Jump to content

User talk:InfernoXV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xiao Li (talk | contribs) at 08:56, 12 October 2007 (→‎Regarding your trivium). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, InfernoXV, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --WikiCats 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note on adding full Eastern Orthodox Project to your watchlist

This is a note for members of the Eastern Orthodox Project: SinceIt's co the project's main page has been converted to a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually its own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any often the section boxes on the project page, which takes you to the edit page for its contents). Because of this, updates to individual box contents will not necessarily show up on editors' watchlists, if you've only got the main project page watched.

In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project and its pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your watchlists. These are:

If you add all of the above pages to your watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. To discuss this, please see the relavent section of the Project's talk page. Welcome to the project! —Antonios Aigyptostalk 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your quibble

Well then, call him "the Pope, Patriarch of Alexandria." If I speak of "Charles I, King of England", I am not denying the existence of other "Charles I"s. Lima 15:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User grc

能不能幫我翻譯User grc這個模板的內容？謝謝！Cyon 04:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lavra

Hi. I just went by the main English translation in the article you linked. In any case, lavra should either be explained there or not explained at all (if the linked article does not explain it, then the word usage is simply confusing to the reader; if it is explained there, it is still connected with that topic, and not with Mohyla directly). We should try to make the text explicit. Dahn 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find the rest of the Singapore community!

Yeap, you can find us in these pages:

Do leave your name at the notice board, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page or post it on the notice board. Thanks again for your contribution in wikipedia! ;)

Joasaph

Thanks for your attention to List of people by name: Joa-Jog, even tho i reverted your edit there:

  1. Please look for this name (search or near 1500) on the list of Const. Ptr'chs, & figure out if you were confusing 2 pairs of people with similar names.
  2. Even if you were right, the proper response would have been to leave the obscure names on the LoPbN tree in their current positions (and consider whether it's worth your time to create rdrs from the obscure names to the articles &/or byp the lks on LoPbN & other places lk'g the obscure names -- that being what someone will hopefully eventually do, even tho IMO no one should tell any editor that they should take on a fix just bcz they are aware it's the right direction for the article develop).

Hope you'll keep up the good work.
--Jerzy•t 21:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words - you were quite correct, I'd mixed up the names. Your encouragement is much appreciated. --InfernoXV 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory

Thanks for the clarification. I have been hoping that someone learned in Eastern Christianity would come along and improve that section of the article. There are other articles that could use similar attention. What would be most helpful is if you had references through which to build up the sections in question. Lostcaesar 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolling"

Could you please tell me to what article you are referring to?

Nestorius

Hi. Sure i can explain. I know that at that time it was Archibishops and not Patriarchs, but it is anachronistic to call them 'bishops' or 'archibishops'... In the same way that all the articles concerning the Popes, call each of them 'Pope', no matter the century he was the leader of the catholic church. in the first centuries, there were 'Bishops of Rome', not Popes... Bartholomew I is the 271st Ecumenical Patriarch, thus, there have been 270 Ecumenical Patriarchs before him, Nestorius being one of them. Hectorian 18:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omophorion

