Talk:Liturgy of the Hours

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).


You are quite fast! I just started this article and will be adding to it over the next several hours. Your feedback is welcomed. Aloysius Patacsil 21:16, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Canonical hours?[edit]

Isn't this the same information?

Let me work on it. Thanks for the information and most especially, for your patience. Aloysius Patacsil 21:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this should be moved with Canonical hours. However, your information was a great input, Aloysius.


I have added {{merge}} to the top of this article. This one appears to have been created without knowledge of the existence of Canonical hours. It's difficult to know which one to prefer. While this one is definitely cleaner and better written overall, it manifests an extreme Roman Catholic POV, while the other one has made a serious attempt at comprensiveness. (Which partly explains its relatively disordered state.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see more information on Eastern Christian usage. THAT would make this article really encyclopedic. ---Marcusscotus1 04:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's there, in sketchy form badly in need of revision, in Canonical Hours. However, I know little of the history. I really ought to get Taft's book on the subject. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

LOTH is Post Vatican II Latin Rite Catholic Only[edit]

About the merge....I don't think that either Canonical hours or Liturgy of the Hours is the best main article title here. Clearly, there should only be one article, but I think a better main article name would be Divine Office. Canonical hours is just too obscure, I think.

The term Liturgy of the Hours is only used as a name in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, and even then, only in the reformed version promulgated after the Second Vatican Council. It is a relatively new title that dates, I think, from the early 1970s.

The Traditional Catholic groups (including relatively new groups such as the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest) that use the older form of the liturgy call it the Divine Office and not the Liturgy of the Hours.

The term Liturgy of the Hours isn't used by Eastern Catholic groups, nor by the groups in the Latin Rite who have their own liturgy, such as the Benedictines.

The Commonwealth English edition is called the Divine Office.

As far as I know of, no other Christian group uses the term Liturgy of the Hours.

In my humble opionion, I would use the term Divine Office as the main entry. Canonical Hours would redirect to there, and Liturgy of the Hours would either be a redirect to Divine Office or would be a short article of the reform of the Divine Office. ---Marcusscotus1 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Orthodox have no collective term for these services other than "the Hours". Obviously this is a less than suitable article title, so I tend to favor "Canonical Hours" as the most general. The term is not unknown in the West, and is, I am told, considered a synonym for "Divine Office" [1], and is at least comprehensible in the East. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering about how the Orthodox would translate it into English! Canonical Hours isn't a term I hear much. I typically hear something like "The Brothers say the Divine Office before starting classes," or "Father is saying the Divine Office now." --Marcusscotus1 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
About the only time we group them together under a single name is on those occasions when the Typikon calls for the daytime Hours (i.e. Prime, Terce, Sixte and None) to be read one after the other in sequence. This happens on certain strict fast days before important holy days such as Christmas Eve and Good Friday, and then the service as a whole is called "Royal Hours". The Third and Sixth Hours are read before the Divine Liturgy, but these are simply called "the Hours". Otherwise we would refer to them individually, so in your example we'd have said "the Sixth Hour" (or whichever one he was reading). TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this: we keep the Liturgy of the Hours article, but make it strictly refer to the post-Vatican II reformed liturgy of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. At the top of the article, put in a reference to Canonical hours. The latter article should then be inclusive of Eastern and Latin Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans (and anyone else who keeps this liturgy). And perhaps change the Liturgy of the Hours category. -- Marcusscotus1 19:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I changed my mind about making Divine Office the main article is too Latin. Canonical Hours is obscure but more general. We just need to have lots of links to it. -- Marcusscotus1 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Divine Office." "Liturgy of the Hours" refers to one particular version, and "Canonical Hours" is quite obscure. BTW, it is also called "Daily Office" in the most current edition of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer.

It's really a vast subject, and would require more than one article, but the general overview should only be a single one, with redirects from all of the above, plus "Breviary" and possibly just "Hours."Carlo 23:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see there seems to be a little confusion about what The Liturgy of the Hours actually is. The term Liturgy of the Hours refers specifically to the Rules for praying the Psalms that are now mandatory for Priest in communtion with Vatican to follow. Just like we have two Liturgies, or sets of forms and methods, for conducting a mass there is also a now a set of rules and forms that must be followed when a Priest prays the Psalms. The Title of the article is therefore very appropriate. The phrase Divine Office does not actually refer to the action but instead refers to the obligatory nature of the action in that it is a Sacred Duty to pray the Psalms as Christ did. One does not need a book in order to pray the Psalms or even to correctly follow the Liturgy recently published if you have memorized the parts. I know of several priest who have done just this. However, should someone want to pray the Psalms without the aid of memorization then they will need a book of Psalms as well as a Bible for the readings, a schedual for when to pray what and a book of the Liturgy to make sure they are doing it the way they are meant to. This can mean a lot of juggling, so today, just like in ancient time, the Church has published a book with everything in one place as much as possible. This book is what is known as a Breviary. Therefore I think it would be best to say that the recently published Rules is rightly called the Liturgy of the Hours, the Obligatory Nature of the action is Rightly called the Divine Office or Holy Duty, The Book that attampts to put everything together for Convieniece is called a Breviary. The actual ation that all of these is phrases is linked to is Praying the Psalms. Every Christion tradition does this action in a different way so it would be better I think to list each one seperate in its own article for clearity.Billiot

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. ZOMG. I've read it all, yes, see my rant below. Duja 10:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Liturgy of the hoursLiturgy of the Hours — There may be liturgies of the hours that have been composed on private initiative; but this article is not about them: it is about the official liturgical rite of the Latin Catholic Church; such liturgical rites are usually capitalized, e.g. Anointing of the Sick Lima 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes[edit]

  1. Support The official rite of the Liturgy of the Hours is not just a liturgy of the hours, as Anointing of the Sick (the official rite, in its various historical forms) is not just any anointing of the sick, for instance with an ointment with medicinal properties, and as the Divine Liturgy is more than a divine liturgy. Lima 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support This is the format adopted by the Brazilian National Conference of Bishops and it is presented thus in Catholic Encyclopedia[2]. Fvasconcellos 21:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Actually, I hadn't noticed it, but I think it's obvious once pointed out. Carlo 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Per discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Capitalization here is nominative and not merely reverential. Freder1ck 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck
  6. Support. I agree with the argument that the capitalisation should be used as this is a nominative name. Furthermore it is referring to a specific Liturgy, of specific Hours--not just any hours--but the eight canonical Hours. Other works capitalise Hours in this context, for example the Books of the Hours of English Catholicism c. 1500. Mark 21:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support This is how it has appeared in every catechism, i've seen since my altar boy days. 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support It is the title of a book, so it should be capitalized. This is, after all, very much an article about a book and the many issues and historical background surrounding it. Rwflammang 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support SynKobiety 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes[edit]

