Talk:Liturgical year

Project?

There is a lot that we could do with the Christian liturgical year. It would be nice to have articles for each Sunday — at least each Sunday has set readings in a lot of traditions. It would be good to link together the calendars of various traditions too. I propose starting from the RCL calendar as it is now the most used calendar in the western liturgical tradition, and building from that. Would anyone be interested in setting up a Wikiproject for the liturgical year? Gareth Hughes 09:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See WikiProject Christian liturgical' year. Gareth Hughes 10:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True, the greatest number of churches use the RCL, but the largest number of Christians total still use the calendar of the Roman lectionary, which was represented in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as well (until the General Convention of 2006 adopted the RCL. . . for the time being.)76.23.69.69 (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Cody Unterseher, TEC Priest

npov issues?

I haven't read a lot of the religion articles, but is it considered suitably neutral to do things like say Easter celebrates the day of "His resurrection"? Why not "easter is the date on which Christians celebrate what they believe to have been Jesus's resurrection"? It couldn't hurt...

It is factually correct to say that Easter is the celebration of Christ's resurrection. That doesn't make any statement about claims for and against his resurrection; it only says that Easter is when it's celebrated. The statement is verifiably true. Your rewording also makes for a bad read: it's better to tell it as it is. Gareth Hughes 11:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

External links

I removed the following per my understanding of WP:EL:

• i s h eaters.com/beingcatholic.html Sacred Time traditional Catholic view of the liturgical year and its customs and traditions
• Monthly Calendar of Solemnities and Feastdays

The first is a subset of a subset of Christian tradition, adequately covered in Traditionalist Catholic (Wikilinks always preferred to weblinks). The second is a Geocities site, and not an obvious authority. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Easter

Easter Section needs to be expanded and the timing of the feast explained Japeo 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What I know is that Easter Sunday is on the Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, but I do not have any source I can cite right now. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The timing of Easter is treated both in Easter and in Easter date, no need to repeat that here. (Laivine, you answered to a thread of seventeen years ago). --Medusahead (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Number of Ordinary Sundays

When is there ever 34 Ordinary Sundays in the Liturgical Calendar? I thought by definition the Sunday before Christ the King, i.e. two Sundays before Advent Sunday, is the 33rd Sunday of the Year. Is there an example of a year when there were, or will be, 34 Sundays? Arcturus 19:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Christ the King is the 34th Sunday and labeled as such in the Lectionary. The rest of the week is the 34th or Last Week. Seasonally, Christ the King is part of Ordinary Time, just like Trinity Sunday, even though it's a fixed Feast. PaulGS 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence stating the number of Sundays in the first bit of Ordinary Time needs to come before the one indicating the variability in the start point, otherwise it is simply inaccurate (there may in fact be no Sundays in the first bit of OT in rites which treat Candlemas as the end of seasonal time – the Church of England follows such a pattern). The figure for the number of Sundays is three to eight for the Roman Rite, four to nine for rites which treat the Baptism of Christ as of Ordinary Time, and zero to five where seasonal time extends to Candlemas (there may be yet more possibilities). If this sentence is to have any value at all, it must be clear which rite it is referring to. Vilĉjo 07:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is Ordinary Sundays in the Roman Rite, the figure is

• 53 Sundays of a year (mostly only 52, but possibly 53)
• - 4 Advent
• - 2 Christmastide (25th Dec to 6th Jan - possibly but one, not, though, in years with 53 Sundays), excl. the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord (which itself is part of Christmastide, but is said to "commence the Sundays in Ordinary time" so that the first real Sunday there is no. 2)
• - 6 Lent incl. Passiontide
• - 7 (!) Eastertide incl. Ascensiontide excl. (!) Pentecost
• = 34.

The strange thing is, why is Pentecost Sunday counted among the Ordinary Sundays? The answer is that nth Sunday means Sunday of the nth week, and while Pentecost itself belongs to Eastertide, the week after it (given the Octave was abolished) is a week of Ordinary Time, so needs a Sunday and a Mass formulary attached to it. That's also why the first Sunday actually falling into Ordinary Time is called 2nd Sunday of Ordinary Time, as before it there is the 1st Week of Ordinary time.

Of course, the 1st week and the 34th week have a Mass formulary, but not even lessons (as simple ferias do have lessons, though not Mass formularies), and they are never said on the Sunday; likewise, the Ordinary Sundays that fall on Pentecost and Trinity are not said, and in most of the years, there is even so one Sunday less, so the skip from Shrove Sunday to the Sunday omitted at Pentecost is not 1 but 2.--2001:A61:20C7:EF01:4440:F638:D3E1:DBBA (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Kingdomtide

I have rewritten and expanded the paragraph on Kingdomtide, hoping to show that the basic idea is very widespread (and not restricted to one kind of tradition). In the process, I removed the statement that the United Methodist Church observed Ordinary Time from September to November as "Kingdomtide", as this seemed very surprising, given that all other denominations that I know of only use that term for the last 3 or 4 weeks. Apologies if I have removed correct information (I did check out their website, but couldn't find anything relevant)! Vilĉjo 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Festival vs. Holy Day