From your edit summary on serving with Bishop Hlib Lonchyna I take it you're not in the US. I wonder if the usage described in the article isn't peculiar to the American emigration. Here, Ruthenian and Ukranian Catholic bishops use an omophor that's sewn into shape; they simply drop it over their shoulders. That's why they just keep it on for the whole Liturgy, not even removing it when the rubrics call for it. No doubt the editor who wrote that section (I don't think it was me) has never seen anything else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiho! Yes, you're right - I'm not in the US. I'm actually in Singapore right now, not a notable centre of the Byzantine liturgical tradition. I have served for Kyr Hlib and Kyr Petro (of Melbourne) in Dublin, but the parish in question is Russian-Catholic, and the priest there is a noted liturgical expert who insists visiting bishops follow the typicon. The usage of the large white ready-formed omophor is an imitation of the western pallium, and vostochniki such as myself refer to those hideous things as bibs. Very often, Catholics of the Ruthenian recension will ignore the typicon on these matters (don't get me started on those who don't wear the cuffs), and it seems particularly bad in Northo America, but things are getting better in general. --InfernoXV 06:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That priest is to be congratulated for successfully insisting on anything with a bishop, let alone on matters of tradition.
I had ascribed the "bib" to liturgical laziness, but I suppose Latinization could easily have had much to do with it. In the US they happened at about the same time so its hard to tell what caused what. For example, the Liturgies got cut down to one hour by omitting parts, the New Calendar was adopted, and all other services such as Vespers were dropped (at least for public celebrations) with the exception of some of the Holy Week services. At about the same time my grandparents' parish, which has a beatutiful 18th century floor-to-ceiling iconostasis that was removed from a church in Europe, ripped out the bottom tier and installed a communion rail and statues. (It has since been replaced, with icons of a completely different style. The originals were lost.) Churches constructed from the 50s until the late 70s were built without an iconostasis of any kind, and didn't even plan for one.
The only time I ever saw a Ruthenian priest serve without cuffs it was perhaps excusable. It was the middle of the summer in a modern-style church that had mostly glass walls but no windows you could open, and the air conditioner had broken down. It was a hothouse in there. He naturally wore his lightest vestments and left off the cuffs.
Of course, now that the Pope has taken to using a pallium in its ancient form that looks much more like an omophor, maybe the traditional one will become fashionable again. And as you say, things seem to be improving. (Or so I hear; I haven't attended a Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy in many years.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was a bit of a special case. The bishop may have been a Studite monk, but the priest in question was a reknowned liturgical scholar of impeccable pedigree, so in this case, mitred archimandrite trumps young bishop.
The 'bib' is attributable both to Latinisation and liturgical laziness - I tend to think the second tendency is directly a result of the first. As for churches without an iconostas, blame Bp Elko - that man did irreparable harm to the Ruthenian Church in the States.
Serving without cuffs is commonplace with Basilians, I find. Over my period of time as occasion acolyte at the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral in London, the more Latinised Basilians would frequently leave off the cuffs. The explanation I got was 'the real Catholics don't use the maniple anymore so...', which naturally I found an entirely specious argument, not to mention the idea that Easterns were any less 'Catholic'. Personally, I've never attended a service celebrated according to the Ruthenian recension outside of the Ukrainian jurisdictions, so I don't really know how things are done in the Ruthenian jurisdiction in the States. The small omofor is coming back - Patriarch Lyubomir uses them, and the Eastward looking bishops (steadily increasing in number) imitate him. --InfernoXV 08:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Wikipedia:Autoblock of 218.186.8.11 lifted.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  09:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the hat too

Hello there! You've caught my interest. Perhaps you could contact me at my email? Ariedartin JECJY Talk 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup on 24 November

Hello, I saw you adding your name to the first meetup page. There is a meet this Friday, so if you are able to join, please do come. Confirm yourself at the above link, thanks. --Terence Ong (C | R) 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diocesan Infobox

To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Question

Hi InfernoXV, I was hoping you could help me with Latin question. Is "Kraków Calendar for the Year 1474" a good translation of Almanach Cracoviense ad annum 1474? Thanks, Appleseed (Talk) 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Appleseed - absolutely! I'd prefer 'Cracovian' or 'Krakówian', but aside from that, it's spot on. :) InfernoXV 15:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I actually meant to say "Kraków (or Cracovian, as you suggest) Almanac for the year 1474". Calendarium Cracoviense, which is another name for the print, would be "Cracovian Calendar". Do you agree? Appleseed (Talk) 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it works for me :)InfernoXV 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Appleseed (Talk) 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine I

Saint Cyril and Methodius are saints in the Slavic Orthodox Churches but not in the Greek. What you say (being a saint in one means being a saint in all) used to to be true in the middle ages where all Orthodox power was centered in one Church, but it is not the case today. Furthermore Byzantium was as much as the Roman Empire as was the Holy Roman Empire, saying "and hence the end of the Roman Empire" is a POV. Miskin 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing liturgical commemoration with recognition of sainthood. A case in question - St John (Maximovitch) the Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco. He was glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, but he is received as a saint by all of the Orthodox Churches, not only by the Russian Church.
Incidentally, Ss Cyril and Methodius appear in my Greek edition of the Menaion for the month of May, published by the Apostoliki Diakonia in Athens. True, they don't appear in all Greek Menaia, but that doesn't make them any less saints of the Greek Church.
The general rule of sainthood in the Orthodox Churches is that if one church makes a formal glorification or adds a saint to its calendar, the other Orthodox Churches are free to venerate the said saint. Examples are: St Seraphim of Sarov, St John of Kronstadt & the Royal Martyrs of Russia, glorified by the Russian Church; St Nicholas Planas & St Nektarios of Aegina, glorified by the Greek Church; St Raphael Hawaweeny glorified by the Antiochian Church. These are all saints of the worldwide Orthodox Church.
St Constantine the Ethnomartyr appears in the Menaia published by the Greek, Serbian and Russian Churches - which makes him a Saint of the Orthodox Church in general, certainly not merely of the Greek Church. I suggest you consult a knowledgeable Orthodox priest on the matter. InfernoXV 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they have a typical status of saints but they're not nearly as important in one church as they are in the other, which is the case of Constantine and the rest of the Orthodox bodies. In any case I'm not concerned about it that much, although I generally disagree with the usage of Eastern Orthodox Church in wikipedia, for the simple reason that it's used anachronistically. The article on the Eastern Orthodox Church speaks about many independent Orthodox bodies that didn't exist in the middle ages. The body that was known as "Eastern Orthodox" in the middle ages is the one known today as the "Greek Orthodox". But as I said, I'm not concerned about this. I'm more concerned about the misleading and POV usage of "Roman Empire", for reasons explained in the article's Talk page. Miskin 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Pronunciation

