Talk:General Roman Calendar/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Roman Calendar. 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/20080221180735/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120105029/http://www.portal.ecclesia.pt/ecclesiaout/liturgia/liturgia_site/santos/santos_users.asp to http://www.portal.ecclesia.pt/ecclesiaout/liturgia/liturgia_site/santos/santos_users.asp

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) 03:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Roman Calendar. 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/20150716181300/http://www.catholic.org.tw/catholic/index.php to http://www.catholic.org.tw/catholic/index.php
 * Added tag to http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Calendar/National/England1.shtml

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) 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:
 * Keep as now (dates with "Feria")
 * Keep dates, followed by blank space, as in all official liturgical books
 * 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)

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)

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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved, noting the strong consensus above in support of the proposal. Andrewa (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic calendar of saints → General Roman Calendar — Current title is a description and not a formal name. See discussion above.--Rwflammang (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ANZAC Day Australian calendar
I know that printed liturgical calendars will carry a mention of certain significant national secular 'days' - independence day, mother's day, etc, with a notation on how they could be commemorated at Mass. Those days aren't generally considered to be on the national liturgical calendar, though. Is ANZAC Day really an addition to the Australian liturgical calendar? Or is it a civic celebration which can be mentioned? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Such mentions are out of place here.  Esoglou (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

St Augustine Zhao Rong in Argentina
I notice that on the General Roman Calendar St Augustine Zhao Rong and Companions are celebrated on July 9 with an optional memorial, and in the Calendar of Argentina, on July 10 with an obligatory memorial. Was it moved so as not to impede the Argentinian obligatory memorial on July 9? I'm curious why they would make the commemoration of St Augustine an obligatory memorial. Were some of his companions from Argentina? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The information about 10 July in Argentina is false. This source, which gives information on the proper calendar for Argentina, does not say that the celebration transferred from 9 to 10 July has been made an obligatory memorial. And this source of the Argentine Bishops Conference shows that it is a optional memorial only.  Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

St Mary MacKillop
I notice that the Australian calendar lists St Mary Mackillop as "St Mary of the Cross (St Mary MacKillop)" whereas the NZ calendar lists her as "St Mary MacKillop". The calendara at the Australian Bishops' Conference site (http://www.dbb.org.au/ourparishesandpriests/Documents/2012%20Diocesan%20Liturgical%20Calendar.pdf) lists her as "St Mary of the Cross" and at the NZ Bishops' Conference site (http://www.catholic.org.nz/_uploads/_ckpg/files/NatCalend2012Approved.pdf) has "St Mary of the Cross (MacKillop)". Do we take those as normative? ps Esoglou, I'm glad you took out the reference to "patroness of the CWL": I wasn't sure why it was there in the first place, so I didn't dare remove it. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think these are reliable sources and should be followed, even if we were to disagree with them, unless we find better sources. The religious name is the one used also in the General Calendar for saints such as Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (9 August).  It is debatable whether in the Wikipedia article it is legitimate to add in brackets "(Edith Stein"), as now, or whether, at least for uniformity, Wikipedia ought to present her name as Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, as it does for the other two Teresas/Theresas (religious name), who appear in the official English version of the Roman Missal as Teresa of Jesus (15 October) and Thérèse of the Child Jesus (1 October).  Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Two new doctors
What is the news on when the two new doctors, John of Avila and Hildegard von Bingen, will be added to the General Roman Calendar? Presumably, their days will be May 10 and September 17. Rwflammang (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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)


 * The article mentiones it. It means "free day". And I removed all the "Feria" days as it confused and cluttered the calendar.War (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Latin rite liturgical year vs General Roman Calendar
I see the intention to add some movable celebrations which are not part of the General Calendar into this article. The liturgical calendar of the Latin rite is constructed from two separate sources: Liturgical year cycle and General Roman Calendar (or local calendars). If they coincide, there are precise rules which selebrations tooks place (ranking).

Liturgical year cycle consists of celebrations of the particular liturgical season. They include Sundays of Advent, Christmass season, Ordinary time, Lent and Easter season, Including Easter, Pentacost etc., week days of every season, such as Tuesday of the 5. week of Ordinary time, including Ash Wednesday etc.