For the sake of categorization, can anyone tell my the difference between a Christian Festival and a Christian Holy Day? Can anyone give an example of an article that would fit one but not the other? I'm planning on proposing a merge of the two categories (Category:Christian holy days, Category:Christian festivals), because there is a lot of overlap. However, I want to make sure that there isn't a valid distinction before proceeding. -Andrew c 14:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They are two terms for the same thing. "Festival" often refers to the public celebration (fairs, festive meals, cultural traditions, etc.) of a Holy Day (or "Feast Day"), as opposed to the liturgical celebration (worship services, processions, mystery plays, etc.). But the two are closely bound together, and distinguishing them too sharply might bring about a false dichotomy. For instance, many aspects of carnival have their origin in religious practices (religious processions turn into parades). MishaPan 06:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Catholic Church, there is a hierarchy of celebrations according to their importance. At the top are what we call solemnities, followed by feasts, followed by memorials which are either obligatory or optional. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

St. Joseph and the Annunciation

I have a notion: This article says, "Should the Feasts of St. Joseph or the Annunciation fall during Holy Week, they are transferred to the week following Easter." But the article in this link says that "in 2008 the feast of St. Joseph will be celebrated... the day before Palm Sunday, and the feast of the Annunciation will be celebrated... the Monday after the second Sunday of Easter". Can someone fix the article with the link I've described, please? Thank you! --Angeldeb82 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

General style or terminology

It may be more proper to use the expression "Roman Rite" rather than "Catholic" in several instances because not all Catholic Churches (i.e. the Eastern Rites) use the Roman Calendar. In that sense, more effort must be made to differentiate between the pre-1969 and post 1969 Roman Calendars. (This can be done without dredging up Traditional vs. Modern Rite animosity just as in the bit about the Feast of Christ the King.) Since I only stumbled across this page and don't have my research materials here, I didn't want to make any changes. I'd rather leave it up to the original author or regular contributors. Mattvsmith (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

In the Ordinary Time sections, this statement, "Before the Roman liturgical calendar was reformed at the Second Vatican Council" is rather counter-factual. The Roman Calendar was not reformed at the Second Vatican Council, but by the committee that re-worked the liturgy and took effect the First Sunday of Advent in 1969. That's six years later. Chapter V of SC did not get into enough specifics to consider the reform as happening then and there. Mattvsmith (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Organization

It seems odd to have a single section with one festival day in it (the Assumption), let alone that it is a festival that has less universal appeal and biblical support than, say, the Annunciation. Even if it stays, I would like to see a citation for the claim that it may be one of the earliest festivals. Preferably, I would hope for either a complete section on many festivals of the sanctoral cycle, or limit this article to the major seasons and central festivals of the church year.

As a liturgical Lutheran, it seems to me that the entire article has a strong Anglo-Catholic prejudice. Mplsbf (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

language used

As a frequent goer to an Anglican church, as I was looking through the article I found it a little offensive that someone had put in 'mass' instead of Eucharist as 'mass' is Catholic. I have corrected the one I found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanjay09 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

History section?

I would like to see some discussion about the history of some of these traditions. When did they start? Who started them? When was the liturgical calender solidified? This seems like a glaringly obvious omission. Rmawhorter (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Biblical calendar" section inaccurate, contains original research

In describing the Hebrew calendar, the "Biblical calendar" section states

"Biblical calendars are based on the cycle of the new moon. The year is from the first new moon on or after the spring equinox to the next new moon on or after the spring equinox."

This is simply incorrect. If the spring equinox were the earliest date for that month, then April 4 would be the earliest date on which Passover can fall, which is not the case. Passsover can fall at least as early as March 26 and perhaps as early as March 25 (I'm not sure about the latter.) The section appears to be original research, and inaccurate original research at that.

I suggest deleting the section in its entirety and substituting a "see also" reference to the Hebrew calendar article. The fact is that the term "liturgy" is a technical term for discussing Christian religious ceremonies, and "liturgical calendar" is used only to refer to the calendars of Christian church traditions and is not a broader term referring to religious holiday calendars in general. Bob99 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Top-importance Christianity articles

I am removing the Christianity "importance=top" rating.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on the talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

World Mission Sunday

There could maybe be an entry on World Mission Sunday, which was created by Pope Pius XI in 1926 as the day of prayer and propaganda of missions. [1] ADM (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Passiontide

Concerning the recent edits about the use of the Gloria Patri at the Introit: the rubrics (page 80-81 of the reference, [2] say that it is omitted "in masses of the season from the the I Sunday of Passiontide to Maundy Thursday, and in Masses of the Dead". "Masses of the season" (in Latin, de tempore), always refers to the Mass of a Sunday or feria, as opposed to the Mass of a feast, so the edit saying Gloria Patri is said on feasts during Passion Week is correct. PaulGS (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What you eliminated ("In the 1962 form of the Roman Rite, the last two Sundays in the season of Lent are called the First and Second Sundays in Passiontide, and the Gloria Patri at the Entrance is omitted in Masses of the season from the first of these two Sundays to Maundy Thursday and in Masses of the Dead") corresponds to what is in the 1960 Code of Rubrics, does it not? So why did you insist on changing it?