Fair enough! :) Incidentally, do you think the Latin Pronunciation article could do with a section on the various Mediaeval pronunciations of Latin in the Middle Ages? InfernoXV 18:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think that would fall more under the scope of Latin regional pronunciation, Vulgar Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, or perhaps Medieval Latin. FilipeS 18:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup


Singapore Meetup

Meetup 16

  • Status: Upcoming
  • Date: 28 September 2024, Saturday
  • Time: 1:30 pm
  • Place: Subway @ Singapore Management University

Please indicate your interest on the meetup page.

v • d •  e

Terence Ong 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note

Hi, and thanks for the encouragement. Majoreditor 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecumenical Patriarch

Hi. I moved the articles because this is the Patriarchal title. It has been in use since the First Council of Constantinople, and is still held by the current Ecumenical Patriarch. Naming them simply as "Patriarchs of Constantinople" wouldn't be completely wrong (and as a matter of fact, even in Greece there are called that sometimes-for the sake of been laconic), but since the official title includes the term "Ecumenical", the world's media, the academics, the Pope and almost all the other Christian Churches refer to them with this term (even if not solely), this title is not disputed by anyone (apart from Turkey) and the articles Ecumenical Patriarch and Ecumenical Patriarchate (also, the list of them) are under that name, I think there is no problem about my moves. Note that the Bishops of Rome, in the early centuries, did not hold the title of Pope; however, their articles in Wikipedia are under the name "Pope X"... For the time being, I thought it would not be a good idea to move the Bishops of Byzantium as well. Let me know what u think about all these. Regards Hectorian 03:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hectorian, your reasoning makes good sense. I tend to be laconic, referring to them as simply 'Patriarch of Constantinople', but with no intent of not recognising the title Oecumenical. I don't dispute the title of Oecumenical, my only concern is that 'Ecumenical Patriarch X of Constantinople' is a tiny bit long, as 'Patriarch of Constantinople' already implies 'Oecumenical' to me. So, all in all, I don't mind the move. On the other hand, I would not feel comfortable moving the Bishops of Byzantium and Archbishops of Constantinople to 'Patriarch'. Never mind that the Romans insist all the early Bishops of Rome were Popes - we all know how Latins think! We're Byzantines (I'm a Byzantinist, and I'm assuming you are too) and we don't use that sort of faulty logic. I had a huge argument a while back with a Greek chap who insisted St John Chrysostom and Nestorius were both Patriarchs of Constantinople. This despite my pointing out to him that the dismissal at the Chrysostom Liturgy calls him quite clearly 'Archbishop of Constantinople'. InfernoXV 10:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may need your help with This Article

Inferno, we may need your help with This Article. Please feel free to add your thoughts onto the article's discussion page. Thanks, Majoreditor 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! What can I do to help?InfernoXV 09:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could use your opinion on the article's talk page. [1] Grimhelm and I are building concensus for using non-inflamatory language in the article. On another subject, I saw your suggestioned name change from Eastern Rite Catholic to Eastern Catholic Churches. I will support the change and have left my comments on the discussion page. We should pull together supporting material prior to making the change. Majoreditor 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Eastern Rite Catholic Churches to Eastern Catholic Churches

Inferno, I have submitted a request to move Eastern Rite Catholic Churches to Eastern Catholic Churches. Over the past fortnight we've five editors speak in agreement and none express opposition. The request will sit in backlog for several days. Majoreditor 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah, thank you very much! Out of curiosity, to which jurisdiction do you belong?InfernoXV 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am Melkite Greek Catholic, currently residing in the United States. I'm always happy to assist in matters concerning the Eastern church. Majoreditor 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was really freaky how your userpage was moved. Just when I thought I'd seen everything.
I was wondering. The image on your Eastern Catholic userbox -- is that the icon of the napkin of Christ (sometimes associated with Cheesefare Sunday)? It's familiar, but I can't quite place it. Majoreditor 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't say! What's worse is that Semperkatolica is supposed to be an RC deacon from LA. Trust Mahoney to ordain such a man. Yes, the icon is the Napkin of Christ - the Acheiropoietos. I'm not sure about Cheesefaresuday, but it seems, to me, tobe quite strongly linked to the Sunday of Orthodoxy. InfernoXV 03:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good news. The name has been officially changed to Eastern Catholic Churches. Inferno, thanks for your diligence. Majoreditor 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrie

