Talk:Ad orientem

Fr Zuhlsdorf's blog

Zuhlsdorf claims that in the Institutio generalis Missalis Romani (General Instruction of the Roman Missal), 299, the clause "quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit" ("which is desirable wherever possible") refers, or at least can refer, not to the phrase immediately preceding, "ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit" ("in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people"), but to the more distant phrase "Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum" ("The altar should be built apart from the wall").

Grammatically this is not sustainable. The obvious antecedent of the relative pronoun "quod" ("which") is the phrase that immediately precedes it. To make his view seem plausible, Zuhlsdorf has had to change the order and position the relative pronoun immediately after the first phrase, "Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum" ("The altar should be built apart from the wall").

Zuhlsdorf's idea must be excluded for yet another reason. Because of the ambiguity of "should be" in English, the English translation, "The altar should be built", does not render the full force of the Latin "Altare maius extruatur". The Latin text gives an order, it doesn't just say that something "ought to be". When an action is commanded, that action is not declared to be merely "desirable"! On the other hand, no order is given to walk around the altar and celebrate Mass facing the people; this is only said to be desirable, no more.

A blog like Zuhlsdorf's is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source, and for that reason cannot be cited here. Something better is required for inserting his ideas in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

However, according to another post from Zuhlsdorf, the CDWDS has expressly ruled that IGMR 299 is to be interpreted such that "the word expedit . . . refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall)." That would be a reliable source.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Zuhlsdorf gave the protocol number of the response, which made it easy to find both the original text and a complete English translation on the Internet. Esoglou (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ad orientem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007002441/http://www.la-croix.com:80/photo2/index.jsp?docId=2325870&rubId=4085 to http://www.la-croix.com/photo2/index.jsp?docId=2325870&rubId=4085

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ad orientem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001902/http://his.library.nenu.edu.cn/upload/soft/haoli/115/455.pdf to http://his.library.nenu.edu.cn/upload/soft/haoli/115/455.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Supposed sources questioned

Questioning of alleged sources should be answered, not deleted. Please discuss.

For instance the questioning of https://costaricaparati.com/young-18/christians-celebrate-feast-of-tabernacles.php# as a reliable source for the statement, "It is common for members of Oriental Orthodox Churches to pray privately in their homes facing eastward; when a priest visits one's home, he usually asks where the east is before he leads a family in prayer" inserted without explanation into an article headed "Christians celebrate feast of tabernacles". Indeed, is https://costaricaparati.com/young-18/christians-celebrate-feast-of-tabernacles.php# a reliable source for anything?

Just read it, please. After that, we can, hopefully, discuss other alleged sources for questioned claims. Bealtainemí (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Bealtainemí, you were the individual who added that source and you are welcome to remove it. There are plenty of sources that are in the article that buttress the fact that Oriental Orthodox Christians pray to the east. In addition, please read WP:SOCK; if you continue to disrupt this article, I will not hesitate to file a report, though I would very much prefer not to. I am going to request you once and only once to please drop the WP:STICK and focus your efforts elsewhere. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 18:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. You seem to agree that your edit, for which the only source that I found on the Internet you no longer defend. It seems that you now agree to remove your statement, which you now admit is unsourced. If so, we can go on to discuss another of your deletions ofl questioning of sources. OK? Bealtainemí (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for you to revert. I only said you can remove the source you added. Please self-revert as you have crossed WP:3RR. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for you to remove questioning without answering it. Please put some valid source, if you intend to restore it.

Also, what is your valid source for saying that the Agpeya is a breviary used in Oriental Orthodox Christianity rather than in the Coptic Orthodox Church alone. Do the Armenians have no Liturgy of their Hours of their own tradition?

The history of the article shows who has been wielding the stick since 6 August. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Confusion betw. Cath. priest and attending community

"It was normative in the Roman Catholic Church until the 1960s,..."

1960s (Vatican II) only refers to the priest who is leading the prayer, not to the believers in the church, who still are facing east, as they've always been. The way I understand it, the priest doesn't pray to the community, he only faces it in order to be better seen and thus enhance participation (not that the article would bother to clarify this; that's how one mistake or lacuna in the definition leads to the next). So article is deeply misleading. Arminden (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)