Talk:Holy Week

Syntax
"...but contemporary Protestant Churches, like the Roman Catholic Church, ..." surely this can't be right

" christianity is faith " u believe in soul .. u believe in god!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.92 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they meant to say "but contemporary Protestant Churches hold the three days between Good Friday and Easter to be the holiest days of the calendar, like the Roman Catholic Church." DJ Clayworth 18:49, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Merger of Holy Week and Holy Week processions

 * NO MERGE One thing is the Holy Week, and other things are the Processions. The are many many processions, for example, in Spain, and it deserve its own page.User:Grindkore


 * The term Holy Week has meaning outside of the Holy Week Processional and merits its own page. There are rituals and celabrations in many cultures that have little to do with the processional itself. Vineviz 20:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggest to keep the Holy Week page and remove the Holy Week Processional page. Much of the content on the current Holy Week page should be moved to new subsection Holy Week Processional, and have the Holy Week Processional link to that directly.  User:MrDolomite 12:48, 17 March 2006 (EST)
 * 'Disagree (no merge) Holy Week is not a procession in Protestantism. It is Palm Sunday + Holy Thursday + Good Friday + Easter. MPS 20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

NO Merge
I agree with Vineviz - Holy Week and Holy Week Processions are entirely different, and the former, at least, should have its own page.

Holy Week Activities
I added a summary of what the activities of Holy Week are and their significances to the Catholic Faith. They are a bit diessarranged though... hope one of you guys could fix it. --Jonasespelita 13:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed the formatting. Just to check: this isn't copied and pasted from anywhere, is it? --Suitov 11 Aug 06

More detail for Orthodox Section
Could someone organize the section of Orthodox Holy Week a little better? It lists each service, but has no in depth coverage except for only a couple points. The Catholic section is divided into a section for each day with a lot more detail.

Additionally, the last line in the Orthodox section has a bunch of nonesense that I can't even come close to making out. --66.75.246.114 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Western Church?
How about Roman Catholic? I'm in a Western church, I'm evangelical/nondenom, and we don't have eucharists and all that. The Person Who Is Strange 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy Week in Western Church
It should read: Holy Week in Western Catholic Church or Roman Catholic. The practices it describes are uniquely Catholic. Another section should be included for Holy Week in Western Protestant Churches. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.150.175.7 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Article vandalized
This article of Holy Thursday seems to be vandalized with repeated words of "Insert non-formatted text here". Can someone fix this?--Angeldeb82 03:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

holy week in france
i'm not sure but i believe there is a holy week celebrated in south of france. Paris By Night 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there is. I think there are some Christians that live there. --93.135.35.233 (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger of Holy Week and Holy Week (Catholic Church)
The is a large degree of overlap and even duplicate text between Holy Week and Holy Week (Catholic Church). Some parts of Holy Week (Catholic Church) could be moved to Holy Week in the Philippines and Holy Week in Seville and the rest could be moved here, especially the section on Eastern Catholic Churches. —  AjaxSmack   02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. InfernoXV (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Roman Catholic Church article is merely one variant of how Holy Week is celebrated among Christian communities. There's no reason for the Catholic Church to have its own separate version of the article unless we're going to provide separate articles for each denomination, or even each Anglo-Catholic denomination. tsjackso (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. -173.64.120.91 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Calendar??
I'm surprised by not being able to find a reference on the actual date of the holy week depending on the year.euyyn (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. This is the week IMMEDIATELY BEFORE Easter Sunday, for which many reference tables are available.

Communion on Good Friday
I just found "(traditionally only the celebrant communes not the congregation)" and will be revising it to point out this was before the reforms of the 1950s. Communion became available to the faithful, not just the celebrant, at the Good Friday service from then on. By the way, this eliminated an occasional problem with the "9 First Friday" Communion devotion (when Good Friday fell on 1st Friday of April). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What does THIS mean regarding Mass?
In the Holy (Maundy) Thursday notes, I find this:

'However, the Mass does not officially end and technically extends over the next two days, not "ending" until the end of the Easter Vigil Mass.'