  1. Oppose - The sources cited by the support voters A) only show spelling when the term is used to refer to the modern Roman Catholic service, and B) only one such internal RC spelling tradition, and C) they try to ignore that "liturgy of the hours" and its component words accurately describe the service in other Christian churches and D) mean something in general English. The arguments presented above by the support voters also E) try to ignore that this article is also talking about prior RC use when the service had other names and other forms (in which case the term shouldn't be capitalised even if capitalisation is chosen for the modern RC service). In any case, the support voters are F) trying to make Wikipedia ignore lower case spelling usual in other normal, general (i.e. secular) English reference works, which should definitely have precedence for WP over use in religious tracts and internal RC communication. Even within the RC Church and even by RC scholars (B), lower case use is common for the modern service, for example in the RC Church's own document on the topic, the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Catholic Historical Review, published by the Catholic University of America Press. The former site is "dedicated to providing accurate historical and current information about the liturgies of the Latin (Roman) rite of the Catholic Church" and is linked to by many official RC websites as a reliable source. Lower case use is also shown by Pope Paul VI at that website. In addition, (C and D) the sources cited by the support voters do not show and more specifically are biased in ignoring both general use of the expression "liturgy of the hours" in English and use in other religions. Typical for this bias is that most of these sources for RC use were added by someone that completely ignored the previous(!) oppose vote by a representative of the Anglican Church and completely ignored that this person had seconded my earlier suggestion to change the title to "Liturgy of the hours (Roman Catholic)" or "Liturgy of the Hours (Roman Catholic)". In summary, capitalisation is clearly not necessary within the RC Church, and use of "Liturgy of the Hours" as the article title would be biased towards other religions. In addition, the only citations from normal general English (i.e. secular) reference works provided so far, Britannica, Britannica and Columbia, seem to all have lower case use for this and its synonym, and these sources should alone suffice to dictate usage in WP. Basically, the problem boils down to the widespread use of "polite", "customary", and "reverential" capitalisations in WP articles especially on religion that is due to these being written almost exclusively by members of the relevant religion and due to the lack of objective, outside input and of professional copyediting. (Much of the content is as amateurishly presented and parochial as the spelling.) This kind of capitalisation use is still common especially in older religious texts but not used in normal, general (not only secular or "non-religious" but also non-denominational) works of reference and often not even used by religious scholars (e.g. Latin Rite, Vigil). (And the argument about "anointing of the sick" is typical in its erroneousness because this term is also not usually capitalised in modern non-denominational reference works as shown by these links: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].) Other reputable sources (including RC libraries and liturgy scholars) showing that the current article title is correctly spelled: [8], [9], [10], [11]. The Anglican priest in the discussion below says this about Anglican use: "Liturgy of the hours" is rarely used, but it is not unheard of, and accurately defines the phenomenon. The sources presented by the support votes show old-fashioned and denominational use (in a single outdated denominational encyclopedia and within a single religious group) and are not authoritative for spelling in a modern, secular encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. WP is not a religious tract and not a Catholic encyclopedia, and basic Wikipedia policies cannot be ignored on the basis of a small poll with a few participants, especially when the support votes are probably mostly by members of a single religious group.--Espoo 12:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per the caveats I note below. Fishhead64 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Add any additional comments:

I don't think capitalization of "the Liturgy of the Hours" (the Church's official rite of that name) is any more reverential than capitalization of "the White House" (the official residence of the President of the United States, called by that name). In both cases, capitalization only indicates that "the White House" is not just any white house, and "the Liturgy of the Hours" not just any liturgy of the hours; that, in other words, "the White House" and "the Liturgy of the Hours" are indeed proper nouns. (Should I perhaps say "substantive phrases" or some such instead of "nouns"?) Lima 13:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The liturgy of the hours is not an unchanging entity, and the article is incorrectly written in claiming this. Did you even bother to take a look at the links provided? You at least don't react to the content and my research. One quote is enough to show that your White House analogy is completely erroneous: (Edit, see below) "Monastic communities revolved around a liturgy of the hours (ora et labora) and in the middle ages clerics were obliged to recite the daily office." [12] “The purpose of the liturgy of the hours is to sanctify the day and the whole range of human activity.” — General Instruction on the Liturgy of the Hours"[13] Are you implying that the scholars and university employees who wrote those papers and organised the conference don't know how to spell? Do you have any sources to back up your personal preference? Apparently you also haven't looked in many reference works except maybe ones published by religious organisations. I will be adding new links to show that the capitalisation of "anointing of the sick" for example is also erroneous or at least hopelessly old-fashioned. --Espoo 13:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Espoo's quotation here, quite apart from the fact that it speaks of a liturgy of the hours, rather than of the Liturgy of the Hours, was obviously written by someone of Espoo's decapitalizing persuasion, someone who refuses to follow common usage by writing "the Middle Ages". I know very well there are such people and that they know how to spell in a style they consider fashionable. Let them spell as they will. But I do not see why we should follow them. I think others too know how to spell. Nor have I any prejudice against modern reference works such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church; indeed, I think a reference work specializing in religious topics knows better than certain crusading decapitalizers how to distinguish the Anointing of the Sick from an anointing of the sick, the Divine Liturgy from a divine liturgy. The Liturgy of the Hours is obviously not an unchanging entity. Neither is the European Union. Nor the United Kingdom. No reason, as far as I can see, for imposing the spellings "the united kingdom", "the European union", "the liturgy of the hours". Far from claiming that the Liturgy of the Hours is an unchanging entity, as I think Espoo accuses it of doing, the article shows, in the section Books used, how much the Liturgy of the Hours has changed over the centuries. Lima 15:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Touché about the "Middles Ages", which is obviously misspelled and therefore disqualifies the source as unreliable despite being a quote from a University of Notre Dame page. And chances are very high that that was not a conscious choice on the part of the author. I'm quite surprised i myself didn't notice the mistake either (although due to copy and paste i of course wasn't really looking at the rest of sentence critically). Considering that i didn't see the error despite being a professional copyeditor, the author can perhaps be excused. But you continue to ignore all the quotes from reference works, whose quality of copyediting is on a much higher level than that of university website editors or even liturgy scholars. It is ridiculous that professional copyeditors like me and others who base their editing on reliable sources waste much of their time at WP trying to make people stick to the basic rules of Wikipedia (cite sources) and to make them simply accept the capitalisation and other spelling conventions used in dictionaries and other encyclopedias. And you continue to ignore that even if capitalisation of the RC liturgy of the hours is perhaps defensible or at least a perhaps widespread albeit bad old and old-fashioned habit (which includes capitalising Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Anointing of the Sick and most Other Important Words and thereby looking like Lawyer Talk or very Baroque), A, not THE liturgy of the hours exists in various Christian churches as explained in the quote from Britannica. This article needs to be rewritten to remove the erroneous and parochial Roman Catholic POV. There is no single liturgy of the hours and even the Roman Catholic one is not capitalised even in the General Instruction on the Liturgy of the Hours, as quoted above. --Espoo 19:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Espoo may quote as many people as he wishes who share his view, but they do not bind English-speakers. Those who wrote the English translation of Catechismus Ecclesiae Catholicae were not mere boors. And the many others who follow the same capitalization system are not ignoramuses. As English-speakers, we are free to follow either Espoo's system or theirs. Though Espoo seems to forget the fact, there is for English nothing corresponding to the Académie Française, which has the authority to decide correct French spelling and grammar. We are writing English, not French.
He himself is not an Academy with authority to declare a particular usage a "bad old and old-fashioned habit" or to declare that the presumably "bad old and old-fashioned habit" of always capitalizing the first-person pronoun singular must from now on be eschewed ("i myself didn't notice the mistake either, although due to copy and paste i of course wasn't really looking"), a new usage I confess I was unaware of and which I am not yet prepared to adopt.
Espoo quotes an American translation of the General Instruction, which uses "liturgy of the hours" in at least one place. The edition published by Collins (London and Glasgow), Dwyer (Sydney) and Talbot (Dublin) has "Liturgy of the Hours" in the same place. The American translation is not the work of an Académie Anglaise. Indeed the quality of the American translation (Such prayer in common gradually took the form of a set cycle of hours. This liturgy of the hours or divine office, enriched by readings, is principally a prayer of praise and petition.) seems to me to mark it as inferior to the other translation (These prayers in common at the different Hours of the day gradually took on a more definite shape, which today we describe as the Liturgy of the Hours, or Divine Office. Enriched with readings, it is principally a prayer of praise and supplication). Whichever is superior or inferior, we English-speakers are free to follow either usage.
What more can I possibly say except to repeat: "There may be liturgies of the hours ... but this article is not about them: it is about the official liturgical rite of the Latin Catholic Church." Lima 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Lima, it's good to get your input on the quality of the translation and therefore the reputability of the quoted source. This means that we may have to drop that one too from my list of reputable sources. However, you have only provided one source that supports the capitalisation, and it is not enough. More specifically, you continue to ignore important points i raised and basic WP policies. Since my attempts to get these points across in prose are apparently not succinct enough, let me try in bulleted style:
  1. Your and my personal capitalisation preferences are completely irrelevant; the only thing that counts is what reputable sources show to be correct usage in well-edited texts.
  2. This article should not be only about the official liturgical rite of the Latin Catholic Church, which is only one of the liturgies of the hours that exists in many Christian churches.
  3. My dictionary and encyclopedia entries show what is accepted and correct usage in normal English reference works. Wikipedia is not a religious tract or a publication of the Roman Catholic church. If these use capitalisations that show reverential and old-fashioned habits that differ from usage in normal works of reference, Wikipedia capitalisation usage should follow usage in normal reference works, not writings of a specific religious community. This is true even if we start a separate article that is not on the liturgy of the hours in general in various churches and that concentrates only on the Roman Catholic service. --Espoo 19:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This article was intended to discuss the Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Hours only, and as such very much should be only about "the official liturgical rite of the Latin Catholic Church". "Liturgy of the Hours" only came into common use post-Vatican II as far as I know; the older term is "Divine Office". I don't know when mentions of Eastern Christian practice crept in, but it doesn't belong here. The more general Christian sanctification of the hours, including outside the Latin rite, is covered in Canonical hours. If there is to be expanded, particular coverage of Eastern Christian prayers of the hours, it should be in a new article, possible Horologion, which is now a redirect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Csernica, for doing (and better than I can) the repetition of what Espoo still refuses to take in. Lima 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Csernica, what this article was intended to discuss is quite irrelevant if this is not what the article title normally means in the English language. I have repeatedly posted links to show what the word "liturgy of the hours" means in English and how it is used and spelled in reference works and other reputable sources. Lima has voiced some well-founded concerns about some of the sources cited that were written by individuals, but you and Lima continue to ignore the links going to reference works, professional journals, and libraries. Serious reference works like traditional encyclopedias are not written by amateurs like Wikipedia is; not only their content but also their spelling is checked by very many professionals, and Wikipedia cannot use words with a meaning or a spelling that flouts use in encyclopedias and libraries and well-edited journals. I'm afraid that you both have not bothered to look at those links and/or that you seriously think that Wikipedia can use a word in a clearly denominational and parochial way that flouts use in other reference works, which is clearly against basic WP policies. I will therefore quote these reference works and other reputable sources here:

divine office - also called canonical hours, liturgy of the hours , or liturgical hours in various Christian churches, the public service of praise and worship consisting of psalms, hymns, prayers, readings from the Fathers of the early church, and other writings. Recurring at various times during the day and night, it is intended to sanctify the life of the Christian community.Encyclopædia Britannica The article goes on to describe in a professional way the history and development of the term, which shows why this term should not only not be capitalised when talking about the term in a non-denominational way but also when talking about liturgy of the hours in the Roman Catholic church.

vespers - evening prayer of thanksgiving and praise in Roman Catholic and certain other Christian liturgy. Vespers and lauds (morning prayer) are the oldest and most important of the traditional liturgy of the hours.Encyclopædia Britannica

Fundamentally, they were a prayer book which contained a simplified form of the liturgy of the hours said by priests, monks and nuns. The laity wished to share in the liturgy of the hours, and devotion to Mary was at a peak, so it was the office of the Blessed Virgin, found in most breviaries and other office books, that was adapted to lay use. The majority of books of hours were produced in France and the lowlands.Mount Angel Abbey Library

This book presents twenty-three essays by internationally renowned medievalists and liturgical musicologists on the liturgy of the hours in the medieval Latin West. The essays are arranged as chapters under six general headings: a methodological introduction, the pre-Carolingian office, manuscript studies, regional developments from the Carolingian era to the later Middle Ages, hagiography, and the use of computers in research on the divine office... As a prelude to the feast, Lila Collamore welcomes the reader to the study and arrangement of the liturgy of the hours as the means par excellence of sanctifying time with scriptural prayer over the course of the day, the night, the week, the year.The Catholic Historical Review, The Catholic University of America Press

(showing the synonym's correct lack of capitalisation:) In a broader sense, liturgy includes the divine office (given in the breviary) and also services other than the Mass.Columbia Encyclopedia--Espoo 07:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

