermind the opening line of the ritual article, every dictionary I've checked defines them in terms of one another or lists them as synonyms...[1][2][3][4] I'll address the other below. You still didn't answer what you feel the difference between the articles should be. Darker Dreams (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't joking. Do any of them say eg "Ceremony: see Ritual"? That's a synonym. The very long OED "Ceremony" entry doesn't mention "ritual" at all, though there are a couple of "rite"s worked in. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ritual, definition 1; "a series of actions that are always performed in the same way, especially as part of a religious ceremony" (among others) [5] Ceremony word origin; "late Middle English: from Old French ceremonie or Latin caerimonia ‘religious worship’, (plural) ‘ritual observances’."[6]
"Ceremony: see Ritual" is not how synonyms are generally marked; several of the examples I provided include lists of synonyms... where the other word consistently appears. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not used to this sort of looseness. The first one you link does indeed give "synonyms" for "ceremony" - all of these: ceremonial, form, formality, observance, rite, ritual, solemnity. This isn't a convincing argument here. In the definition you quote "especially as part of a religious ceremony" it is clear the ritual is only a part of the ceremony - ie they are not the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what sort of linguistic tightness/looseness you're used to but; wp:dictionary. Darker Dreams (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How are the first two "one-time"? They would seem as consistent as a Catholic Baptism or Mass. I'd suggest the last two are misnamed - better as ceremonies. Nobody said ceremonies can't be repeated. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Main image for ritual changed[edit]

In July of 2022 user @Jordi changed the main image from a Tridentine mass to a more contemporary one. It was for two stated reasons that this was done. 1) because it is not "one of the most widely performed rituals in the world" and 2)It "seems that this piece wants to promote a traditionalist, anti-papal mindset". I would like to have this change removed and to go back to the former image, because it neither promotes any ideologies nor is outdated. Tridentine masses are still widely celebrated and are in perfect accordance with the church, they neither undermine the pope nor are they no longer relevant. I believe the former image fits the subject of the page more than the new one because it is a longer standing ritual with a longer standing tradition behind it. Throughout history the Tridentine mass has been offered far more than it's ordinary form which is a modern invention. To date the catholic mass is one of the most widely preformed rituals in the world, the extraordinary form of which has been the more celebrated. The article itself states that "Rituals are characterized, but not defined, by formalism, traditionalism, invariance, rule-governance, sacral symbolism, and performance." which fits the Tridentine right far better. For these reasons I reverted the change, my revision was reverted the reason given being "Stop traditionalsm, this ritual is now forbidden and only of historical interest, an image of the ritual actually performed in our days is far better". This seems to go against the whole articles main premise, being rituals founded in traditionalism. In addition to that, the information that the ritual is now forbidden is factually inaccurate. And from a less important aesthetic point of view the new image is just not as good. I'd like to hear your input on this @Jordi. BCPI (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Tridentine mass is not at all "widely celebrated" in the Catholic Church, it is strictly forbidden (there was a letter named Traditionis custodes for that)[7] and, according to the Pope, now there is only one valid mass ritual, and this is the one celebrated all over in the Catholic church with its billions of members which is shown in the main image actually in use. The "extraordinary form" does not longer exist and was never "widely performed" simce 1969 (the traditionalist groups which perform the old rite are and have ever been loud but very small). In these days we are in the beginning of a world wide Synod which was even in advance heavily critizised by right wingers and traditionalist, so it is not at all the moment to make propaganda for them and promote things against our Pope. And from an aesthetic point of view the new image is much better than the Tridentine one. The image is brighter and sharper with much greater detail and realistic colours.--Jordi (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not forbidden, If you Read Traditionis custodes[8] the only thing it really did was given the local diocesan bishop the authority of whether to allow it in his jurisdiction. While some "banned" it, many if most didn't and it is still widely practiced by many diocesan priests. The extraordinary form very much still exists in many places. I feel like you're making it a very political issue, it's not about "right wingers" or "traditionalist" people. It's just that the former image expressed ritualism better. And saying that the new image has more realistic colors just isn't true because white vestments are used far more often than red ones. It's in no way an attack on his holiness, it is just a more ritualistic form of the mass and fits the subject of the article better. See it less as propaganda and more as what it is, the historically most offered ritual even to this day. It will be at least two or three hundred years before the ordinary form catches up to the number of masses said and becomes more relevant. As it stands it's something that has only been said for the last 53 years. Given that rituals are founded in long standing tradition it makes more sense to represent the page with a history ten times as long. BCPI (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jordi: @Banana-cream-Pi: I'm concerned you're both focused on the wrong things. The point of the image is to provide a worldwide audience an image of "ritual," not comment on a particular point in Catholic liturgy. It could easily be a non-Christian religious ritual or a non-religious ritual. - Darker Dreams (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are completely right, but now we have a Catholic mass there which is correctely spoken "one of the most widely performed rituals in the world." I changed the image in summer 2022 and there will be no way back. The one before showed an only marginally used traditionalist rite and stated wrongly that this rite was "widely performed", which is an untrue information in comparison with the real Catholic mass performed all over the world in the current rite. The other point is that there is already another image in the article which shoes a Tridentine mass, so there would be two if Banana-cream succeeds.