What is the meaning of that? What I know about the Triduum (Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday) is that the Mass of the Last Supper ends and is immediately followed by procession to the altar of repose, then by stripping of all altars except the one of repose. Mass is not celebrated again until the Easter Vigil; the "Mass of the Pre-Sanctified" (in the meantime, on Good Friday) is not actually a Mass, because it has no Consecration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Eight days
One thing I found initially very confusing about Holy Week in Eastern Christianity is that it lasts eight days, from Lazarus Saturday through Great and Holy Saturday. I expected it to be seven days, being called a "Week." It'd be helpful if this could be clarified. Dcoetzee 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's not right. The article has now been clarified. Evensteven (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Easter Week be merged into Holy Week. It is hard to seek what the distinction is. S. Rich (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so hard really: Holy Week is the week leading to Easter Sunday; Easter Week is the week that follows Easter Sunday. Esoglou (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tags, since this is evidently based on a misapprehension. StAnselm (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah-Ha! Thanks for fixing my apprehension. I've modified the EW article to clarify and will do the same for HW.--S. Rich (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

History Section;Catholic Allusion in the 3rd century: There was no Catholic allusion in 3rd c. CE (nor Orthodox etc) cause at that period the Catholic Church hadn't clearly evolved yet
A passage (at the History section) that imo certainly needs correction reads (emphasis mine): "... The earliest Catholic allusion to the custom of marking this week as a whole with special observances is to be found in the Apostolical Constitutions (v. 18, 19), dating from the latter half of the 3rd century and 4th century. ..." If one is to read-understand this (something imo unlikely) as saying that Catholics of e.g the 20th century allude to this text as.... then it's an issue of Catholic theology-... and no comment by me would follow apart from why mention only the Catholics?? But I read this passage, I understand this (and I think that most people would agree with me in this) as stating that Catholics of the 3rd century CE alluded to ... If the latter is true then this is meaningless and/or wrong; speaking about the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox or ...) in the 3rd century CE is simply ahistorical, anachronistic.No Catholic or Orthodox or ... Church per se existed in that period;what existed then was the precursor(s) of the various Churches;at this period (before (or just on the onset of) Constantine, Theodosius etc) we couldn't meaningfully even yet talk about a Roman Imperial Church... In any case the passage can easily be misinterpreted so it needs to be edited. So to all interested parties: please clarify and/or edit;i.e. and e.g. Catholic in this passage must be replaced by something like traditional church...Thanatos|talk 12:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As there was no edit, reply, comment, objection by others to what I've written above, I went ahead did the edit myself;it now reads "...traditional church allusion...".Thanatos|talk 15:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy
It says here that: Holy Week starts on Lazarus Saturday, the day before Palm Sunday.

Then later on we are informed that: Holy Week begins with what in the Roman Rite is now called Palm Sunday of the Passion of the Lord.

