Talk:Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Former FLC Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
WikiProject Lutheranism Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Saints Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article was the project's article of the month (yes) on the Saints Portal.

Contents

[edit] LBW or TLH/LSB verbage?

The change to the Festival on 2 Feb is to reflect the usage of the LBW which does not list the purification of Mary as being the primary emphasis. While I realize and understand that the SBH and LSB add her purification to the title, the LBW is more recognizable to a wider number of North American Lutherans and reflects something of a theological consensus between ELCA predecessor bodies and the LCMS since the latter did not pull from the LBW project until immediately before publication (if you look, you will see that they are even still listed as one of the publishers in the title page). Thus, as I stated, the LBW represents something of a broad consensus amongst North American Lutherans in terms of its production that even the TLH and the SBH did not enjoy, and is certainly not enjoyed by either hymnal project by the ELCA or the LCMS.

If it is felt for whatever reason that the verbiage of the LSB be given priority (exclusive or otherwise), I would suggest that an LCMS-specific calendar be written since my vision for the current page is that it reflect both the presumed consensus of the LBW and the nomenclature/format most easily recognizable to North American Lutherans. As it stands, I fail to see why the LBW should not be used since it represents the work of the LCMS/ELCA predecessors in cooperation whereas the new LSB is the exclusive work of the LCMS without consideration for usage in other North American Lutheran bodies (the same would hold true for the new ELW). Therefore, aside from updating the body of the article to bring the dates for specific commemorations/festivals into conformity with the new prayerbooks (and to properly designate their ranks where applicable changes have been made from the LBW), I see no specific reason to give either the ELW or the LSB preferential treatment in terms of nomenclature or verbiage. In short, the LBW represents the closest thing to a consensus on liturgical matters that North American Lutherans have ever had and since the article is designed to appeal to the widest variety of North American Lutherans possible, it should be preferred over either new or previous hymnal/prayerbook.

  • You have a point there, but for March 19, it is mentioned in the article that "Saint" preceding a name is reserved for the Biblical sence, and Saint Joseph, is mentioned in the Bible and is a Biblical saint, so I do not know why you cannot put St. Joseph instead of Joseph.
    • In part, it is based on the LBW usage. If you'll note, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are not listed as being "saint" despite the fact that they are all biblical personages. Insofar as the appendation of saint goes, while it is reserved for those mentioned in the Bible (and specifically in the NT), it is extended to those persons rather inconsistently, whether it be in the LSB, ELW, or the LBW (or SBH and TLH, for that matter). Despite the permissively of the use of the term in the Augustana and more frequent usage in pre-Pietistic Lutheranism, North American Lutherans have always been particularly uncomfortable with its use in the titular sense for some reason which is beyond me (they're also uncomfortable with the use of the word priest, despite the fact that it is used by the Augustana and several European Churches). In my personal view, it would be highly satisfactory to use titulate as saint every personage on the calendar who culted as such prior to or since the Reformation, but this is not the way that either the ELCA or the LCMS have chosen to do things. Since there is a conflict between the LSB and ELW on the issue, here again, it is better to use the LBW as the primary arbiter of the situation.

[edit] February 18 reference

I note that one February 18, Martin Luther is cited as "doctor". Can anyone clarify whether this in an abbreviated version of the phrase Doctor of the Church? Also, if it is, does anyone think that we would necessarily encounter opposition were we to place him in that category? I tend to think that there would be at least some of the latter, but if we can provide a direct reference to it, there very likely wouldn't be any sustained objection. John Carter 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In most Lutheran cirlces, "Doctor of the Church" does not have the technical meaning that it does in the Roman Catholic world. But certainly Luther would fit into the definitions of bith Confessor and Doctor of the Church. Johannes Cardinal Willebrand referred to Luther as "our common teacher," a technical phrase normally reserved for Thomas. I would say, your call. -- Pastordavid 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The reference to “Doctor” is in the SBH as well as the new TLH. In his writings, Luther is called “doctor,” but this is a reference to his academic qualification rather than his being a “doctor of the church.” Personally, I’m content to leave it where it is, though it should be noted that Luther is the only person listed on the calendar as being “doctor” whereas individuals long-recognized in the West as doctors (Thomas Aquinas, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, et. al.) are not.
Jack Turner 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to leave off titles (especially academic ones) except if they are absolutely necessary. That's what we did with ELW, and it evens things out, focuses on the person rather than on titles, and in general makes things easier. The ELCA practice for LBW and ELW was to add a pretty general descriptor ("martyr", "renewer of the church"). Seems to work well. (BTW, we omitted the "saint" title in ELW for the same reason, though we have no objection to it being applied in references to the person.)
Mplsbf 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table or List?

