Talk:Sanctus

Untitled

"Sanctus is also a Roman cognomen derived from the Latin word for "holy"." Even one example of Sanctus used as a cognomen might make this clearer. Perhaps someone will expand this reference and return it to the text.For instance, what time frame are we talking about here? --Wetman 19:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any Roman with that cognomen Lostcaesar 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sanctus was found as cognomen in an inscription found on Aventin, person name Latinius Sanctus. Source: https://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/edh/inschrift/HD032438&lang=en.Daniel Robert Sum (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"Pleni sunt coeli et terra" - or is it "Pleni sunt caeli et terra"? Or, rather "Pleni sunt cæli et terra"?

I think, that the last two make the most sense, since pronounced in Italian, coeli would be 'koeli' whereas the two other would be 'cheli', which means sky or heaven.

Trihagion

How does this relate to the trihagion article?

Try trisagion — Gareth Hughes 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the trisagion relate more strongly to the Agnus Dei? Reverend Mommy 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

And see this. Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Q

What is the Greek Orthodox term for the "Sanctus" prayer? (After the Anaphora.) Is it also considered a Trisagion prayer? 118.165.204.116 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is here. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Rationale for removing the translations?

Recently an editor removed a large portion of this article, mainly translations. Is there some good reason for this that you can articulate? Otherwise I am inclined to restore it as an important part. Not everyone can understand Latin, and at least one translation helps vastly with the understanding of this topic.

I can articulate yes, thanks anyway. Verbatum reproduction of text, not to mind translations, is discouraged here, its not the job of an encyclopedia, we are more interested in context and overview. External links do that job well enough. The same principal applies to poetry or musical articles; we do not just slap down the text, all of it, but quote selected passages within an analysis. Ceoil 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the guideline Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, the guiding principle is whether or not the text is copyrighted. In my opinion, it is quite small enough to include the full text (viz. Gettysburg Address) but we need to ascertain the copyright status of each translation. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Come back to me so on copyrighted text. Ceoil 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree with Elizium23, and should say that this biblical/prayer copyright issue has been debated on many talk pages and unfortunately resulted in the loss of good editors when the debate overboiled. So please do take it easy on this, as a start. And in general many prayers, are quoted in Wikipedia and it is not at all clear how a thousand year old prayer can be copyrighted by 20 different books at once. It is best to have the prayer in this page because it helps the reader. History2007 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I did more searches and I put an English version back. This prayer appears in many, many books and is in such widespread use that clearly none of those books can claim a copyright to it. History2007 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not so much dealing with misc. translations as with texts approved for worship. ICEL seems only concerned with unauthorized hymnals; the US bishops have been more zealous in guarding copyright on the forthcoming texts, but since their Sanctus is identical with an earlier translation establishing a fair-use rational is moot. I've put back the PD-US versions in full and sketched in some context to suggest the lines on which I think the article should be developed. Sparafucil (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but what was the problem with the "normal/usual" English version I had which said high instead of hyge etc. The ones you added I would not recognize.... The Sanctus I am used to does not appear on the page now! I added it back. It is amazing how much time is getting wasted here due to the initial deletion, with no serious improvement to content. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not merely one of copyright, but as Ceoil said, it's not the job of an encyclopedia to provide lengthy original texts, and especially not multiple translations of a single text. That's what external links are for in the case of copyrighted material, and what Wikisource is for in the case of free material. In general, anything published in the U.S. before 1923 is public domain, as is anything from the 16th and 17th centuries, and as is the 1979 ECUSA Book of Common Prayer. These texts can all go to Wikisource. Pais (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is amazing, just amazing how time gets wasted on these talk pages via discussions that do little for the benefit of the readers. Now, if some poor user clicks to find out what the Sanctus is, should he/she not see the main English version on this page? I certainly think so. The reader needs to be informed what this prayer is. The 15th century versions should go away, for they do nothing, absolutely nothing for 90% of the readers. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Who decides what the "main English version" is? If we're only going to show the ICEL version, we should at least label it as such and source it. And a whole lot of English-speaking Christians still use 17th-century language in their liturgy. (Not 15th century, which would precede the Reformation.) Pais (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Something like the ICEL version that "sounds like modern English" and is used by over 50 million people in the US every week would be the main version. The problem now is that someone who hears "God of power and might" and wants to relate that to Sanctus is not being helped. This is a REALLY easy issue and just having the modern English version plus Latin will resolve the nightmares here. By the time we end this debate ICEL may have a new version anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Gregorian chant.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gregorian chant.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of providing a Greek text