Something is rotten (in Denmark). --213.190.107.34 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been cleared up in the article. But be careful not to mix RC and Orthodox usage; they differ. Evensteven (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Santero culture
It says in the text that Friday of Sorrow tradition has been maintained after Vatican II, because of the importance of Santeros tradition. In Spain and other places most people don't even know what santería is and the Friday of Sorrow is usually celebrated. I think you should omit this allusion to santería here. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn Gabirol (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have revised the section to cut down on this and other unsourced statements. Esoglou (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Friday of Sorrows
I am not aware of any sources that place the "Friday of Sorrows" as a part of Holy Week. Most sources unanimously state that Holy Week begins on Palm Sunday. I would support a brief mention of the Friday of Sorrows or a link in the "See also" section, however. I look forward to hearing other thoughts on this issue. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can find many sources (especially in Spanish) that do call it the start of Holy Week: tourism sites and the like, which are really talking about Holy Week festivities, not Holy Week proper. I would welcome a reduction of its mention in an article about Holy Week, which does indeed begin with Palm Sunday.  Esoglou (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply User:Esoglou. Since you have more knowledge on this topic, you can have the honours of working on the section :) Have a blessed Holy Week, AnupamTalk 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I find I have too much to do these days. I have merely moved the section to a less prominent position.  Esoglou (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Palm Sunday in Holy Week?
, in the section above you say that all the sources are agreed that Holy Week begins on Palm Sunday. Would you pick a good one and add it to the article? I think that should be sourced as reflective of western tradition. Perhaps more than one would help also (if you know of them): Catholic certainly, but Anglican and Lutheran? Others? I think in the west, everything about this originated in Catholic practice, so the main questions would be about any later divergences. In Orthodoxy, neither Lazarus Saturday (the day before Palm Sunday) nor Palm Sunday itself are considered to be in Holy Week, which consists of the six "weekdays" between Palm Sunday and Pascha. I've got to find Orthodox sourcing for that too. The sources will help a lot to resolve any confusions about church calendar differences. Evensteven (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * is correct that the Orthodox service books begin the week with Monday; however, the Triodion calls it Passion Week (which, IIRC, refers in the West to the preceding week). In the Triodion, all weeks begin on a Monday. Actually, Passion Week is six and a fraction days since it begins at vespers Sunday night and continues through the midnight office Saturday night. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's six liturgical days. (I made a foray into that quagmire already.) From the earliest times, the formation of Christian worship was first patterned on Jewish forms. As such, the "day" began at sunset, as it does in the Hebrew calendar. Vespers was created as the first service of a liturgical day. And so it is still observed today, all the time. So, liturgically speaking, Palm Sunday ends at sunset and a "Sunday" evening service really belongs to liturgical Monday. The midnight office you refer to belongs to liturgical Pascha (Sunday), even though it is celebrated just before midnight, preceding Paschal Orthros (which is timed for midnight), which precedes the Paschal Divine Liturgy. Liturgical Saturday ends at sunset, but on Holy Saturday the last service celebrated is usually a morning Divine Liturgy. The "week" of Holy Week is used loosely to apply to the 6 holy days between the two high Sundays. Evensteven (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Triodion ends after the midnight service. The midnight service is of the Great Sabbath (Holy Saturday), although the preceeding vespers (vesper liturgy) is a resurrectional service.  Pascha begins with Sunday matins.  So, in some sense, it's both Saturday and Sunday for part of a day, but the liturgical books continue Saturday through the midnight service.  The midnight office is *not* part of Pascha; just look at its propers, e.g., "This is the holy and blessed Sabbath ...". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I never would have disputed the midnight service's anticipatory character, but had simply viewed that as the prelude to the announcement of the "coming of the light" at Orthros. I had overlooked the reference to the Sabbath, and it seems the Triodion makes it all plain. Thanks for clearing up my confusion on those points. I too have understood the preceding Vesperal Liturgy of Holy Saturday to be a resurrectional service, and have heard it described in short as celebrated "in anticipation" of Pascha. Does it not also reflect the unity of God the Son in His two natures, divine and human, both having already descended to the place of the dead (Hades), and on that very Sabbath day "trampling down death by His own death", which is announced as accomplished fact on Sunday? And so Holy Saturday always ends up being both anticipatory and resurrectional, since that is the day when death is destroyed. Fifteen years I am Orthodox, and yet only with difficulty able to grasp the basics. Then again, that's what it is to be Orthodox, I think. Evensteven (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

