Talk:General Roman Calendar of 1954

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copy of calendar of saints article[edit]

The first part of this article is a copy of the calendar of saints article. However, the lists are not the same. What is going on should be figured out so nobody wastes time cleaning up an article that is going to be deleted or redirected. -- Kjkolb 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created this article, since the only listing was the 1969 version; there wasn't one for the traditional rite. Since the first part applies equally to both, and someone might find either calendar first, depending on what he's looking for, I thought it made sense to repeat the introduction. If people disagree, perhaps the various listings could be their own articles, with just the listing, and calendar of saints could be the general article with the first section, and short paragraphs on the variations. I've gone ahead and done this, but feel free to edit. PaulGS 02:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

There was only one link for a saint here, so I added a number of others. I hope this was OK to do. It seems to make the page even more useful. Interlingua talk email 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I originally posted the list without links, just to get something here, and really didn't have the time to check every saint against his Wikipedia article, and just adding links would probably lead to a lot of dead pages. I figured someone else would add them eventually. I've since added the rest of the links for December, and a few more in November. The only one in December I left out was St. Sabbas, on December 5, who doesn't seem to have a page. "Sabbas" currently redirects to St. Sava, an Orthodox saint. PaulGS 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double, etc.[edit]

What does the term, "Double," and its associates mean in the list? There are Doubles, Semidoubles, Great Doubles, Doubles of the II class, etc. It would be VERY helpful to the usability of this article if those terms were either linked on first usages or explained in the body of the article. {Kevin/Last1in posting sans cookies} 12.96.58.22 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terms relate to how the days were "ranked" in importance in that system. The ranking was (I think):
  1. Double I class
  2. Double II class
  3. Greater double (or major double)
  4. Double (or lesser double or minor double)
  5. Semidouble
  6. Simple
The term "double" related to some antiphons (short phrases said with the psalms in the breviary) being repeated, or said twice. On semidouble days and simple days, these antiphons were only said in their entirety once; otherwise only the first few words were said. Semidoubles (normally) had two vespers offices like other doubles; simples had only one. Can't really give a reference for this, but hope it helps. Gimmetrow 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 1960 Maryknoll Missal (published P.J. Kenedy & sons, New York) that I will quote on this point. Woolhiser 05:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections?[edit]

This was added to the main page by an anonymous user 62.239.47.25; I've moved it here and commented on it.

Corrections?

=[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Paul_of_the_Cross 

gives October 19 as the Feastday

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholic_Calendar 

gives April 28 St Paul of the Cross

http://www.catholic.org/saints/calendar/april.php 

gives April 28 St. Peter Chanel; St. Louis Mary Grignion

http://www.catholic.org/saints/calendar/october.php 

gives Sts. Isaac Jogues, John de Brebeuf and Companions

Those dates you found are for the calendar as revised after Vatican II. This list is the pre-reform 1954 calendar, still used (with a few additions) by those Catholics who use the 1962 Missal. PaulGS 03:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of May[edit]