These services are not called the "liturgy of the hours", capitalized or not, in Eastern Orthodoxy. I seriously doubt they are called that in Anglicanism, and I see no sources above to say that it has. (And what other Christian tradition has them. Lutheranism maybe?) If some modern scholarship in the West tends to refer to these prayers in their historical context by their modern name, uncapitalized in order to generalize, that's neither here nor there as far as current actual usage.
This article is a redirect for "divine office" and according to the Britannica article, these terms are very well used for the Eastern Orthodox service in English. The WP article's current literal translation of the Greek gives an incorrect picture. You continue to refer to current denominational usage, but WP is not a Roman Catholic encyclopedia. In addition, a modern Catholic encyclopedia perhaps doesn't capitalise this term either.
I see nothing about the development of the term in the Britannica article, but I don't subscribe so I don't have the complete article available. Regardless, I do not consider it a source on Eastern Orthodox usage more reliable than the other sources at my disposal. Similarly, on capitalization I do not consider secular sources such as the Britannica or Columbia more reliable than Catholic sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia. (Useless for developments since the early 20th Century, but otherwise helpful.) I note that one of your sources above doesn't even capitalize Vespers -- I'm sorry, but that's almost always capitalized and I don't much sympathize with the impulse to do otherwise.
The Britannica article is there in its entirety; it continues below the ad/hint about the pay version. It describes the development and use of this service in several churches including the RC, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican. The old Catholic Encyclopedia is hopelessy out of date specifically on questions of modern spelling even in Catholic scholarly usage. Unless you can provide a quote from a more recent reference work, you have not provided anything that can compete with the sources i provided. A quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia or something similar would be a start, but the whole point is that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and its definitions and spelling should not be dictated by denominational usage or habits, even in denominational reference works, if this is different from established usage in general reference works, especially when this is also accepted usage in reputable Catholic sources including scholarly Catholic journals and Catholic libraries.
Again, there is more general coverage of this subject under Canonical hours. If you want the articles organized otherwise, you'll have to form a consensus for that, which you don't appear to be doing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has the title "liturgy of the hours" and must like all WP articles describe the meaning of this term in general use in English correctly. --Espoo 09:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought:
Capitalization also serves to distinguish a specialized meaning from others, as "Western" in a cultural or political sense is distinguished from "western" in a geographical sense, as "Mass" in Espoo's quotation from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05 is distinguished from "mass" in other senses. So "Liturgy of the Hours" serves to distinguish – in a way quite useful for correctly indicating what this article is about – the Liturgy of the Hours of the Latin Catholic Church from any other "liturgy of the hours" that may exist.
And by the way, the same 2001-05 encyclopedia does write "Vespers" and "Eucharistic", which Espoo doubtless wishes were treated in the way he treats the pronoun "I". In other words, there is more than one right way to write English, and imposition of Espoo's misocephaleist way would not be NPOV. Lima 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Lima, if you think about this for more than a moment, you'll realise that other Christian churches would consider it very rude to use capitalisation to differentiate between the RC and other versions of the liturgy of the hours in a non-denominational context like a general encyclopedia. That does not of course mean that Roman Catholics can't capitalise the term in a RC context. If we decide that capitalisation is possible for the RC service, that at most means that an article exclusively about the RC service could be called either "Liturgy of the hours (Roman Catholic)" or "Liturgy of the Hours (Roman Catholic)".
The Columbia Encyclopedia does indeed use the spelling "Vespers" in the article on liturgy, which is a bit surprising because the same encyclopedia uses "vespers" in the article dedicated to that term, where obviously more time was spent in deciding between the old-fashioned and unnecessarily reverential and Baroque spelling style previously unthinkingly adopted from denominational texts by most secular encyclopedias and dictionaries too. Most dictionaries now list only "vespers" or give "Vespers" only as an alternative spelling. The WP article vespers is clearly amateur and parochial in sticking to the capitalisation. Not long ago, even all the sacraments were capitalised, but even Catholic reference works have now usually stopped this for at least baptism, confirmation, penance, and matrimony. Some still cling to capitalisation of "holy orders" and "anointing of the sick", but the only one that is nowadays always capitalised is the Eucharist.
As long as you do not provide reputable, non-denominational sources for your capitalisation preference, an administrator should and no doubt will not rename the article as you suggested. Basic Wikipedia policies cannot be ignored on the basis of a small poll with a few participants, especially when they are mostly members of a single religious group.
PS, it's a very bad idea using foreign words such as "misocephaleist" instead of plain English to try to sound like you're an expert and to try to silence others who have valid opinions. Luckily i studied both Greek and Latin in school and college so i was able to understand what you're trying to say because otherwise your use of that word would have been even more clumsy and rude. In addition, the word is not in any online dictionary i found, and Google can't find it on even a single page in the entire Internet. I haven't bothered to check my dictionaries in the basement yet, but i remember enough Greek and Latin to be pretty sure that you may have in fact coined that word and incorrectly.
PPS And please stop harping on my use of the more modern and more polite use of lower case for the pronoun "i", which i only use in private correspondence and other texts not meant for publishing. (I would also use it in a novel if i'd write one.) In editing WP and in my professional work, i never use that or any other spelling that is not recorded in dictionaries or used in well-edited texts. As you yourself pointed out, there is no official spelling authority for English, and even in other languages, new spellings are eventually recorded in in dictionaries and by these authorities when enough people adopt a new spelling. This will no doubt be the case with English dictionaries and "i" in a few years, and then i'll start using that spelling in professional contexts too. In addition, my lack of capitalisation of "i" has nothing to do with my insistence on following established capitalisation usage in well-edited texts and avoiding Baroque Lawyer Spelling Style that is creeping into everyday use through the insane power given to lawyers today, which is augmented by the power transferred to them by Microsoft and the whole proprietary software industry, and through the general lack of basic education among even most open source gurus.--Espoo 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Espoo (whose spelling of "i" I mention only as an indication of his systematic opposition to almost any capitalization - and yes, I know people lived happily without any such distinction until half a millennium ago) holds that his spelling rules are the only correct ones for English, There are people, quite well-educated people, who do write, for instance, "Mass", "Eucharistic", "Vespers", "Western" etc. - yes, and "Liturgy of the Hours" in the specialized sense in which it is used here. It is only Espoo's view (his POV) that these people are Baroque, old-fashioned, reverential, holding insane power transferred to them by Microsoft and the whole proprietary software industry, lacking basic education, or just plain ignorant. The rest of us are free to consider their usage at least admissible, even better in some cases. So far, Espoo seems to be failing to persuade anyone that his is the only acceptable system, and I think he could never get a consensus for imposing his system (his POV, I would say) on everyone working on Wikipedia. As things stand, it is not worth my while, or anyone's, to continue this ring-a-roses discussion with him. I leave it as it is. So far, three in favour of moving the page, one against. Lima 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Lima, you have so far not presented modern, reputable, non-denominational sources that support your preference. I have presented such reputable sources. As long as you do not provide reputable, non-denominational sources for your capitalisation preference, an administrator should and no doubt will not rename the article as you suggested. Basic Wikipedia policies cannot be ignored on the basis of a small poll with a few participants, especially when they are mostly members of a single religious group.
And it is definitely intellectually dishonest to continue to attempt to confuse the discussion by using incomprehensible foreign and apparently self-coined words and by talking about a member's personal spelling preferences that he does not use or propose to use in the article. Proof that your motive is dishonest is that you talk about my "systematic opposition to almost any capitalization" when i specifically showed and stated that i vigorously support and defend all capitalisation used in other general reference works. whereas you and others have only presented the outdated old Catholic Encyclopedia and policies on internal communication within the Catholic church as your sources. --Espoo 09:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak from my knowledge of the Anglican tradition, which uses the terms "daily office," "divine office," or simply "the offices," or "canonical hours." "Liturgy of the hours" is rarely used, but it is not unheard of, and accurately defines the phenomenon. Parenthetically, if this article is to be about the RCC practice, divine office should certainly not redirect here, since many different groups use this term to refer to their daily offices. Why not do here what was done with other pages (e.g., Catholic minister being renamed Minister (Catholic Church)) and simply bracket the applicable religious group, to wit, "Liturgy of the Hours (Roman Catholic Church)" or "Liturgy of the hours (Roman Catholic Church)" or "Canonical hours (Roman Catholic Church)"? Liturgy of the hours could redirect to canonical hours with a disambiguating note at the top of the article with a link to the RCC article, something like, "for the canonical hours as expressed in Roman Catholic worship, see..." Is there anything unsatisfactory or inaccurate about this proposal? Fishhead64 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand Fishhead's "per the caveats below": do these caveats clearly address the question: Should "Liturgy of the hours" be moved to "Liturgy of the Hours"? Espoo's outlawing of "Liturgy of the Hours" in favour of "liturgy of the hours" reminds me of the Soviet outlawing of "God" in favour of "god". The Soviet Union was able to eliminate minority usages and declare only one usage permissible. I am surprised that a similar policy is being proposed for Wikipedia. Lima 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
While acknowledging that "Liturgy of the hours" is only currently officially used by the Catholic Church in the English language description of their rites, the article itself indicates that the tradition existed within Christianity well before the schism between East and West. On that basis, I have to assume that, for the sake of the global view which all of our articles are supposed to represent, that the article at least incorporate sections which lead off into different articles for the Orthodox, etc., which it does not currently do. Badbilltucker 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in fairness to the Soviet Union, there are many gods but only one God. Unlike them, however, we cannot be blind to context, pace the comments of badbilltucker and espoo. Given the concerns that have been expressed, I don't think anyone's ox is gored by either greater specificity in the title, or greater expansiveness in the content of the article. Fishhead64 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Does this perhaps mean Fishhead changes his vote from "Oppose" to "Neutral"? Lima 07:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite the contrary - I'm sorry if I was too obscure. Fishhead64 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not "outlawing" anything; my simple request is that basic Wikipedia policies be respected. This means vigorous support and defense of all capitalisation used in other general reference works. WP should neither sound nor look like a religious tract or an official statement of the Roman Catholic Church. WP articles about religion should be about religion. Lima and the other supporters of capitalisation of terms that are not capitalised by secular encyclopedias and even most religious scholars have not presented equally reputable sources. The hopelessly out-of-date old Catholic Encyclopedia and the Brazilian National Conference of Bishops are not enough to dictate usage in a secular article about the liturgy of the hours. The Support voters haven't even bothered to look in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. They apparently have not found anything except internal church habits to defend the capitalisation of "liturgy of the hours", which is perhaps already as old-fashioned and parochial as capitalisation of the sacraments (except the Eucharist) and many other religious terms like "sermon", "homily", "mass", etc. This is no longer used in most modern reference works and scholarly works and completely out of place in a modern secular encyclopedia like WP.--Espoo 09:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Liturgy of the Hours names both a variety of prayers and a variety of texts. As such, naming conventions should be similar to that for the Bible. Capitalization is necessary to indicate the naming of a specific institution (the Liturgy of the Hours) as contrasted with the liturgy of the church (see WP:MOS: Capitalization).
  • Amazon and Barnes and Noble capitalize Liturgy of the Hours and Divine Office in all of the editions that they sell.
  • The Catechism of the Catholic Church captitalizes Liturgy of the Hours (see CCC #1178
  • OSV Catholic Encyclopedia (1991) Captalizes Liturgy of the Hours.
  • The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West by Robert Taft is an academic history of the Liturgy of the Hours. It capitalizes both Liturgy of the Hours and Divine Office.
  • Universalis website, which offers the Liturgy of the Hours, also capitalizes.
  • [ PDF of article in Communio journal, which capitalizes Liturgy of the Hours.