I've never heard fewer than six syllables, but it seems to me that the epsila run together when intoned by the cantor at the local Greek church: "Kee-ree-e-le-ee-son, Kee-ree-e-le-ee-son, Kee-ree-e-le-ee-son..." The iotacized eta in "eleison" does seem — I suppose I shall say "clipped" since I don't know the correct term from linguistics — but it isn't ellided with the epsilon, in my experience. I don't suppose this subject of Kyries has ever been treated by one of your fellows at King's College in a form that meets Wikipedia's stringent requirements for intellectual rigor and quality of presentation <cough, cough>? --Jpbrenna 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, with sung Greek, so much gets elided! I don't need to remind you of ο ανερ -> ωνερ, και εγω -> καγω, ο ουν -> ων and so on, of course :) I've been chanting for a while now, and how many syllables one gets seems to depend on the mood of the chanter (as well as his home region). Particularly with slightly melismatic Kyrie Eleison responses at litanies, the little runs of notes tend to be invariably at the last syllable of Kyrie, running into the first syllable of Eleison. Most chanters don't re-articulate the second e, making it a joined run ending in 'lei-son'.
If you listen to the recording of the DL done by the Greek Byzantine Choir, there seems to be a slight inconsistency in the number of syllables Kyrie Eleison gets, from response to response. Sometimes a clear articulation of a second E is audible, sometimes none, sometimes about half the choir does it and so on.
Bishop Kallistos Ware and the late David Melling and I had a discussion about this some years ago, and Kyr Kallistos tells me that the ideal pronunciation in the Greek Church today is "3+4 syllables, with the double vowel εη being elided somewhat half-way to a diphthong". Which makes sense. On the other hand, there appears largly to be two schools of thought on the pronunciation of Greek in those Byzantine church circles that use Greek. One is that of the Greeks themselves who, being good Medeterraneans, are happy to elide as much as possible. It makes for a much prettier and smoother sound after all. The second is that of converts and non-Greek scholars of Greek, who in the interests of clarity, articulate everything in a manner most precise and exact. It makes things easier to understand after all. De gustibus non disputandum! Over some alcohol and many laughs at anecdotes, we agreed that perhaps the most prudent thing to do is to leave the matter well alone, and as long as everyone understood what was being read, that was enough.InfernoXV 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecumenical Patriarch vs. Patriarch

Thanks for asking. Quite frankly, I don't really have a strong preference one way or the other; but I do find "Patriarch" alone to be less unwieldy, and slightly broader so as to be a more inclusive title. -- Pastordavid 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about helping me rename the lot? *grin* InfernoXV 10:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of Ephesus

"Hiho, he appears in the Greek Anthologion published at Rome in the 1950s, if you have access to a copy. InfernoXV 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"

No, I don't have the book, but I'll certainly take your word for it. It seemed odd to me: I would have thought the Eastern Catholics would have had the same problems with him that the Roman Catholics do. But perhaps you should include that book and whatever other source material you are using as a footnote on the "Category:Eastern Catholic saints" page. Carlo 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The service to him in the Greek-Catholic books has been edited to remove some of the more pointed and obviously anti-Roman elements. His zeal for the truth and courage is praised, but things such as references to the 'papal antichrist', 'demonic addition to the Creed', 'impious Emperor Judas' and suchlike are rewritten.
If one looks very closely at calendars of saints in all churches, one starts to find some, shall we say, interesting things. There's that howler of Emperor Nero appearing in the list of the Seventy Apostles in an edition of the Synaxarion published at Athens, for example. Hours of fun if one is a geek like myself! InfernoXV 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

InfernoXV--Sorry, I think you and I were editing Canonical Hours at the same time. When I went to save my work, there was a conflict. I tried to save all of your edits, but I may have missed a few. You may want to go in again and make sure. Again, my apologies MishaPan 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you for the notification! InfernoXV 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Eastern Catholicism

Hi Inferno. I am going to request that category: "Eastern Rite Catholicism" be renamed "Eastern Catholicism." Are there any other categories which need renaming? Please let me know and I will batch them together.