, I have added two references as you requested! I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 00:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Easter does not belong in this article
There are several paragraphs, between Western and Eastern observances' descriptions, that are about Easter. While I'm inclined to delete these since they are clearly out of scope in Holy Week, methought to first post here and get some feedback and consensus. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, let's take a little care. While I've also noted a thing or two that could be removed, let's agree that the focus of the article is not Easter. However, Holy Week is clearly associated with Easter in a highly significant fashion. Its whole design is to lead to Easter. Without maintaining this connection in full, we would harm the understanding of Holy Week itself. Let's deal with specifics. Also, it might be good to move some material rather than simply delete it here. Evensteven (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Spy Wednesday
Thanks, Esoglou, for your last edit at Holy Week. I've been puzzling about this Spy Wednesday term ever since it appeared there. I was Anglican for 45 years and have never heard of that name. Could it be even more significantly limited than "English"? I note that the article has two sources that it is a recognized term, but there is no background on where or why that term came to be. I would like to ask now if it is notable, or at least how notable it is. We should note that this is appearing in an article that is trying to be comprehensive to all of Christianity. As an Orthodox, we do not use "Maundy Thursday", nor do we make all the same observances as are done on that day in the west (like the foot washing). But that title is easily recognizable to any westerner who is familiar with a liturgically-based tradition; there is clearly no question about notability there. But "Spy Wednesday" has an unpleasant connotation to my ears, and I doubt very highly that it has anything like the same kind of widespread recognition as Maundy Thursday. Is there cause to remove its mention in this article? Evensteven (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Spy Wednesday" is likely to be a (moderately) common term only among Catholics and others who have Matthew 26:14-25 as their Gospel reading on that day. You can find many mentions of the name by Googling "Spy Wednesday".  Most are perhaps blog-style, but one blog shows that the name is accepted by at least some Mormons.  Perhaps this is better.  And what about this remark by a commentator on Vatican Radio (not an official document)? Or is Collins English Dictionary the best?  However, that says that the term is used only in Ireland, while the other sources show that it has struck root also on the other side of the Atlantic, and in the Philippines.  Perhaps the term did begin in Ireland: the corresponding Gaelic term is "Céadaoin an Bhraith" (Wednesday of the Betrayal).  I've found another authoritative source that does not limit the phrase to Ireland: The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.  I had better stop now, and leave it to you to put a better citation in the article.
 * But may I also add that "Maundy Thursday" is a term not used by Catholics outside of England, and even there official Catholic liturgical books call the day "Holy Thursday". Although it is easily shown that "Holy Thursday" is used also by non-Catholics, I defended, when the matter was discussed a year or two or more ago, the use of "Maundy Thursday" as the title for the article in Wikipedia, but only on the grounds of unambiguity: Church of England usage (at least in the past) applied the term "Holy Thursday" to Ascension Thursday.  Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A further thought: footwashing on Holy Thursday is performed also by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox (I know that, for you, they are not truly Orthodox, but they do use that name). I don't know if other Oriental Orthodox have the practice.  Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Esoglou. I see that Spy Wednesday is used quite commonly, in English anyway, but worldwide, so I have no further troubles about its notability or inclusion in the article. I may do some further search for sources, or use one you gave, in order to get at least a basic sentence from a source on why it's called that. I didn't know about Holy Thursday in non-English Catholicism. I think in the US, they may also use Maundy Thursday, but about Catholic use I may simply have been going on false assumption there too. "Holy Thursday" for Ascension in the Church of England is also new to me, but I was an Episcopalian, so maybe that's why. I'm afraid the Anglican practice where I was always seemed to be to move the observance of the Ascension to the nearest Sunday, unless the term Holy Thursday just passed my notice when I was a child.
 * I had heard about the Ethiopian/Eritrean observances, and you're right that they don't come from the Byzantine rites observed in Eastern Orthodoxy. Not that Eastern Orthodoxy would find the idea objectionable or against doctrine in any way. But for Holy Week, we already have a very full and rich liturgical calendar - none more so in the year - and the events of the last supper are not forgotten. Evensteven (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have followed up by de-emphasizing "Spy Wednesday". While the references you found are good enough for what I've left, my own looking around has confirmed that it does not appear to be an official name anywhere. It seems more connected to an informal usage within Roman Catholicism, but there's nothing I can see that indicates any official character to the use. That makes it quite distinct from the uses of "Maundy Thursday", which are official enough in Anglicanism anyway that services are always announced by churches as belonging to "Maundy Thursday", not "Holy Thursday" (which might further be connected to your explanation of Holy Thursday as Ascension in Anglicanism). It can always be re-highlighted if desired, when an official adoption is in evidence. Evensteven (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I disagree with your latest edit "de-emphasizing" the widely used traditional name to the extent of (unnecessarily and unsourcedly) declaring it unofficial, and at the same adding "Holy Friday" for what is normally called "Good Friday" in English.
 * You can find official church sites that use "Spy Wednesday". Take this one.  If you are speaking about the name used in official liturgical books, you would exclude also "Holy Wednesday", at least for Catholics, since in Catholic liturgical books the term is "Wednesday of Holy Week", not "Holy Wednesday"; the Anglican Book of Common Prayer also does not have "Holy Wednesday", but "Wednesday before Easter".
 * Why add "Holy Friday" in the English Wikipedia? It is the regular name in Italian, French, Spanish etc., but not in English.  The Wikipedia article on Good Friday says Good Friday "is also known as Holy Friday, Great Friday, Black Friday, or Easter Friday, though the last term properly refers to the Friday in Easter week".  Why pick "Holy Friday" out of these names rather than, say, "Great Friday", the term used in the Wikipedias of some non-English languages spoken predominantly by Eastern Orthodox: Μεγάλη Παρασκευή, Великая пятница, Велики петак. It is curious that the Bulgarian article has for title Разпети петък, and gives Велики петък (Great Friday) only in the body of the article.  The Romanian article is headed "Vinerea Mare", and "mare" obviously comes from Latin "maior" (major, important, "great" in this sense rather than "big"). + To avoid any misunderstanding, I must add that I am not in favour of adding "Great Friday" here.