Is a Greek text provided as a Greek translation of the Latin prayer? This is the English Wikipedia, not the Greek Wikipedia. So, if that is the purpose, why provide a translation into an earlier form of Greek, not modern Greek? Isn't it better to give the corresponding text used in the Greek liturgy, which is no translation from the Latin text and on the contrary differs from it? I can provide translations of the Latin text into Greek and several other languages, including Hebrew. But is that what is wanted? Thanatos666 seems to think so. At least that is how I read his comment on my talk page, which I am moving to here, so that it can be discussed by others as well as by me.

Is the Greek text provided to show what the Greek liturgy has at the point where the Latin liturgy has the Sanctus, and to show in what ways the Greek tradition differs from the Latin? That is my view. In my opinion, it would be useful also to give the Syriac, Coptic and Armenian texts (if different from the Latin and Greek traditions), accompanying each of them with an English translation, so that readers can see what differences, if any, there are between those texts and the Greek and Latin texts.

Here is what Thanatos666 wrote on my talk page:

The translation you had added, taken from here, reads "...Hosanna to God in the highest.". But compare it, e.g., to the Latin: "...Hosanna in excelsis.". Then compare it first to the quoted below 1549 Book of Common Prayer translation i.e. "...Glory to thee, O lorde in the highest." and that to the quoted, either e.g. ICET translation, i.e. "... Hosanna in the highest." or e.g. the 2011 the Roman Missal in English one, i.e. "...Hosanna in the highest.". Then compare Mathew 21:9, i.e. "...Ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις.", to all of them.

I'm neither a theologian, be it Orthodox or other, or a relevant field scholar, nor for that matter a believer (I'm an atheist); but I can e.g. read this... If you know Greek (ancient and modern) you might get the point too; recall, btw and inter alia, that we're talking about the hymn in general...

PS Btw, quoting, as you did, inside the article text St John's Liturgy was intrusive, disruptive, irrelevant: the Sanctus is not found/sung-recited only there/then. You also misread the source you had cited; which itself, as far as my little mind can tell with a little bit of research, reading the texts, etc, is claiming inaccuracies/falsehoods... ;-

PPS Getting the point will/would make you understand why a. the "ὁ" should be inside parentheses and b.1. there should either be no translation at all thereat of the Greek into English or b.2. there should be (at least) two translations accompanied by a full/complex analysis of the issue at hand, including the forms in other languages, other quoted or not translations, etc....
Thanatos|talk|contributions 10:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The English translation that Thanatos666 objects to is not a translation of the Latin liturgical text, but of the Greek liturgical text. The Greek liturgical text does not put ὁ in parenthesis: the parenthesis marks that Thanatos666 added might (but only perhaps) be justified if the Greek text were intended as a translation from the Latin, but in that case you would certainly need to add something like ὁ Θεὸς to render the word Deus in Dominus Deus Sabaoth, to which nothing corresponds in the Greek liturgical text. The New Testament text, as Thanatos666 says, is Ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις (Hosanna in the highest). The Latin liturgical text has this biblical text twice, while the Greek liturgical text has it once only and also has the distinct though similar phrase Ὡσαννὰ ὁ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις (Hosanna the One in the highest, which in Latin would be Hosanna qui in excelsis), which is not the biblical text. (Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.) On the other hand, it is the Latin liturgical text that departs from the biblical text of Isaiah 6:3 by adding Deus.

The difference between Thanatos666's version and mine is shown here. Note that, though Thanatos666 seems to call the Greek text a translation from Latin (have I misunderstood him?), he also calls it the Epinikios Hymnos, which suggests instead a Greek liturgical text, not a translation. The Greek Orthodox source that I cited denies that the Greek liturgical text has any specific Greek name. Esoglou (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, you have misunderstood me; totally...
Let's see:

• I haven't claimed that the Greek is a translation from Latin or anything similar.
• As the article reads, the hymn is composed of two parts: one from-quoting the Old Testament and one from-quoting the New.
• The Νew Τestament used-quoted passage does not, per the MSS-codices, read ὁ at the relevant place.