Freder1ck 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

Espoo has today, 5 January, again added more words to restate his view (his POV) that in the matter at issue there is only one way to write acceptable English. Fishhead's opinion is unclear to me: I tend to think he only prefers "liturgy of the hours" as the title of the article, without condemning "Liturgy of the Hours" as bad English. I am therefore uncertain whether Espoo has persuaded anyone at all that he has proved his thesis that only "liturgy of the hours" is acceptable English. The rest of us evidently remain convinced, in spite of Espoo's arguments, that "Liturgy of the Hours" too is legitimate English. We even think it is the better form for the title of this article, though not necessarily for other contexts. Talking about general usage of "liturgy of the hours" /"Liturgy of the Hours" may well be a way of befuddling the point at issue, which is simply a matter of saying yes or no to the proposal: Move the article to "Liturgy of the Hours". Most of us say yes. Lima 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I primarily added new reputable RC sources and mainly added words to explain and summarise these and the sources of the support voters whereas you, Lima, added only words, your personal opinion. If you want to stand a chance of convincing an admin, you're going to have to understand that WP editing should not be based on personal preferences. WP editing should be based on reputable sources and i've shown why the support voters' sources give an inaccurate picture of usage within the Roman Catholic Church and ignore usage in other churches and general English usage and usage in general reference works on this topic. Admin decisions are not based on counting votes but on basic WP policies and the quality and applicability of the sources cited. I'll let Fishhead answer your renewed feeble and parochial attempts to neutralise valuable input by a representative of a different church than yours.--Espoo 11:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to prove the obvious fact that many writers do use "Liturgy of the Hours". Espoo cannot ignore the existence of the English usage that they follow; he can only attack it as, in his view, Baroque, old-fashioned, reverential, and used by people who hold insane power transferred to them by Microsoft and the whole proprietary software industry, and who lack basic education. Yes, I have already quoted these expressions of his, but I think they bear repeating because of his repetitions that only one English usage is permissible.
I have not thought it worth my while to look up sources to prove something so obvious, but for curiosity I have just now Googled "liturgy of the hours". The first two pages of results seem to give only "Liturgy of the Hours", apart from two exceptions. One is this Wikipedia article. The other is what Espoo - mistakenly, I presume, rather than disingenuously - calls "the RC Church's own document on the topic, the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours by the Congregation for Divine Worship". The document Espoo refers to is only an American translation, inferior linguistically to a more widely used English translation that uses "Liturgy of the Hours". Must I also point out that the American text is not the work of the Congregation for Divine Worship and that it cannot be called the "the RC Church's own document on the topic"? The RC Church's own document on the topic, the document by the Congregation for Divine Worship, consistently uses "Liturgia Horarum", never "liturgia horarum".
I am, as is obvious, also curious to know Fishhead's view on whether "Liturgy of the Hours" is, as Espoo maintains, simply bad English. Lima 14:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lima, your chances of convincing an admin are rapidly diminishing because you again present only general vague comments like "many writers" and Google results and misrepresentations of my comments. I never said that capitalisation of "liturgy of the hours" is bad English. I specifically said that this and similar capitalisations are common in religious tracts and internal use in many churches. I did say that this kind of reverential capitalisation is out of place in a modern secular encyclopedia such as Wikipedia as shown by quotes from professionally edited secular encyclopedias, which show the practice that WP should follow because WP should be about religion, not a religious tract. I also provided sources that show that "liturgy of the hours" is often not capitalised even on reputable Roman Catholic websites and in other reputable RC sources.