General Roman Calendar consists of particular celebrations not connected to current liturgical season. They are mostly fixed days of Sants or the Lord. There are 7 movable feasts of General Calendar: Holy Family, Baptism of the Lord, Holy Trinity, Body and Blood of Christ, Sacred Heart of Jesus, Immaculate Heart of Mary and Christ the King, which move according to Liturgical year, but are not part of it.

If this article is about General Roman Calendar, IMHO there is no point to include here some parts of Liturgical cycle. Also, the coise of Liturgical cycle days mentiond here is somewhat arbitrary. We have e.g. Ash Wednesday, and not e.g. Third Sunday of Lent which is of the same rank. Moreplovac (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The movable feasts have been included in this article since 25 August 2006. A decision to remove them may require a sourced definition of "General Roman Calendar".  What many websites present as "General Roman Calendar" or "General Roman Calendar 201x" (often incorporating national celebrations) includes the movable celebrations.  As the inclusion of optional memorials shows, rank has nothing to do with inclusion or exclusion.  For exactitude, the term "Roman rite" should be used, not "Latin rite": the Ambrosian Rite calendar, which differs from the Roman, is also a Latin-Rite or Latin-Church calendar: but it is quite clear what Moreplovac means, so I do not wish to be pernickety about this.  I don't quite understand what is meant by saying that, for instance, the feast of the Holy Family is not part of the liturgical year: I would have thought that all liturgical days, fixed or movable, are part of the liturgical year.  Surely both Christmas and Easter are part of the liturgical year.  Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Roman rite, not Latin, that was the mistake.


 * Reference is e.g. Full text of the General Roman Calendar in Latin, mentioned in the article.


 * If the rank has nothing to do with the inclusion, and we want to list everything what is generaly included in Roman rite calendars, then all Sundays and weekdays should also been included. There is not essential difference between Palm Sunday and Monday of the 10th week of Ordinary time, both are equaly well defined for the whole Roman rite, just have the different rank. The point is that Sundays and weekdays are part of the Liturgical year cycle, and fixed days with some exceptions are part of the General Roman Calendar. Moreplovac (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I had better let others have their say. I still think that Christmas is part of the liturgical year cycle: the Universal Norms document, 32-38 puts Christmas Time as the fourth section of what it calls "The Cycle of the Year" (after The Paschal Triduum; Easter Time; and Lent; and before Advent; Ordinary time; and Rogation Days and Ember Days.  In 1969, a single publication, authorized by a single motu proprio, contained The Universal Norms for the Liturgical Year and the revised General Roman Calendar.  You will find the up-dated English translation in the Roman Missal.  It is true that binetti this source gives the General Roman Calendar on its own, and that the this source gives in isolation the "Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the Calendar" (what calendar?, you might ask).  The information now in the article explicitly indicates that it is not proposing a complete list of movable feasts, so there seems to be no need to include "all Sundays and weekdays".  (As for the Monday of the 10th week of Ordinary Time, I could say that for most people there is no such liturgy, because there is no special Mass for that day.  But that would be a quibble.  The Office of Readings does have special texts for that day.  So please excuse my mentioning the quibble, which I agree is just a curiosity that can be ignored.)  I will happily accept whatever it is that other editors will decide about inclusion or exclusion of the section on movable celebrations.  I just think that a change of what is so long-standing should be discussed before being put into effect.  Esoglou (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have finally found the official document, Roman Missal, on the web:. Under the title "CALENDARIUM ROMANUM GENERALE" there are clearly listed all fixed celebrations and 7 movable celebrations, and under the title "PROPRIUM DE TEMPORE" there are listed all Sundays and weekdays of the year, including other celebrations connected to the season. Some celebrations, such as Christmas, are listed under both titles. Moreplovac (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I have had to undo your work today. The Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the Calendar includes in the liturgical year the celebration of the saints along with that of the mysteries of the Lord.  So the "fixed" calendar is part of the liturgical year.
 * I have rewritten the part that you disliked so that it no longer appears as a rival list of celebrations. I hope you will find it an improvement.
 * A question: Would it not be better to put the movable celebrations mentioned in the General Roman Calendar document in the months in which that document places them, rather than to give them a separate section within this article?  Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is fine what you did. But the title of the article is "General Roman Calendar" and you explain more than that. Should we change the title to "Liturgical Calendar of the Roman Rite"? Also, nation calendars mentioned in the article are clearly not GRC, so the wider title will be more consistent.