Note: If I'm erroneous, more knowledgeable people should feel free to correct me.

• The hymn in Greek, as per the Greek forum page - which is in... Greek - I had cited (it's a highly specialised forum-website and a discussion between psaltai, i.e. cantors, or anyway of people of relavant interests and occupations, citing -serious, relevant- sources etc), is used at times with and at other times without an ὁ.

Note1: This would constitue reason enough for the (ὁ) to be quoted thus.

Note2: For the record, I was the one who, among other things, had added the text in Greek in the first place; I hadn't included said article because I thought it would greatly complicate things; but I've changed my mind: for the sake of accuracy I've now added it, albeit inside parentheses.

• Hosanna can be translated as many things, depending on context and hence it can also change the meaning of its contextual words. See for example said Greek forum page or for example (google is my friend; as NSA is...) this.
• This - at least as I understand it - is reflected at the already present translations of the hymn into English in this article.
• Explaining the complexity of all of this is hard and would require many things, including commenting on the quoted translations into English...
• Esoglou's additional phrases were simply a bit... irrelevant:
  • The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom can of course be cited, as it now is; but including it as and where Esoglou did, as and where Esoglou had worded it, is intrusive and disruptive, at least imo. The Epinikios Hymnos is present inside said Liturgy, but it's also present elsewhere (e.g. the ... Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great); it is a...hymn (in the relevant Orthodox context). In comparison, the Sanctus is also present in the Requiem[1] but we don't mention the latter anywhere inside the (Text:) in Latin subsection... The Liturgies or Masses or Services in whichever language are of secondary or tertiary importance or relevance; the article is about the hymn per se.

Note: If you want to work on this - as per your Is the Greek text... and the Greek and Latin texts. - feel free to do it; but please do it inside a new section, i.e. outside the Text - and the Text:In Greek subsection - section, and after or inside a subsection of the Sources section. Be advised though, that imo in order to do this, you would have to read up first a lot on the whole thing...

• • And
    • a.The source Esoglou cited (Orthodox answers), was misread and miquoted by him (the source reads that the Hymn does not have a name, not that the part of the Divine Liturgy(-ies) wherein the hymn is placed, can be found, does not have a name).
    • b. The source's claim is inaccurate; see for example Chrysostom's Liturgy in English (emphasis mine)

Priest:
Singing the victory hymn, proclaiming, crying out, and saying:
People:
Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna to God in the highest.

Note: The hymn can also be cited/called in a Sanctus-like manner, i.e. Ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος Σαβαώθ or similar.

• Finally a personal note: Dear Esoglou, the edits, the initial comment and also this, were and are not intended in any way as a personal attack against you; I'm sure what you did was done in good will and in a contructive, positive spirit. :)

PS Continuing for a while and only for while, between us two in Greek (after Esoglou started it...:) ):
"(Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.)"
Δεν σε πιάνω... Δες σχόλιο υπ'αριθμόν 9. Αν πάλι δε εννοείς κάτι άλλο, διευκρίνισε σε παρακαλώ...
Συνέχισε σε παρακαλώ πάντως την συζήτηση στα αγγλικά· είναι κανονισμός αλλά και χάριν ευγενείας και σεβασμού προς τους άλλους...
Στο κάτω κάτω της γραφής είμαστε στην αγγλική, όχι στην ελληνική wikipedia... ;-)

Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So, in conclusion, do you (like me) consider the purpose of giving a Greek quotation to be to show what the Greek liturgy uses in correspondence to the Sanctus in the Latin liturgy? If so, it must be quoted accurately. My version accurately reports what is found in all the sources at my disposal say is in the Greek liturgy. It uses the "Hosanna" phrase in two forms, once without and one with the article. In neither instance does it put the article (ὁ) in parenthesis. What is the reliable source for your version? You surely don't want to insert original research. Esoglou (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to quote Liturgies-Masses-... do it inside a dedicated section; then and there quote it and analyse it at will (I have no objection to this; I don't know how others would react). Just please don't do it inside the Τext section; therein it was and it would again be intrusive, disruptive and irrelevant. The article is about the hymn itself; not about the former... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't cite a Greek forum page as a source for the text. We need reliable secondary sources here; the text of a common liturgy is best, since this is, of course a liturgical hymn first and foremost. What are your sources and why are you preferring them over liturgical texts? Elizium23 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage reads that you know basic Greek; perhaps you should practise it by reading said forum-discussion-page?!?! ;-)
I've already mentioned that serious sources are cited therein...
And btw I've not used said page as a source inside the article... I've only pointed to it when discussing the issue at the talk-page(s).
P.S. You can also for example hear the hymn sung here without said article (or at least, I personally don't hear said article). Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have a "serious source" then please cite it in this article. The current source is http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc-el which does not have parentheses anywhere, so you will need to remove them in order to conform to the cited source. If you have another source text which includes the parentheses, then by all means include it and cite it as usual. Referring us to a forum post here and refusing to cite actual sources is simply WP:OR and cannot be permitted. Elizium23 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that everyone interprets the rules at will... Do you want me to solve your "problem"? OK watch how I will do it... Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Problem solved. Are you happy?? ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove content from articles again in this manner, it is inappropriate and considered vandalism. You have been warned appropriately. Now please begin to cite real sources and stop dreaming things up. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I repeat: Stop invoking, quoting and interpreting rules at will. Especially when you don't - most probably - have a clue about the issue at hand... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the current revision. As for this discussion. I wish you would be a little more polite. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is Elizium23's reply, posted on my talk page
(EDIT: I know realise that he/she has deleted my last reply here. It can be found at this page's history... Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)):
"Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Sanctus, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Elizium23 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)"
It doesn't even cross your mind, it doesn't even register, that what you have done is a personal attack many orders of magnitude greater than what I have been forced, after the fact, to do; right? Guessed so... ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also consider sticking to your usual topic areas. This topic area is frequented by Esoglou and myself, we are all experienced editors here, and so seeing that Esoglou had a concern, I decided to investigate and back him up if I found his concerns to be well-founded. I didn't intend to step into the abuse you have dished out, and I certainly didn't expect that from an editor who's been around since 2007. You should know better. Elizium23 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Being an "experienced editor" means nothing to me if what said editor does is plainly wrong/false/inaccurate/misleading as far the actual content is concerned. Perhaps it is you who should instead frequent articles about stuff that you actually have a modicum of knowledge of, about?!?! ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"In Greek"

As source for giving a particular presentation of the Greek of the Sanctus in a form that combines (by use of a parenthesis), the form in the Liturgies of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil with that in the Liturgy of Saint James, is it enough to refer to a later section of the article which gives not two but three Greek forms? Would it be better to give two concrete sources, one for each of the two forms? Or, since the third form is not now in use, would it be better to say not just "In Greek", but something like "Present Greek form"? Esoglou (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A. It is more than enough. Please do below, at the relevant following sections, any analysis you want to do.

B. Please understand, as I've repeatedly (tried to) explained to you:
This article is about the hymn itself. Not about the Liturgies or the Masses or... Be it or they, in Greek, Latin, English, Wookiee, Klingon, Elven, Dothraki or ... ;-)

PS. This of course, shouldn't be misinterpreted, misunderstood, as an objection against, to, mentioning, describing, citing or addressing liturgical things of relevance....

PPS. I'm assuming this comment/section refers to this edit of mine.

