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."

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Without any sin for all her life
"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)

Lumen Gentium n. 56
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)
 * Why Lumen Gentium is considered a "bias source"?