Talk:Roman Catholic calendar of saints

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	Roman Catholic calendar of saints 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.

Contents 1 Hey 2 General Calendar 3 Feria? 4 Too many Ferias 5 Rename article? 6 Annus bissextilis

[edit] Hey

Hey Lima,

The problem with just adding a saint name to fill in the blanks is that the calendar does not work that way. In reality there are at least 3 to 4 saints for every day of the year. The Church's general calendar is fairly lean on saints. Regional or national saints are more numerous. If a saint appears on this or any calendar which is not on the General Roman Calendar, it should be marked with an idication of which national calendar it is on and what its rank is. Simply picking a name or two from the old calendar (some of which were moved to national calendars, but many of which were removed for the good reason that they are legends). So to claim to be the calendar of the CC as this article does, it can't have all those others saints stuffed in there without justification. If people of various nations want to add in their locals, great! But without that indication, those other names have got to go! --Vaquero100 05:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The heading: "General Roman Calendar slightly augmented on unassigned days" is a scary twist on reality indeed.

Also, there is a huge inaccuracy here. The General Roman Calendar is fixed. There is no question about it. Yes, a national Church may move it for some reason--but that does not change its place on the General Roman Calendar and that does NOT make the Martyrology the only authority. The Martyrology has absolutely no authority in fixing the calendar. It is a resource that the Church uses to create the Gen. Rom. Cal. but the GRC is the authority. And just grabbing one of the saints "to augment unassigned days" is so arbitrary that it boggles the mind. If this is to be encyclopedic, it cannot be up to someone to "augment." Funny, I just gave a session to our soon to be deacons on the ordo, calendar, etc. this morning. --Vaquero100 05:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with Vaquero's rejection of what I thought was his idea: that in "vacant" days one or two saints from the Roman Martyrology for that day should be inserted. I have accordingly revised the introductory part of the article to make it correspond with his rejection of that idea and the consequent changes in the article.

If national calendars were to be combined with the General Roman Calendar, as Vaquero now seems to desire, the result would be very unwieldy. I have therefore removed from the article's account of the General Roman Calendar Vaquero's insertion of some celebrations peculiar to the United States of America and Canada. Instead, I have given, as a separate section, just a very few national liturgical calendars, less, I think, than 4% of those in existence. (I leave it to Vaquero to complete those for Canada and the USA, in which alone he has shown interest.) If all the national calendars, plus the diocesan calendars and those of religious congregations, were added, the result might almost be closer to the Roman Martyrology than to the General Roman Calendar.

By the way, the edition of the Martyrology that was quoted (and is now no longer listed as a source) is that of 2001. The names that "were removed for the good reason that they are legends" were removed before 2001. Besides, there are saints of whom, because of the exclusive interest in past centuries in legends connected with them, nothing or almost nothing is now known except that they existed and were honoured as, for instance, martyrs for the faith. That is enough.

Lima 10:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Calendar

I've removed William of Montevergine from June 25, which someone just added. The listing is the universal Calendar, and he's not on it, unless he's been added recently. If someone wants to make a list of saints celebrated in certain places other than the countries already listed, go for it, but the main list shouldn't be added to unless it's officially changed by Rome. PaulGS 03:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feria?

Could someone clarify what 'feria' is (preferably within the article itself, or link to where feria is described), please? I have just chanced upon this article and I do not understand why seemingly blank days are labeled Ferial. Thanks. --Melissa Della 17:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Okey dokey --evrik 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many Ferias

I propose getting rid of all those ferias, since about a seventh of them are actually Sundays in any given year. In addition to not being strictly correct, they add no information to this article. Rwflammang 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose putting in place of the word "Feria"? One obvious solution is to leave the space after the date blank, as in, for instance, the Calendar printed in the Roman Missal. Fine by me. Any objection by others?

