Talk:Immaculate Conception/Archive 3

Which Churches accept it
Since it was defined in 1854, we're going to have a short list of Churches, beyond the Catholic Church, that accept the Immaculate Conception. The Eastern Orthodox accept it tacitly, without using the same definition and without using the same name for it. The Oriental Orthodox may be more motley in this regard. But neither the EO or the OO are conciliar communions, so they haven't defined any new doctrine in over a thousand years. By the way, I was close to reverting the edit about the Tewahedo Church, given that the cited source did not really support the assertion. Elizium23 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should mention those churches other than the Catholic Church which accept IC, but I just don't want to see a long list in the lead. Can it not be handled some other way, in the body of the article?Achar Sva (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a couple things need to happen first. (1) reliable sources for any and all other Churches which teach this dogma. (2) change the lede description to "a Christian doctrine ..." to remove the Catholic Church-specific verbiage from it. (3) include a suitable list of Churches. Right now we're at 2. We have RS for 1. Doesn't seem unmanageable. Elizium23 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "dogma" is very Catholic - other churches don't have dogmas (or at least don't use the word).Achar Sva (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , The Eastern Orthodox certainly do. Elizium23 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ethiopian Orthodox use it Elizium23 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would venture to say that every apostolic Church that is likely to confess the IC knows what a dogma is and says so. Elizium23 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"Protestant"
Moved from my personal page - Achar Sva I'm placing this message on your talk page, but any future discussion needs to occur at Talk:Immaculate Conception (or the talk page for any article in which you change Old Catholic to Protestant) for the entire Wikipedia community to see. Please don't edit war on this matter; discuss on the talk page before changing it again. Every non-RC denomination is not classified as Protestant. Old Catholic has a distinct theology that is different from that of Protestant denominations (with the exception of Anglicanism in some cases; and some scholars do not consider Anglicanism to be Protestant). Before arguing this point, please carefully read List of Christian denominations by number of members. In fact, read the entire article. Also read Old Catholic Church for a historical overview of the distinction with the Protestant Reformation. With the exception of papal supremacy, the Old Catholic Church's theology aligns with Catholicism much more than Protestantism. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

In re Original sin
The whole point of the idea of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was free from Original Sin. The article has a section discussing what that is, plus a link to the Main article, which I added. However, the first paragraph by itself distorts Augustine's thought which primarily focused on concupiscence. By itself and w/o clarification, that single paragraph suggests that (1) everyone agreed with Augustine, and (2) that reflects modern thinking. I added a bit from the Catholic's catechism, but w/o the second paragraph mentioning subsequent further development in interpretation, there is no indication of how anyone got from one to the other. Manannan67 (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening the discussion. There's no doubt that this article needs to explain what original sin is, but it doesn't need to go into detail - the other article already exists for anyone wanting more. Achar Sva (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read what I wrote above? I am aware that there is an article re Original Sin. I'm the one who added the link to the Main. The reasons for expanding that section have heretofore been stated. Considering that the Immaculate Conception is a Catholic dogma, it is probably helpful to indicate what they say about it and how they got there. Manannan67 (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent posts
Your recent posts on my Talk page are both inappropriate and a tad presumptuous. (1) On December 13, I added the views of Anselm and Aquinas on Original Sin, which differ from Augustine, plus the Catholic Church's statement re same per their catechism. On the 19th, you chose to revert that with the edit summary "Deleted a paragraph that is not connected to the Immaculate Conception". If you believe that Original Sin "is not connected to the Immaculate Conception", it suggests that you may have an inadequate grasp of the concept. I then reverted your deletion. You then deleted it a second time without discussion. And you accuse me of edit warring! Your second deletion was subsequently reverted, not by me, but by, who apparently agrees with me. You are closer to the three-revert rule than I. (2) "Your recent editing history at Immaculate Conception shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war;" To what specifically are you referring? On December 20, I corrected a misstatement attributed to Coyle, to wit: "her preservation from original sin was a redemption more perfect than that granted through Christ, as if by some other unknown method. Coyle never said this; she's knows better, (for Pete's sake, her book is published by Gracewing). The whole point of Duns Scotus was to explain how Mary was redeemed through Christ. In lieu of the inaccurate statement I rephrased it and provided two sources, both from universities. (3) On December 24 I removed mention of some anonymous Bishop of Paris from the lede. He remains mentioned in the text. I stand by the edit summary "The single opinion of an anonymous 'archbishop of Paris', while already in the text, is not significant enough for the lede". If he's important enough for the lede, then at the very least, we should know the gentleman's name. Instead, I had added a reference to Ubi primum which was a predicate for Ineffabilis Deus, but you deleted that as well. One might have thought that the opinions of some 600 bishops would carry a bit more weight than that of one. You reverted this with the woefully irrelevant edit summary "Follow sources". This was then reverted, and again not by me, but by someone else. Manannan67 (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A Word on Lohse
It's not entirely clear to me why one would rely on a German, Lutheran theologian to explain the development of Catholic dogma. At best, this is allegedly his interpretation, but more likely that something was lost in translation. "Up until this point it had been understood that dogma had to be based in Scripture and accepted by tradition." In the first place, this is not accurate, and secondly, Lohse would surely have known this. For the Catholic Church "dogma derives from both Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition." They are each considered equally valid for the transmission of received revelation. (A clarification of this was included in the Dogma section, which also included a citation to the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, -which you deleted.) As this is a significant difference of opinion with those Protestant denominations that adhere to "sola scriptura", Lohse would have recognized this. That is why I added the bit about dogma, although without the misconception attributed to Lohse, there is not so much need of it. Nonetheless, whoever entered it, is either confused, or careless. It appears that some user is consistently, inaccurately paraphrasing sources. For a discussion of the promulgation of this particular dogma, Chadwick is probably a better source. None of my edits would be at all problematic for anyone remotely conversant with the subject. Manannan67 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