I changed the first part because these two Sundays are not technically in the season of Lent, but in Passiontide. "Extraordinary form" is the official term now, which fits better than "1962 form". The Latin names of the Sundays are Dominica I Passionis and Dominica II Passionis, seu in Palmis, which are better translated as they are now in the article, rather than "Passiontide", which is tempore Passionis. People still call them "Passion Sunday" and "Palm Sunday", and those names need to be there, particularly since many sources use them.

Am I wrong in thinking that, according to the Code of Rubrics, a III class feast is not celebrated if it falls in Passiontide? Is it not thus misleading to state, without distinction, that the Gloria Patri is omitted "except for a feast falling in week starting with Passion Sunday". So why make that change instead of being satisfied with what the Code says?

You're correct about III class Feasts, but I think that level of detail is unnecessary for this article and better discussed elsewhere, perhaps in the Calendar of Saints article or in Passiontide. I agree that "feasts which fall" is not the best choice of words; I'll change it to "feasts which are celebrated".

In the 1960 Code and the 1962 Roman Missal, the Second Sunday of Passiontide has the alternative name of "Palm Sunday". But I have failed to find where in the 1962 Roman Rite the First Sunday of Passiontide is also called simply "Padssion Sunday". Where did you find the basis for that change?

One source is the Angelus Press missal, which follows the 1962 Missal, which refers to the second Sunday before Easter as "Passion Sunday". Officially, you're right - there is no more "Dominica Passionis", the old name, but everyone in English still calls it Passion Sunday, not the First Sunday of Passiontide.

Does the Code of Rubrics really say that, even apart from the Entrance at Mass, the Gloria Patri is omitted in Passiontide? With regard to the Breviary/Liturgy of the Hours, it certainly says that the Gloria Patri is omitted in the Triduum Sacrum, but not in Passiontide.

The Gloria Patri, at Mass, is also omitted after the Lavabo, which I believe is the only other time it is normally used at Mass. In the Breviary (not the Liturgy of the Hours, which has its own rubrics and nothing to do with the 1962 forms), the Gloria Patri is omitted (on Sundays and ferias) after Psalm 94 and in the Responds at Matins and the brief Responds at Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Compline, but is still said after all Psalms and Canticles (Benedictus, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis) except during the Triduum. It is also still said at the beginning of each hour, as usual, before "Laus tibi, Domine, rex aeternae gloriae."

So why did you cast aside the previous text and replace it with statements that I find puzzling, as well as unsourced? Esoglou (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you still have questions about my responses here, I'll look through the rubrics again later and find sources. PaulGS (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Since you seem to prefer that I raise questions here, rather than edit the passage directly, here goes:

1. You say the 1962 form of the Roman Rite is officially called "the extraordinary form". Perhaps not at the highest level. Summorum Pontificum twice speaks of the 1962 form as an extraordinary form, not the extraordinary form. You may say that the only official text of this document is in Latin, a language that does not distinguish between "the extraordinary" and "an extraordinary", while the (unofficial) English translation can. But that takes away any ground for claiming that Summorum Pontificum spoke of "the extraordinary form". Besides, the accompanying letter to the bishops was issued officially in English, as well as other languages, but not in Latin, and this letter speaks of the 1962 form as a Forma extraordinaria, again twice, not as the Forma extraordinaria. It is better to avoid ambiguous question-raising terms in Wikipedia, when clear unambiguous ones are available. "The 1962 form" is unambiguous, while the description "extraordinary form" (i.e. non-ordinary form) applies today to the 1954 and the 1570 forms just as much as it does to the 1962 form. The only difference is that continued use of the 1962 form is explicitly approved. (It seems that the pre-1962 forms too were never "juridically abrogated".) So please restore the unambiguous and non-controversial term "the 1962 form".
2. I don't think you can uphold the claim: "The 1960 reform officially renamed these two Sundays 'the I Sunday of the Passion' and 'the II Sunday of the Passion, or in Palms'. That English translation (if it can be called really English) wasn't and isn't "official". In Wikipedia we should use a sourced translation if available, not make an Original Research translation. As you know, an English translation can even be accessed online, and I know of only one. So it seems that we must use that, or else give the Latin names – or give both.
3. "They are generally referred to in English as Passion Sunday and Palm Sunday" – that happens because of the continued use of the terminology of a form of the Roman Rite that, like the 1962 form, is now non-ordinary (extraordinary). Until little more than half a century ago, not so long really, the official names of the two Sundays were "Passion Sunday" (Dominica de Passione) and "Palm Sunday" (Dominica in Palmis). Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week texts changed the name of the second to "Dominica II Passionis seu in Palmis". As far as I know, Pius XII didn't get around to declaring explicitly that "Dominica de Passione" should be called "Dominica I Passionis"; but for at least one of the two Sundays, it wasn't the 1960 Code of Rubrics that changed the name. When the article mentions the names "Passion Sunday" and "Palm Sunday" (without alternative), it should surely explain the origin of that usage.
4. Indeed, if you bring in the "Passion Sunday" terminology, we have to mention also its different present-day official meaning.
5. Isn't "In Sunday and ferial Masses (but not of feasts which are celebrated in Passion Week)" tautological? The parenthesis adds nothing to what is said in the first five words. Isn't it unnecessarily complicated?

