Talk:Maundy Thursday

A large discussion, on 2009-04-05, was held on whether this article should be named Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday. The result of the discussion was that the article will retain the title Maundy Thursday.

Article Name

I did a search for "Holy Thursday" and was surprised to be directed to this article. I had never heard of "Maundy" anything before, so I assumed I had searched incorrectly and searched again. After some confusion, I came to learn that some English people use this term for "Holy Thursday". So, my next obvious question was why is the article titled "Maundy Thursday"? I searched the archives and saw that this discussion has been played out before. However, when virtually all Catholics and U.S. English-speaking Christians call the day "Holy Thursday" (constituting the vast majority of Christians), how can we justify calling the article "Maundy Thursday"?LedRush (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no objection to the change, and the archived record seems to indicate more support for the change, would anyone like to add anything before a change is made?LedRush (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I congratulate you for checking before moving. Have you read the heated discussion on the disccusion that was held on the occasion of last year's Holy Thursday? That discussion is referred to in the second item at the top of this page. I do not believe you can win consensus for a change. If you do wish to try, why not wait until close to this year's Holy Thursday, when more editors will be looking at this page. I am of course using "Holy Thursday" in your sense (and mine), not in the sense found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, where (doubtless following general English usage before the Protestant Reformation) it means what you and I call Ascension Thursday. This ambiguity of the term "Holy Thursday" is, I think, an important reason for keeping "Maundy Thursday" as the title of the article: "Maundy Thursday" may be a less common term, but it is unambiguous and generally understood even by those who do not use it themselves. Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read the history and knew this was way too contentious to unilaterally move without a very, very long warning period. In my reading of the history, it looked like there was more support for "Holy Thursday" than "Maundy Thursday", but I could be mistaken. Also, I am not persuaded by the potential Holy/Ascension mix up: So very few Christians know of or use the term Maundy that the confusion of its use would be far greater than a mix up over Holy/Ascension. Any potential mix-up could be dealt with more easily than the Maundy/Holy mix up is: in the lead.LedRush (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I just went back through the archives and saw that while the discussions seem to favor a move, the last vote does not.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, just to set the record straight, the official Catholic term in English is "Holy Thursday" http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2009/index_en.htm Of course, this is not a dispositive argument. I am merely trying to get a baseline for impending discussions.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would encourage you to read the Names in English section of the article. In the previous consensus on this issue, it was decided to retain the name Maundy Thursday as the article title, especially since Holy Thursday is the alternate name for Ascension Day in some Churches. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read the section and, as I have indicated above, I have read the archive.LedRush (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think the arguments grounded in "confusion" (e.g., Holy/Ascension or "Great and Holy") are unpersuasive straw men. They can be easily dealt with in the lead or in a disambiguation reference at the top of the page, and I think there are excellent reasons to conclude that "Holy Thursday" is both a more generic or generalizable name, as well as less grounded in particular linguistic and religious traditions that are not shared by a majority of English speakers. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So, anyone have any new thoughts? This bothers me every year as the holdiday approaches, largely because the term Maundy Thursday is so rarely used in comparison to Holy Thursday.LedRush (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well my position speaks for itself. "Holy Thursday" is, in my opinion, a more generic or generalizable name and is more appropriate than "Maundy Thursday," which is marked by relatively narrow religious and linguistic traditions which are inappropriate considerations for the article title. Frankly I think that this has become something of a sectarian dispute, as my recollection of the past debates is that Catholics are (by and large) leading the charge to change the name to "Holy Thursday" and Protestants seek to maintain "Maundy." This is unfortunate, as it distracts from the fact that, irrespective of sectarian distinctions, "Holy" is more generic and generalizable and is, IMO, more appropriate. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've always seen this as a more nationilistic dispute, as Catholics throughout the world use the term Holy Thursyday, as do all Americans, regardless of religious affiliation. Really, since this is English Wikipedia, we have only English Protestants seeking to keep the minority name as the title of the article.LedRush (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. In the Anglophone world the day is definitely called "Holy Thursday" more. I think this is especially confusing for Americans because the term is quite literally almost never used here. The disambiguation reference at the top of the page would easily redirect people to Feast of the Ascension and Maundy would properly be used as an alternative name in the first line of the article. Where the confusion engendered by dual use of the term "Holy Thursday" is not ideal, I think that because that conflation of terms exists in areas that use both "Maundy" and "Holy" to refer to the Thursday before Easter there is an anticipation that "Holy Thursday" might be either day (and thus a quick look to the disambiguation reference would be in order), whereas in those parts of the English-speaking world that do not ever use "Maundy" the confusion lacks any context. As was said above, people tend to think they have landed upon the wrong page altogether.Treko (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it is only "English Protestants". I am neither English nor Protestant, yet yesterday our church celebrated Maundy Thursday. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is an over-broad generalization (I know Americans who call it Maundy Thursday -- although no American Catholics), but independent of the denominational debate, I feel that "Holy Thursday" is simply a superior, more neutral term less influenced by a specific culture and linguistic tradition. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