What is a dogma?
First the article said that a dogma contains Scripture and Tradition, but later an unreliable source said that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception according to him was not based on the bible or on tradition, (apparently not knowing what a dogma is) but later the Ineffabilis Deus exposes the reasons why which the dogma of Immaculate Conception is based on the bible and on Tradition.

The article was completely contradicting itself in many places. For the same reason it has been corrected.Rafaelosornio (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Who is Kathleen Coyle?
According to Kathleen Coyle the Immaculate Conception cannot be deduced from the New Testament, but for that purpose the Church declared the Immaculate Conception based on Tradition and Scripture.

I'm looking for Kathleen Coyle's credentials but can't find who she is, and no, she's not the Irish novelist, she's someone else.Rafaelosornio (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kathleen Coyle SSC is an Irish-born religious sister and a member of the Missionary Sisters of St. Columba. She holds a masters in theology from Mundelein and has taught at the Maryhill School of Theology in the Philippines. You will note that her publisher is Gracewing, an affiliate of Ignatius Press and OSV, none of which are particularly known for radicalism. The problem is not with Sister Coyle, but that a user has inaccurately attributed a statement to her. The lede stated that "...this had the overwhelming support of the Church's hierarchy, although a few, including the Archbishop of Paris, said that the Immaculate Conception is not stated in the New Testament and cannot be deduced from it", and attributed this to Coyle. However, in the text under the Ineffabilis Deus section there is no mention of the Archbishop and the statement is made to appear as if it is from Coyle herself. Citation #4 refers to p.35. You will note that there is also no mention whatsoever of any Archbishop of Paris on page 35 in her book or for that matter on pp. 36, 37, or 38. This is not the only instance of a source not being accurately reflected, as it also appears to have been the case with Bernhard Lohse. Cheers. Manannan67 (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion and edit warring
Manannan67, thanks for opening the discussion. I've reverted the article to where it was before the edit warring started simply because it makes it easier to identify what's in contention (though it also happens to be the protocol); it doesn't imply that I'm not willing to accept any changes, just that I want to come to something we can agree on.

