Talk:English versions of the Nicene Creed

1719:

but it's a translation of a mostly 1700 YEAR OLD text. Like, if I look up copyrights about this kind of stuff online, you literally can't find stuff about it. If this is being done due to the complaints from YEARS earlier about ICEL's translations, I think that mostly had to do with that they were not finalized translations and therefore, were not to be used AT THAT TIME. Any person who has a knowledge of Latin or Greek or whatever original language these were written in could very easily spit out the same exact translations that are being used here. Personally, I'd love to see a legal expert argue a 1700 year old prayer is copy-written, I might even pay money to watch that one. He'd get laughed out of any courtroom he tried, and probably disbarred simply for trying. If the copyright on something like the GIRM or the new translation of the Missal is being used, that's the copyright on the actual book, not the prayers. These prayers are literally ancient, copyright didn't even exist when they were written, and I can guarantee you that even if the idea existed, it wouldn't have been used because that would have been too restrictive for the missionaries traveling around on HORSEBACK to CELTIC BRITAIN. If like the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, to quote one "copy-written" removed version for example, seriously cared that much, I think that they should be tending to more important things on their hands. Like, people have these things memorized, I can rattle the entire Catholic translation off in my head without even trying, a copyright protects an authors work; if hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have the entire thing actually memorized to the T, a copyright isn't going to help protect crap. I'm sorry if someone doesn't like my tone, but I'm not even remotely kidding with this post. These prayers are ancient, the translations aren't copy-written, and if they somehow are found to be, I'd like to have a little discussion with the morons who are trying to copyright them. And I would be extremely surprised if someone seriously cared that much anyway. --

64: 624:(although as you well know this draft has now been fully approved and will not change) it seems difficult to understand what the harm is in including the future translation. Secondly I did try to establish an entry for future use but it was deleted. As I have said before this is not an issue about copyright or any current v future use it is about your proprietorial attitude towards all pages concerning catholic doctrine about which you seem to believe you should be the sole contribution. I suggest you go and start “Lima’s online Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine” and leave wikkipedia the open, collective work it is supposed to be. 1491:

Creeds should be reduced simply to a link, any more than the other translations, each of which ought to have a cited source that could equally be given as a link. Besides, the text that the Schaff link leads to is more than just translations, since they are replete with brackets and italics that serve to point out differences between the 325 and the 381 texts, a matter that is dealt with in the article on the Nicene Creed, from which the various English translations of the Creed were removed to this article to keep the Nicene Creed article from being overburdened.

259: 1973:

both the traditional and Sayers' translation add to the source text in an effort to preserve the original length: "here" is added in the first case, and "by me" in the second. It can be argued that Sayers' translation is actually more accurate, in that the original intimates to "abandon all hope". Also, the addition of "by me" draws from the previous lines of the canto: "Per me si va ne la città dolente;/ per me si va ne l'etterno dolore;/ per me si va tra la perduta gente." (

831:

with the Pope." The editor is apparently associated with the papal branch of the Catholic Church and is forcing non-Roman jurisdictions to a subordinate place. This is not an even-handed treatment of these English translations. First, the Eastern Churches should be listed first because their English versions are closest to the original(s). The Western church can then come next with Catholic and Protestant being divisions in the Western Church section.

1268:. The article, even when restricted to versions in current liturgical use, is already rather long. With the addition of versions previously but no longer used in liturgies, it would be doubled. It would be quadrupled if translations, scholarly or non-scholarly, of private composition and not even intended for liturgical use or even for use in non-liturgical prayer were added. The article itself states: "This article endeavours to give the text of 2083:. I simply removed the violating texts and replaced purely introductory text (i.e. "the version used by such and such a church follows") with "the version used by such and such a church may be found at their website." I'll let others decide whether that is encyclopedic information worth keeping. I certainly think there is at least some encyclopedic information here, and the page should not be deleted, even if it is not very well done right now. -- 2125:

comparing "live" versions of the Creed as used by major churches, but who is interested in comparing the versions of Schaff, Kelly, Leith, Mingana and Noble and an anonymous prayerbook? Who is interested in comments on differences between details whose context he or she cannot see? Who is interested in seeking out texts to which, at most, some Internet links are given so as then to see what it is all about? It is not worth keeping.

308: 287: 183: 156: 1985:

Orthodox Presbyterian Church, uses the following translation:" Such use does not seem to be transformative. I'm afraid that as an uninvolved administrator working copyright areas, I cannot see any defense for copying the entire translation. Certainly, we can support a nuanced evaluation that uses brief excerpts - ideally with better sourcing than in the Sayers article - of what changes exist and why.

193: 936:

of "samples" that I've linked to, I've noted the strongly worded warning against posting the "draft" text has been removed, and I believe the revision has been "approved" for liturgical use. So perhaps we might have a fair use rational for posting the text now, since in about a year in a half it will be recited by millions of Catholics throughout the country? Just a suggestion :). --

125: 96: 21: 397: 376: 1623:(and ideally you'd use secondary sources, otherwise it's OR). If the information is the texts themselves, and you're asking the reader to compare, then that's just reproducing copyrighted material. With something short like the Lord's Prayer, it might be easier to claim you need the whole thing to show the difference, though I'm not sure you do. -- 1065:- there are some pretty glaring differences, most of which were what I'd anticipated from my youth; I'm not sure what sway the organization cited has, in Australia or elsewhere, that they seem to have translated it themselves. First-person plural is the most obvious difference, but pretty minor - more substantially: 855:, the article on which rightly states that it "is not connected to the Roman Catholic Church", should not be confused with that Church. Until now, nobody has objected to the use in this article on English versions of the Nicene Creed of "Catholic Church" to mean, as now spelled out, the Catholic Church 2108:

Is anyone actually working to resolve the alleged copyright violations? Is the Church, or rather The Anglican, Roman Catholic, Antiochian Orthodox Christian , Greek Orthodox Catholic, Presbyterian, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Churches all object to their creeds being posted? Or did the Council of Nicea

1812:

are meticulously careful to obtain permission and recognise the copyright both of the Bible passages used and the individual prayers (see p.1292). However illogical this may seem, that is how the law stands and therefore technically speaking the reproduction of recent, modern translations of ancient

1718:

I'm not going to lie. This is stupid. I can't tell you all how many times I literally see these different creeds just plastered ALL over the place with no evidence given about any sort of copyright. I don't know who has a stick up their you-know-what to claim that all these are actually copy-written,

1553:

I strongly, strongly recommend posting 3-4 complete translations that are (a) clearly public domain and (b) either a historical or practical basis for describing other versions. This approach would avoid copyright issues, shorten the article immensely, keep nearly all information anyone might want to

1490:

The phrase about "in current liturgical use" has rightly been deleted. It no longer had any place in the article in view of the changed title, a change that also justified the addition of Schaff's translation and others that may yet be added. I don't see why the Schaff translations of the two Nicene

1240:

and therefore violates title guidelines, which urge brevity in titles. The title alone takes up nearly a quarter of an edit summary. There’s certainly no reason for the word “liturgical” and probably no reason for “in current use” either…there is no article about former use, and anyway, there’s not

547:

Who do you think you are? I do not accept that in the normal understanding of things I am violating the copyright of the ICEL. The very notion of copyright on translations of texts as ancient as the creed or the Gloria is dubious but in any case there is a more substantial point. The new translation

511:

Andrew c has asked me to use your Talk page, not just edit summaries, to draw your attention to what seem to be copyright violations by you. Apart from printed sources that indicate that ICEL strongly opposes any publication of its copyright draft texts for a revised English translation of the Roman

1881:

I would ask the editor who accused me of merely trying to make a point to be kind enough to refrain from assuming bad faith on my part. I applaud Jfhutson's action in consulting the experts on copyright violation, especially since the question concerns so many other articles also. Deletion of this

979:

I'm not familiar with the LCC usage, so I'm hesitant to edit this, but the citation regarding the LCMS's Lutheran Service Book is ambiguous at best. The LSB cites "Christian", NOT "catholic" in the Nicene. There is no alternate rendering given, although a footnote is given (as noted here) giving a

863:

mentions the Liberal Catholic Church as an example of such Churches. I doubt if the Liberal Catholic Church or indeed all the Independent Catholic Churches together would be considered as more significant - certainly not historically or in numbers of adherents - than Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and

830:

I added the Nicene Creed used in the Liberal Catholic Church, putting it into a category called "Catholic Church." My addition was quickly pulled. It was stuffed into a new category called "Independent Catholic Churches." The original category was changed to read "In the Catholic Church in communion

623:

Well firstly, most understandings of the term current would also include the near future as well. Indeed it would seem fair to assume that any reader interested in current translations of the creed would also be interested in any future translations of the creed. As I make clear this is only a draft

2064:

I think preserving the text which notes that each version exists and in which churches they are used with a footnote that allows one to find the versions online or in books is helpful. If someone comes along and adds commentary, that'd be great. I know WP is not a collection of links, but the facts

2049:

I am grateful for the attention that has been given to the enquiry about copyright. If nobody else does it, I suppose I had better do to quotations of the Apostles' Creed, the Gloria in Excelsis, etc. what has been done here. But not immediately. I regret that I do not feel I have the time at my

1984:

Looking at the version of this article as it existed before it was flagged, zeroing in for example on the section on Presbyterian churches, the sole introductory text prior to the replication of the entire piece is "The Trinity Hymnal of 1990, published by the Presbyterian Church in America and the

1850:

There's little to keep waiting for except the possible deletion of this whole article; the reckless pasting of copyright material without any attempt to supply context, explanation of notability or even comparison between versions has been terribly disruptive and by attracting so many templates has

1736:

Here ya go. One link to a site that has the Nicene Creed published WITHOUT copyrights. (Well there IS the one for the site, but it's irrelevant to this discussion). Can we get it back on Knowledge (XXG) now? It's really convenient to be able to Google a prayer's name then click on the Knowledge

1573:

I wonder what the legal experts will say about quoting different versions of the not all that long Nicene Creed for the purpose of comparison, as in this article. If they rule it out, questions will follow about the quotations of versions of the shorter Apostles' Creed, of the Lord's Prayer and of

1497:

It would take a legal expert to tell whether a work such as this is not allowed to give the various texts for the precise purpose of comparing them. Does that count as fair use? If it were to be judged illegal, then all the current texts would have to go except for some very old versions still in

935:

Its been years since the last post in the previous conversation, so I would like to start fresh in revisiting this issue. Thus far I've simply updated the link to the Nicene revision out of respect for previous consensus (the old link was broken). However, on the current page on the USCCB listing

589:

Factually a party either owns copyright or they do not. Factually, am I mistaken that you have not obtained express permission from the copyright holders to publish these texts? If I am am correct, and given your zeal for enforing your (entirely mistaken) understanding of copyright law then you can

2013:

The best course would probably be either to rewrite the article in the space supplied for rewrites in one of the copyvio templates or to simply remove the material and the templates and work from there. It's a matter of editor preference, really, with the goal of getting the best article out there

2139:

Then AfD it, but "insufficient interest" isn't exactly relevant to whether the article should exist. It seems that you want this page to be a place for texts to be presented for comparison. That could be an interesting webpage, though I think it's probably more within the scope of Wikisource than

1988:

I understand that the article can be rolled back to an earlier version, and that's certainly an acceptable solution here, but before doing so I would like to know if you (the editors interested in this article) would prefer to come together on revision first. I will keep an eye on the article for

1972:

On a line-by-line basis, Sayers's translation can seem idiosyncratic. For example, the famous line usually rendered "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" turns, in the Sayers translation, into "Lay down all hope, you who go in by me." As the Italian reads "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate",