The section on the two changes of 1955 keeps getting deleted, and I think it should stay, so it looks like we need to discuss it here. Clearly the 1962 calendar, with its suppression of Vigils and Octaves, and "classes" of feasts instead of Double, Semidouble, and Simple, needs to be separate, but the cutoff line before that isn't quite as clear. I've got a breviary with both St. Joseph the Worker and the Queenship, but still with all the Vigils and Octaves (but with the new Holy Week), so those two feasts were added before stuff started getting cut. Since the main point of having so many calendars is to compare the changes over the years, it seems useful to me to show Philip and James on May 1, and Angela Merici on May 31, but to also note the two new feasts. I don't see the cutoff date as so much "1954", but rather "before all sorts of stuff got suppressed", and noting both versions seems appropriate. I could live with adding them to the calendar and making a note somewhere, although I'd prefer it the way it is. PaulGS (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if PaulGS's Breviary is really post-1955. I have with me an altar Missal published by Marietti) of 1952. It already has the Pius XII Holy Week texts that were made obligatory only in 1955 but that were, it seems, already made available, ad experimentum, in 1951.
I have now put in Wikipedia an account of the changes Pius XII introduced in the calendar as part of the decree Cum nostra hac aetate (De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis) of 23 March 1955: General Roman Calendar of Pope Pius XII.
Since the calendar actually followed from 1956 to 1960, a mere five years, was different in many respects from the 1954 calendar, affecting every single month of the calendar, I do think that either all the changes should be noted month by month or else the existence of the Pius XII changes should be merely mentioned in the introduction. However, while awaiting comments from PaulGS and perhaps others, I will not now remove the comment attached to the month of May. Lima (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The breviary I referred to has the Holy Week changes (no extra Psalm 50 during the Triduum; full Vespers of Holy Saturday; Matins and Lauds of Easter are optional for those present at the Easter Vigil), but still contains all the Vigils and Octaves. The approbation is dated 19 July 1956, and has a 1956 publication date, so it's certainly post-1955 in that respect.
I'm not quite sure of the need for a separated 1956-1960 calendar, although I don't really have an objection to it, or even to a page reflecting every change if someone really wanted to bother, since I prefer including information in Wikipedia rather than removing it. I don't like the notes on every month, since it's repetitive and clutters up the calendar, while the note on May covers only two feasts, but I'd be okay with including the information in the introduction, along with a mention of the suppression of most Vigils and Octaves. I just thought the end of May seemed like a better place for it, since it's closer to the actual dates and easier to visually see how it fits in. PaulGS (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 1955, the following changes were made by Pope Pius XII:

July 29 and St. Felix[edit]

My 1568 Missal reprint, my 1930-ish altar missal, and a 1956 Breviary (which contains St. Joseph the Worker but also all Semidoubles and Octaves) all list St. Felix as a Pope, but my 1962 reprint does not, so I've added "Pope" back to this calendar - even if it's wrong, we should list what the calendar actually says. Since I don't see a link to the martyr Felix, I left the link to Antipope Felix II, and added the Martyrology entry for him on July 29, which does list him as a martyr and which shows the confusion between the two: "At Rome, on the Aurelian Way, St. Felix II, pope and martyr. Being expelled from his See by the Arian emperor Constantius for defending the Catholic faith, and being put to the sword privately at Cera in Tuscany, he died gloriously." PaulGS (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking of Feasts[edit]

Lima: I like the organization of it, with subsections for Sundays, ferias, vigils, octaves, etc., although since this page is about the calendar as it was before the changes of Pope John XXIII, I don't see the need for all this information here (and it looks like you removed much of the older ranking). At most, I think brief mentions might be made of some changes (for example, "Pope John XXIII's changes reduced Sundays to two classes", or the like), but the details would be better on the 1962 calendar page. I've pasted the version you did below, to see what should be included and what would be better moved. PaulGS (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*** THE TEXT PASTED HERE HAS BEEN MOVED TO FORM THE NEW ARTICLE Ranking of liturgical days in the Roman Rite ***

I think it should be turned into a separate article. Will you do it? If you prefer that I do it and if you agree that it should be done, I will.

My edit was due to my belief (true or false, perhaps you can tell me) that there was some confusion in the previous text between the at least four different historical stages regarding the ranking of feasts, and that much of what was said was applicable only to the post-1955 or the post-1960 stages. Take the mention of numbered "classes" of Sundays etc., which I think were created only in 1960.

The 1955 and the 1960 documents indicate clearly what was the situation after those dates, and I have been able to source all (I think) of my statements about them. There are several points that remain a bit obscure to me in the previous periods. An examination of the "as in 1954" calendar has been of help, but I got next to nothing out of the Missal's "Additiones et Variationes" concerning the changes made in Pius X's Divino Afflatu "and subsequent decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites". The Catholic Encyclopedia, which of course is of the period before Pius X's changes, does not deal with the matter in a systematic way. Maybe you have sources that do deal systematically with either the post-Pius X or the pre-Pius X situation. If the question were the subject of an article apart, with links to it from the Roman Calendar pages, more knowledgeable people than I am might work on it.