On another note, thank you for starting the category "Eastern Catholic saints." I have added some saints to the new category, including John Chrysostom and Sampson the Hospitable. Majoreditor 14:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Regarding the category "Eastern Catholic saints", I felt it needed creating - too many RCs were objecting to Photius the Great etc being labelled "Roman Catholic saints".
Now, the next big battle is to get Roman Catholic Church renamed to simply 'Catholic Church' - I'm certainly not part of the RCC, heh. InfernoXV 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

In this edit, you changed the text that was not part of the article but part of the reference. The ref say that one quote is from EB and the other from Kostomarov. Please restore the source's usage of the term (Uniate vs Greek Catholic). You are of course free to correct what others write in the article's text but not from within quotes. It may be confusing, though. So, just please watch for whether the text is located between <ref> </ref> signs or not. Thanks, --Irpen 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I got confused - thank you for the tip. InfernoXV 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archlute

Hello, Ted. Your purism was inappropriate on the Archlute page (insufficiently neutral...), so I had to undo it.Galassi 13:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure Sting's album doesn't count as a re-interpretation. By the way, "Ted"? InfernoXV 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it counts as an interpretation. It is a lot less unorthodox than those by Pluhar, for example. Do you prefer "Edward"?Galassi 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you may be right there. As for name, InfernoXV works fine for wiki msgs :) While we're at it, just to pick up where we left off a while back, do you happen to be linked to the Kapelya Banduristiv? InfernoXV 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any Thoughts?

Inferno -- You've seen enough similar articles, that I would love to get your two cents here. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated. -- Pastordavid 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moleben Russian or Eastern?

Thanks for adding to the moleben page-- I'd copied it more or less wholesale from orthodoxwiki. Question, though-- it's my understanding that a moleben is a specifically Russian Orthodox service, not practiced in the Byzantine churches. Is this incorrect? Buddhagazelle 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Buddhagazelle[reply]

It's more popular in the Slavic churches, and is generally unknown in Greek churches, but with the phenomenon of mixed-use parishes in the diaspora, it's done in all but the most staunchly-Greek parishes. Heh, I'd been trying to get round to starting the Moleben article for ages, and was JUST about to start it when i found you'd started on it. grrr. heh. InfernoXV 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hence the ridiculously prompt revision! Buddhagazelle 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Buddhagazelle[reply]

Congratulations on Canonization

I noticed that "User:InfernoXV" now appears on the list of saints on the Eastern Catholic Saints category page. I thought I should mention it to you. You're in good company, aren't you? :) Majoreditor 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! it's been corrected - I didn't realise I had to put a little colon there - it's been corrected. How embarrassing! InfernoXV 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crucession

InfernoXV--Yes, I too pondered whether or not Crucession should be a seperate article. The Procession article seemed quite general (and quite full already), and I felt that the information I was wanting to give might seem a little out of place. There really wasn't much differentiation between religious traditions in the Procession article as is. As for the term "Crucession," my source for that is the Abridged Typicon by Archpriest Feodor Kovalchuck (St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, South Canaan, PA). The term certainly seemed unusual the first time I came across it, but I've known Father Feodor personally (well, by telephone and corresondence; we've never met face to face) for a number of years now, and he's always seemed like a sensible fellow. So if he used the term, I figured it was appropriate. But I'm open to any input you feel adviseable. MishaPan 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smiles

You are one of the few users that I've seen with so many userboxes on here. LaSaltarella 07:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hello =) It's just a way of relieving boredom at the office... thanks for dropping by though! InfernoXV 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It IS your talk page, so knock yourself out. I've only got the one userbox on mine, but since that's language-related, I thought you might enjoy it. (I can translate later...) -- OtherDave 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fool for Christ

I was surprised to see that there isn't an article for Fool for Christ, just Yurodivy. The concept of Fool for Christ is well known throughout most of the Eastern churches. I'm inclined to remove the redirect and compose a separate article but would like to solicit your opinion before taking action. What are your thoughts? Thanks, Majoreditor 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the Eastern Churches, but also Western Christianity has a tradition of the "Holy Fool" even if they're more rare and their sanctity doesn't receive official recognition so often. The article ought to cover the subject within all of Christianity, IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi chaps, sorry it took me so long to reply! I think Fool for Christ might be a more useful title, with Yurodivy being a section of the former. TCC is quite right - the concept is present in both East and West (St Francis of Assisi comes to mind, obviously). Majoreditor - for what it's worth, you have my support! InfernoXV 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Thank you for your support and comments on the FAC for Maximus the Confessor. The discussion has closed, and the article has been promoted to Featured Article status. I think the article was greatly improved through the comments and suggestions offered in the nomination process, and was happy to see the process work so well. Again, thanks. -- Pastordavid 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with article on Intinction?

Hello. May I trouble you to look at and possibly improve the article on intinction? The article says hardly mentions how intinction is practiced in the Eastern churches. Much appreciation. Majoreditor 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming right up! InfernoXV 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

I hadn't noticed it until you pointed it out. Despite the claims of the editor who posted it (who appears to be an over-enthusiastic Ukrainian Catholic kid) that it was his "own knowlege[sic] and external sources" it began as a text dump from the OrthodoxWiki article Divine Liturgy. Rights are problematic. The default license there prior to November, 2005 was CC-Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia. They recently changed to a GFDL/CC-Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 dual license and asked editors willing to relicense their older work to place a template saying so on their user pages. Trouble is that not all contributors to that article did so.

