Talk:Lunette (liturgy)

move to Lunette (holder)

based on latest changes Reing (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, no; and the changes mentioned are questionable (see below) Moonraker12 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker12 Well, your revert of my edit is questionable, above all (see below). You simply deleted reliable source which contradicted your opinion. I do not know if it is more laziness or recklessness. I do not like reverts at all, except for vandalism, which is not what I did. I have only honestly corrected what I still believe (= not sure) is mismatched. I think in such cases when editors disagree it is better first discuss an then edit. Excuse me, I just realized the article is your "child". But based on your location you do not seem to be catholic. (on other hand my English is not very good, and I am barely able to write in English without translator, so be polite when something looks weird, is misspelled or is unclear) Reing (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

(I have replied to this below. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC))

Recent changes

The latest changes mentioned above was a single edit that a) added some detail alongside a source that says something different b) deleted other referenced material, and c) has an edit summary that claims "deleted dead links (which?), description as at catholic.org, partly using cs.wikipedia (where is the link?)" This is too muddled to simply fix, so I have reverted the lot, per BRD.
A lunette being a "crescent-shaped clip" may be (or may once have been) the case in Germany, but in the English-speaking world it is (as previously stated) a circular glass container: See here or here or here or even here (the OED definition that was co-opted to support the new description). The edit note also refers to a cs Wikipedia article, but the page has no link: where is it?
This is not an objection to adding information about another form of this item, if it is (or has been) in use somewhere, but that form is not the only, or even the primary expression, and should not (on the English language WP) be replacing what is most familiar form here. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker12 It is always much easier just to revert something than . Ofcourse I am not English speaking (and not German either) so maybe you are right, but lunula is a holder in at least 6 languages (the 4 on Wikipedia plus Czech and Latin). The catholic.org is US, not German, although it mentions German in: "lunette, known in Germany as the lunula and also as the melchisedech, is a crescent-shaped clip..." and this article says: "A lunette, or lunula, is...". Based on text in Monstrance: "In the center of the sunburst, the monstrance normally has a small round glass the size of a host, through which the Blessed Sacrament can be seen. Behind this glass is a round container made of glass and gilded metal, called a lunette, which holds the host securely in place. When not in the monstrance, the host in its luna (???)..." I believe that even in UK and US the lunette is a holder made of metal and sometimes but not necesarily glass. Go to some church and check it out please. Reing (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker12@Reing In Britannica lunette is a holder. 90.180.12.61 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker12 So I summarize: Your opinion si based on the three sources in the article, of which none is freely available. Moreover you mentioned some other websites, about which we do not know whether they are true sources or just copied text from Wikipedia without mentionig it. Interestingly another page of Catholic Culture (one of the websites you mentioned above) contradicts your opinion, because there is clearly stated: "The Host itself is held in a lunette or crescent, also called melchisedech. This moves in a groove within the monstrance proper." On other hand there is Britannica (anonymous contribution above), Catholic Online - the source I added in my (now reverted by you) edit, and articles on 4 foreign Wikipedias. All of them contradict your opinion. The word is of latin origin, which is language of Catholic Church. It could be expected to have the same meaning in all languages. So the question is: If (!!) the meaning of the word in English changed, than when and why it happened? Maybe somebody made a mistake, then somebody included it in OED, and later in Wikipedia, then others started copy it. Maybe proper name for this article is Lunette container (without brackets). Maybe it is Luna. Maybe I am not as stupid as my English. Reing (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Reing: Thank you for replying:

I have already said why I edited the page in the way I did (You were bold, I reverted, now we are discussing it) so I have no interest in re-hashing that unless you want to. I also said I was not objecting to information about other forms of these things, only to the deletion of what was already here to accommodate it. And the different descriptions of these things this debate has turned up suggests to me only that they come in different forms (some more popular than others in different provinces, maybe, or at different periods of time). As for why there is a difference, I can only presume it is the Catholic tendency to elaborate that is responsible. I can well believe that in 1490 a gadget for holding up a host would be a simple clip (like a price tag in a florists, perhaps) but then became more elaborate as something more protective was desired (so, sandwiching it between two bits of glass).

