Talk:Mea Culpa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm having trouble understanding the "Popular meaning". "Mea culpa" in Latin means "my fault", but in popular English usage it means the opposite?
- The first paragraph in that section means it's an acknowledgment of a personal error or fault (according to this). The second paragraph may be confusing though, in my opinion. --Andylkl (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I wrote the first (and for some time, the only) paragraph in that section. Some time later, the anon user 141.150.94.17 (talk • contribs) added the second part. I never quite got what exactly he meant though. It would seem that (s)he was trying to describe a very trivial experience in work-related environments. As you can see, this IP address has only two edits (this one being one of them) to its credit. We could resolve this: can anyone corroborate this application to the expression "mea culpa"? If not, we can remove that second paragraph. Regards, Redux 14:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, seeing that there were some problems with the phrasing of that second paragraph, I've cleared it up. Now, with this new wording (to some extent), it seems that the meaning of it is also clearer. Maybe I'm "contaminated" because I'm the one who rewrote it, but it appears that the paragraph makes sense now, since the message is (I believe) clear to understand and it is logical. It would seem that we can keep the entry, after all. Regards, Redux 20:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- This still isn't making much sense to me. Yes, the nature of guilt is such that admitting it invites others to admit their own, but putting it specifically in an article on 'mea culpa' seems tangential, at best. And if anything, using the phrase "mea culpa" in an admission of guilt lessens, not improves, the chances that somebody else might take the blame on themselves (IMHO, of course). As for the phrase "cited in someone else's 'mea culpa'", that makes even less sense. How can you blame somebody else in your mea culpa, without completely reversing what "mea culpa" is supposed to mean?
For these reasons, I've deleted the entire paragraph.--Spudtater 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)- I agree. I didn't delete it myself because I wasn't sure if the situation explained by the anon who added the paragraph consisted in a real application of the term "mea culpa". Since people were complaining that it was poorly written, I attempted to clarify the wording. But the whole situation was never really clear to me; it did seem a little farfetched. Redux 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- This still isn't making much sense to me. Yes, the nature of guilt is such that admitting it invites others to admit their own, but putting it specifically in an article on 'mea culpa' seems tangential, at best. And if anything, using the phrase "mea culpa" in an admission of guilt lessens, not improves, the chances that somebody else might take the blame on themselves (IMHO, of course). As for the phrase "cited in someone else's 'mea culpa'", that makes even less sense. How can you blame somebody else in your mea culpa, without completely reversing what "mea culpa" is supposed to mean?
- Well, seeing that there were some problems with the phrasing of that second paragraph, I've cleared it up. Now, with this new wording (to some extent), it seems that the meaning of it is also clearer. Maybe I'm "contaminated" because I'm the one who rewrote it, but it appears that the paragraph makes sense now, since the message is (I believe) clear to understand and it is logical. It would seem that we can keep the entry, after all. Regards, Redux 20:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I wrote the first (and for some time, the only) paragraph in that section. Some time later, the anon user 141.150.94.17 (talk • contribs) added the second part. I never quite got what exactly he meant though. It would seem that (s)he was trying to describe a very trivial experience in work-related environments. As you can see, this IP address has only two edits (this one being one of them) to its credit. We could resolve this: can anyone corroborate this application to the expression "mea culpa"? If not, we can remove that second paragraph. Regards, Redux 14:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] admition
"This is done to emphasize the admition of one's own sinful nature." admition = admission (i.e. typo?). —preceding unsigned comment by 155.202.255.82 (talk • contribs) 16:06, November 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it was. Mea culpa. I've fixed it. Typos are actually quite common on Wikipedia. We usually just go ahead and fix them as we spot them. Thanks for bringing this one to attention, it had been there for quite a while, unnoticed. Regards, Redux 01:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Shorter version
I added the shorter version, as I got redirected from "Confiteor" to "Mea Culpa". For as long as I can remember, we've only said the shorter version. I don't know when that became popular though. Does anyone older (as I'm fairly young) know when it got switched? Did it occur at Vatican II? I think all relevant history behind the switching of versions should be cited, if it can be found. Thanks! --Ecurran 05:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good, but can we verify that this short version is popular in all of the English speaking countries, or maybe just the US/UK, etc.? That kind of thing should be specified if it's the case. A good place to research the evolution of Catholic prayers is www.christusrex.org. The website is fairly large though. It may take some browsing. Regards, Redux 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- It does begin with Vatican II. There has been recent movement to lengthen the "mea culpa" section back to a more literal translation of the Latin text (which was also shortened as part of the Novus Ordo mass). Donald Hosek 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
