Talk:Christmastide

Beginning
It has been parodied that the Christmas season is too early. This is understandable, as Christmas related advertisements usually begin these days immediately following Halloween. This breaks the tradition of having Christmastide follow Thanksgiving. In It's the Easter Beagle, Charlie Brown , this is parodied by having a department store all prepared for Christmas during Easter.

Re: Merge

 * Other way around: This should be merged into The Twelve Days of Christmas, by far the more commonly used phrase. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree - The Twelve Days of Christmas is a specific tradition not recognized, or followed, by many people. If Christmastide is being used the same way as Christmas Season, for many, it is a completely different concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.64.95 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly are these two different concepts? Both refer to a space of time--and the same space of time, about the same holiday. Certainly a merged article needs to address both terms, but the basic idea is the same.Tb (talk)


 * Agree. The "twelve days of Christmas", is not the "more commonly used phrase", but moreover, makes it hard to talk about the forty-day Christmatide tradition as well. A merged article needs to discuss both the twelve-day and forty-day traditions. Tb (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Christmastide
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Christmastide's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Forbes2008": From Christmas:  From A Christmas Carol:  

Reference named "Bunson": From Nativity scene: Bunson, Matthew E.. Catholic Almanac 2009. Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2008. ISBN 1-59276-441-X. From Christmas:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation needed
Perhaps Anupam will revert again, but hopefully with some explanation.

Why did Anupam delete the paragraph about the existence custom of fasting at the start of January that long predated the 567 Council?

Why did delete the statement by Ronald Hutton? - "that, while the Council of Tours declared the 12 days one festal cycle, it confirmed that three of those days were fasting days, dividing the rejoicing days into two blocs."