1622:

I'm sure if I published an interlinear Bible or hymnal with several versions of each hymn that wouldn't satisfy fair use even if I said the purpose is comparison. If the information being conveyed is the most important differences between the texts, you should be able to do that with short quotes

479:

It is entirely in Latin. The anonymous editor from Maidenhead is probably thinking of one of the first vernacular Missals (with provisionally approved texts that varied from country to country) that were issued in about 1965. These were based on the 1962 Missal but with changes that had already

2124:

I suppose it is here that discussion is expected of the "noncopyvio version", since no Talk page is attached to it (nor can one be attached). My own impression is that an article that omits the most used texts in current liturgical use is of insufficient interest. People would be interested in

1785:

the most commonly used".) If the IP user returns, he or she may be consoled to learn that it is still possible to get the various English translations on Knowledge (XXG): it is enough simply to go back to a pre-2013 version of this article. The legal experts have made no pronouncement yet on

1422:

Since the lead section states that this article "endeavours to give the text of English-language translations in current liturgical use." the section the Schaff Versions is out of place and a link to the fuller article on the creed itself such as: For an English translation of the source texts

1800:

While the copyright on the original text has lapsed, any translation is legally a different and new work and the copyright in it exists until it lapses under the general law on the matter. The easiest way of seeing this is to consider translations of the Bible translations. Almost all modern

1294:

No, it isn't "rather long" It's 26 KB; guidelines define "rather long" as 80-100 KB. If translations were summarized instead of just copied verbatim, it could be much shorter. It's likely that an article concerning several defunct translations would probably pass GNG, so there is a "need

687:

And who, apart from you, objects to the publication of the ICEL text? You repeatedly fail to answer my arguments and instead resort to the brute force of just deleting my entry. If that isn't vandalism what is? I have therfore undone your unjustified vandalism.

1140:

Determining the 'correct' Catholic translation (may I suggest) is beyond WP's scope, which is to describe the variations and their histories, providing references. The Vatican link above is to the translation that was in use in the USA till Advent of 2011; the

859:, although Anglicans, Lutherans etc. say they too belong to the "catholic Church" in another sense. So there is no reason for having the Liberal Catholic Church alone inserted into the section on the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope. The article on 2050:

disposal for rewriting this article as only commentary. Perhaps nobody will feel like doing it, and this article will have to be deleted: an article that did no more than give relatively ancient versions based on texts that ʃtill used the long non-final s.

915:

In the original Greek text, "τοὺς ἀνθρώπους" (tous anthropous), usually translated as "men", is unambiguous, since "ἄνθρωποι" (anthropoi) means human beings, while "ἄνδρες" (andres) means male human beings, as opposed to "γυναῖκες" (gynaikes), female human

748:

I fail to see how inserting the words to an English version of the creed can be considered to be off topic. The new wording will be used in the World Youth Day 2008 and so that would seem to be "current" usage by any standards. 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

1831:

There is no doubt that these versions of the Nicene Creed are under copyright. The question is whether, as in the example you give, or for other reasons, they may be presented here. As yet the Knowledge (XXG) legal experts have not pronounced on the

1416:

So far as copyright problems are concerned there is only one way of staying within the law, that it is to post links to a website which is authorised to carry the text. (This is what should be, and often is, done with biblical quotations.) Otherwise,

667:

I have now removed the non-current text, and also the comments that belong, if anywhere, on the Talk page. Whether ICEL has or does not have the right to prevent publication of its proposed text, nobody objects to publication of the other texts.

1009:

Both the text and the citation of the Lutheran Service Book are incorrect. I will correct it according to the text. Also of note, the word "Christian" in place of Catholic comes from the old German translation of the Creed, which pre-dates the

1272:"; and "Other English translations are given in scholarly works such as J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Creeds and Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, and in prayer books of many denominations". I see no need whatever for an article covering 1516:: "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information." I'm no expert, so I won't delete it all yet. -- 1149:

text (which ought not to have displaced the older!). But in general, each country may have its own translation: this is especially confusing with Spanish liturgical texts, which differ from Mexico to the US as well as from Old to New World.

1442:

I've tweaked both the cleanup message (which I originally posted) and the lead slightly, as the article now is entitled to encompass all versions of the Nicene Creed. The just of the cleanup comment is that the following two things need to

2109:

call a conclave and express their outrage. That would be a pretty longstanding council. Has it occurred to anyone that this might be motivated by a petty bigot? I mean really, are you going to allow this? Are you all that weak willed?

571:

In view of the multiple insertions of "" I beg leave to remark that I see a big difference between the cases thus marked and a text whose copyright holder opposes its general publication. But, again, I leave judgement to others.

548:

when it comes out will affect millions of the Catholic laity and the attempt to hide behind copyright is simply disingenuous. The reason for this are well given by Father Zhulsdorf in his reply to the ICEL letter referred to by you

80: 920:

I find this sentence unclear. What is it that makes the translation to "men" unambiguous? Are we trying to say that translation as "men" preserves in the translation an an ambiguity that is present in the original? Regards,

1295:

whatsoever". And you haven't addressed the argument that pages' titles shouldn't be ten words long, if it can be helped, which it can. In summary, the article can be much longer, but the title needs to be much shorter.

106: 1494:

As long as the texts remain, it is easy to compare them without the need of much "prose" pointing out the variations. But information about the bodies that composed them or adopted them could well be useful.

1339:

Even if there were not such obvious copyright issues, this is not wikisource, and the Catholic section doesn't even pretend to an encyclopedic presentation, which would be best served by a historical view.

1589:

I think to make a fair use claim you'd have to claim everything quoted is necessary to make whatever point is being made. For most of these, I can't discern any point besides, "here's this translation."

