Talk:Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page. Nomination date: 2007-04-08

	Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] LBW or TLH/LSB verbage?

The change to the Festival on 2 Feb is to reflect the usage of the LBW which does not list the purification of Mary as being the primary emphasis. While I realize and understand that the SBH and LSB add her purification to the title, the LBW is more recognizable to a wider number of North American Lutherans and reflects something of a theological consensus between ELCA predecessor bodies and the LCMS since the latter did not pull from the LBW project until immediately before publication (if you look, you will see that they are even still listed as one of the publishers in the title page). Thus, as I stated, the LBW represents something of a broad consensus amongst North American Lutherans in terms of its production that even the TLH and the SBH did not enjoy, and is certainly not enjoyed by either hymnal project by the ELCA or the LCMS.

If it is felt for whatever reason that the verbiage of the LSB be given priority (exclusive or otherwise), I would suggest that an LCMS-specific calendar be written since my vision for the current page is that it reflect both the presumed consensus of the LBW and the nomenclature/format most easily recognizable to North American Lutherans. As it stands, I fail to see why the LBW should not be used since it represents the work of the LCMS/ELCA predecessors in cooperation whereas the new LSB is the exclusive work of the LCMS without consideration for usage in other North American Lutheran bodies (the same would hold true for the new ELW). Therefore, aside from updating the body of the article to bring the dates for specific commemorations/festivals into conformity with the new prayerbooks (and to properly designate their ranks where applicable changes have been made from the LBW), I see no specific reason to give either the ELW or the LSB preferential treatment in terms of nomenclature or verbiage. In short, the LBW represents the closest thing to a consensus on liturgical matters that North American Lutherans have ever had and since the article is designed to appeal to the widest variety of North American Lutherans possible, it should be preferred over either new or previous hymnal/prayerbook.

• You have a point there, but for March 19, it is mentioned in the article that "Saint" preceding a name is reserved for the Biblical sence, and Saint Joseph, is mentioned in the Bible and is a Biblical saint, so I do not know why you cannot put St. Joseph instead of Joseph.

• • In part, it is based on the LBW usage. If you'll note, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are not listed as being "saint" despite the fact that they are all biblical personages. Insofar as the appendation of saint goes, while it is reserved for those mentioned in the Bible (and specifically in the NT), it is extended to those persons rather inconsistently, whether it be in the LSB, ELW, or the LBW (or SBH and TLH, for that matter). Despite the permissively of the use of the term in the Augustana and more frequent usage in pre-Pietistic Lutheranism, North American Lutherans have always been particularly uncomfortable with its use in the titular sense for some reason which is beyond me (they're also uncomfortable with the use of the word priest, despite the fact that it is used by the Augustana and several European Churches). In my personal view, it would be highly satisfactory to use titulate as saint every personage on the calendar who culted as such prior to or since the Reformation, but this is not the way that either the ELCA or the LCMS have chosen to do things. Since there is a conflict between the LSB and ELW on the issue, here again, it is better to use the LBW as the primary arbiter of the situation.

[edit] February 18 reference

I note that one February 18, Martin Luther is cited as "doctor". Can anyone clarify whether this in an abbreviated version of the phrase Doctor of the Church? Also, if it is, does anyone think that we would necessarily encounter opposition were we to place him in that category? I tend to think that there would be at least some of the latter, but if we can provide a direct reference to it, there very likely wouldn't be any sustained objection. John Carter 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In most Lutheran cirlces, "Doctor of the Church" does not have the technical meaning that it does in the Roman Catholic world. But certainly Luther would fit into the definitions of bith Confessor and Doctor of the Church. Johannes Cardinal Willebrand referred to Luther as "our common teacher," a technical phrase normally reserved for Thomas. I would say, your call. -- Pastordavid 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference to “Doctor” is in the SBH as well as the new TLH. In his writings, Luther is called “doctor,” but this is a reference to his academic qualification rather than his being a “doctor of the church.” Personally, I’m content to leave it where it is, though it should be noted that Luther is the only person listed on the calendar as being “doctor” whereas individuals long-recognized in the West as doctors (Thomas Aquinas, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, et. al.) are not.

Jack Turner 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table or List?

I converted January to a table rather than a list. I think it is a little easier to read, and looks better. However, I will not change the rest of the calendar until I hear from others. If you don't like it, I will gladly revert back to the list. If you do like it, I will be glad to go through and convert the other months as well. -- Pastordavid 18:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I dislike it intensely for three reasons: first, it just doesn't feel right. While it makes it easier to read, it isn't aesthetically appealing. Second, I dislike that "empty" days have been left off. In my opinion, these are important for providing a sense of the whole calendar (and it also makes text easier to read). Third, only one other calendar uses the "table" method; everyone else has the calendar in the list format that was used here previously. I vote to change it back.

jackturner3 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been nearly a month and no one else has voiced for or against the table-format for the calendar, I'm going to change it back to the prior format.

jackturner3 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)