Talk:Tenebrae

From software article

The following text was incorrectly in Tenebrae (software):

The Office of Tenebrae or Tenebræ is the name of prayer services conducted in the Catholic Church on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday, in preparation for the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus, or Easter. The word means "shadows." It is also observed in the Anglican and Episcopal Churches as a single office during Holy Week, usually on the Wednesday of Holy Week. The chief feature of this office is the successive extinguishing of candles until the church is completely dark.

The Office of Tenebrae in the Episcopal Church

--Mrwojo 14:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article states that Holy Communion is never served at Tenebrae services. However, this service is most commonly held on Maundy Thursday, which commemorates Jesus's Last Supper with his disciples, so wouldn't that make it almost required to hold Holy Communion at this service, at least when it is held on Maundy Thursday? I'm speaking from experience - my UCC church holds a Tenebrae service on Maundy Thursday with communion, so I think that the "never" part is a bit strong, but I wanted input before I go ahead and change it. Can someone clear this up? Thoroughbred Phoenix 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Roman Catholic tradition (prior to the reform of the Holy Week services in, I think, 1956) the Mass of the Lord's Supper was held in the morning - for reasons (related to the Eucharistic fast) which no longer apply. Tenebrae was celebrated in the late afternoon and was the Matins of Good Friday, brought forward to the Thursday evening. If your church doesn't observe those traditions then the statement that Holy Communion is never given at Tenebrae doesn't apply. Alec.brady (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Move

I'm suggesting we might want to move this page from it's current namespace of "Tenebrae (service)" to the namespace "Tenebrae (liturgical)". The term "service" is vague and does not denote the specifically religious subject of the article. Not only would "Tenebrae (liturgical)" also make it clear that this is an article on a religious subject, it also follows the usual naming convention for other Christian liturgical terms. For example, the Mass is Mass (liturgy) and octave is Octave (liturgical). Dgf32 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

present status in Catholic churches

Someone from ip 71.253.52.145 (since you dont have an account yet I can only ask questions here) added this, just removed by another editor:
...and it continues to be observed at the University of Notre Dame (and possibly other traditional Catholic churches),...
which makes me wonder if this is under some indult and whether indeed a few non-'schismatic' Catholics might still be able to observe tenebrae (I would love to find a loophole for the parish I work at!). What are the conditions at ND? Sparafucil (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also celebrated at St John Vianney Seminary, in the Archdiocese of Denver. I will change the article to reflect this, as there is no ref for it being defunct. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the statement that the liturgical celebration of this services is no longer part of the liturgy is not correct. The form and the time changed with the reform of the Holy Week ceremonies by Pope Pius XII, but the Book of hours indicates solemn matutins at Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Good Saturday. In Germany, these are called Karmetten.--Turris Davidica (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia implicitly says Karmetten is celebrated in the morning: it says tht Karmetten is celebrated on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday, not on the eves of those days (the evenings of Wednesday, Thursday and Friday). Perhaps, like the German Karmetten, the other cases mentioned above also refer to morning celebrations in daylight of the Liturgy of the Hours, not to anticipated celebrations after dark (= tenebrae), as was the custom, when, before Pius XII's change, Mass, even the Easter Vigil Mass was also anticipated to the mornings. Lima (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Catholics may take part in them if they find some. This is not Holy Mass which is ruled by the ritual. Even if some ritual may have disappeared from the Ritual or from anywhere else, that does not lead to an acceptable form of devotion being illegalized.--91.34.251.64 (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Anglican practices

I'm unclear on Episcopal observances and whether they differ from Anglo-catholic. The external link shows a Wednesday service identical to that of the Liber usualis, which suggests there is nothing particularly protestant about them. In any case the header "Roman Catholic" ought to be "catholic" to reflect the lead paragraph, or perhaps even "traditional". Sparafucil (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Episcopalian" is a denomination. "Anglo-Catholic" is not - it defines the practices of a subset of Episcopalians and Anglicans. Episcopal and Anglo-Catholic observances might NOT differ. Many Anglo-Catholics are Episcopalians. The Church of St. Mary the Virgin, in NYCs Times Square, is called "The Cathedral of Anglo-Catholicism" and is an Episcopal Church. Carlo (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I was thinking of US churches that are outside of ECUSA, some of whom loosely so call themselves. The problem is: how does one go about referencing the uses of Anglicans? My BCP makes no provision for a Wed. tenebrae (or any other), nor does The Anglican Use Gradual (external link to lulu blocked). Sparafucil (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Episcopalian Tenebrae services are based on the Book of Occasional Services, which replaced the 1940 "Book of Offices" in 1979 and has been updated from time to time since then. I don't know about Tenebrae in other Anglican churches, but would guess that it probably exists in at least some of them.--Bhuck (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Time of day

Lima made the following change, regarding the post-1970 Matins and Lauds:

These morning celebrations, not being celebrated in the dark, are of course not named "Tenebrae."

