Talk:Ecumenical meetings and documents on Mary

Article's scope
I agree that we need an article for conflicts about Mary's role in Christianity, but I don't think this article as presently formed will do a very good job. If the views of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans on Mary are coherent enough to form the article Blessed Virgin Mary, why are only Roman Catholic but neither Eastern Orthodox nor Anglican beliefs criticized in this article? It seems arbitrary, not to mention misleading.

Secondly, why is the Protestant view being presented only in negative form, as a critique of Roman Catholicism? I think we might need a separate Mary in Protestantism article, which will allow the Protestant view or views of Mary to be explained. We already have an Islamic view of Mary article.

Then perhaps we could change this article into a "Debate over Mary's role in Christianity" article which will allow for input from all sides. I do not like the idea that any viewpoint (within reason) would be excluded in this article.

--Mordecai99 (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * "I agree that we need an article for conflicts about Mary's role in Christianity". Yes, but this is not the topic here. The topic here is clesrly defined: Christian views of Catholic Mariology, or you may say, critiques of Catholic mariology by other Christian denominations. Catholic mariology is a major issue and stumbling block in the ecumenical dialogues and discussions taking place on different levels all over the world today. Therefore this topic is more than necessary.


 * There exists already a non-denominational article on Mary's role in Christianity. There should be more, I totally agree woth you. I agree, that it would be very helpful to have additional articles on Protestant and Orthodox theology regarding Mary. They would help to understand this article and the whole range of issues much better.


 * This article really grew out of Catholics articles on Mary, which included non-Catholic critiques and views, which, if done fairly, would haved overburdended these articles.  Catholic mariology is by far the largest body of literature  in the field. Much non-Catholic mariology is a reaction to it.


 * It is clearly not the intention of this article, to present any view, such as the Protestant persepctive as negative or inferior to the other one. I hope,  this is not the case here.  If not, please point out specifics for correction. Some older texts do not fully fit here yet. There were moved from other articles. It is my impression, that a number of sweeping generalisations exist from previous versions without citation or support. I started working on that yesterday, but it will take some time. Please help, to make this article as balances and factual as possible.
 * Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Ambrosius,
 * The way this article is structured, I'm afraid you are presenting one argument as inferior to the other. In regards to your statement:
 * Catholic mariology is a major issue and stumbling block in the ecumenical dialogues and discussions taking place on different levels all over the world today. Therefore this topic is more than necessary.
 * Isn't that biased? Why are only Catholic views of Mary a "stumbling block"?  Is the controversy so one-sided?  Couldn't a Catholic say that Protestants' beliefs (e.g., that Mary is simply a minor Biblical figure, that only God should be prayed to) are equally a "stumbling block"?


 * The non-denominational article touches on many aspects of Mary, mostly in terms of beliefs. It should not be repeated here.  This article puts forward critical perspectives, which is good and necessary, since this is a hotly-debated subject that is clogging up the BVM article.  But when you deal with criticism and controversies, you must give each side its fair due.  You can't write about Protestant charges of "Mariolatry" without also including, for instance, the Catholic counter-charges of "Bibliolatry".  A wholly Protestant view of Mary should be contained in a page like Mary in Protestantism.
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I clearly do not intent to present one argument inferior to the other. What is inferior, Sacred Scriptures or Tradition? But that is the issue here. You are absolutely right, both sides need to be fairly represented, yes, but with emphasis on a fair, balanced presentation of the differences. You can't write about Protestant charges of "Mariolatry" without also including, for instance, the Catholic counter-charges of "Bibliolatry". Yes I can! -:))   I presented exactly this very counter point here yesterday without the emotional charge, I hope. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased Title?
The title of this article ("Christian views of Catholic Mariology") seems to imply that Roman Catholics are not Christian. --Mordecai99 (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not married to the text or title. Maybe there is a better title, let us know!
 * --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word Mariology
The use of the word "Mariology" is imprecise. Mariology is the study or logic of Marian beliefs and practices, not those beliefs and practices themselves. --Mordecai99 (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true, which is precisely, why this article, for example, does not discuss practices, such as the nature of Marian prayer. Mariology  includes the meaning, justification, application, and sense of  practices like Marian prayer. When Martin Luther argues, that the Catholic practice of Marian prayer is senseless, it is an expression of his Mariology and needs to be mentioned here as an example of his view on the veneration of Mary (which is mariological).  -:))
 * --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would Luther have even understood the word "Mariology"? It didn't exist as a word until 1850, and as a fully-formed branch of theology until the 20th century.  Is having views on Mary the same as having "a Mariology"?  I don't think it is.  I have views on bananas, but I don't have my own "bananaology."  That presupposes that I consider bananas worthy of serious study.  Would modern Protestants see the need for devoting a branch of theology to Mary?  I doubt it.  I think we need to be more selective with our words here, lest we import modern, Catholic ideas and presuppositions where they may not have existed.
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Exactly! That is why I called it Christian VIEWS and not Christian mariology! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename Article
Lot of folks are unhappy this this name. I will propose "Christian views of Mary" or "Christian views of the Virgin Mary" again.