 * Answer to the question: As you like. Only thing is that celebrations are not always in the months from the document. Moreplovac (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is on the General Roman Calendar, not on the wider concept of the liturgical year, but must place the General Roman Calendar in its context. It cannot be silent on the fact that the birthdays of saints to heaven and of mysteries celebrated in that calendar are part of the liturgical year.  Many items of information in the article (such as rules of precedence and about transfer of celebrations from one date to another) are drawn not from the document "General Roman Calendar" (the document and the General Roman Calendar itself are distinct things) but from the "Universal Norms" document, and those items certainly do concern the General Roman Calendar.  The national calendars are described only in so far as they introduce variations in relation to the General Roman Calendar, not as independent entities, and so I think they belong here.
 * I do think that it would be better to list the movable feasts within the months in which they are listed in the document "General Roman Calendar". Even the so-called fixed feasts are not always celebrated within the month in which they are listed: the solemnity of the Annunciation is an example.  However, being unsure of the consent of others, I will not make the change, at least for now.  Esoglou (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is about GRC, but places it in the wider context. But then it should clearly be written what is GRC, and what is context outside of it. Therefore I have returned the paragraph which explains that in the introduction. I agree on moving movable feasts within the months. Moreplovac (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you added the necessary exceptions (the document does speak of seasonal celebrations such as Corpus Christi), "seasonal celebrations are not included in the document General Roman Calendar" would be something that could be checked, and so could be put in Wikipedia. On the other hand, the claim that "seasonal celebrations ... are not considered as a part of General Roman Calendar" (as distinct from the document General Roman Calendar) is an unsourced opinion, and cannot be put in Wikipedia.  Another unsourced opinion that cannot be put in Wikipedia without citing a reliable source that states it is the assertion: "Seasonal celebrations ... form the essential part of the Liturgical year of the Roman rite".
 * "Universal Norms for the Liturgical Year/ and the General Roman Calendar" is not the name of a document. It is a general heading in the Roman Missal for three documents: the document General Roman Calendar, the document Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, and the motu proprio that gave papal approval to both jointly.  Each of these two documents explicitly deals with both fixed and movable celebrations.  It is therefore a mistake to think that "General Roman Calendar" is synonymous with "Proper of the Saints" or "Sanctorale".  Esoglou (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but you invented the name "Universal Norms for the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar" here . I just copied your title without reailzing the mistake. In the document you refer there, and I copied later, the title is really "Universal Norms for the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar", what is the mistake. Moreplovac (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, this was just one of my many mistakes. We should both be happy that it is corrected now.  Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The essential problem is that you do not understand, or do not get, or do not agree with me on the simple question: What is the General Roman Calendar? So, can you please answer to that question? And if we agree, that should be the first thing written in this article.Moreplovac (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand your reference about the temporale and the sanctorale. Is it about contemporary catholic liturgical year? It seams to me that it is more general, and not well defined. Where do e.g. Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, Epiphany, Presentation of the Lord, Holy Trinity, Immaculate Heart of Mary or Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary belong to?

What is well defined is the General Roman Calendar. If I understand your notions correctly, in the GRC there is the whole sanctorale and few celebrations from the temporale. The whole list is clearly stated in the Roman Missal. It is good to have a wider context of the GRC and to talk about the whole liturgical year, but from the article about GRC it should be clear what is GRC and what is not GRC, but the wider context. It is now not the case. Moreplovac (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose that by "General Roman Calendar" you mean the list given in the document of that name, excluding all else. Including therefore Trinity Sunday, but excluding Pentecost Sunday. (A list that, as you know, changes not only over the centuries (compare the present list with that given as Tridentine Calendar or even more recent lists) but even every few years - but we can ignore that.)  I have no objection to your definition of "General Roman Calendar".  But I do not see the logic of some conclusions that you seem to want to draw.
 * You agree, don't you, that the list of celebrations is part of the liturgical year? It is not something totally distinct from the seasonal cycle of the liturgical year, since it includes celebrations that belong to the seasonal cycle, with its feasts both movable (Easter-related) and fixed (Christmas-related).  It is not true that "seasonal celebrations are not considered part of the General Roman Calendar": some of them are part of the General Roman Calendar.  It is not true that seasonal celebrations "are listed [only] under separate title".  Those "listed under separate title", i.e. in the Norms and Calendar document, include many that are also in the General Roman Calendar list.  Indeed, since apart from the feasts that the Norms and Calendar document mentions specifically, it speaks generically of solemnities, feasts and memorials and thus includes every celebration mentioned in the General Roman Calendar document.  It may perhaps be true that "seasonal celebrations form the essential part of the liturgical year" (although the weekly Sunday celebration, which is not seasonal, is a candidate for the essential part), but even if true, this cannot be put in Wikipedia without citing a reliable source that says so (see WP:OR).

