Talk:Maundy Thursday/Archive 1

message: What was the rationale for moving this page? Outside of the Roman Catholic Church, the English-speaking world universally calls this day "Maundy Thursday".Rockhopper10r 18:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In nearly every other Western Christian Church the name for the day is "Maundy Thursday". It is the traditional name for the day in the English language. "Holy Thursday" has also been used as a name for Ascension Day. "Maundy Thursday" is unique to the Thursday during Holy Week. We could argue this point forever, but I think keeping the article at Maundy Thursday is most appropriate. Rockhopper10r 16:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this assessment. Even though we call it "Holy Thursday" in the vernacular in the Philippines, when we refer to it in English, it is almost always "Maundy Thursday". RashBold Talk 12:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Name

message: Maundy Thursday is the traditional English term for the day, used by both Anglicans and Catholics prior to the liturgical reforms of Vatican II.  Since Vatican II the Catholic Church refers to the day as Holy Thursday as maundy is now an archaic term with no use or meaning outside of this singular usage.  The average English speaker could not define the word maundy.  Holy Thursday is now the term used in most of the liturgical churches of the West, with the exception of the Anglicans who use Maundy in England and other countries but to a much lesser degree in North America.  The majority of Western Christians clearly use Holy Thursday in place of Maundy Thursday; therefore, I propose that the article move to Holy Thursday and remain there.  Vaquero100 23:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Maundy Thursday" was never the traditional English term for the day in Ireland.  I strongly doubt that it was ever the traditional English term among Catholics in the United States of America.  Vaquero is probably too young to remember clearly.  At my age, I do remember clearly that, at least in Ireland, "Maundy Thursday" always sounded particularly English - I speak of the country, not the language.  Though, where I am now, I am unable to check, I think I saw that the edition for England of the present English translation of the Roman Missal has "Maundy Thursday".  But certainly the printings for other countries have "Holy Thursday", surely a sign that "Holy Thursday" was the traditional term among Catholics in those countries even before the 1970s.  Is it really believable that the translators took it upon themselves to change the English term for the day?  In short, the Second Vatican Council has nothing to do with the question.  Lima 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further comment on Article Name 

message: I removed the cleanup tag that was put on the article back in March.  I don't know why it was tagged as needing a cleanup, other than the debate between Holy and Maundy Thursday.  (Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal, since Holy redirects to Maundy.)  If anyone knows what else needs cleanup, it should probably be mentioned here.  --Elkman - (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: Shouldn't this article mention Blake's 2 poems named 'Holy Thursday' in the Songs of Innocence and Experience? They are highly relevant, imo. - Elin
:They are not necessarily relevant to Holy Thursday itself since they were written as commentary on it. However, there should at least be a disambiguation page for 'Holy Thursday' that has a link to Holy Thursday. Also, that page needs to be renamed to Holy Thursday (II.) or have some information added on the poem Holy Thursday (I.). I don't know how to make a disambiguation page or change the name of a page, however.--Mr Bucket (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blake 

message: Seems to me that this page conflicts with Maundy money#Availability of the coins in that this page says each recipient receives "one coin for every year of the Sovereign's reign" whereas the other page says "people were given Maundy money consisting of silver pennies totalling, in pence, the current age of the monarch."
I'll look it up somewhere, eventually, unless anyone has a good source to hand. --AndrewHowse 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A potential source. Royal Mint website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrewHowse (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantity of Maundy money 

message: There is a vive fight for the meaning of German "Gründonnerstag" as the most popular name for Great/Holy Thursday or Maundy Thursday. Is it useful to link to the DE-Wikipedia-page which explains more details of the ethymology? 
I would not like to see here any comments like "Gründonnerstag means either 'mourning Thursday' from Middle High German greinen (to weep) or ..." where there seems to be more than one objective mistake: "greinen" looks to me like a modern German word (unless I get a source for verification) - the middle high german should be "grinan", "gronan" or something like that; and I don't think that the word's root has the basic meaning "weep" even if modern "greinen" (mourn, wail) sounds close to "weinen" (weep). Not to mention that the development of the word is not clear and may already base on old high german rather than middle high german. But I am not a linguist. FZiegler 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gründonnerstag 

message: Is there any connection with this date and the Eve of Passover? I had heard that the last supper was actually the Passover Seder and that the wine and wafer were the obligatory cups of wine and matzah. --Valley2city₪‽ 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Christians believe that Jesus Christ gave these elements of the Seder meal a new meaning. As a result, Christians practice Holy Communion. This year, the Jewish Passover begins on Tuesday, the 3rd of April and will continue for 7 days until Monday, the 9th of April. Maundy Thursday, the commemoration of the Last Supper and the night Holy Communion was instituted, falls on April 5 this year. This link will explain your inquiry in further detail. I hope this helps! Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's what the Gospel of John says.  The synoptics, by contrast, say that the Last Suppor was passover itself.  Tb (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passover Eve? 

