Talk:Gloria in excelsis Deo

Mariah Carey
The mention of Mariah Carey near the end of this article seems highly ridiculous to me. There are innumerable settings and recordings of this text, in ancient and modern languages. Why bring attention to Mariah Carey in this context?Drkeithphd 02:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Move to Great Doxology
This really is its proper name, as the Latin Gloria in excelsis Deo is derived from the Byzantine, not the other way around. The first line does read "the title and beginning of the Greater Doxology used in the Roman Catholic Mass and in the services of many other Christian churches." If we're going to say it's used in the services of many other Churches, it's only fair to call it by its proper name. We can then have subsections on the Western usage and various Eastern usages. The current article seems somewhat lopsided to me.InfernoXV 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, because in the Western use, this name is far more common. Perhaps there could be an article named Greater Doxology (is it Great or Greater? Greater sounds more right to me, but I'm not sure), which would explain where it comes from, and include sections like "Use in the XXX Rite," and then for Roman Catholic (or perhaps simply Western Rite, since Anglicanism retains it, and possibly other Protestant branches) it provides a quick summary with a main link to here. Then this article could get rid of most of the first paragraph and a few other bits, and focus on the use of the Gloria in Latin-based liturgy, and musical compositions of it, which are pretty weakly presented here and on Gloria. You're right that given the first sentence here, it seems backwards, and it certainly is hardly fair in its presentation of use in the Eastern Rites. This would also be more similar to the distinction between the articles Nicene Creed and Credo. Rigadoun (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea to have the separate articles for Gloria in excelsis Deo and Great Doxology. This avoids treading on the toes of those who've worked on the current article! The new article should be at Great Doxology - Velikoe Slavoslovie. InfernoXV 18:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Music
The article has little to say about the melody - seems it's written from an exclusively religious and textual viewpoint. I've googled a little, and at least there's a version by Bach, two known ones and a lost one by Vivaldi, a lost-and-found one by Händel, one by Thomas Weelkes (listen) and a gregorian one too, listen here: Click and select track 2. Someone how knows about these things, please add it to the article! (Also, I wonder, how common each version is today for choral performances?)--Niels Ø (noe) 13:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After googling and wiki-searching a bit more, I've added some wiki-links under "See also" to "Musical settings". (According to Gloria (song), there are also versions by Haydn and Felix Mendelssohn.) However, this is far from a perfect solution, so someone please help!--Niels Ø (noe) 13:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is no point in listing the musical settings. Because the music is part of the Roman Mass, there are literally thousands of them! Some composers (eg Vivaldi) have set the Gloria as a separate text, so these might be listed. In addition, some of your examples are incorrect - Bach's Magnificat is not a Gloria! Stefan 14:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what I added and Stefan removed (except Vivaldi and Poulenc):
 * Angels We Have Heard on High
 * List of compositions by Thomas Weelkes
 * Gloria (Vivaldi)
 * William Savage (has a reference to a lost-and-found version by Händel)
 * Magnificat (Bach)
 * Gaspard Corrette
 * Great Mass in C minor (Mozart)
 * Petite Messe Solennelle (Gioachino Rossini)
 * Mass (Bernstein)
 * Gloria (Poulenc)
 * I suppose he's right we can't have a complete list, and several versions that I did not list are probably more significant than those I found. But I still think someone not familiar with catholic mass but perhaps interested in e.g. choral works might expect to find more encyclopedic information here (or a link to another wikipedia article with such info) than what Stefan left.
 * He says some of my info is incorrect - again, that may be true, but re. Magnificat (Bach) says that the original version (1723) had four christmas-related parts that were removed in the 1733 version, including a gloria between what are now parts 7 and 8.--Niels Ø (noe) 14:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, feel free to add settings of the Gloria to the list - I don't have time to research for myself. I have made a few minor edits to the list I deleted; sorry for omitting the Handel Gloria which is of course correct!