I converted January to a table rather than a list. I think it is a little easier to read, and looks better. However, I will not change the rest of the calendar until I hear from others. If you don't like it, I will gladly revert back to the list. If you do like it, I will be glad to go through and convert the other months as well. -- Pastordavid 18:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I dislike it intensely for three reasons: first, it just doesn't feel right. While it makes it easier to read, it isn't aesthetically appealing. Second, I dislike that "empty" days have been left off. In my opinion, these are important for providing a sense of the whole calendar (and it also makes text easier to read). Third, only one other calendar uses the "table" method; everyone else has the calendar in the list format that was used here previously. I vote to change it back.
jackturner3 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Since it has been nearly a month and no one else has voiced for or against the table-format for the calendar, I'm going to change it back to the prior format.
jackturner3 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

No in-line citations. Alientraveller 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

Renominating for GA status since User:Alientraveller's concerns have been addressed.

jackturner3 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

This article is not sourced though well-written. Please fully source it and renominate it again. Thanks --Aminz 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving more explanation. Almost every sentence of the article needs to be sourced. For example, the first section reads: "The Lutheran calendar operates on two different cycles, that of Christmas and that of Easter. Within these two cycles all events to be commemorated fall. Because Easter varies in date each year based on the vernal equinox and the phases of the moon, it is called a moveable feast (see: date of Easter). Dates affected by placement of Easter include the Baptism of our Lord, Ash Wednesday and the start of Lent, the start of Easter itself, Pentecost, and Holy Trinity. Advent, the other moveable season on the calendar, comes exactly four Sundays before the start of Christmas (if Christmas falls on a Sunday, that day does not count), or the Sunday closest to St. Andrew’s Day (November 30). Like the other Western Church calendars, the first Sunday of Advent is also the first day of the liturgical year. The events commemorated on the Lutheran calendar fall into three different categories: Festivals, Lesser Festivals, and Commemorations."

We need verifiable sources for each of these sentences (references at the end of the article is not enough- we need to know which page of those sources say exactly the statements in the aritcle). Please take a look at the article say Islam (which GA) and you can see that every sentence is sourced. I hope it is clear. Thanks.--Aminz 23:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that every sentence in the first paragraph needs to be cited. For one thing, the information concerning the timing of the festival of Easter is quite clearly explained and cited elswehere in wikipedia, and in my opinion would be overkill to reference it here again, particuarly since my reference for writing that section was the wikipedia article on the date of easter. The comment that all events on the calendar are either Commemorations, Festivals or Lesser Festivals is clearly demonstrated in the article itself since nothing on the calendar is referenced as anything else. The only two things that I could possibly see as necessitating a reference in the above are the comment that the two hinge events are Easter and Christmas and that the calendar starts on the first Sunday of Advent in the Western Church. However, the latter item can also be found on wikipedia in the article on advent (including, if I'm not mistaken, the comment concerning St. Andrew's Day).
Citing every sentence is, in my opionion, well beyond overkill. If I recieved a student paper with every single sentence cited, I would had it back to the student and tell them to find a way to write it for themselves rather than by cobbling it together through quoting or paraphrasing thier sources. I would most humbly seek to remind you that the criteria for GA status in regards to references include:
. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
(a) provides references to sources used;
(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles and
(c) contains no original research.
I think the article clearly meets the criteria. I have provided my references at the end of the text and have even included inline citations for material, despite the fact that nothing in the article itself should raise any objection in matters of content. Furthermore, it contains no original reserach. Based on the above criteria, taken directly from the GA criteria page, I fail to see why this article does not meet GA status on these grounds. I would therefore request a reevaluation of the article for you not to fail it based solely for the reason that every single sentence is not cited.
If what is desired is for every single sentence to have a citation, I will be more than happy to oblige by simply directly quoting every word of the article from various sources rather than actually composing it based on references. But I would think that this would violate both the sprit and intent of wikipedia, so hopefully that will not be what is necessary to raise this article to GA status. Please give me your further thoughts on this matter.
jackturner3 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think my interpretations of the policies is different so I'll leave this for another reviewer to check if it passes the GA criteria. According to my interpretations of the policies, wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for itself. And even though citing every sentence seems to be well beyond overkill, but in my readings of the policies that's a requirement for a GA article. I have no more comment. Thanks very much for working on this article. Cheers, --Aminz 08:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Very well. I have restored it's GA nomination
jackturner3 12:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Language is flawless and well formulated.
2. Factually accurate?: The name of the article is a misnomer, since Lutheranism does not recognize saints. References are sufficiently given (earlier claimed requirement to reference every sentence is really not valid).
3. Broad in coverage?: Background of the calendar is not handled. Mixing the article with a long list structure gives it an unbalanced apperance. IMO, the actual calendar could be a separate entity, possible for Wikipedia:Featured_lists promotion later.
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
5. Article stability? Yes
6. Images?: Good images