1419:

I don't feel there are real POV problems. Neutrality is not guaranteed (and should not be measured) by giving each group a similar amount of space. The section on Catholicism reflects the varying forms

846:

I have no objection to changing "Catholic Church in communion with the Pope" to "Roman Catholic Church", but some do object to giving the latter name to that Church as a whole, including its constituent

358: 1229: 2373: 1867:

It appears that the very first version of the page contained copyvio, if that's what this is. I think the assumption that these types of texts are free to use is common and understandable. --

1122:

The version you are referring to is the 1975 ecumenical version (ICET), which was in use in English-speaking Catholic churches outside the United States, and so appeared in books such as the

878:

If "Catholic Church in communion with the Pope" means the same thing as "Roman Catholic Church", let's change the heading of that section - bring it into line with common usage. Regards,

1981:

Woefully inadequate from a sourcing standpoint, that, but sound in terms of copyright. Here, the authors are excerpting from Sayers for the purposes of direct comparison and analysis.

449: 2313: 1922:

Nutshell: I believe that we may use excerpts to analyze the differences, but not present the entirety of current, copyrighted translations. See below for more complex explanation.

609:

Invocante, please indicate how you justify inserting in an article on English versions in current liturgical use a version that as yet is only a draft for future liturgical use.

2368: 2333: 439: 2378: 2353: 348: 2224: 2220: 2206: 1932:- an act of translation is itself creative and attracts copyright protection. It's arguably one of the main reasons that people are inspired to make new translations. 1999:

Thanks. I don't believe a version of this article exists without any full-text versions of translations under copyright. I'm not sure what the best course here is. --

249: 1608:

the translations. I await with interest the decision on whether quoting these extracts from wider-ranging liturgical publications is allowed in Knowledge (XXG).

2358: 1677:... with regard not only to the texts in English but also to those in Latin, in view of the spelling and other changes introduced in still recent decades in the 324: 2363: 2338: 2323: 1455:

A number of the translations need to be removed from the article. Non-copyvio ones need to be taken to WikiSource, and copyvio ones need to be deleted outright

239: 955:, not USCCB, copyright. Yes, I think we can now post the new text, which will come into liturgical use in most English-speaking countries at the end of 2011 1689:. And that concerns only the Latin tradition: I presume that the English translations of the prayers of Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox) tradition, such as the 1172:

liturgical use. In all countries, the Latin Church now has only one English version in current liturgical use. The older versions are no longer current.

1142: 1378:; Purplebackpack's proposal makes a lot of sense. Also, introducing some historic context is something to be welcomed, not deterred - why focus only on the 415: 404: 381: 2348: 2343: 215: 2328: 1813:

works on Knowledge (XXG) is a breach of copyright unless the owner has given some sort of restricted general license for non-commercial use as in the

484:". If the Maidenhead editor wants to insert a text, he or she should give a source that indicates that the text is still in current use and where. 315: 292: 268: 166: 2318: 1362: 1319: 206: 161: 2166: 2110: 1836:. As I said above, I await the decision with interest, since it will affect not only versions of the Nicene Creed, but many other texts. 1358: 1233: 1103:

For copyright reasons, though, I'm not sure what to do about this. On the one hand, I can't "just fix it," but on the other, well... it's

1637:

Let us just await the decision of the experts. If they outlaw the quotations, we can look forward to plastering similar notifications on

1670: 653:

Unless you can indicate (with source) where the text in question is supposedly in current liturgical use, it will have to be removed.

1744: 1977:: "Through me the way is to the city dolent;/ through me the way is to the eternal dole;/ through me the way is to the people lost.") 2202:

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

2080: 1882:

article and at least parts of other articles will doubtless follow any decision that the contents are largely copyright violation.

1733: 525: 49: 45: 1072:"Only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father" rather than "only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages." 764: 55: 136: 1851:

made the article practically unreadable. Esoglou, are you merely trying to make a point after the renaming discussion above?

68: 2299: 860: 703:

It seems that ICEL itself does object; but that is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that the text in question is not

2024: 41: 2267: 1405:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1205:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

102: 1081:"Suffered died and was buried" (not sure what became of the commas there) rather than "suffered death and was buried." 2192: 2182: 1814: 1802: 2295: 1974: 1472: 1302: 1248: 1126:

that were published between 1975 and 2011. It is no longer in current use in the liturgy of the Catholic Church.

513: 258: 2140:

Knowledge (XXG), but regardless, it's impossible given the current copyright situation. Write your Congressman. --

1219: 1046: 848: 2223:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2114: 1807: 1366: 1323: 142: 1554:

find, and avoid being non-encyclopedic. It also might not take very long to do based on the current version.

408:, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to 2258: 2174: 1477: 1307: 1253: 900: 852: 2283: 1740: 1513: 752: 1748: 1654: 1042: 2291: 2242:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2230: 1467: 1297: 1243: 323:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

214:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2173:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 896: 1965: 1964:

excerpts of copyrighted text for purposes of critical evaluation and comparison, which are certainly

1945:

if her translation were also public domain and not marketable. :) So, given that modern translations

1856: 1686: 1674: 1345: 1215: 1155: 985: 922: 879: 836: 2272: 2149: 2134: 2118: 2092: 2074: 2059: 2044: 2018: 2008: 1993: 1891: 1876: 1860: 1845: 1826: 1795: 1781:

I strongly doubt that the 1662 version is now the most commonly used. (I know you only said it is "

1776: 1760: 1752: 1728: 1706: 1632: 1617: 1599: 1583: 1563: 1543: 1525: 1507: 1483: 1436: 1391: 1370: 1349: 1327: 1313: 1285: 1259: 1223: 1181: 1159: 1135: 1116: 1050: 1019: 1004: 989: 968: 945: 925: 904: 882: 873: 840: 819: 793: 756: 742: 729:

off-topic matter, while making no effort whatever to justify its insertion, was vandalism, and that

720: 697: 689: 677: 662: 648: 633: 625: 618: 599: 591: 581: 563: 537: 493: 124: 95: 2015: 1990: 1387: 1112: 895:

Just wanted to point out that links(citations?) , and are dead. They result in a page not found.