What says you?

This "Christian views of Catholic Mariology" is a poor idea to begin with and seems to stem from a a view that the world revolves around the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC did not invent Mary and there is no reason to write such Wikipedia article in terms of the RCC church. The main problem-- well one problem is that so much "ink" is spent defending the RCC view. The article should just explain everyones veiw and not argue for or against them (as best we can). Save the defending view for other pages-- like pages about that partiular church-- or in the case of the RCC-- one of the Catholic Mariology pages. --Carlaude (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose this article be renamed and retooled Controversy over Mary's role in Christianity. Mary, Mother of Jesus already explains views of Mary in an ecumenical or non-denominational sense.  Blessed Virgin Mary describes the "high-church"/catholic/orthodox view.  I think we need a new Mary in Protestantism article for Lutherans/Baptists/low-church Anglicans (it can be short).  All of them can have a small section on criticism of their beliefs towards the bottom that contains a link for here, where the various controversies and mutual recriminations ,I mean, ecumenical dialogue, that surrounds Mary can be described in full.
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay-- maybe "Christian Controversies of Mary" would be shorter and better but why to we have to pose it all as "controversies." There is a lot Christian agree on-- probably more. "Controversy" sound negative and not as informative.

It is no good to just write articles about what we want. We need articles that meet the needs of readers. We need a fair article on all the Christian views of Mary. If you think other articles (such as Mary, Mother of Jesus) meet that need then we don't need this one.

We don't need a Mary in Protestantism article just to balance out some RCC article-- certainly not if we cannot even write a good "Mary in Protestantism" section. We need an article that compares the views in a structured way. --Carlaude (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mary in Protestantism is not to balance anything but to stand on its own. If there is enough material (I think there is ) and, if there is a qualified writer (not me), it could be a real contribution. Its all a matter of manpower and interests. Think of the Protestant monastery Taize, (Maria, moeder van de Heer - THURIAN, MAX (BROEDER VAN TAIZE))


 * Carlaude, "Christian Controversies of Mary" is a very good title! Can we agree on that?
 * --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on the title "Christian Controversies of Mary" too.
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Christian Controversies of Mary" is a better title.

Maybe I would agree if you told me why "controversies" was a better than "views" to you (per my above statements).

I think finding a qualified and interested writer is a tall order. Again-- Better a get a passable "Mary in Protestantism" section first. My view-- as a Protestant-- is that we ain't got one. --Carlaude (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I just completed for today the Orthodox section, need your help in making it perfect. It shows that there is plenty of controversy. But if you do not feel comfortable, we keep looking for another name. "Christian differences on Mary"? (Carlaude, I found a nice Protestant Mary summary in the German Wikipedia, I'll translate it for you, if you like it you can use in the summary).

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, Where?--Carlaude (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

POV
To call this or that belief a "dogma" is POV.

They are Roman Catholic dogma and cannot be denied with out being in heresy to the Roman Catholic church. To call 'em "dogma" is to imply that dening such believes are held to heresy to Christians in general.