It's furthermore about the Divine Liturgy in general, not St. John's in particular, so it's mistitled. Stylistically, it's probably unacceptable for us since OrthodoxWiki uses a clear Orthodox POV. In any event, it's redundant with Divine Liturgy. I'm not sure what is to be done with the thing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Csernica is correct. I suggest that there be just one article on Divine Liturgy. If needed that article can discuss the differences between the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, etc. Majoreditor 13:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

A Barnstar
I proudly award you "The Saints' Barnstar" for creating and improving articles on saints and Eastern Christianity. Majoreditor 16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Editor review

Hello, Inferno. You may want to examine the editor review for PastorDavid. He's asking for feedback from fellow editors. 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Catholics and the Immaculate Conception

I will attempt this weekend to find specific material to cite. Majoreditor 12:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Was I the only one who found Lima's tone to be, to say the least, unpleasant? InfernoXV 12:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was, and I came close to mentioning it. The best course is to let his comments slide and focus on presenting quality cites. I regret that I have few sources at my fingertips and must run to the local theology library to obtain material. I also suspect that what I find will be messy. as you know, some Eastern Catholic sources tow the Roman line, others are diplomatic, a few silent, and several assert a traditional Orthodox view. Majoreditor 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurów

Could you please write a stub http://cu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кѹровъ - just a few sentences based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w ? Only 3-5 sentences enough. Please.

PS. Article about Kurów is already on 179 languages. If you do that, please put interwiki link into English version. If your village/town/city isn't yet on PL wiki, I can do article about it. (I'm first author of requests) Pietras1988 TALK 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Delatinization of Eastern Catholic Churches

I'm considering starting an raticle on the delatization of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Do you have any suggestions on source material to use -- or where I can find before and after photos? Majoreditor 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for taking so long to answer this one! Not being in the USA, I couldn't say, precisely, but there's a picture of a certain Melkite parish somewhere on the net, whith before and after pictures. The before pictures are appallingly Latinised. St George's somewhere, if I recall correctly. Sorry I can't be of much more help than that! InfernoXV 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Botean

I noticed that you added a request for sources. They've all been posted for my edits in the discussion page. If you think the placement would be better elsewhere, feel free to add them into the article as you see fit. In the meantime, I'm removing the primary sources tag as it's unwarranted. TMLutas 14:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops, that was Centrx, my mistake. Odd, he obviously saw the sourcing as he commented on the discussion page. TMLutas 14:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also put Bishop John Michael back in the RC categories. I think his inclusion in the USCCB list of bishops should be authoritative and I started the page by following an empty link from a list of RC bishops on Wikipedia. By removing him from the RC bishops categories, you were creating an inconsistency in Wikipedia and not following the national conference practice. He is not a latin rite bishop. But that makes him no less a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. TMLutas 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Bishop John Michael is a Romanian Catholic, not Roman Catholic. The term 'Roman Catholic' refers solely to Latin-rite bishops. The USCCB list is a list of Catholic bishops, not merely Roman Catholic bishops - note the 'CCB' stands for 'Conference of Catholic Bishops', not 'Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops'. Eastern Catholics are part of the Catholic Church, but not part of the Roman Catholic Church (which is a part of the Catholic Church). InfernoXV 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for removing the RC categorization from several of the articles on eastern Catholic bishops. You're absolutely correct; their primary classification should be to their particular church. Majoreditor 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that means that Pope Pius XI was wrong in Divini illius Magistri(54) to refer to the whole of the Catholic Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" and Pope Pius XII similarly erred in Humani Generis(27). And Pope John Paul II in his 26 June 1985 general audience just made a few slips of the tongue when he did the same thing.
In fact, the term Roman Catholic Church is a bit slippery, sometimes referring to the universe of all sui iuris churches in full communion with Rome and at other times to the particular sui iuris church elsewhere called the latin rite. Now if there were an eastern rite bishop stub and you were substituting one category for the other, that would be a fair deal. But when there is no eastern rite stub and no actual discussion to be found regarding the exact sense of the RC bishop stub in the stub discussion or the Catholic project page, I hope you understand that I find the exclusion a bit arbitrary, even discriminatory. TMLutas 03:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Pius XI and XII were using terminology of their time, which spoke of Latin and Eastern rites of the One Roman Catholic Church. We've moved on since, and the Catholic Church is now comprised of the Latin/Roman Catholic Church and the various Eastern Catholic Churches. You were quite right - I should have created a category for Eastern Catholic (note, not Eastern 'rite') bishops, which I have now done. Apologies for not having discussed it earlier. InfernoXV 12:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a thank you for making the category, I've walked the organizational tree of eastern catholics and tagged all the bishops. I didn't feel up to fixing it all so I'll leave to you the task of cleaning out the roman catholic stub and roman catholic bishop/priest/clergy category tags if you want to. At least now it's all in one pile. TMLutas 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
InfernoXV - The term Roman Catholic (as I pointed out to MajorEditor) is not exclusive to the latin rite as at least three popes have a different usage. Wikipedia itself does not use your proposed definition consistently in its own articles (see: Eastern Catholic Churches for a brief exploration of the distinction). Of course, you could stuff that section of the article on Eastern Catholicism down the memory hole, but that would leave you the problem of the two encyclicals and the general audience.
I would suggest that the purpose of a stub listing of this nature is to categorize all bishops' articles that need attention. By excluding the eastern rite bishops, you make it less likely that some fervent catholic (or even interested academic) interested in telling the full story of the catholic bishops would give appropriate attention to the eastern bishops, more likely that they would languish incomplete longer than would otherwise happen. What's the point in that? TMLutas 03:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TMLutas, you're missing an important point of WP organization. It's much cleaner for Eastern bishops of a particular church to be categorized under their own church (say, Maronite Catholic bishops), and next for that category to be listed under Eastern Catholic bishops, which could next roll into a Catholic church category. That's a nested approach to categorization.
One other note. We prefer to call the Catholic communion the Catholic Church.
I also noticed that you're using the term "eastern rite". Please see the WP discussion and vote on the naming convention; the term "Eastern Rite" was eliminated in favor of Eastern Catholic Churches. Thanks.Majoreditor 14:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossing over the nit picky details, I'm in the main satisfied now that there's rough parity in categories, though I'd like there to be a stub category for eastern bishops as well. The distinction may, one day, matter. In practice it doesn't today because I think they're all stubs right now. TMLutas 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hi. I would like to make a few suggestions about your editing style. First of all, the category system works a tree, with categories themselves being grouped into narrower categories: this means that you do not actually need to place an article into, say, both "Eastern Catholics" and "Eastern Catholic bishops", since it is impossible for someone to be an Eastern Catholic bishop without also being an Eastern Catholic. The best, clearest, and most helpful way is to include the category for bishops into the larger one(s). Categories are destined to help readers by hierarchies, not by creating large pools of names, so streamlining them on levels should always be encouraged. See Wikipedia:Categorization for more details.

