Talk:Lent/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

General

This page (originally) posted by Carpentis.

This is a terrific article. I only changed the first paragraph because Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox believers differ considerably both in practice and in theology concerning Great Lent. Rather than try to include that material in this article, it seems better to discuss those in separate articles. I'll definitely refer back to this article as a template to make sure I cover the same breadth though, and would suggest that any other contributors do likewise. I'll put stubs in for now, just to define the terms. Wesley

I appreciate the additions and comments of Wesley, although I am a bit surprised by the distinctions made between Western and Eastern Christianity. I learned much of what I know of Lent from an Antiochene Orthodox priest--about as eastern as one can get. But I admit I am not an expert on the distinctions. I certainly didn't set out to write about Lent "as it is understood and practiced in Western Christianity. " Nor do the major references (encyclopedias, etc.) make the distinction. But I admit that proves nothing, as often subtle and not-so-subtle cultural differences can be ignored by popular references. I will seek to be more sensitive to those differences.

As for the addition of a reference to Mardi Gras by The Cunctator, I have chosen to modify the addition and move it to another position in the article. I originally meant to delete the reference entirely, but felt that it was worth mentioning if only because this event has become indelibly associated with Lent in the cultural sense. Mardi Gras and other carnival celebrations have almost no legitimate (spiritual/religious) claim to an association with Lent, except for the fact that they present an opportunity for the faithful to celebrate excess before the start of the fasting season. It is my understanding that many Christian festivals take place during periods when once pagan rites were practiced. But these Christian festivals would be practiced no matter what used to take place on the calendar. Carnivals, on the other hand, while having roots in pagan rites, have no scriptural basis for being associated with a christian festival.

This makes me question not the existance of Mardi Gras, only whether mention of it deserves inclusion in an article on Lent.

I am open to dialog on this point. Carpentis

I'll admit I designated this as the "Western Lent" article at the top partly out of laziness. The alternative would be to go through all of this article and say "The West does this while the East does that" at all points where they differ, which would get awkward. It seemed simpler to split them off into separate articles. The fact that the beginning and ending dates of Lent are different (besides the date of Easter), and that the East has no Ash Wednesday, and others, suggested separate articles, even though they naturally have a great deal in common, and both East and West trace their practices back to the same traditions of the same ancient church. Also, I'm a relatively new convert to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, the Orthodox Church in America to be specific, and I certainly don't know all there is to know about Lent, or what variations there are among different Orthodox jurisdictions. Although I have visited a local Antiochian Orthodox Church enough to know that they're also on the same schedule, at the very least.
As for Mardi Gras, there probably is an ancient tradition of celebrating just before Lent, if only to get all the remaining meat and cheese, etc. out of the house. In the East, we still celebrate Meatfare and Cheesefare Sundays on two successive weeks; not exactly Mardi Gras, but pre-lenten feasts none the less. This bit is purely my own uneducated speculation. :-)

Wesley

Is Winter Lent the same as Advent? If so, I think

  • a) it should be noted here
  • b) the article about Winter Lent shold be a simple redirect to Advent (as this one already tells the difference between Eastern and Western uses).

Any suggestions? Pfortuny 15:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. Since I initially wrote the Winter Lent article (at least I think I did), I learned that "Winter Lent" is actually a less common, informal name for the "Fast of the Nativity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ", also sometimes called "St. Philip's Fast" because it starts on Nov. 15, St. Philip's feast day. Winter Lent should just redirect to Advent, where these sorts of variations can be spelled out, and for the most part already are. Wesley 18:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I did the redirect and a little modification at Advent to include this name. Pfortuny 08:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the version priot to this edit. The start and end dates of Lent are counted using a couple of different methods, which is explained in more detail later in the article. Also, edit had grammatical mistakes, etc. OTOH it might be a good idea to include "starts on Ash Wednesday" in the 1st paragraph. - Gyrofrog 17:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When is Lent?

