Talk:Angelus

Text

Made the text of the Angelus into a table with the English translation. Not being sure of the copyrights that apply to the translations out there, I translated it myself with the aid of a dictionary and compared it to this site to fix grammar. If someone more knowledgeable about this sort of thing feels that the translation does violate copyrights, please revert it. X) If someone happens to know that any of the regular translations of it are in the public domain, it would probably be better to use one of those. User:Jenmoa 07:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the English translation into that most commonly used in the Church (specifically the Church of England). Wording may be slightly different for other parishes - however, using the "thou" forms and so on for the Hail Mary is almost universal. Stefan 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

agree. Thatcher131 03:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger Complete

Help expand this article! :) Judgesurreal777 22:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why we should pray the Angelus...

It would be good to know too why we Catholics should pray the Angelus.

I'm not sure if you meant we should include this in the article, or if you are just asking. To give a brief explanation of why the Angelus is a good devotion for Catholics and all Christians, the Angelus remembers Christ's coming in the Flesh in order for our salvation and as Mary was the first to receive Him so we wish to also and with the aid of her prayers to her Son. I'll think about adding something like this to the article.--Francis419jn655 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to include a history of the practice outside and in relation to Roman Catholicism 70.36.197.224 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed Tagalog version

I've removed the Tagalog translation of the Angelus, as there's no reason for it to appear in the English language Wikipedia. Sonitus 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

This article seems to lack sources... it would be good if there was a source cited to back it up. -Fisheromen 18:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree and add some comments to that effect below. I have also added a couple of "citation needed" to the article. There are some weasel words too, such as "some" attribute. Should probably be cleaned up. In general, the article could use a better history section.--Bruce Hall (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did Pope Gregory ordered a bell to be rung in the evening?

I think this is a good question.Because we must remember the past history of the Angelus.The answer is; Pope Gregory ordered a bell to ring in the evening to remind people to pray for the Crusades.......Louie Bernadette Belga June 21,2007

This is in the article. Is there a source? Given the sensitive nature of the Crusades, there should probably be sources for this and other claims. I have added in a few "citation needed".--Bruce Hall (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Confused on Numbers

It is pointed out that the Angelus is sounded on RTE TV at 6 each evening but I recall this to be 18 bells long, cf. the 9 cited in the article. Is there any knowledge on this discrepancy? Daithic (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine you are right. Standard practice seems to be three sets of three (during each Hail Mary), with a pause in between, and then a group of nine for the final Collect. Stefan (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Translations

Is there a reason to have three translations here? Why not fifty? I think we should have one, and that one, straightforwardly literal. Tb (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there used to be 3, after your edit & mine there are just 2 versions. It is really no big deal to me either way, and I like your really readable version, but for the sake of completeness, a really pedantic version would be good to preserve. If you find a really old version, that would be nicer than even the current. And if we have just one, I bet someoen will add a 2nd version in a few weeks. Anyway, no big deal really. History2007 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "really pedantic". My changes render the translation into literal English. That's exactly what we should have: the prayer is a latin prayer, and we really will have either one or fifty translations. (Trust me, we had this problem with psalms, where every little variation started to get listed--already the case here.) Let's wait a moment and see if anyone has any arguments for having more than one translation; and then in a week or so, if nobody can propose why we need more than one, we can have just one. Tb (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Done deal. History2007 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TB; one well translated English version is suitable. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. Yes, the text is a Latin prayer, but it is a text which is still said day by day in many churches in an English translation. If it were an obscure Classical work, then anyone's literal translation would suffice, but as with texts like the Magnificat, a) English is used worldwide more than Latin, and b) the English version used is not a literal translation!

Your words are telling: "my changes render the translation into literal English". Your version is not the text known throughout the world: an 'official' translation will at least be something one can cite, and one that will reflect liturgical practice in at least some parts of the world. As an example of what I found jarring: in England, I have never heard the Hail Mary said in the modern "you" form! I think there is room for two versions: the traditional language version most commonly used, with a reference to the English Missal or another text in which is found, and a literal translation. Stefan (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Society of Saint John the Evangelist uses "you" in the US, and regardless, the Latin does not contain any special honorific form of "you", nor does it use any sort of specialized "religious" form of speech. A translation which does those things is misleading. The "traditional" language you refer to, which tradition? I've seen different translations, in the detail, nearly every printing. This page had three "traditional" versions. Tb (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Stefan. My general feeling also was the following: As these prayers get watered down every few years by becoming more "everyday" we will eventually end up with a slang version of prayers that eventually drift from the original. The end result: loss of respect. And what TB and myself may consider "literal English" is in fact old English to the newer generation that just talks SMS 50% of the day rather than structured English. I think soon they may request an SMS version of the Angelus. So two versions are really needed in that an old established translation that acts as an anchor and an everyday version that may get reshaped over time. So I think we need both pedantic and pedestrian versions of the prayer in English, as well as the original Latin. The main goal is to preserve some history so we will not eventually end up with SMS, rock or rap versions of the Angelus, Hail Mary or Our Father as they get watered down into everyday form. And what is the big deal in having a 2nd version as the anchor? Disk space? This talk page takes more disk space than that. So I see no reason not to have just one established version that does not vary over time. History2007 (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to prevent slang or "watered down" versions. I'm content with no translation, but I'm not content with translations which are not direct and faithful renditions of the Latin. The Latin contains no trace of special forms of "you", for example. Wikipedia is not here to make sure people have "respect" for prayers. The insistence on "the" traditional form is silly, there is no single traditional translation. The value of a translation in wikipedia is to tell a reader what the prayer says, not to encourage the reader to show "respect", or avoid "watering down", or whatever. As for "just one established version", there is no just one established version. Shall we use the one that the Society of Saint John the Evangelist in the US uses daily? Or the one printed in the English translation of the RC Handbook of Indulgences? Or the one in the Saint Augustine's Prayer Book? Or--shock--how about one which simply translates the Latin? I'm happy with one translation, or zero, provided that the translation is not misleading. Many "traditional" translations are misleading. Tb (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously zero translations will not work. So choices are:

• Saint John the Evangelist
• Handbook of Indulgences
• Saint Augustine's Prayer Book
• A Wiki-editor's personal translation
• A SMS version

My guess: 2 of the above. Do you have the text from Handbook of Indulgences, or Saint Augustine's Prayer Book? I don't have those. Thanks History2007 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By "just one established version" I meant "just one of the established versions". Never mind - you're a friar, I'm a layman. Do what you like. God bless. Stefan (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I joked about an SMS version, in practice many Roman Catholics rely on EWTN as their main source for reliable info on prayers. So I would like to see the EWTN version presented within the page from a Roman Catholic perspective anyway.[1] History2007 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes 7 and 8

Take a look at quotes 7 and 8 in the "Quotes" section. Are these encyclopedic? Should they be removed? ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed, since no objection. The notes made no relevant sense; poor spelling. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a text that suggests that Thomas(?) Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury, was responsible for promoting the Angelus in his Province by making an order on 10 February 1410 for this to be rung by churches under his supervision. Can anyone tell me if this is correct ? And if so, does this explain his later rebuilding of the central tower of Canterbury cathedral, so that Angelus bells could be put in it so high up that they could be heard all over the dip in which Canterbury town is sited ? These days the tower is usually called the 'Angel tower' because there was the statue of an angel on top of it, but perhaps it should be called the Angelus tower and the statue in fact represented Gabriel ? Martin Renshaw, 1 March 2009 193.253.245.116 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Angel Gabriel

I may be mistaken ... but wasn't it the Angel Gabriel who delivered the message to Mary? Or am I mistaken? If so, shouldn't this detail be added to the article? Thanks? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

I added some information to this effect in the article. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Lack of consensus

I believe there is a lack of consensus for this change: [2]. Bold-Revert-Discuss seems to apply. Can we revert it until a new consensus should emerge? The issue is being actively discussed at Talk:Maundy Thursday. Tb (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We can also reword the sentence in question simply to remove the explicit naming of the day, which I would be happy to accept as a compromise. Tb (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Multilingual texts

There are now various other texts, a couple of English, Latin, Spanish, Maltese,..... Where are we going to draw the line? Shall Norwegian and Turkish be added too? How about French and Hindustani? I think a link to a separate Wikipedia (be it French or Spanish) or a separate article on multi-languages is better, else it just gets too long and this is English Wikipedia. However, Latin should certainly remain here. Suggestions? History2007 (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

These versions should be directly quoted from reliable sources and referenced at each section. Editor notes need to be placed in the edit field warning not to change the text unless consensus is reached via the talk page. All other revisions to these sections should be immediately reverted. Periodic editing of this section would then be unnecessary as stable versions are more helpful to the reader. All is One (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This page confuses readers

Here is a copied message from Talk:The Angelus (painting): "In this article, "a prayer" is referenced (the Angelus, of course). Clicking on "Angelus" brings up a French history, not an explanation of the thrice daily call to prayer known by that name. It seems to be from a book and not from a Wikipedia page which is usual." Looking over this article, shouldn't it be a concise description of the prayer? The history section can go into its own article Angelus (history). Jane (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Asterisks

What is the significance of the asterisks shown in the Latin and English texts? Should they not be there? - dcljr (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If no one knows the answer to this question, perhaps they should be deleted, eh? (Hazratio) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazratio (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angelus. 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/20140111021119/http://www.timberheadmusic.com/disc/angelus.htm to http://www.timberheadmusic.com/disc/angelus.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222112537/https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/a/angelus-painting.php to https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/a/angelus-painting.php

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) 01:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

History of Anglican Practice

The two references given for Anglican practice are quite modern and niche, while I believe the history is longer and more complicated. As written, a reader might assume the practice is authorized, which I believe it is not. 67.180.195.248 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)