Thanatos|talk|contributions 09:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As you rightly say, the article is about the hymn itself. In, of course, the various forms it has taken, since the Sanctus exists only in concrete forms. There are at least two Latin forms. The English forms are at least five. The Greek forms are at least three. For some reason, you want to combine the Greek forms into one, using parentheses. Should that combined Greek form not be: Ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος/Κύριε Σαβαώθ· πλήρης ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ (τῆς) δόξης σου, ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις. Εὐλογημένος ὁ (ἐλθὼν καὶ) ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου. Ὡσαννὰ (ὁ) ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις ? It would then be in conformity with what you direct the reader to for the sourcing of your combined form. Esoglou (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly because the issue is complex (something I've been trying to explain from the beginning) the most reasonable thing in my opinion to do, is to present in the Text section the major universal or anyway very common form(s) (in the main, whatever might one understand by this, or anyway in various languages) and to then continue explaining the issue at hand in more detail, in steps later on. Simple start, as clear and as uncomplicated as possible, at the same time as extensive in what gets laconically covered as possible, then building up and expanding gradually; first in the Sources section (I had been the one btw who had added in the first place, the historical part of it, the two ancient forms) and then inside the other following sections (or anyway in a way similar to this; the exact section structure and names thereof don't matter that much (OK, theydo matter, but I'm talking about a reasonable frame of reference of possible and acceptable presentations)).

You see, even the present hymn form of e.g. Basil's liturgy, could be argued that it's not really the present form of this liturgy but only one of them; an Orthodox priest somewhere, let's say in Jerusalem or Alexandria, or even at a village near Kato Kolopetinitsochoria :) might be using a different manuscript Greek version from an old or anyway different book (yes this is speculative, yet hardly, I think, impossible or unreasonable...). I remind you that the Swainson source I've added, however authoritative or not, does not cover all the old mss, all the forms preceding us from all the periods beginning in that of said mss (let alone the even older history), nor (all) what is exactly being used around the world at the present. Or take the form in Latin; it doesn't need be the variant forms that could or would trouble us (link/point to the variant(s) please, so that it/they'd be available for future reference; I have lost so much time on this article, for good or for not so good reasons... I can't continue in the same manner...). See for example the Requiem Mass webpage I've linked to: therein by Sanctus, they mean and name the Old Testament part; the New Testament part, they call it Benedictus (similarly so in Greek, in various contexts; don't you think?!?!)... ;-)

PS In fact, in my view, your additions of all the various Greek versions analysing simple stuff (and my retouch of them and then your reretouch) is mostly besides the point; I think we should only cover those whose lexical, grammatical or syntactical difference is important, relevant and/or when the latter matter with respect to other languages and churches, when it's of historical and/or theological, etc., importance and relevance; the section being called Hymn forms in Eastern liturgies is also besides the point when seen from the greater view (yes I am the one who named, or renamed, it thus; but I had done it in response to what you had written and included; should this change...). I think we should focus more on an across languages and denominations perspective starting from the history (Sources section stuff) and then expand moving forward in time and space and covering more historical, theological and other stuff; if possible that is (presently I wouln't be able to do that; among other things because I don't e.g. remember whether I had found/read more stuff or sources analysing the history, the theology, etc of the hymn, more extensively than Mazza, when I had researched the issue; but perhaps you or some other future editor could be capable and willing).

PPS In short that's why e.g. I've removed the cn tag. Citing there sources would only complicate things. Explanations would be needed. Then it may perhaps create a need of quoting more forms; or the history; and all these too early in the article; etc... Apart that is, from what it seemed to me like edit-warring or similar coming from your camp (just like your accusing me of OR -when you seem to be and/or to speak Greek- after I had pointed you to the relevant stuff)... ;-)

PPPS To explain even more so the specific reasoning of why I've quoted -inside the article- the Greek text at the Text:In Greek (sub-)section and described it as the present form(s) is that a.it seems -at least to me- that these are the two major, predominant (if not the sole) forms, presently in use (others, if present, would seem in comparison like exceptions), b. the difference between these two is only said article, therefore it's something very easy, trivial, uncomplicated and uncomplicating, etc., to quote, c.these two (or one with a twist) seem to be the basis/origin/centre-of-gravity of and/or to cover and/or to be the analogue of the dominant western variations/translations (first in Latin and then...) from many perspectives (on the OT part, especially the Protestants, could have also...) and d.citing only liturgical sources, especially in the way you have many a time done so, gives, at least imo, the false impression that the hymn is just a part of some X liturgy when in fact it has and has had an existence of its own.

PPPPS As with the Latin variant(s), could you also please point/link to the presently used James' Liturgy form that is missing the ho article from the hymn? Thanx.