What special rule(s) for transfer of Annunciation feast?
In section about transfer of feasts, I see this:

>Solemnities that fall on certain Sundays or on days within Holy Week or the Octave of Easter are transferred to the next day that is free for them, and special rules govern the transfer of the Solemnities of Saint Joseph and of the Annunciation of the Lord.

These are referring to what's listed for March 19 and March 25 respectively. I don't understand the comment w/r to Annunciation, because I know of it being postponed to the day after Low Sunday if March 25 falls in Holy Week or Easter Week (the earliest possible Easter is March 22). There is indeed a special rule for March 19 St. Joseph; it had been moved to Tuesday after Low Sunday if March 19 fell in Holy Week (notice that if this happened, Annunciation also had to be moved per conditions in the paragraph you are reading), and more recently I see it being moved to the closest free day BEFORE PALM SUNDAY if March 19 in Holy Week. Do you understand what I am saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Add formatting differentiation for different type of celebration
I’d like to suggest a formatting differentiation of solemnities, feasts, memorias and optional memorias. Here’s my proposal:



Feast

Memoria

Optional memoria

In addition to these, for changes in celebrations that are in GRC, but have either a different name or date or celebration type, or they are dropped in national calendar, we might use the following format:

Dropped celebration

Celebration Type ← underline date or name or type (whichever is changed) is different from that in the GRC

I would change this in the whole page, but I’d like to talk about it first—I need to know if it’s okay. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7oto (talk • contribs)
 * The calendar in the English-language Missal (pp. cx and following) has "memorial" not "memoria".
 * Its typographical variations are in the name of the celebration; the marginal indications "Solemnity", "Feast", "Memorial" are uniform in typography.
 * It presents the name of a solemnity in capitals, that of a feast in smallcaps, that of a memorial, if obligatory, in normal typography (together with the marginal indication "Memorial"), that of a memorial, if not obligatory, in italics and without adding any marginal indication such as "Optional Memorial"
 * I think it would be better to follow that example. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC).


 * @Bealtainemí, okay, I have no problem with accepting the usual formatting. But still I would add the notes about changes if a celebration has a different date/name/type in a local/national calendar. 7otto (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please wait at least a week. I have difficulty in clearly picturing what you propose for "dropped celebration".  Give others a chance to comment.  You did quite right in consulting first before making rather broad systematic changes.  Meanwhile I recommend that you do what is indicated beneath this editing page: "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~ ". Click on the ~ there if your keyboard does not have the tilde character ~.  Bealtainemí (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Bealtainemí, by dropped celebration I mean a celebration that is in the GRC, but is not celebrated in the particular (or national) calendar. It is quite unusual, but I believe sometimes it might happen. Rather usual is moving a celebration from a date in the GRC to a different one (then the date should be underlined) or change the celebration rank (e.g. from memoria to feast; then the rank should be underlined) or changed/added some part that is not in the GRC name (e.g. Patron of XXX or Our Lady of Sorrows; then that part of the name should be underlined)7otto (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can only give my personal reaction, which is negative. By "dropped celebration" you seem to say you would like to insert in a national calendar mentions (with strikethrough) of celebrations in the General Roman Calendar that are omitted in the national calendar, as when an optional memorial in the General Roman Calendar is treated as a non-optional memorial (or higher) in that country, thus omitting other optional memorials set for the same day in the General Roman Calendar. I think this would be not only unnecessary but ugly.
 * (My own taste would be to reserve this article for what the title says: the General Roman Calendar; but I don't think such a proposal would be accepted and so I do not make it.)
 * I hope someone else will comment, either for or against. On my own, I don't have power to stop you.  However, if you do go ahead, I think you will stir up opposition.  Bealtainemí (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Changes by Jrcovert
, I have restored the article to its situation before my intervention of yesterday.

