Talk:Liturgy of Addai and Mari

message: This article claims that the decision of the 
Catholic Church that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari is 
valid even though it lacks an explicit statement of the 
words of institution "completely overthrows the sacramental theology ratified by the Council of Trent."
The author explains that the Council teaches that 
for a sacrament to be valid, the matter, the form, and 
the intention must be legitimate. 
The author goes on to say that the Church's 
argument that the form of the sacrament is present 
is "not good enough."  He promises to explain why, but 
no explanation is given.  The article would be less biased if its judgements about the legitimacy of the Church's rulings were expressed as opinions rather than facts.  Bill8025 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the POV after modifying section in question, leaving only two sentences, both of which need citations.  --Midnite Critic 21:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The POV in the above text has returned. I have modified it.Please edit if you feel the changes aren't satisfactory. Cheers.--Gazzster 06:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, it is already entirely in a subsection, headed "Current Catholic position", and there is not even a word about it in the lead.  The information in that subsection seems to be sound.  What is needed is sound information on other aspects.  Can you please provide it?  Lima (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking at a review of the Addai matter, merging the existing articles to create 3 different Articles: The Anaphora of A.M. itself (very ancient), the liturgy / Holy Qurbana of A.M. (of which the anaphora is only the ancient part) and the Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the ACoE. I've already started working in my sandbox. Hope to do it next month. Any comment is wellcome A ntv (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt if, instead of merging two articles (plus further material) into one article, it would be a good idea to split the material into three articles.  I suggest that you put all together in a single article (in three sections) first, and the Wikipedia editors could then decide whether to turn each section into a separate article.  I think this would be both simpler and more efficient that setting up three articles and then discussing whether to merge them into a single article.  Lima (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Catholic Reaction 

message: I think this article places too much emphasis on the western appraisal of the East-Syrian rite.
This material is interesting, but not essential.
What would be more important is a historic critical appraisal that sets the East-Syrian rite in comparison with the West-Syrian (Antioch) liturgy that have coined the Jerusalem and Byzantine rite.
I propose to put the whole modern Roman appraisal into a subsection. Gschadow (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, it is already entirely in a subsection, headed "Current Catholic position", and there is not even a word about it in the lead.  The information in that subsection seems to be sound.  What is needed is sound information on other aspects.  Can you please provide it?  Lima (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking at a review of the Addai matter, merging the existing articles to create 3 different Articles: The Anaphora of A.M. itself (very ancient), the liturgy / Holy Qurbana of A.M. (of which the anaphora is only the ancient part) and the Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the ACoE. I've already started working in my sandbox. Hope to do it next month. Any comment is wellcome A ntv (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt if, instead of merging two articles (plus further material) into one article, it would be a good idea to split the material into three articles.  I suggest that you put all together in a single article (in three sections) first, and the Wikipedia editors could then decide whether to turn each section into a separate article.  I think this would be both simpler and more efficient that setting up three articles and then discussing whether to merge them into a single article.  Lima (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much emphasis on the Roman appraisal of Addai and Mari 

message: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
--Sophroniscus 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe I'm wrong?

message: I'm going to:
* merge Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari with Liturgy of Addeus and Maris as above proposed. This article should be about the whole liturgy (including the preparatory rites, the Liturgy of the Word, the communion rite). It is necesary to specify the difference in use among the various versions of this liturgy in the different Churches that use it. 
* move the material about the Anaphora of Addai and Mari in a new Article with such a name. The anaphora itself is only a part of the Liturgies of Addai and Mari (it is the consacratory prayer, between the creed and the communion rites, these excluded). It is the more ancient and the more interesting part for the history of the Christian liturgy. I'll add further historical informations.
Please leave here your comments. Thanks A ntv (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, how are you and your efforts? I think you should definitely merge. Please note that the other article is a verbatim copy of New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia , which I don't think is admissible in Wikipedia. Feel free to abridge the content and refer to New Advent. Also, if you don't mind, please see if you can disentangle the western-Roman appraisal from the exposition of Addai and Mari per se. Thanks. Gschadow (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated Liturgy of Addeus and Maris for speedy deletion since it is a copy of This Website. That site is already listed as an external link in this article. Jminthorne (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: My bad; the encyclopedia is public domain. Since that article is already linked on this page, I blanked the other and added a redirect. Jminthorne (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm going to: 

message: I've seen that yesterday Gschadow has added the text of anaphora. Two questions. 1) is it out of copyright? I'm concerned about the copyright of the transaltion. 2) Where it has been taken? Because there are many different versions in the text used now by many different Churches. It looks like a reconstruction of the ancient text. A ntv (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether A ntv's worry about copyright is well-founded or not, the source of the text should certainly be indicated in Wikipedia.  My own reaction on seeing the inserted text was that it seemed excessive.  A quotation of the principal part would certainly be welcome and the insertion of just such a part would be justified, even if the translation is covered by copyright - provided the source is indicated.  But I wonder if in a Wikipedia article it would be better just to give a link to one or more sources of the complete text for those who wish to read it all.  At most, the complete text should be put in Wikisources, not Wikipedia.  Lima (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have typed the text based on the Oxford History of Christian Liturgy and another Liturgy book I have here in my hands. I have made few modifications mostly to redact King James English (Thou, Thee, etc.), which I, as a non-English native find understandable but distractingly arcane. The reason for typing it was that I could find no other web reference to a decent version and I have found Wikipedia a good source for other liturgical texts. I would welcome if the text was being further edited and ideally if someone could put a Syriac, Coptic, Greek, and Malayalam version next to it. If we worry about copyright, we need to first fix the Liturgy of Addeus and Maris article which is nothing but a verbatim copy of New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. Gschadow (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "Oxford History of Christian Liturgy" is not copyright free. We need to deleted such text, we can only use for fair use some few sentences giving the reference. Of course the Article shall be improved, but the fact it is bad written do not justify us to break the copyright rules. New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is copyright free, so it has not this issue. A ntv (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text of the Anaphora by Gschadow  

message: I propose to change name of this article from "Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari" to "Liturgy of Addai and Mari". That for the use of English in naming convention (see WP:EN). Further "Liturgy of Addai and Mari" in GoogleBooks has  2.630 entries, "Qurbana of Addai and Mari" only 22. The wording Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari will be added as alternative name in the header. A ntv (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to change name to Liturgy of Addai and Mari 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: IP editor 2402:8100:3903:1960:355b:c14e:5cd3:2edc has repeatedly edited the page with uncited and grammatically errant material in the lede. This IP editor has done likewise on other articles and appears to have done so also in violation of WP:NPOV standards. To avoid the 3RR problem, I wanted to post this notice before I revise the IP's edits once more. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR notice