Jump to content

Talk:Immaculate Conception: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Immaculate Conception/Archive 3) (bot
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Immaculate Conception/Archive 4) (bot
 
(40 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WPBS|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|importance=low|theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance=mid|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Top|anglicanism=yes|anglicanism-importance=Low|saints=yes|saints-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low|theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance=mid|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Top|anglicanism=yes|anglicanism-importance=Low|saints=yes|saints-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Women in Religion|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}}
}}
}}
{{On this day|date1=2004-12-08|oldid1=12566494|date2=2005-12-08|oldid2=30599370|date3=2006-12-08|oldid3=92659164|date4=2007-12-08|oldid4=176596110|date5=2011-12-08|oldid5=464826901|date6=2012-12-08|oldid6=527051372|date7=2013-12-08|oldid7=584955033|date8=2014-12-08|oldid8=636999300|date9=2019-12-08|oldid9=929507504|date10=2019-12-09|oldid10=929664180|date11=2020-12-08|oldid11=992959574|date12=2021-12-08|oldid12=1059345739}}
{{On this day|date1=2004-12-08|oldid1=12566494|date2=2005-12-08|oldid2=30599370|date3=2006-12-08|oldid3=92659164|date4=2007-12-08|oldid4=176596110|date5=2011-12-08|oldid5=464826901|date6=2012-12-08|oldid6=527051372|date7=2013-12-08|oldid7=584955033|date8=2014-12-08|oldid8=636999300|date9=2019-12-08|oldid9=929507504|date10=2019-12-09|oldid10=929664180|date11=2020-12-08|oldid11=992959574|date12=2021-12-08|oldid12=1059345739|date13=2022-12-08|oldid13=1126106938|date14=2023-12-08|oldid14=1188761453}}
{{Copied|from=Immaculate Conception|from_oldid=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception&oldid=388450322|to=Catholic views on Mary|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_views_on_Mary&oldid=389451226}}
{{Copied|from=Immaculate Conception|from_oldid=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception&oldid=388450322|to=Catholic views on Mary|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_views_on_Mary&oldid=389451226}}


Line 9: Line 12:
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 55K
|maxarchivesize = 55K
|counter = 3
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 17: Line 20:


{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month |index= }}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month |index= }}



== rescued material ==
== rescued material ==
Line 22: Line 26:


While for some early theologians original sin was the consequence of Adam's act, for others it was [[Eve]] who was to blame, [[Irenaeus]] (born c.130) writing that "disobedient Eve" became "the cause of death, both for herself and the entire human race", and [[Ambrose]] (c.340-397) that Eve deceived Adam, while [[Origen]] (184-235) drew the lesson for all womankind: "God does not stoop to look upon what is feminine and of the flesh."
While for some early theologians original sin was the consequence of Adam's act, for others it was [[Eve]] who was to blame, [[Irenaeus]] (born c.130) writing that "disobedient Eve" became "the cause of death, both for herself and the entire human race", and [[Ambrose]] (c.340-397) that Eve deceived Adam, while [[Origen]] (184-235) drew the lesson for all womankind: "God does not stoop to look upon what is feminine and of the flesh."
== Lede ==
== Merge ==

⚫
The short article about the play could easily fit under "Artistic representations". [[User:Manannan67|Manannan67]] ([[User talk:Manannan67|talk]]) 02:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
* This kind of things should not be in broad articles, as it would be [[WP:TRIVIA]]. Thus, I '''oppose''' the merge. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 04:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as this play would likely receive a brief mention in a GA/FA version of this article. The play's article should be taken to AfD if questions of independent notability persist. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', the stand-alone page for the play works, and, per above, including it outside of maybe a 'See also' link would be trivia. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