I disagree with your immediately preceding edit, which treats the US Day of Prayer for the Legal Protection of Unborn Children as part of the US adaptation of the General Roman Calendar in a way that does not apply to the US Independence Day and the US Thanksgiving Day nor to the various general (universal) days such as World Peace Day, Mission Sunday, etc. I refuse to edit-war, and instead leave it to others to judge whether on that matter to admit your idea.

On the other hand, you should certainly first discuss here on the talk page your alteration of the long-undisturbed hidden comment within the article before implementing it. For one thing, you have in it employed an unusual and unsourced definition of memorial (in the liturgical sense). Bealtainemí (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

, I agree that "Memorial" is not a correct term to use. But unlike the other days the note says are "comparable", the "Day of Prayer for the Legal Protection..." is obligatory, i.e. any mass must be celebrated for that purpose and not as a weekday mass. St. Vincent was moved to 23 Jan, and when 22 Jan is a Sunday, on the 23rd masses must be for the "Day of Prayer" and the optional memorials may only be observed in the Liturgy of the Hours (see the USCCB ordos for the years 2017 and 2018 for comparative examples). Since these are facts, I plan to so note in the comment, lest anyone else be tempted to remove this obligatory observance in the future. Jrcovert (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing about the meaning of memorial (liturgy). You seem to say that there is no special Mass introit, collect, etc. in the United States for that Day, as there is for all the other entries in the calendar, and that the Mass is simply offered for the intention of the Day. Never mind. Since you insist, I let the matter drop. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When I wrote this, I hadn't seen your hidden comment within the article. I have tried to make it clearer. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

National calendars: add ‘drop’ and ‘move’
Hey! I think that it would be nice to note a dropped celebration (one that is in the GRC, but not in a particular national calendar; if any) and moved celebrations (celebration that has different date of celebration in the GRC than in a particular national calendar). What do you all think about it? I would like to do that in Slovakian Calendar, but I don’t want to do that on my own. 7otto (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I’ve decided to re-state and re-publish my original suggestion/proposal (see below).

I think the list of celebratations could be improved by dividing the list.

I suggest to divide the list into the following groups:


 * inserted celebrations:
 * These celebrations are not present in the GRC at all.
 * modified celebrations:
 * These celebrations are present in the GRC, but with some modifications.
 * Modifications can be these:
 * different celebration name;
 * different celebration rank (solemnity, feast, etc);
 * different celebration date.
 * dropped celebration:
 * These celebrations are present in the GRC, but not in the particular calendar.
 * This group might not be used at all, but I list it here just in case some particular calendars might need it.

Also, there are two other, IMO related issues.


 * 1) I’d like to know if the votive Masses that are listed in the officially release liturgical calendar (or Direktórium in Slovakia).
 * 2) Could we also list celebrations that are not celebration throughout the country/area the particular particular calendar, but only in a diocese (I usually call these celebrations as place-specific celebrations)?

These two issues are related with the celebration list division that if there are included, we could add additional two groups.

What do you all think? I know that this change cannot be done at once, but I could demonstrate this on the Slovak calendar, as I have already compiled the list available at Google Sheets, where I advice you to also look at the sheets named {ba, bb, ke, nr, pp, po, rv, sp, tt, za} (those are shorcuts for the dioceses). In the cal1969_sk_proprium sheet, there are all the celebrations that are added or modified to/in the Slovak calendar; in the column M, there is either n (for national; i.e. inserted celebrations) or g+ (for general plus; i.e. modified celebrations). There is only one g? at the optional memorial of Our Lady on Saturdays, of which I am not sure if it is a celebration only in the particular calendars, or it is inherited from the GRC. 7otto (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not and do not support this proposal. The content of the article is already out of proportion with the title. There have been so many additions that do not really concern the "General Roman Calendar", additions about national calendars and religious-institute calendars. Expanding these additions further would, I think, be very inconvenient. I don't suppose anyone would support your proposal. I oppose it.  Bealtainemí (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, @Bealtainemí, that the article in its current shape is not only about General Roman Calendar. To fix this I see two possible solutions:
 * rename the article to Roman Calendar;
 * create separate articles for all particular (so-called national) and religious calendars and one wrapper article that would list all those articles.