760: 693: 629: 595: 504: 410: 198: 480:

been introduced. In any case, the present article is about "English versions of the Nicene Creed

2145: 2088: 2070: 2004: 1872: 1772: 1724: 1628: 1595: 1539: 1521: 1015: 941: 2227:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1786:

whether they can be kept or whether, on the contrary, the blocking of them here can be undone.

1734:

http://www.divinesacredheart.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192

2243: 798:

It seems that the proposed new ICEL version of the Creed is not to be used even at Sydney. The

2130: 2055: 2040: 2028: 1933: 1887: 1841: 1822: 1791: 1702: 1613: 1579: 1559: 1503: 1432: 1281: 1177: 1131: 1000: 964: 799: 2032: 1929: 1642: 320: 2250: 1950: 528:. Please continue to contribute to Knowledge (XXG), but without getting it into trouble. 512:

Missal, there are indications also on the Internet. I have already drawn your attention to

1852: 1341: 1151: 981: 832: 639:"Current", as I understand it, refers neither to even near past nor to even near future. 521: 1913: 1531: 1361:

already redirects here and is a perfectly sufficient and specific title for the topic. --

2027:

It contains at least two versions of the Nicene Creed. See the links to Holy Eucharist

2209:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1697:, are in many cases even more recent. As I said, I await the decision with interest. 1383: 1108: 1093:"He has spoken through the Prophets" rather than "who has spoken through the prophets." 869: 815: 789: 738: 716: 673: 658: 644: 614: 577: 559: 533: 489: 2249:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2216: 2307: 2141: 2084: 2066: 2000: 1941: 1937: 1868: 1768: 1720: 1690: 1624: 1591: 1535: 1517: 1011: 937: 1452:

There needs to be a lot more prose contextualizing various translations of the Creed

2126: 2051: 2036: 1883: 1837: 1818: 1787: 1764: 1698: 1682: 1678: 1658: 1609: 1575: 1555: 1499: 1428: 1424: 1277: 1173: 1127: 1039: 996: 960: 472: 307: 286: 211: 2193:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131231102915/http://www.englishtexts.org/survey.html

2183:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131231102915/http://www.englishtexts.org/survey.html

1936:

would have had little incentive to make her gorgeous translation of the decidedly

1062: 995:

Would someone with access to the service book in question please deal with this?

1694: 476: 2215:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2035:

but be careful when transcribing as it uses the old style 'f' type letter "s".

1968:. So, in discussing Sayers' translations, the authors of her biography write: 1069:"All that is, seen and unseen" rather than "all things visible and invisible." 188: 182: 155: 1061:

Having checked the English-language catechism on the Vatican's own website -

707:. Unless you cite a source that shows it is in current use, it has no place 1650: 1646: 1638: 865: 811: 785: 734: 712: 669: 654: 640: 610: 573: 555: 529: 485: 414:. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the 319:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the 192: 2023:

The Book of Common Prayer of 1970 (ECUSA) is apparently public domain (see

1916:. Unfortunately, we have a great shortage of admins working in this area. 1084:"On the third day he rose again" rather than "rose again on the third day." 2196: 2186: 2065:

about the usage of these texts in various churches seems encyclopedic. --

1954: 1574:

other liturgical and biblical texts agreed on in still recent decades.

1666: 1662: 800:

Liturgy Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

2014:

that we can for our readers while still complying with policies. :) --

1078:"Born of the Virgin Mary" rather than "incarnate of the Virgin Mary." 517: 72: 2288:

Ic gelyfe on ænne God, Fæder Ælmihtigne, Wyrcend heofenan and eorðan

1199:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal.

1145:

has since adopted a version that seems identical the the Australian

802:

says: "Permission has been given to use the new translations of the

396: 375: 1399:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.

1146: 952: 1512:

Seems pretty clear to me that most of this article is copyvio.

1833: 1230:

English versions of the Nicene Creed in current liturgical use

1090:"Worshipped and glorified" rather than "adored and glorified." 418:, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives. 118: 90: 15: 1498:

use without having been edited in the last seventy(?) years

1241:

really a pressing need for two articles on this topic anyway

1514:

Knowledge (XXG):Quotations#Copyrighted material and fair use

1318:

You're not providing an argument against the move though. --

257: 19: 2177:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1382:

usage of ritual texts when they have such a rich history?

2170: 1949:

receive copyright, the question comes down entirely to

1530:

Nevermind, I deleted it and it will be investigated by

1270:

English-language translations in current liturgical use

471:

An accurate black-and-white reproduction of the 1962

1057:

Catholic translation wrong, not sure how to correct.

210:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 48:. Please replace this template with a more specific 2219:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1767:, as it is one of the most commonly used anyway. -- 2374:WikiProject Translation studies (general) articles 1928:Translations are what is called in copyright law 2314:Knowledge (XXG) requested photographs in England 1040:http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=10 957:and is already in liturgical use in South Africa 1970: 1276:translations of the Nicene Creed into English. 590:have no objection to these factual statements. 424:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Translation studies 2205:This message was posted before February 2018. 8: 1805:) and compilers of Prayer Books such as the 1143:United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 1075:"Of one Being" rather than "consubstantial." 733:such unsupported off-topic matter was not. 705:an English version in current liturgical use 333:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject English Language 2369:Low-importance Translation studies articles 2334:Unknown-importance Religious texts articles 2282:This Old English translation can be found 1912:Hi. First, I apologize for the backlog at 1032:Corrected sitteth to sits, spake to spoke 910:τοὺς ἀνθρώπους usually translated as "men" 370: 281: 150: 2165:I have just modified 2 external links on 1099:"Look for" rather than "look forward to." 71:may be able to locate suitable images on 2379:WikiProject Translation studies articles 2354:Low-importance English Language articles 427:Template:WikiProject Translation studies 402:This article is within the scope of the 224:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Christianity 2197:http://www.englishtexts.org/survey.html 2187:http://www.englishtexts.org/survey.html 1087:"Fulfillment" rather than "accordance." 980:meaning of "Christian" in the context. 372: 283: 152: 122: 543:Invocante has posted on my Talk page: 2359:WikiProject English Language articles 2277: 336:Template:WikiProject English Language 7: 2364:C-Class Translation studies articles 2339:WikiProject Religious texts articles 2324:Low-importance Christianity articles 2167:English versions of the Nicene Creed 1359:English versions of the Nicene Creed 1234:English versions of the Nicene Creed 1096:"Acknowledge" rather than "confess." 526:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright violations 313:This article is within the scope of 204:This article is within the scope of 38:English versions of the Nicene Creed 1763:. I added the 1662 BoCP version to 1671:Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon 141:It is of interest to the following 2031:The old 1789 version is available 810:", apparently not for the Creed. 105:on 3 December 2016. The result of 14: 2349:C-Class English Language articles 2344:WikiProject Christianity articles 2169:. Please take a moment to review 227:Template:WikiProject Christianity 69:Openverse Creative Commons Search 2329:C-Class Religious texts articles 1817:or permission is duly obtained. 1124:Catechism of the Catholic Church 395: 374: 306: 285: 191: 181: 154: 123: 94: 1210:The result of the proposal was 444:This article has been rated as 405:WikiProject Translation Studies 353:This article has been rated as 244:This article has been rated as 101:This article was nominated for 2278:Ælfric's translation (c. 1000) 2273:08:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC) 1801:translations claim copyright ( 905:20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 1: 2319:C-Class Christianity articles 2119:04:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC) 2093:21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 2075:21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC) 2060:21:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC) 2045:00:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC) 2019:22:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC) 2009:22:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC) 1994:20:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC) 1892:07:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC) 1877:02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC) 1861:23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC) 1846:21:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC) 1827:20:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC) 1796:17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) 1777:15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC) 1753:15:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC) 1508:19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC) 1484:18:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC) 1437:17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC) 1224:06:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 1136:15:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 1117:13:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 861:Independent Catholic Churches 826:Independent Catholic Churches 776:to be used at a single event 327:and see a list of open tasks. 266:This article is supported by 218:and see a list of open tasks. 1914:the copyright problems board 1737:(XXG) link to get the text 1729:06:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 1707:17:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC) 1633:14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC) 1618:10:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC) 1600:02:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC) 1584:21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC) 1544:20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC) 1526:20:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC) 1392:15:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 1371:11:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 1350:21:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 1328:11:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 1314:20:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 1286:18:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 1260:14:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 1005:21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 990:21:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 778:that has not yet taken place 494:12:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 430:Translation studies articles 316:WikiProject English Language 2300:17:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC) 1569:Alleged copyright violation 969:06:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 946:01:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 269:WikiProject Religious texts 2395: 2236:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2162:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1564:23:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC) 