In summary, if reputable secular reference works do not capitalise certain religious terms, then this should be normal usage for Wikipedia too. The lack of uniformity in RC spelling in this specific case of "liturgy of the hours" further weakens the case for its capitalisation.

I'm quite sure, Lima, that you are not misunderstanding me but purposely distorting my comments to try to ridicule me because you feel how weak your case is. My comments about Microsoft and Lawyer Spelling Style have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion; they were clearly coupled with "my insistence on following established capitalisation usage in well-edited texts", and in no way implied that MS or lawyers had any powers of time travel or otherwise caused the age-old reverential capitalisation tradition in all religious texts. My comments were clearly marked as a PS and part of a defense against your personal attack based on my lower case spelling of "i" in personal correspondence.

On the contrary, my arguments for not capitalising this article's title were based on reputable sources, and your attempt to make me look incompetent due to my personal preference for the spelling "i", which i only use on talk pages, showed that you don't respect basic WP policies and try to attack others personally instead of dealing with their arguments and their sources. I can just imagine how you'd personally attack a dyslexic who presented valid arguments and good sources.

More specifically, you still have not provided sources that can compete with those i've presented such as the Catholic Historical Review, published by the Catholic University of America Press, encyclopedias such as Britannica and Columbia, etc. As long as texts by your "many writers" are not published in reputable secular periodicals or reference works, they only demonstrate that the age-old reverential style is still alive and well in religious texts and even in some texts by religious scholars. Not long ago, even "baptism" and "matrimony", for example, were capitalised, but this would now look very strange even in most religious texts. All your attempts to "prove" that the RC "liturgy of the hours" is a proper noun that needs to therefore be capitalised also apply to the official rites performed during these sacraments, but they are not capitalised even in Wikipedia despite its rampant reverential capitalisation caused by editors of religious articles being amateurs and/or members of the relevant religious group.

In addition, you completely ignore the arguments for adding "(Roman Catholic)" to the title. It seems you're more interested in arguing than in making a good encyclopedia. Let me give you a big, big hint: If we add that to the title, you have a much better argument for demanding capitalisation because it disentangles the current chaos caused by the possible and actual meanings of "liturgy of the hours" in a general sense and in referring to specific services in other churches.--Espoo 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Espoo, let's break this down in simple terms.

  • vigil should not be capitalized, but Easter Vigil is captitalized. Why? It is the name of a specific celebration or rite. This is not the practice of one group, but extends to those groups that celebrate Easter Vigil.
  • marriage is not capitalized, but Nuptial Mass is captitalized.
  • baptism and annointing are not capitalized, but the Rite of Baptism and the sacrament, Annointing of the Sick are capitalized -- as is the term, Last Rites.
  • Divine Liturgy and Mass are always capitalized. These are also terms that are used by diverse Christian groups.
  • This is good nominative practice and makes for clear reading. This lowercase puritanism demonstrates an ignorance of the topic and a preference for the lower case despite context.

Freder1ck 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

Freder1ck, our main job as editors of Wikipedia is to base our work on reputable sources, not to set up theories or develop systems, and this also applies to spelling. Unfortunately, most people who have spent a lot of time reading and writing and perhaps even studied something at a university think they are experts on language issues. In fact, most other people also think they are experts on their mother tongue. However, there are only very few WP editors who are linguists or professional copyeditors and therefore qualified to present summaries of current professional consensus on linguistic issues, including spelling. All others should stick to what they find in reputable sources.

While the idea that WP content has to conform to reputable sources and has to prefer an objective, outside view of the subject and not present it only from the point of view of those involved (e.g. group members) is fairly well accepted, this same principle is much less often applied to spelling and word meanings. This often causes senseless discussions on word meanings and other linguistic issues until, hopefully, an expert helps the editors realise that they should follow the usage in reliable sources i.e. primarily dictionaries and encyclopedias and usually only in rare cases (not yet recorded in these) the usage in literature written by experts.

While official documents produced by a religious organisation can be quoted in articles on that religion, they are definitely less authoritative on such issues as the spelling and general meaning of English words than general reference works, especially ones with a neutral attitude towards all religions. And even a few quotes from a conference of Roman Catholic liturgical scholars and a RC scholarly journal outweigh all evidence for other spelling practices in RC documents. The spelling used by the RC scholars is then preferable in a secular encyclopedia like Wikipedia to the internal spelling habit that is of course perfectly OK for internal RC use.

While your attempt to draw parallels is a good attempt to find a solution to the present problem, there is the very real risk that it will only complicate matters. "Proof" that this risk is very great is provided by your attempt to ignore already presented reputable sources showing that it is not necessary to capitalise "anointing of the sick". Either you just didn't bother to read my opposing vote or you think you can enforce your personal preference by just repeating it and ignoring reputable sources that disagree. Please re-read my opposing vote and look at the sources.

Your examples "divine liturgy" and "mass" are also erroneous (and show you didn't read what was said above about spelling of "divine office" in reputable secular sources) because both are spelled without capitalisation in reputable sources. Not all reputable sources refrain from capitalisation, but it is definitely not incorrect to not capitalise. On the contrary, lower case use is more common than capitalisation in non-denominational and secular reference works. And the only reason that "mass" is perhaps capitalised more frequently than "divine liturgy" is that the expression is so short and that it may not be immediately clear from the context whether one of its homographs is meant, although that is usually an exaggerated precaution and the capitalisation clearly a case of tradition, i.e. reverential spelling.