I hope these observations don't seem excessively pernickety. I do think they all have a certain importance. Esoglou (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Extraordinary form" (whether "a" or "the") seems to be the most official term for the 1962 Missal, and I've seen it used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Maybe something like "The 1962 form, which can be used as an 'extraordinary form' of the Roman Rite...", unless that's already been mentioned earlier in the article. Although, depending on how picky one wants to be, the Breviary is the 1960 edition, while the Missal was revised in 1962, and the other books before that. Of course, they're all commonly, if technically inaccurately, grouped as "1962".

I think the Latin names are unnecessary detail here, although they should be included in the articles on the two Sundays. Whether 'the I Sunday of the Passion' and 'the II Sunday of the Passion, or in Palms' are official or not (and I don't have a 1965 Missal to check), they're accurate translations; "First [or Second] Sunday of Passiontide" is not.

It should be mentioned that "Passion Sunday" and "Palm Sunday" are the common names, since what people actually call something is just as important to know as what the name actually is. I agree the reason for that should be added - they're the former names - and the 1970 form's use of Passion Sunday should also be included.

Given that Masses are either of the Sunday, of the feria, or of the feast, you may be right, but not everyone will know that. Not everyone will know what "Masses of the season" are, and "ferial" doesn't include Sundays. Leaving out "but not of feasts..." leaves it unclear whether the Gloria Patri is said on feasts or not. It's probably unnecessary for someone who knows the rubrics, but a useful clarification for the general reader. PaulGS (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to the question of the "extraordinary form of the Roman Rite" terminology.

Palm Sunday was not "renamed" in 1960. The renaming was done earlier by Pius XII. Could you not say: "In the 1960 Code of Rubrics these two Sundays are called ..."?

I don't think that "Sunday in Palms" is English. You yourself refer to "Palm Sunday" as that Sunday's "former name". Its former name, before Pius XII changed it, was, in Latin "Dominica in Palmis", in good English "Palm Sunday". Literal word-for-word translation does not produce real English.

This question of literal translation has brought to my mind another point that I hadn't thought of earlier. In the 1960/1962 liturgy the two weeks that you call "Passiontide" (unlike "Sunday in Palms" for "Dominica in Palmis", a not excessively literal translation of "tempus Passionis") are included in what in Latin is called tempus quadragesimale (what should we call it in English: Lent? Lenten season? Lententide? ). In that form of the Roman Rite, tempus quadragesimale comprises tempus Passionis as well as tempus Quadragesimae (Code of Rubrics, 74). We shouldn't give readers the impression that tempus Passionis is a separate season on a level with Eastertide or Advent, instead of being a subsection of tempus quadragesimale.

It brings to my mind another point too. In the 1962 form of the Roman Rite there is no such thing as a single week called "Passion Week". In that form of the Rite, Passiontide has two weeks, the second of which is called Holy Week, but the first has no special name, other of course than "first week in Passiontide". That form of the Roman Rite calls the days in that first week Monday (etc.) after the first Sunday in Passiontide (feria II post dominicam I Passionis). In that context we can't talk of "feasts which are celebrated in Passion Week".

I notice that you have now added to the article a perhaps unsourced explanation of why Palm Sunday is now called "Dominica in Palmis de Passione Domini". I wonder is it true. After all, before 1962, the fifth Sunday in Lent was called "Dominica de Passione", although the Passion was not read on that Sunday. Esoglou (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"1962 form was used elsewhere throughout the article, and "extraordinary form" was already explained, so I think it works here, and I've changed that back.

"Sunday in Palms" is no different than "Sunday in White" ("Dominica in Albis"), but the latter is always called "Low Sunday". I don't agree that "Sunday in Palms" is somehow not English, only somewhat odd-looking since everyone calls it "Palm Sunday". I think both translations have encyclopedic value - one for what the Latin actually says, and the other for what English speakers actually call it. Nobody calls November 2 "Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed" - it's All Souls' Day - but both names should be (and are) included on that page. If we want to stick with the common English names, we should use "Passion Sunday" and "Palm Sunday" and leave all the Latin details for the pages on each Sunday; if "Dominica I Passionis" and "Dominica II Passionis seu in Palmis" need to be mentioned here, then "of the Passion" and "or in Palms" are what they say. (Oddly, while the pre-1955 Breviary uses "Dominica in Palmis", former editions of the Missal have "Dominica Palmarum", which "Palm Sunday" fits better.)

