Talk:Confiteor

I know it's official, but the translation is erroneous: L. "nimis" = English "exceedingly". Scorwin (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sound file as it was labeled as "slightly incorrect". Why have something if it is incorrect? Southwest613 (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unaccepted 2009 merger proposal

Seems to me these two pages are on the same subject, one using the plain English name, one using the traditional Latin name. I'm not sure to which of the two they should be merged, though I'm leaning towards this page. On the other hand, this article is in the set of Catholic Mass prayers, and the Catholic Church is not the only church with a penitential rite. Id est, there may be a place for a separate article on the penitential rites in other Churches, but then this needs to be more clear, and Penitential Rite should not only consider the Catholic penitential rite. Thoughts? 83.146.15.234 (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just to be clear, this would be me; I didn't realise I was not signed in. Gijs Kruitbosch (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Response: This is an interesting proposal but it ought not be followed. The Confiteor is a prayer within the "penitential rite" as that section of the liturgy is now known. However, this classification is only 40 years old and the confiteor -- as a prayer -- has a much longer history, both within the liturgy when that section was called the "prayers at the foot of the altar", outside the Mass when the confiteor is used as preparation for the reception of Holy Communion, and as preparation prior to Mass by the priest and the servers in the sacristy during the middle ages. All of this makes the confiteor a prayer worthy of its own article, as the prayer itself has a very specific history. A separate article on "penitential rites" could be interesting, expanding beyond the liturgy of the Roman rite to include the penitential aspects of other liturgies, but the Confiteor should definitely retain its own article.

Providing Translations and Original Research (29JUNE2013 edits)

On 29 June 2013, User:Elizium23 reverted my including English translations for untranslated Latin excerpts quoted in the article, claiming they were Synthesis or Original Research.[1] I reverted and started this discussion here per WP:BRD.

Synthesis is an editorial judgment or interpretation that is created from two works that neither work says explicitly. Original research is providing a theory of your own, typically unsupported, in the article. Interpretation should be supported. However, this is not an interpretation of facts. This is establishing a translation equivalency from one text in its Latin original to English for reader's ease. Providing a translation of a few lines that can be confirmed by anyone with a Latin-English dictionary is not synthesis or original research. Therefore, your removal of a basic verbatim translation on the grounds of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH is entirely baseless and wrongheaded. SEE: WP:SYNNOT WP:NOTOR#Translation and contextualizing.

Therefore reverting your removal of the English translations I provided per these two policies.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I have retracted the warnings as incorrect. Elizium23 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Italic title

Should the title of this article be in italics? It is a prayer of the Mass. Prayers are not listed at WP:ITALICS. Nor are italics used for Gloria in excelsis Deo, Kyrie, or Lamb of God, to name a few examples. Elizium23 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is an incipit, so it's technically not a "title". Comparatively, untitled poems often take the first line as a quasi-title and aren't italicised. But, MOS does guide us to italicise foreign words. It's a toss-up, so either way you chose, I'll support your judgment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge "mea culpa" here?

User:Ign christian has proposed merging mea culpa into this article.

Hi.. I proposed merging because, in my point of view, those pages talk about same subject. If page hit and presence are the primary considerations, how about the opposite (merging confiteor to mea culpa) ? Ign christian (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The mea culpa article is mostly a duplication of the Confiteor article. Esoglou (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – "mea culpa" has much broader interest than "confiteor" (15,000 to 2,000 views the last 30 days). "Mea culpa" has a separate article in 18 other languages. The article "mea culpa" has been around since April 2005, "confiteor" since June 2006, so they have co-existed for some time. If there is unnecessary duplication, eg citing the whole "Confiteor" twice, that can be removed, although citing it once to provide context seems helpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Google search: "mea culpa" -Confiteor and Google Ngram show that mea culpa is also used outside Confiteor. Dedupe the duplicate content in the mea culpa article, there is no need to include the text of the Confiteor prayer in Latin or English in mea culpa article. The text of the Confiteor prayer is also duplicated in Penitential Rite and Tridentine Mass. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose – I agree with above Oppose comments - this Latin phrase is broadly known outside of religious context; this grammar / Latin article should remain, with cleanup of redundant references to specific religious uses, since there is a article on those uses to link to. 209.194.203.130 (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose – I am duplicating the Strongly Oppose comment above; well said - this Latin phrase is broadly known outside of religious context; this grammar / Latin article should remain, with cleanup of redundant references to specific religious uses, since there is a article on those uses to link to. Lguinn948 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Lutheranism

Although the text listed is (as far as I know) the ICEL translation (which the preceding text could be read as stating that it is) the footnote given attributes it to the Lutheran Service Book. This is not where these words are found. The accurate text of the LSB's confession and absolution for Divine Service, Setting 1 can be found in the Penitential Rite article. messor (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been years now, and nobody has been able to demonstrate that I'm mistaken about this. I also just double-checked, and this reference is bogus. I'm deleting it, and putting in a "citation needed". messor (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Error?

It says in the first version of the Confiteor, "per me peccatore", translated to "for me, a sinner". But in Latin, "per me peccatore" is incorrect and means "through me, with/by a sinner". "Pro me peccatore" would make more sense and would mean "for me, a sinner". Perhaps this is an error on the part of the source or whoever copied it. Wiki user wiki (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I checked the source and whoever copied it did so incorrectly. I will edit the page. Wiki user wiki (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Redundant Articles

General Confession, Confiteor and Penitential Act are overlapping subjects. They fail WP:Redundant.

The Confiteor is a general confession. It is strictly a particular confession beginning I confess, but the article currently implies that the ICEL and Lutheran churches use the phrase for other general confessions, even not beginning I confess.

The general confession is a main element in the "Penitential Act" alternatively called the "Penitential Order". This is called a "Preparatory service" in other traditions.

I suggest merging all three articles. Let "general confession" be a major section of the article "Penitential act", and discussion of the "Confiteor" live there. Dirkwillems (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)