 * At least in the past, even the United States Anglican Church used "Holy Thursday" to mean Ascension Day: see this edition of its Book of Common Prayer. See also information on Blake's poem "Holy Thursday" such as this.  Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term "Spy Wednesday" should be restored and the information calling it "unofficial" should be removed. I was just recently looking at the website of an parish in the Anglican Ordinariate that used the term Spy Wednesday for the day. Several other churches of various denominations also continue to use it. User:Esoglou, I've made some edits at Holy Thursday (Songs of Experience), which I hope you will not mind. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Anupam, "Spy Wednesday" was not removed entirely (only from the lead), and is not called "unofficial" in the article, but "informal". "Official" means (to me) something like a considered approval by a church governing entity and/or mention in a scholarly source, though that definition could be lightened too. What we've got here is a bit nebulous, though there is usage or reference in semi-formal church news or the like. And we also have one reference from the 19th century that mentions it, so it's hardly a new or passing thought. So maybe using a word on the informal/semi-formal/formal continuum might serve better than "official". I should say that I've looked at a couple of basic tertiary sources who do not mention it at all, however, so its notability does have limits. I would not object to "semi-formal" instead of "informal". As to emphasis, I knew that my edit might not find complete approval, and it's ok with me if one of you want to add something back, but I do think that what was there before in multiple places was overkill, and so I don't think a full "restoration" is called for. Maybe move a lead mention to the end of the sentence? I'll leave it to you guys though. Esoglou's source just mentioned above is one indication of a more formal use by a prominent authority that should probably be added to the article as being stronger than anything else that is there currently.
 * Esoglou, you're undoubtedly right that we could get really hung up on "official" when it comes to these titles, if we cared to probe at them too hard. If "Holy Friday" seems unsuitable to you, take it out. But before you do, just let me put in a couple of cents more. I'd suggest making the basis for evaluation of all the names more along the "formality/informality" lines. I doubt that anyone has really hard and fast official rules. Orthodox usage varies because the full and most formal title for each day of Holy Week is "Holy and Great ___day", often shortened one way or another by dropping one word in less formal contexts. Orthodox would not say any is less proper than another except as regards the formality of the context. We don't use "Spy Wednesday", "Maundy Thursday", or "Good Friday" at all. Those are strictly western usages, and apparently all of English-based origin. We can deal with those on the basis of language up to a point. But we also need to be mindful of how international the scope of English WP is, and how our language is continually developing within that context. Orthodox particularly, worldwide, will not be conversant with the older English terms even if they are with the language. Even in the Americas we use "Holy" in the references to all the days, and even as native speakers. English-speaking Catholics and other church branches from around the world may also be inclined to recognize "Holy" more than the other names. And I'm not trying to minimize the Anglican use of "Holy Thursday" even though I was not familiar with it before. Obviously, there are varieties of usage, more than I knew when I started this foray. What I'd truly like to end up with is some kind of balanced, inclusive set that covers the possibilities. And that's what is proving harder than I had expected, because it's complex, and so many people have different norms. So, I've told the Orthodox tale here in hopes of getting it considered in the mix, but I do want to make it clear that there's not a matter of doctrine involved so much as there is a matter of familiarity and sense of propriety, such as the kind that brought the "Spy Wednesday" title to the article in the first place. I understand where "Spy" is coming from better now, and hope that you guys understand "Holy" and "Great" better now too. Cheers. Evensteven (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Evensteven, thanks for the reply. I've made a couple of edits that I hope will be pleasing to you. I should mention that the terms 'Spy Wednesday', 'Maundy Thursday', and 'Good Friday' are used by Western Rite parishes of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Reference). These three terms seem to have been standard usage especially in the Anglican Communion. I definitely also agree that the Anglican usage of 'Holy Thursday' should not be minimized and that "there are varieties of usage". I hope that you have had a blessed Lord's day. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anupam; your edits look fine to me. Glad you found Holy Friday acceptable. What you've found about western rite Eastern Orthodox is not surprising to me. While they are accepted in full communion, faith, and doctrine with the eastern (Byzantine) rite Orthodox, they are fairly western in praxis (practice) and are in many ways closer in that to the Catholicism and Anglicanism of 75 (or more) years ago than to Byzantine practice. (At one and the same time I think that shows just how widely Orthodox praxis can vary, and also how much we can actually share in common with the western branches of Christianity.) If "Spy Wednesday" actually does have origins in Anglicanism, then I suspect it grew up after the American Revolution, for I doubt one finds it in the Episcopal church. The others probably go back further in history. Maybe that would explain my not knowing of the Anglican "Holy Thursday" usage either. Evensteven (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, I was wrong about "Holy Thursday" in the Episcopal church. I find I had skipped over Esoglou's reference to the 1871 Book of Common Prayer, and there it is, plainly. Upon looking further, I find it was also in the 1928 prayer book the same way as in the 1871, so the intermediate revisions during that time do not seem to have touched it. The next revision came in 1979, and there "Holy Thursday" is absent. I can't say for sure if that was official discontinuation or just a lack of mention, though it smacks of the former. The 1979 list of feasts gives it as "Ascension Day". That is also how it is referenced in the 1997 "Lesser Feasts and Fasts", essentially an Episcopal book of propers for specific days. So it is possible that since 1979 "Holy Thursday" has been dropped in the Episcopal Church in favor of "Ascension Day" (which it had always used). Even in the earlier versions, "Holy Thursday" was always identified also as "Ascension", whereas "Ascension" was used alone in many places, indicating a prominence of usage. It would be interesting to see how this history matches the prayer books used in the Church of England during the last 150 years. Evensteven (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Followup: The Episcopal Church took 9 years to complete its 1979 prayer book revision, going through 3 3-year trials of proposed reforms, in synch with its tri-ennial Convention. Just before the first proposed trial, in 1970, an official publication of the Standing Liturgical Commission called "The Church Year" laid out the revisions of the Church Calendar that would underlie the new prayer book, and this contains the feast-day tables and official names that had/have been printed in the prayer books themselves. (The calendar revision itself had been proposed and was in trial already from 1964.) That publication makes clear that the feast will be called "Ascension Day" (table on p. 59; list of feasts p. 118; discussion of the change to Rogation Days just preceding Ascension, p.29). The omission of "Holy Thursday" is clearly intentional and official, as Part II, where the list of feasts occurs, states that this is "the Calendar ... Observed in This Church". It is not a revision list, but a complete calendar as revised. Though yet a proposal when printed, it is clear from the later prayer books that this is indeed what was adopted. So count the dropping of "Holy Thursday" as official from 1979, and officially in trial use from 1970.