1182:07:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 1160:00:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 1028:Orthodox Church in America 1020:16:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 874:04:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC) 857:in communion with the Pope 725:I would have thought that 516:. You could also look at 450:project's importance scale 250:project's importance scale 2150:19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC) 2135:17:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC) 1051:23:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 849:Eastern Catholic Churches 841:20:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC) 820:15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 794:06:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 743:16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 721:14:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 698:14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 678:04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 605:In current liturgical use 443: 390: 352: 339:English Language articles 301: 265: 243: 176: 149: 2079:A noncopyvio version is 1808:Alternative Service Book 1402:Please do not modify it. 1202:Please do not modify it. 663:11:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 649:15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 634:14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 619:07:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 600:14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 582:13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 564:18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 538:18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 507:I posted the following: 207:WikiProject Christianity 28:It is requested that an 2158:External links modified 951:To be more exact, it's 926:11:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC) 883:11:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC) 853:Liberal Catholic Church 780:be considered to be in 554:What do others think? 1979: 1655:Gloria in excelsis Deo 1164:This article is about 931:USCCB Nicene Copyright 262: 131:This article is rated 65:Free Image Search Tool 56:Wikipedians in England 50:media request template 24: 524:. And you could read 261: 230:Christianity articles 135:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 59:may be able to help! 23: 2217:regular verification 1803:see for example NRSV 1687:Liturgy of the Hours 1675:Words of Institution 75:and other web sites. 2207:After February 2018 1960:Our policy permits 1834:enquiry put to them 1815:example given above 505:User talk:Invocante 421:Translation studies 411:Translation Studies 382:Translation studies 199:Christianity portal 46:improve its quality 44:in this article to 2261:InternetArchiveBot 2212:InternetArchiveBot 772:How can a version 263: 137:content assessment 25: 2237: 2025:Canon II.3.6.b(2) 1934:Dorothy L. Sayers 1743:comment added by 784:liturgical use? 768: 755:comment added by 464: 463: 460: 459: 456: 455: 369: 368: 365: 364: 280: 279: 276: 275: 117: 116: 89: 88: 76: 2386: 2292:Grover cleveland 2271: 2262: 2235: 2234: 2213: 1930:derivative works 1755: 1482: 1480: 1475: 1470: 1412:Cleanup template 1404: 1312: 1310: 1305: 1300: 1258: 1256: 1251: 1246: 1236:– This title is 1212:move per request 1204: 750: 550: 549: 432: 431: 428: 425: 422: 399: 392: 391: 386: 378: 371: 359:importance scale 341: 340: 337: 334: 331: 330:English Language 321:English language 310: 303: 302: 297: 293:English Language 289: 282: 232: 231: 228: 225: 222: 201: 196: 195: 185: 178: 177: 172: 169: 158: 151: 134: 128: 127: 119: 98: 91: 85: 83: 62: 52:where possible. 22: 16: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2304: 2303: 2280: 2265: 2260: 2228: 2221:have permission 2211: 2175:this simple FaQ 2160: 1738: 1643:Apostles' Creed 1571: 1478: 1473: 1468: 1466: 1414: 1409: 1400: 1363:213.196.218.202 1320:213.196.218.202 1308: 1303: 1298: 1296: 1254: 1249: 1244: 1242: 1216:Fuhghettaboutit 1200: 1194: 1059: 1043:Grailknighthero 1030: 977: 933: 912: 893: 828: 709:in this article 607: 501: 499:ICEL violation? 469: 429: 426: 423: 420: 419: 384: 338: 335: 332: 329: 328: 295: 229: 226: 223: 220: 219: 197: 190: 170: 164: 132: 81: 79: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2392: 2390: 2382: 2381: 2376: 2371: 2366: 2361: 2356: 2351: 2346: 2341: 2336: 2331: 2326: 2321: 2316: 2306: 2305: 2279: 2276: 2255: 2254: 2247: 2200: 2199: 2191:Added archive 2189: 2181:Added archive 2159: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2111:108.241.120.20 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2016:Moonriddengirl 1991:Moonriddengirl 1966:transformative 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1911: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1570: 1567: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1495: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1445: 1444: 1421: 1418: 1413: 1410: 1408: 1407: 1395: 1394: 1373: 1352: 1337:Strong support 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1316: 1289: 1288: 1238:ten words long 1227: 1208: 1207: 1195: 1193: 1192:Requested move 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1088: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1076: 1073: 1070: 1058: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1037: 1029: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 976: 975:Lutheran usage 973: 972: 971: 932: 929: 918: 917: 911: 908: 892: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 827: 824: 823: 822: 796: 746: 745: 723: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 606: 603: 587: 586: 585: 584: 552: 551: 541: 540: 500: 497: 482:in current use 468: 465: 462: 461: 458: 457: 454: 453: 446:Low-importance 442: 436: 435: 433: 400: 388: 387: 385:Low‑importance 379: 367: 366: 363: 362: 355:Low-importance 351: 345: 344: 342: 325:the discussion 311: 299: 298: 296:Low‑importance 290: 278: 277: 274: 273: 264: 254: 253: 246:Low-importance 242: 236: 235: 233: 216:the discussion 203: 202: 186: 174: 173: 171:Low‑importance 159: 147: 146: 140: 129: 115: 114: 107:the discussion 99: 87: 86: 77: 61: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2391: 2380: 2377: 2375: 2372: 2370: 2367: 2365: 2362: 2360: 2357: 2355: 2352: 2350: 2347: 2345: 2342: 2340: 2337: 2335: 2332: 2330: 2327: 2325: 2322: 2320: 2317: 2315: 2312: 2311: 2309: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2286:, beginning: 2285: 2275: 2274: 2269: 2264: 2263: 2252: 2248: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2232: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2208: 2203: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2163: 