This is an incorrect statement on two counts: (1) The combined office may still indeed be celebrated (and in some places still is celebrated) just prior to sunrise, which means that the office would be just as much in darkness as an evening service. (2) The name or ceremonies need not be forfeited merely because there is light outside the church. The 1886 Caeremoniale Episcoporum assigned Tenebrae to 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon, which obviously cannot even pretend to be dusk. And even though "Tenebrae" after 1955 was to be celebrated in the early morning, it retained its name and ceremonies through the 1962 typical edition.

Hence I have restored my prior factual statement: "although the celebration is no longer officially named "Tenebrae."" Echevalier (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Echevalier is, of course, right about the early morning service. And I remember once reading that the original meaning of the gradual extinguishing of the lights was that, before being anticipated to the previous afternoon or evening, Matins and Lauds were celebrated in the early hours of the day and, as the day dawned, there was a steadily decreasing need for lights. (I am not saying that that interpretation was right. But maybe it was.)

I regret that I made a further edit to that section of the article before noticing this edit to the Talk page. I am glad to see that, in spite of that neglect on my part, I did not reinsert my observation about the inappropriateness of calling a morning service "Tenebrae". Although, come to think of it, I do consider it inappropriate, since a morning service, even an early morning one, would be better called Dawning than Darkness.

I would be grateful if Echevalier would kindly quote the reference to "Tenebrae" in the pre-1970 edition of the Roman Breviary. I was presuming - wrongly, as I now suppose - that the Tenebrae ceremonies were not dealt with in the Breviary itself, but only in other books. I was unable to find a mention of the ceremonies in the Google Books reproductions of the Breviary (my fault, I suppose), and I do not expect to have access to my own old copy for the next three months. So I would be very interested in knowing how exactly the Roman Breviary did speak about Tenebrae in any revision (not just reprinting) of the Breviary later than 1955 but earlier than 1970. I would be very interested even in knowing exactly how the Breviary spoke of Tenebrae before 1955. Lima (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Vince Colletta

Thanks you for your response and, yes, that was a great quote!

I will be sure to contact Vanguard Press, however, John Morrow has announced that they are planning a Colletta book for 2010 or 2011. Of course it won't be nearly as complete in either biographical details, number of assembled quotes or subject photographs as mine. And with John Morrow, you never know, he may be more interested in publishing a book dealing with controversies than one of substance.

Franklin222 (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Franklin222

Tenebrae

In many mystical circles, tenebrae, Latin for darkness, is used to refer to what St. John of the Cross referred to as the Dark Night of the Soul. This is a period understood by many in many different ways, but it is basically a time when one must face the darkness within himself, understand it, and overcome it. Those who tread a Shamanic Path refer to this as the Shaman's Death. There are many periods of this in one's Spiritual growth, and those who come out on the positive side of it are the Spiritual giants, whether they are known or not.

Charles Henry Kropf, MSS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.121 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tenebrae. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110714031444/http://www.mapc.com/html/03_worship/PDF/2008-03-21b-GF-Tenebrae.pdf to http://www.mapc.com/html/03_worship/PDF/2008-03-21b-GF-Tenebrae.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae in Eastern Catholic Churches

Does (or: did) a service called "Tenebrae" exist in Eastern Catholic Churches? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Definition (Catholic Church use)

In A Modern Catholic Dictionary John Hardon defines Tenebrae as: "The public singing of part of the Divine Office, on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday evenings of Holy Week, anticipating Matins and Lauds of Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. A custom that went back centuries, it acquired the name because of the mourning ritual surrounding the ceremony, which included a triangular stand with fifteen candles. These were put out one by one until, after the last candle was extinguished, a prayer was said in darkness, one candle was lighted, and the assembly dispersed in silence."

In The Catholic Encyclopedia Herbert Thurston says: "Tenebræ is the name given to the service of Matins and Lauds belonging to the last three days of Holy Week. This service ... is to be anticipated and it should be sung shortly after Compline ... about three p.m. on the eve of the day to which it belongs. ... Lauds follow immediately on Matins, which in this occasion terminate with the close of day".