--It is absolutely bonkers to have the primary name be 'maundy' - to the vast, vast majority of Christians, it is Holy Thursday. What gives? I cannot believe that "So very few Christians know of or use the term "Maundy Thursday" " as claimed by [[User LedRuth) (above) - to the majority of us in my own country (Great Britain) this is the term that is commonly used for the day in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.1.129 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

50.252.249.155 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)jpt

passover

This article seems to be more about the naming convention of different sects of Christians, and not on the day itself. How is it that the word "passover" does not appear in this article?LedRush (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the Christian celebration of Holy Thursday, not about the Jewish feast of Passover, which the Gospel of John describes as beginning on the evening of what we would call Good Friday, not Holy Thursday, of the year when Jesus died. See John 19:14, [1] and [2]. That complicates matters. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy Thursday is a celebration of the last supper, which was a celebration of passover, no?LedRush (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy Thursday is not a Passover Meal in John's gospel. Jesus is crucified on Preparation Day in that gospel (Jn 19:14). You are correct that the other three gospels treat the Last Supper as a Passover meal. Only the gospel of John has the story of the washing of the feet and the "mandatum" (Latin, "command") that the disciples should wash one another's feet (Jn 13:14). Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sculpiturgy?

The caption for Master Paul's sculpture of the Last Supper uses the word "sculpiturgy." That doesn't seem like a real word to me, although I have no means of proving that it is just a typo. It looks like a combination of "sculpture" and "liturgy," but I don't see how that would happen by accident. Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I ran a quick google search on the word and found nothing besides this article. I second the motion to have it changed. --W. T. Perkins (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Changed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

IP addition of "Monday Thursday"

An IP is trying to add "Monday Thursday" as another name here, without citations. Can someone please provide a citation and an explaination?LedRush (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I recently added the name "Monday Thursday" but it seems like someone doesn't like me because they keep changing it back :((((((. I call it "Monday Thursday" because when I was little I couldn't say "Maundy". My homework tonight was to edit one wikipedia article and I'm scared that if my change isn't there during school tomorrow, I won't get credit from my teacher, Mrs. Freed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.218.62 (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I will assume good faith here and just let you know that to change information on wikipedia, you need a reliable source that supports the information. If you provide one that says that "Monday Thursday" is a widely used term, we can add the information. Otherwise, you will need to find another way to make Mrs. Freed happy.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2011

(UTC)

Third person chiming in here; I don't have any direct experience with this but I would imagine that it's probably in very common usage (in England anyway). It seems to have exactly the same traits that cause most people to mistakenly say "opposable thumb" instead of "apposable thumb", namely the phrase contains a word that not only is used nowhere else in the English language but also sounds extremely similar to another much more common word (BTW, is there a name for that phenomenon?)