Was it done because of wanting to keep presenting as serious Wikipedia material the statement that the 567 church council's decisions were intended to overcome a difficulty that the civil authorities of the Roman Empire, to which Tours no longer belonged, were supposed to have had half a millennium earlier about reconciling different different calendars? Which calendar was in use, for instance, in Antioch when John Chrysostom spoke of Christian feasts such as Christmas and Epiphany? That was long before 567. Esoglou (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I deleted nothing of Anupam's material. Why did Anupam delete mine? What was there in it that was not firmly based on reliable sources? Esoglou (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Esoglou, Merry Christmas! I actually restored all your edits to the paragraphs you added. The only changes I made were to the content I reintroduced. I think the way I wrote the content I added was much clearer as those sources are saying the same thing. I think keeping one small paragraph of mine, based on reliable sources, is a good compromise, as you have five lengthy paragraphs (that appear first in the section). My one paragraph is the last one in the section (which I have had on my watchlist for quite some time). In addition, I did not remove the statement by Ronald Hutton--I just moved it after my sentences and added the original statement in the quote parameter. I do not plan on reverting any of your edits to the information about fasting you introduced--I only wish to keep the paragraph that I added and respectfully ask you to let my contributions (which are stated in a clear way) to remain. I hope this explanation helps and I hope you sincerely have a blessed evening. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for largely undoing your revert. What I wrote above was, as is obvious, in reaction to the removal of all of the edit by which I clarified matters by more specific information. This you removed, giving as explanation only: "my one paragraph should stand as a compromise in comparison to your four".
 * I do not understand the suggestion that I did not let you "keep the paragraph" that you added, unless you mean that you don't want it divided according to the different matters raised. The statement that had already been there was that Tours made the 12 or, according to one of the cited sources, 13 days (why then did you present the sources as speaking instead of 12 days? if you don't like "12 or 13", just omit the indication of the number and say "the days between Christmas and Epiphany") a group of days, all joyous.  Hutton says they were indeed a group of days but not all joyous: instead there was a three-day interruption of the joyfulness, making two blocs of joyful days.  So why did you remove Hutton from that context and place him after the new topic that you introduced?  That was a distinct topic: the claim that the action of the council was taken in order to solve an administrative problem of the Roman Empire.  It needed to be put in the context of the fact that the area the council was legislating for was not in the Roman Empire and that the supposed problem had been solved centuries before, a context that you have removed.  It also required not only a new paragraph, but a new heading.  All the rest was about the nature of the 12 or 13 days between Christmas and Epiphany: all joyous, or was part of it a penitential fasting period?  The topic of a supposed administrative problem of the civil administration of the Roman Empire is quite distinct.
 * It is misleading to speak of the sources that do not mention fasting during Christmastide as being "such as the Catholic Encyclopedia": some are quite unlike that publication. When I read that description of them, I presumed that the first quotation must be from the 1908 volume that spoke of the question.  I found that it was instead from an article published on the privately maintained CatholiCulture.org website.  That needs remedying.  Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Esoglou, this link allows one to read the Christmas article at The Catholic Encyclopedia--it states "The Second Council of Tours (can. xi, xvii) proclaims, in 566 or 567, the sanctity of the 'twelve days' from Christmas to Epiphany". I have only made minor edits to your revision of my work and if you plan on kindly leaving the edits as are, I plan to accept your revisions as well. Cheers, AnupamTalk 16:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already read the article, which restates, though less clearly, what the Council expressed more clearly by stating that each day between Christmas and Epiphany was then a saint's feastday (without specifying the number of the days). If all you want is for Wikipedia to say that the Second Council of Tours proclaims the sanctity of the twelve days from Christmas to Epiphany, you need only cite that article. The trouble is that you cite other articles that are not satisfied with saying what the Council said about the days between Christmas and Epiphany, but that claim the Council decreed that all those days (implicitly even the first three in January) were to be kept joyously (Martindale didn't make that mistake); and you cite for Martindale's statement even a source that contradicts what he said about the days being 12.  If you remove these other citations, there is no trouble.  If you want to keep them, report them accurately.  It is also better not to use the weasel phrase "publications such as": you should either specify the publications more precisely, or else omit any presentation of a hand-picked few as in your unsourced opinion typical of the whole lot.  Will you fix these problems, or shall I?  Esoglou (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the sources that I've added say something about the Council of Tours proclaiming the twelve days of Christmas--I am using those sources (some very good ones) to buttress this fact. I have mentioned nothing about "joy" in my sentence and do not plan to do so, unless you request that. Now, on my end, I've been more than generous, allowing you to remove this information supported by references, including those of university presses, from the Christmas article, add several blocks of text about fasting here, and placing my contributions here at the bottom of the section. I personally think my paragraph should stand as is. If you have something to propose, you can do so on this talk page, although I think that changing the paragraph at this point is unnecessary. If you really think that the fact that some sources call it a "festive period" or a "joyful one" should be mentioned, I could try to work that in--it would have to wait until the 30 December, however. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have therefore myself undertaken the task of indicating what each of the cited sources states about how the 567 Council of Tours decreed that the days between Christmas and Epiphany were to be celebrated (12 days if you count one of these two feasts, 13 if you count both, 11 if you count neither). In Wikipedia, we must keep to what cited sources say.