== Without any sin for all her life ==
Repeatedly, editors have reverted properly-cited, reliably-sourced information and removed content from the lede specifically this extended last paragraph:
:Some [[Protestants]] have condemned the Immaculate Conception as un-scriptural,{{sfn|Herringer|2019|p=507}} while some [[Anglicanism|Anglicans]] accept it as a [[Anglican Marian theology|pious devotion]].<ref>{{cite book|chapter=Immaculate Conception|title=An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference for Episcopalians|url=https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/immaculate-conception/|via=[[Episcopal Church (United States)|Episcopal Church]]|access-date=3 May 2022}}</ref> Other [[Christianity|Christian]] traditions such as some [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox]] and [[Oriental Orthodox Church|Oriental Orthodoxy]] object on theological and [[Christological]] grounds.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-immaculate-conception-what-about-the-eastern-orthodox-churches|title=The Immaculate Conception: What About the Eastern Orthodox Churches?|publisher=[[National Catholic Register]]|date=9 November 2012|last=Shea|first=Mark|access-date=26 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/marilecture1.pdf|title=Lecture I: St. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity & Immaculate Conception|publisher=[[Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States|Diocese of the Southern United States]]|author1=[[Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria|Shenouda III]]|author2=Malaty, Tadros|access-date=3 May 2022}}</ref> [[Patriarch]] [[Anthimus VII of Constantinople]] characterized the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as a "[[Roman Catholic (term)|Roman]] novelty".{{sfn|Meyendorff|1981|p=90}}


{{quote|the Council of Trent, held in several sessions in the early 1500s, exempted her from the universality of original sin and also affirmed that the Virgin Mary remained during all her life free from all stain of sin, even the venial one.}}
I ask that {{u|Achar Sva}} explain why they've broken 3RR to remove that content. Edit descriptions of "last good version" suggest the editor is aware of the fact they have reverted this content more times than they are generally permitted without discussion or further elaboration. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 23:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|Achar Sva}} Hey, not sure if you saw this original message. You've thrice reverted sourced content (in another edit today, also deleted another sourced passage a second time). I'd encourage you to actively address your rationale here because that is reliably sourced material and it has hit that limit where you're supposed to at least partially discuss it. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 17:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
::Hi [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]]; it's not actually forbidden to delete sourced material if doing so improves the article. Can you tell me which specific deletion you mean? (I can't promise to get back immediately, but I will within the next few days). [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 06:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
::: It is not an improvement. The lede gives a general overview of the positions of various denominations. "Some Protestants" appears to be more accurate, as the very next line says Anglicans accept it, but as a pious devotion rather than doctrine. It is sourced; it states their position; and your edit summary "...not a doctrine or belief" is irrelevant and immaterial. [[User:Manannan67|Manannan67]] ([[User talk:Manannan67|talk]]) 06:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
::::{{re|Manannan67}} Thank you for summarizing my concern. {{ping|Achar Sva}} The sources and material I had added (mostly visible [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception&diff=1086170150&oldid=1086169686 here]) further contextualize the concept in relation to additional denominations. Since it is not universally a doctrine and is accepted by certain non-Catholic communities, I opted for broader language while still emphasizing that it is of great importance and relevancy in relation to the Catholic Church and its acceptance of the Immaculate Conception as doctrine. I understand that you might not be available for a couple days–indeed, I probably won't be either since I will be traveling–so take your time getting back on this topic but I really do think that the removal of sourced content without explanation of how excising it improves the article is unideal (especially when repeatedly reverting it). ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 21:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
::::: So this relates to the lead? The number of Anglo-Catholics in the world is miniscule, making this too trivial to include in the lead. I have no objection to it being in the body, and in fact would support it there. [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 04:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Achar Sva}} The removal you implemented not only made an arbitrary judgement on whether there were sufficient totals of anglo-catholics to make them worthy of mention (even though the source makes reference to the devotion being among some Anglicans generally, not anglo-catholics), but also altered the lede to suggest ''no'' Protestants approve/accept the teaching. Further, you removed reliably sourced content ''repeatedly'' about the Oriental Orthodox. This article is about not just Catholic views and how the Eastern Orthodox disagree, but how the concept is dealt with universally. Heck, once I find a decent reliable source, a secular view of the Immaculate Conception would be more than appropriate in the lede, which until recently it seems like you thought ought be expanded. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


Where is this [[WP:original research]]? John Paul II [https://www-vatican-va.translate.goog/content/john-paul-ii/it/audiences/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19960619.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=it&_x_tr_pto=wapp affirmed this] on 19th June 1996, citing the Council of Trent DG 1973.
{{Reflist-talk}}


The exit corrected an error of the WP article according to which:
== Shoemaker ==
{{quote|the Council of Trent, held in several sessions in the early 1500s, made no explicit declaration on the subject but exempted her from the universality of original sin}}.
. [[Special:Contributions/176.200.83.11|176.200.83.11]] ([[User talk:176.200.83.11|talk]]) 01:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