message: I think the article would be improved by a reference to the Catholic practice of having the "Chrism Mass" on this day, perhaps with a brief reference (if known) as to how this came about. (As an aside: I would vote for "Holy Thursday" for the article name as well. "Maundy" is an obscure English word; it is sufficient to redirect a "Maundy Thursday" search to a "Holy Thursday" article.) MrArticleOne (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference to the 'Roman' Catholic practice of the Chrism Mass would be a good idea. I disagree with 'Holy Thursday' as a name for the article - the traditional name in English is Maundy Thursday. Let's not dumb down the English language for Americans with limited vocabularies. InfernoXV (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a difference between "dumbing down" and obscurantism; preserving "Maundy" to me rings of the latter. I find (for whatever reason) that the British English speakers who contribute to the project often have an extremely heightened concern over a perceived threat of American linguistic ignorance; see, for example, the Talk page for The Open Championship. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but I'd still hold out for 'Maundy' over 'Holy'. I'd prefer 'Spy Wednesday' over 'Holy Wednesday' myself, but I'd agree that usage is no longer in general use. 'Maundy', however, is still used all over the Commonwealth. InfernoXV (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Usual Celebration

message: :Any additional comments:
"Maundy" appears to be an English term, the usage of which would appear to be local, and not global in nature. Holy Thursday, despite its problems of being Catholic, and the commonness and non-uniqueness of the "Holy" name (as if we should rather call it "Xkcd day" because its more rare) -Stevertigo 07:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am going to be bold and make the move.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having problems getting the title. Thursday will not appear capitalized. If some admin fixed it that would be great.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reversed the recent move that has been moved unilaterally. Previous discussion of the issue led to the conclusion that the article would bear the name Maundy Thursday. Most Christian denominations in the United States, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, use the name Maundy Thursday. For example, the Methodist Church, Lutheran Church, and Presbyterian Church all primarily use the name Maundy Thursday. In addition, the Catholic Encyclopedia uses the term Maundy Thursday chiefly. By looking at my local newspaper regarding Holy Week services, 18 churches implemented the term Maundy whereas only two used the term Holy. Further discussion regarding this issue should take place for consideration of moving this article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I stopped reading your POV when I read 'in the United States'. Why do you think it says 'The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. ' Discussions that took place 3 years ago do not count as consensus as all the postings that take place in 2009 indicate a desire for change.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it should be moved but also agree more formal discussion is needed.  My biggest concern is that we're not only giving too much weight to Anglophone Protestant usage, we are disregarding Orthodox Christians and Oriental Christians completely.  But, most it importantly, it's not the sort of thing any of us should get to worked up over either way.  So let's please not.  BTW, Catholic Encyclopedia reference from 98 years ago doesn't reflect current usage but its relevance can be discussed when/where we eventually hash this out.  Best wishes.  --Boston (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for listing this at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  I hope that generates an appropriate level of commentary so that we can move it, or not, with confidence. --Boston (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I apologize for not including a more global perspective. However, it is definitely evident that the locution Maundy Thursday is widespread among countries that hold English as their primary languauge. And, this is English Wikipedia. In the United Kingdom (Great Britain), the term Maundy Thursday is also the standard. For example, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) uses the locution Maundy Thursday on their Religion and Ethics page primarily. Holy Thursday is given as an alternate name. TIME Magazine also does the same thing. In light of the fact that Maundy Thursday is the most widespread name among English speaking coutries and that it is been used historically as well, the article's name should remain Maundy Thursday. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Boston, thanks for your consideration. However, it might be better to move the talk page of the article now, in order that it corresponds with the article. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a move request. I am from an English speaking country (Ireland) and I have never heard of the term Maundy Thursday in my life. I have celebrated Easter in Australia, United States, France, Canada and my home country and still have only heard the term Holy Thursday being used so saying Maundy Thursday is the most common is pure original research. Protestants in UK and US are a small part of the population and their name does not conform to WP:NPOV or WP:COMMON.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it original research when I have provided multiple references to confirm my claim and you have provided none? In addition, the Times of India, which is a major newspaper of India, a country having a population of 1,147,995,904 and that uses English as its official language, uses the terminolgy Maundy Thursday, when discussing the holy day, rather than Holy Thursday. The name of the article should remain Maundy Thursday in light of these facts. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to talk numbers well then the Catholic Church who use the term have over 2 billion members worldwide (not just the US or UK) so therefore it is much more common. MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Protestants are the majority in the USA and the UK, but worldwide they are vastly outnumbered by Catholics and Eastern Christians.  That's why it's a complicated issue.  We're not going to convince each other, we need opinions from additional editors.  I do hope the page get's moved, but please do consider my comments about not getting upset about this. --Boston (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your concern User:Boston. I don't believe anyone is getting upset about the issue. From my understanding, people are just engaging in discussion. One thing we have to keep in mind is that despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination, and where the RCC may be prevalent, English is not the predominant language. And, this is English Wikipedia. One more thing to consdier is that the world renowned Encyclopædia Britannica article (in English) is named Maundy Thursday. Holy Thursday is written is small font and is given as an alternate name. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *But consider that this article is also about the day celebrated in Spain, Italy, Russia, Greece, etc. etc. etc.  Would we say the "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem" a celebrated Maundy Thursday mass...?  Perhaps we would; let's research that. --Boston (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, the name Maundy Thursday is taken from an anthem sung in Roman Catholic churches on that day: “Mandatum novum do vobis” (“a new commandment I give to you”; John 13:34) see Encyclopædia Britannica. By having the name Maundy Thursday, we will not only be representing the majority of Christian denominations, which use the term Maundy, but also the Roman Catholic Church, from which the name Maundy is derived. We wouldn't use the Maundy Thursday Mass for a Greek Orthodox Church anyway, since they use the term Divine Liturgy instead of Mass. Regardless, the name of the event in Jerusalem for a Greek Orthodox Church would be in Greek anyways, not English. We are discussing the English name. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken regarding the mass, but that's a besides-the-point point.  I know the history of the name "Maundy" and that it is based in the Mandatum, but we still do have to consider what we call it when Orthodox and Oriental Christians observe this day as that topic is also covered by this article.  For this reason, I think ultimately this might not be a matter of demographics.  It might come down to a semantic/logical argument along the lines of "all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples" in that "Holy Thursday" always includes what we call "Maundy Thursday" but the reverse doesn't seem to be true.  We can't just say "it would be in Greek anyways" as there are millions of Anglophone Orthodox. --Boston (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would Holy Thursday encompass Maundy Thursday but not vice versa? The original name of the holy day in English is Maundy Thursday, which is recognized by numerous Christian denominations, including the Methodist Church, Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church, among others. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church also recognizes this name. This is evidenced by the official Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Maundy Thursday. Holy Thursday is a relatively new term. By using this term, we are catering to one Church that has very recently supplanted Maundy with Holy. Concerning the Greek Orthodox Church: The Greek Orthodox Church uses the term Great and Holy Thursday for the day (see reference), which I will add to the article. As I mentioned earlier, most secular sources, when discussing the holy day use the term Maundy Thursday because that is the day's original, most widespread, and historically accurate name. The very name Maundy Thursday reflects the exact significance of the day. I am confident that world renowned see Encyclopædia Britannica as well as the Catholic Encyclopædia use the name Maundy for these reasons. If Wikipedia is to be reliable, it should follow these establishments rather than invent new ones. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep on repeating your own POV. So far no other editors are agreeing with it. Boston's logical argument over turns all of your claims. We know the Protestant Churches use Maundy but the point is other churches don't. However all use Holy Thursday to some extent as indicated above and therefore Holy Thursday is the more NPOV title.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you have failed to produce any references to support your claims, whereas I have provided a reasonable argument which is buttressed by both sacerdotal and secular references. Because I have complied with WP:RS and WP:V, my comments are correctly deemed NPOV, while your constitute POV. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 Discussion

message: Does "a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod source" constitute a reputable source for matters etymology and linguistics?  I'd say no more than my linguist friend at uni could be considered a reputable source for matters theology.  But that's just me.  59.167.42.156 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: :You need a page ref for note 3 - as I've said, never having heard the term used in the English Catholic Church, I'm very dubious about this. You should make it clear it is not usual. If Blake meant Ascension Day, the image should just go, maybe to that article. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Holy Thursday" appears in sections 3, 4, 199, 204, 380, as I indicated in the article itself before another editor did away with those specifications.  The same editors did away with the two examples I gave of the use of "Holy Thursday" in documents entirely of the England and Wales Liturgy Office's composition: Easter Triduum and Season of Lent.  Lima (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not 199 in fact. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes 199 in fact. The last sentence is: "On Holy Thursday, however, and for the Mass
of the Easter Vigil, it is not permitted to celebrate individually."  I presume you found the other four mentions of the term.  All you have to do, after calling up the document, is to press Control-F on your computer and type "Holy Thursday", and you will find them.  You may also wish to search for "Maundy Thursday", or just "Maundy" if you want to be sure that that other name is not used in the document.  Lima (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I have recently corrected the section being discussed. The second reference given above concerning the Reformed Church is not representative of the denomination as a whole and should not be used to make a statement of the denomination as a whole. If that was the case, then the same rule needs to be applied regarding the Roman Catholic Church as some individual parishes and Roman Catholic organizations use the name "Maundy Thursday" when discussing the holy day (see reference). I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The second reference given above concerning the Reformed churches serves only to indicate that there is no absolute uniformity among them.  There is no absolute uniformity for any religious group, I think, in what they put on their websites or use in ordinary conversation, where you find Anglicans using "Holy Thursday", Catholics using "Maundy Thursday" etc. Lima (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The example I gave of Reformed churches using the name "Holy Thursday" was only one of many possible.  Here are some more: Frederick, MD  Niskayuna, NY Clinton Avenue Reformed Church Hungarian Reformed Church  Cambodian Christian Reformed Church  New Utrecht Claverack, NY  Wynantskill. NY And there are cases of Reformed churches using both names: Hasbrouck Heights, N. J. Hampstead, London, England!  One mention on one site of one Reformed church is not enough for concluding anything about usage by Reformed churches in general.  Lima (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion

message: *I'm the editor largely responsible for having stirred up fresh debate on the naming issue.  Though strongly of the opinion that it should have been moved, I agree there's no consensus and opinion was weighed towards "Maundy" rather than "Holy."  Thanks greatly to all who opined intelligently and respectfully on both sides of the debate.
*Although there's plenty of room for improvement, the article now better addresses the complexities of the names by which this day is called.
*In no case should the name "Maundy Thursday" be used in articles which discuss matters in a primarily Roman Catholic or Eastern Christian conext, for reasons which I think are obvious.
Thanks again for everyone's concern about these related topics.  Happy Easter (or whatever you celebrate, and whatever you call it!) --Boston (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 Discussion  (Thanks)

message: I'm still waiting to hear about your view on articles that are not strictly about Roman Catholic liturgy, such as Gremiale, Angelus, and Altar bell, among others. ... Tb (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, take the first one you mention, Gremiale.  It begins: "A gremiale, sometimes anglicized as gremial, is a square or oblong cloth which a bishop, according to the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" and "Pontificale" ..."  Aren't the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" and "Pontificale" books about the Roman Catholic liturgy?  Or are there other books with the same name issued by, for instance, the Church of England?  The only category under which the article is classified is "Roman Catholic vestments".  So the article does seem to be, to quote your own words, "only about the Roman Catholic liturgy". ... Lima (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not referring to the books, but to the actual objects called gremiales, and the actual prayers called the Angelus, which are not only Roman Catholic.  Tb (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article mentions particular liturgical books of the Roman rite, but that does not mean that the use of the articles is specific to that rite; simply that the article was copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia and received little attention since.  The question, it seems to me, is whether gremiales are specifically a RCC vestment, and, as it happens, they are not.  Their use is not an example of "following the RC liturgy"; it's an example of some bishops and priests not wanting to get their vestments dirty.  Tb (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Gremiale article

