Talk:Lent/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What's wrong with this material, eh?

Regarding this:

In the modern era, some Christians in the [[Anabaptist]] and [[Reformed churches|Reformed]] traditions, as well as some [[evangelical]] Christians, have also incorporated Lent into their tradition as well, joining Anglicans, Catholics, and Lutherans in the celebration of this liturgical season.<ref name="Mennonite">{{Cite book|url = http://www.thirdway.com/menno/glossary.asp?ID=121 | title = Mennonite Stew - A Glossary: Lent|publisher=Third Way Café|quote=Traditionally, Lent was not observed by the Mennonite church, and only recently have more modern Mennonite churches started to focus on the six week season preceding Easter.|accessdate =24 February 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Brumley|first=Jeff|title=Lent not just for Catholics, but also for some Baptists and other evangelicals|url=http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-03-12/story/lent-not-just-catholics-also-some-baptists-and-other-evangelicals|publisher=The Florida Times Union|accessdate=03/03/14}}</ref><ref name=Meeks>[http://books.google.com/books?id=--Wv5kiq-RoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Season of Ash and Fire: Prayers and Liturgies for Lent and Easter BLAIR MEEKS] December 01, 2013 | ''In recent years Christians from the Reformed branch of the Protestant tradition have begun to recover a practice that dates in the Western church at least to the tenth century. That is to begin Lent on the Wednesday before the First Sunday in Lent with a service of repentance and commitment, including the imposition of ashes. The Lutheran and Anglican traditions, of course, never lapsed in this observance.''</ref>

It looks OK to me; what's the problem with it, then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not forty days

On the talk page of another article, someone asked where the forty days comes from. Nowhere in this article does it say forty days from Ash Wednesday to Easter does not include Sundays, though it does say 38 days (Sundays not included) for Catholics who end Lent on Maundy Thursday.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Vchimpanzee, I've tried to incorporate your point in the article. I hope this helps! If not, feel free to modify the edit as needed. Happy Easter, Anupam^Talk 21:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that works.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The following counts amount to forty days:

• The actual days of Lenten practices (and formerly of fasting in the technical sense): Ash Wednesday thru Holy Saturday, minus Sundays,
• The days from the First Sunday of Lent (when very much formerly Lent began) thru Maundy Thursday before the Paschal triduum.

Some theologians like to distinguish the "Lenten fast" (which then is now reduced to 38 days) from the "Easter fast" or "mourning fast during the Easter celebration" (Good Friday and Holy Saturday) (2 days). However, let's be clear that this has found little resonance among the Catholic populace. When asked about the duration of Lent, they'll say "Ash Wednesday thru Holy Saturday, and Sundays are exempted from Lenten practices". Indeed when the Sundays were exempted (somewhen around the year 1000), the two days of Easter fast were the reason why only four, and not six, days were added to Lent. (In the old Breviary by the way, the use of the Lenten hymns still only begins on the First Sunday, with the preceding days having their weekday hymns).--131.159.0.47 (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to see this discussion here - I was just about add an entry to the talk page saying that, although this article says in one of its earliest paragraphs, that Lent last forty days, it does not point out the period that the period between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday is longer than 40 days. My understanding is that traditionally, people can break abstinence on Sundays during Lent, which would make the period 40 days. 81.140.1.129 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

overtly theological - what about agricultural cycle ?

The tone of this article is overtly theological and written from an ahistorical perspective, which is acceptable given the partly religious subject, however there is no reference or discussion of the secular, agricultural aspects, and indeed pre-Christian origin of the observance onto which later Christian (Catholic) practice has been overlain. This gives the misleading impression that the festival derives from a primarily religious - rather than agricultural - origin. It should be noted somewhere that the timing of lent derives from the late winter lean season of the year in northern Europe when crops were planted but not yet ready for harvesting. Easter then marked the beginning of Spring when fresh eggs were available to harvest and young male lambs available for slaughter and feasting. Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talk • contribs)

It wasn't in northern Europe that celebration of what in English is called Lent began Esoglou (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the article 'Lent' is Old English for 'Spring' - please explain what you mean? Furthermore the article [[1]] has a rather better description of the secular aspects of the festival which should also appear in this one.Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talk • contribs)

I just tweaked the article a bit, after using it to verify something else i was editing. You may be interested in a ref. that i found which is pretty rich in info. about eggs/Spring etc. and the relation to Lenten season. http://books.google.com/books?id=P30IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false . The Lenten season's relation to the agricultural cycle sounds like a good section to me, if it is not already covered in the article or if it could be pulled together from the article. I like it. 2601:C:67C0:F8:800C:5FD6:3C44:DE7C (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Duration

There is a question about the section on the duration of Lent in the Roman Rite. The old paragraph cited a blog post by James Akin with no footnotes, which says that Sundays do not count, which I can find no source for in official liturgical documents. The official document is cited in the change I made. If we want to clear up the paragraph further, let's do so, but not by citing James Akin who is by no means an authority on the matter nor a scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qowieury (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The official document about the duration of Lent explicitly says "the forty days of Lent run from Ash Wednesday up to but excluding the Mass of the Lord's Supper". You will find the document in any fairly recent Roman Missal or Liturgy of the Hours. On the Internet you can find it here and here. Or just Google the quoted phrase, and you will be told that the exact phrase in the official document is reproduced in about 1380 Internet documents. Esoglou (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of what the GIRM says, but also what it does not say. The thing about Sundays not counting is not there. So that is definitely made up. The GIRM says "the forty days run from Ash Wednesday [through Holy Thursday]" but that is clearly 44 days, so it is necessary to look at Paschales Solemnitatis which is THE official document on the matter to find out which of the 44 days are the "forty days" I do think we should cite the GIRM reference though also. I have tried to combine your improved version with what I wrote. I hope that you will agree that it is a good place to work forward from. Qowieury (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, does that book you cited cite itself? I could not figure out what the footnote "Way 33" could reference. I just have never seen a book reference itself in a footnote. Qowieury (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lent. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204125151/http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/lente1 to http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/lente1

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) 17:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"For Lent in Eastern Christianity"

At the top of this arycle is:

This article is about Lent in Western Christianity. For Lent in Eastern Christianity, see Great Lent. For other uses, see Lent/Archive 2 (disambiguation).

However, there's an inconsistent sprinkling of texts here and there about Eastern Christian practices. I'm inclined to remove these; indeed, they should be removed. However, given the amount of text removed, I wish to state my intent here to ensure that no one considers this controversial. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)