A couple of points:

• I asked about a link to the article on the cs WP; do you have one ( I couldn’t find it)
• You implied that any source that says different to yours is copied from here; in fact when I searched google I specifically discounted mirror sites; see for yourself.
• You queried the statement "When not in the monstrance, the host in its luna" ; the article here went into that (though maybe it could say it better) – the way I understand it the luna is the circular container; when it is on display it is slotted into a monstrance: when it is being transported it is placed in a pyx/carrying case.
• You mentioned the other four articles (nl, de, es, fr, pl) as evidence that the lunette is a holder; in fact only the Dutch and German pages refer to a holder, and only the German and Polish pages describe it as crescent-shaped. The French page has "The lunula is generally made of two circular transparent glass covers, surrounded by metal and connected by a hinge. (La lunule est faite généralement de deux couvercles circulaires en verre transparent, cerclés de métal et reliés par une charnière.)" and the Spanish one say it is "A symbolic object .. that consists of a chamber, generally made of glass and round, (Un objeto simbólico ..que consiste de un habitáculo, generalmente de cristal y redondo,)": also, both pages pre-date this one here by quite a few years. On the iother hand three of them use "liturgy" as a disambiguator, and another "christendom"; if holder is inadequate as a disambiguator here, I’m inclined to think container is insufficient also; maybe (liturgy)? (Catholicism)?
• The word lunette is actually French in origin, and the Latin word luna simply means "moon", so it could equally apply to a crescent or a full disc, the language of the catholic church notwithstanding.
• As for going to some church and checking, my local keeps the hosts in a box in a side chapel; when it is brought out it is in something like this, or like these.
• Your faith in a website like Catholics Online, when compared to your dismissal of the OED as including someone’s mistake, is kind of standing WP:RS on its head a bit, don’t you think?

So (to move forward) do you want to add some detail about the clip form of lunette to the article, or do you wish to continue insisting that is the only form possible, and that everything that says different is wrong/mistaken/just an opinion/mirroring what's here? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker12 ad A couple of points:

• Pyxida
• first is Wikipedia, second contradicts your opinion: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09435a.htm
• see Pyxida
• pictures are clear: there is a holder and then the holder is in a monstrance behind a glass
• lunula is Latin word
• inconclusive
• it is reverted, my faith is not in Catholics Online, but what lunula is, and it is supported by Britannica and Catholics Online and New Advent and...

Your response is too long, so I give up. Maybe in English lunette is not lunula (just another hypothese). Or you can translate from Czech:

Czech

Translation

Je to Váš článek a Vaše zodpovědnost. Udělal jsem editaci podle svého přesvědčení korektní. Svůj názor na Váš postup jsem uvedl minule. Oba tady vyslovujeme hypotézy a nikam to nevede. Není to tak, že bych věřil Catholics Online, spíše věřím, že lunula je to, co popisuje Britannica a Catholics Online a New Advent, ale to je v rozporu s OED. Pro mě je Britannica důvěryhodnější zdroj než OED, zvláště pokud nevím, zda nebyl popis v OED v nedávné době změněn (a pokud se nemýlím, je na OED uvedeno, že heslo "lunette" nebylo zkontrolováno. Otázka zda, případně kdy a proč se význam slova lunula/lunette změnil (protože Britannica je starší než 100 let) není ve Vaší reakci řešena. V češtině je lunula zmíněna v článku Pyxida, kde je uvedeno: "V pyxidě je hostie umístěna v lunule, což je svorka z ušlechtilého materiálu (často zlatá a zdobená) ve tvaru horizontálně položeného půlměsíce a slouží k uchycení hostie v monstranci." Tento popis odpovídá anglickému "When not in the monstrance, the host in its luna..." Latinský původ má slovo "lunula", nikoli lunette, což je částečně moje chyba při překladu a tím pádem hlavní důvod, proč nemá smysl pokračovat v diskusi: moje angličtina je bídná a Vy česky nejspíš neumíte vůbec (možná "pivo"?). Omlouvám se, francouzský text jsem nečetl, všimnul jsem si pouze, že na obrázku je tam držák (en: holder) bez skla a stejný držák je v monstranci (mezi skly, které jsou však součástí monstrance), obrázek tedy neodpovídá popisu. Spousta webů používá informace z Wikipedie, jen je trochu přebásní, aby to nebylo tak nápadné. Člověk by musel být lepší než detektiv, aby mohl rozhodnout, který text je opravdu původní. Netýká se to jen tohoto tématu ale obecně čehokoli, co už se na Wikipedii objevilo. Reing (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is your article and your responsibility. I made the edit as I believe correct. I gave my opinion on your procedure last time. We're both hypothesizing here and it's not going anywhere. It's not that I believe Catholics Online, rather I believe lunula is what Britannica and Catholics Online and New Advent describe, but that contradicts the OED. To me, the Britannica is a more reliable source than the OED, especially if I don't know if the description in the OED has been changed recently (and if I'm not mistaken, the OED says that the word "lunette" has not been checked. The question is whether, when, and why the meaning he changed the words lunula/lunette (because the Britannica is over 100 years old) is not addressed in your response. In Czech, the lunula is mentioned in the Pyxida article, where it is stated: "In the pyxida, the host is placed in the lunula, which is a clamp made of noble material (often gold and decorated) in the shape of a horizontally placed crescent and serves to hold the host in the monstrance." This description corresponds to the English "When not in the monstrance, the host in its luna..." The Latin origin is the word "lunula", not lunette, which is partly my mistake in the translation and thus the main reason why it is pointless to continue the discussion: my English is poor and you probably do not know Czech at all (maybe "beer"?). I'm sorry, I didn't read the French text, I only noticed that in the picture there is a holder (en: holder) without glass and the same holder is in the monstrance (between the glasses, which are part of the monstrance), so the picture does not match the description. A lot of sites use information from Wikipedia, they just cover it up a bit so it's not so noticeable. One would have to be better than a detective to decide which text is truly original. It does not only apply to this topic, but in general to anything that has already appeared on Wikipedia. (Google translate: added 9 June 2024)

@Moonraker12:

Czech	Translation
Nedalo mi to a zkusil jsem ještě pohledat. Myslím, že tohle by mohlo přispět do naší diskuse:	I couldn't do it and tried to look again. I think this might contribute to our discussion: (Google translate: added 9 June 2024)

February 4, 1871, the following query was sent to the Sacred Congregation of Kites: "In exposing the Blessed Sacrament in the ostensorium is it permissible to use a lunette enclosed with circular glass sides, front and back, held in place by a silver circular band gilded on the inside, so that the Host is in actual contact with the double glass surf ace V By a decree in response to that query and a subsequent one of September 4, 1880, the Sacred Congregation replied that it is not becoming to so enclose the Host. Notwithstanding this prohibition the irregular lunette is still very generally manufactured and used. The legitimate lunette demands a metal back, gilt on the inside. (see The Mass And Vestments Of The Catholic Church Liturgical, Doctrinal, Historical And Archeological)

Even with glass it is still a holder.

Monstrance (or “Ostensorium” or “Ostensory”) A gold or silver vessel, often in a sunburst shape, with a clear glass area, called a “luna,” for viewing the Sacrament. The Host is kept in place inside the crystal or glass frame by a crescent shaped gold or silver gilded clip called a “lunette.” (see Guide to Liturgical Vessels) Reing (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker12:

Czech	Translation
Tak se mi konečně podařilo najít zdroj, který v angličtině říká to, co odpovídá mým znalostem a částečně vysvětluje, jak mohlo dojít k nedorozumění, o kterém tady diskutujeme:	So I finally managed to find a source that says in English what is to my knowledge and partially explains how the misunderstanding we are discussing here could have happened: (Google translate: added 9 June 2024)

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) on Wikisources says:

The lunette, ..., is a crescent-shaped clip made of gold or of silver-gilt which is used for holding the Host in an upright position when exposed in the monstrance. ... Most commonly, however, nowadays ..., the Host ... is enclosed in a pyx with two glass faces and this pyx is itself inserted bodily into the receptacle of the monstrance. ... Already in 1591 Jakob Müller ... points out the desirability that the two strips of metal that form the clip should be separable so as to permit of their being thoroughly purified when the Host is changed. If a glass pyx is used it ought to be possible so to fix the Host that it does not remain in contact with the glass (Decree of S. Cong. of Rites, 4 Feb., 1871).