message: I'm dropping out of the above threads, because I'm finding it too hard to keep track of the conversation, and that seems inevitably to result in misunderstanding and bad imputations of motives.  So I'm going to (sigh) start a new thread here.  Here is my proposal, whose substance is borrowed from the ideas of WP:ENGVAR.
* Articles which are specifically about some particular group of Christians or geographical area (RCCs, say, or Methodists, or a subset of those) should use the liturgical or theological terminology commonly in use for that community;
* Articles which are about generic terminology or subjects in common to more than one particular group should use the term held in common, if there is one.  (So all Western Rite discussions would use "Eucharist" and Eastern Rite ones would use "Divine Liturgy", for example.)
* Articles which are about generic terminology or subjects in common to more than one particular group, when there is no term held in common, should use the "first use" rule of WP:ENGVAR.
This is, I think, a good principled compromise.  It is almost what User:Lima seemed to be doing in his edits last week: most of the cases he altered Maundy->Holy were particular RC churches, or discussions of holidays in Peru, for example, where it is clear that the term "Maundy" is nearly unknown.  The only exceptions were these, AFAICT: Gremiale, Angelus, and Altar bell.  I don't believe there is any controversy about Altar bell.  Tb (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite unsure where there even is a genuine tradition of the use of a Gremiale for the footwashing.  It seems odd, since (1) I don't know how it's supposed to stay put if the bishop is down on his knees washing feet, and (2) the bishop is supposed to remove the chasuble anyway, so what is it there to protect?  I should check my copy of the CE; the guy who added the mention may simply have been incorrect.  As for Altar Bell and Angelus, "Thursday before Easter" is certainly a reasonable compromise which I would agree to as well, if some people believe (however incorrectly) that "Maundy" is a "protestant" term.  Tb (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What we are, or should be, discussing is the existing article, not the article as someone thinks it ought to be.  (By the way, the present Caeremoniale Episcoporum does mention use of a gremiale linteum (of linen) by a bishop celebrating the Missa in Cena Domini, but does not make it obligatory: "pro opportunitate".)  I don't say that "Maundy" is a "protestant" term.  In fact, if Anglicans are not Protestants, as some Anglican editors of Wikipedia insist, then "Maundy Thursday" is not at all a Protestant term. For Catholics the official liturgical term in English is "Holy Thursday", but for non-Anglican Protestants (or, you prefer, simply for Protestants) both "Maundy Thursday" and "Holy Thursday" are in common use, as is indicated by the sources quoted in the article.  Neither name should be excluded.  We may use either.  Lima (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the editor who expressed the feeling that "Maundy Thursday" is a Protestant term.  It was an un-nuanced choice of words on my part and I apologize for it having complicated this delicate discussion.  --Boston (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again I strongly object to the suggestion that "Maundy" is not an official RC name in English. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please distinguish and agree?  It is no business of the Church to decree an official way for Catholics to refer to the day in newspapers, timetables and everyday life.  It goes without saying that Catholics can and do refer to the day by whatever name is customary where they live.  In England, they usually say "Maundy Thursday", a name neither imposed nor forbidden by the Church in England.  In Ireland, they say "Holy Thursday", a name neither imposed nor forbidden by the Church in Ireland.  In other countries, - fill it in yourself.  But for its official liturgical books in English, and only for those (unless you also count documents such as Pope John Paul II's annual Holy Thursday letters to priests), the Church has in fact picked, out of all those available, one term as the term it uses in English.  Agreed?  Lima (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name for this name day, for Catholics worldwide, in English, is "Holy Thursday".  I hope we agree on that and here's an example of the Vatican preferred choice in the English language  Yet, as Johnbod emphatically reminds us, "Maundy Thursday" does indeed have some "official-ness" among Catholics in England and Wales in that it is used by (for example) documents released by Westminster Cathedral.  However, for the articles we are discussing, the official-ness of "Maundy Thursday" in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is not relevant.  Most Anglophone Catholics live outside England.  If we're discussing something particularly Catholic that is not particular to England and Wales, we'll use "Holy Thursday."  If we happen to be discussing an article about something that is particularly Catholic and particularly English -- let's say Westminster Cathedral again -- then we should probably say "Maundy Thursday".  Suppose we need to mention this day in an article about (English-born) Pope Adrian IV?  Again, I would do with "Maundy Thursday" but that doesn't affect the decisions we'd make in an article about John Paul II, the Angelus, the Rosary, or the Jesuits. --Boston (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I disagree with the unqualified statement that for Catholics world worldwide the official name is "Holy Thursday".  It should be qualified with a reference to the liturgy in English. Outside of that context, no name is "the official name" (in the sense of being declared the only proper name) - or if you prefer, all names are "official names" (in the sense that all may legitimately be used). Catholics may use whatever understandable name they like.  That holds also for bishops.  When they use one name, they don't thereby declare it to be the one and only official name to be used wherever they hold authority, to the exclusion of all other names.  In the article the cathedral of Hexham and Newcastle is quoted as using "Maundy Thursday".  The same cathedral also uses "Holy Thursday" (see Cathedral Church of St Mary, Scripture Readings).  So neither name is there "the official name", but you can say that both are "official names".  Lima (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it should be preferred, but it should not be changed in RC articles started in UK English style, on ENGVAR grounds.  More and more I think the "other" form should be given in brackets in many or most articles, which really is the best way to resolve these matters, if a bit inelegant. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I think the statement about preferred usage also needs qualification.  Preferred usage for Catholic documents in English intended universally (not for a single country only)?  I think even Johnbod agrees with that: "Holy Thursday" is the form that has in fact been chosen, and exclusively so, for such documents (liturgy, letters of JPII ...).  Preferred usage for English Catholics?  If we abstract from the liturgical texts, "Maundy Thursday" may well be the preferred (though not exclusive) usage there.  Preferred usage for a certain category of Wikipedia articles (as I understand you to qualify it)?  There's the rub.  Probably all would by now agree in principle, even Tb; but as we have experienced, there are hot disputes whether certain articles do fall within that category; so the formula is of somewhat limited practical usefulness.   Lima (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: What about "Mass of the Lord's Supper" instead of Maundy/Holy Thursday?  The use of the linen apron and the singing of the Gloria and the other matters that are causing difficulty concern that Mass.  They do not the day as a whole nor the other Mass that may be celebrated on that day: the Chrism Mass.  I would be quite happy with that.  A wikilink would bring the reader to the present article, and that ought to satisfy those who want to have "Maundy Thursday" plastered throughout Wikipedia.  Would they accept it?  "Thursday before Easter" is such an unfamiliar name, it would have people wondering what can it possibly mean and then, by an effortful process of counting back, perhaps coming to understand what it refers to concretely.  Lima (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I'll make what I think are suitable edits to the articles.  Tb (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Not worrying about language, I'll venture to say the answer is "no".  If it turns out that's wrong, we can find a different compromise term, I'm sure.  But "Mass of the Lord's Supper" is an excellent choice for Altar bell and Gremiale for the reasons User:Lima gives.  For Angelus, I've ventured a different solution, which I think helps the article anyhow.  The point is that six "angelus moments" are skipped each year: those on Good Friday and Holy Saturday; so better to just say that.  I have my cell phone programmed to beep me thrice daily for the angelus, and I admit I forget to turn it off before Friday morning, so I got one extra beep I shouldn't have.  :)  Enjoy Easter Monday, and my apologizies for my own role in making this a harder discussion than it needed to be.  Tb (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe.  I was assuming that you would likely agree with User:Lima.  Tb (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proposal for the use of the term "Maundy Thursday" or "Holy Thursday" in other articles 