 * In another interesting line, p 8 mentions that a Joint Liturgical Group met in Britain in 1963 to discuss with the Church of England the upcoming 1964 calendar proposal of the Episcopal Church, where that proposal was adopted. It states that the Church of England accepted that proposal also, "with only minor revisions" not including re-instatement of "Holy Thursday". While I have nothing indicating eventual official adoption there, the collaborative work on these revisions give every indication of eventual acceptance. There were no apparent obstacles. Therefore, it might do to check a later Church of England Book of Common Prayer and see if there is any mention of "Holy Thursday", and that would likely verify its absence there also.


 * Therefore, unless there is a historical reason to hang onto the Anglican "Holy Thursday" as Ascension Day on WP, I think we can probably dispense with it as a consideration. Evensteven (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Book of Common Prayer had the name "Holy Thursday" for Ascension Day only in its list of days of fast and abstinence. Perhaps the United States Anglican Church now has no days of fast and abstinence and therefore no mention in its prayerbook of Ascension Day as "Holy Thursday".  An English Anglican commented in 1801: "How it became common in England to call Ascension Day Holy Thursday, I know not.  Formerly Holy Thursday always meant the Thursday in Holy Week, or the Week before Easter. Perhaps we are indebted for this modern title of the Ascension Day to the Almanack-makers" (source). What was "modern" in 1801 is "dated" in 2014 (source).
 * I think it serves no useful purpose to raise in this article questions of degrees of formality.
 * In 2014, there seem to be far more Anglicans who use the term "Spy Wednesday" than use "Holy Thursday" to mean Ascension Day. This site has used "Spy Wednesday" on at least 6 different occasions. Anglicans (including and perhaps even especially Americans) who use "Spy Wednesday" are found here and here and here and here and here and here and here and (humorously) here and so on.  Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Evensteven, thanks for your comments. There are plenty of Episcopal churches that still use the 1928 BCP, not to mention other churches in the Anglican Church of North America, in addition to the various churches of the Continuing Anglican and Anglican Realignment movements. I see no reason to dispense of that alternative and historical name in the article on Ascension Day, especially when the lede of that article makes it clear that its use is only restricted to some denominations. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have found that Evensteven is right about the official US church's dropping of the name "Holy Thursday" for Ascension Day. While the name remains in the latest edition of the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer (Church of England, "A Table of the Vigils, Fasts and Days of Abstinence to be observed in the year"), this contrasts with the corresponding US publication: "The Calendar of the Church Year", p. 17. While the parishes of the US "official" church and the breakaway groups that Anupam mentions use an edition of the Book of Common Prayer that contains, tucked away in an obscure corner, a mention of "Holy Thursday" that identifies it with Ascension Day, I wonder how many members of those groups would answer "When is Holy Thursday?" by putting it after Easter rather than before Easter.  Only a small minority, I imagine.  However, "Holy Thursday" remains an existent, though dated, name for Ascension Day in some Anglican groups, even if the members are little if at all aware of it, and the reference will doubtless be known by some even in the official US church.   Esoglou (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, your information is good, and if you would like to change the article further back towards where it was, I will not object. What I am seeking is balance, and I have been learning while discussing. I too have found that the "Spy Wednesday" term is present in the Episcopal Church, not as an official title, but in general use. I guess that's why I'd have to say that that's the useful purpose I see for considering "degrees of formality" in these titles. Not all the official ones are in actual use, and not all the ones in use are official, but the notable terms are the ones we need to cover, and informal use influences notability. Likewise, so does obscurity in officialdom. I think we want to avoid being officious when we are official. That's where "Holy Thursday" comes in, Anupam.