You raise several points in separate posts here, so to avoid scattering the replies I'll bring them together in dot points. Anyway, thanks again for the discussion, please consider us jointly taking Lohse to some third party, and can we perhaps go through these points one by one, as otherwise we'll be overwhelmed. Achar Sva (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Original sin. I have no objection to having a section on original sin in the article, in fact I was the first to add it, I merely feel that we need to be as succinct as possible.
 * Sources. you say this: "On December 20, I corrected a misstatement attributed to Coyle." Considering Coyle's credential's, that sounds rather presumptuous. Of course you can question the statement, but you'll have to do it by showing that Coyle was misrepresented, or that she's not a reliable source, or that other reliable sources contradict her.
 * You also say this: "On December 24 I removed mention of some anonymous Bishop of Paris from the lede. He remains mentioned in the text. I stand by the edit summary "The single opinion of an anonymous 'archbishop of Paris', while already in the text, is not significant enough for the lede". The point is that Mary's immaculate conception isn't mentioned in the NT - this isn't an opinion, it's an objective fact, and the archbishop of Paris was drawing attention to that fact. That surely is important enough for the lead.
 * Sources (Lohse). You object to Lohse being used as a source because he's a Lutheran. Personally I don't see why a Lutheran theologian shouldn't be quoted, although of course we should always be on the look-out for bias. If you wish we can take this yo some forum for resolution - I'm not saying this in a hostile way, but simply so that we can clear up the point. Incidentally, you mention Chadwick as a possible alternative - can you provide a link?
 * Sources (Coyle): Rafaelosornio questions Coyle as a source, but you seem to have dealt with that. You also say a great deal more, about Coyle not being properly reflected - that's a potentially valid point, but there's so much written on this page that frankly I find it difficult to follow.
 * Dogma: Rafaelosornio has written on this but his English is poor and I may have understood; anyway, Rafaelosornio, the point being made is that dogma derives from scripture and tradition, and that the immaculate conception rests on the second without the first. Ineffabilis Deus does not cite any scripture in support of the dogma, but instead interprets many stories in scripture as "types".
 * Archbishop of Paris and the question of finding the immaculate conception in scripture: Than you for identifying the archbishop. If you feel that IC is indeed in scripture, I suggest finding a good source that shows us exactly where, as so far as I'm aware Ineffabilis Deus quotes no passages other than in types.
 * Achar Sva It is no benefit to the article, if in an effort to be "succinct", it ends up being misleading. I have already explained my edits above. I will not keep repeating myself simply because you either overlook or ignore it.


 * "Considering Coyle's credential's, that sounds rather presumptuous. Of course you can question the statement, but you'll have to do it by showing that Coyle was misrepresented". I am not questioning Sr. Coyle, I'm questioning that she ever made the statement attributed to her. That is not presumption. (Common sense ought to inform you that if she had maintained that the IC is supported by neither scripture nor tradition, she would never had been published by a Catholic house.) The citation to Coyle references p.35. I provided a link to that specific page, which shows no mention whatsoever of any archbishops. You complain that there has been insufficient discussion, yet it appears that you barely read it.
 * Focus on Sibour's reservations is WP:UNDUE given that he is one out over 600 bishops, 90% of whom encouraged the proclamation. Neither does it address the political situation in France at the time -nor should it. It is better discussed in more detail on his own page. No, it does not belong in the lede.
 * "You object to Lohse being used as a source because he's a Lutheran." Just as Coyle and Lohse have been misrepresented, you now misrepresent my comments on the statement attribute to him. I do not object to Lohse being used as a source because he's a Lutheran ('though perhaps a bit outdated). I gave my reasons, which you choose to ignore. Unless English is not your first language, it's beginning to be difficult to continue to WP:AGF. Again some user has apparently misunderstood the named source and does not understand what Sacred tradition is and how it relates to Scripture. Lohse would.
 * If either Coyle or Lohse's so-called statements are to remain in the article, then I would request the exact quote. There is no point in debating third-hand hearsay from some user either too lazy or uninformed to accurately reflect the referenced source.
 * What I "feel" regarding the IC and scripture is irrelevant. What matters is what Ineffabilis Deus says (and tangentially, what other RS say about the document). The encyclical (as well as, the article) indicates a long Tradition in the belief. As Catholics hold that Tradition is as valid as Scripture in that regard, it alone would have been sufficient. However, even though the phrase "Immaculate Conception" is not found in Scripture, the Church apparently found it indicated in several "types". This is an accepted method of biblical exegesis, (See Typology (theology)) frequently used by the Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants. The objection that the particular words are not stated is a "red herring".
 * It was not necessary to revert "...the article to where it was before the edit warring..." because there was no edit warring. I do not believe you fully understand the term, yet you have accused three separate editors of engaging in it. There has been some lengthy discussion on this page to which you have contributed absolutely nothing. Nor did you have recourse to Talk on the occasion of any of your repeated reverts to explain what you saw as the problem. WP:EDITNINJAS I will retain your egregious edit on my Talk page, as it is more illustrative of your approach to editing than mine. Manannan67 (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Manannan67, I think the essential point is this: Coyle is being used as a source (footnote 21) to support the statement that "Mary's immaculate conception is not stated in the New Testament and cannot be deduced from it." It comes in the middle of this paragraph:


 * Ineffabilis Deus was one of the pivotal events of the papacy of Pius, pope from 16 June 1846 to his death on 7 February 1878.[3] Up until this point it had been understood that dogma had to be based in Scripture and accepted by tradition,[31] but Mary's immaculate conception is not stated in the New Testament and cannot be deduced from it,[4] and it had caused a virtual civil war between Franciscans and Dominicans during the Middle Ages.[32] Ineffabilis Deus therefore was a novelty, being based instead on the declaration of a special commission to the effect that neither scripture nor tradition were necessary to define dogma, but only the authority of the church expressed in the Pope.[31] The Pope and his curia (the special body which forms the central government of the church) accordingly waived the absence of scriptural proof or a "broad and ancient" stream of tradition and promulgated Mary's immaculate conception solely on papal infallibility,[33] itself promulgated as dogma in 1870.[34] Four years later Mary appeared to the young Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes, in southern France, to announce that she was the Immaculate Conception.[35]


 * I think it's pretty clear that the sentence doesn't stand alone, but is part of an exposition of the formulation of Ineffabilis, and all those parts are in harmony: the IC is not stated in the New Testament (which is a fact), and cannot be deduced from it (which I gather is also a fact); for that reason it was a cause of dissension in the Middle Ages; Ineffabilis rewrote the guidelines for defining dogma so that scripture was no longer needed, and the pope and curia relied instead on tradition; and finally, IC was confirmed by divine revelation. There's no point arguing against the inclusion of this short phrase while leaving the entire paragraph standing; if you want to revise the paragraph, you need to look at ALL the sources, not just Coyle. Achar Sva (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's gets something straight. The dispute is not that the IC is not in the New Testament. The dispute is that there does not seem to be an accurate citation indicating that Coyle said so. The idea that the statement should be taken in context with the rest of the paragraph is ridiculous if she never made the statement in the first place! Secondly, apparently you do not fully understand the Catholic's view on dogma, scripture, nor sacred tradition. "Up until this point it had been understood that dogma had to be based in Scripture and accepted by tradition." Totally wrong, for the reasons give above under Lohse. Ineffabilis was somewhat unique, but that isn't why. Manannan67 (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed the details of this dispute closely, but I will agree with Manannan67 on one point. To claim that "it had been understood that dogma had to be based in Scripture and accepted by tradition" is blatantly false. If anyone disagrees we need to see the reliable source to support that. Sundayclose (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Archbishop of Paris
In the mid-nineteenth century the Holy See gets a number of requests, particularly fr France and Archbishop De Quelen, to formally declare the IC a dogma, Pius IX sends out Ubi primum to canvass the bishops' opinions. Archbishop of Paris, Marie-Dominique-Auguste Sibour says that the dogma "..."could be proved neither from the Scriptures nor from tradition" -this is Schaff's Protestant emphasis. Sibour further said it was "inopportune" -this is Weber's more diplomatic Catholic emphasis. Sibour also said it was "unnecessary". Schaff's statement was in the lede, and later in the text ascribed not to the archbishop, but to a modern Catholic theology professor. Nowhere is it indicated that Sibour later published the promulgated decree in his diocese or that he was assassinated, in part for doing so. It does look like some disingenuous effort to find a prominent Catholic churchman who shares the user's opinion that the IC is based on neither scripture nor tradition -when Ineffabilis Deus takes pains to show, it's based on both. Left Schaff's statement in, identified said bishop, who, at the least, appears to have been ambiguous, and added a bit more context. Manannan67 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The user Achar Sva only cites sources incompletely, and for him it is better to eliminate what does not suit him. He cannot eliminate the part about the bishop of Paris ending up accepting the resolution of the proclamation of the dogma and its application throughout his diocese. He was even assassinated for having accepted the resolution of the proclamation of the dogma.Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is a mess
A) The following text is bad written

(Since the 19th century, a dogma has come to bear the meaning of a divinely revealed truth proclaimed by Church teaching and hence binding for all time on the faithful; while the Immaculate Conception asserts only Mary's freedom from original sin, the Council of Trent, held between 1545 and 1563, affirmed in addition her freedom from personal sin.)