I'd call "tempus quadragesimale" the "Lenten season", while calling "tempus Quadragesimae" the "season of Lent" or simply "Lent", and "tempus Passionis" Passiontide. Liturgically, it's pretty clear that Passiontide is its own thing - the rubrics change, the statues are veiled, and the ferial parts of the Office are different from those of Lent.

I think we can refer either to "the week of Passion Sunday" or "Passion Week". My preference would be for "Passion Week" as shorter and the more common name, plus it goes along with "Holy Week" and "Easter Week".

I'll look around for a source for the 1970 form's use of "Palm Sunday of the Lord's Passion", as related to the Gospel reading. I do remember reading somewhere that it's now called "Passion Sunday" precisely because the Passion is read that day, not the previous week (now the V Sunday of Lent). I don't know where the two-weeks-before-Easter "Passion Sunday" gets its name, but I'll see what I can find. If I can't find a source for it in the next few days, I'll take it out. PaulGS (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your first comment seemed to suggest that you were making some other change or changes in the article, but nothing has happened. So I am replying without waiting further.

I don't know what you intend to do with regard to "changing back" to "extraordinary form". How are you going to indicate which extraordinary form you mean? This seems unnecessarily complicated. "1962 form" seems clear enough: in spite of the difference in the years of publication of the Roman Missal and Breviary, Summorum Pontificum used 1962 to refer to both of them. What was good enough for Benedict XVI should be good enough for us. Or do you want to be so precise as to speak of the Roman Rite "as revised by Pope John XXIII"?

In spite of what you are still saying in the article, "Sunday in Palms" was never an official name for Palm Sunday. What you mean is that "Dominica in Palmis" was/is an official name. While there are official Church documents that call it "Palm Sunday", I don't believe you will find a single official Church document that calls it "Sunday in Palms". If you implicitly say that "Sunday in White" (shouldn't you have written "Sunday in Whites"?) is not a name for the Sunday after Easter Sunday, you are right. The same holds for the Sunday before Easter Sunday. On the other hand, "Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed" is an official name for what is popularly called All Souls': just look up the official Roman Missal in English. I am puzzled at your statement that former editions (which ones?) of the Missale Romanum had "Dominica Palmarum". The 1920 typical edition, as seen in the printing whose online text is linked to in the Roman Missal article, has "Dominica in Palmis", as does my own 1950s printing of that typical edition. The 1570 editio princeps of the Tridentine Missal also has "Dominica in palmis". So I wonder where you found "Dominica Palmarum". Are you sure it was in an edition of the Roman Missal?

Liturgically it is quite clear that Passiontide (tempus Passionis) is part of what you call the Lenten season (tempus quadragesimale): not only does the Code of Rubrics say so, but Lenten rules on matters such as omitting Alleluia, Gloria, Te Deum apply to Passiontide as well as to the first four and a half weeks of the Lenten season, without having to be enunciated anew as for a different season. While the Code of Rubrics does make Passiontide a distinct sub-season, the changes in some rubrics are not in themselves enough to make it a new season on a par with Eastertide etc. There are separate rubrics also for the Triduum Sacrum, but the Code of Rubrics explicitly included those days in Passiontide.

In a pre-1962 context "Passion Week" is unambiguous. In the context of the 1962 liturgy, there are two Passion Weeks. In that context you can't speak unambiguously either of "the week of Passion Sunday" or of "Passion Week". Besides, in spite of what you say, "Passion Sunday" is no longer a "common" name among Catholics for the Fifth Sunday of Lent. Esoglou (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed "extraordinary form" back to "1962 form" an edit or two ago, so that's no longer an issue.

No, "Sunday in Palms" is not found in the 1962 books, but neither is "Palm Sunday". If we're going by common names, it's Palm Sunday, and it should be generally referred to as such. The common name for the previous Sunday is Passion Sunday. But if the renaming needs to be mentioned (and I'm not sure it does, since the article is meant to give an overview of the liturgical year, not a detailed history of the liturgical changes), my preference is for an accurate translation of what the Latin actually says, followed by the common name. If the issue were, for example, whether to translate "tempus Passionis" as "the season of the Passion" or "the time of the Passion", and official Church documents used one over the other, I'd go with the official one per WP:OR. Here, though, "I Sunday of Passiontide" adds a word ("-tide", meaning "season") that just isn't in the Latin.

I'm starting to think that the entire naming issue should be moved to Passiontide, where the various names and reforms can be more fully discussed. All that needs to be said here is that the two Sundays are - using their most common English names - Passion Sunday and Palm Sunday, and what the changes for Passiontide are (most notably the Gloria Patri and the veiling of statues). In the Passiontide article, the various Latin names can and should be mentioned.

I'll check my books again - but I've seen "Dominica Palmarum" in the Missal. The sanctamissa.org site has the 1962 edition. It's also possible that I saw it not in the Missal, but the Breviary, of which I have several editions.

