Talk:Immaculate Conception/Archive 2

Reference formats and Ibid
I saw the ibid template being used in the references section which asked editors to replace "Ibid" with named references.

I attempted to do just that but found that a named reference wouldn't quite cut it since they referred to different paragraphs in the same document. I figured the best thing would be to fill out the whole cite web template as best I could. I figured that someone would fix it further if need be.

Someone reverted without comment, so I don't know what I did wrong. The current page still has the Ibid reference and the ibid template asking users to replace it.

Can someone else fix it "properly"?

Heavy Joke (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted it because the format seemed off and notes was within refs. I am not sure how to fix it. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

editing needed/tags added/deleted without improvement
The article needs to be edited for the redundancies, and to address the issues related to the tags: *The original research is fairly blatant.
 * Whole sections are without any citations.
 * The lead is interminably long and does not explain fully and succinctly what the IC is all about.


 * Same with the dogma 'controversies,' which not surprisingly are entirely bereft of citations.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As I stated specifically above, the article needs editing especially for the fairly blatant WP:OR. An examaple is the section on 'dogma.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#History_of_the_dogma

The only citation is to an article on the ewtin.com website which does not support the original research.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm

The tags have been removed without any improvement to the article. The tags need to be put back so that other editors will see the problems and can contribute to the remedy.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually large sections come from the Catholic encyclopedia if you check, e.g. the dogma section. Clearly a high standard of scrutiny is being imposed here, yet references can be added without throwing the baby out with the bath water. To be "positive" you can do a few searches and add references, e.g. to the dogma section. And mark specific sections - given that there are already 28 references. The lede is a different issue from the rest, as usual, but seems to summarize what there is, and I added a few refs to it. You can search and add a few refs too. It is really easy, once you get used to adding them in a positive manner. You should state specific problems in the lede, not just blanket complaints. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources


 * Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia being used here was written at the start of the 20th century. Over 100 years ago.  Certainly, there are current, actual reliable sources that have come along since then.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic encyclopedia is widely, I mean widely used within Wikipedia. I see no reason against it being a WP:Reliable source. That discussion has nothing to do with this page. Catholic encyclopedia is used all over Wikipedia, so I see no reason why it should be questioned just here. Again, this seems to be raising a higher standard here regarding the Catholic encyclopedia than elsewhere in Wikipedia. I see no problem with using Catholic encyclopedia. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The rules are very clear on using one source.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources Malke 2010 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is even more clear that there is more than one source. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hidden text?
I went in to correct a small spelling error in the Protestantism section and was floored by paragraphs upon paragraphs of hidden text. (see here.) While I absolutely agree that this gigantic block of non-referenced "information" does not belong in this section (or anywhere on WP, for that matter) I don't understand why it's still included in the edit field. There are no comments or instructions and I'm not seeing anything in the Talk history. I'm too tired to pour through the history right now but I will if need be. I'd like to just remove the block entirely as it just makes for some distracting clutter while editing but I would love to know if there's a reason for this. 03:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocrasaroon (talk • contribs)

Dogma
Afterwriting's change of dogma to doctrine on grammatical grounds is theologically incorrect and introduces errors in the article. Needs to be reverted ASAP. He says he needs no theology lesson.....but the article itself says that it is a dogma. So his change is incorrect, period. History2007 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as it is in fact dogma. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Anglicans
Should the Anglican belief in Our Lady of Lourdes be mentioned? Since there is an Anglican shrine at Lourdes, and the Anglican Communion officially approved of the apparition (although stating it is not necessary to believe in, but is encouraged)... and the Apparition called herself the "Immaculate Conception", I feel like it should be in the Anglican section.. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Spain's Official Patron Saint is Our Lady of the Pillar
Spain's official Patron Saint is Our Lady of the Pillar. The other principal Patron is Saint James the Greater of Compostela. Why are you removing the Philippines from the patronage title and retaining other countries when the Philippines has had that title way longer, since 1571? And how come we cannot tag the Manila Cathedral, dedicated to the Immaculate Conception on the page? Racist and separative. How demeaning to the readers!


 * No evidence has been provided for your claims. We have a source saying that the Immaculate Conception is Spain's patronness. Remember that the criterion on WP is not truth, but verifiability. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Aparecida
Oh come now Esoglou, you don't need to BRD on me buddy - we could have just discussed it. I will not argue the point because it is not worth the debate, not because I agree with it. But the Aparecida statue has an unknown artist, no one knows what theme it represents and the crowds have assigned the IC theme to it at will perhaps to due to the hands, but that is not a definite indicator. There is no artistic basis for that assignment except popular acceptance. They could have assigned Queen of Heaven. It is anyone's guess what the artist intended. And it resembles no other IC representation. In fact the oversized crown is not typical of IC. But if you want to call it that, for old time's sake I will not argue. History2007 (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for quite unintentionally offending you, and I apologize. To my poor eyes (or is it my imagination?) the little statue has Mary standing on what may represent a globe and a crescent moon.  Even if my eyes or imagination are right (and you can well dispute that they are), they are not a Wikipedia reliable source, so I gave a couple of sources that say the statue does represent the Immaculate Conception.  I have since seen a few more sources that make the same identification, and I have seen none that disputes it.  The sources attribute, perhaps tentatively, the presumably once polychrome statue to a friar in Brazil. Esoglou (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries my friend, no apology is needed. I have been interested in that Basilica for long, because it is the largest after St Peter's (excluding the empty yard one). In any case. let us declare it an IC and once Wikipedia says that then it is so. A better reference to add is this which is a solid book, if you want to add that. My comment was however shaped by the fact that the IC declaration was by the fishermen and the local crowds who may not have been art historians. The general motif of Pacheco may have been known to the artist, but again no one knows, as indicated by the lack of art history books as refs. There are WP:RS sources, but they are generally travel guides, etc. In any case, now that this page will say it is an IC, then it is an IC. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, you may not have noticed, but I did not delete your text and refs just now, the other fellow did. I restored them now, and will add another ref and let us be done with this, unless more unsourced text/commentary gets added out of nowhere. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A conception or a dogma?
I think this article should begin on the same lines as that on original sin: "Original sin is, according to a theological doctrine, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man." That article does not say that original sin is a dogma. Strictly speaking, the dogma in that case is about original sin: it is not original sin. In the same way I think that the dogma here is not the immaculate conception of Mary, and that her immaculate conception is not, properly speaking, a dogma but is instead something that, according to a dogma, occurred. My doubtless imperfect attempt to express this was immediately reverted. Should it have been? Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, on purely linguistic grounds - this is a pointless distinction, way beyond pedantic, as those better up in the vocabulary than myself can no doubt explain. Once you change that you have to change things like the following sentence: "It is one of the four dogmata in Roman Catholic Mariology." Original sin is something that is widely believed in by many who would come out in spots if told they held a dogma, hence the different phrasing.Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A very minor issue either way really. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I maintain my view, but from the start I have had enough sympathy with History2007's to have had no intention to quarrel about the matter and to have decided straightway to leave the decision to others. Esoglou (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But I should tell you guys that my view remains the following: There are so many other pages so full of errors that it is not a good use of resources to debate these details. An example is the entire series of articles on salvation, salvation (Christianity), Second coming of Christ, etc. E.g. please see: this comment. Those pages are the lowest quality ever, of course, but even Annunciation has tags on it. So there are problems everywhere and I wish they would get addressed first before we get involved in too much linguistic detail. I would have preferred Esoglou's version, but for that reason will not debate it. Some IP may change it in 9 months anyway. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very open to other wordings, but actually you are right - there's more important stuff for all of us to do. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Repetition & reversion
I rationalised the section on Definition of the dogma, which has two accounts of the circumstances of the Papal Bull - one refers to the definition "above", the other repeats in a slightly fuller form the definition (but referenced to only an excerpt and not the full text).