message: IMHO, I think Holy Thursday is more appropriate for Gremiale, but I could reluctantly stay quiet with "Maundy Thursday" being used therein.  Using "Maundy Thursday" for Angelus (or if needed rosary etc.) would just be just too bizarre for me as even in non-Catholic communities that use these devotions, there's an awareness that they are seen as distinctively Catholic.  (Just like there are countless thousands of icons located in Western churches of all denominations but all are acknowledged as distinctively Eastern Christian).  Thursday before Easter for both of these last two articles seems a good compromise.  We might also set precedent that whenever this becomes a hot issue with any article “Thursday before Easter” should be chosen.  Sometimes it will be Orthodox or Oriental Christians feeling left out of Western Christian wordage, sometimes vice versa.  Eventually we'll have little disagreements between the proverbial hyperbolically-named "Second Assembly of Jesus Church of Zion United Orthodox Episcopal Catholic Universal Church of Christ the King" and the “Third Assembly...” of similar name four blocks down the same street.  If we can identify a way to consistently defuse these edit conflicts, let's embrace it. I'd prefer a solution that would make us all less than delighted to a solution that would any of us aghast. --Boston (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "Mass of the Lord's Supper" instead of Maundy/Holy Thursday?  The use of the linen apron and the singing of the Gloria and the other matters that are causing difficulty concern that Mass.  They do not the day as a whole nor the other Mass that may be celebrated on that day: the Chrism Mass.  I would be quite happy with that.  A wikilink would bring the reader to the present article, and that ought to satisfy those who want to have "Maundy Thursday" plastered throughout Wikipedia.  Would they accept it?  "Thursday before Easter" is such an unfamiliar name, it would have people wondering what can it possibly mean and then, by an effortful process of counting back, perhaps coming to understand what it refers to concretely.  Lima (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I'll make what I think are suitable edits to the articles.  Tb (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Not worrying about language, I'll venture to say the answer is "no".  If it turns out that's wrong, we can find a different compromise term, I'm sure.  But "Mass of the Lord's Supper" is an excellent choice for Altar bell and Gremiale for the reasons User:Lima gives.  For Angelus, I've ventured a different solution, which I think helps the article anyhow.  The point is that six "angelus moments" are skipped each year: those on Good Friday and Holy Saturday; so better to just say that.  I have my cell phone programmed to beep me thrice daily for the angelus, and I admit I forget to turn it off before Friday morning, so I got one extra beep I shouldn't have.  :)  Enjoy Easter Monday, and my apologizies for my own role in making this a harder discussion than it needed to be.  Tb (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe.  I was assuming that you would likely agree with User:Lima.  Tb (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thursday before Easter

message: I presume that the "globalize" tag at the start of the article was in relation to the use of the name "Maundy Thursday".  That question has been settled.  Any objection to removing the tag?  The other tag at the start of the article, asking for additional citations, has probably also been sufficiently answered by now.  Any objection to removing this tag also?  Lima (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has objected, at least so far.  Lima (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove tags? 