B) The following text affirms that the dogma of the Immaculada Conception is not a dogma because, according to the author, papal infability is used to define dogma.

Up until this point it had been understood that dogma had to be based in Scripture and accepted by tradition,[31] but Mary's immaculate conception is not stated in the New Testament and cannot be deduced from it,[4] and it had caused a virtual civil war between Franciscans and Dominicans during the Middle Ages.[32] Ineffabilis Deus therefore was a novelty, being based instead on the declaration of a special commission to the effect that neither scripture nor tradition were necessary to define dogma, but only the authority of the church expressed in the Pope.[31] The Pope and his curia (the special body which forms the central government of the church) accordingly waived the absence of scriptural proof or a "broad and ancient" stream of tradition and promulgated Mary's immaculate conception solely on papal infallibility,[33] itself promulgated as dogma in 1870.[34]

the Lutheran author states that the dogma of the Inmaculate Conception is not a dogma because according to the author is not based on tradition and scriptures and that by pure decision of the pope using papal infability, the dogma was defined (which is not a dogma).

If it is absurd for me to use a Lutheran author to define the immaculate conception, knowing that the Lutherans reject the immaculate conception, I am an idea that other non-Protestant authors require to define this. Why not use an expert Catholic author on this topic?

C) The section "Ineffabilis Deus" is supposed to be about the papal bull, but other unrelated themes are touched. An example is the virtual civil war between Franciscans and Dominicans during the Middle Ages, its place must be in "Medieval formulation" section.Rafaelosornio (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was, until Achar Sva reverted it. Manannan67 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Rafaelosornio, the subsection heade3d " Ineffabilis Deus" is not meant to be about the doctrine - the section headed Doctrine is about that. It comes in the section headed "History", and is meant to be about the history (or development, if you like) of first the belief and later the doctrine. Manannan67, I can't see anywhere in the section on the doctrine that touches on the disputes between Dominicans and Franciscans; that dispute is, of course, mentioned in the section on the history of the doctrine, but surely that's where it belong? Achar Sva (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is about the immaculate conception, it is not about what is a dogma and why according to a Lutheran the dogma of the immaculate conception is not a dogma. That part should be moved to the Lutheranism section and why he believes that as a Lutheran the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not a dogma.Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution needed
Manannan67 and Rafaelosornio, it's clear that we can't agree on our dispute. It therefore follows that we should go to dispute resolution. Do you agree? And if so, what forum? Achar Sva (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well done. No sooner was page protection lifted and you immediately got it reinstated. You can't go to dispute resolution unless you can define what is in dispute. To what then specifically are you referring? Manannan67 (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest WT:WikiProject Catholicism, but first all of you need to agree on non-biased wording in the request. Sundayclose (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose, I cannot recognise you as a party to the dispute, given out past interactions. (Meaning that I don't want to have any contact with you). Manannan67, this is a content dispute, extending over the various diffs. Achar Sva (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, at this point I am not a "party to the dispute"; I simply made a good-faith suggestion for dispute resolution. Secondly, despite your arrogant assumption, you don't determine who is a party to the dispute. If I decide to participate in the discussions here, your pontificating has no bearing. If you don't want to have any contact with me, simply ignore me instead of making conflict-baiting statements. If you have a personal problem with me, this is not the place to air it. Take it to my talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Achar Sva Not good enough. I believe I used the word "specifically". One example would do for a starter. In fact, no one's going to want to sort a hodge-podge of the various things you either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge. (Sundayclose You are more than welcome, as far a I'm concerned.) Manannan67 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request
The link to DAB page Conciliar at Immaculate Conception (a WP:INTDAB error) should be piped to Conciliarity, and the dn tag removed. Narky Blert (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ while this specific section appears to be included in the content dispute, this specific link target does not appear to be part of the dispute. — xaosflux  Talk 15:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Immaculate Conception in the Manila Cathedral.jpg

The article is about the Immaculate Conception, not a long explanation about original sin.