I also changed the paragraph which included that the dogma "declares with absolute certainty and authority that Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence" which seems to me misleading, as the word existence is not in the Papal Bull, and could be taken to imply from Mary's active rather than passive conception which I don't think is what the dogma means. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm (I think the Catholic Encyclopedia has the Imprimatur.)

It was reverted, and the repetitiveness is still there, and it says something is certain that is not actually in the dogma.

Blue watcher 17:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloovee (talk • contribs)


 * Nope, reading the long WP:Primary source, i.e. the papal document and interpreting that yourself does not work. The papal bull long and various WP:Secondary sources have summarized that as such, e.g. also see this and see this one too. Both solid WP:RS sources that take total precedence over your own interpretation of what the WP:Primary source states. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"From the first moment of her existence" is well-attested, but it's not what the dogma says, and begs the question, "When is the first moment of her existence?" (Active conception, passive conception, animation, birth?) If the phrase is generally (and authoritatively) used, it may be a minor point, but it still seems odd to say that that the dogma declares "with absolute certainty and authority" something it doesn't actually say.

Rationalising the repetition is a separate matter, nothing to do with interpretation or opinion, just tidiness. Blue watcher 01:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloovee (talk • contribs)

The Immaculate Conception (novel)
I have added a note to the talk page of the article The Immaculate Conception. It seems anomalous to me that that page discusses a fairly obscure novel rather than the Christian doctrine and I suggest this be rectified. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, did so per WP:SNOW. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It needed a dab page anyway, so I made that. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, PHILIPPINES
Please correct the grammatical errors and spelling mishaps presented in the Patronage of the Immaculate Conception for Philippines? Can we not attach a link to the Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Manila, as related to the patronage of the Immaculate Conception while Brazil can have a special link attached to the Nossa Senhora Aparecida Basilica? It is the highest seat of the Roman Catholic bishopry in the Philippines. Why the cultural favoritism?

POPE BENEDICT XIV - NON EST EQUIDEM - 1767 "Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe as the Patrona y Reina de Mexico, Emperatriz de las Americas e Islas Filipinas."

His holiness, PAPA PIO XI officially declared that Our Lady of Guadalupe was the patroness of Philippines at one time while Philippines IN 1938! Why no mention of this? Yet you will mention Rosa Limana and Santa Potenciana? Very selective and narrow of Wikipedia American editors.

This was replaced by the Immaculate Conception in 1942 by POPE PIO XII IN 1942 in IMPOSITI NOBIS papal bull.

ACTA APOSTOLICA SEDIS - 1942 - PAPA PIO XII

INSULARUM PHILIPPINARUM BEATISSIMA VIRGO MARIA TITULO "IMMACULATA CONCEPTIO" PRIMARIA UNIVERSALISQUE PATRONA ET SANCTAE VIRGINES' PUDENTIANA AC ROSA LIMANA PATRONAE SECUNDARIAS DECLARANTUR. -IMPOSITI NOBIS 1942

The secondary patrons of the Philippinesall according Papal declarations are Our Lady of Guadalupe, Santa Pudenziana and Santa Rosa de Lima.

Please correct and allow the tag for Basilica-Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, informally known as Manila Cathedral and let things be fair if you are also going to allow Nossa Aparecida of Brazil to have their link.

And then one of you Allmighty-Wikipedia editors REMOVED a Photograph called "Retablo of the Inmaculada Concepcion" (1574 A.D.) photograph in Cebu city, Philippines dating back hundreds of years ago yet replace the photo with the current Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. USA when it was patronized much much laterand you Americans don't even have a statue honoring the Immaculate Conception NOR a liturgical office authorized by ANY Pope for inside that Washington Basilica like Spain, Mexico or the Philippines and the Spanish or Hispanic cultures have annual public holidays and grand processions every year but we don't get credit for it.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Immaculada_concepcion_de_baclayana-retablo.jpg

Cultural favoritism on Wikipedia by almighty American editors who are biased and cherry-picking their content. And it is so obvious that American Catholics have very little regard for the Immaculate Conception title since the Guadalupe honors are given much more precedence and attention in many American Parishes. Yet no credit is given for older patronages here in Wikipedia and Brazil and American only gets to claim a link to their Basilica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.121.23.173 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article informs that from 1760 Mary Immaculate was (secondary) patron saint of Spain and all its territories, western and eastern, to which the Philippines then (but no longer) belonged. It informs that, as an individual entity or province, the Philippines had Saint Pudentiana as patron from the 16th century and Saint Rose of Lima from the 17th.  It also informs that in 1942 Pope Pius XII declared Mary Immaculate principal patron saint of the Philippines, keeping as secondary patron saints of the country the other two.  The article gives information about patronage of whole countries, not of single dioceses, still less of individual churches within dioceses.
 * As you can see if you look up this set of books, the 1767 bull Non est equidem made Our Lady of Guadalupe patron saint of New Spain (corresponding approximately to Mexico), which like the Philippines was only one of the entities within the territories of Spain, those territories that, taken as a whole, had Saint James and the Immaculate as patron saints.  Today too, patron saints are assigned to continents taken in their entirety, but individual countries within those continents have their own patron saints.  Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually Esoglou, this comment is most probably by Lloys Baltasar, given that the IP geolocates to his area and the topic is the same as his favorite topic. So I would not worry about him too much given that he was blocked. History2007 (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist?
We now have Immaculate Conception of Saint John the Baptist. Is that so? If so, someone should phone the Pope and inform him to have them say something about it in the Catechism.... I think that needs to be Afd-ed. Just not the case. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Added two valid references for recent expansion under Patronage
I understand that editing the Immaculate Conception comes under heavy scrutiny, and I have labored two hours of my precious time to add the following valid sources.

