Talk:Canonical hours

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 04:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

At this point the article is weighted towards the content (and if subsections are filled out the history) of the Liturgy of the Hours. I believe Canonical Hours is conceptually subordinate to Liturgy of the Hours. The redirect should be reversed.

Moss Hart

Merge

See Talk:Liturgy of the hours for comment. I have difficulty understanding the above remark that "Canonical Hours is conceptually subordinate to Liturgy of the Hours"; the Liturgy was developed to sanctify the time, not the other way around. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Canonical hours is good for a general article that covers traditional Christian practice. Liturgy of the Hours is a neologism dating from the 1970s, in the post-Vatican II reform of the Office of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. The name comes from the official Latin title Liturgia Horarum, but I think that the British English translation still uses the older name Divine Office, and not Liturgy of the Hours. Also, some Latin Rite religious orders that have their own editions of the Divine Office don't use the name Liturgy of the Hours. -- Marcusscotus1 19:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless this entry largely duplicates the main Liturgy of the Hours entry, and focuses on it as a liturgical method of prayer. The distinction of canonical hours as a division of time around the prayer cycle is, at best, a subsection within that article. This whole page should be merged with the other. Luckybucky (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Liturgy of the Hours article needs to be deleted or seriously reduced. If deleted, it should re-direct here. If reduced, it should restrict itself to the 1970 prayer book and its subsequent tweaks. Marcusscotus is right; Liturgy of the Hours is a neologism. The fact that Liturgy of the Hours largely duplicates this article, the main one, reflects poorly on that article, not this one. Rwflammang (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Fish Eaters

A question: Why is there a consistent removal of Fish Eaters (note: I have no dog in this fight, don't know them, and know very little about them).

But it seems like a legitimate, rather interesting site. I assume this decision was made some time ago. What was the reasoning? Carlo 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

see User:JzG/Fisheaters. Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Septimal clock for measuring canonical hours

I added link to septimal clock http://the-light.com/cal/veseptimal.html that divides one day into seven hours, one hour into seven minutes, one minute into seven seconds, next one second into seven tierces, and so on. Subdivisions are arranged in pairs. As weeks has seven days, that one day has seven canonical hours. This makes measuring of time consistent by choosing septenary base for all Christian time units, and extends remembering of derivation of all creations from God itself into all branches of life and science. This can be extended too by grouping weeks into seasons containing seven weeks each, and then all seven seasons into one 343-day draconitic/ecliptic year. This septenary system can be even further extended into non-time units such as units of length, mass, temperature, and so on, and even further into all mathematics. More about deriving all units from time unit only is here: [1] In this way canonical hours would be named as Prima, Secunda, Tertia, Quarta, Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, *without* even slight influences of babylonian pagan heritage such as 360° of time and space divided into 60', 3600" and 216000''', that are obviously based on multiples of '6', that is in turn derived from '666' - number of the beast. In this way remembrance of God's authorship and consistence in all measures will be obtained at once without contradiction, and all revolutionary and pagan units will be hopefully purged and abolished. For confirmation of septenary consistence in God's measuring, I give you for example, that as six work days are complemented with seventh Lord's day, that twelve Apostles are complemented with thirteenth Mary-Queen of the Apostles and fourteenth Jesus-King of the Apostles, giving both amounts as seven and fourteen respectively, after complementing with holy counterparts over ordinary ones.Wikinger 09:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And now I've deleted it. This has nothing to do with how the Hours are actually counted, and you have offered no references to show they were ever counted in this way. This is not the place to air your private theories. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My private theories had purpose of cleansing Church from evil influences taken in times of pagan egyptian and babylonian enslavements, but I give up here to avoid nonsense edit war.Wikinger 08:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The alphabet also has pagan origins, and letters were always used to write numbers -- including the number 666, which in Greek is χξς (if you ever encounter a college frat called ΧΞΣ, run!) until the introduction of the Indian/Arabic system, so you ought to object to the system we have for writing too on the same grounds. But the sexagesimal numbering is clearly not derived from 666, which came along centuries later, and is not in itself evil. The Apocalypse is clear that it's the number of a man. And in any event, the system of hours used for prayer is identical to that used in the Gospels.

