According to a reminder from TRADITIO Network [*], the Feast of the Epiphany is 1 of the oldest of feasts; in particular, a celebration whose religious observance is older than Christmas.
Note *: <http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190105>.
Not only did I fail to post the correct
fragment-id for supporting the specific point that I was making, but so also did the
TRADITIO Network! Their URL for accessing the text that I cited is currently the vertically-
dyslexic <
http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190109>. It should be <
http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1901.htm#190106>. Alas, it's no secret that "The Fathers" are stubbornly resistant about responding to notifications of
their own errors that
ought to be corrected (but maybe they'll correct 1 of their own erroneous links.
What the browsers used by
CathInfo members will do when the correct entry for "January 9, 2019" appears on that page (as the 2nd "#1901
09") is
implementation-dependent. For the Web-page coding-language HTML, duplicate
fragment-ids seem, in an example of technical timidity [×], not to be detected as technical
semantic errors.
-------
Note ×: It's been widely accepted, at least since the beginning of the 1970s, as
unreasonable for any computing language to meekly allow what are formally
duplicate definitions (or
duplicate declarations) of
identifiers. For the point herein, that would mean duplicate
fragment-ids (e.g.: "1901
09") would be
errors.