I don't think it would be appropriate to put a full treatment of what the ranking of feasts means into each of the Roman Calendar pages. That would involve an awful lot of repetition in those pages.

I am uncertain about the most suitable name for a new article. What about "Ranking of feasts in the Roman Rite"? "Feasts" would have to be taken in a broad sense, in fact in the sense of the phrase "liturgical days" in John XXIII's Code. Perhaps indeed "Ranking of liturgical days in the Roman Rite" would be quite acceptable. In fact, I find that my preference does now go to this.

By the way, in order to keep all this topic together under the heading you gave it, I have downgraded the above heading "Rank of feasts" in your quotation, by putting three equal signs around it instead of two. If what you have quoted is turned into a separate article, the whole quotation could, I think, then be removed from here, since it takes up so much space. Our conversation about it could remain.

That is how I see things. You may have better vision. Lima (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you have put back in the article the statement that in the period between Pius X and Pius XII, Sundays were divided into three "classes" (the John XXIII terminology, which divided everything into "classes"). Maybe you are right. But I have found no evidence for it. Could you please check that your source is not imposing his own anachronistic terminology back on to that period and then quote the source? Lima (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, and then the various calendar pages could be left with mostly the calendar, with perhaps a brief discussion of terms or rankings and a link to the ranking article, and that would allow the reader to see all the changes from the older Double/Semidouble/Simple ranking to the four classes of the 1962 Missal to 1970's Solemnities/Feasts/Memorials/Optional Memorials. I agree "liturgical days" is a better title, since the ranking system covers more than just days of Saints.
I don't see anything in the rubrics giving a listing of Sundays, but the "Additiones et Variationes", tit. IV, nn. 1-2 deal with the three classes, and in the Breviary, Sundays are listed as "I (or II/III) classis - Semiduplex". There is a listing given in the prefatory material of the St. Andrews Daily Missal - not an official book, of course, but it could be used as a source, although since this is something purely descriptive, I don't think it's WP:OR to take a look through the Breviary and see which Sundays are assigned to which class. PaulGS (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in Additiones et Variationes IV, 1-2 about a division of Sundays into three classes; I only see a mention of the classes of doubles (I or II). Am I missing something? However, I find in V, 3 a classification of some Sundays as "minores per annum", and in II, 3 a reference to First Class Sundays. Of what period is your Saint Andrews Daily Missal? Is it really of the period between the changes of the two Piuses (X and XII)? If not, perhaps it doesn't concern 1954. What edition of the Breviary have you in mind? Is it of the period between the two Piuses? If it is, where does it speak of "classes" I, II and III of Sundays? In the heading of each Sunday, perhaps? In a few days' time I hope to be able to ask a Jesuit whether in his community's library there is a Breviary of that period, so that he can enlighten me on the matter. I appreciate your helping me understand the situation. Lima (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Breviary I referred to was published in 1927; my St. Andrews Missal is from 1945. The Additions I was referring to are in the Breviary, not the Missal (each book contains different rubrics, although they're both arranged with the general rubrics first, followed by the 1911 changes. The headings of each Sunday indicate classes (although I don't see "III class", the remaining Sundays would form a third class) as does the rubric: "1 Of greater Sundays of the I class, whatever Feast may occur on them, is always said the Office. But Sundays of the II class yield only to Double of the I class Feasts, in which case a Commemoration is made of the Sunday in both Vespers and Lauds, with the ix Lesson of Matins. 2 Of lesser Sundays or through the year, ought always to be said the Office, unless some Double of the I or II class occur, or any Feast whatever of nine Lessons of the Lord, but not their Octave days [with Commemorations]". PaulGS (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right in concluding that Sundays were not, after all, divided into three "classes" (I, II and III)? They were divided into major/greater and minor/lesser Sundays, with the major/greater Sundays subdivided into major/greater Sundays of the first class and major/greater Sundays of the second class? In other words, as far as I can see, the classification was similar to that of feast days, which were divided into doubles, semidoubles and simples, with the doubles subdivided into doubles of the first class, doubles of the second class, major/greater doubles and just plain doubles. We wouldn't say that feast days were at that time divided into I, II, III, IV, V and VI classes. With Pius XII's 1955 elimination of semidoubles and further simplification by himself, John XXIII was indeed able to divide feast days into I, II, III and IV classes; but that was in 1960. Lima (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks more correct, to have greater Sundays (of the I and II classes), and a third group consisting of the lesser Sundays or Sundays per annum. PaulGS (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady Queen[edit]