== Lumen Gentium n. 56 ==
"Mary's conception occurs without sexual intercourse between Anne and Joachim,..." This is stated as fact, but should be attributed to Shoemaker (if left in at all) because it is subsequently contradicted in the article by both the Orthodox Church and apparently Bridget of Sweden. (both referenced) [[User:Manannan67|Manannan67]] ([[User talk:Manannan67|talk]]) 06:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
:Neither the Orthodox Church nor the visionary Bridget are reliable sources. [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 04:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
⚫
:: Says you. They are referenced. Augustine and Damascene said the same. [[User:Manannan67|Manannan67]] ([[User talk:Manannan67|talk]]) 04:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


Why the [https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Lumen Gentium] is not considered to be related to the previous topic?? It is relevant to say that not only the Council of Trent, but also the Church Fathers affirmed the preservation of the Virgin Mary from all stain of sin.
== Coyle again ==


{{quote|The same concept was also affirmed by the [[Fathers of the Church]]. See ''[[Lumen Gentium]]'', n. 56: "It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and ''free from all stain of sin'', as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature."}} [[Special:Contributions/176.200.140.47|176.200.140.47]] ([[User talk:176.200.140.47|talk]]) 07:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
"Paraphrase is preferable to quotation" -not when the source is manifestly misinterpreted. "Duns Scotus ...argued that her preservation from original sin was a redemption more perfect ''than that granted through Christ''.(?!) {{u|Achar Sva}}, please clarify for those in the back, what Christian of any denomination holds that "redemption" is somehow derived other than ''that granted through Christ''. I'll wait. [[User:Manannan67|Manannan67]] ([[User talk:Manannan67|talk]]) 07:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|Veverve}}: Why Lumen Gentium is considered a "bias source"?
:What Christian denominations might believe is irrelevant, the only relevant thing is what Duns Scotus said (or thought). [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 04:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
:: He never said/thought any such thing. This is poorly phrased and defies logic and grammar. Is English your second/third language? Clearly you do not understand Scotus. Better your doctor administers a Covid vaccine before you get sick, than attempt to treat you after you contract it; in both instances, ''it is the same physician''. If you imagine Scotus (or Coyle) said something different, please provide ''the precise quote''. [[User:Manannan67|Manannan67]] ([[User talk:Manannan67|talk]]) 04:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


== About the creation of the Gospel of James==
== Is Frederick George Holweck a not reliable source? ==