 * Re: the Magnificat. Bear in mind that the subject of this article is the liturgical Gloria as in the part of the Mass: the whole text, not just the first lines which were the angelic salutation, and the 'Christmas text'. The part in the Bach Magnificat, therefore, does not fall into that category, nor do other 'angelic Glorias' such as those in Messiah and the Christmas Oratorio. Stefan 22:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to "bear in mind" what you don't know. Why is it obvious that this article is about the liturgical Gloria? Suppose a wikipedia reader (like me) basically know nothing about anything called "Gloria in excelcis Deo", other than that it's a choral work that you've heard from time to time (and I'm still not sure which of the settings it is! But the description in Angels We Have Heard on High sounds right.) This article isn't much help, then. Maybe it's not the right place to add such info, but then it should at least redirect me to a relevant article, I think.--Niels Ø (noe) 09:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The original text
Would anyone be able to provide a reference to the original Greek text? Please.Muscovite99 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
On User talk:Invocante I posted the following:
 * 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 Missal, there are indications also on the Internet. I have already drawn your attention to this site.  You could also look at this and this. And you could read Copyright violations.  Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but without getting it into trouble.  Lima (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Invocante has posted on my Talk page:
 * Who do you think you are? I [Invocante] 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 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 here Indeed if we take the example of the new translation Gloria the Church has already authorised a new musical stetting of those words which is readily available from the Word Youth day website, see http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/parishes_schools/wyd08_mass_setting. This availability on the WYD site tells us two things. One the text I provide was reliable and 2 the church is perfectly happy to have the text in the public domain. So on what basis do you laim the right to delete my entry? Lastly I might you arrogantly reedits my and everyone else's work but you make no effort to speak to me first. You seem to think you have a monopoly of wisdom about the catholic church.  —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned] comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What do others think? Lima (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Invocante's unsourced version really better than one that gives citations for its statements and provides the Greek text as requested above by another editor? Lima (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) The ICEL Gloria is not unsourced. the source is give above this paragraph, viz the official web site of the world Youth Day. The text is therefore confirmed by an official Catholic website. Invocante (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The text that Invocante wants included is in fact included. May we consider the matter closed?  Lima (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am very happy to consider the matter closed. Invocante (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Angel from The Song of Bethlehem.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Angel from The Song of Bethlehem.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 25, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-12-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 10:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of title
It's spelt as Gloria in  E xcelsis Deo. Why is  e xcelsis capitalised when it's not so treated in the lede, or anywhere else in the text? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  17:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing the title, an idea that I support, requires intervention by an Administrator. If you do not know how to request a page move - but I think you do - I will do it for you.  Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know how to do that. I was just hoping that someone here has admin-like powers.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Better? —Angr (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Much. Thanks, Angr.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Gregorian chant.gif Nominated for Deletion
I went to the link "File:Gregorian chant.gif" and saw the beginning of a Kyrie chant from the "Missa Orbis Factor". However, the Talk page I am writing in is about "Gloria in Excelsis", which in the Catholic Mass is just AFTER the Kyrie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Gloria in excelsis Deo. 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/20080720091216/http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/documents/200707031933.pdf to http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/documents/200707031933.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked by Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 07:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Messale Romano
The text of the (Latin) Missale Romanum is unaffected by changes to translations such as the English Roman Missal, the Italian Messale Romano, the French Missel romain, the Polish Mszał rzymski, the Esperanto Roma Meslibro, ...
 * Even UK Tablet acknowledges its "Latin Vulgate" Latin Vulgate means Catholic Bible translation.2601:447:4101:5780:59D9:DE84:D555:4496 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Latin Vulgate" does not mean "Catholic Bible translation" The Vulgate (see the article on it) "is a late-4th-century Latin translation of the Bible that became the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible during the 16th century". It has Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, not Et ne nos permittas cadere in tentationem (see text). Other Catholic Bible translations are the Douay-Rheims, the Knox, the Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem, the New American, Bibles. Your attibution to the source you mention of "Latin Vulgate" is just as baseless as your falsification of the Revised Standard Version of Matthew 6, which Jonathunder has rightly reverted.  Bealtainemí (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference In media
The name of the song appears in film "All quite on the western front" 1979 version 2601:600:8D81:B570:C824:7217:9D4E:524C (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

English translation of Latin text
Wouldn't "qui tollis peccáta mundi" be who takes away the sins of the world, not you take away the sins of the world?

-- Rogermw (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)