But at least you admit these are your private theories. I suggest you review WP:OR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But what with this? http://www.ridingthebeast.com/numbers/nu666.php

A cuneiform document, named "The tablet of the Essagil", today at Louvre, gives plans numbered of the zigurrat of the ancient city of Babylon. Here are the main measures: 60 60 60 the length, 60 60 60 the width in cubit sukum, and the height equal to the length and to the width (90 meters on each side). Therefore everywhere 60 60 60, reminding the number 666 of the Revelation. That proves that sexagesimal system is evil. As for alphabet, it might be derived from alphabet used with Adamic Proto-Indo-European language (proof here: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language ) similar to this articulatory alphabet: [2] Wikinger 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These are both ridiculous ideas. You count "hits" like a psychic does, by stretching any conceivable interpretation of the evidence to fit your preconceived opinions, rather than forming your opinions based on the evidence. "60 60 60" may remind you of 666, but it wouldn't have reminded St. John of it. In the Greek numerals for 666 I gave above, χ = 600, ξ = 60, and ς = 6. "60 60 60" would be ξξξ, and that isn't what he wrote. He gave a specific cardinal number, not a pattern of three Arabic numeral 6s -- which, incidentally, hadn't been invented yet. And it's the number of a man, not a building.

As for the alphabet, there's no mystery. We know exactly where it came from: Semitic language speakers adopted Egyptian hieroglyphs to stand for individual consonants. The ancient Hebrews and Phoenicians used roughly the same alphabet. The Phoenicians brought it to Greece through trade contacts, and the Greeks adapted it for their language. When Greeks colonized Italy, the local Latin tribes picked it up and adapted it for their language. As developed through the Roman Republican era, it's essentially the same alphabet we use today. Pure pagan origins. As for your link, what material seemed to be relevant was a load of drivel. It's silly to trust a questionable visionary over hard evidence.

And please stop this. Talk pages are for discussing article content. They're not for airing your personal theories either. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thus I end here, hoping that my previous posts will be sufficient to inspire as many Jews and Christians as possible to adopt God's totally perfect and exceptionless fully consistent septenary system as described here: [3]. Wikinger 08:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Paraklitike

Isn't the correct name of the book that refers to the weekly cycle called Paraklitike? --Kupirijo 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As I undertand the matter, there were volumes of the Oktoekhos printed which contained only the propers for Sundays (as that is all that would normally be needed in a parish). But monasteries and cathedrals which serve the Divine Services every day would need the texts for weekdays as well. The volume containing the weekday hymns was referred to as the Paraklitike. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than myself can give a better explanation. MishaPan 07:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. The book which contains the full services of the eight tones (Octoechos) is called Paraklitike in Greek, but English usage tends, in this matter, to follow Slavic usage, which calls the book the Octoechos (oktoikh, osmoglasnik). The full Octoechos will have all the services for the eight tones, including the weekday services - which appear to be more popular in Greece than in Slavic countries, hence the most common version of the Octoechos in Greek-parishes will be the full Paraklitike (with all the weekday services). On the other hand, Slavic editions for parishes will often be practical ones intended only for weekend use, and only rarely will parishes have the fuller editions - both of which are called Octoikh or Osmoglasnik in Slavic use. InfernoXV 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the disambiguation. But I still have a problem with the text. why do you call it a 8-day cycle. Doesn't the Parakletike define promarily the weekly cycle (then the 8 tones)? But Parakletike is not a musical book, right? It is not clear in the text that the weekly-cycle and the tone-cycle are actually in the same book. Forgive my ignorance. --a cantor in training --Kupirijo 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you misread "8 week cycle", which is what it says in the article. But for each tone there are a set of texts for each day of the week. This is what the article intends to say; perhaps it's unclear? In any event I don't think we want to put too much detail here which would be better placed in octoechos, which is badly in need of development. You are correct that it's not a musical book. The texts are fitted to traditional chant melodies for each tone, which are found separately.

Inferno, I think it's not a good idea to generalize from the American situation. Texts were translated into English on the basis of the minimum that could be gotten by with; thus the Octoechos for Sunday was translated first since one really can't do without that. Trouble is that inertia tended to set in, so that once we had something that was "good enough" it often took a long time to complete the job. I'm not sure that weekday services are any less popular in Russia than in Greece, but in American parishes of both flavors I would guess they're of equally sparse observance on average. If you get a Slavonic Oktoikh you'll find it complete for every day of the week. (E.g. [4] -- I don't think it takes 3 volumes to cover just the Sunday texts.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that the octoechos article is about the ancient musical system and not the collections of hymns in the 8-tone cycle. Perhaps we need an article Paraklitike. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, an article is needed, and not just a sub-section on the Octoechos page. I've never heard anyone refer to the book as "Paraklitike" when speaking in English though. Perhaps Octoechos (liturgical)? or Octoechos (book)?

