Talk:Immaculate Conception

rescued material

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."

Content dispute tag

If the citation from Lohse is true, then there would have been no Scripture references in the document at all. But the section above that citation shows that Scripture verses such as Genesis 3:15 are used to argue for the Immaculate Conception by the commission (are you trying to say all of those Scripture verses in favor of the Immaculate Conception came only from Pius himself? That he's the only man in the Church that would have come up with those verses?) Now whether those verses actually point towards it or not is a different story. But it would be inaccurate to say the commission could not make an argument for the Immaculate Conception from any Scripture or Tradition at all. 69.115.230.123 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you please move your dispute tag to the actual passage by Lhose that you dispute? Incidentally, you can't dispute a statement in the article by saying you think the source is wrong - you can say the source is not a reliable one, or that it's being misrepresented, but you can't simply say it's wrong.

I think you're referring to this: The commission Pius IX had called together declared that neither scriptural proof nor a broad and ancient stream of tradition was required to promulgate Mary's Immaculate Conception . It insisted, further, that the authority of the church today is quite sufficient to define this dogma. My understanding of Lhose's statement (as quoted by Rafaelosornio in an earlier thread) is that Pius was saying that neither scripture nor magisterium (i.e., tradition) were necessary to establish the dogma, and that "the authority of the church" was enough for this purpose. He was not denying that scriptural proof-texts existed or that the Immaculate Conception had no basis in tradition, but the problem he faced was that there's no clear, explicit statement in scripture, and the tradition is conflicted; his answer was that these things didn't matter, as the authority of the pope speaking from the Chair of Peter (i.e., Papal infallibility was sufficient.Achar Sva (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've dug into this sentence: The commission Pius IX had called together declared that neither scriptural proof nor a broad and ancient stream of tradition was required to promulgate Mary's Immaculate Conception. It insisted, further, that the authority of the church today is quite sufficient to define this dogma. The sentence is not supported by the source Hillerbrand p.63, but it merely repeats information in the immediately prior sentence, which is correctly sourced to and supported by the source Lohse pp.102-103. I've deleted it. If you're happy with this you can remove your tag entirely, or if you're not, please move it to the sentence you dispute.Achar Sva (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Just an observation, the text "The commission Pius IX had called together declared that neither scriptural proof nor a broad and ancient stream of tradition was required to promulgate Mary's Immaculate Conception" is on the book "A Short History of Christian Doctrine" by por Bernhard Lohse, page 204. Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Lede

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, while some Anglicans accept it as a pious devotion. Other Christian traditions such as some Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodoxy object on theological and Christological grounds. Patriarch Anthimus VII of Constantinople characterized the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as a "Roman novelty".

I ask that 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. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@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. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi 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). 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. Manannan67 (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Manannan67: Thank you for summarizing my concern. @Achar Sva: The sources and material I had added (mostly visible 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). ~ 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. Achar Sva (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@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. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Shoemaker

"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) Manannan67 (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither the Orthodox Church nor the visionary Bridget are reliable sources. Achar Sva (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Says you. They are referenced. Augustine and Damascene said the same. Manannan67 (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Coyle again

"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.(?!) 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. Manannan67 (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What Christian denominations might believe is irrelevant, the only relevant thing is what Duns Scotus said (or thought). 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. Manannan67 (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

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. Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: If you don't know who Holweck is, you have no business editing this page. 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. Achar Sva (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Although this is out of the theme of this section, may I as you whether we could include any source like 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. 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). Achar Sva (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@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. Manannan67 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5 and 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 Wiki task force on this for more info. ~ 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? Achar Sva (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@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. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Stop making up your own rules. CE is perfectly find for general information that is widely accepted. Manannan67 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

@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. ~ 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. --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. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)