The rubrics make a distinction between tempus quadragesimale and tempus Quadragesimae. Quadragesima is a distinct season from tempore Passionis, while both are part of temporis quadragesimalis. While a few rubrical changes don't make it a separate season, the significant changes in the Office do - the ferial hymns, verses, and responds of Lent are no longer used, replaced by those of Passiontide. The Triduum is not a separate season, but the last three days of Holy Week, the second week of Passiontide.

"Passion Week" is not ambiguous even with "Dominica II Passionis", as the rubrics call that week hebdomada sancta, the older rubrics call it hebdomada major, "greater week", and, in English, it's always called "Holy Week". I agree "Passion Week" is not a common name among Catholics who follow the 1970 calendar - they'd call it the fifth week of Lent. But among those who use the 1962 calendar, the fourth week of Lent is followed by Passion Week, followed by Holy Week, followed by the Octave of Easter or Easter Week. I've never seen nor heard it called "the first week of Passiontide".PaulGS (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses to the above:

On your paragraph 1. I mistakenly thought that by "I've changed that back" you meant you were changing back to "extraordinary form". I had already thanked you for dropping "extraordinary form".

On para. 2. Just say "Palm Sunday" then, the term that was found in communications by English-speaking bishops and experts on liturgy when informing about the additional name. None of them ever called it "Sunday in Palms". If you wish - but do you really think it worthwhile? - you can say that the Latin name literally means "Sunday in the palms"; but that is no more significant than saying that the Latin name used for Friday literally means "the sixth feria"! The same holds for proposing literal translations of tempus quadragesimale, tempus Quadragesimae, tempus Passionis. Is it not much simpler, and indeed logical, to quote an English translation that was actually published at the time of the change, instead of trying to put in some terminology of your own?

On para. 3. By all means keep this article to reporting what Passiontide meant and what status it had at various stages of the Roman Rite, and move such questions of what would be the best and most accurate terminology to a more detailed article.

On para. 4. Thanks. It would be interesting to see where "Dominica Palmarum" came from.

On para. 5. Thanks for agreeing that the quite significant rubrical changes in the Triduum Sacrum (1962 definition) do not make it a separate season. What really made Passiontide a separate sub-season was the Code of Rubrics, not its changes. There were rubrical changes for those two weeks also before 1960, but, as far as I know, it wasn't then classified as a separate season or sub-season.

On para. 6. In the 1962 form there is no such thing as "Passion Week". What an editor claims to be common usage among a small minority of Catholics can scarcely be sourced for Wikipedia, and it is unlikely to be of sufficient significance for departing from the official usage regarding that form. Esoglou (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 2 and 3 - I'll make some changes to the article, removing the stuff about the revised names, and editing the Passiontide article to discuss that. I agree the common name is "Palm Sunday", and that should generally be used, but there's also value in the literal translation. But I think all that detail is too much for this article.

Looking through my books, I found "Dominica Palmarum" as the page heading in a 1911 (pre-Pius X changes) Breviary, although the prayers for the day begin with "Dom. in Palmis". I know I saw it somewhere else, too, but I can't find it.

The older rubrics (pre-1960) don't define the various seasons as the 1962 code of rubrics does. In the Ordinary of the Breviary, however, the various hymns and other prayers are given for the various times of the year, and labeled "Per annum", "Tempore Adventus", "Tempore Quadragesimae", "Tempore Passionis", and "Tempore Paschale". Whenever the period of time between Passion Sunday and Maundy Thursday/Easter Sunday is referred it, it's always "tempore Passionis" - "Quadragesima" ends with None on the Saturday before Passion Sunday.

While those who attend the 1962 form of Mass are a minority of Catholics, since that form is notable enough to discuss in the article, what English speakers call that week is what we should call it. Those who don't attend the older Mass likely call it the Fifth Week of Lent, which doesn't apply to the old rite, and I've never heard of it being called the First Week in Passiontide, just as nobody says Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed. It's "Passion Week" and "All Souls' Day". "Passion Week" is clear enough for this article, just as is "Palm Sunday". If we have to have a source that Catholics who attend the 1962 rite call it Passion Week, I cited the Angelus Press Missal earlier as evidence of common use. There's one also published by Baronius Press, which follows the 1962 Missal, but which I don't have so I can't check that. PaulGS (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right: "tempore Passionis" appears in the pre-1962 liturgical books, even in the pre-Pius X books. It is found repeatedly in sections on the rubrics. When Lent ends seems not to be defined. In many cases it is spoken of as followed by Passiontide (although everyone knew that Lenten observances did not end at that point), but it is also spoken of as extending at least to Wednesday of Holy Week, as in: "In Quadragesima autem a Feria IV Cinerum usque ad Feriam IV Majoris Hebdomadae ..." (Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, XI, 2).