Czech	Translation
"Kupodivu" cituje (i když jinými slovy) stejný Decree of Sacred Congregation of Rites jako zdroj uvedený v mé předchozí reakci. (Kites v mém předchozím příspěvku je překlep, který však není moje chyba, pouze jsem jej zkopíroval z uvedeného zdroje)	"Strangely" he cites (albeit in different words) the same Decision of Sacred Congregation of Rites as the source cited in my previous response. (Kites in my previous post is a typo but not my fault, I just copied it from the source provided) (Google translate: added 9 June 2024)

The container is in fact a pyx.

If you still insist lunette is a container, there is a question: When and why pyx was renamed lunette?

Still this discussion and my search lead me to conclusion, that the lunette is not necessarily "crescent shaped". Reing (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Reing: Thank you again for your reply: I have taken the liberty of translating your comments in Czech, in case any other editors want to read them. You are right, I don’t speak Czech: I can say "Dobrý den", "Děkuju", and "Mohu prosím tři zpáteční letenky do Brna?" but that’s about all. So thank you for persevering with the English.

With regard to your comments, I have not been able to write a short reply, so I had to write a long one.

To take the last point first, The Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1913 may say that, but the edition in the library here (The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1940) is more ambiguous: It merely includes the lunette as part of the monstrance, without describing it in detail. Also, the link to the Walsh book (Mass and Vestments… 1916) which has the 1871 SCR decision (although the Sacred Congregation of Kites did sound like fun!) also describes the lunette as "the small glass and metal enclosure, circular in form, to carry and present the Sacred Host erect in the central opening of the Ostensorium", alongside an image showing almost exactly what this article describes; while the previous page describes the pyx as "A small box, in shape and size like a watch-case, in which the Blessed Sacrament is carried to the sick". I note what your Pyxida article says, but again the Pyx article here is different. So I return to the thought that these items occur in different forms in different provinces (I note the source for the 1913 entry is German)

Some other sources would be "This receptacle is called a “luna” or “lunula” (a moon, or a little moon), and has glass on either side, so that the Host may be seen when enclosed therein". (John F. Sullivan 1917 The Externals of the Catholic Church)

or "The luna, which is a piece of glass in the shape of a moon, contains the Blessed Sacrament, previously consecrated. The luna is then placed in the middle of the sunburst of the monstrance." ( John Trigilio; Kenneth Brighenti 2007 The Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions)

So I’m not entirely clear what the sticking point is here:

Are you maintaining that the crescent-shaped clip is the only legitimate form of lunette?

I can accept it is one form of lunette (as backed by Britannica, New Advent, (and now the ossory.ie website) (though to take your point above, do you think these all stem from the same source? They do appear to be similar). On the other hand the CWM page (and now the book by Walsh, amongst others) describe it as the whole container with at least one glass window, which matches the images at the Monstrance article, and the ones I posted. So I don’t concede the clip is the only form of lunette, though it should be included in the article as an alternate form.

And are you insisting it is a holder rather than a container? I have to say there is a lot of overlap between the two words (in English at least); I would suggest (as a rule of thumb) that an item in a holder is largely external (candle-holder, cigarette-holder) while an item in a container is largely or wholly enclosed (shipping container, glass container). So I don’t concede that a lunette is merely a holder, though I am happy for us to use a more neutral term (in line with the fr, nl, de, pl articles) as it is not merely a container either. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker12 I agree with: Lunette (liturgy)