Thus anticipation to the previous day of the Matins and Lauds of Thursday, Friday and Saturday is part of the specification of the Tenebrae service. Service books (of pre-Pius XII times), such as Officium Hebdomadae Sanctae (Venice 1765), p. 105, also insist on the anticipation to the previous day. "With the prohibition of the anticipation of Matins and Lauds, the practice was suppressed following the Holy Week reforms" (James Monti, The Week of Salvation); "The evening service of Tenebrae, in which the Matins and Lauds of Thursday, Friday, and Saturday were chanted on the preceding evenings, is suppressed" (Frederick McManus, The Rites of Holy Week in the Extraordinary Form); cf. Peter M.J. Stravinskas, The Catholic Answer Book, p. 227.

No official book of the Catholic liturgy now speaks of extinguishing candles in the course of the (morning) recitation of Matins and Lauds of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday, even in the 1961 ("extraordinary") form. Not even the 1988 document Paschalis solemnitatis of the Congregation for Divine Worship, which recommends "communal celebration of the Office of Readings and Morning Prayer on Good Friday and Holy Saturday", an Office that it says was formerly called "Tenebrae". Lúnasa (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

An accumulation of minutiae from primary sources does not make a balanced Wikipedia article

@Lúnasa: I'm trying to fathom what you're trying to accomplish. I can't up till now. Please explain yourself, that might help. This article is not about every minute change in the Tenebrae liturgy that ever took place: it gives a broad overview of what this service was like (so rather about the constants of its century-long history), until it was largely abandoned around the time of the Second Vatican Council. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that suppression of Tenebrae some years before the Second Vatican Council (cf. supra) was a "minute change". What needs explaining is an attachment to inaccuracies that brooks no correction. Lúnasa (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Re. "suppression" – incorrect;

Re. "minute change" – incorrect: major changes before the second Vatican Council are indicated in the "pre-Vatican II" section. So still not knowing what you are trying to accomplish. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, you quote a lot of things in the previous section, however without clearly stating date and origin of these quotes: I found it unreadable. An accumulation of confusing minutiae. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Monti, McManus and Stravinskas say Tenebrae was suppressed in the 1950s. Maybe others too: try Googling the two words "Tenebrae" and "suppressed". Do any sources say it wasn't suppressed? When anticipating Lauds of Thursday, Friday and Saturday of Holy Week was totally prohibited and anticipating Matins almost completely, Tenebrae as understood by the Catholic Church* and as described in the article ceased.

* Sourced definitions are given above, because excluded from the article.

Matins and Lauds of those days are now said in the morning, either privately or in common, Common celebration is recommended but, the Divine Worship Congregation stated, it is not called Tenebrae, and of course candles are not incongruously extinguished as the day grows yet brighter. Private initiative may invent other ceremonies and call them Tenebrae, but they are not what the Catholic Church calls Tenebrae, nor are they what the article describes as Catholic Church Tenebrae. Lúnasa (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, err, no: McManus implies that Tenebrae was no longer an evening service after the 1955 reform – of course Matins and Lauds (whether or not called "Tenebrae" for Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday) were not suppressed: they were restored to the usual times for Matins and Lauds, i.e. as on every other day of the year, that is the morning of the day to which they belong instead of on the previous day where they didn't belong (with a partial exception for the Maundy Thursday service). The 1955 document says only one thing about the liturgical sequence of these Matins and Lauds, that is that Psalm 50 is suppressed at the end of the service. The 1955 document doesn't abolish the 15-candles ceremonial aspect, nor the trepidus (it doesn't mention any change in that respect for the Tenebrae/Matins–Lauds service). Neither does the 1955 papal document say that the Matins and Lauds on these three days can no longer be called Tenebrae. So, what isn't changed by the document remains in principle unchanged. McManus has a few pages on the name-changes for ceremonies following from the 1955 papal document: no name change involving the Matins and Lauds a.k.a. Tenebrae.

The liturgical sequence of the services for Matins and Lauds on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday was only modified beyond recognition of what is in the "pre-Vatican II" table by the 1970 replacement of the Breviary by the Liturgy of the Hours. That was one of many Vatican II-related liturgical reforms. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal

It's too hot here, and I withdraw. I leave Francis Schonken with, for instance, the idea that for the Catholic Church Tenebrae is Matins and Lauds of three particular days in the year no matter when celebrated (rather than being "the evening service") and that it was not suppressed pre-Vatican II. I leave myself with, for instance, the idea that Tenebrae, when it existed, concerned only a part of the Catholic Church (not the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites nor the Eastern Catholic Churches) and that the Breviarium Romanum of Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, which was issued with the decree Congruum erat omnino, post novum rubricarum corpus ... of 5 April 1961 (and which I have before me) is of 1961. Lúnasa (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering whether, rubrics aside, in your 1961 Latin Breviary the Antiphons, Psalms (apart from the last Miserere Psalm), Versicles, Lessons, Responsories, Canticles and concluding Prayer of the Matins and Lauds for Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday are still the same (and in the same order) as listed in the table at Tenebrae#Structure of the service before liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II? I'd be happy to see your answer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Also is this the Breviarium Romanum your are talking of: OCLC 224380478?