If that solution is adopted, the explanation of the word "feria" should, I think, be removed from the introduction. Lima 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That is one solution that I would support. Another would be to remove the dates entirely, as is done for the national calendars, and print only those dates with a particular celebration in the sanctoral cycle. Rwflammang 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the "leave blank" solution. National calendars are supplementary: the days for which they give no celebration of their own are days on which the feasts given in the General Calendar are celebrated. Leaving them blank would send a false message. On the contrary, leaving days blank in the General Calendar might be taken as an indication that national calendars can fill them. I would add that I have no objection either to keeping the word "Feria". Yes, if the date for which "Feria" is given falls on a Sunday, it is the Sunday that is celebrated; but the same happens if the date for which the memorial of a saint (or even the feast of a saint other than Christ himself) is given falls on a Sunday. Lima 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer removing the dates entirely. I don't think leaving them blank will send a false message, because the article is very clear on where celebrations that do not belong to the general calendar go. People who ignore that are going to ignore it whether the date is removed, it is there but left blank, or if "Feria" is listed. You can always supplement the explanation if you still feel it would be confusing. Removing them entirely also has the added benefit of cutting down on the size and length of the article. Tcoury 15:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To make myself clearer, I rewrite what I put above: In the supplementary national calendars, putting in (with a blank space) the dates on which they have no celebration of their own would give the impression that on those days no saints are celebrated. In reality, most of those days are taken by feasts in the General Calendar. There is not the same danger of misunderstanding in the General Calendar, making blank dates permissible. However, I have no objection whatever to keeping the word "Feria", which in this context is defined as "days on which no saint is celebrated". On Sundays neither ferias nor saints, except solemnities and feasts of the Lord, are celebrated. Keeeping the word "feria" and the date will indicate that the date has not been omitted by mistake, but is in fact occupied. It will thus make it somewhat less likely that people will add saints either local or for whom they feel personal devotion, something that has been done even with the present arrangement. Lima 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the "a seventh of them are actually Sundays" argument (which I agree with you is beside the point), if your main objection is that people will be confused, that is easily remedied. Just put a notice (as you have on the national calendars) that the general calendar is complete as of such and such a date and reiterate that non-general calendar celebrations are not to be put on the general calendar. It's still going to happen of course, just as it does now, but that isn't going to be stopped no matter what we decide. As I stated in the previous entry, my preference would be to take the dates off. If we do leave the dates, I would suggest leaving it as is (with Feria). Tcoury 20:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is really a matter of personal preferences. On consideration, my own order of preferences is:

1. Keep as now (dates with "Feria")
2. Keep dates, followed by blank space, as in all official liturgical books
3. Remove the dates

That's my two cents or tuppence or mere ha'penny: I have no more to add, except that I would like - just for curiosity, since I intend to stay silent myself - to see the opinions of more than two others. Lima 08:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it as is, with the Ferias. Omitting those dates is too confusing, while including all 365 days of the year makes it clear that this is the complete calendar. I also agree that leaving them blank will lead people to start adding in other local saints. It also makes it a bit easier to compare with other calendars, including the pre-Vatican II calendar, instead of having to first see if a particular date is included. The only reason I see for omitting them is to cut down on the size of the article, but size isn't really an issue with Wikipedia, and they do add information to the article - they present the entire year, and the numerous days on which no Feast is celebrated. PaulGS 05:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose since Monday is called feria secunda then that must mean that Sunday is a feria prima in addition to being a dominica. I retract my original criticism. Rwflammang 15:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundays, by definition, aren't ferias, any days which are not Sundays or Feasts. In the liturgical books, Sundays are always "Dominica", never "feria prima". PaulGS 22:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename article?

The article has clearly morphed from an idiosyncratic list of Catholic saints' days (apparently an offshoot of Calendar of saints) to a more precise presentation of the current General Roman Calendar and the variations in certain particular calendars.

I propose that this transformation be completed by renaming the article "General Roman Calendar" (alternate suggestions below) and making the few tweaks necessary for the text to refer not merely to saints but to all liturgical celebrations/days. While the body of the article still speaks almost exclusively of saints, the actual lists of days (moveable, general calendar months, and national calendars) include, of course, all liturgical celebrations, not merely those of saints. By completing this transformation, I believe the article would be more coherent, less niche-like, and people would be less likely to simply add their favorite saints or devotions to the calendar listings (realizing that there will always be incorrigible folks).

According to the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, n. 49:

The general calendar includes the entire cycle of celebrations: the mystery of salvation as found in the temporal cycle and the saints, either those of universal significance which must be celebrated by everyone or others which show the continuity of holiness found everywhere in God's people.