My opinion: in regard of catholicism the highest authority is Holy See and more specific Sacred Congregation of Rites. So lunula from the point of view of the Catholic liturgy has to be a metal holder (usually plated with gold) with no glass. But even if made incorrectly with glass sides, it is still a holder. Small monstrances are without lunula at all (but with glass sides or at least one side). And as a result: my original question whether, when, and why the meaning of the word lunula/lunette changed is irrelevant, because I believe Sacred Congregation of Rites hasn't changed its opinion. As I mentioned in my previous post, it seems lunula has not necessarily be of crescent shape (could be full circle as in the French Wikipedia or even a cross as I noticed in one e-shop with liturgic items). Ofcourse there is a lot of "sources" which may say something else, but if they contradict Sacred Congregation of Rites opinion, they are not legitimate. Thank you for translating my Czech text, but be careful, the Google translation si not always correct (for example in the word "lunette" has not been checked, maybe it is better entry or password instead of word). monstrance with lunette - all contain crescent shaped clip, (small) monstrance without lunette - no clip Reing (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Reing: Apologies for the lateness of this reply (real life getting in the way of things): And thank for moving the page; the title you chose is fine.

I haven’t addressed your comments, though I can if you wish; I’m more interested in moving this on (not least because this is approaching the ten to one stage (ie. the discussion is ten times longer than the article!). We seem to be agreed that the lunette can take more than one form, so I have placed a comparison of the two versions of the article text (yours and mine) here, with a new draft combining both. Please have a look, and if you are agreeable, it can be edited into the current text. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker12 I do not agree. Namely in what is primary meaning. According both Sacred Congregation of Rites (the most relevant source for this cause from those we cited in this debate), Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 and even Walsh: legitimate lunette is a clip (metal, gilded inside, usually crescent shaped), and a container with glass sides is irregular one. I am not sure about legitimacy of metal ring. Your text still does not reflect it. The question I raised earlier remains: If (!!) the primary meaning of the word in English officialy changed, than when and why it happened? You still haven't cited any official contemporary Catholic authority (there is only one: the succesor of Sacred Congregation of Rites, which is Dicasterium de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum). If such change occurred, there must be an official document codifying it. Reing (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, lets take this from the top.

First, it is not the case that Walsh (or even the SCR) support the notion that the only "legitimate lunette is a clip"; Walsh clearly describes a lunette as a small glass and metal enclosure, circular in form, and has an image showing exactly that. As for the SCR, I do not think it says what you think it says. To simplify:

• Q: Is it OK for the lunette to have a glass back as well as a glass front?
• A: No, the back must be metal.

(ie. nothing about it being a crescent-shaped clip; in fact there is a tacit acceptance that the lunette is a kind of enclosure with at least one glass face, and it also acknowledges that lunettes with glass on both sides are commonplace).

Second, it is not the case that I still "haven't cited any official contemporary Catholic authority"; I have provided sources on several occasions, and have include them in the draft text. Nor is it the case that the only "official contemporary Catholic authority" is the SCR; any Catholic publication with an Imprimatur is a reliable source for Catholicism. And any peer-reviewed publication can be a reliable source here.

Third, this notion that the primary meaning in English is the crescent-shaped clip, and that it has officially changed at some point, is also flawed; the Catholic Encyclopaedia dates from 1913, and Walsh’s Guide from 1916, so they are more or less contemporary. And if by primary you mean 'most important', then no, the CE states the enclosure with two glass faces is the most common form: If you mean 'earliest', there is probably a case for that. (Moonraker12 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC))

I am more and more convinced this is merely an argument over words. It seem to be the case that across the Catholic church, items can have different names, and that the same term can be used to describe different things (the same thing happens in English; see this List of words having different meanings in American and British English.

So when the CE (in a paragraph using German and French sources) describes a lunette as a crescent-shaped clip, and goes on the say it is usually enclosed in a case (with two glass faces !), Walsh (an American) uses the term lunette to describe the whole assembly. Likewise, where the CE calls the lunula case a pyx, Walsh reserves the term pyx for the carrying case only. Also, where the CE reports the lunette is also called a 'melchisidek' in Germany , Walsh says 'melchisidek' is an alternate name for the monstrance (p.325). I also note that in Spain, the lunetta is primarily called a viril.

So, different names, different forms, all of them in general use, and all of them acceptable. And the remedy, on WP, is to escribe all the various forms without insisting on one single interpretation (see WP:ENGVAR, WP:NPOV.) OK? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)