I inserted an expanded set of information regarding the Papal Approval of His Holiness, Pope Pius IX regarding the Immaculate Conception. I added the dates when it was first approved, then published. Both documents were signed by Cardinal Fransoni, prefect for the Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione at the time. The source is from the same sourced used elsewhere in this article, and is backed by prominent Vatican researcher Mr. Mark Shea of EWTN in 1996.

I also expanded the patronage of Immaculate Conception from Pope Gregory XIII for the Philippine Islands. This is referenced by a Pastoral letter issued by the Conference of the Bishops of the Philippines dated February 2, 1975. I also have in my reference a book I have my possession called ''Ynang Maria: a written documentary regarding various Marian Icons in the Philippines. It is found on PAGES 60-61.''

Please kindly allow the links of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. and Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Manila to remain there. It does no harm but allow your readers to learn more about two great buildings valuable to historians and novelty researchers.

Thank you. LoveforMary (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary.

Use of 'Catholics Believe' Incorrect?
In numerous places, this article refers to things that 'Catholics believe,' 'Orthodox Christians say,' or 'Old Catholics do not reject.' Forgive me if this is nitpicking, but isn't it more correct to say something like 'The Catholic Church teaches' or 'Orthodox Christian dogma states'? The current phrasing is, in my opinion misleading. As an example, the line 'Catholics believe Mary "was free from any personal or hereditary sin"' seems to speak for every Catholic everywhere, and in my own experience many Catholics hold personal views that are at odds with their Church. To really state what Catholics or Orthodox Christians believe, in my opinion, should require citing a poll showing that the belief is actually widely held outside of Church leadership and theologians.

However, I'm hesitant to go through and make this change because I don't know how Wikipedia treats churches - is it accepted practice to use 'members of the church believe' interchangeably with 'the church teaches'?

Thanks,

- Julien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.75.8.245 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In this sense you are absolutely right, it should state what the church teaches. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Along the lines of these notes, I feel compelled to raise the question as to why you cannot state that the "Roman Catholic church" believes this, that, or the other, instead of saying The Church believes... etc. The entire premise of stating The Church believes... is no less than to foster catholicism as The Church, and no other legitimate church, but "ours" is relevant. Talk about dogma. To a substantial portion of the world, Roman Catholic, or any other Catholic denomination does NOT represent orthodoxy nor orginality to the 1st Century church. And not to be inconsistent, but that paradigm should be equally presented for any denomination. While all churches should strive toward the original intent and accuracy of the christian faith, the idea that all churches outside of catholicism are heretical, is still the tactical approach of the Vatican. This only fosters what many christians heartily believe, that the RC church is guilty of an immaculate perception. 96.255.209.185 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC) A. Augustine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.209.185 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On a quick look through I can't see any such statements except "Catholics do not believe that Mary, herself, was the product of a Virgin Birth", which is ok I think. Or has someone made the changes? Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically, can be cited with "Catholics believe", as whoever does not believe so, whatever his good faith (secular or also theological sense) etc., can by definition not in this respect be called Catholic. By the way, show me a Catholic that actually disbelieves in the Immaculate Conception. There may be those who disbelieve original sin - and are quite consequently led to deny the Immaculate Conception (though it'd be more accurate to say they teach an imm. conc. of every person); there are those who think about all that as theoreticisms which they don't even give the credit of denying; some that are prejudiced against anything the Pope teaches; but to find a Catholic that straightforwardly professes that Holy Mary did contract original sin, or that there is at least doubt whether she did, will not be easy. --91.34.238.47 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interest of avoiding the metaphysical uncertainty of whether bad Catholics are not Catholic at all, we should stick to the "Catholic Church teaches" formula. In the case of the sentence cited by Johnbod, it would make sense to rephrase this as a "should not be confused with" construct. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Macula" is not the Latin word used for "stain" here
The original Latin is: "ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem." The article should be changed to reflect the correct Latin root. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.96.223 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Labe is correct. It is the original Latin term. Sine Labe Concepta. But ancient antiphons also refer to the sin as Macula: such as Tota Pulchra es Maria, et Macula non est te.

Macula or Labe are both good. It doesn't make a difference, really. The same concept is there. LoveforMary (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

Wordiness and POV of lede
I have edited down the lede as it repeated the statement of the dogma. I also must insist that it make clear that this is something that Catholics— that is, those in communion with the Church of Rome— hold in contrast to most of the rest of Christendom. Mangoe (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is pretty much a pure Roman Catholic item. It is as RC as the pope. But let us see what other editors say. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you have to say something like that? Its common sense. If you are not Catholic, then you don't subscribe to the belief. I know you're Anglican and all thatbut to me, that is just trolling. You dont see us editors go to Moslem pages and troll their beliefs by comparing them with ours. This isn't the platform to do that. Your Anti-catholic sentiments are unnecessary. So much anger, jEEZ. LoveforMary (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary


 * I admit to being a bit peeved now, but that's in reaction to your defensiveness. Look, I think it is necessary to say this, because it is not true of other Marian dogmas. The dogma of the Assumption of Mary, for example, is frequently treated as adiaphora by Anglicans, and is almost universally held in Orthodoxy even though it is not dogmatized. By contrast, there are a few Anglo-Catholics who subscribe to the doctrine of the IC, and perhaps a few of the Orthodox (I'd have to check that), but most Anglicans and pretty much everyone else actively rejects it. It's one of the defining differences of the Old Catholics. Stating the truth isn't anti-Catholic. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will let you guys talk it over but the Orthodox do not accept the IC, FYI. There is usually no "few of the Orthodox" they are orthodox. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

POV. POV. POV. POV!!!