 * I must protest your accusation of having removed sourced information. The Council of Tours did proclaim the (pre-existing) Christmas to Epiphany period as a season when there (already) was a feastday celebration on each day, and as a period when monks had to fast on only the three first days of January. I have removed no information, no source, about this fact.   Esoglou (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and corrected the information in the paragraph I added so that it matches what is stated in the sources exactly. I have also removed original research, including statements such as "without saying whether it was to be joyful or was to include penitential exercises." These violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and will be removed if they are added again. Since you wanted a statement from every source, I went and did that (despite the fact that I asked you to wait until the 30th when I am more free). Now, instead of a succinct and easily comprehensible sentence from sources that say the same thing, we basically have the same thing repeated multiple times forming a huge wall of text in the article. I hope, however, that you can finally agree on the one paragraph that I've added to the section. Thanks, AnupamTalk 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Catholic church
The lede says that for the catholic church, the season is now a few days longer than 12 days, implying that recently it was only 12 days recently. There are several problems with this statement. It would be more correct for the sentence to read, "In most of the liturgies of the Roman Catholic Church, the Christmas season is now much shorter than 40 days." Rwflammang (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Different rites and liturgies within the catholic church have differing definitions of the Christmas season.
 * From late antiquity until 1970, the practice in almost all of the western church was to have a 40 day Christmas season, not a 12-day one.
 * In the present day (now) Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Roman rite, Christmastide is still 40 days long.
 * Hi User:Rwflammang, good point! Feel free to make your suggested edits in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done, Rwflammang. Within the Catholic Church there are also the Eastern Catholic Churches with traditions different even among themselves.  Even within the Latin Church, there are different liturgical rites.  In the Ambrosian Rite, Christmastide is now the same as it it is now in the Roman Rite (source). I don't think it is worthwhile finding out what is now the practice in the Mozarabic and Carthusian liturgical rites.  If understood in relation to the liturgy, your statement about Christmastide having once lasted until 2 February is, however, contradicted by the pre-1970 Roman Missals, although it may be true at a level of popular celebration, just as in Scandinavia it began/begins with Advent.  The 1960 Code of Rubrics explicitly said that Christmastide "runs from I vespers of Christmas to none of 5th January inclusive" and that "the season 'per annum' runs from 14th January to none of Saturday before Septuagesima Sunday" (Code, 72 and 77).  The unrevised Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was not representative of the Roman liturgical rite (the Roman Rite), seems to be, at least now, on the level of the many other officially approved offices, chaplets, etc. of devotion.  Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting point about the 1960 rubrics and quite surprising to me. Dom Prosper Guéranger in the second volume of his The Liturgical Year describes the Christmas season as a forty day period starting at Vespers on 24 December and ending at Candlemas. I wonder when the season was shortened? My Little Office purports to be from a mid-century Roman breviary and is therefore part of the Roman rite, so it is odd that it too has a 40-day Christmastide. Rwflammang (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's a very interesting point about what 19th-century Dom Prosper Guéranger said about "the Christmas season". I wonder did any official liturgical book say it, or was it just an interpretation by one or more liturgists.  Unfortunately, I cannot undertake any even minimal research into that just now.  As for the Little Office, there were and are so many different versions of it that I don't think I would ever research them.  The pre-1970 Roman Breviary allotted four different final antiphons of the Blessed Virgin Mary (at the end of Compline) to four different periods of the year: Alma Redemptoris Mater to "from Saturday before the first Sunday of Advent to 1 February inclusive"; Ave, Regina caelorum to "from 2 February to Wednesday of Holy Week"; Regina caeli to "from Easter Sunday to Friday within the Octave of Pentecost inclusive"; and Salve, Regina to "from Saturday after the Octave of Pentecost to Friday before the First Sunday of Advent inclusive".  Obviously none these periods corresponds to "Christmastide".  I have also looked at https://books.google.com/books?id=tHgPAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=breviarium+romanum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgmtVP7AGcLU7Ab_9oHoBA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tempore&f=false this pre-Pius X breviary] for a reference to Christmastide, but failed to find any.  On the contrary, it gives a different antiphon for the invitatory psalm from the Octave of Epiphany to Septuagesima, which seems to contradict the idea of a Christmastide extending beyond the Octave of Epiphany.  At what point does your Little Office speak of a 40-day Christmastide, so that I can search for a similar mention of Christmastide in the pre-John XXIII breviary and/or the pre-Pius X breviary?  The John XXIII breviary, of course, does speak of Christmastide, doing so in exactly the same terms as the 1960 Code of Rubrics, but does so in a context that has no correspondence with what I find in the older breviary.  Your Little Office must be pre-1960 or else it just ignored the 1960 definitions.  Esoglou (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Little Office
My Little Office's title page has, The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary / in Latin and English In Conformity with the the 1961 Editio Typica of the Roman Breviary being that permitted by Summorum Pontificum / Including the Gregorian Chant appointed to be used in the  the Office / Baronius Press / London / MMVIII.