I'm back. I don't know for how long.

The answer to your last question is yes.

On the first question, apart from abandonment of the use of the letter J for consonantal Latin I, the only differences I notice are in Lauds. As the third psalm, the one before the Old Testament canticle, you give for all three days "Psalms 62 and 66 (Psalm 62 − Psalm 66)", which, if the dash means what it usually means, looks self-contradictory. As the fifth psalm you give, again for all three days, Psalms 148, 149 and 150 (Psalms 148−150), with no self-contradiction. I can't help wondering if these were the psalms used before the Reform of the Roman Breviary by Pope Pius X, not those "before liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II", but I leave the checking to you. In the 1961 Breviary (it is 1961), the psalms are those in the second schema for the corresponding day of the week in the Pius X revision. On Thursday, Psalms 35 and 146; on Friday 84 and 147; on Saturday 63 and 150. "A porte inferi" is quite obviously a mistyping for "a porta inferi". Is "Dum conturbata ..." as antiphon for the Canticle of Habacuc another typing error? What the 1961 Breviary has, "Cum conturbata ...", perhaps makes somewhat better sense. Lúnasa (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Anachronism

If unmotivated reverting is what's used to preserve presentation, as the pre-Vatican II situation, of the situation that existed forty years before the 1913 reform of the Roman Breviary by Pope Pius X, withdrawal is probably again the best policy. Lúnasa (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the unEnglish "unmotivated". (I had been writing in another language just before.) In English I should have written "unexplained". I have decided to try to force an explanation of what reasons (motives) can be invoked for simply reverting corrections of errors that include the false presentation of the pre-1913 arrangement as that of the "Pre-Vatican II Breviary", candles quenched before, instead of at ([https://archive.org/stream/completeofficeh00churgoog#page/n178/mode/2up Benziger, p. 184), the repetition of the antiphons, the Christus factus est sung only in part even in the Holy Saturday Lauds... Lúnasa (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Re. "I have decided to try to force <whatever>": trying to "force" is not the right approach imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Francis, I was relying on the force of courtesy and fairness to produce an explanation of why what was (and is again) presented as the pre-Vatican II arrangement is instead that of the 1870s (the time of the cited sources), in spite of Pius X's alterations in Divino afflatu of 1 November 1911, in effect optionally already at the 1912 Triduum Sacrum and obligatorily from 1913 on. Unfortunately the force I relied on has met some unspecified counter-force. You have again reverted to the false presentation with no more explanation than that you think a table of the pre-Vatican II arrangement "messes with" a table of the arrangement of a century earlier. (In my first attempt, along with the more recent table, I gave the old table, indicating that it was of the pre-1913 situation. You reverted that too.) So I appeal again to the sense of courtesy and fairness that you surely have to explain why you want the article to give an incorrect presentation of the pre-Vatican II arrangement. Lúnasa (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, "An accumulation of minutiae from primary sources does not make a balanced Wikipedia article" --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Falsehood makes a balanced article? Lúnasa (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

1870s is neither after nor during "liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II", so it is before those reforms; The minutiae of Divino afflatu (1911) are ... minutiae of a primary source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The table is headed "Tenebrae (Pre–Vatican II Breviary)".

Pre-World War I Belgium is neither after nor during the Second World War, but presenting it as "Pre-World War II Belgium" would be a falsehood.

