Talk:Mea culpa

Understanding

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)

I have two comments. First, I think the sarcasm that is in the modern use of the term needs to be included. Usually, AFAIK, mea culpa refers to a ceremonial admission of guilt without actual repentance. Whether that comes from the bitter American view of Catholicism might also be a point to be discussed. (No, I am not a Catholic, but it irks me that being anti-Catholic is basically the only PC and publicly practiced religious hatred in America.) Second, I don't know enough Latin to be sure, but I think the Latin version has a capitalization mistake. Shouldn't "Pater" always be capitalized? 75.3.232.247 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Edit

The ritual that accompanies the prayer does not really shed any light as to the meaning of the phrase: Mea culpa. I've removed that.

There is a Confiteor page, perhaps that should be linked to instead of being reproduced here. Awatson945 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have moved your comment to the bottom of the page. Please notice that newer comments always go at the bottom.
As for your comment, actually no. The reproduction of the Confiteor on this page serves as an important illustration of the origin of the term. We would only consider removing content from an article in a situation such as this one if the article happened to be overly long and needed to be shortened. Since that is not the case here, we have no need to remove content from this article.
On a side note, the Confiteor article was created after this one, as a redirect here; then someone decided to make it into a separate article on the prayer. If anything, I would say that the only reason why the Confiteor article is not completely redundant with this one is because it adds the revised form of the prayer, which is not on this article. If not for that, it would be, as it stands, a clear candidate for a complete rewrite or, failing that, deletion. Redux 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I made so many edits to my notes and kept changing my mind as to what I believed was significant and what was not significant that I wish I had thought more about the issue before making any changes at all. I will be more careful in the future I promise. My point, IIRC, was as to the shortened version which is actually part of this article. It's my opinion that the shortened version of the confetitor is redundant and does not shed any light on the origin of the word. It seems to me to serve to advocate a POV rather than shed light on the term. Clearly the history is crucial and the text of the prayer in both Latin and English important. I just don't see the point of the smaller version.Again, thanks. Awatson945 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the shortened version is unnecessary in this article. In addition, I have just revised the Confiteor article and found that it is there as well. And since we are going to have a separate article on the Confiteor, we might as well concentrate the variations of the prayer (and any critical commentary on them) in it. Originally, I had inserted only the full prayer in Latin and the translation into English. Then, someone added the shortened version. I believe at the time we didn't have the article on the Confiteor, so we let that stand here. Since the circumstances have changed, I have now removed the shortened version. Thanks for bringing that up. Redux 14:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. This has really been an educational experience for me. Thanks again. Awatson945 00:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

removing trivia section

If no one opposes, i'm going to remove the trivia section in this article. in addition to trivia sections generally being against wikipedia articles, this one seems to be nothing more than a list of shows, albums, songs, movies etc which use the phrase "mea culpa". that's really uninteresting since it's just a normal phrase, and is of no encyclopedic value in my opinion. Usually I like trivia sections because they contain some interesting information, but this one is just a list of album names... Hugzz 02:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! I'm still open to hear people opposing the decision though. Hugzz 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"is used on the first page of the 5th chapter"

And this information belongs in an encyclopedia for exactly what reason? Of course a common phrase appears in literature. Do we really have to enumerate all the places we might find? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.130.132 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mea Culpa by Farhan Noorani

I understand that the only similarity that this book has with the actual phrase is the title. Since the book is now listed in the disambiguation page for Mea Culpa, I don't see why we need it here. 75.170.82.115 (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

translation

Isn't the translation at the beginning wrong? I'd always assumed that "mea culpa" is ablative (with long a's at the ends of both words), which could translate as "through my fault." This corresponds exactly with its usage; the nominative "my fault," with short a's, does not. GeckoFeet (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. See Wikt:mea culpa. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ablative

It's not in the ablative: https://books.google.cz/books?id=OXp_kSDK_1kC&pg=PT222&lpg=PT222&dq=mea+culpa+ablative+nominative&source=bl&ots=XA54vajwBj&sig=jy7srZf9WfXv5x3bx7ScS0ZC32A&hl=cs&sa=X&ei=bDOYVJfRPIrMygOciIHICA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mea%20culpa%20ablative%20nominative&f=false

--2A00:1028:83D4:436:D1EE:D2A0:8B98:6944 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The article refers to ICEL2010 and other sources. You are welcome to add Anscar Chupungco's dissenting opinion (which is a bit odd as he seems to have been involved in its formulation) to the article. But it's clearly not the official tanslation which is given earlier in the same book on page 187 and I'm going to revert to that version. You might also consider that the same reading is shown in the Wikipedia articles in Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese.

For the record: the link above refers to:

• Chupungco, Anscar (2011). "The Introductory Rites – The ICEL2010 Translation". In Foley, Edward (ed.). A Commentary on the Order of Mass of the Roman Missal. Liturgical Press. p. 222. ISBN 9780814662564. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)