And your arguments about use in more than one religious group are irrelevant/illogical and prove the opposite of what you're trying to do with this article's title since you want this article to cover only the RC service.--Espoo 13:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We are no more bound to follow Espoo's ideas about what constitutes English too bad for admittance to an encyclopedia than the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2001-05) was, when it admitted "Mass" (as well as, in its article Mass, in Christianity, "Holy Liturgy", "Offering", "Gospel", "High Mass", "Low Mass", "Host") or than the Wikipedia encyclopedia was, when it admitted many other Espoo-booed terms (those that Freder1ck has pointed to are just a few examples). For all his trying, Espoo has found no support for his demand that Wikipedia practice be revolutionized.
"Not all reputable sources refrain from adopt capitalisation, but it is definitely not incorrect to not capitalise", whichever may be the majority usage. Lima 14:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Lima, you are arguing backwards and illogically again. I talked about some of the words Freder1ck mentioned because he erroneously and illogically tried to use their spelling as proof for the spelling of this article; he erroneously claimed that these are always capitalised.
I also did not say that terms that are capitalised in some and not in other secular reference works should not be capitalised in WP. On the contrary, my suggestion was to find reputable general sources that support your preference because internal RC Church spelling habits cannot compete with general reference works and Roman Catholic scholarly publications using those same terms with other spellings. I even gave you the hint of looking for the spelling of "liturgy of the hour" in the New Catholic Encyclopedia because that would provide strong support for your case although it is a denominational encyclopedia that may have the tendency to ignore general English usage and universal equality. Any attempt to use the hopelessly outdated old Catholic Encyclopedia as a guide to modern spelling usage is a joke and makes the whole endeavor look very hopeless.
I and others have also noted that you now ignored for the fourth time my proposal for a workable compromise that was seconded by a representative of the Anglican Church. I even hinted that the capitalisation you cherish would have better chances of being accepted by both current oppose voters. Since you refused to respond to what i wrote above on this topic and your apparent interest in arguing instead of making a good encyclopedia, you have now indirectly publicly admitted that this is true. If you had any idea how Wikipedia administrators apply basic principles, you would not dream of ignoring a compromise that removes another religious group's objection. Even if you found 100 people willing to change an article title to something that, for example, even a single Native American convincingly explained to not be politically correct, you would not be able to convince an admin to move the article to that title. And editors who refuse to respond to compromise proposals have in any case disqualified themselves as serious discussion partners and have also shown that they are incapable of engaging in wiki projects of any kind.--Espoo 15:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I often make mistakes, but I still think Freder1ck was referring to the terminology actually used in Wikipedia. Why else did he use wikilinks? "Divine Liturgy" and "Mass" are indeed, as far as I can see, always capitalized in Wikipedia.
At least one admin has been known not to fit Espoo's expectations about "basic principles" ("wrong/sloppy" decisions, responded Espoo, by people whom "power makes ... blind and arrogant"); and I doubt any admin would approve wholescale alteration of the terms actually used on Wikipedia. Why not pause this over-long discussion, and see what happens? When we at last settle this question, we can then consider a) alterations to the body of the article; and even b) new proposals for the title. Lima 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Lima is correct that I was citing the common Wikipedia usage on such terminology in ecumenical contexts. In addition, my reading across denominational lines confirms this Wikipedia usage in external usage. Mass, for one example, would be confusing without capitalization. In certain technical works by a minority of theologians, the lowercase is used because its meaning is already unambiguous through context. I also agree that enough evidence and arguments have been put forth for an admin to make a decision. Then I look forward to the conversation regarding a. and b. proposed by Lima above. Freder1ck 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

With respect to the rationale for my vote, I haven't really got anything to add to what I've written above. I don't think that the capitalisation is bad English, merely that the intent behind the proposal - to refer specifically to the usage of one Communion at one point in time - is vague and confusing, at least potentially so. We've run into this kind of problem before. Again, I would refer editors to the whole Catholic minister versus Minister (Catholic Church) debate. It is a constant source of bafflement to me why some editors prefer ambiguous titles when options bestowing more clarity are available. Instead, we engage in lengthy, tendentious, repetitive, and circular arguments about why a certain title would or wouldn't sufficiently reflect what it ostensibly refers to. The result - editors will expand the article to fit with the definition of the concept to which they believe the title refers. This is unnecessary. My earlier question, therefore, to Lima and others remains unanswered. Why is the solution I outlined - to wit, Liturgy of the Hours (Roman Catholic Church) or "(Catholic Church)" unacceptable? Is it too vague? Obviously not. Too specific? That is clearly not a fault. Unnecessary? Why, then, are we having this discussion? Could it be - heaven forfend! - that we just enjoy semantic argumentation as a pastime? Fishhead64 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful to Fishhead for specifying that he, unlike Espoo, has nothing against capitalizing "Liturgy of the Hours", at least when referring to the Catholic Church's liturgical service of that name. Fishhead's "solution", like the proposal before us, capitalizes "Liturgy of the Hours".
My response to Fishhead's question is that I have nothing against Fishhead's proposal. But the discussion has been drawn out to an extent really amazing for something that seemed so simple and straightforward; do we really want to extend it further by discussing at the same time other proposals? Why not first settle the question before us (Capitalize "Liturgy of the Hours"?) once and for all, and then move on to discussing a further change of either adding to the capitalized title something like "(Catholic Church)", or else adding to the content of the article matter concerning other Churches? (I think the first solution is probably the better. Others may either agree or disagree.) Freder1ck has stated (see just above) his agreement with this idea of settling one matter (the proposal we are supposed to be discussing) before raising another (especially one on which diversity of opinion is also possible). Others too are probably of the same mind.
If Fishhead is afraid that any discussion on the further question that he wishes to raise may not go his way, he can just let his negative vote stand. Hopefully, we can then close the discussion and wait for a decision on whether in Wikipedia "Liturgy of the Hours" may or may not be capitalized, while words like "Mass" and "Anointing of the Sick", which in Wikipedia have articles with information on the rites of more than one Church, are capitalized in titles and body. Lima 10:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to this. I think the present dialogue has probably gone as far as it can - but wikipedia never fails to surprise. Fishhead64 16:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Having read all of the above, it is obvious that both capitalizatons are acceptable, depending on the style choice and the context. While Fishhead's proposal (Liturgy of the Hours (Catholic Church)) is appreciated, IMO it adds an unnecessary level of complication for sake "political correctness" (I have a fixed-wing aircraft in mind), and violates "Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general." clause of WP:NC(CN). This article is, rightly or wrongly, currently focused to the Catholic service and its current form. At the risk of being frivolous, I must say that I consider most of the discussion above as "Wikipedia hairsplitting of the month". Editors are kindly invited to amend the article with few sentences regarding the approaches to capitalization.