 * I'm not setting an opinion down in stone on "Holy Thursday", especially since it seems yet to be with the Church of England, which I thought unlikely earlier. But it still seems rather unnoteworthy to me, increasingly so as it has been investigated. We've got "modern in 1801" (not a very deep history then), and mention in any of the prayer books only in the table of fasts where the Rogation Days preceding Ascension were discussed. It was the change in the meaning of the Rogation Days in the Episcopal Church calendar (1964 proposal) that resulted in the official (1979) elimination of "Holy Thursday" there. So, not a long history either, as these things go. And, I would argue, not an illustrious one either, since its use never seemed to catch on enough for it to emerge from obscurity into notability, at any time. Or at least, that's the way it looks so far. To me, it doesn't seem much even as an historical curiosity. As for the Anglican Church of North America, that's essentially the former branch of the Episcopal Church I considered my roots, and I as an interested layman never heard "Holy Thursday"-as-Ascension despite the 1928 prayer book I grew up with. The small minority that is knowledgeable enough to have heard of it is also knowledgeable enough to recognize its insignificance, for if it were significant, it would have been raised higher as an issue during the prayer book reforms of the 60's and 70's, and would have continued to be a point of contention throughout the turmoils that brought about their eventual separation from the Episcopal Church. As far as I'm aware, this was not the case. But if significant, it should be traceable. Otherwise, why not let it drop as not notable? If I'm off in my reasoning, let notability (in England at least) be verified.