The preface by Very Rev. Fr. John Berg, Superior General of the FSSP, says, I am pleased to commend this new edition of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which adheres to the Editio Typica of the 1961 Breviary…

There follows a lengthy introduction by Theo Keller. Here follow some excerpts. He then goes on to describe the changes that Pius X made, which were quite minor, and two other variations of the Little Office which were authorized by the Holy See and which were different from the one published in the breviaries, but did not replace it. Generally speaking, the Little Office seems to be more conservative that the Divine Office.
 * Since 1568, after Pius V’s reform of the Liturgy, every printed edition of the Roman Breviary included the Little Office …
 * This version was, with small changes here and there, the one reformed by Pius X in 1911 as part of his own reform of the larger Roman Breviary…
 * Pius V … removed the obligation for all clerics to pray the Little Office, but did authorize the inclusion of the Little Office in all printed editions of the new Roman Breviary for those who wished to pray it from devotion.
 * Indeed, the most radical change to the Little Office found in the Breviary was that some editions followed the Psalter of Pius XII… (Eww.)

The edition is a diglot as far as the actually text, but unfortunately the instructions and commentary are in English only, and they do not strike me as strict translations of actual rubrics. The long and the short of it is that the Little Office is divided into three offices:
 * Office 1 is said during Tempus per annum, which runs from 3 February to the Saturday before Advent, excepting the feast of the Annuciation. Alleluias are suppressed during Septuagesimatide and Lent, and there are a few antiphons which are said only during Eastertide, which includes the Octave of Pentecost.
 * Office 2 is said from first Vespers of the First Sunday of Advent until None on 24 December, and on the feast of the Annuciation.
 * Office 3 is said from Vespers on 24 December till Compline on 2 February, and it’s 2 February even if Candlemas gets bumped by Septuagesima Sunday. Septuagesimatide does not trump Christmastide, a point also made by Dom Prosper, even if the alleluias do get suppressed.

The antiphon Alma redemptoris mater is said during Advent and Christmastide, but the versicle, response, and oration following the antiphon differ according to season.

Rwflammang (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That information seems to be commentary rather than an official statement, and it does ignore the official definition printed in the "1961 Editio Typica of the Roman Breviary", with which it says the publication conforms. Is there some quotable phrase that states straight out that Christmastide lasts until 2 February, rather than saying that Office 3 is used until 2 February?  That would be useful to avoid the charge of synthesizing.
 * This may be an indication of the general view before an official definition was adopted, perhaps for the first time ever, in 1960. If you Google for "Christmastide" and "2 February" you get many sources that indicate that this was the general view, at least in England.  Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The season of Office 3 is explicitly called "Christmastide" throughout the instructions, just like the season Office 1 is called "tempus per annum" (or "time through the year", although the Latin phrase is more common). Obviously, the little office's tempus per annum differs from that of the Divine Office.


 * At any rate, my original objection still stands. It seems that for some purposes, the Catholic Church, at least in the Roman rite, and at least for some liturgies, does not have a monolithic definition of Christmastide. Rwflammang (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand right, the Latin Church's only definition of "Christmastide" is that of 1960, slightly modified in 1969; and your edition of the Little Office gives no definition of "Christmastide", but only says that its Christmastide office is used from First Vespers of the Nativity of the Lord to Compline on 2 February. Is that right?  (In that case, I should have used a different word when I wrongly said it "ignored" the official definition, which it doesn't contradict.)  Does it say anything else about Christmastide?  Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My Little Office provides a definition of Christmastide different from the one you gave above, just like its definition of time throughout the year is different from the one used at mass and in the Divine Office. Rwflammang (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then quote the definition and put it in the article. I must have misunderstood.  I thought you said that it states only that the Christmastide office is used from First Vespers of the Nativity of the Lord to Compline on 2 February, which is different from a statement of what Christmastide is, such as the 1960 Code of Rubrics makes.  Even if I have not misunderstood, you can still put in the article something on the lines of: The Little Office (exact title) published by ... in ... (year) states: "The Christmastide office is used ...", citing the source, with page number.  Esoglou (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A very interesting article pertinent to the duration of Christmastide is given in this blog [here].