<rant>Is it Murphy's law that I come to close RM discussions involving Espoo, or just a result of law of large numbers? I admit I wanted to walk away from this closing, but it would result in waste spending of another admin's time. In any case, I'm switching back into "busy in real life" mode so, please, direct any further continuation, if called for, here, rather than on my talk page.</rant> Duja 10:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


This link will take you to a page where the intire post V-II liturgy can be viewed or downloaded in Latin. It also has a link there to Vatican Radio where Lauds, Vespers and Compline can be heard in Latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Usefulness of the heading photo?[edit]

I dispute the usefulness of the head photo. It would appear to be a self-done photo with an artificial red background.... I don't see how it helps, it would appear to be someone dressing up in a stereotypical Monk costume. I don't oppose a photo, but I think if we're going to have one it should be someone actually celebrating one of the liturgical Hours, not what appears to be someone in a costume against an ugly red background, so I'm going to Be Bold and remove it. --Pstanton (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Latin versus Roman rites[edit]

Recent edits have replaced the links to Roman rite with Latin rite. I question whether this change is appropriate. For instance, I do not think it is true that this edition of the breviary is used in the Ambrosian rite, which is part of the Latin rite sui juris church. What is the rationale behind these changes? Rwflammang (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this just another article on canonical hours or not?[edit]

If this article is not going to be a redirect to the much better written canonical hours article, then it will have to be about something more specific. Looking at the body and the subjects actually discussed, I'd say it's about the hours as celebrated in the Roman rite. I think that the lede as it currently stands is much too general and vague to introduce the more specific body, with a point of view that wavers between a general (e.g., "Catholic church prescribes" them) to the particular. I think that the lede needs to be narrowed and make a distinction between the omni-rite concept of hours and the very particular Roman rite view of the hours as a "liturgy".

My earlier, admittedly imperfect, attempts to clarify this were reverted by Esoglou. What gives? Rwflammang (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited show that the term "Liturgy of the Hours" is used of what was celebrated even as long ago as the beginning of the thirteenth century, and does not refer merely to the form that it took at the end of the twentieth century, as suggested in the edit that I reverted. Should the two articles be merged, and under what title? Or should the "Liturgy of the Hours" article concentrate exclusively on the aspect concerning the Latin Rite = Latin Church (including its medieval period) and the corresponding parts of the other article be reduced to a summary and a reference to the article containing fuller information? Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Restricting it to the Latin rite would be an improvement over considering it a phenomenon of the whole Catholic church, as the lede currently has it (although the hatnote does not). In the meantime, I'll take a look at the source you mention. Rwflammang (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cycle of Psalms in the Liturgy of the Hours[edit]

How many psalms are read in the Office and how often do they repeat?

"The Divine Office follows a yearly calendar, with a four week cycle for Morning and Evening Prayer and the Office of Readings, and a one week cycle for Daytime and Night Prayer.

Actually this needs further clarification, something like:

"There are altogether 150 psalms, forming the core of the Hours, and distributed in two groups: Group 1 consisting of Morning Prayer, Office of Readings, and Evening Prayer which has a 4 week cycle of readings containing the bulk of the psalms; and Group 2 consisting of Daytime and Night Prayer which has a 1 week cycle and contains a shorter selection of Psalms."

"All the Psalms are distributed between these two groups in such a way that all 150 Psalms are read at least once every 4 weeks."

"The only exceptions to this procedure have to do firstly with the liturgical seasons of the Year: Advent, Christmas tide, Ordinary Time I, Lent, Easter tide and Ordinary Time 2; and secondly with the number of weeks of Ordinary Time in a given liturgical year, either 33 or 34. The varying date of Easter - which falls between 22 March and 25 April - together with the need to begin Advent on the Fourth Sunday before Christmas, controls the number of weeks of Ordinary Time."

"The liturgical year begins on the first Sunday of Advent. On Christmas day the order of readings switches to a special cycle reserved for Christmas tide. On the Sunday after Epiphany, the cycle is again reset and Ordinary Time 1 begins; On the first day of Lent (Ash Wednesday) the cycle is set to Wednesday of Week 1, and again on Easter Sunday the order switches to a special cycle reserved for Easter tide; finally on the Monday following Pentecost (the last Sunday of Easter tide) Ordinary Time 2 begins, approximately at the point in the cycle it left off, and continues until the last week of the Liturgical year. The only difference between the two kinds of Ordinary time is that Ordinary Time 1 ends immediately before Lent/Easter, and Ordinary Time 2 begins immediately after Lent/Easter." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There is detail about this over in Latin Psalters. Not all 150 psalms are read. The daytime prayer cycle is four weeks, just like for the major hours. Night prayer psalms can follow an optional 1-week cycle, or you can just repeat the Sunday psalms all week.
I don't think the wonkish detail your comments get into are appropriate to an encyclopedia article. We could just say that the psalms follow a 4-week cycle, with adjustments made to the cycle for each change of liturgical season.
Rwflammang (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


Is it me or is this article only about what is the Liturgy of the Hours and doesn't mention specifics on how to pray the hours? Rebel shadow 05:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the only way to learn to pray the hours is the get the text, read it and use it. Esoglou (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Quod a nobis[edit]

Did not Pope Pius V allow any rites more than 200 years old to continue to be celebrated? That is how I read Quo Primum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Quo primum was about the Roman Missal. It was the bull Quod a nobis that made rules about the Roman Breviary, very similar, the article says, to those about the Roman Missal. So yes, Quod a novis allowed older forms of the Liturgy of the Hours to continues, and "the Benedictine, the Cistercian, the Carthusian, the Norbertine, and Dominican" continued in use, alongside the Roman as revised by Pius V (see this). Esoglou (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Censorship in the post-Vatican II LOTH Psalter[edit]

The article mistakenly states that the entire Psalter is read in the modern LOTH. Three Psalms are omitted entirely (Psalm 58, 83, and 109) while some verses are omitted in 19 other Psalms, namely, 5, 21, 28, 31, 35, 40, 54, 55, 56, 59, 63, 69, 79, 110, 137, 139, 140, 141, and 143. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire Psalter is read. The Psalter being the source text used by the LOTH, not the Book of Psalms in the Bible. The omissions are discussed in the "Books used" section. Elizium23 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
"The Psalter" is indeed sometimes used to mean the psalms contained in the Liturgy of the Hours, but it is also used to mean the Book of Psalms, and so the anonymous editor should be thanked for drawing attention to a statement that needed clarification. I presume what is referred to is the phrase "the period over which the entire Psalter is recited has been expanded from one week to four". The article does mention elsewhere the omission of imprecatory psalms and verses. I have adjusted the article accordingly. Esoglou (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)