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Drieakko 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Failed GA

If noone objects, I would be willing to (a) move the article to Liturgical calendar (Lutheran), and (b) split the actual calendar into a seperate article (perhaps Calendar of Commemorations (Lutheran)) per the suggestion above. Pastordavid 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

At first blush, I'm not really happy with the idea because, well, when I wrote the article all that time ago, I had intended for them to be a single article in a single place. I did so because, well, that was frankly the way everyone else had thiers up! And while I'm still not satisified with the thought of having to break them up, I'm even less satisfied with having put so much effort into this thing and it still not having recieved GA status! And, upon further reflection, I can also recognize that the top section of the article is really heaftier than anything on the related liturgical calendar articles. So, I suppose that I will undertake this effort. I think that a good possibility would be to leave the calendar aspect where it is, leave the opening section (because I think it is a necessary explanatory point), and then move the remaineder of the top section to the new article Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) as has been suggested. But, I would like to be the one to do it, if no one minds.
jackturner3 21:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It does seem to me that calling it Liturgical Calendar (Lutheran) would be much preferable, since it includes listings that go beyond saints.
Mplsbf 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to Calendar

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod includes these celebrations as well, according to their self-published 2007 Lutheran Annual:

January

  • 4 - dedication of Concordia Theological Seminary in Springfield, IL
  • 5 - C. F. W. Walther arrives at New Orleans, 1839
  • 7 - The Baptism of Our Lord, W
  • 8 - J. A. O. Preus, LCMS President
  • 11 - Walter A. Maier, Lutheran Hour speaker, d. 1950
  • 12 - 2nd Sunday after Epiphany, Green
  • 18 - Confession of Saint Peter, GREEN
  • 21 - 3rd Sunday after Epiphany, White
  • 24 - Timothy is listed as "pastor and confessor"
  • 26 - Titus is called a "pastor and confessor", W
  • 27 - John Chrysostom is called a "preacher"
  • 28 - 4th Sunday after Epiphany, Green
  • 29 - Gerald Kieschnick, LCMS President, b. 1943

February

  • 2 - called "Purification of Mary and the Presidentation of Our Lord"
  • 4 - 5th Sunday after Epiphany, Green
  • 11 - 6th Sunday after Epiphany, Green
  • 14 - Valentine, martyr
  • 18 - The Transfiguration of Our Lord, W
  • 20 - Ralph A. Bohlmann, LCMS President, b. 1932
  • 21 - Ash Wednesday, Black/Violet
    • J. K. Wilhelm Loehe, b. 1808
  • 23 - adds John W. Behnken, LCMS President, d. 1968
  • 25 - 1st Sunday in Lent, Violet
  • 28 - Concordia Publishing House ded. 1870

March

  • 4 - 2nd Sunday in Lent, Violet
  • 11 - 3rd Sunday in Lent, Violet
  • 18 - 4th Sunday in Lent, Violet
  • 19 - adds John W. Behnken, LCMS President, b. 1884
  • 21 - Johann Sebastian Bach, b.1685
  • 23 - A. L. Berry, LCMS President, d. 2001
  • 25 - 5th Sunday in Lent, Violet
    • The Annunciation of OUr Lord, W
  • 31 - adds Concordia Historical Institute incorporated 1927

April

  • 1 - Sunday of the Passion (Palm Sunday), Scarlet/Purple
  • 5 - Holy (Maundy) Thursday, White/Scarlet/Violet
  • 6 - H. C. Schwan, LCMS President
    • Robert Kuhn, LCMS President
  • 6 - Good Friday, Black
  • 8 - The Resurrection of Our Lord, White/Gold
    • Martin Chenmitz, Pastor and Confessor, d. 1586
  • 15 - 2nd Sunday of Easter, W
    • Walther-Marbach Debate, Altenburg, MO, 1841
  • 22 - 3rd Sunday of Easter, W
    • Friedrich Pfotenhauer, LCMS President, b. 1859
  • 24 - Johann Walter called a "Kantor"
  • 26 - Missouri Synod organized 1847
  • 29 - 4th Sunday of Easter, W