The dates when it falls should be in the first paragraph. The same goes for all the other holidays linked from here. This is an encyclopedia, and it shouldn't assume that people just know (i.e. I don't :). Dori | Talk 15:10, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

You are right, but :)
The question is: if you want to know when lent is, then you need to know when Easter Sunday takes place, and this varies between Eastern and Western Traditions. So, the best guess is to say forty days (more or less) before Good Friday, which is (for some traditions) the first full moon in Spring. When does this take place? It depends on the year... So, is this worth dealing with in this article? Those problems are explaind at Easter, which is the real issue.
Anyway, I really agree that the period is not clearly stated at the beginning, and in some sense, it ought to be. But someone with a better English than mine please enhance it.
OK...For Western Christianity, the formula is as follows (oddly, I remember it (and only it) from 7th grade CCD): Easter falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Does anybody remember the Eastern formula? --Penta 01:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as that (it's first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the northern vernal equinox). Most churches fix the northern vernal equinox (in the southern hemisphere the vernal equinox occurs in September) to 21 March. The actual date moves from this to 20 March and back (that's what leap years do). The full moon isn't an actual full moon but one that is calculated from a system of epacts. Most Eastern Christians (except Finnish Orthodox and some Oriental Orthodox) us the Julian calendar to determine the date of Easter. 21 March in the Julian calendar falls on the same day as 3 April in the Gregorian calendar: this leads to a difference in date when the calculated full moon falls between the dates. Also, the Gregorian reforms introduced a correction into the calculation of full moons for Easter. This means that Julian calendar calculated full moons show a greater discrepancy with actual full moons than those calculated according to the Gregorian calendar. Did I say it was not quite so simple? Gareth Hughes 10:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added a slight correction - the period of Lent actually ends on Maundy Thursday at sundown, NOT on Easter Sunday itself. --BT 9:54, 13 Apr 2006 PDT.

I think some serious thought needs to go into when Lent actually is. In the UK at least lent begins on Ash Wednesday, the day after shrove Tuesday when pancakes are traditionally consumed to rid the lader of forbidden foods. Lent lasts 40 days and 40 nights, corresponding to the time in the wilderness, and therefore finishes on Palm Sunday. This marks the start of holy week.

Whilst some believe the omitting Sundays from Lent allows you to consume forbidden foods during the period (as reflected in your article) this really is not acceptable.

Holy Saturday is the last day of Lent, not Maundy Thursday. That the fast (or whatever penitence you're practising) is lifted on Sundays is an ancient custom; what's not acceptable is fasting on a Sunday. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why forty days?

I was just wondering about this and thought the article might explain, but it doesn't. Why does Lent last forty days? Why not 30, 39, or 41? Does the New Testament describe some event that happened 40 days before Maundy Thursday, thus setting the subsequent events in motion? I'll try and look this up myself when I have time, but I have a feeling someone else already knows. Gyrofrog 16:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Forty is a ritualistic number in the Bible symbolizing purification. Lent is the time of purification in prep for Easter

156.33.138.39 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer: There is no forty-day period in Scripture preceding Maundy Thursday. Rather, the forty days is a reference to several 40-day Scriptural periods of fasting and preparation, most notably that of Jesus, fasting forty days in the wilderness before beginning his public ministry. Also Moses, who fasted 40 days on the mountain. Because of these Scriptures, it was felt that a forty-day period of asceticism and preparation was appropriate for catechumens to prepare for baptism on Easter Sunday. And it is that which evolved into Lent.

The above response is accurate concerning accounts of men fasting for forty days. But the Law contains no such commandment; it is not obligatory.

(Zec 7:3-5) And to speak unto the priests which were in the house of the LORD of hosts, and to the prophets, saying, "Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?" {4} Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying, {5} "Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, 'When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh month, even those seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?'"

These were fasts proclaimed by people to mourn the several sieges of Jerusalem. But God never commanded them.

(Zec 7:6-7) And when ye did eat, and when ye did drink, did not ye eat for yourselves, and drink for yourselves? {7} Should ye not hear the words which the LORD hath cried by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, when men inhabited the south and the plain?

This is what God wanted, for His people to obey His commandemnts:

(Zec 8:16-19) "THESE are the things that YE SHALL DO; Speak ye every man THE TRUTH to his neighbour; execute THE JUDGMENT OF TRUTH AND PEACE in your gates: {17} And let NONE OF YOU IMAGINE EVIL in your hearts against his neighbour; and LOVE NO FALSE OATH: for all these are things THAT I HATE, saith the LORD." {18} And the word of the LORD of hosts came unto me, saying, {19} "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah JOY AND GLADNESS, and CHEEERFUL FEASTS; THEREFORE LOVE THE TRUTH AND PEACE."

There is nothing wrong with practicing Lent. But fasting is vanity if His commandment are ignored.

above was posted by the same user (user:68.99.216.121) (bakuzjw (aka 578) 00:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Speaking of forty days... Is it true that the period between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday is supposed to be forty days? If so then why is Ash wednesday this year (2006) on March 1 and Easter '06 on April 16? Thats 47 days apart. Shouldnt this be explained in the article? Or does lent end on Palm Sunday, after which is the ceremonious Holy Week, which ends on Easter? The article should be corrected.