 * You are saying:

1) original sin, a concept that did not exist before the 4th century. 2) You say in this part: "It is not found in the Book of Genesis (Judaism does not see human nature as irrevocably tainted), nor in the New Testament." (NEUTRALITY IS DISPUTED)
 * Original sin is entirely relevant, since the idea of the doctrine is that Mary was conceived free of it.Achar Sva (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not me who says that, it's the sources, e.g. Shoemaker p.57, "there was no clear notion of original sin the later 2nd century," and Obach, p.41, "Christianity had no specific doctrine of original sin from the first century through the fourth." And there are many more. If you believe that this is not neutral, please explain why not.Achar Sva (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

3) for the Apostle Paul regarded sin and death not as a punishment visited on mankind for Adam's fault but as the natural lot of mankind.
 * Why do you mention this? Achar Sva (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

4) This sentiment was echoed as late as 1930 by Pope Pius XI in his Casti Conubii: "The natural generation of life has become the path of death by which original sin is communicated to the children." All they are irrelevant. The only relevant part of the section must be the conception of the Virgin Mary that says the protoevangelium of James.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you mention this also? Achar Sva (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your English here is so poor that I cannot make out your meaning. Achar Sva (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't need the personal opinion of the author.
Emma Maggie Solberg who wrote "Virgin Whore" says that "Some devotees went so far as to hold that Anne had conceived Mary by kissing her husband Joachim, and that Anne's father and grandmother had likewise been conceived without sexual intercourse"

Then she says according to her own personal opinion the following: "so that virgin births were breeding like rabbits in Mary's family tree" WE DON'T NEED HER PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT THAT TOPIC.Rafaelosornio (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to delete this. Achar Sva (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The "virtual civil war" must be in the correct section (middle ages), and why you do not put the full information?
The full information is this:

"The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception caused a virtual civil war between Franciscans and Dominicans during the middle ages. Franciscans in its favour and Dominicans against it."--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the passage about the "war" entirely, as neither Eadmer nor Bernard, who immediately follow the sentence, belonged to either of those orders.Achar Sva (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Page 336 Cameron book

 * You say the book says in that page: "The theology of the Immaculate Conception arose from this debate." It never say that.Rafaelosornio (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It should be page 335. Thanks for pointing this out. The passage is: "The late middle ages fostered a number of 'new' doctrines, most noteably that Mary had been conceived immaculate from [means 'unstained by'] original sin ... The doctrine [of IC] caused virtual civil war between the rival orders of mendicant friars..." Achar Sva (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Old Catholic Church (twice the same info in the article)
You say "Catholics unable to accept papal infallibility left the Roman Church and formed the Old Catholic Church, which rejects also the Immaculate Conception".

Are you talking in a general way, all Catholics formed the old catholic church?

I must remind you that the article already says the following, why do you want to repeat it several times?

Old Catholics

In the mid-19th century, some Catholics who were unable to accept the doctrine of papal infallibility left the Roman Church and formed the Old Catholic Church; their movement rejects the Immaculate Conception.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to leave the Old Catholics out altogether, as they're such a tiny movement. Achar Sva (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Mary doesn't appeared to the young Bernadette Soubirous in 1874 and it was in LOURDES, not loudes
You say "You say papal infallibility itself promulgated as dogma in 1870. Four years later, Mary appeared to the young Bernadette Soubirous at Loudes"

The Lourdes apparitions were in 1858, and not 1874, and they were in Lourdes, not Loudes.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When Mary appeared to at Lourdes it was to confirm the Immaculate Conception. Please don't obsess over official doctrine: at the popular level, this appearance was absolutely crucial to the popularity of the IC. Achar Sva (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Wy you ommit what Marie-Dominique-Auguste Sibour did after the promulgation of the dogma?
The warning done by Marie-Dominique-Auguste Sibour WAS BEFORE the promulgation of the dogma, then it must be before saying that the pope promulgated it. And why you ommit that Dominique was present at the promulgation of the decree and shortly afterwards solemnly published it in his own diocese? Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The archbishop's warning is the point being made; his subsequent obedience belongs to his personal history. Achar Sva (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Once again
Again, a combative, mean spirited introduction, and the common denominator is ... Compare the revisions before he started editing and after. --174.88.213.73 (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why you are deleting the Islam, Lutheram and Estaer Orthodox texts with references? and other things?
Martin Luther showed an abiding devotion to Mary, including her sinlessness and sanctity, and Lutherans hold Mary in high esteem, but the Immaculate Conception does not hold the status of a dogma within Lutheranism.