Yes, there's a name for it, but I don't recall it. But, let me ask, why are you opposed to thumbs? Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Section on name

The section on the origins of the name are extremely interesting. I had always assumed that the name came from the Latin "mandatum", but I did not know about the other theories. Perhaps some of the information here could go in Wikipedia: Main Page as a "Did you know". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Or at least, it could go in when it is Maundy Thursday this year! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I've been bold and made Holy Thursday a dab page. The name "Holy Thursday" appears to be truly ambiguous; it refers either to Maundy Thursday or Ascension Day, so a disambiguation page is appropriate. I've added the dab page to the categories appropriate to both the pages to which it points. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is only appropriate for two topics that have an ambiguous topic if one of them is not the primary topic. I don't think there was any reason to delete the redirect history if you thought a disambiguation page would be better there, and I restored the redirect since I didn't see any discussion at Talk:Holy Thursday. In this case, Maundy Thursday seems like a plausible primary topic for "Holy Thursday", and the Feast of the Ascension is dabbed from a hatnote (per WP:TWODABS). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the history of observations of Maundy Thursday?

The article lacks information regarding the history of observations. Some questions to get started: When is the first recorded observation (after, of course, the original)? What form did these observations take? -- ke4roh (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maundy Thursday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313035123/http://www.stgeorgesa.org/Thursday%20of%20the%20Mysteries.htm to http://www.stgeorgesa.org/Thursday%20of%20the%20Mysteries.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

citations for footwashing during Maundy Thursday

There is a conspicuous lack of citations in the section on footwashing on Maundy Thursday. While this is understandable since there is a separate article on the practice footwashing, there should be citations here specifically for groups implementing this practice on Maundy Thursday in particular. I wonder (without sufficient knowledge), if this is true for groups with a strong tradition of footwashing, but perhaps without strong tradition of Maundy Thursday recognition at all, eg. Schwarzenau Brethren?

Sondra.kinsey (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Jesus had The Last Supper on Thursday 14 Nisan 3790 HC / April 6, 30 AD / 6.4.783 AUC

Jesus had his Last Supper on Thursday 14 Nisan 3790 HC / April 6, 30 AD / 6.4.783 AUC: the night before the first night of Passover. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:445B:F831:9E37:DBE7 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What is your source for this statement? Without a source we can't include it in the article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate influence of the Anglican Church over Wikipedia policy

Why is this article titled "Maundy Thursday" despite the fact that that name is in common use by only two denominations? That seems inappropriate. The article itself states that the name is not widely used outside of England. Given that this is the 21st century and not the 17th a name for the holiday only commonly used in England would not seem to me to be a particularly important name for the day.

• Oh settle down--the Anglican Illuminati haven't taken over the joint. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies (and the unsigned instigator), the "Illuminati" might not be the flaring firecrackers that people like the person you are responding to seems to think they are regarded as, at least in Canada. According to the Wikipedia article on Anglicans, "The Anglican Church of Canada (ACC or ACoC) is the Province of the Anglican Communion in Canada.[...] In 2007, the Anglican Church counted 545,957 members on parish rolls in 2,192 congregations organised into approximately 1300 parishes. The 2011 Canadian Census counted 1,631,845 self-identified Anglicans (5 percent of the total Canadian population), making the Anglican Church the third largest Canadian church after the Roman Catholic Church and the United Church of Canada. The Queen of Canada's Canadian Royal Style continues to include the Style Defender of the Faith (French: Défenseur de la Foi), and the Canadian Monarch continues her countenance of two Chapels Royal in the Realm." - - - - - Note well that 5% of the entire Canadian population, many of whom are neither Christian nor theists, is quite a big chunk of those who would even be discussing this in the first place. My point? The name "Maunday Thursday" is used by a significant number of Canadian Christians, although it is true that this causes no changes in the train schedules. (By contrast, some largely Roman Catholic countries in Europe change the train schedules for the observance of Corpus Christi. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi_(feast) ... this does not happen in Canada. This is a serious question to clear up if Wikipedia is purporting to be serious. Basically, one in twenty Canadians were Anglicans in 2011, undoubtedly less now, because of massive immigration of non-Anglicans under all parties alike, which is another topic, but my point is that "Maundy Thursday" is still used by a non-insignificant percentage of Canadians, which I posit in opposition to the absurd claims being made by those who want to delete this article. (Not expecting a long reply, just saying.)77Mike77 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the IP editor was arguing for a change of name to Holy Thursday, rather than deleting the article. Of course, he's right, as there has never been a good reason to keep the term that is less commonly used, less general, and less useful to Wikipedia readers.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Where do you live? "Holy Thursday" must be a local expression there. "Maunday Thursday" is known by Anglicans everywhere. It would be a non-Anglican who would look up "Maunday Thursday", so to not have it as the title makes no sense.77Mike77 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, we only have about 2,000 Anglicans in the US, and there's only about 115k in North America, so, yeah, virtually no one uses that term in this hemisphere. While we're at it, the number of English speakers worldwide who use the term is dwarfed by the number of people who use "Holy Thursday", so I don't really care what term Anglicans use other than how it contributes to the total number of people who use the term and how that compares to the number of people who use "Holy Thursday".LedRush (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