Where a simple description will do, there is no need to attach a contentious name to a particular day or week. In Wikipedia especially, it should be avoided. Esoglou (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why "Passion Sunday" is contentious, especially if "Palm Sunday" is not. It's like Low Sunday - not the official name, but it's what English speakers call it. I still think it should be referred to here as "Passion Sunday", with a link to the article on that Sunday, and all the naming stuff dealt with there or in Passiontide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGS (talk • contribs)

1. When talking about the 1962 liturgy, this term is out of place, since that liturgy does not use it.

2. There is absolutely no need to use this term here.

3. No citation is given for use of the term. Esoglou (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Passion Sunday" is the common English name for that Sunday - should we move Passion Sunday to First Sunday of Passiontide and Palm Sunday to Second Sunday of Passiontide. Wikipedia uses the common English names of things, although other names can be referred to. If the fact that some people still call it Passion Sunday needs to be cited, do a Google search and you'll find plenty of church calendars that say Passion Sunday - even some that use "First Sunday in Passiontide have (Passion Sunday) next to it. PaulGS (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We should certainly not make the moves you suggest: those articles are not about the 1962 liturgy. When instead we report on the 1962 liturgy, we must use the terminology of the 1962 liturgy. For no other liturgical season does the article speak about each of its Sundays; what need is there for it to speak, even with accurate terminology, about each of the Sundays in this (sub)season? In an encyclopedia, speaking of them with inaccurate terminology is certainly to be excluded. Esoglou (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Passion Sunday" as a name for the day is not inaccurate, because people who use the 1962 calendar actually call it that. There are plenty of examples, not just in the liturgy, of common names and official names being quite different, and even several common names for the same thing. The only official name for that Sunday is "Dominica I Passionis"; any vernacular name related to the 1962 rite isn't. I don't really care how it's worded, but some mention of "also called Passion Sunday" should be there. Starting with that name is better stylistically, since it's silly to say "The first Sunday in Passiontide is called the First Sunday in Passiontide." Someone reading the article, who has heard of Passion Sunday and wants to find out where it fits in the year, might not know what this "first Sunday" stuff is. Saying "also called Passion Sunday" or some such wording is more inclusive. PaulGS (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Passion Sunday" is not what the 1962 calendar calls it. What is this article talking about at this point? Not about Passion Sunday. It is talking about the form of liturgy that was introduced in 1962. Thanks for permitting it to do so without bringing in extraneous questions. Esoglou (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, people use, among other things, "1962 liturgy" for the same thing variously also called the Old Rite, or the Old Use of the Rite, or even the Tridentine Mass. That is, the rite as it was until the major liturgy reform. In this case, the official terms in 1962 must be noted, yes, but the topic of the thing is not the specific changes of 1962 vs. say 1954. And besides, using these names is not binding under sin.--131.159.76.179 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Is a website that only gives seasonal liturgical colours worth including?

On what grounds does User:Dwo insist that this encyclopedia should incorporate a page from a blog that provides no information about the liturgical year other than the dates of beginning and ending and the vestment colours of the liturgical seasons of Advent, Christmastide, Ordinary Time, Lent, and Eastertide in a particular year, plus the correct colours for Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Pentecost, plus incorrect(!) colours for Epiphany (which it treats as celebrated everywhere on 6 January, not on the Sunday after 1 January), Laetare Sunday, Trinity Sunday, Corpus Christi, Gaudete Sunday, Saint Stephen's Day, the Holy Innocents and perhaps yet more, and that omits all mention of important feast days such as Saints Peter and Paul, the Assumption, Christ the King? What reasons (other than perhaps that the blog is Dwo's own) can Dwo advance for its inclusion in Wikipedia? Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you're not arguing inclusion anymore, so it's just a matter of POV vs. NPOV. A word like merely is POV. We go with NPOV. — D. Wo. 11:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the word "merely" above. If I had found it, I would have struck it out. Let us talk about substance, not words. Is it encyclopedic to include a private blog? Should an encyclopedia include a blog that gives information that could be given in a short paragraph indicating the vestment colour for five liturgical seasons and the dates, in one particular year, of those seasons, plus the colours on a very few feasts? Should an encyclopedia include a blog that gives (or at least gave - have you perhaps corrected it?) wrong information about the colour for several days in the year? Esoglou (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Biblical Calendars" Section

Hello to all.

I am a Jew, and have been working slowly to upgrade the "Jewish Holiday" article. I came here mainly to see how the lede section of this article was written as a possible analogue. However, I happened to see this section, and wonder why the authors/editors here would have excluded the inclusion of a holiday on 1 Tishrei, which is a biblically-mandated date--the date we now refer to as "Rosh Hashanah," Jewish New Year. It may be a separate question how one would want to characterize it, but the festival date existed during the Second Temple era--during Jesus's life, if you will--so should be included somehow.

On a separate, more technical, note: Shavuot, strictly speaking, comes on the 50th day after the first day of Passover. Normally that is 6 Sivan, and certainly under the current fixed Jewish calendar it is always 6 Sivan. But when the Sanhedrin was still sitting on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem--and for a while after that, too--months were proclaimed by the Sanhedrin, and the calendar was not strictly fixed. So to say that Shavuot was always 6 Sivan would not really be correct.