message: I think it should be renamed Holy Thursday.
Holy Thursdy is a term used in most of the world since 1960. THIS TERM IS UNIVERSALY ACCEPTED. It should be changed to Holy Thursday on the English Wikipedia. 
I can not, and nobody I know can define "Maundy". Come on, this term is old english and NO ONE uses it anymore. Please Reconsider!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewrp (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think clearly you are incorrect here, as the discussion above shows. Tb (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revote on Renaming 

message: The icon which previously was used as a lead graphic is lovely, and has been on this page for nearly two years (see ).  The Da Vinci reproduction, despite User:Andrewp's shouting here  is difficult to make out, and has washed-out colors.  I strongly prefer the previous image, and suggest that any change requires consensus, and not just shouting.  Tb (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Icon should be removed and replaced by the DaVinci painting. I think the DaVinci has more to do with it, has a better quality, and is one of the best on Wikipedia. Also, there was the institution of the Priesthood on Holy Thursday. (look up mass of the lords supper)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.216.84 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether the da-vinci won an award on the Spanish wikipedia for being awesome isn't really relevant here in my opinion.  The icon is quite clear, while the da-vinci loses a lot in the reproduction and suffers from the degraded colors the fresco has (unfortunately) suffered over the years.  Moreover, in an article with an overwhelming focus on western ecclesiastical matters, it is refreshing to have a more eastern treatment of the same topic.  It's ludicrous to say that the da-vinci has "more to do with it"; the da-vinci is a fresco for a dining room, while the icon functions as a liturgical item specifically used on Maundy Thursday.  In fact, the da-vinci has become so stereotyped in western culture, that I suspect it is often not perceived as tied to the specific liturgical celebration at all--and even is thought of by many as of principally secular interest (witness its stunning perspective experiments!).  By contrast, the icon is clearly and immediately not only religious, but liturgical.  Tb (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  choice of graphic 

message: User:Angr removed the recent addition by User:Andrewp of the "institution of the priesthood" from the things celebrated on this day, asking for citation.  User:Andrewp's rude edit comment notwithstanding  and all caps, do not substitute for a citation.  Tb (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Take, as an instance,  Holy Thursday Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper, 45.  This statement goes back at least to Pope Pius XII's revision of the liturgy of this Mass.  It is found, for instance, in the 1962 Missal on page 155 under the number 13, and, of course, in the present Roman Missal in the Mass of the Lord's Supper under the number 9.  Lima (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, so I think it should be added (with a reference to satisfy User:Angr's request.  Can I suggest that counting the "number" of things celebrated is probably not a good idea; just a list is good.  Tb (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do those Christians who believe in the priesthood of all believers also consider the priesthood to have been established at the Last Supper? And wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the issue in the article Last Supper rather than here? —Angr 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholic Christians (Roman or Anglican or Orthodox or whatever) also believe in the priesthood of all believers.  More to the point, the non-Catholics (speaking broadly) don't believe in the ministerial priesthood at all, so of course, don't believe it was "instituted" at all, whether on this day or any other.  Or perhaps it's the day they believe Christian ministry was inaugurated, though I've never heard that and I don't see how it would go.  So if User:Lima wishes to re-add the text, it presumably should be done in a way with a nod to those who don't believe there ever was such an institution.  It is certainly the case that many of those still celebrate Maundy Thursday.  Tb (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  institution of the priesthood 