What are you referring to ? --Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not calling this or that belief a dogma, the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church are. That is not to say the RCC or OEC are correct or incorrect.  It's just what they think.  For the sake of relaying the history of Christianity and the history of Marian beliefs, it is permissible to use "dogma" in the sense that the individual churches understood them, without invoking any sort of judgement on the validity of this or that religion.  In the cases of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, it is key to understanding what divides them, including their thoughts on dogmatic definition; e.g., Catholics believe dogma can be defined essentially by the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra) or by councils convened by the Pope; Eastern Orthodox have generally relied on the (now defunct) emperor of Byzantium to open ecumenical councils, which would be the only way they see fit to define dogma (Eastern Orthodox haven't had an ecumenical council since the 8th century).  If we were to take the advice to not use the word dogma at all, we would not be able to speak of this fascinating subject.
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are. You need to say "Roman Catholic dogma" or "belief" not "dogma." This appears over and over in the article. If there is anything they both call dogma-- cite it as "dogma of the Council of Ephesus" or such or learn to lose your Roman Catholic Church vocabulary (when it is not needed). --Carlaude (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you do me a favor and quote the problematic passages that I've written. Thanks.
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary is free of sin but also completely human. The Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, promulgated in 1854, seems to reduce her humanity in the Eastern Orthodox view.... The Eastern Orthodox reject the Dogma of the Assumption for similar reasons, with the additional problem of Papal ex cathedra infallibility having been used to define that dogma.... The Orthodox rejection of the dogma of the assumption is less severe, because of the common belief in the assumption and the fact that it originiated first in Eastern Christianity. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, however, is based on a different tradition, believed to be irreconcilable to the Orthodox Marian tradition, and therefore is patently rejected....
 * --Carlaude (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not write that. In fact, I added more information to it to make it clearer.  At any rate, I do not see a problem with the use of "dogma" in it.  Perhaps you might show me how you'd change that passage.
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank's for the quote. That helps. To begin with, ONLY the Catholic Church has Marian dogmas. The Orthodox prefer not to use this word (see text) and Protestants clearly do not have Marian dogmas.

I think the context is clear. Mary is free of sin but also completely human. The Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, promulgated in 1854, seems to reduce her humanity in the Eastern Orthodox view.... The Eastern Orthodox reject the Dogma of the Assumption for similar reasons, with the additional problem of Papal ex cathedra infallibility having been used to define that dogma....The Orthodox rejection of the dogma of the assumption is less severe, because of the common belief in the assumption and the fact that it originiated first in Eastern Christianity. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, however, is based on a different tradition, believed to be irreconcilable to the Orthodox Marian tradition, and therefore is patently rejected....

If anybody feels better by adding ROMAN CATHOLIC each time, that's fine with me too. It will not change the text or meaning one way or the other.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) PS: I like POVs. Somewhere in Wikipedia, I found evidence a few weeks ago, that POVs and controversies are wonderful tools to attract attention to  topics, which otherwise may not get many readers. -:))


 * Ambrosius,
 * You wrote,
 * ''Well, thank's for the quote. That helps. To begin with, ONLY the Catholic Church has Marian dogmas. The Orthodox prefer not to use this word (see text)...."
 * ^That is incorrect. The word dogma is perfectly acceptable to Eastern Orthodox, and depending on whom you ask, the Eastern Orthodox have one or two dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary:
 * "Two dogmas concerning the Mother of God are bound up, in closest fashion, with the dogma of God the Word’s becoming man. They are: a) Her Ever-virginity, and b) Her name of Theotokos." (Source: Dogmas Concerning the Virgin Mary.)
 * "The one Eastern Orthodox dogma about Our Lady is the teaching of the Council of Ephesus that she is the Mother of God, giving birth to true God and true man united in the person (hypostasis) of Christ." (Source: The Orthodox Tradition)
 * Let me stress: The Eastern Orthodox do not oppose the use of the word dogma. They do not "prefer to use other words."  They simply oppose the two new Marian dogmas promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church (Assumption and Immaculate Conception), along with other innovations.
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was the question which I posed on your page yesterday, since i was not sure of the accuracy of my notion of dogma in the Orthodox traditions. Differences to the RCC do exist, because of the different stuctures and offices, but your point is well taken. I almost completed my work here, (needs to be cleaned up); but with the texts more or less in place, we can decide to go ahead with the name change, if you want to.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't get to your question, Ambrosious. : /


 * And yes, let's get to changing the name of this article. How about Views of Mary Contrasted?