This is not the platform to do that ok? You don't get to come to article and change the wording to suit your religious beliefs against Marian dogmas. This is NOT the platform for it. GO edit the section on Anglican views below and make it your own. But don't vandalize the introduction. It was already fine for so many months and you come here and remove the Latin definitions because you think its too wordy! LoveforMary (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveForMary

Assumption is held by the Orthodox Churches, yes. But this is DISTINCT from the Immaculate Conception. Those two concepts are different and your Anglican view is not merited on this article. You can start a section on Anglican view on the Assumption of Mary if you want. Again, POV. LoveforMary (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary
 * Agree with Mangoe & History. Calm down, LfM. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually this is a free for all John. No one agrees with each other, but the issues are really minor anyway ... History2007 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm trying to be patient here. LFM, if you want to spell out the Latin further down, be my guest; I think that's appropriate. If it was in the state it was for so many months, then it needed improvement for that many months. If you are Catholic, you do not have the authority here to claim ownership of the article and defend it from change by Protestants or for that matter atheists and unbelievers. It's not going to look good that you attack me on the basis of my religion. I or any other reasonably knowledgeable person, of whatever faith, my come here and work on the wording and add material which I think needs to be covered. I think that an ignorant person who comes along needs to have spelled out for him that this is almost strictly Catholic and rejected by nearly the entirety of the rest of Christendom. That's not anti-Catholic; that's just what's true. My Anglican view is merited, because that's what WP:NPOV says about what gets written here. Mangoe (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Side point: I am not sure if the Eastern Catholics follow it. They do not celebrate the modern feast it seems. I think Esoglou probably knows that. So wait for him to clarify, anyway. It is probably just a Roman Catholic issue, not a Catholic item. History2007 (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking. You were insisting to put your Anglican views on a ROMAN CATHOLIC article. There is a difference. This is not the platform for it. The Latin definitions that were placed there were good and synonymous with Vatican documents. You removed it! Why? Because you dislike the promotion of RC articles without Anglican views challenging it. LoveforMary (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

You know what? If you really want to give your input regarding Anglican beliefs AGAINST the Immaculate Conception, there is a section placed there under Anglicanism. Just make sure your info is well-documented and has verifiability for other readers. There is no need to alter the introduction to suit your single-religious belief otherwise we would have to accommodate EVERY single religion in the introduction. Do u get it? The Anglicanism section is all yours, you know so much about it. Go ahead. But don't impose it on the intro. Like what you said "Not all Christians outside the Roman Ctholic church, especially Anglicanism agrees with this belief". Seriously??? LoveforMary (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary


 * You are making personal attacks, and if I take this to WP:AN/I, they will agree with me that this is so. I am being more patient with you than you deserve, at this point. Your dogged insistence that there are unofficial dogmas is flatly in contradiction with our article on dogma, and that article is accurate in its representation of not only common but official usage. If I appeal to WP:CHRISTIANITY, I have confidence that they will back me up on this. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with the introduction in the first place? It was fine all these months. What needed to be changed? You keep insisting that its "wordy" but they are all cited properly by other past editors using the Latin definitions from the official Vatican website. Nobody is censoring you for your contributions, except that the article was fine in the first place. LoveforMary (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary


 * I do not really want to interrupt this lovely conversation, but both LoveforMary and Mangoe have now crossed over the WP:3RR line, a bright-line rule, I should say... I have only done 2 edits so I am not there yet. So I could restore it back to what it was yesterday until things calm down. I would prefer to do that, but let us see what John, or other users says.... History2007 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that taking out "official" again will put me over the line in spirit, if not literally so; I haven't actually counted out the changes. We have edited forward, so I'm going to object in an official way if you undo the whole thing. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said this is much ado about nothing by and large anyway, yet you have both crossed the line over not very much. As I said, I will wait for other editors to comment before I make an edit. History2007 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not scared to take out the word official. But I just want to point out that Im really really upset that you had to take out the Latin definitions previously placed there by past editors. Those editors worked hard to consensus to agree on that Latin definition, and you just walk in here and take things out because you deem its too wordy. It was absolutely fine from the beginning without your Anglican inserts and you know it. LoveforMary (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary


 * What were the Latin definitions please? In the midst of this hoopla, I cannot even see what they may have been. Please clarify. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just the definition (in English), as here. I agree this is in too technical language for the lead. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, but the reader needs to be informed about macula, immaculate, etc. What is the big deal, wordiness? I do not see it as wordy... Just makes it uninformative. What was your justification for deleting that Mangoe? History2007 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The bits, and links, removed should go into the top of the next section, which was a repetition of what was in the lead. I think that's enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, this is how Wikipedia eats life. Minor irrelevant discussion with no encyclopedic value, lots of "genius level talk" and before you know it a day has passed.... And any IP with a heartbeat and a modem can change it in 3 months anyway. A waste of time discussion from the very start. Congrats to all participants here.... This discussion can add zero encyclopedic content but is about "removing Catholic POV from an article on Catholic theology" in the name of wordiness.... The wisdom of that attempt is just breathtaking, just breathtaking.... way to go.... How about removing physics POV from all physics articles next... that would be just as wise and useful...History2007 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the stuff taken from the lede at the top of the next section, and also the "only formally in CC" bit. The concept of things too obvious to need saying does not work on WP, least of all in this area. I think we can all move on now. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hat notes
As I said here, this revert re-added incorrect links; Immaculate (disambiguation) is now Immaculata (disambiguation), and the link to Immacolata (character) is unnecessary as she's included in the relevant dab page. Additionally, the separate hat notes make clear what the different pages are for: one disambiguates the article's title (Immaculate Conception (disambiguation)) while the others disambiguate terms that happen to redirect here. The "see also" tag is a bit confusing here since it usually implies the listed articles are related in topic, not that the titles are the same. As such, I've restored the earlier hat notes and correct links.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Granted about the deletion of the character--but everyone can clearly see that this page is called Immaculate Conception. Is it valuable to make it even more explicit that the title of the page is "Immaculate Conception" by separating the hatnotes? I would say that it's more worthwhile to get the reader past the hatnote and to the information they're looking for. That means that whether they type in "Immaculate Conception" or "Immaculate" or "Immaculata" wanting a different article, they're able to quickly go to the link... and if they in fact are - as is most likely - looking for this article, we get the hatnotes out of the way as soon as possible so as to quicker show the content to the readers. Red Slash 04:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said twice now, the "see also" tag isn't for dab pages, that's "other uses" and "redirect". And Immaculate (disambiguation) is now Immaculata (disambiguation). We can talk about other solutions if anyone else has a problem with this presentation, but restoring these errors isn't kosher.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We should get some additional input here. Esoglou, Steel1943, what do you think?--Cúchullain t/ c 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion either way, as long as the hatnote template used isn't Hatnote. However, I would agree that two hatnotes is appropriate. Steel1943  (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the response to the unquestionable statement that there is now no Immaculate (disambiguation) page, before I would venture an opinion on what at first sight seems a rather abstruse matter. Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Bold edit
Would the editor now going by the name of User:TreasureIslandMediaBoss try to defend his edit-warring bold edit that, among other things, sourcelessly maintains that the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was "directly" (how could it have been indirectly?) filled with "the" (is this English?) sanctifying grace by God "throughout her entire lifetime" (not just a matter of her conception then?) Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then fix the article yourself and make it plain English easy to understand. You guard this article all the time. You should be responsible to prevent foolish edits trying to complicate the lead. You are letting these people make VOLUME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OUT OF A LEAD which should be PLAIN and EASY to READ. TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is no defence for inserting false information. Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh just shut up and do your proper job and stop letting these people clown the article all the gotdamn time. TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Will you then refrain from edit warring and let other try to improve the presentation of accurate information? Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That Pope Pius XII consecrated the dogma in 1942???? Are you that obtuse? Those words you see there are MY EDIT WORDS. they are SIMPLE, BRIEF and EASY to read. Compare those Simpleton words with the BS Grandeur "flowery crap" that the other Protestant self-serving editor inserted there, which YOU IGNORED. That damn useless REDUNDANT worthless verbose run-on sentence lead was longer than Princess Diana's wedding train. FACEPALM. TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Damn Protestants
Sick of the trucking Protestants WHO KEEP HIGHJACKING THIS ARTICLE and inserting THEIR VERBOSE imaginations on what the Immaculate Conception means.