It's just a question. The author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article is [[Frederick George Holweck]] who was a German-American Catholic parish priest and scholar, hagiographer and church historian. Holweck, Frederick. "Immaculate Conception." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. [[User:Rafaelosornio|Rafaelosornio]] ([[User talk:Rafaelosornio|talk]]) 05:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how is related the history about the alleged creation of the Gospel of James with the Immaculate Conception. The important thing is to show what the Gospel of James says, the rest does not belong to this article but to the main article. Or maybe I'm wrong? --[[User:Rafaelosornio|Rafaelosornio]] ([[User talk:Rafaelosornio|talk]]) 03:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Achar Sva}} If you don't know who Holweck is, you have no business editing this page. [[User:Manannan67|Manannan67]] ([[User talk:Manannan67|talk]]) 05:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:Strictly speaking, no, the CE is not used as a source in Wikiworld. That's not because Holweck didn't know his theology, it's because the CE is too old. Still, you'll have no trouble finding a modern source that says the same thing - i.e., that Justin Martyr and the others developed the theories he ascribed to them. But the real problem is that Justin Martyr and the others aren't scholars in the Wikipedia sense - they're theologians. So this material could be rewritten along the lines that the Vatican advanced these ideas to support the Immaculate Conception, but what we can't do is advance theological positions as though they were objective facts. [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 07:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]]: Although this is out of the theme of this section, may I as you whether we could include any source like [https://books.google.es/books?id=D-GxAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=es#v=onepage&q&f=false this one] in order to indicate in the "History" section that some Eastern theologians did also subscribe to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? I'll wait for your response. [[User:Potatín5|Potatín5]] ([[User talk:Potatín5|talk]]) 11:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:::I've only glanced, but it looks like a reliable source. But having reliable sources is only part of what we need- the source has to be relevant, and what it says has to repre4sent the majority opinion (or a notable minority opinion). [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 03:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] Strictly speaking, yes, the CE can be used as a source. It may be old, but it's accurate. A more modern source would merely reinforce what Holweck said, and then you would object that it isn't "streamlined". It is entirely appropriate to make reference to theologians regarding their interpretation of a theological point. Why would you assume that anyone is advancing "theological positions as though they were objective facts?" The only fact alleged is that, right or wrong, these guys said this, not the truth or accuracy of their statements. This is (1) standard practice, and (2) generally understood. [[User:Manannan67|Manannan67]] ([[User talk:Manannan67|talk]]) 14:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Potatín5|Manannan67}} While the ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' is old and should not be used for articles on some secular topics or those relevant to strictly Biblical studies due to improved modern scholarship, the articles have been accepted repeatedly by the Wikipedia community as sufficient as a reliable source. See the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Catholic Encyclopedia topics|Wiki task force on this]] for more info. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 21:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
::::Strictly speaking, no, the CE cannot be used as a reliable source. That's for the very good reason that it's over a century old, and is therefore not capable of representing current scholarly views. If the view it represents is still current. A contemporary source can be found. Is this such a big deal? [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 03:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Achar Sva}} Strictly speaking, yes, CE ''is'' a reliable source—to deny this is to go against long, long-standing consensus. Absence of other, more modern sources does not negate the reliability of CE unless it is countermanded by an equally-qualified, more modern source. This is not an instance in which age has made it equivalent to a primary document, and it serves as one of the earliest peer-reviewed comprehensive sources we have. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Achar Sva}} Stop making up your own rules. CE is perfectly find for general information that is widely accepted. [[User:Manannan67|Manannan67]] ([[User talk:Manannan67|talk]]) 14:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
===June 2022===
{{ping|Achar Sva}} Please, if you are in disagreement with other editors, do not engage in yet another tireless series of reversions and use the talk page. You are deleting not only sourced information, but sourced information from a across-wiki defined verifiable source. If you have particular complaints about ''how'' the material is used (which is not what your original concerns were), please voice them here. If you just think CE is not a good source, then I'm afraid you're fighting against over a decade of consensus. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 15:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
:I totally agree. This is an article about a theological topic, and the history of what the earliest theologians taught is important. We do NOT follow Sola Acharya principle. This is wikipedia. --[[Special:Contributions/70.24.86.150|70.24.86.150]] ([[User talk:70.24.86.150|talk]]) 17:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
::Well, IP editor, that's not quite why I support the inclusion of this material. Inclusion on this Wikipedia article has little to do with the fact it is the Church Fathers saying these things, but rather the fact a well-established reliable source deems that material relevant to the topic. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:11, 17 August 2024


rescued material

[edit]

While for some early theologians original sin was the consequence of Adam's act, for others it was Eve who was to blame, Irenaeus (born c.130) writing that "disobedient Eve" became "the cause of death, both for herself and the entire human race", and Ambrose (c.340-397) that Eve deceived Adam, while Origen (184-235) drew the lesson for all womankind: "God does not stoop to look upon what is feminine and of the flesh."

Merge

[edit]

The short article about the play could easily fit under "Artistic representations". Manannan67 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without any sin for all her life

[edit]

the Council of Trent, held in several sessions in the early 1500s, exempted her from the universality of original sin and also affirmed that the Virgin Mary remained during all her life free from all stain of sin, even the venial one.

Where is this WP:original research? John Paul II affirmed this on 19th June 1996, citing the Council of Trent DG 1973.

The exit corrected an error of the WP article according to which:

the Council of Trent, held in several sessions in the early 1500s, made no explicit declaration on the subject but exempted her from the universality of original sin

.

. 176.200.83.11 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen Gentium n. 56

[edit]

Why the Lumen Gentium is not considered to be related to the previous topic?? It is relevant to say that not only the Council of Trent, but also the Church Fathers affirmed the preservation of the Virgin Mary from all stain of sin.

The same concept was also affirmed by the Fathers of the Church. See Lumen Gentium, n. 56: "It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature."

176.200.140.47 (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:: Why Lumen Gentium is considered a "bias source"?

About the creation of the Gospel of James

[edit]

I don't see how is related the history about the alleged creation of the Gospel of James with the Immaculate Conception. The important thing is to show what the Gospel of James says, the rest does not belong to this article but to the main article. Or maybe I'm wrong? --Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immaculate_Conception&oldid=1240784534"