PPPPPS I hope you've now fully gotten the rationale behind... Please don't make me analyse things in even more detail and/or in more long and/or longer comments; please don't make me be constantly anxious and worried over the state of this article or to have to edit-war over it... Thanx.

Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Refusing to cite sources on the grounds that they "would only complicate things" is not accepted on Wikipedia. Nor is "it seems to me" accepted as a substitute for a concrete source.

For each of the different versions of the Sanctus acclamation in English and in Latin a source is given. Wikipedia requires a source also for each of the different Greek versions of the acclamation. Unsourced versions are not admissible.

Even [Wikisource indicates that the two Hosanna phrases in the Sanctus of the Liturgy of Saint James are identical: unlike the Liturgies of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil, in which one phrase is "Hosanna in the highest" and the other "Hosanna the One in the highest". If you want it in Greek, you can see it {http://www.saint.gr/files/2792/leitoyrgia_iakwbos_adelfo8eos.pdf here] or here. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The composite version that you have invented is still unsourced. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not unsourced. And the Latin and English sections don't get such analysis. The text has a NOTE next to it advising the reader to read the SOURCES and the HYMN FORMS IN EASTERN LITURGIES; doing that the reader would follow logical steps towards an understanding of the issues. Inside those sections, the reader would also find the proper citations.
I'm tired. Really tired. Very tired. Really @%@%@$#%@#$ tired. I !@#!@# tired of having to analyse ad nauseam (yet still...). I'm @#@#%$ tired of bending over backwards. I really !@#$!@$ tired of people interpreting rules at will and I am really really !@$@#$@## tired of people - let alone people who... - accusing me of doing unbelievable stuff like The composite version that you have invented is still unsourced and claiming unreasonable baseless things like The composite version that you have invented is still unsourced!
Do you want to see how easily this GREAT @#$%@#$%^@ problem of yours, of this unsourced (supposedly) composite version that I have invented [sic] can be solved ?!?!?
PS.The only thing I can really thank you for, is the providing the links as asked: Thanx. Thanatos|talk|contributions 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. It's magic. Wow! A miracle!
I'm speechless...
My actions, my actions, it must be the Holy Spirit acting through me... ;-)
PS Unbelievable!!! A cn tag is not needed!!!!!!
Not that the cn was really needed before;
even citing twice the same refs was not really needed...
Thanatos|talk|contributions 14:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's still your personal synthesis, isn't it? Better is a presentation free of synthesis, clearer. and in harmony with the Latin and English sections, which nobody would dream of synthesizing. Let the two presentations stand side by side so that others can help choose between them. Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

So has SYNTH been now added to OR, cn, and all the other stuff you and Elizium23 have attributed to me or accused me of doing, not doing, and/or being?? Do you understand at all what you're actually reading and/or invoking????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The parenthesis is just a handy, simple method to e.g. present the two very similar,related, almost identical texts/forms at once, instead of having to present the text twice just for the sake of one @#$@#%@#%@# article (however important or not may the latter be later, inside a context of an e.g. analysis in e.g. a syntactic hence semantic and hence a possible theological level; something, among many that is, that I don't see happening in the near future, by the looks of what has hitherto happened...). It's not a new form, it's not a composite version! And it's not SYNTH: each form is just covered then by different sources/refs (which as I've said are anyway inter alia useless and redundant here since these two forms are being analysed with citations later on in the article, something noted, pointed out by the (previously sole) note which is also advising and pointing to the relevant places/sections)!!!!!!!!!!
How simpler could this be?!?!?!?
Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The documentary evidence is of two texts: one invariably found in the two most commonly used liturgies of the Greek Orthodox Church, the other invariably found in a rarely used liturgy of the same church. I prefer to see these texts presented as such. You prefer to present them as a single text that treats as optional one very short word that in spite of its brevity changes the meaning. I wonder what do others prefer. Esoglou (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Although on its own, this reply makes more sense, in no way it contitutes a substantiation or a justification of the SYNTH (or other) accusation.
So you want to have it displayed twice even if the difference is only an article: Well fine, in my opinion that would suck, but OK, whatever...
A warning though: Please don't use this as an excuse of also reinserting the intrusive liturgical stuff into the Text section... Thanatos|talk|contributions 07:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again; Yet somehow, I'm the one who's supposedly uncooperative, unresponsive, polemic, etc...
PS. OK; I guess I'm an elephant...
Thanatos|talk|contributions 16:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you fighting about this time? You cite yesterday's 18:22 edit, which added to your combining two texts into one a presentation of each text individually, leaving it to other editors to express an opinion on which is better. At 20:38 yesterday you raised no objection to it. Nor did you object to it this morning at 07:38, when you even said: "OK, whatever ..." with regard to the presentation of each of the two texts (whose final phrases differ in meaning) individually. So what has happened since then to stir up this latest outburst? Esoglou (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Name in English