May

  • 4 - adds F. W. Husmann, 1st Secretary of LCMS, d. 1881
  • 6 - 5th Sunday of Easter, W
  • 7 - C. F. W. Walther, d. 1887
  • 13 - 6th Sunday of Easter, W
    • Friedrich Wyneken, Pastor and Missionary, LCMS President, b, 1810
  • 14 - adds Rosa Young, pioneer Alabama African American teacher, b. 1890
  • 15 - English Synod joined LCMS, 1911
  • 17 - The Ascension of Our Lord, W
  • 20 - 7th Sunday of Easter, W
  • 27 - Pentecost, R
  • 29 - H. C. Schwan, LCMS President, d. 1905
  • 31 - The Visitation (three-year lexionary)

June

  • 5 - The Holy Trinity, W
    • First Sunday after Pentecost, W
    • Franz A. O. Pieper, LCMS President, d. 1931
    • Oliver Hams, LCMS President, d. 1980
  • 10 - 2nd Sunday after Pentecost, Green
  • 11 - adds first Concordia Seminary building in St. Louis dedicated 1850
  • 12 - adds Walther Mausoleum in St. Louis dedicated 1892
  • 17 - 3rd Sunday after Pentecost, Green
  • 22 - Lutheran Layman's League organized 1917
  • 24 - 4th Sunday after Pentecost, Green
    • The Nativity of St. John the Baptist, White
  • 27 - Franz A. O. Pieper, LCMS President, b. 1856
  • 30 - Rosa Young, Pioneer Alabama African American teacher, d. 1971

July

  • 1 - 5th Sunday after Pentecost, Green
  • 2 - The Visitation (1-year lectionary)
  • 8 - 6th Saunday after Pentecost, Green
    • Lutheran Women's Missionary League, organized 1942
  • 10 - Synodical conference, organized 1872
  • 15 - 7th Sunday after Pentecost, Green
  • 22 - 8th Sunday after Pentecost
  • 28 - Bach called "Kantor"
  • 29 - 9th Sunday after Pentecost, Green

August

  • 4 - A. L. Barry, LCMS President, b. 1931
  • 5 - 10th Sunday after Pentecost, Green
    • Third Lutheran Free Conference, Cleveland, 1858
  • 12 - 11th Sunday after Pentecost, Green
  • 13 - J. A. O. Preus, LCMS President, d. 1994
  • 19 - 12th Sunday after Pentecost, Green
    • Gotthold Heinrich Löber, d. 1849
  • 21 - Formula of Concord signed at Gotha, 1577
  • 26 - 13th Sunday after Pentecost, Green

September

  • 7 - First issue of Der Lutheraner, published 1844
  • 9 - second building of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis dedicated in 1883
  • 11 - Concordia Publishing House established 1869
  • 14 - red garments for Feast of the Holy Cross

October

  • 2 - Lutheran Hour started by Lutheran Layman's League, 1930
  • Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, Pastor, d. 1787
  • 9 - Friedrich Pfotenhauer, LCMS President, d. 1939
  • 25 - also C. F. W. Walter, LCMS President, b. 1811

November

  • 7 - Synodical Conference Black Mission begins 1877
  • 8 - von Staupitz described as Luther's father confessor
  • 10 - Martin Luther, Doctor and Confessor
  • 13 - Concordia College, Selma, Alabama, opened 1922
  • 14 - Justinian described as "confessor of Christ"

December

  • 9 - Log Cabin College, Perry County, Missouri, dedicated 1839
  • 11 - Oliver Harms, LCMS President, b. 1901
  • 31 - New Year's Eve and Eve of the Circumcision and Name of Jesus, White

Unfortunately, the book itself doesn't specificy specifically whether all the days are lesser festivals, commemorations, or something else, although there are differences in typeface and the like. I can try to find such content, if the rest of you can decide which if any of the stuff above is to be included. John Carter 16:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks like mostly a list of notable dates in the history of the Missouri Synod, and IMO those don't belong in this category.
Mplsbf 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree: most of this stuff probably doesn't need to be included at all. For the titles of indidivduals, I've gone with listings provided in Lutheran Worship and on the LCMS website, so if there's a conflict, I'd rather give the most weight to main "reference" works, so to speak. -- jackturner3 (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bonhoeffer.jpg

The image Image:Bonhoeffer.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)