Talk:Mysterii Paschalis

old talk (St. Cristopher)
Think Christopher made the biggest news splash at the time, but I don't have any sources... AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I was thinking. Also, Philomena got demoted, too.  I'll look for Christopher sources.  This is a great article.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to do a google search restricted to newspapers published in February 1969? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ....and why isn't Christopher mentioned in the article? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Do ya'll think the current format for the list is good, or would it be better something like this: 24th, Matthias, moved to 14 May. Any preferences?--Dcheney (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to change this so that instead of saying "in February, 1969" it says "on Valentine's day, 1969", since that is the correct date and it actually seems relevant to the article, and it's one of the few saint's days in the calendar that virtually everybody knows about. That raises an obvious question about whether that day's status in the calendar was changed. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That might work.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be quite odd. Technically when he began to sign the document, it was the feast of St. Valentine. It should be noted that the signature notation, which does sometimes include the feast of the day, does not in this case.--Dcheney (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it didn't take effect until January 1st of the following year, technically it was St. Valentine's day all day. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Headlines
I think at the time this was published it was in newspaper headlines everywhere. If I'm right about that, then something about it should be added to the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dorothea of Caesarea
I made an edit to remove the commentary that "her acts are completely fabulous." It was reverted with the claim that it is "quoting the rationale given by those who revised the calendar". I'm curious as to the source of this claim. The quote is not footnoted and it clearly is NOT in the document itself. --Dcheney (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the article; it tells you where to find the citation. "The explanations given are those published in Calendarium Romanum in 1969." You can see for yourself in the 1969 Calendarium Romanum, page 116: "6. S. Dorotheae: Memoria S. Dorotheae ... expungitur: Acta S. Dorotheae sunt omnino fabulosa" ("The acts of St. Dorothy are completely fabulous"). As I said in the edit summary, you and I don't have to agree with it, but the fact is that that's what the calendar revisionists said in the document which Paul VI promulgated with Mysterii Paschalis. Censoring it because you don't like it is inappropriate. Jdcompguy (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because a word is very similar to that in another language does not mean it is a good and accurate translation. I won't bother to fix it. --Dcheney (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Latin: fabulosus, a, um: storied, fabulous; celebrated in story. English: fabulous: Of or relating to fable, myth or legend. Characteristic of fables; marvelous, extraordinary, incredible. It's a perfectly fine translation. Jdcompguy (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we speak modern standard versions of English at Wikipedia, I think we need to be cognizant of the connotations of "fabulous" (such as Men on... - two snaps up!) but I think what is meant in the source material something not conveyed at all by the literal transcription. If a saint's acts are "completely fabulous" then they would be of pious legend, and I would venture that "legendary" or similar is far more fitting a translation here. Elizium23 (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)