 * We have a precedent for that wording with Eucharistic theologies contrasted. What you think?
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the precedent and I like your proposal. Please go ahead and make the change. A few days ago, you indicated some unease with the structure of the article. How would you propose to improve or change it? Maybe the issue is resolved with the new info, but I like all  improvements. -:))

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Article based on confused premise
This article is very confused and tends to ramble. I think that is because it is based on a false premise - which is that of contrasting the views of other Christian groups on Mary specifically with those of the Catholic Church. This creates misleading and false impressions, such as the statement that the Orthodox Churches reject the Dogma of the Assumption. The Orthodox churches do NOT reject the Assumption, what they rejected was the Pope's right to proclaim it a dogma - a very different thing. The statement as written gives readers the false impression that orthodox reject the Assumption. Taking Protestants, or even Anglicans as one group is also very dangerous. Anglican views on Mary range from ultra-protestant to high catholic. Some Lutherans venerate Mary, others take an opposite view. These differences need expressing. So rather than talking of "protestants", if the article is to be of any use, it is best talking of, Lutherans, High Anglicans, Anglican Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, presbyterians etc. The article needs to be based on outlining what each group DOES itself believe and practice. There will then be less need to stress differences as the central feature of the article. When stressing differences there is a need to be NPOV. If you are to state, say, that Baptists dislike Catholic (and Orthodox) Marian devotion, it is NPOV to then put what Catholics and Orthodox see as wrong in Baptist attitudes to Mary. Statements like the following are very misleading and highly POV, although they use weasel words:
 * Many Non-Roman Catholic Christians contend, that even if the Vatican officially disavows worship of Mary as a goddess or as having divine qualities, and many Catholics understand the distinction, idolatry of Mary as a goddess remains a fact around the world nevertheless.

Who are these "many non-roman catholics" who believe Catholics idolise Mary as a goddess? They need naming and specifying, with references. Only the most extreme anti-catholic groupings would hold such views in my experience. Certainly not the major faith groups. Xandar (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree very strongly.
 * --Mordecai99 (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the premises are clear and all articles can be improved including this one. But may we start with what is already here, without assuming it is not here? With one possible exception, (this quote) all the questions raised on Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans are directly answered in the article itself. Please read carefully. Of course, other questions do exist, which are not answered here. But not these -:))

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do read the quotes!
Orthodox: "This creates misleading and false impressions, such as the statement that the Orthodox Churches reject the Dogma of the Assumption. The Orthodox churches do NOT reject the Assumption, what they rejected was the Pope's right to proclaim it a dogma - a very different thing"


 * I agree! This is what the article tries to explain:

Protestants: "Taking Protestants, or even Anglicans as one group is also very dangerous".
 * The Eastern Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption for similar reasons, with the additional problem of Papal ex cathedra infallibility having been used to define that dogma. It is important to note that belief in "the Assumption" began and continues to be recognized in Eastern Orthodoxy. The dogmatization, however, is considered almost a sacrilege..., and, The Orthodox rejection of the Roman Catholic dogma of the assumption is less severe, because of the common belief in the assumption and the fact that it originiated first in Eastern Christianity.


 * Again, I agree fully. The articles tries to explain this dilemma as follows:

The problem is, that we do not have a competent Wikipedia article on Protestant views on Mary! This article cannot do justice to this important but different topic. Anglicans are differentiated as well: From a Roman Catholic perspective, the closeness of the Anglican and Roman Catholic mariologies is overshadowed by the fact, that Marian teachings have no binding doctrinal implications for the Anglican Church, and ..Most Anglo-Catholics pray to and with .. Quotation:
 * The discussion of Protestant views on Mary and mariology is difficult, because, unlike the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Chistians, Protestants have a wide range of sometimes conflicting views, making generalisations difficult.