There is also the matter of names in category brackets. If you look into categories, you will notice that they are subdivided into sections on letters. This basically works as a dictionary, and their purpose is for articles to be easily found by the reader within the same category. Unless specified, the system will list an article with the first letter of its name, which is awful when the article is on a person with a family name (although irrelevant for, say, the name of a bishop or a king). In articles that should be listed by a letter in their title that is not the first one, there are two simple methods (feel free to use any of them, but please remember to use one, because you would be saving other editors a lot of work): one is to add, say, "|Botean, John Michael" after, say, "Category:Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops", resulting in "[[Category:Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops|Botean, John Michael]]"; the other one, which is also simpler, involves adding, just above the first category, the script "{{DEFAULTSORT:Botean, John Michael}}" (which transforms all category inclusions accordingly). You can find this script among the clickable icons listed to the bottom of your screen each time you edit a page (it is in the first section, the "Wiki markup" one).

Thank you and happy editing. Dahn 20:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy

Yes, he's the rudest editor that I've personally had to deal with so far. I had to edit his comments in order to keep my cool. I just copy and pasted into notepad, and got rid of the capital letters and insults before evaluating what he said. I also reported him on Wikiquette alerts, not that it will do much good against an established user like him. Oh well, I have plenty of non-controversial engineering pages to keep me busy anyway.--Yannick 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey remember this Dreamguy from Mixoparthenos? He has an arbitration case and RFC against him now. I think we can comment on the RFC. I did.--Yannick 06:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just got back - wow it looks like we're not the only ones who've been badly treated by him. InfernoXV 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACS

Hi there. I took a look at the talkpage and am not sure what Balbir is saying. Mind if you fill me in a little? I was looking at this version of the ACS page. Thanks. Chensiyuan 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay did he mean to say he'd rather not have the blurb on the top of the article which says the article focuses mainly on the Singapore schools? Chensiyuan 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He wants the Anglo-Chinese School to be a pointer page to various other pages, but he then took the entire content of what is now on that page, and did a cut and paste to entirely new articles Anglo-Chinese School of Singapore, Anglo-Chinese Schools of Singapore and so on - destroying the edit history. InfernoXV 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Meetup 4 date changed


Singapore Meetup

Meetup 16

  • Status: Upcoming
  • Date: 28 September 2024, Saturday
  • Time: 1:30 pm
  • Place: Subway @ Singapore Management University

Please indicate your interest on the meetup page.