At the end of the day, I want a CLEAR CONCISE SIMPLE article that is easy to read, easy to understand, and easy to share. Rats who act like Armchair experts should know better than to mess with the Lead, every 15th of August every 8 December and COMPLICATE THE WORDING of a Simple definition. NOBODY knows what your words mean, USE Plain English. This is not the article for Brain Surgery!

Furthemore, inserting crap details like "Pope Pius XII consecrated the dogma in 1942" is totally BS! QUIT HIGHJACKING THIS ARTICLE, you Rambunctious Protestants. Go back to Luther's coffin and stay there! TreasureIslandMediaBoss (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article isn't what you want? That's an awful shame. What you need to understand is this is an encylopedia article, not a catechism or a "doctrine for young Catholics" textbook. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, meaning that some big words will be used (I see you're an expert in using big words!) and alternative viewpoints, i.e. Protestant views, will be included too. Your attitude on this talk page has been unnecessarily aggressive. Insulting other users and accusing people of "hijacking" the article flies in the face of WP:GOODFAITH. Please calm down and work with other users to improve the article, rather than imposing your own biases on the article. -- HazhkTalk 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusing wording in lede
It was claimed in the last revert that I introduced "elevated vocabulary" - I did nothing of the sort. I merely shuffled word order, so as to prevent confusion about what was meant by "former" and "latter" because there were three things being mentioned in the text. I am still not happy with the wording, because "former" and "latter" could still be confusing, but the previous text was more unacceptable to me. I don't have the time now to look at it, but I am sure that it can be phrased elegantly and clearly. Elizium23 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

NOR violation regarding unconfirmed quote
http://risen-from-the-dead.forumotion.com/t211-regarding-wikipedia-s-abuse-of-st-bernard-of-clairvaux-via-paolo-sarpi#282

As a further favor to my fellow editors, it is currently the 82nd footnote. - Exodus2320 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Immaculate Conception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090317235459/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303172603/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1K.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1K.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immaculate Conception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615205831/http://www.fides.org/eng/approfondire/totustuus/immacolata02.html to http://www.fides.org/eng/approfondire/totustuus/immacolata02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ælfric_of_Eynsham
Is there space for Ælfric_of_Eynsham's view? It's not immediately where in the article it would go. Springnuts (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is always room for well cited content that further explores the topic. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Immaculate Conception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113162800/http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma2.php to http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma2.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724142046/http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma8.php to http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma8.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070510022830/http://www.egliseimmaculee.com/theologicalmeditation.htm to http://www.egliseimmaculee.com/theologicalmeditation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Political motivations for the dogma
The section about the IC dogma being drawn in response to the political situation of the day surely needs a very strong reference or it has to be removed. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Artistic representations
I added Tiepolo's 1767 painting to the gallery even though there are quite a few examples already, because I thought the representation of Mary was unusually naturalistic, to balance the more iconic examples. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

explanation of recent reversion
User:Rafaelosornio, thank you for your edits, and I apologise that the space available for me to explain my reversion was inadequate. For that reason I'm doing it here. The diffs are set out in the following table, and I hope this helps clarify matters.Achar Sva (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have checked the references. Thanks. You're correct. Please check the "Original sin article talk section" Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Why it was removed a lot of information of this article?
IT WAS REMOVED:

Possibility of personal sin
The Encyclical Mystici Corporis from Pope Pius XII (1943) in addition holds that Mary was also sinless personally, "free from all sin, original or personal". In this, Pius XII repeats a position already expressed by the Council of Trent, which decreed "If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema."

Mary's pre-redemption
When defining the dogma in Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX explicitly affirmed that Mary was redeemed in a manner more sublime. He stated that Mary, rather than being cleansed after sin, was completely prevented from contracting original sin in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race. In, Mary proclaims: "My spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour." This is referred to as Mary's pre-redemption by Christ. Since the Second Council of Orange against semi-pelagianism, the Catholic Church has taught that even had man never sinned in the Garden of Eden and was sinless, he would still require God's grace to remain sinless.

Misconceptions
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived free from original sin) is not to be confused with the virginal conception of her son Jesus. Catholics believe that Mary was conceived of both parents, traditionally known by the names of Saint Joachim and Saint Anne. In 1677, the Holy See condemned the error of Imperiali who taught that St. Anne in the conception and birth of Mary remained virgin, which had been a belief surfacing occasionally since the 4th century. The Church celebrates the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (when Mary was conceived free from original sin) on December 8, exactly nine months before celebrating the Nativity of Mary. The feast of the Annunciation (which commemorates the virginal conception and the Incarnation of Jesus) is celebrated on March 25, nine months before Christmas Day.