The Latin, which I think is much clearer here, is as follows:

In calendario generali universus cyclus celebrationum inscribitur, tum mysterii salutis in Proprio de tempore, tum eorum Sanctorum qui momentum universale præ se ferunt, et ideo obligatorie ab omnibus celebrantur, tum aliorum qui universalitatem et continuitatem sanctitatis in populo Dei demonstrant.

What changes would be necessary to properly represent the whole of the General Calendar in this article? In addition to broadening the current references to saints to cover all celebrations, the only thing that seems to me to be needed is a brief explanation of the place of Sundays and seasons (the temporal cycle) in the calendar, possibly as a preface to the listings under Moveable (General Calendar).

The title: I presume the "Roman Catholic calendar of saints" was derived from the Calendar of saints article. I suggest "General Roman Calendar" as the new title, although I realize that that doesn't cover the inclusion of particular calendars. "General Roman Calendar and particular calendars" seems rather ungangly.

In its present form, this article is probably more closely related to Liturgical year, although that article is rather a hodge-podge. But on the same model, we might name this article "Roman Catholic Liturgical Year" or "Roman Catholic Liturgical Calendar". Liturgical Year would imply a wider topic than that currently treated by the article. Either title might work best as an umbrella for this article on the current calendar, the 1955 calendar, and a noticeably absent 1962 calendar, whether as subsections or links from the main body of the article. Echevalier 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Echevalier's general proposal. My own preference is for a title that contains the word "calendar" rather than "year", and for "Roman Catholic Liturgical Calendar" rather than "General Roman Calendar". If appropriate, I could give my reasons later. Lima 05:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I like where you're heading with this, but might I suggest 2 articles - one on the general liturgical year, and one on the calendar of saints? Just an idea. Pastordavid 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There's already Liturgical year, which discusses the Proper of the Season, although it can be a bit confusing since it discusses Catholic and Protestant uses, which aren't always the same. Any article would have to include both the pre- and post-Vatican II calendars, most notably Septuagesima and Passiontide as well as Ordinary Time vs. Time after Epiphany/Pentecost. The only change I see would be to create a specific "Roman Catholic Liturgical Year" article. As for the 1962 Calendar of the Saints, I created the older one mainly because I already had the pre-1955 calendar in electronic format, it's more consistent with past use since Trent, and it includes feasts that were later dropped. I think the same article can be used for both the 1955 and 1962 calendars, adding the rank of feasts (Double/III Class), and some sort of special formatting or asterisks for Feasts which are only on one or the other. PaulGS 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading the first comment, I'm also starting to like the idea. We can have one article on the year in general, what effect it has on the liturgy, and the arrangement of the liturgical books, with sections or sub-articles on the Proper of the Season and the Proper of the Saints, both articles discussing the 1955/1962 and 1970 versions. PaulGS 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annus bissextilis