The Eastern Orthodox do have a conciliar teaching on the matter, however. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) in its sixth decree teaches the existence of original sin ("hereditary sin flowed to his [Adam's] posterity; so that everyone who is born after the flesh bears this burden") but explicitly rejected the Augustinian notion of inherited guilt ("[by] this burden we do not understand [actual] sin").The decree continues in stating that "many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others...especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary" experienced "only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses...and lastly, bodily death."

The comission Pius IX had called together declared that neither scriptural proof nor a broad and ancient stream of tradition was required to promulgate Mary's Immaculate Conception. It insisted, further, that the authority of the church today is quite sufficient to define this dogma.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Your English is dreadful (sorry, but it is). Can you restate this? Achar Sva (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the writing perfectly clear - what is your problem with his post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.34 (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Christians can not celebrate their birthday?
According to the Wikipedia user "Achar Sva" Christians could not celebrate their birthdays of those born in sin. If all we were born in sin then Christians never celebrated their birthdays? To begin with, we are not Jehovah's Witnesses so as not to celebrate birthdays, and second, that statement requires several references that prove that Christians could not celebrate their birthdays of those born in sin.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement is reliably sourced. Personally I have no idea about the customs regarding the celebration of birthdays in the Middle Ages, but it's quite conceivable that it was introduced at some later stage. Anyway, check the source if you have a problem (it says that Christians celebrated the death-days of saints rather than their birthdays). You might also check a book about the history of birthdays. There are many strange things in history. Achar Sva (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if one does not know the customs regarding birthdays in early ages (I think many or most people didn't even know their birthday, especially since it wasn't as important as it seems today. They knew rather the year of their birth), the statement sounds strange. As already said: (apart from the given exceptions of Jesus Christ and Mary) we are all born in sin. Moreover: the liturgical calendar contains, apart from the birth of Mary, the birthday of Saint John the Baptist. He, that's for sure, was born in sin and we celebrate(d) the day of his birth.--Medusahead (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Intercourse is sinful?
The article actually states: "the opponents of the feast of Mary's conception brought forth the objection that as sexual intercourse is sinful, to celebrate Mary's conception was to celebrate a sinful event. Is this statement really given by the source? (And if yes, who were these "opponents"?) I ask because this is not and was not catholic teaching. It would be great to have the context or the wording of the statement Boss made here.--Medusahead (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Postscript: as one can see the text reads even more fluent without this thesis, so I commented it out for the time being.--Medusahead (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The only advice I can offer is to read the sources. Achar Sva (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With due respect, an equivalent of "read for yourself what it says" has never been a good piece of advice. However, if one is able to let me have p. 123-126, I'll do that.--Medusahead (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well look at the alternatives, either you read the books in the bibliography, written (or should be written) by experts who've spent their lives working on the field, or else you can have my opinions. As for the missing google-pages, yes, it's a bugger, but do you have a library nearby? Achar Sva (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead
I've extended the lead a little to cover all the sections of the main article - this, I believe, is the guidance on leads to articles. Achar Sva (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute tag
If the citation from Lohse is true, then there would have been no Scripture references in the document at all. But the section above that citation shows that Scripture verses such as Genesis 3:15 are used to argue for the Immaculate Conception by the commission (are you trying to say all of those Scripture verses in favor of the Immaculate Conception came only from Pius himself? That he's the only man in the Church that would have come up with those verses?) Now whether those verses actually point towards it or not is a different story. But it would be inaccurate to say the commission could not make an argument for the Immaculate Conception from any Scripture or Tradition at all. 69.115.230.123 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please move your dispute tag to the actual passage by Lhose that you dispute? Incidentally, you can't dispute a statement in the article by saying you think the source is wrong - you can say the source is not a reliable one, or that it's being misrepresented, but you can't simply say it's wrong.
 * I think you're referring to this: The commission Pius IX had called together declared that neither scriptural proof nor a broad and ancient stream of tradition was required to promulgate Mary's Immaculate Conception . It insisted, further, that the authority of the church today is quite sufficient to define this dogma. My understanding of Lhose's statement (as quoted by Rafaelosornio in an earlier thread) is that Pius was saying that neither scripture nor magisterium (i.e., tradition) were necessary to establish the dogma, and that "the authority of the church" was enough for this purpose. He was not denying that scriptural proof-texts existed or that the Immaculate Conception had no basis in tradition, but the problem he faced was that there's no clear, explicit statement in scripture, and the tradition is conflicted; his answer was that these things didn't matter, as the authority of the pope speaking from the Chair of Peter (i.e., Papal infallibility was sufficient.Achar Sva (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've dug into this sentence: The commission Pius IX had called together declared that neither scriptural proof nor a broad and ancient stream of tradition was required to promulgate Mary's Immaculate Conception. It insisted, further, that the authority of the church today is quite sufficient to define this dogma. The sentence is not supported by the source Hillerbrand p.63, but it merely repeats information in the immediately prior sentence, which is correctly sourced to and supported by the source Lohse pp.102-103. I've deleted it. If you're happy with this you can remove your tag entirely, or if you're not, please move it to the sentence you dispute.Achar Sva (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