?? According to the infobox, there are: "3 million total adherents (2015 estimate),[1] 1,504,273 communicant members and 1,956,042 baptized members (2014)[2]" of the US Episcopalian Church. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My bad, I was looking at the numbers on WP for the Anglican Church. Everything else I said holds up fine, though.LedRush (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In the Catholic Church, it is known as "Holy Thursday". I agree with the IP, the current name is too Anglo-centric. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In the Catholic Church in England, & no doubt some other Anglophone countries, it is normally called Maundy Thursday. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, too Anglo-centric (both the state and the state religion). In Ireland - a largely English-speaking country, only the Church of Ireland, a minority denomination, uses the term MS. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If any of you feel that 2009 is long enough ago to see if there is now a consensus on changing the title of this article, then raise an RFC with some well-reasoned cogent arguments. Most of the arguments on both sides of the various discussions have been opinion or "I don't like it" or based on their personal experience through their denominational allegiences. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The same was true of the 2009 decision. Yes - time to revisit this. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A broad consensus among the Wikipedia community was formed to retain the current title of the article, Maundy Thursday (see here). The term Maundy Thursday is widespread and is found in all branches of Christianity, including Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy (though some parts of these branches may use a multitude of other less common names for Thursday in Holy Week, in addition to Maundy Thursday). In the Catholic Church, personal ordinariates use the term Maundy Thursday and so does the Catholic Encyclopedia. The Church of England, mother Church of the Anglican Communion, chiefly uses the word Maundy Thursday for this observance (see link). The Presbyterian Churches, a Protestant denomination also use the term Maundy Thursday (see link). Even in the Western Orthodox Churches, the term Maundy Thursday refers to Thursday in Holy Week (see link). In addition to Churches, countries that observe Maundy Thursday as a holiday officially refer to the day as such - see United Kingdom legislation (a predominantly Protestant country) and Philippines legislation (a predominantly Catholic country). The term Holy Thursday is ambiguious because in some denominations, as User:Angr pointed out, the term Holy Thursday refers to Ascension Thursday. The consensus, as well as these facts, should be respected as it was carefully thought out. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Very sensible. There are redirects and so on. No doubt we will all reconvene next year, but until then I suggest we leave it. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The arguments have always favored the term Holy Thursday, and the previous discussion bears that out. While these sources are old, they provide the basis for determining what I think everyone understands, in English, the majority of sources use Holy Thursday, and even for non-English users, this remains true.

The official Catholic term in English is "Holy Thursday" http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2009/index_en.htm

Methodists in the US use "Holy Thursday" in what appears to be an official capacity.