v • d •  e

Hi InfernoXV, you were originally invited to Singapore meetup 4. However, due to the lack of response, the date of the meetup has been changed to November. Please refer to this page for more information. -- ZhongHan (Email) 05:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wahaha Danone joint venture

I just created this article on this very topical subject. The subject matter would make for a good featured article, so I am hoping to enlist your help to get it there qualitatively. Ohconfucius 02:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha Blessed Virgin Mary Indulgence

Care to elaborate? --219.73.11.127 09:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, no. InfernoXV 18:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Ireland

I have been trying to add citations to the John Ireland (archbishop) article and was hoping you could help me. The main thing I need help with is the citations involving Alexis Toth. You seem to know much more about the conflict and I was hoping you could show/find some sources for that section. I tagged the statements that I think need sourcing, feel free to add or remove statements that need citations. I really don't know much about that section and I was just struggling to find sources. Thanks for any help you can give me. P.Haney 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be found, but first I'm reëditing that section header to 'Relations with the Greek-Catholics', as it's about more than just St Alexis Toth. InfernoXV 06:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Inferno. I added one reference to the Bishop John Ireland and may add more later. Majoreditor 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've been bogged down with arranging music for Divine Liturgy... InfernoXV 05:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplet of Divine Mercy Trisagion

Hi, I see you undid my edit on the Trisagion part of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. I was just wondering why you undid it. Let me explain why I changed it in the first place

I felt the phrase 'similar to', while (rightly) acknowledging the similarities to the Trisagion, was at the same time sensitive to the Roman Catholic belief that the prayer was given to St. Faustina by Our Lord Jesus Christ. To put it another way, it seems that stating that the prayer was 'based on' the Trisagion implied that the prayer was made up by St. Faustina herself (i.e. not divinly revealed). I'd be intrested to see your view on the topic.--Trounce 14:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I'd feel that 'based on' doesn't necessarily imply Faustina made it up - if, as proponents of the visions believe, the prayer was divinely revealed, there is no reason Christ could not have modified an already preëxisting prayer. The Trisagion itself was originally divinely revealed. Furthermore, the RC belief that the Divine Mercy devotion is divinely revealed is not dogma, and individual Catholics are free to doubt or disbelieve in the divine nature of the visions Faustina received. The Trisagion part is clearly based on the original Trisagion, merely with a few more words added. InfernoXV 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fair enough. I also considered that idea that Christ himself would open the eyes of the western tradition to a prayer from the eastern tradition and it really excited me. Churches can get bogged down in dogma and sometimes become blind to what we have in common.--Trounce 09:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preto Velho

About User talk:Error#St Anthony and Preto Velho I have no idea. You make sense and I was just propagating info within Wikipedia. I will add cn tags. Be bold. --Error 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Baliqiao

Sorry that I did not realize that travelling is British English spelling. I just changed it by the automatic screen spell checking. Regarding the title of the article, I still think that Eight Mile Bridge should be renamed to Baliqiao and left my opinions at Talk:Eight Mile Bridge. You can go to talk there. Thanks.--Neo-Jay 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your trivium

There is no need for the piece of information which you added to Xiao (flute). The entire article is rather short and your piece of trivia stands out disproportionately. Articles such as flute, oboe, shakuhachi, and lute (see [2]) do not contain references to their slang usage to refer to fellatio and/or reproductive organs. Thus, by precedent, your addition is unnecessary, especially in an article which does not have a large amount of information on less trivial subjects. Furthermore, your claim is unverified and uncited. I am Chinese and it is doubtful that enough people are even familiar enough with the instrument for it to be common mainstream slang, and it is certainly not "common knowledge." --Xiao Li 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Your profile notes that you are in Secondary school, so I'm not entirely surprised you are unfamiliar with the usage. I suggest you ask any Chinese person over the age of, say, 50. Watch them blush. 吹箫 in common Chinese slang refers to 口交. Check http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%A3%E4%BA%A4 if you like. It's common enough for it to be a joke in scripts of films from Hongkong, Taiwan and the Mainland. InfernoXV 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments on relevancy still stand. Why is this relevant? Articles about other musical instruments used in sexual euphemisms do not include such information as I have cited. Sexual euphemisms are various and numerous in almost all cultures. If you look in urbandictionary.com and type in something random, you will get one or more sexual meanings perhaps half of the time. It is not the function of an encyclopedia to document every inch of the murky, ever-shifting, and multifarious world of slang. Articles such as flute, oboe, shakuhachi, and lute have established a precedent of factoids such as yours not being relevant to articles about musical instruments. If you still so obstinately and intently insist on the significance of fellatio to traditional Chinese music, I suggest we obtain a third opinion.--Xiao Li 08:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InfernoXV&oldid=164006339"