message: I did a search for "Holy Thursday" and was surprised to be directed to this article.  I had never heard of "Maundy" anything before, so I assumed I had searched incorrectly and searched again.  After some confusion, I came to learn that some English people use this term for "Holy Thursday".  So, my next obvious question was why is the article titled "Maundy Thursday"?  I searched the archives and saw that this discussion has been played out before.  However, when virtually all Catholics and U.S. English-speaking Christians call the day "Holy Thursday" (constituting the vast majority of Christians), how can we justify calling the article "Maundy Thursday"?LedRush (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as there has been no objection to the change, and the archived record seems to indicate more support for the change, would anyone like to add anything before a change is made?LedRush (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I congratulate you for checking before moving. Have you read the heated discussion on the disccusion that was held on the occasion of last year's Holy Thursday?  That discussion is referred to in the second item at the top of this page.  I do not believe you can win consensus for a change.  If you do wish to try, why not wait until close to this year's Holy Thursday, when more editors will be looking at this page.  I am of course using "Holy Thursday" in your sense (and mine), not in the sense found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, where (doubtless following general English usage before the Protestant Reformation) it means what you and I call Ascension Thursday.  This ambiguity of the term "Holy Thursday" is, I think, an important reason for keeping "Maundy Thursday" as the title of the article: "Maundy Thursday" may be a less common term, but it is unambiguous and generally understood even by those who do not use it themselves.  Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read the history and knew this was way too contentious to unilaterally move without a very, very long warning period.  In my reading of the history, it looked like there was more support for "Holy Thursday" than "Maundy Thursday", but I could be mistaken.  Also, I am not persuaded by the potential Holy/Ascension mix up: So very few Christians know of or use the term Maundy that the confusion of its use would be far greater than a mix up over Holy/Ascension.  Any potential mix-up could be dealt with more easily than the Maundy/Holy mix up is: in the lead.LedRush (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went back through the archives and saw that while the discussions seem to favor a move, the last vote does not.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, just to set the record straight, the official Catholic term in English is "Holy Thursday" http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2009/index_en.htm   Of course, this is not a dispositive argument.  I am merely trying to get a baseline for impending discussions.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Methodists in the US use "Holy Thursday" in what appears to be an official capacity.  http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=258&GID=180&GMOD=VWD&GCAT=H      LedRush (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Internationally, Lutherans officially say "Maundy Thursday".  http://www.lutheranworld.org/News/LWI/EN/2032.EN.html  LedRush (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: American Presbytarians officially use "Maundy".  http://www.pcusa.org/missionyearbook/Apr/09.htm   LedRush (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Orthodox Catholic Church seems to use "Holy" (or "Holy and Great")  http://www.homb.org/calendar-and-daily-readings/church-calendar.php   LedRush (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Anglicans use "Maundy"  http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm?mode=entry&entry=A908EEFA-0FA9-AFB6-3632ACDD53A6D8D1     LedRush (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Baptists don't appear to celebrate the holiday.LedRush (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I would encourage you to read the Names in English section of the article. In the previous consensus on this issue, it was decided to retain the name Maundy Thursday as the article title, especially since Holy Thursday is the alternate name for Ascension Day in some Churches. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the section and, as I have indicated above, I have read the archive.LedRush (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to think the arguments grounded in "confusion" (e.g., Holy/Ascension or "Great and Holy") are unpersuasive straw men. They can be easily dealt with in the lead or in a disambiguation reference at the top of the page, and I think there are excellent reasons to conclude that "Holy Thursday" is both a more generic or generalizable name, as well as less grounded in particular linguistic and religious traditions that are not shared by a majority of English speakers. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So, anyone have any new thoughts?  This bothers me every year as the holdiday approaches, largely because the term Maundy Thursday is so rarely used in comparison to Holy Thursday.LedRush (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my position speaks for itself. "Holy Thursday" is, in my opinion, a more generic or generalizable name and is more appropriate than "Maundy Thursday," which is marked by relatively narrow religious and linguistic traditions which are inappropriate considerations for the article title. Frankly I think that this has become something of a sectarian dispute, as my recollection of the past debates is that Catholics are (by and large) leading the charge to change the name to "Holy Thursday" and Protestants seek to maintain "Maundy." This is unfortunate, as it distracts from the fact that, irrespective of sectarian distinctions, "Holy" is more generic and generalizable and is, IMO, more appropriate. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've always seen this as a more nationilistic dispute, as Catholics throughout the world use the term Holy Thursyday, as do all Americans, regardless of religious affiliation.  Really, since this is English Wikipedia, we have only English Protestants seeking to keep the minority name as the title of the article.LedRush (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to agree. In the Anglophone world the day is definitely called "Holy Thursday" more. I think this is especially confusing for Americans because the term is quite literally almost never used here. The disambiguation reference at the top of the page would easily redirect people to Feast of the Ascension and Maundy would properly be used as an alternative name in the first line of the article. Where the confusion engendered by dual use of the term "Holy Thursday" is not ideal, I think that because that conflation of terms exists in areas that use both "Maundy" and "Holy" to refer to the Thursday before Easter there is an anticipation that "Holy Thursday" might be either day (and thus a quick look to the disambiguation reference would be in order), whereas in those parts of the English-speaking world that do not ever use "Maundy" the confusion lacks any context. As was said above, people tend to think they have landed upon the wrong page altogether.Treko (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that it is only "English Protestants". I am neither English nor Protestant, yet yesterday our church celebrated Maundy Thursday. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is an over-broad generalization (I know Americans who call it Maundy Thursday -- although no American Catholics), but independent of the denominational debate, I feel that "Holy Thursday" is simply a superior, more neutral term less influenced by a specific culture and linguistic tradition. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

text: This issue was already settle in an RfC, where the community decided to retain the term "Maundy Thursday" for this article. Please read this discussion there. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: This article seems to be more about the naming convention of different sects of Christians, and not on the day itself.  How is it that the word "passover" does not appear in this article?LedRush (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the Christian celebration of Holy Thursday, not about the Jewish feast of Passover, which the Gospel of John describes as beginning on the evening of what we would call Good Friday, not Holy Thursday, of the year when Jesus died. See ,  and . That complicates matters.  Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy Thursday is a celebration of the last supper, which was a celebration of passover, no?LedRush (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy Thursday is not a Passover Meal in John's gospel.  Jesus is crucified on Preparation Day in that gospel (Jn 19:14).  You are correct that the other three gospels treat the Last Supper as a Passover meal.  Only the gospel of John has the story of the washing of the feet and the "mandatum" (Latin, "command") that the disciples should wash one another's feet (Jn 13:14). Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  passover