The feast of Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary should be include in 1954 calendear, since His Holiness Pope Pius XII decreed and instituted it on October 11,1954.(not in 1955). —Preceding unsigned comment added by semperaggressus 21:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it came into effect only on 22 August 1955. Lima (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hand missal The New Roman Missal Father Lasance 1993 reprint of 1945 edition with appendix feasts of St.Isidore the Farmer,St.Frances Cabrini,St.Pius X and the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary.There is a Universal Calendar on it, the 1954 Calendar but with BVM feast. Most of traditional groups follow the 1954 calendar, priests from Traditio network,sgg.org and SSPV and others.But they include the feast of Our Lady Queen on theirs calendar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by semperaggressus 00:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "most of traditional groups" to which neither the institutes working under Ecclesia Dei nor the SSPX belong to. ==> Most traditional groups use the 1962 missal.--2001:A60:151D:2501:1951:C6B7:BA35:E335 (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feasts celebrated in some places[edit]

Trere is a feast of St.Frances Xavier Cabrini, virgin (USA) Canonized by Pius XII, instituted perhaps, before 1955. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperaggressus (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In some places" - so not in the General Roman Calendar. Lima (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned about the content "Feasts celebrated in some places" (see the title content) not in yours "General" Roman Calendar. In another words, you should put the St. Frances Cabrini feast in your content "Feasts celebrated in some places" content number 15.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperaggressus (talk • contribs)

My previous response was inaccurate, or at least not quite accurate. The article deals, under number 15, with a limited number of Masses (little more than 50) included in a special section of the Roman Missal for use in certain places. St Frances Xavier Cabrini feast day was never included in that short list. She was celebrated in the United States without being inserted in the General Roman Calendar even in that limited form (Masses for Some Places), the same form in which dozens of local Irish saints were celebrated in Ireland, and the same in other countries. Lima (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Feasts celebrated in some places" mean that they have their specific Masses hence need to be included in the Missal. The USA did have a rather high-ranking feast (double of the II, I believe) of St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, virgin (being, I believe, the first saint of the country), but it will have had a Commons for Virgins Mass, hence no need to be included in the Missal.--2001:A61:260C:C01:548E:2F49:887A:1491 (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

For linking of dates in this article to be restored, the Wikipedia Manual of Style would first have to be changed: "Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though linking was previously recommended). Dates should only be linked when they are germane and topical to the subject, as discussed at Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological items." Esoglou (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the part that says "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items"? PaulGS (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Roman Calendar of 1954. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

