This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
As a Priest in this part of the Anglican Communion - Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (and in my humble opinion more generally) - "Passion Sunday" still applies to the fifth Sunday in Lent, and Passiontide begins then, albeit with less intensity than on Palm Sunday. The momentuum of Lent changes, and this is reflected in the liturgy, colour, lectionary, etc of the Church.
Yes, I agree with you. I am Anglican too, I know the liturgical books. In the Anglican and Orthodox vocabulary, we use this phrase for the 5th Sunday of the Lent. - 217.136.241.189 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by your latest edit. While you do add some useful data, you wipe out information which seems to explain the observance of the day over the past sixty years. I also find your new opening statement about the application of the term somewhat contentious. Do you consider the terminology of the Roman Missal unofficial? Please clarify.
The Roman Missal now calls the two Sundays in question "Fifth Sunday of Lent" and "Palm Sunday of the Passion of the Lord". That is the official terminology. It calls neither Sunday "Passion Sunday". From its first edition in 1570 until 1961 inclusive, it called the fifth Sunday of Lent "Passion Sunday" (and called the following weekdays "Monday (etc.) after Passion Sunday"), but it has not used that term for over half a century. For a mere eight years in the 1960s it called the fifth Sunday "First Sunday of the Passion". For a somewhat longer period, fifteen years, it gave the name "Second Sunday of the Passion or Palm Sunday" to what it had previously called simply "Palm Sunday" and now calls "Palm Sunday of the Passion of the Lord".
I don't know what you consider to be the rationale for the term "Passion Sunday". Whatever it is, you need to cite a reliable source that states that it is the rationale for the term. You surely don't think "Passion Sunday" was so called because of the reading of the Passion at Mass. The Passion was not read on the Sunday that bore that name. The Gospel of that day was John 8:46–59, which ended with a reference to Jesus "hiding himself", a reference that was taken as a reason for covering crucifixes and images in the church. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources which demonstrate that Passiontide was officially abolished, or is it simply implied by the reversion to “Fifth Sunday of Lent”? The continued veiling of statues, and the mandatory use of the Preface of the Passion of the Lord after the Fifth Sunday of Lent demonstrate a change of character in the final two weeks of Lent which suggests Passiontide is still observed. Moreover, even though Passiontide is a more ancient observation than Lent, the oldest extant books of the Roman Rite delineate “Fifth Sunday of Lent.” The name was changed to Passion Sunday in the ninth century. So it is Passiontide which lent its name to Passion Sunday, not Passion Sunday which lent its name to Passiontide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.221.138 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