"Many Non-Roman Catholic Christians contend, that even if the Vatican officially disavows worship of Mary as a goddess or as having divine qualities, and many Catholics understand the distinction, idolatry of Mary as a goddess remains a fact around the world nevertheless".


 * I did not write and cannot find this quote. Please erase it, if you can find it! The accusation does really exist and "has been in the air" for almost 500 years. However, the wording of this sentence is misleading, because the Vatican never officially disavowed worship of M as a goddess, since, in the Catholic view, it does not exist.

"Who are these "many non-roman catholics" who believe Catholics idolise Mary as a goddess? They need naming and specifying, with references".

The article includes the following quote with name (Martin Luther)and reference:


 * Furthermore, how will you endure their terrible idolatries [of the Papists]? It was not enough that they venerated the saints and praised God in them, but they actually made them into gods. They put that noble child, the mother Mary, right into the place of Christ. They fashioned Christ into a judge and thus devised a tyrant for anguished consciences, so that all comfort and confidence was transferred from Christ to Mary, and then everyone turned from Christ to his particular saint. Can anyone deny this? Is it not true? [13] (Similar quotes do exist from Calvin, and other writers, but that is not the point).

Theology and mariology are not easy subjects to write about and to understand. Sorry for taking so much of your time --Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Luther quote does not reference the statement I protested. Luther is dead. The quote spoke about "many non-Roman catholics" holding that Mary is worshipped as a goddess. These living "non-roman catholics" need to be specified and referenced. If there are MANy of them, it should be easy. Also I still think the basic idea of the article is flawed. if its based on differences with Catholicism, it is always going to scandalize and polarize. Xandar (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

More POV
The changes made to this article are making it more POV-- instead of less-- even if the statements themselves might be true.

For example-- what is this crap about "protestants" and the "bible" while you capitalize "Catholics" etc.

Capitalize Protestants and unless you specifically mean Old and Roman Catholics-- which you never do-- write "Roman Catholics." And if did have that meaning of the word then it would have call for as much uncapitaliztion or more than "Protestants."--Carlaude (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm! You do have a point -:))

Although, one may distingish typos from crap -:)

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian views of Mary
The name "Christian views of Mary Contrasted" is better but it should be "Christian views of Mary."

Including the word "Contrasted" is counterproductive. The article also includes what we have in common.

This is the main article out of which other articles-- such as Protestant views of Mary could and should grow out of-- but not until there is much more and better content. Perfect example-- have 'em views there-- link to other articles as needed. --User:Carlaude (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quest or Carlaude?
Calaude, kindly explain to the readers here, why on May 7 you signed the above opinion under a different name: Quest. Today, you changed,  the signature  Quest and replaced it with Carlaude. Am I imagining things? Compare the two versions listed below.

In a related matter, we are still waiting for your response on a similar matter regarding your request to delete Protestant views of Mary. Articles for deletion/Protestant views of Mary‎ You assisted in the day old article, changed its title several times, linked it to numerous other articles, and then requested deletion? Kindly respond to those questions as well. Thank you. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Any temporary "name change" was inadvertant-- I made an error with My preferences and I did not see for an hour or so.


 * I answered these questions back HERE where you asked them.--Carlaude (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

removing POV statement on perpetual virginity
Please discuss instead of just reverting.--Carlaude 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article in horrible state
This article is in a horrible state, and it looks asif nobody has been working on it for several days. This would not matter so much if someone hadn't gone around the principal Mary articles linking this in prominently as a "Main Article". This article shouldn't be linked in as a main article in its present state - very confused, unreferenced, and with several strong accusations of POV. It will have to be de-linked if not improved soon. Xandar (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

new article?
If this is a "new article" to you then you should have nominated the other one for deletion before beginning this one-- not just blank that article and start a new one on the same basic topic. --Carlaude (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not blank the article and honestly do not know what happened there, exept that both of us had several edit conflicts and all of a sudden the article was not available anymore. Before that, I had contemplated whether I should leave that article rest on its merits, and start a new article (this one), or totally rewrite it with this new material. I decided to rewrite, had edit conflicts and that was it. Because I had the new text prepared, I lost nothing and could start this article at once. It is modest but clear in scope. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)