The other thing is that he is completely wrong in his factual statements. Traditionis custodes has brought to an end the bishop's authority in this issue and they are no longer allowed to have priests celebrating the old form of the mass but have to ask the Pope in every single case. And diocesan priests are not at all allowed to practise this rite without special reasons and a permission from Rome. I know that in the U.S. there are some bishops who ignore the new rules, and there is a right wing movement called "Tradcath"[9] which consists basically of young Catholics who support Trump, but this is a small bubble, even more compared to the Catholic world as a whole where virtually nobody perfoms Tridentine masses any more.--Jordi (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As there is another image that already shows a Catholic Mass, perhaps the suggestion of a different type of ritual is better. Or, given that the page already has multiple images, we could remove the image and allow the Anthropology of Religion sidebar move up. As for the "one of the most widely performed" statement, it's unsourced and can be removed. - Darker Dreams (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said that there is another image that already shows a Tridentine Mass, not a Catholic Mass in general. There is no problem from my point of view to show another rite which is not a Catholic mass in the main image. But in this case you would have to replace the image of the Tridentine Mass by one which shows a modern mass, because otherwise the propagandistic bias in favour of right-wing-Catholics would remain. The statement that Catholic mass is "one of the most widely performed" rituals is unquestionably true and therefore trivial and does not need a special proof I think. If they can provide one, would be fine, if not no problem.--Jordi (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat curious regarding the statement and found out that Catholic bloggers and priests say that there is an estimated number of at least 350,000 Catholic Masses celebrated every day worldwide.[10][11][12] The problem is that this is an unsourced statement disseminated in blogs and Parish newspapers. But there are also scholarly works which have it, so does Franklin T. Harkins Thomas Aquinas: The Basics, Routledge 2021, p. 166, though in an only casual mention (and without a source). As a result, I would not consider the book a reliable source for the number 350,000 itself, but yes I think it proofs that Mass is "one of the most widely performed rituals" worldwide. So that statement is fine.--Jordi (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionis custodes article two states "It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See." Article 4 places an additional restriction on priests ordained after the montu proprio, which does require consultation with the apostolic see, but for the over whelming majority of priests ordained prior to it permission from their bishop is sufficient to continue offering the 1962 missal, and many bishops willing grant this permission. So I'm not factually incorrect in saying that many diocesan priests licitly offer this form of the mass. Then, outside of diocesan masses, there are many societies of apostolic ways of life such as the F.S.S.P and the Institute of Christ the King that offer the '62 missal under the popes permission and blessing worldwide.
You keep making the image a political issue, there is not a set connection between any political groups and a certain form of the mass. It's not about bias or propaganda. The other image of the old mass expresses the fact that the use of Latin is an example of a restricted code so a modern image of the mass wouldn't suit that example as well. The current image doesn't really have to be changed if you have your heart so set against the original. I only wanted to propose the return to the original image because I thought it was a better expression of a rigid set of rights with a long standing tradition. It's newer equivalent has a lot more leeway in terms of individuality so as a ritual it's not as uniform between celebrations. I think most images of a catholic mass would fit the page as being widely celebrated rituals, and that being true the original image expressed the ritualistic nature of the mass the best. But if the old mass upsets you we don't have to revert the change, the new image is fine I just think the old one is a prettier expression of the faith. BCPI (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "original" in old-style masses (it is not "the Mass of all times", that's a Trumpistic lie from right-wing Catholics). It is nostalgia at best, but that only applies to older people who lived through the pre-council period. For younger people, especially in United States, it is a political statement against modernization of the Church. Already Paul VI saw adherence to the old form of the mass which he forbade as a “symbol of the condemnation of the council”. Pope Francis has noted that the generosity of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI was "exploited" to increase divisions, increase differences and promote disagreements that hurt the Church, blocking her path and exposing her to the danger of division. So there is nothing positive in promoting this ritual.--Jordi (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've pre-empted this endless and pointless discussion by putting an image of the world's oldest continually-practiced type of ritual at the top. Both varieties of Mass are lower down. Let's have no more of this. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thank you.--Jordi (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ritual&oldid=1193911451"