This was explained in an earlier version of the article, but MrPMonday removed one explanation nine minutes before you posted this question. That's 40 days excluding Sundays, which is explained in more detail in the Customs during Lent section of the article. The 46 day difference between March 1 and April 16 consists of the 40 days of Lent plus 6 Sundays. As a side note, Ash Wednesday can not fall later than March 10; the Ash Wednesday article has this correct. 209.43.8.146 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, excuse my mistake. It was worded poorly, thus the misunderstanding. Thanks for the explanation. Lent is still observed on those Sundays though, right? MrPMonday 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, traditionally the fasting and/or avoidance of meat is not observed on Sundays, and likewise most people who choose to give something up for Lent allow themselves to indulge on Sundays. But in church services, "Alleluia" is avoided during Lent, and crosses are covered with a cloth (is this custom mentioned in the article?), so it's not as if Lent doesn't exist on Sundays either. Angr/talk 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Catholic Church, Lent doesn't make any official claims to being 40 days but is instead defined as the 44 day period between Ash Wednesday and Holy Thursday. Considering this fact, there is a lot of cleaning up to do of this article. Please see Jimmy Akin's helpful guide to the Catholic Celebration of Lent as he pores through Tradition, Canon Law, and the definitions of Liturgical Seasons to provide detailed information. --130.85.252.118 05:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe Jimmy Akin can start by reading his Catechism: Paragraph 540:
"By the solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the mystery of Jesus in the desert."
Rcol 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That paragraph in the Catechism is speaking to the spiritual meaning of Lent. The Catechism is a compendium of Catholic teaching itself. The General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar define the actual start (Ash Wednesday) and end (the beginning of the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy (Maundy) Thursday) of Lent. That document was the result of some of the committees after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. 64.253.110.166 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be worthwhile re-instating the explanation as to why Lent is longer than 40 days? This often causes confusion/discussion and is surely worth noting in the main article?--Milesoneill (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Does anyone fancy working on WikiProject Christian liturgical year? Gareth Hughes 11:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Fish Eaters

How can links to Fish Eaters be "spam"? americancatholic.org - run by St. Anthony Messenger Press, a private company -- is linked to repeatedly. (Same with catholic.com, another private company) Wikipedia is their second biggest referrer according to Alexa (same with catholic.com). Where else will you get the information at the Lent section of that site you keep taking down? What is the deal here? Malachias111 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

THose are not the creation and under the control of a single person, those are organizations with a reputation that far outstrippes a mere web prescence. They exist separate from the websites they create. Dominick (TALK) 14:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

St. Anthony's Messenger and catholic.com are private, commercial companies. The woman who came up with Fish Eaters exists separate from the website she created, too, I'm sure. And she has said she has 6 editors, so stop with the lying. Malachias111 14:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The organiations are full time associations and aposolates of the Church, or private full time organizations, not a hobby board by some woman. Dominick (TALK) 15:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You know something about her? If what she is doing isn't an "apostolate," what is? Malachias111 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Origins of Lent

I would really like to see a section on the origins of Lent, please.

If you discuss the origins you're going to have to address the association with the historical "weeping for Tammuz" based on it's connection with the equinox (Easter/Ishtar), which may raise some controversy.

Protection

I added {{sprotected}} to the article because of vandalism from anonymous users. --Thorsen 07:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the overview is vandalized. Someone should fix that and check if there are more problems. - Anonymous

Should It Be Made Known?

Hello. I'm new here (well, not to Wikipedia-just my first time discussing). I was not aware that Lent was celebrated by Protestants (I myself am non-denominational Protestant). I wanted to know if anyone knows for certain that it is celebrated by Protestants (maybe a certain sect?). If so, that should be noted. If it is not celebrated by Protestants, that should be noted as well.

I'm new here too, but I do know that Anglicans celebrate lent, and consider themselves protestants. I was raised anglican and this is where my primary education on this topic came from. I believe that Lutherans also celebrate lent, but I am less sure of this. In recent times, "ancient/future" and "emerging" movements from within the protestant church have also reached back into liturgy, including lent, for enhancing their worship practices. --Jocelynlt 06:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, not all Anglicans consider themselves Protestants. It's a very sticky issue, actually. It's hard to generalize about anything that "Protestants do" since there are so many dozens of different kinds of Protestants, but even if you do make generalizations about what "Protestants do" it's probably safest to exclude Anglicans from those generalizations. Angr/talk 14:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well Anglican is closer to Roman Catholicism then any other protestant sect. Otherwise, Ive never heard of any protestant denomination practise the whole Lent thing. --TheWickerMan