Medieval dispute about the doctrine
Bernard of Clairvaux in the 12th century raised the question of the Immaculate Conception. A feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin had already begun to be celebrated in some churches of the West. St Bernard blames the canons of the metropolitan church of Lyon for instituting such a festival without the permission of the Holy See. In doing so, he takes occasion to repudiate altogether the view that the conception of Mary was sinless, calling it a "novelty". Some doubt, however, whether he was using the term "conception" in the same sense in which it is used in the definition of Pope Pius IX. Bernard would seem to have been speaking of conception in the active sense of the mother's cooperation, for in his argument he says: "How can there be absence of sin where there is concupiscence (libido)?" and stronger expressions follow, which could be interpreted to indicate that he was speaking of the mother and not of the child. Yet, Bernard also decries those who support the feast for trying to "add to the glories of Mary", which proves he was indeed talking about Mary.

Saint Thomas Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception, saying if the Virgin Mary had been sanctified before her conception, she would not have needed the redemption of Christ concluding that "Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation". Aquinas distinguished between first time of conception, animation and birth: with the word "conception" is meant the first time of life of the human body, caused by the parents' union (except for the Virgin birth of Jesus), whereas the term "animation" indicates the following time where a soul is believed to be created by God, and then by Him unified together with the human body. The person exists only when the body has received its own soul. Latin Summa theologica affirms:

Saint Bonaventure (d. 1274), second only to Saint Thomas in his influence on the Christian schools of his age, hesitated to accept it for a similar reason. He believed that Mary was completely free from sin, but that she was not given this grace at the instant of her conception.

The celebrated John Duns Scotus (d. 1308), a Friar Minor like Saint Bonaventure, argued, on the contrary, that from a rational point of view it was certainly as little derogatory to the merits of Christ to assert that Mary was by him preserved from all taint of sin, as to say that she first contracted it and then was delivered. Proposing a solution to the theological problem of reconciling the doctrine with that of universal redemption in Christ, he argued that Mary's immaculate conception did not remove her from redemption by Christ; rather it was the result of a more perfect redemption granted her because of her special role in salvation history. The arguments of Scotus, combined with a better acquaintance with the language of the early Fathers, gradually prevailed in the schools of the Western Church. In 1387 the university of Paris strongly condemned the opposite view.

Scotus's arguments remained controversial, however, particularly among the Dominicans, who were willing enough to celebrate Mary's sanctificatio (being made free from sin) but, following the Dominican Thomas Aquinas' arguments, continued to insist that her sanctification could not have occurred until after her conception.

Popular opinion remained firmly behind the celebration of Mary's conception. In 1439, the Council of Basel, which is not reckoned an ecumenical council, stated that belief in the immaculate conception of Mary is in accord with the Catholic faith. By the end of the 15th century the belief was widely professed and taught in many theological faculties, but such was the influence of the Dominicans, and the weight of the arguments of Thomas Aquinas (who had been canonised in 1323 and declared "Doctor Angelicus" of the Church in 1567) that the Council of Trent (1545–1563)—which might have been expected to affirm the doctrine—instead declined to take a position.

The papal bull defining the dogma, Ineffabilis Deus (1854), mentioned in particular the patrististic interpretation of as referring to a woman, Mary, who would be eternally at enmity with the evil serpent and completely triumphing over him. It said the Fathers saw foreshadowings of Mary's "wondrous abundance of divine gifts and original innocence" "in that ark of Noah, which was built by divine command and escaped entirely safe and sound from the common shipwreck of the whole world; in the ladder which Jacob saw reaching from the earth to heaven, by whose rungs the angels of God ascended and descended, and on whose top the Lord himself leaned; in that bush which Moses saw in the holy place burning on all sides, which was not consumed or injured in any way but grew green and blossomed beautifully; in that impregnable tower before the enemy, from which hung a thousand bucklers and all the armor of the strong; in that garden enclosed on all sides, which cannot be violated or corrupted by any deceitful plots; in that resplendent city of God, which has its foundations on the holy mountains; in that most august temple of God, which, radiant with divine splendours, is full of the glory of God; and in very many other biblical types of this kind." The bull recounts that the Fathers interpreted the angel's address to Mary, "highly favoured one" or "full of grace", as indicating that "she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction"; they "frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent".

Private revelations
Certain Marian apparitions have referred to the Immaculate Conception or the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Miraculous Medal of 1830 refers to Mary as being "conceived without sin." Our Lady of Lourdes in 1858 called herself the Immaculate Conception. Our Lady of Fatima in 1917 requested devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The theological underpinnings of Immaculate Conception had been the subject of debate during the Middle Ages with opposition provided by figures such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican. However, supportive arguments by Franciscans William of Ware and Duns Scotus, and general belief among Catholics made the doctrine more acceptable, so that the Council of Basel supported it in the 15th century, but the Council of Trent sidestepped the question. Pope Sixtus IV, a Franciscan, had tried to pacify the situation by forbidding either side to criticize the other, and placed the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the Roman Calendar in 1477, but Pope Pius V, a Dominican, changed it to the feast of the Conception of Mary. Clement XI made the feast universal in 1708, but still did not call it the feast of the Immaculate Conception. Popular and theological support for the concept continued to grow and by the 18th century it was widely depicted in art.

By 750, the feast of her conception (December 8) was widely celebrated in the Byzantine East, under the name of the Conception (active) of Saint Anne. In the West it was known as the feast of the Conception (passive) of Mary, and was associated particularly with the Normans, whether these introduced it directly from the East or took it from English usage. The spread of the feast, by now with the adjective "Immaculate" attached to its title, met opposition on the part of some, on the grounds that sanctification was possible only after conception. Critics included Saints Bernard of Clairvaux, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas. Other theologians defended the expression "Immaculate Conception", pointing out that sanctification could be conferred at the first moment of conception in view of the foreseen merits of Christ, a view held especially by Franciscans.

William of Ware and Blessed John Duns Scotus pointed out that Mary’s Immaculate Conception enhances Jesus’ redemptive work. One of the chief proponents of the doctrine was the Hungarian Franciscan Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár.