Heh, I wasn't actually thinking of the American situation (it's been over a decade since I was last in the New World), but that of the diaspora in general. Certainly the Slavonic Oktoikhs are complete, but there are Sunday Oktoikhs that many parishes use (perhaps because it's smaller and lighter?), as I'm sure you're aware - plenty of parishes start off with the minimum complement of Sunday Oktoikh, Lenten Triodion, Flowery Triodion and Festal Sbornik. InfernoXV 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one of those would work for article titles. I don't think I could do the subject justice myself though, since I know only the barest outline of its history and have no more complete sources available. (And have personally sung only the Carpatho-Russian Prostopinije and Russian obikhod chants, so I don't know anything about the original Byzantine system.)

We are fortunate nowadays that a complete Menaion is now available in English, according to the Russian usage anyway, but you don't have to be very old to remember when this was not the case and the Mother Mary/Bishop Kallistos "Festal Menaion" was all that could be gotten. My parish was fortunate to have had a Matushka back in the '70s who also directed the choir, was enthusiastic for English services, and had a very forceful personality, so we had lots of translated settings for Menaion feasts which many others lacked. But having a complete English Menaion is easier. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Octoechos vs Oktoekhos (and others)

Misha, two points.

I understand what you're trying to do, but the common usage in English is 'Octoechos' or even 'Eight Tones', not 'Oktoechos'. 'Oktoechos' is a direct transliteration of the Greek, and if we're going to use that, we might as well end up using 'Oktoikh' or even 'Osmoglasnik'. Not to mention 'Pentekostarion', 'Eukhologion', 'Heirmologion', Besides, an article already exists at 'Octoechos'. Let's stick to English usage.

Next, the Eastern Catholic equivalent to the Eastern Orthodox Churches are the 'Greek-Catholic Churches', not just the 'Eastern Catholic Churches' in general, which also refers to the Coptic/Armenian/Syrian Catholics too. 'Greek-Catholic' is the precise term. Also, the name of the article has been changed from 'Eastern Rite Catholic Churches' to 'Eastern Catholic Churches', so please stop linking to the former. InfernoXV 09:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

InfernoXV, I apologize. You see, I don't read Greek; I've seen both forms used in English translations, and didn't know there was a standarized acceptable form. I have no agenda in this, so if Octoechos is more acceptable that is fine with me. Thanks also for the heads-up on the correct article for linking. MishaPan 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As a general guide, I think Greek word-elements that are commonly borrowed into English look more natural if we retain their usual Greek spellings. Thus "Pentecostarion" since we use "Pentecost" in English; "Octoechos" since we use both "octo-" and "echo", etc. This will most often turn out to be the most common English usage. Contra this, it seems to me (Kovalchuk notwithstanding) that "Typikon" has evolved to be used at least as often as "Typicon" if not moreso, at least among people who care about such things, even though the "Typical Psalms" are more often so spelled when it should be cognate. Go figure. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Typical is not a Greek formation, as the ending will show; it's English and Latin, from Greek; as such it should always have c. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox

I've added some info about Oriental Orthodox services, based mostly on what I could research on the Internet. Anyone who is more knowledgable should look these entries over to correct my mistakes. The West Syrian entry especially needs more work.

Question: Do all Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Armenian, etc.) observe the same lesser fasts as the East Syrians? MishaPan 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Article name

"Canonical hours" seems like an unusual name for the article. I never speak of "praying the Canonical Hours." I always say I am praying the Daily Office or Divine Office. (There have been efforts to redirect Divine Office to Liturgy of the Hours, as if the Roman Catholic version were the only one, but the former page now is a disambiguation between the latter page and this one). The current name seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia best practice with regards to using common nomenclature. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing that this page be moved to "Daily Office." I cannot do this on my own, since Daily Office is apparently an "invalid" destination (strange, since it's only ever been a redirect, which I thought made it an exception). Carolynparrishfan (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It has redirected several different places. Any edit after the move means that only admins can move back.