 * For what it's worth, Esoglou, I do remember objections being raised during the prayer book reforms about the de-emphasis (to the point of elimination) of fasting in the church calendar. Anupam, that gets pretty close to the "Holy Thursday" item's association with the eliminated table of fasts, but without notable association with the term itself. Evensteven (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Esoglou's edits at Maundy Thursday were happening while I was writing here. No opposition: he does a good job covering all this history, and given the plethora of possibilities described in that section, may it's just as well to include it, notability aside. Evensteven (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Esoglou's edits are okay with me and I agree that "the reference will doubtless be known by some even in the official US church". The term "Holy Thursday" was notable enough for William Blake to write a poem by that title and modern thesauruses, such as Bartlett's Roget's Thesaurus (published in 2003) provide "Holy Thursday" as the name for "Ascension Day". There's nothing wrong with leaving historical terms in the ledes of articles. This is the same reason, User:Evensteven, that I support the term "Holy Friday" as the alternative name for "Good Friday" in the lede of this article. I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 03:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I quite agree with you on all your points here. The Blake poem does, however, date from the heyday of the term's use. Didn't know about Roget's, but the other main references I looked up were also modern. It might be dropping off the cut line for some, as usage decreases. Blake is, however, an excellent indication of the historical notability, and while one of you mentioned it above, I failed to give it proper attention in my comments. Good enough too as a historical reason for inclusion here. Hoping you both are as well satisfied with the outcome as I am. Cheers, Evensteven (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Evensteven, you're always a great editor to discuss with as you are open minded to the suggestions and information provided by others. I really appreciate that! All the best, AnupamTalk 04:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Passion Week
far and away is used to describe the week of the Passion—i.e., the topic of this article. Is the sense described at the article Passion Week (Roman Catholicism) even noteworthy enough to deserve a hatnote here or is that ? Cursory Googling suggests even Catholics use 'Passion Week' to describe the topic of this article, not the far less important week before it. — Llywelyn II   19:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Palm Sunday is not Passion Sunday
Why does this article erroneously equate Palm Sunday with Passion Sunday? Passion Sunday is not Palm Sunday, it is the Sunday before Palm Sunday. Vorbee (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? It is explained therein. In the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, it is Palm Sunday of the Lord's Passion. In the 1962 Missal and previous, Passion Sunday precedes Palm Sunday. Elizium23 (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Triumphal entry Palm Sunday -> Burial & Rest Holy Saturday
Holy Week is the week before Easter, beginning with Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, climaxing with the Last Supper and Passion of Jesus - the arrest, trial, crucifixion and burial, and ending with his sabbath rest in the grave on Holy Saturday. The resurrection on The eighth day (Christian), the Lord's day, marks the beginning of a new week, Easter week. ~23 March 2021 Jaredscribe (talk)

A week is from Kyriake/Lord's day/1st day -> Savato/Sabbath/Saturday/7 day. Holy Week starts Palm Sunday and ends on Holy Saturday; it does not include Easter, this is noted in the lede of the article, but it could be more clear. The article needs more historical detail - its overly heavy liturgical traditions and too light on the actual events that they commemorate. Since these already have their own wikipedia articles, we can just list them in the lede, as in the above example. , this is why I propose adding these.
 * Up to my knowledge, the liturgical use of "Holy Week" includes the office and services of Easter Sunday. This is in my humble opinion also being explained in Pius XII.'s Hebdomadae Sanctae instauratus or documents like The rites of Holy Week by Frederick R. McManus. HTH, --Medusahead (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * quoting the lede of this very article contrary to @:  The cited sources supporting this are more WP:Independent that Pius XII, or McManus IMHO.  Although the documents you reference may be cited in the article to support the current doctrine and practice of the Roman church, per WP:DUE. RegardsJaredscribe (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Epitaphios Procession Beginning at Great Saturday Mattins.jpg