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christmastide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106114801/https://haligweorc.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/on-eves-vigils-and-first-vespers-i/ to https://haligweorc.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/on-eves-vigils-and-first-vespers-i/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Christmas season
If, as our lede indicates, Christmastide is the same as the Christmas season is the same as Christmas time, then the article is not inclusive enough. The Christmas season begins in America some-time around the Friday after the fourth Thursday in November (for commercially-minded people) and perhaps with the start of advents (for others). Merriam-Webster online defines Christmastime (note the spelling and also that it is not red-lined here).Kdammers (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Boar's head nonsense
"In the English city of Oxford, many Christian families, after attending church, celebrate this period through serving a traditional dish called Boar’s head." Utter nonsense. A quick glance at the quoted reference will reveal that this was not describing what individual families do, but a custom at one of the colleges of the University. Clearly individual families would not be cooking boar's heads, the customs of families in Oxford are unlikely to differ from those in the rest of England, and in any case a book published in 1885 is unlikely to be reliable as a description of present-day customs. --rossb (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Query on Suppression section heading
Upon reading this article, I was surprised to see the Puritans mentioned in the section about antireligious governments. The Wikipedia article on Puritans would lead the casual reader to the conclusion that they were extremely religious since religion is discussed repeatedly in the opening paragraphs. I would also argue that, in the strictest sense, the Nazi party in Germany was not antireligious - while dissenting voices were shut down, this did not apply to religion as a whole. For this reason, I would like to propose removing "antireligious" from the section heading. I do not feel as though it adds anything and do not foresee any negative impact to the article if it were altered. I realise other Wikipedians may have divergent views so I would rather not act unilaterally. Paddyman1989 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

By 'logic' Please do not stuff up the planet earth. There is no such thing as one tide point all around the earth at year end. 110.175.185.30 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

40 Days of Christmas
There probably should be some reference to the 40 days long Christmastide practiced by Catholics prior to the liturgical reform of Paul VI. 147.178.4.137 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've heard from an FSSP priest that Christmas was never actually 40 days long, even before the reform, and that this is only a widespread rumor. I am not a historian or liturgist though, so I have no idea. 2601:49:8400:26B:10E2:D539:1E94:B623 (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

December 24th
The article says that Christmas begins at vespers on December 24th. This is probably correct, but I think it needs more nuance. I won't be the one to make the edit, but I'll just lay out my thoughts below if anyone wants any ideas.

At least with regard to the Catholic Church, there are two different systems of counting time, which are each used for different purposes. The one system counts time from sunset to sunset (this is the one that's used in the Divine Office), and the other counts from midnight to midnight (this I believe is the one used for the Church's fasting/abstinence requirements. And I believe it's also the one used for the Sunday obligation, although the Church does allow Sunday Mass to be "anticipated" on Saturday evening).

So on the one system, Christmas begins with vespers on the 24th; but, on the other system, Christmas begins on the 25th at midnight.

During the liturgical reforms following Vatican II, I think the Divine Office may have switched over to the midnight-to-midnight cycle, in which case the vespers-to-vespers system might not exist anymore. (I'm really not sure.)

In either case, the "feasting" and celebratory nature of Christmas didn't begin until December 25th. This is because Christmas Eve used to be a mandatory day of fasting, and the fast would not end until the reception of Holy Communion at Mass. Even if December 24th vespers is considered "Christmas", the first Mass was never celebrated before midnight (this is on account of the tradition which says that Christ was born at night time).

The fasting is no longer mandatory (apart from the 1-hour communion fast which is something different), and I think Christmas Mass is allowed to be "anticipated" (before midnight), but, generally speaking, I think it's basically the same as it used to be: anything prior to midnight is anticipatory (looking forward to Christ's birth), and everything after midnight is celebratory (celebrating the birth of Christ). 2601:49:8400:26B:10E2:D539:1E94:B623 (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)