Wrong. It's also called Epinikios Hymnos.
Case in point the following sample of links simply found by googling (search for epinikios if a pdf or similar):
1 2 3 4 5 Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Therefore restored. Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Better not ... you just started the discussion. Wait at least a couple of days for discussion to reach consensus. DP 00:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start a discussion. I'm sick of discussions.... I just created a new section here to provide links explaning and then to point to this at the edit summary...
P.S. For some strange reason undoing my work without explanation or justification (let alone that this undoing is evidently factually wrong) isn't a problem but my factual and explained actions are; I have to talk; something which in any case, worked really great, served me very well last time... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I spent an hour going over your contributions to this article. I can't say that I've found a single one that actually improves it. Are you sure you're putting your energy on the right areas of this project? This one might not be your forté DP 00:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I will try to reply politely (You're testing me. Really really testing me. Really really really testing my patience and self-control...):
Look harder... ;-) Explicit examples of major hereto additions by me have been given in the various discussions above. It's not so hard to locate them... Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't really be bothered to go through everybody's edits, but -- despite everything -- this article seems to be better off than it was before Thanatos got involved. — lfdder 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanx. Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the reasoning I gave was wrong (I mean, your reading of it). Should it be in the lede though? Maybe we could have a 'Names' section? — lfdder 00:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it obliously should. A propos, I had long ago created a redirection of Epinikios Hymnos to Sanctus. Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: the last word of Epinikios Hymnos redirecting page single edit summary, should read disambiguation instead of redirection; I still remembering realising the mistake a microsecond after clicking on the button... :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sanctus is inclusive; epinikios hymnos is used to refer only to the Greek version of it (some of the time). What do we do in such cases? Do we treat it as if it were a synonym? Anyway, I don't really feel strongly about it. — lfdder 01:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Splitting hairs is meaningless (if the naming convention-distinction was indeed this(link?), this itself could be mentioned though); synonym, identical(again let's not split hairs) reference, common logic. Thinking laterally or more broadly might also help. And then more complex logic could also help: If Epinikios Hymnos is the name of only the form in Greek (which one btw?!?!?! :D) and Sanctus of the one in Latin, then what is the reference of
Sources: "As Enrico Mazza writes:..."?!?!?!? ;-)
PS Splitting hairs similarly , one could argue that Sanctus isn't or wasn't or hadn't been always the name of the hymn in English... :)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're happy with the opening para and nobody else objects either then I think we can probably move on. — lfdder 02:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with the lead phrase. I'm not happy at all with the rest of the lead section. To understand my logic and where I'd wish (and planned) we'd go towards, read e.g. the 4th comment in this section, i.e. "Exactly because..." (parts of the lead would, following this rationale, get moved to other sections). But I won't be doing any such thing any time soon; especially now, after what happened.... Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Btw thinking out loud (originating from the googling I did before), but if someone knows the answer...:
This perplexes me: ...englische Lobgesang...?!?!? What am I missing? What does the poet want to say (Greek phrase; the Greeks will get it)? Why are they citing the English of the hymn, in fact calling it English? Are they using the English form of the hymn as a reference? Was the English form of the hymn so important, so central to Germans (or was it the only one they knew)? Din't, don't Germans have an analogous form of the hymn? Not even the German Catholics?!?!?! O.o? Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You will recover from your perplexity when you recall that in this context "englisch" means "angelic". "Non Angli sed angeli." Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanx Esoglou. I should have first slept, recover my brain functions, and then think out loud; now your reply seems obvious. Thanx. :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)