Talk:Immaculate Conception/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

Problematic sentence

This sentence is problematic:

"First debated by medieval theologians, it proved so controversial that it did not become part of official Catholic teaching until 1854, when Pius IX gave it the status of dogma in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.[2]"

Although medieval theologians did debate the Immaculate Conception, it was already discussed and argued about in the Patristic period, as is evident from even a brief familiarity with the sources. This sentence seems to imply that's not the case. The citation in support of this sentence is from the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, which is a confessionally Protestant source. It would be better to have something that's non-confessional. Lastly, although it's arguable, I'm not sure it's fair to say it was "so controversial" that this somehow delayed the declaration. It was disputed, certainly, but by the time it was declared a dogma it was the common position of most Catholics. Even in the 16th century that was mostly the case. I'm afraid the sentence smacks of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosequor (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

In light of the above, I'm going to modify the opening clause of this sentence to make it a bit more generic and hopefully less leading/implicitly biased. Prosequor (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Prosequor: If you use reliable sourcing, you can perform the changes yourself. Otherwise, the statements you quote are accurate to reliable sourcing and non-POV. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Prosequor: You are right, that is not in the sources. The user Achar Sva always writes things that do not come in the sources. The source in question only says: "Medieval theologians debated about Mary's "immaculate conception" and "bodily assumption", but these were not defined until later (1854;1950)" Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Self Claim of Immaculate Conception

In some of the Marian apparitions (like Lourdes), the Marian apparition claimed to be the Immaculate Conception. Should that be mentioned in the wiki page about this? Acdc250 (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Acdc250: Provided these statements are sourced reliably, I think the Immaculate Conception's history in apparitions could serve a valuable role in furthering understanding of how the doctrine became doctrine. Perhaps it could be its own section. If you want help, let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Another Marian apparition that St Mary claims herself to be the virgin Mary of immaculate conception is Our Lady of Gietrzwald in 1877. Acdc250 (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Acdc250: I'll look into it! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! A related claim is that St Mary said that she is the immaculate virgin in our lady of the golden heart in Belgium around 1932 and 1933. I am not sure whether this claim implies Mary was immaculately conceived. Acdc250 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

For our lady of Gietrzwald, can the catholic news and website, Aleteia, be considered as a source? You can see the article about our lady of Gietrzwald at https://aleteia.org/2017/10/18/our-lady-of-gietrzwald-polands-only-approved-marian-appearance/ Acdc250 (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Aleteia is a blog aggregator and not a suitably reliable source for our citations. Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge

The short article about the play could easily fit under "Artistic representations". 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. 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. ~ 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)