• Oppose I would use canonical hours (horae canonicae) myself; please remember that this article must be useful to readers about two millennia of Christian culture, not just the modern Roman church. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Erm, yes, that's kind of where I'm going with this. "Daily Office" is a generic term that can refer to the Office of any church (RC, Anglican, Lutheran...). "Canonical hours" is not most the common name for daily prayer in any Christian denomination (your personal word choices aside). It's awkward and obscure and is unlikely to be the first place anyone would look on Wikipedia. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the first place I would look (unless I wanted one of them in particular, in which case I would look under, say, matins). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I concur on all point with PMA. "Canonical hours" is hardly obscure to anybody familiar with Church history. Srnec (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is the only place I have encountered the expression. It is not used officially in any church. Compare 47, 100 ghits for "canonical hours" with 260, 000 for "Daily Office." Carolynparrishfan (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't use raw google to decide these matters, it is biased in any number of ways; see WP:Search engines. Compare Google Books, which shows more, and more scholarly, hits for Canonical hours than for Daily Office. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not presenting it as a "discussion-ender;" my point is that "Canonical hours" is not what the average non-scholar calls it. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it probably is what the average non-scholar calls them, if she discusses them at all. The google hits are largely the listing for services of webpages throughout Christendom, and an assortment of books on the liturgy. A separate article, making the point that this is primarily a Roman and Anglo-Catholic usage, might be warranted. (In fact, looking at the hits suggests that this is overwhelmingly High Church Anglican usage, with a handful of false positives for office supply stores and the like.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a denominational difference. Certainly no Anglican I know speaks of "praying the canonical hours." The official name (depending on the Province) is either "the Daily Office," "the Divine Office," or "Daily Prayer." If it is indeed such a difference, this ought to be explained. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The ECUSA version of the Book of Common Prayer appears to use Divine Office, or Office of the Church, but it is not restricted to the daily offices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I searched JSTOR and PAO and found many more hits for "canonical hours" than "daily office". If PMA is correct, and we already have a Liturgy of the Hours article specific to Roman practice, then an article about Anglican practice might be worthwhile if it can be done. Srnec (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Divine Office

It is my impression, both from BCP and from my local Anglicans, that Divine Office is a wider term, applicable to all the Offices of the Church (the service of baptism, for example), and thus that the present header needs to be tweaked; I will of course yield to sourced statements to the contrary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I've never seen "Divine Office" defined as including other offices, like as the occasional or pastoral offices. (Old-fashioned low churchmen used to refer even to the Eucharist as the Communion Office!) Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; the potential Anglican subarticle (which I am not qualified to write) should be very careful about differences between American and Canadian usage (and presumably even more so about English or Australian usage). Please note I am consulting Anglicans, not Episcopalians, if you follow the news of our local factions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Title

That's really disappointing, because I really don't know anyone on God's green earth who calls it that. In the words of Will Ferrell, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! Carolynparrishfan (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Try searching for "canonical hours" at JSTOR or PAO if you have access. You will find it used. I think your perspective is just limited in this regard. Do you really know enough Christians of a variety of backgrounds to say definitely what it is called all over God's green earth? Srnec (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I know enough to say that it is not the official name of these prayers in any Christian church. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Which seems to me quite irrelevant. Yet, if PMA is correct about this being an Anglican usage, then an article on the Daily Office (Anglican) or some such thing is certainly welcome. As noted, we do have Liturgy of the Hours for Catholics. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Divine Office is what is prayed during the Canonical Hours. The former is "what", the latter is "when".Mannanan51 (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Mannanan51

Agpeya

I made the following corrections:

• Removed the following: "The Five Short Litanies...". These are not part of the Agpeya, but are part of the rite of "raising of incense". (See the discussion on the Agpeya page.)
• The "morning raising of incense" and "evening raising of incense" although they correspond to the "prime" (not midnight) and "vespers" hours of the Agpeya respectively, they are not the same thing. The Agpeya is prayed in private (and in church) by all Copts, whereas the rite of raising of incense is only prayed in the church and must be led by a presbyter.
• Some changes clarifying the order of the prayers.

Maybe this section should link to the Agpeya page? The Cake 2 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft:Divine Office

Not sure what you want to do with Draft:Divine Office, but perhaps some of the content should be moved here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

some sources

I don't have the time to judiciously decide where these references could br useful

(Catholic Encyclopedia) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02768b.htm

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/canonical+hour

I agree with the above Talk comments: the Liturgy is presented here (in more detail than I'd like lol) and thus the separate page is pretty redundant. Identification of it as to year, and differences between here and there, belong there. The rest of Liturgy page should be purged.

Trimmed

As noted above, this page repeats verbatim much of the Liturgy of the Hours article, which has also been noted as "cleaner and better written overall". In order to reduce duplication and distinguish one page from the other, I have trimmed most of the LOTH material with a link to the Main, and left this as a discussion of the practice in various other groups. Manannan67 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Diurnal offices into Canonical hours

This is easily able to be folded in. I don't even think it would take up an entire section, just a mention that some separate them by day and night. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I've merged it as a section, although only with some of it (the rest has gone to other appropriate places on that page).   Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Monks and Seminarians on Cliros in Jordanville.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)