I think that the latter solution would be better, but it requires a bit more work.

What do you think? 7otto (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Roman calendar is something quite different.
 * I think that creating a whole series of such articles in the English Wikipedia would be even more disproportionate than keeping them in this article. It certainly cannot be done without citing sources, the lack of which is one of the gravest (from a Wikipedia viewpoint) defects of the present article and, in my poor view (on which I do not intend to take any action) is solid ground for in general eliminating them. Better would be to make all of them sections of the articles on the "Catholic Church in such-and-such a country" and on the individual religious institutes, leaving here only a short note on the lines of "See the articles on the Catholic Church in individual countries and the articles on religious institutes for their adaptations of the General Roman Calendar". Do you want try that (provided nobody here objects)? You could start by moving one or two (with reliable sources?) and leaving here an indication of where the information is, and then wait to see if it stirs up opposition either here or in the article you move the information to.  Bealtainemí (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

A request that we close the RfC
Below is a request that I plan to make at WP:NPOVN Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) If there is no discussion here, I will simply make the request. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think a new RfC on the utility of the feast day list is the appropriate move unless it includes all related articles. (Even then, I would hope that the utility of such lists would be obvious enough that such an RfC wouldn't be needed.) Wikipedia has many liturgical calendar articles with feast day lists for various Christian churches. There's no reason to single out the General Roman Calendar article in this regard. I understand the desire to close the previous RfC but I don't think this is the appropriate rationale. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that we are not at the stage of a new RfC and that this new RfC might not be needed. The idea of an RfC is that editors have discussed the issue and presented their best arguments and the discussion is stalled. We have not even started to discuss this other issue. Some editors might use RfCs with a different philosophy, but I don't want to go into this. The philosophy that I describe here is the one that we can find in the policies and guidelines. So, you presented your arguments and if no counter arguments are presented, then the discussion here should be closed and we pass to something else. It's certainly possible that some editor will want to immediately start a new RfC. We cannot prevent that, but we will be able to argue that the RfC was premature and not well prepared. It's not going to be easy, maybe. But this discussion here should happen, because it's the most natural thing to do. In fact, I do hope that their will be a discussion that brings out the big picture so that we get a strong conclusion out of this discussion. At the same time, it's never easy if people don't assume good faith and don't really want to discuss.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The proper way to request closure of an RFC is not at WP:NPOVN but at Closure requests. Elizium23 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For the specific issue that we have, WP:HON refers to WP:NPOV. So, we should have advices from this notice board. If we make a request at Closure requests, we should expect that they will read the discussion in the RfC and extract a conclusion from this, which might be enforced. This is what they usually do. I admit that I am scared a bit, because the exact thing that we do not need at this stage is a conclusion that answer the question of the RfC. On the contrary, we only want to stop the RfC (with no conclusion regarding the question) until we have clarified the usefulness of the list, which will allow us to better address the NPOV issue. But, Closure requests should be able to understand this. So, yes I think we should address the request to Closure requests. But, I am disappointed that we need to do that. In any case, I think we also need to receive advices from WP:NPOVN.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Elizium23 (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not modify the context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , why do you wish to segregate this discussion about the RFC in an irrelevant section title? Elizium23 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The section previous section title might not be very informative after you have modified it and before it was restored by SamStrongTalks, but the section itself stands on its own and is not irrelevant and provides the context for this section . It's about whether or not the list has a purpose in the article, which is a separate and very basic question that should be answered before we ask about the details of the list's content. If you say that it is irrelevant, because you think that clearly the list has a purpose in the article, then it's very useful that you say it and the section would have been very useful. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * just moved this subsection into its own section, which is fine, because the chronological order is preserved and the previous section provides the context. He also restored the (previous) section title as needed. However, I had to modify my comment accordingly. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

For convenience, here is a link to the closure request. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)