I again appeal to the sense of courtesy and fairness that you surely have. Lúnasa (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This picture shows the pre WWII Dresden Frauenkirche, regardless of whether that picture was taken before or after WWI. For that church a decisive "change" took place during WWII (and then again, half a century later). For the *structure* of the Tenebrae service, the post-Vatican II changes to the breviary were more decisive than anything that happened before or after (including the marginalising of the service after 1955): some of the earlier changes (most of which didn't even modify the *structure* of the service) can be mentioned, but again, we're looking rather for the *constants* (over the many centuries that the service was widely spread in Catholicism) than minute changes and limited revivals after its heydays were over. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What you now present as "Tenebrae (Pre–Vatican II Breviary)" is even more false than before. Regarding the "constants" you speak of, your (self-contradictory) presentation of the third psalm at Lauds is not a constant, and does not correspond to the "Pre-Vatican II Breviary". So too your presentation of the fifth psalm. So too your presentation of the Christus factus est and the prayer on Holy Saturday. For some of these falsehoods you have added footnotes that make explicit the contradiction between the heading of the table and the actual contents of the table, by showing that the table is not in fact of the pre-Vatican II Breviary, but of an earlier edition. Some of your footnotes are also false. The first antiphon in Lauds was never bereft of its psalm. Lúnasa (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A different psalm doesn't change the "structure", but as said: "some of the earlier changes (most of which didn't even modify the *structure* of the service) can be mentioned" – footnoted comments can be used for that, thus not overemphasising something that didn't fundamentally alter the structure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The structure can be given and in fact is given in a single paragraph: "The structure of Tenebrae is ..." Your table, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly about the contents rather than the structure. The contents that it gives are not those normally associated with "the service before liturgical reforms in the wake of Vatican II", but are instead those of the 1870s, with footnotes with incorrect indications of later changes. The body of your table also indicates an error in the paragraph about the structure: before Pius X, Lauds had, if you consider the OT canticle the equivalent of a psalm, eight psalms, not five. A different psalm doesn't change the structure, but a different number of psalms perhaps does. Lúnasa (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the alleged problems, this wasn't helping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, it gave sourced correct information, which you reverted without explanation (apart from, at a later stage, some would-be witticisms). There are proverbs about carrying water in a sieve and the like. Wikipedia recommends not to feed certain people. I should have taken the advice sooner. Lúnasa (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Is, not was

I do not understand the past tense "was" in the first sentence of this article.

There is nothing 'past tense' about Tenebrae. It is still observed in numerous churches around the world, including normal, mainstream, Roman Catholic churches, not schismatics or 'indult' of any kind. I could give a list of churches that celebrate Tenebrae right here in New York. The article itself, once it moves past the badly written and confusing preface, is quite accurate. If the Roman Catholic church abridged the service and suggested or demanded celebrating it on the morning of the day instead of the evening of the day before, that is a change, not an abolition of the service itself.

In New York Anglican churches tend to celebrate an abbreviated form of Tenebrae, for Maundy Thursday, on Wednesday evening. So do Latin Mass Catholic parishes. Other Catholic churches tend to celebrate one or all three on the morning of the day itself--one normal, mainstream Catholic church in Morningside Heights chants tenebrae for Good Friday and Holy Saturday on the morning of those days--with the gradual extinguishing of candles (which is rather pointless at ten o'clock in the morning, but...)

Thus it does not make sense for the first sentence of this article to read "Tenebrae was" as if the thing had been formally abolished or as if nobody observed it today.

Nor does the second sentence of this article make any sense:

"In the 21st century the term is in practice applied also to a Holy Week evening service other than of matins and lauds accompanied by gradual extinguishing of candles or even to a service at other times of day commemorating the Passion of Jesus."

Such a passive voice sentence is more confusing that it's worth. There may well be people who do things other than matins and lauds and call them 'tenebrae', but who are they? All the churches I know that celebrate something they call tenebrae are indeed celebrating tenebrae: matins and lauds, whether according to the old or the new breviary, whether in full or abridged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.178 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Links to psalms

I find the current links to psalms not helpful.

1. The little notice to that the psalm numbering is the one in the Vulgate is too easily overlooked.
2. When I click on a blue link in the table, I arrive at a moved page in the Latin source.
3. The blue link is followed by an external link to Latin text and translation.

I suggest:

1. Provide links to the psalm articles in Wikipedia, piped or not. Those are the numbers that most people will know, and most readers will not be helped by Latin anyway. These articles have a link to Latin text and translation in the lead (and if not yet, please add it, compare Psalm 70 (Psalmus 69).
2. Place external links in the external section or remove.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a lot wrong there! I think 1) Roman numerals are less ambiguous, and masoretic numbering only confusing in the context of Tenebrae. 2) "most readers" would probably include those interested in sung Tenebrae, in Latin, so the vulgata Wikisource link needs updating (I'm not positive it is always the Latin Psalter used, though) 3) incipits should be employed to clarify which is which. So the first Psalm might look like:

Ps. LXVIII (69) Salvum me fac (Save me O Lord)

Sparafucil (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)