The present (2002) Missale Romanum gives both styles of indicating the date, both the day of the month and the old Roman style. It no longer indicates in addition, as in past centuries, the cycle of epacts and the dominical letter and, more to the point here, it no longer has the Tridentine note about a leap-year change of date for feasts that would ordinarily be celebrated on 24 February or later. (Of course, it was a change of date only for those who used the day-of-the-month style for indicating the date; for those using the old Roman style, the feasts were on exactly the same date every year.) I am sure that the same holds for the Liturgia Horarum as compared with the Breviarium Romanum, although I do not have the Latin text immediately to hand. (I could get it within, at most, 24 hours.) The present Martyrologium Romanum is explicit. While the older editions of the Martyrology did follow the old Roman way of indicating the date, the present one gives, for instance, "Die 25 februarii. Quinto Kaléndis mártii, vel in anno bissextíli: Sexto Kaléndas mártii" (25 February. Fifth day to the calends of March, or in a leap year: Sixth day to the calends of March), followed by exactly the same list of saints, whether it is a leap year or an ordinary year. For the day "Die 28 februarii. Pridie Kaléndas mártii; vel in anno bissextíli: Tertio Kaléndas mártii" (28 February, Day before the calends of March; or in a leap year: Third day to the calends of March) it indicates that saints 4-7 in that day's list "anno bissextili prætermittuntur" (are omitted in a leap year) and adds, before saints 8 and 9, "Quolibet anno:" (In any year). Finally, it gives for the day "Die 29 februarii. Pridie Kaléndas mártii" the four saints that in leap years are omitted on 28 February. Lima 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The note that I had to replace could be put in Traditional Catholic Calendar, making it clear that the sources are of that pre-1970 period, not the present editions of the texts. Lima 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the 2002 missal and the new Mart. Romanum override the 2000 LH, but just to show you that the change occured more recently than the seventies, here is what the Sacra Congregatio pro Cultu Divino said in 2000. "Anni bissextiles autem duplici littera dominicali insigniuntur, quarum prior dies dominicas indicat ab initio anni usque ad diem 24 februarii, altera vero a die 25 unsque ad finem anni: bis enim dicitur sexto calendas martii." Of course, in the accompanying calendar, the distinction is a moot point. Rwflammang 01:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful for the quotation of the passage from Liturgia Horarum to which reference was being made. It does not say, as I presume the Breviarium Romanum did, that celebrations in the last days of February are held in accordance with the old Roman system of identifying dates rather than the modern day-of-the-month system. The Liturgia Horarum only gives both systems of dating, as does the Missale Romanum; it does not say that the old Roman system is the one to use. The English translation of the note at the end of February from which, I presume, the quotation is taken has: "In leap year February has 29 days and in the terminology of the old Roman Calendar both 24 and 25 February are called the Sixth day before the Calends of March. Liturgical celebrations, however, are not changed but kept on the date given in the Calendar." Does the Latin text have that final observation? If it does, it is even more explicit than the Martyrologium Romanum. Lima 08:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If it did, I never would have written that footnote in the first place, as it seems hardly necessary now. The Latin continues from "bis enim dicitur sexto calendas martii, id est diebus 24 et 25 februarii, atque iteratur littera f, quae bis servit diebus 24 et 25". In other words, it implies almost the exact opposite of what your English text says. The following and final paragraph gives an example of how to use the calendar to find the Sundays of February 2004, which has domincals d and c. My ICEL breviary does not list dominical letters in its general calendar, and this whole discussion, DE LITTERA DOMINICALI, 4 paragraphs, is omitted. My Latin LH 2000 has no note at the end of februarius. Rwflammang 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for a misunderstanding on my part, probably one of several. The quotation you gave above was not, as I imagined, from a note at the end of the calendar for February, but from some section headed "De Littera Dominicali". I have difficulty in imagining where that section is placed in the 2000 Latin Liturgia Horarum. The English translations in use are based on the first Liturgia Horarum, which must have had the same note at the end of February that the 1970 Roman Missal had: "In anno bissextili mensis februarius est dierum 29, et bis dicitur, Sexto Kalendas, id est die 24. et die 25. Celebrationes tamen loco non mutantur, sed fiunt die quo in calendario assignatur" (this is quoted in Der Schalttag). I suppose the 2000 edition of the Liturgy of the Hours must have a section corresponding to the pre-1970 Roman Missal's "De anno et ejus partibus", which has been omitted in the 1970, 1975 and 2002 editions of the Missal.

The text you quoted says nothing explicitly about altering the (day-of-the-month) date of celebrations. Perhaps there is some implicit indication, but it is not obvious to me - which may well be just a lack of understanding on my part. The "bis dicitur sexto calendas martii, id est diebus 24 et 25 februarii" part corresponds, of course, to "in the terminology of the old Roman Calendar both 24 and 25 February are called the Sixth day before the Calends of March." So the implication must lie in the phrase "iteratur littera f, quae bis servit diebus 24 et 25" concerning the dominical letter, which only indicates, I think, which dates fall on a Sunday. Perhaps a fuller explanation is in the section "De littera dominicali".

I agree that there is really no need to keep the note in the article here; it would be best to delete it. Lima 19:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The above text from "Der Schalttag" looks pretty clear - "Celebrations, however, are not changed in place, but are kept on the day they are assigned in the calendar." Of course, with 24-28 February as ferias on the revised calendar, it's mostly moot, although local feasts may be affected. Maybe someone out there has a 2004 Ordo from a diocese where a feast is kept on those dates. PaulGS 03:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)