On February 28, 1476, Pope Sixtus IV, authorized those dioceses that wished to introduce the feast to do so, and introduced it to his own diocese of Rome in 1477, with a specially composed Mass and Office of the feast. With his bull Cum praeexcelsa of February 28, 1477, in which he referred to the feast as that of the Conception of Mary, without using the word "Immaculate", he granted indulgences to those who would participate in the specially composed Mass or Office on the feast itself or during its octave, and he used the word "immaculate" of Mary, but applied instead the adjective "miraculous" to her conception. On September 4, 1483, referring to the feast as that of "the Conception of Immaculate Mary ever Virgin", he condemned both those who called it mortally sinful and heretical to hold that the "glorious and immaculate mother of God was conceived without the stain of original sin" and those who called it mortally sinful and heretical to hold that "the glorious Virgin Mary was conceived with original sin", since, he said, "up to this time there has been no decision made by the Roman Church and the Apostolic See." This decree was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent. Pope Pius V, while including the feast in the Tridentine Calendar, removed the adjective "Immaculate" and suppressed the existing special Mass for the feast, directing that the Mass for the Nativity of Mary (with the word "Nativity" replaced by "Conception") be used instead. Part of that earlier Mass was revived in the Mass that Pope Pius IX ordered to be used on the feast and that is still in use. On December 6, 1708, Pope Clement XI made the feast of the Conception of Mary, at that time still with the Nativity of Mary formula for the Mass, a Holy Day of Obligation. Until Pope Pius X reduced in 1911 the number of Holy Days of Obligation to 8, there were in the course of the year 36 such days, apart from Sundays. Writers such as Sarah Jane Boss interpret the existence of the feast as a strong indication of the Church's traditional belief in the Immaculate Conception.

History
A feast of the Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God was celebrated in Syria on December 8 perhaps as early as the 5th century. The title of achrantos (spotless, immaculate, all-pure) refers to the holiness of Mary, not specifically to the holiness of her conception. Mary's complete sinlessness and concomitant exemption from any taint from the first moment of her existence was a doctrine familiar to Greek theologians of Byzantium. Beginning with St. Gregory Nazianzen, his explanation of the "purification" of Jesus and Mary at the circumcision (Luke 2:22) prompted him to consider the primary meaning of "purification" in Christology (and by extension in Mariology) to refer to a perfectly sinless nature that manifested itself in glory in a moment of grace (e.g., Jesus at his Baptism). St. Gregory Nazianzen designated Mary as prokathartheisa (prepurified). Gregory likely attempted to solve the riddle of the Purification of Jesus and Mary in the Temple through considering the human natures of Jesus and Mary as equally holy and therefore both purified in this manner of grace and glory. Gregory's doctrines surrounding Mary's purification were likely related to the burgeoning commemoration of the Mother of God in and around Constantinople very close to the date of Christmas. Nazianzen's title of Mary at the Annunciation as "prepurified" was subsequently adopted by all theologians interested in his Mariology to justify the Byzantine equivalent of the Immaculate Conception. This is especially apparent in the Fathers St. Sophronios of Jerusalem and St. John Damascene, who will be treated below in this article at the section on Church Fathers. About the time of Damascene, the public celebration of the "Conception of St. Ann" (i.e., of the Theotokos in her womb) was becoming popular. After this period, the "purification" of the perfect natures of Jesus and Mary would not only mean moments of grace and glory at the Incarnation and Baptism and other public Byzantine liturgical feasts, but purification was eventually associated with the feast of Mary's very conception (along with her Presentation in the Temple as a toddler) by Orthodox authors of the 2nd millennium (e.g., St. Nicholas Cabasilas and Joseph Bryennius).

Church Fathers
It is admitted that the doctrine as defined by Pius IX was not explicitly noted before the 12th century. It is also agreed that "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture". But it is claimed that the doctrine is implicitly contained in the teaching of the Fathers. Their expressions on the subject of the sinlessness of Mary are, it is pointed out, so ample and so absolute that they must be taken to include original sin as well as actual. Thus in the first five centuries such epithets as "in every respect holy", "in all things unstained", "super-innocent", and "singularly holy" are applied to her; she is compared to Eve before the fall, as ancestress of a redeemed people; she is "the earth before it was accursed". The well-known words of St. Augustine (d. 430) may be cited: "As regards the mother of God," he says, "I will not allow any question whatever of sin." It is true that he is here speaking directly of actual or personal sin. But his argument is that all men are sinners; that they are so through original depravity; that this original depravity may be overcome by the grace of God, and he adds that he does not know but that Mary may have had sufficient grace to overcome sin "of every sort" (omni ex parte). Although the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception appears only later among Latin (and particularly Frankish) theologians, it became ever more manifest among Byzantine theologians reliant on Gregory Nazianzen's Mariology in the Medieval or Byzantine East. Although hymnographers and scholars, like the Emperor Justinian I, were accustomed to call Mary "prepurified" in their poetic and credal statements, the first point of departure for more fully commenting on Nazianzen's meaning occurs in Sophronius of Jerusalem. In other places Sophronius explains that the Theotokos was already immaculate, when she was "purified" at the Annunciation and goes so far as to note that John the Baptist is literally "holier than all 'Men' born of woman" since Mary's surpassing holiness signifies that she was holier than even John after his sanctification in utero. Sophronius' teaching is augmented and incorporated by St. John Damascene (d. 749/750). John, besides many passages wherein he extolls the Theotokos for her purification at the Annunciation, grants her the unique honor of "purifying the waters of baptism by touching them". This honor was most famously and firstly attributed to Christ, especially in the legacy of Nazianzen. As such, Nazianzen's assertion of parallel holiness between the prepurified Mary and purified Jesus of the New Testament is made even more explicit in Damascene in his discourse on Mary's holiness to also imitate Christ's baptism at the Jordan. The Damascene's hymnongraphy and De fide Orthodoxa explicitly use Mary's "pre-purification" as a key to understanding her absolute holiness and unsullied human nature. In fact, Damascene (along with Nazianzen) serves as the source for nearly all subsequent promotion of Mary's complete holiness from her Conception by the "all pure seed" of Joachim and the womb "wider than heaven" of St. Ann. Rafaelosornio (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Answer on why so much material was removed
Rafaelosornio, I'm giving you my answer in a new thread because the quotation in your thread is so long that I'm afraid it will get lost. The answer comes in several parts. First, the essence of the information hasn't been lost, simply reformulated using reliable sources. For example, the very first item on your list concerns the possibility that Mary committed personal sin, as distinct from inheriting original sin. The text I deleted takes three and a half lines to say that she did not, while the text I wrote takes just half a line: "Mary's freedom from personal sin was affirmed in the 4th century..." There are two advantages with the shorter mention: first, our readers are entry-level, not experts (no expert would ever consult Wikipedia for information, or at least I hope not), and so we have to get the main point across as quickly as possible - in this case, Mary was free of personal sin. Second, the mention of Pope Pius XII and the Council of Trent don't tell the real story, which is that her freedom from personal sin was proclaimed many centuries before either. On Mary's pre-redemption,' the same idea is conveyed already in the section headed Doctrine, "Mary, through God's grace, was conceived free from the stain of original sin in view of her role as the Mother of God." And it takes a lot fewer words, and is a lot more comprehensible to the non-expert (not Catholic) reader - and we must always be conscious that we are not writing only for Catholics. I believe that all the points are likewise still in the article, but expressed in fewer words and in a way that Non-Catholics will understand. If you have specific questions, it might be best if you could list them as bullet-points - that would be easier for me to answer.Achar Sva (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree about if Mary committed "personal sin" or not, that is another topic very different about if Mary was conceived without original sin or not. The rest of the article I suppose you summarized, I hope you have not removed something important.Rafaelosornio (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I hope I haven't removed anything important too :). But my aim is to produce an article which is both accurate and readable, and aimed at the ordinary Wiki-user, not the expert. If they want more information on any point, everything is sourced, and they can go to the books. Achar Sva (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, usually they can't go to the books, as they don't have access to libraries containing them. That's rather the point of Wikipedia. The lead should expresss the basic idea in easily understood terms, but lower sections should be more expansive. This area isn't of central interest to me, but it seems to me you are cutting too far and too fast. The glaring issue with this article is that the lead is much too short, very typically for this sort of arrticle.  Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Original sin
What is trying to say the source? Even the source says "Paul does not understand death to be the natural end of human life". But a user is writing the contrary in the article.