Internationally, Lutherans officially say "Maundy Thursday". http://www.lutheranworld.org/News/LWI/EN/2032.EN.html

American Presbytarians officially use "Maundy". http://www.pcusa.org/missionyearbook/Apr/09.htm

Orthodox Catholic Church seems to use "Holy" (or "Holy and Great")

Anglicans use "Maundy" http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm?mode=entry&entry=A908EEFA-0FA9-AFB6-3632ACDD53A6D8D1

Baptists don't appear to celebrate the holiday

This looks like the classic WP situations where people want to prescribe that their use of a term should be forced on everyone despite clear WP naming policy. "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above."LedRush (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lets do a Google search of both terms. I'd be happy to accept the verdict of Google for WP:Common. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Split (?)

In 2005 there was apparently a page named "Chrism Mass" which became a redirect to "Chrism". I switched the redirect to here as (1) the mass is about more than just chrism, and (2) this is traditionally the day on which it is held. I have subsequently expanded the section regarding the Chrism Mass and should not wish it to appear to "overwhelm" the rest of the article. As the originally titled page remains a redirect, I cannot make the herein proposed change, (as I apparently screwed that up the last time I tried something similar). On the otherhand, if the consensus is that the material should remain here, then nevermind. (I thought about listing this under Requested Moves, but as this concerns a section only, wasn't sure if that applied.) Mannanan51 (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be split. It's a very distinct liturgy which is separate from the celebration of Maundy Thursday. Hymnodist.2004 (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maundy Thursday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.redeemerchico.org/IMAGES/03_20_08maundythur.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416232617/http://www.sslc-cos.org/sermons06/lent_maundy.htm to http://www.sslc-cos.org/sermons06/lent_maundy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070328121720/http://www.royalmint.com/RoyalMint/web/site/Corporate/Corp_british_coinage/Maundy_Money.asp to http://www.royalmint.com/RoyalMint/web/site/Corporate/Corp_british_coinage/Maundy_Money.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Maundy Thursday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.churchofengland.org/media/877842/5-table-vigils-fasts.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ulcboulder.org/archive/Maundy%20Thursday%20What%20Is.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417163128/http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article_buy.cfm?article_id=7022 to http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article_buy.cfm?article_id=7022
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511025137/http://suydamstreetreformedchurch.org/calander_mar2008 to http://suydamstreetreformedchurch.org/calander_mar2008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511025200/http://www.westernorthodox.com/stmark/bulletin/bulletin_040509.PDF to http://www.westernorthodox.com/stmark/bulletin/bulletin_040509.PDF
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5pq2z5nyM?url=http://www.westernorthodox.ca/files/Christminster_Calendar_2009_2.pdf to http://www.westernorthodox.ca/files/Christminster_Calendar_2009_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021125848/http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd05187.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd05187.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224130221/http://www.armenianchurch.net/worship/easter/thursday.html to http://www.armenianchurch.net/worship/easter/thursday.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514153942/http://www.catholicculture.org/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2008-03-20 to http://www.catholicculture.org/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2008-03-20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170413153251/https://dol-in.org/news/chrism-mass to https://dol-in.org/news/chrism-mass
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170413153522/https://www.archbalt.org/about-us/our-bishops/cardinal-obrien/articles/chism-mass.cfm to https://www.archbalt.org/about-us/our-bishops/cardinal-obrien/articles/chism-mass.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Article Title

I question the wisdom of titling the article using a name that not only is more-or-less only used in the UK but also contains a hapax legomenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not the first, but it's been discussed before (see the earlier discussion section on "Article Name") and was settled in a previous RfC. (Also, it's not exactly a hapax legomenon, as I understand the term. More of a fossil word.) Nitpicking polish (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Chrism Mass

If the term "Maundy Thursday" is retained for this article, then the Chrism Mass should be moved. The Chrism Mass was traditionally celebrated on this day, but the reason has nothing to do with "Maundy". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what the day is called, the Chrism Mass is still celebrated by a number of churches on this day, and remains an important part of the Holy Week observances. As far as its having "nothing to do with "Maundy", it specifically memorializes what some denominations regard as the founding of the priesthood at the Last Supper on "Maundy" Thursday. Much of the substance was moved two years ago when the Chrism Mass page was re-created (see above). The material here could stand some trimming back now, but some discussion should be retained. -Happy Maundy Thursday. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)