Be bold? Sure, but I don't feel it is my place to edit this page directly. So may I suggest the following to someone for that entry:

Shavuot (Pentecost) - fiftieth day following the first day of Passover (usually 6 Sivan)

StevenJ81 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done No response, so I did the above. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian?

There are a lot of religions that use a "liturgical year", should those not be included also? 68.13.160.163 (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone knows reliably sourced information about other such "liturgical years", by all means add it, making sure that the term "liturgical year" is in fact used of each of them. Esoglou (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm no good at editing wiki, I'd just like that each page is properly sourced and to see that wiki reach its full potential.

The following are links to or about non-christian religions using the words "liturgical year" http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/courses-exams/course-catalog/religion-1212a-judaism-liturgical-year http://www.sksm.edu/academics/SyllabiS11/SchulmanSp2011.pdf http://www.jewishbrno.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=69&lang=en http://home.sandiego.edu/~lnelson/htrs/pw/svishnu.html http://www.arce.org/events/consortiumevents/2009/03/u117/CAIRO-LECTURE-The-Islamic-Liturgical-Year-in-the-Sermons-of-Ibn-Nubata-al-Fariqi

Liturgy as the basis of "Liturgical year", based solely on the wiki definition points to a liturgical year as being "formal (church) ritual"s across the year, or a churches yearly calendar. Based on this, stuff like the following http://www.sikhs.org/dates.htm should be included, or like Christian liturgy has it's own article, perhaps an article solely on the christian liturgical calendar? 68.13.160.163 (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Liturgical year of the Catholic Church

I've been scanning back and forth looking for differences, but it looks to me like the same "Liturgical year of the Catholic Church" info box is repeated six times. PurpleChez (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's correct, because of merges. A clean-would do. One should occurence should be enough. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Issues with East Syriac Rite section

I see that the East Syriac Rite section has been claimed to be plagiarized (infringes on copyright) from this article: https://www.syromalabarliturgy.org/assets/assettt/panchangam%20English%202021%20(1).pdf

I have done the work to check whether or not there was any plagiarism or copyright infringement involved, and I do not believe there was. Firstly, copyright does not apply to dates, names of things, ideas, data, facts, concepts, principles, discoveries, individual words, short phrases, or slogans. So, the only thing that needs to be checked is if the sentences have been plagiarized themselves. This can very easily be done by comparing the text of the two things in question. I have done so for this East Syriac Rite section, and the results are below, for each subsection:

• Annunciation - 9% matched with the pdf given above
• Epiphany - 2% matched - only the phrase "Holy Trinity is revealed"
• Resurection - 2% matched - only the phrase "resurrection of Christ"
• Apostles - 1% matched - only the phrase "foundation of the"
• Qaita - 0% matched with the "Season of Kaitha" section of pdf, and 0% matched with introduction of pdf
• Eliyah - 2% matched - only the phrase "transfiguration of Jesus"
• Dedication of the church - 2% matched - only the phrase "weeks of the"
• The overview/introduction text not in a subsection - 0% matched with the introduction of the given pdf above

The only thing that is even remotely close to plagiarism is the annunciation section, which only has a 9% match for these 5 phrases:

• "this season also recalls"
• "creation, disobedience of"
• "promise of salvation offered by"
• "prophecies about the savior. during this season"
• "role of Mary in the history of the plan of"

I think these can easily be rewritten so they are no longer this close of a match. I do not think this warrants the whole section being hidden though. I will link the documents that show the above results here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GgpV3q7v5zqSOdlqjmPjWWwAjtUtvQxe?usp=sharing After doing a report on both texts in full, it came back with under 1% match. This is shown in the "FullReport.pdf" file in the link above. Krixano (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the potential copyright violation seems to have never been reported to Copyright Problems page. Krixano (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I have used a different site just to make sure I'm right about this. When I compare the revision with the potential copyright violation to the source given in the copyright notice, I get this result: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=993520623&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.syromalabarliturgy.org%2Fassets%2Fassettt%2Fpanchangam%2520English%25202021%2520%281%29.pdf Krixano (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"Kalendar"

The mention of the spelling "kalendar" does not warrant being in the lead - there's precisely one modern source, viz. some random parish in America. All the other attestations are at least 100 years old. It's clearly not in common use. Wereon (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You're quite mistaken; it's current usage throughout the ECUSA as well as the old country: A Kalendar of Holy Days approved for use in the Diocese of London, 2020. Sparafucil (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Sparafucil is correct. There are plenty of modern sources that use the term kalendar. An example of this is the 2021 Ordo Kalendar of the Episcopal Church. User:Wereon, you removed another citation from Merriam-Webster that records the definition. I would recommend that you kindly revert yourself. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly other sources that use the term "kalendar". Plus its notable prominence is documented in the dictionary [3] because words that are not used often do not make it there. I will be reverting back to that older version (since it was there before) with the new source provided as it sought to improve the article. No one should revert until consensus is reached here for removal. Looks like the other editors are favoring keep. I would say keep as well.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)