Boring, Eugene (2012). An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology. Westminster John Knox. ISBN 9788178354569. Page 300-302:

5:12–21 Christ and Adam For Paul, both sin and salvation are corporate realities. Human beings are not lone individuals who may or may not strike up relations with others; to be human means our lives are already bound up in the network of humanity before we ever make individual decisions. Paul represents this as our corporate life in Adam. The story of the “fall” in Genesis 3—Adam’s rebellion against God and expulsion from paradise—plays no role in Old Testament theology, but in Paul’s context in first-century Judaism, Adam’s sin was sometimes seen as bringing sin and death into the world (e.g., 2 Esdras, 2 Baruch, Apocalypse of Moses, rabbinic texts). Paul is not constructing an original argument that sin and death were released into the world through Adam, but presupposes that this understanding of sin is known to his readers in the Roman church.

Paul does not think of “original sin” in the sense of a biologically transmitted disease or as later generations being held accountable for the deed of a remote ancestor. Adam’s act released a power into the world to which all human beings are subject; to be human is to be subject to sin and death. Paul does not understand death to be the natural end of human life. Rather, like sin, death is a transcendent power that overcomes and enslaves human life. Modern (and postmodern) readers can think of something like “systemic evil,” an overwhelming network of sin and death in which we are already involved before we ever make conscious decisions and from which we cannot extricate ourselves. The meaning is not that God punishes all later generations for what Adam did, but that Adam’s story is the representative story of everyone.

So also with Christ’s story. Adam was a “type,” a prototype and paradigm, of the one to come (Christ) in that the act of each, both Adam and Christ, was representative of humanity as a whole. (The Hebrew word adam means “humanity,” “humankind”; it is not merely the name of an individual, but the representative of the human race.) Over against the picture of universal human disobedience represented by Adam, Paul presents Jesus as the one person in human history who realized in his own existence what it means to be a truly human being. He was truly obedient to God. Here, rare in Paul’s theology, it is not only Jesus’ death but also how he lived his life that is the saving event (see Phil 2:8, where Jesus’ whole life is characterized as “obedience”). Jesus’ obedience was God’s saving act that reversed previous human history and created a new humanity. Jesus is not merely paralleled to Adam; the consequences for humanity resulting from Adam’s disobedience to the will of God are more than counter-balanced by Christ’s obedience to the will of God; note the repeated “not” in verses 15–16. Where sin abounded, grace superabounded, hyperabounded (v. 20). Rafaelosornio (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Paul does not think of “original sin” in the sense of a biologically transmitted disease... " But Augustine does. That's the point being made in our article. "Paul does not think of “original sin” ... as later generations being held accountable for the deed of a remote ancestor." But Augustine does. For Paul, "original sin" was not transmissible (it was Augustine who invented that idea) and was not a punishment (Christians between Paul and Augustine invented that). This is what Boring is saying. "The meaning is not that God punishes all later generations for what Adam did, but that

Adam’s story is the representative story of everyone." Achar Sva (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe in the article it can be written the following: "and the Apostle Paul does not think of “original sin” in the sense of a biologically transmitted disease and that God punishes all later generations for what Adam did" Rafaelosornio (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful and prompt reply, but I have to beg your indulgence, I just feel too tired and muddle-headed to give a thoughtful reponse right now. I'll return tomorrow. Achar Sva (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Original sin in Genesis, Paul and the pre-Augustinian church
Just to clarify matters for Rafaelosornio: all sources are clear that Genesis did not share Augustine's interpretation of Genesis 3 - for example, here is Ḥayim Navon, summarising the positions of a number of important Jewish theologians; and here is Toews, whom we use in our article, pointing out that Genesis 3 is not properly read as constituting a "fall" in the Christian sense (a sense which is solely Christian - it does not exist in Judaism). I could produce many more, but the point is this: it was Augustine who first defined these texts as "original sin" and a "fall". We cannot, in our article, ignore this when we talk about Mary's freedom from this condition.Achar Sva (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to go into sources now-- I'll try to come back--- but I'm shocked to hear someone say that Genesis does not support Augustine's interpretation and it was Augustine who came up with the doctrine of original sin (as opposed to merely restating it). See Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin" Cf   "In Adam's fall, We sinner all". Etc. Is there Christian scholar of any denomination before 1900  except the Pelagians, a tiny minority, who denied that Genesis supports the idea of original sin? I've deleted the sentences that say Genesis does not support original sin, since that is highly controversial, as well as gratuitous.
 * –editeur24 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Original Sin Thing
I agree with the other guy. is the one the one that inserted the original sin "origins", so it is up to them to take it to the talk page. And I 100% agree that it is unsuitable here. Brief explanation of what it is is ok, but trivially mentioning, "btw it's not even in the Bible" and mentioning complex, disputed theories about which Church father came up with it, is completely unsuitable here. My 2 cents. --172.250.146.43 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)