The United Methodist Church is certainly a Protestant denomination (one of the so-called mainline denominations along with Presbyterian Church of America, United Church of Christ, Church of Christ (Disciples) etc.). The UMC observes the Liturgical calendar, including Lent. For more information, you can visit United Methodist Church General Board of Ministries Worship page. --startrekfan0823

So-called "low church Protestant" sects (e.g. Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.) have Lent on the liturgical calendars, but they don't make much of it. There's no "giving up" of anything or fasting. In these churches, Lent is pretty much invisible these days. You also have to realize faiths like Presbyterians and Methodists are very decentralized. Most church members have utterly no connection with anything above the individual church level. So while the central UMC may have something on their webpage, unless you're heavily involved in church politics, what's happening at that level is pretty much off the common church member's radar. Remember, one of the foundations of Protestantism is a rejection of ecclesiastic hierarchy and systematized dogma -- the "central church" is fairly powerless. It's a "bottom up" system, whereas Roman Catholicism is a "top down" system. David Hoag 01:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a sentence about Protestants and Anglicans observing Lent as a choice rather than an obligation, which I think is largely true. Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. often make an individual choice to give something up for Lent, but this is not imposed on them by their church. Angr/talk 07:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are "high church Anglicans" and "low church Anglicans". The former are closer to the RCC, the latter are definitively Protestant. I'm the latter, and I know many Baptists and Methodists and I know of no one who *doesn't* give something up for Lent. From my admittedly anecdotal experience, yet logically- at least some Protestants DO practise Lent.

  • As the original author of this article, I can say with some authority that many protestants are practicing Lent (in my own church--The Vineyard USA, or vcfp.org for my local church--and others who use my Lent Devotions site), and enjoying the influence of many of the old-world (non-protestant) churches and their practices. It can also be said that many individual Christians do not identify with their denominations as much as they identify with Christ (though that identification is certainly colored by local denominational culture), and even welcome the influence of the wider community of the faithful (read other denominations, old and new). In addition, it's true protestants may practice Lent more as a choice than an obligation, but that can also be true of Catholic and Orthodox believers. There is less compulsion in modern churches than may be imagined. The church where I first encountered Lent (an Antiochene (eastern) Orthodox church, Christian liberty was the rule: Lent was to be undertaken as a choice, not under compulsion, with no judgments. Carpentis 06:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What days are the forty days

There seems to be some confusion about what days count as the forty days of Lent. As far as I know (and I've never heard a reliable source to the contrary), it consists of Ash Wednesday and the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday following that (four days), plus six weeks of six days each (Monday to Saturday) (36 days). The last of these six weeks is Holy Week, meaning that the Triduum of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday are counted among the forty days of Lent. Angr/talk 10:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't make any sense trying to calculate it any other way. Triduum was a separate, later development, perhaps popularised by Egiria's account of Holy Week in Jerusalem. — Gareth Hughes 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The only other version I've heard is that Lent is the forty days (counting Sundays) starting with Ash Wednesday and ending with Palm Sunday, but I think that was simply a mistake. Angr/talk 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Lent is NOT 40 days according to the Catholic Church. It is defined in the liturgical norms as the period of time between Ash Wednesday and the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy thursday, making it just slightly less than 44 days. Also: Sundays DO count as part of the liturgical season in the Catholic Church, which is why there are different Liturgical practices on the Sundays of Lent (like omiting the Gloria and having a non-Alleluia Gospel Acclamation). --130.85.252.118 05:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Teutonic word Lent, which we employ to denote the forty days' fast preceding Easter...[1]

SigPig 11:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that quote. You notice they don't say 40 consecutive days. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I never meant to imply that; but 40 consecutive fasting days (non-Sundays) as per your comment below. I only meant to illustrate where the "40" came from. SigPig 19:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
But Sundays do not count toward the forty days of fasting, which continue past Holy Thursday to include Good Friday and Holy Saturday. That is the sense in which Lent is forty days long. Maybe the article could be edited to make that clearer. Angr/talk 07:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was the 40 days starting on Ash Wednesday, ending the Saturday before palm Sunday. This is the only way that I thought it was possible because after all, Jesus came back to town on Palm Sunday, therefore he was no longer fasting for that last week. Fizzmaister 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' fasting in the wilderness was long before his journey to Jerusalem--in fact, it was at the very beginning of his earthly ministry, while the entry into Jerusalem was the begining of the end. Neither the Bible nor the church imply that he fasted 40 days immediately before his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The mention of his fasting in the wilderness is only to account for the time period of 40 days, not its proximity to the Resurrection. MishaPan (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at most American wall calendars for 2008, you will see that "Ash Wednesday" (the begining of Western Lent--Eastern Orthodox Clean Monday is usually missing) falls on February 6, and Easter is March 23, a period of 47 days (inclusive). If one counts Sundays, Lent would end on Palm Sunday, if you do not count Sundays, Lent would end on Holy Saturday. My understanding is that the Roman Catholic Church does not count Sundays in determining the 40 days, though they are obviously a part of the liturgical season of Lent. MishaPan (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity

From the article: "In Eastern Christianity, these forty days are known as Great Lent to distinguish it from the Winter Lent."

This is not an accurate statement. Forty days of Eastern (e.g. Orthodox) Great Lent do not coincide with forty days of Western Lent. Aside from obvious differences in Easter calculation, there are multiple distinctions. Ash Wednesday is not celebrated by Eastern Christians. Great Lent begins on Monday seven weeks before Easter and lasts forty days up until Saturday one week before Easter. Sundays are counted towards 40 days. In fact, this is described in Great Lent.

I'm not sure how to formulate this succinctly for the article. Anyone care to make a correction? --Itinerant1 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "In Eastern Christianity, the period before Easter is known as Great Lent...". Hope that clears it up. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Good enough. --Itinerant1 10:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Blue Monday?

Helo. I'm cleaning up the Blue Monday disambiguation page and I want to know if there a Blue Monday as the day before Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday? (I found Clean/Green Monday but I guess that's part of the Eastern tradition.) Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 09:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal from "Christian Holy Day" Category

It's not a major issue for me, but I was just wondering. I added this page to Category:Christian holy days and it was reverted saying that Lent is not a day, but a season. I can understand this argument, but, I would think that it would still fall within the same grouping. I mean, Lent is 40 consecutive holy days, isn't it? As I said, not a major thing, just looking for viewpoints from the greater population here.

--Lucanos 11:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the forty days of Lent are considered to be any holier than any other days of the year, except for Ash Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. Those four definitely belong in Category:Christian holy days, but Lent doesn't. Angr (t • c) 14:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Angr. I can kind of understand your point, but I would be interested in hearing some feedback from other editors or interested parties regarding this article (as I note that you were the user who reverted my modification). I'm not saying that your argument is without merit, just that I would like to poll a larger proportion of the population here to get a true read on the feelings of everyone.
--Lucanos 05:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's my two denarii worth:

From the sermons of Leo the Great (c. 395-461):
"And he that, aided by God's grace...will keep this holy fast faithfully…For knowing that the most hallowed days of Lent are now at hand…" Sermon 39: ON LENT, I [2]
Being therefore, dearly-beloved, fully instructed by these admonitions of ours, which we have often repeated in your ears in protest against abominable error, enter upon the holy days of Lent with Godly devoutness, and prepare yourselves to win God's mercy by your own works of mercy. Sermon 42: ON LENT, IV [3]
From the Canons of the Council in Trullo, A.D. 692:
"On all days of the holy fast of Lent…" Canon 52
"Since we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays…" Canon 55
"We have likewise learned that in the regions of Armenia and in other places certain people eat eggs and cheese on the Sabbaths and Lord's days of the holy Lent." Canon 56 [4]
From St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407)
"When, saith a man, the holy season of Lent sets in, whatever a man may be, he partakes of the mysteries…" Homily 3 on Ephesians [5]:

It would seem that Lent was seen as holy from the early days of the Church. And as for it being a season as opposed to just a day, the category includes Advent, Christmas season, Eastertide, Great Lent(!), and Nativity Fast, all multi-day observances. SigPig 16:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input SigPig. I do not think that the debate was about whether Lent is considered holy. I would assume that both Angr and myself agree to that degree. The question is whether it should be included under the banner of Category:Christian holy days. I must admit though, that I created that category and have data-filled it thusfar, so the inclusion of those other days/seasons/multi-day events/festivals would not really be evidence in either case. This is simply the first article which has been removed from that Category since I included it and I am trying to gauge whether I have mis-classified it by lumping it in under the banner of "holy days" or whether I was correct in my assumptions.
So, what would your, personal opinion be? Would you consider Lent to be a "holy day" and, extending from that, would you consider "holy days" as including any event which spans more than 24hrs?
--Lucanos 16:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Another question is to what extent the new Category:Christian holy days is overlapping with or redundant to Category:Liturgical Calendar, where Lent is already included? Angr (t • c) 18:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there is some overlap in that regard, however I created this Category to try and follow a semi-standard created with regards to other religions as seen at Category:Holy_days. Whilst the Category:Liturgical Calendar does have a large list of articles, I wonder how it could be incorporated into Category:Holy_days in such a way as to make it clear which religion it is referring to. Category:Christian_holy_days is pretty obvious, whereas it's title would be hard for people unfamiliar with the subject matter to connect.
In the end, so long as the end result is the most intuitive and easy to understand for all Wikipedians, no matter how familiar they are with the subject matter.
--Lucanos 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
One option would be to make Category:Christian holy days a subcategory of Category:Liturgical Calendar. Then anything (like All Saints) that's appropriately in Category:Christian holy days could be moved there out of Category:Liturgical Calendar. Things like Lent would then stay in the higher Category:Liturgical Calendar. This would not rule out Category:Christian holy days remaining a subcategory of the categories it's already in, of course. Angr (t • c) 10:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what Angr just said; that does seem to be a workable solution; but I must disagree with an earlier statement of Angr's, that "I don't think the forty days of Lent are considered to be any holier than any other days of the year, except for Ash Wednesday,...[etc.]." Lent has always been a special time for Christians (both East and West) to recommit their lives to God, and they are considered to be holier than other ordinary days of the year. The weekdays of Lent are not simply a waiting period between days with special names, but are "holy days" in their own right—consecrated to prayer, fasting, and self-examination. MishaPan (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Stolen

Lent was stolen from Pagans. Why is the page all about Christianity while it is not the oldest religion that has Lent? wykis 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article shouldn't be listed as a "Christian" teaching, either. The article should state what denominations do practice it. Since not one scripture is listed in the entire article, it is obvious that Lent is in no way a Christian teaching, but rather a tradition of denomination. --67.172.10.82 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be helpful if wykis could provide some facts to backup his bare statement. What Pagan practices is he referring to? How was it stolen? MishaPan (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Something being "Christian" doesn't mean every single Christian in the 'verse has to practise it. It is not one single denomination that practises this, it is a multi-denominational tradition. That is still irrelevant though for the purposes of your argument, because it is a fact that at least SOME (statistically who knows, maybe even "most") Christians celebrate this - and like I say, just as "Catholicism" is Christian, even though not all Christians are Catholics- that makes it a Christian festival.

I really don't know about the origins, if it's Pagan then YES that should definitely be included, origin-wise. But I am unaware that Pagans still practise Lent as part of their religion? If they do, fine - if they don't - then it's no longer a Pagan tradition, regardless of Pagan origin. --Elín 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lent was never mentioned in the Bible. Ever. It's another made up Catholic tradition, which is highly based on Pagan rituals. I am really offended that Lent is catagorized as "Christianity" since Christ never practiced Lent and it is nowhere in any translation of the Bible.

Please sign your posts. MishaPan (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually the weeping for Tammuz in Ezekiel is a reference to the Pagan lent, so it is in the Bible, just not like most people would expect.
An unsigned post above says, "I am really offended that Lent is catagorized as "Christianity" since Christ never practiced Lent and it is nowhere in any translation of the Bible." This is a really biased POV statement. Christianity is more than your particular brand of Protestantism. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church are each larger than any single Protestant denomination. Then there are the Oriental Orthodox and even some Protestant denominations: Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran (remember Martin Luther, the guy who invented Sola Scriptura?), Presbyterian, etc., who observe Lent. Literally Millions of Christians observe Lent. Who are you to say it is not Christian? You are also wrong in saying that it is not based on Scripture. If you had read the article (or your Bible) you would have noticed that Christ did in fact fast for forty days (Matthew 4:1-2, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-2), and he also said that his disciples should fast (Matthew 6:16-18, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 9:15). The New Testament church practiced fasting (Acts 13:2-3). Lent is not "highly based on Pagan rituals". What evidence do you have for that!? The fact that Pagans observe fasts doesn't mean fasting is Pagan, or that the Christian season of Lent is based on Paganism (see logical fallacy). Fasting can even be a rejection of Paganism (1 Samuel 7:4-6). The practice of fasting found in the New Testament is a continuation of fasting found in the Old Testament (Judges 20:26, Psalm 35:13, Jeremiah 36:6, etc.—see also Day of Atonement). If you believe that Scripture is inspired, and that it is true as written, you will agree that God directed Moses to establish a highly-developed liturgical calendar. You will also have to agree that the New Testament shows Christians observing such a liturgical calendar (Acts 20:6). MishaPan (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If the unsigned poster is concerned that the word "Lent" doesn't occur in the pages of the Bible, perhaps he should consider that the word "Trinity" doesn't occur there either--is he honestly suggesting we should jettison traditional Christian teaching about the Trinity? I imagine not; because all that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches is substantiated in Scripture, as is the practice of fasting (see paragraph above). If he is concerned that the specific liturgical practice of Lent is not mandated in Scripture, he might do well to look at John 10:22. The "Feast of the Dedication" mentioned there is Hannukah. Nowhere in the Law of Moses is Hannukah mentioned, nor anywhere else in the Tanakh (Jewish Scripture), yet we find Jesus not only observing the holiday, but he has even gone to the Temple in Jerusalem to celebrate it there liturgically. So Scripture obviously poses no objection to the Church establishing feasts and observances for the benefit of the faithful, so long as there is nothing in them that is contrary to sound doctrine. MishaPan (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church distinction between meat and nonmeat