2157: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2017: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1992: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1976: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1958: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1943: 1942:Divine Comedy 1939: 1938:public domain 1935: 1931: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1915: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1809: 1804: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691:Agni Parthene 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1604:The point is 1603: 1602: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1568: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1476: 1471: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1454: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1411: 1406: 1403: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1374: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1301: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1257: 1252: 1247: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1206: 1203: 1197: 1196: 1191: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1148: 1144: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1098: 1095: 1092: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1064: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1027: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 949: 948: 947: 943: 939: 930: 928: 927: 924: 914: 913: 909: 907: 906: 902: 898: 890: 884: 881: 877: 876: 875: 871: 867: 862: 858: 854: 850: 845: 844: 843: 842: 838: 834: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 797: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 770: 769: 766: 762: 758: 754: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 701: 700: 699: 695: 691: 679: 675: 671: 666: 665: 664: 660: 656: 652: 651: 650: 646: 642: 638: 637: 636: 635: 631: 627: 621: 620: 616: 612: 604: 602: 601: 597: 593: 583: 579: 575: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 561: 557: 546: 545: 544: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 510: 509: 508: 506: 498: 496: 495: 491: 487: 483: 478: 474: 466: 451: 447: 441: 438: 437: 434: 417: 413: 412: 407: 406: 401: 398: 394: 393: 389: 383: 380: 377: 373: 360: 356: 350: 347: 346: 343: 326: 322: 318: 317: 312: 309: 305: 304: 300: 294: 291: 288: 284: 271: 270: 260: 256: 255: 251: 247: 241: 238: 237: 234: 217: 213: 209: 208: 200: 194: 189: 187: 184: 180: 179: 175: 168: 163: 160: 157: 153: 148: 144: 138: 130: 126: 121: 120: 112: 108: 104: 100: 97: 93: 92: 84: 78: 74: 70: 66: 60: 58: 57: 51: 47: 43: 39: 35: 31: 27: 18: 17: 2287: 2281: 2259: 2256: 2231:source check 2210: 2204: 2201: 2164: 2161: 2107: 2029:on this page 1987: 1983: 1980: 1971: 1961: 1959: 1946: 1940: 1927: 1910: 1806: 1782: 1765:Nicene Creed 1745:129.93.5.132 1739:— Preceding 1732: 1717: 1683:Roman Missal 1679:Nova Vulgata 1659:Pater Noster 1605: 1572: 1552: 1415: 1401: 1398: 1379: 1375: 1354: 1336: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1237: 1228: 1211: 1209: 1201: 1198: 1169: 1168:versions in 1165: 1123: 1104: 1102: 1060: 1031: 1010:Reformation. 978: 956: 934: 919: 897:Mcmillan0520 894: 864:Lutherans. 856: 829: 807: 803: 781: 777: 773: 747: 730: 726: 708: 704: 686: 622: 608: 588: 553: 542: 502: 481: 473:Roman Missal 470: 445: 416:project page 409: 403: 354: 314: 267: 245: 221:Christianity 212:Christianity 205: 162:Christianity 143:WikiProjects 110: 54: 53: 37: 33: 29: 1989:replies. -- 1695:Axion Estin 1681:and in the 923:Ben Aveling 880:Ben Aveling 751:—Preceding 467:1962 Missal 2308:Categories 2268:Report bug 1975:Longfellow 1853:Sparafucil 1761:WP:COMPLIC 1342:Sparafucil 1152:Sparafucil 891:Dead Links 833:Wynnwagner 477:1962 here. 34:photograph 2251:this tool 2244:this tool 1651:Epiclesis 1647:Confiteor 1639:Agnus Dei 1606:comparing 1384:bobrayner 1109:Twin Bird 757:Invocante 727:inserting 690:Invocante 626:Invocante 592:Invocante 514:this site 475:is found 2257:Cheers.— 1955:fair use 1741:unsigned 1721:Farmer88 1693:and the 1425:see here 1012:Mlorfeld 938:Zfish118 774:intended 765:contribs 753:unsigned 731:removing 103:deletion 42:included 2171:my edit 2127:Esoglou 2052:Esoglou 2037:Jpacobb 1884:Esoglou 1838:Esoglou 1819:Jpacobb 1788:Esoglou 1699:Esoglou 1667:Te Deum 1663:Sanctus 1610:Esoglou 1576:Esoglou 1556:Denn333 1500:Esoglou 1443:happen: 1429:Jpacobb 1417:delete. 1380:current 1376:Support 1355:Support 1278:Esoglou 1174:Esoglou 1170:current 1166:English 1128:Esoglou 997:Esoglou 961:Esoglou 916:beings. 851:. The 808:Sanctus 782:current 448:on the 357:on the 248:on the 133:C-class 1951:WP:NFC 1783:one of 1266:Oppose 1036:Source 804:Gloria 139:scale. 82:Upload 73:Flickr 1962:brief 1532:WP:CP 1420:used. 1105:wrong 167:Texts 30:image 2296:talk 2284:here 2146:talk 2131:talk 2115:talk 2089:talk 2081:here 2071:talk 2056:talk 2041:talk 2033:here 2005:talk 1953:and 1888:talk 1873:talk 1857:talk 1842:talk 1823:talk 1810:1980 1792:talk 1773:talk 1759:See 1749:talk 1725:talk 1703:talk 1685:and 1629:talk 1614:talk 1596:talk 1580:talk 1560:talk 1540:talk 1522:talk 1504:talk 1433:talk 1388:talk 1367:talk 1346:talk 1324:talk 1282:talk 1220:talk 1178:talk 1156:talk 1147:ICEL 1132:talk 1113:talk 1063:here 1047:talk 1016:talk 1001:talk 986:talk 965:talk 953:ICEL 942:talk 901:talk 870:talk 866:Lima 837:talk 816:talk 812:Lima 806:and 790:talk 786:Lima 761:talk 739:talk 735:Lima 717:talk 713:Lima 694:talk 674:talk 670:Lima 659:talk 655:Lima 645:talk 641:Lima 630:talk 615:talk 611:Lima 596:talk 578:talk 574:Lima 560:talk 556:Lima 534:talk 530:Lima 522:this 520:and 518:this 490:talk 486:Lima 111:keep 109:was 63:The 2225:RfC 2195:to 2185:to 2142:JFH 2085:JFH 2067:JFH 2001:JFH 1869:JFH 1769:JFH 1625:JFH 1592:JFH 1536:JFH 1518:JFH 1274:all 1214:.-- 1107:! 982:Jim 959:. 711:. 503:On 440:Low 349:Low 240:Low 67:or 40:be 36:of 32:or 2310:: 2298:) 2290:. 2238:. 2233:}} 2229:{{ 2148:) 2133:) 2117:) 2091:) 2073:) 2058:) 2043:) 2007:) 1957:. 1947:do 1890:) 1875:) 1859:) 1844:) 1825:) 1794:) 1775:) 1751:) 1727:) 1705:) 1673:, 1669:, 1665:, 1661:, 1657:, 1653:, 1649:, 1645:, 1641:, 1631:) 1616:) 1598:) 1590:-- 1582:) 1562:) 1542:) 1534:-- 1524:) 1506:) 1435:) 1427:. 1390:) 1369:) 1357:. 1348:) 1326:) 1284:) 1232:→ 1222:) 1180:) 1158:) 1134:) 1115:) 1049:) 1018:) 1003:) 988:) 967:) 944:) 903:) 872:) 839:) 818:) 792:) 767:) 763:• 741:) 719:) 696:) 676:) 661:) 647:) 632:) 617:) 598:) 580:) 562:) 536:) 492:) 165:: 2294:( 2270:) 2266:( 2253:. 2246:. 2144:( 2129:( 2113:( 2087:( 2069:( 2054:( 2039:( 2003:( 1886:( 1871:( 1855:( 1840:( 1821:( 1790:( 1771:( 1747:( 1723:( 1701:( 1627:( 1612:( 1594:( 1578:( 1558:( 1538:( 1520:( 1502:( 1479:p 1474:b 1469:p 1431:( 1386:( 1365:( 1344:( 1322:( 1309:p 1304:b 1299:p 1280:( 1255:p 1250:b 1245:p 1218:( 1176:( 1154:( 1130:( 1111:( 1045:( 1014:( 999:( 984:( 963:( 940:( 899:( 868:( 835:( 814:( 788:( 759:( 737:( 715:( 692:( 672:( 657:( 643:( 628:( 613:( 594:( 576:( 558:( 532:( 488:( 452:. 361:. 272:. 252:. 145:: 113:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index