I've removed the notice and reverted the mass deletion. The proposer asked if the goal of the article was to show the calendar as it was between the reforms of Pius X in 1911 and Pius XII in 1955, and this was the reason for specifically 1954. Or perhaps more precisely, the calendar as it was before the 1955 reforms, since the calendar after 1911 wasn't all that different from what had been used for centuries, and that's certainly notable. Other than the two feasts added in 1955 (St Joseph the Workman and the Queenship of Mary), it was the last edition with the traditional ranking. The source for most of it is directly from the liturgical books. If citations are needed, the solution is to add them, not delete everything. PaulGS (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY (WP is not here to contain long lists taken from missals); WP:V, WP:BURDEN.
Also, I see you do not know better than me what the subject of this article is supposed to be, despite being the article's creator. Tridentine calendar already covers what had been used for centuries. There is no specific edition published in 1954 of the GRC. Veverve (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulGS: As I and @Pbritti: have already discussed, Wikipedia is not the place to copy lists taken from missals. It is the consensus. The article as you want is to be is a clear violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Veverve (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tridentine calendar covers the calendar as it was in 1570, which is the books immediately after the Council of Trent. This article is for the calendar as used before the reforms just before and after Vatican II. 1955 began those changes, including the abolishment of the rank of Semidouble, and there are still some who use the calendar as it was before the 1955 reforms. It's not a directory; the list of saints officially celebrated by the Catholic Church is very notable. If you think the article violates those policies, nominate it for deletion so it can be discussed instead of continuing to delete it yourself. Two editors is not a consensus. PaulGS (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is for the calendar as used before the reforms just before and after Vatican II I do no follow... General Roman Calendar of 1960 is just before Vatican II, and General Roman Calendar of 1969 is the one right after.
I still do not know what you want the subject of the article to be. What edition should it be? There is no edition published in 1954. Is the topic the GRCs published between 1600 and 1955?
It was also the opinion of three other editors at the Teahouse on a very, very similar case. That a part of an article violates a policy of this kind does not necessarily mean the article should be deleted. WP:NOTABILITY, by contrast, is a policy which necessarily implies deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus in Talk:General_Roman_Calendar#WP:LISTCRITERIA is to revert this article to before the deletions. Since the rationale for deleting the list here seems a bit different that that in the other articles discussed at Talk:General_Roman_Calendar#WP:LISTCRITERIA, I want to wait a bit before reverting.
I see only one user arguing for deleting here. I personally *do* think the information was notable and appropriate under the Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA. The status of the feasts in 1954 is of tremendous historical interest. I also think that listing them in this article is much more useful than creating a separate article for each change under each pope. Spartacus007 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartacus007: Had not seen that development. Appreciate the heads up on this talk page. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find the article, I mean the old version with the months and their feasts, very useful.
As for the topic of the article, it is plain as a pikestaff: The Calendar had seen development until 1954, and then there were major reforms. (There was a tremendous reform in 1911 concerning the respective ranks of Sundays and feasts occurring on them; but this, while very visible in the Church and of course noteworthy in its own place, only concerned two liturgical occasions that that fell on the same day and were commemorated in each other anyway; and if you list the months and their fixed days, you don't see the Sunday in any case.) This is an objective statement and not Church politics; you may think the reforms should have been, or shouldn't have been, or should have been in different manner, but each way the fact is that there have been reforms. Until 1954, there hadn't been reforms, not in this sense, ever since the immediate post-Tridentine Calendar in 1570-something. So, you could say, the Calendar of 1954 is the Tridentine Calendar as developed.
And some of the last changes just then were no earlier than 1954, the feast of the B.V.M. Queen comes to mind. "We'll issue a calendar every now and then, but then it'll hold for 20 years unchanged" just was not then the practice. (Nor, in fact, is it now with the new, 1969 calendar. "Once the reforms had been done", as it were.)
And that, I think, is a valid information. Especially also since a lot of the feasts fell away later, were not rearranged, but the saints are still venerated as saints, just have lost their feast. If you look for a specific day to venerate them, you look up when they had their feast when they had one. And that is even apart from the open secret that some Catholics have been, let us say, a bit fed up with the liturgical authorities meddling around, and for them "the '54" (as in "Restore the '54") is sort-of the point-to-return-to. A desire which in actually a couple of cases the Holy See has generously allowed by indults.--138.245.1.1 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Roman_Calendar_of_1954&oldid=1201749414"