There's an ongoing discussion right now on Talk:Beaver about the distinction that the Roman Catholic Church draws between meat and nonmeat for the purposes of the Ash Wednesday/Good Friday/Fridays during Lent prohibition. It seems that there is some authority (based on a passage in St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica) that animals that are regarded as principally aquatic (including fish, and presumably including beavers) are treated as nonmeat for this purpose, and it seems that there is some authority (see citations in the Beaver article and additional references in Talk:Beaver) that the Church continues to adhere to this distinction. The notion that "the Church thinks that beavers are fish" seems too silly to some. Come check out the discussion at Talk:Beaver.Spikebrennan 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In Newfoundland, seal meat has traditionally been treated as a "fish" for purposes of Lent. Apparently in Scandinavia whale meat holds the same status. --SigPig 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fasting and Abstinence Theology

The article on Lent is very informative and enlightening to me since I am not an observer of the Lent season. When I read the paragraph about fasting and abstinence, however, I felt like I was headed down a bunny trail. The first sentence begins very clearly explaining the meaning of Lent then becomes a synopsis of Christianity. The paragraph ends with allusions to very deep Christian theology that leave the reader wondering what propitiation, redemption, messiah, and Gospels have to do with fasting and abstinence.

I have never commented on Wikipedia before, but it seems to me that the following material should be in another article (or articles) referenced from here.

"... according to the record of the New Testament, the biblical writings known as the Gospels, he underwent for the sake of humans in order to make propitiation for their failure to keep the laws instituted by God in the Pentateuch. This sacrifice is referred to by Christians variously as a substitutionary death, a redemptive death, and a death which satisfied the perfect justice of God, who actually provided the means for that satisfaction by sending Jesus, said in the Bible to be God's own son, to die in the place of humanity. It is this distinction which fulfills the Hebrews' hope for a messiah (the "Christ" in Greek ) who would save the troubled nation, according to the New Testament writings.

Thanks for reading. Maybe I'll get an user ID and join this project. 71.164.176.204 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This posting is in regard to the next to the last paragraph in the Fasting and Abstinence section of Lent. Sorry for the confusion. 71.164.176.204 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

When does Lent end?

The Easter Triduum article declares that Lent ends on Holy Thursday, but the Lent article states that it ends either at the dusk of Holy Saturday (Easter Vigil) or the morning of Easter Sunday. These seem to conflict, so which one is right?? 74.62.177.140 20:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the relevant sentence in Easter Triduum was removed for being wrong, so I propose to alter this article to match. Rcol 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fasting and Abstinence for Irish Catholics in North America

Sorry if I missed it in one of the discussion topics, but I don't believe the short paragraph under "Fasting and Abstinence" pertaining to Irish Catholics is entirely correct. In recent years, the restriction was lifted in the U.S. because of St. Patrick's Day (and, I think, has happened more than once), but I don't know that it's a routine practice by the church, as the paragraph suggests. I did some searching, but didn't find anything. If someone has more specific info on this, it would be great to include it in the article. Thanks!

Countries

I think it's important to point out lent is almost exclusively an English (UK) thing. I never heard about it in my thirty years of life in Australia and New Zealand; but everyone in the UK has heard of it. A bit like the expression "OE" is synonomous with "Overseas Experience" in NZ but no Aussie has ever heard of it, even though Australians go overseas as well.

I can't speak for your experience in Australia, but Lent is very definitely not limited to the UK. A good number of North and South Americans--Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and some Protestant denominations oberserve this liturgical season. Many traditionally Roman Catholic and Orthodox countries in Europe observe the season as well--certainly within each of these religious communities throughout the world, the Lenten season is observed with varying degrees of strictness. 68.206.134.81 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Actual Start and Duration of Lent

It has been brought to my attention that the season of Lent does not begin until the First Sunday of Lent and Ends on Holy Thursday. Sundays are part of Lent but do not require that Lenten obligations to be observed. Lenten obligations begin on the Wednesday preceeding The First Sunday of Lent, Ash Wednesday, but are not initially part of the Liturgical Season. Therefore there are 40 actual days of Lent, which include Sundays, and 40 actual days of Lenten observances which do not include Sundays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.40.79 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

And do you have a cite or reference for this? --SigPig |SEND - OVER 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy Saturday/Holy Thursday

I have read that in some churches, Lent ends on sundown Holy Saturday. However in the Roman Catholic Church, lent ends on Holy Thursday, (and probably some other churches as well.)

http://www.kencollins.com/holy-04.htm

This is a misconception that seems to be gaining popularity. In the first paragraph of the Easter Triduum it says this:
"Easter Triduum, or Holy Triduum, or Paschal Triduum is a term used by some Christian churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, and many Anglicans, to denote, collectively, the three days from the evening of Maundy Thursday (or Holy Thursday) to the evening of Easter Sunday."
If the Lutherans & Anglicans don't have a problem with Lent coexisting with the Triduum for 2 days then neither do the Catholics. Rcol 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

'Christianity, Astrology And Myth'

Larry Wright, 'Christianity, Astrology And Myth', (2000), Oak Hill Free Press, California, USA. ISBN:0 9518796 1 8 ==

The book in question is essentially the text of my MA thesis entitled, 'Pagan Ritual And Myth, In The Early Christian Church'. It does indeed cover many aspects of the Jesus Myth, Christian festival et al...As an example, the first eight chapters are headed: (1)Rebirth of a Myth, (2)Christianity And The Sun God, (3)The Dying And Resurrected Saviour God,(4)Stars And Their Portents, (5)The Virgin Mother Of The World, (6)The Cave And Stable Myth, (7)Slaughter Of The Innocents, (8)Miracles...................etc. There are 16 chapters, 230pp, inc' Bibliography, and index.The work is therefore accademically sound, and relevant to many diverse aspects of Christianity. Larry Wright 25/03/07

How does your work differ from the works of Joseph Campbell? And, do you cover the distinctions, from the perspective or narrative structure, symbolism, and author intent, between pure myth, such as the story of Paul Bunyan, myth intermingled with fact, such as the stories of George Washington and the cherry tree or the birth narrative of Siddhartha, and history, such as the account of the crucifixion and ressurection? (BTW, to include a signature, just use four tildes (~) in a row, and the system will fill in your signature for you.)L.C. Porrello 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Old English lencten

About this part:

This word initially simply meant spring and derives from the Germanic root for spring (specifically Old English lencten; also the Anglo-Saxon name for March—lenct—as the main part of Lent, before Easter, usually occurred in March). In modern Dutch, the word for "spring" is still "lente", while the 40-days fasting period is called "vasten".

Can anyone provide a reference for lenct or lencten being Anglo-Saxon for March? As far as I know, the Old English word lencten means "spring", not "March". The only native word known for March is Hrēþmōnaþ (hreth-monath). See for example Germanic calendar. --Saforrest 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia says "The Teutonic word Lent, which we employ to denote the forty days' fast preceding Easter, originally meant no more than the spring season". [6] Rcol 20:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 'Lent ends on Holy Thursday'

Catholics believe there are 40 days in Lent.

From the Catechism [7]:

"By the solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the mystery of Jesus in the desert."

& from the Catholic Encyclopedia [8]:

"From the early Middle Ages Lent throughout the greater part of the Western Church consisted of forty weekdays, which were all fast days, and six Sundays."

So starting on Ash Wednesday this brings us to Holy Saturday. Rcol 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Quadragesima

The paragraph about fasting 40 hours in the early church claimed this was the origin of quadragesima which contradicted the correct meaning of 40th day explained later in the article. So I included the 40 hours in the tomb as being more relevant. Rcol 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fast and Abstinence in Roman Catholicism

I noticed that there was a small error in the section on fast and abstinence. Where the article used to state that the Roman Catholic church bound people from the age of fourteen to fast on prescribed days and from eighteen to abstain from meat, I have indicated that abstinence begins first, at fourteen, and fasting later, at eighteen.

See http://www.usccb.org/norms/12521253.htm for the complementary US norms.

71.79.26.80 (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)