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

Coyle again
"Paraphrase is preferable to quotation" -not when the source is manifestly misinterpreted. "Duns Scotus ...argued that her preservation from original sin was a redemption more perfect than that granted through Christ.(?!), please clarify for those in the back, what Christian of any denomination holds that "redemption" is somehow derived other than that granted through Christ. I'll wait. Manannan67 (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What Christian denominations might believe is irrelevant, the only relevant thing is what Duns Scotus said (or thought). Achar Sva (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He never said/thought any such thing. This is poorly phrased and defies logic and grammar. Is English your second/third language? Clearly you do not understand Scotus. Better your doctor administers a Covid vaccine before you get sick, than attempt to treat you after you contract it; in both instances, it is the same physician. If you imagine Scotus (or Coyle) said something different, please provide the precise quote. Manannan67 (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Shoemaker
"Mary's conception occurs without sexual intercourse between Anne and Joachim,..." This is stated as fact, but should be attributed to Shoemaker (if left in at all) because it is subsequently contradicted in the article by both the Orthodox Church and apparently Bridget of Sweden. (both referenced) Manannan67 (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither the Orthodox Church nor the visionary Bridget are reliable sources. Achar Sva (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Says you. They are referenced. Augustine and Damascene said the same. Manannan67 (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Lede
Repeatedly, editors have reverted properly-cited, reliably-sourced information and removed content from the lede specifically this extended last paragraph:
 * Some Protestants have condemned the Immaculate Conception as un-scriptural, while some Anglicans accept it as a pious devotion. Other Christian traditions such as some Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodoxy object on theological and Christological grounds. Patriarch Anthimus VII of Constantinople characterized the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as a "Roman novelty".

I ask that explain why they've broken 3RR to remove that content. Edit descriptions of "last good version" suggest the editor is aware of the fact they have reverted this content more times than they are generally permitted without discussion or further elaboration. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, not sure if you saw this original message. You've thrice reverted sourced content (in another edit today, also deleted another sourced passage a second time). I'd encourage you to actively address your rationale here because that is reliably sourced material and it has hit that limit where you're supposed to at least partially discuss it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Pbritti; it's not actually forbidden to delete sourced material if doing so improves the article. Can you tell me which specific deletion you mean? (I can't promise to get back immediately, but I will within the next few days). Achar Sva (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not an improvement. The lede gives a general overview of the positions of various denominations. "Some Protestants" appears to be more accurate, as the very next line says Anglicans accept it, but as a pious devotion rather than doctrine. It is sourced; it states their position; and your edit summary "...not a doctrine or belief" is irrelevant and immaterial. Manannan67 (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for summarizing my concern. The sources and material I had added (mostly visible here) further contextualize the concept in relation to additional denominations. Since it is not universally a doctrine and is accepted by certain non-Catholic communities, I opted for broader language while still emphasizing that it is of great importance and relevancy in relation to the Catholic Church and its acceptance of the Immaculate Conception as doctrine. I understand that you might not be available for a couple days–indeed, I probably won't be either since I will be traveling–so take your time getting back on this topic but I really do think that the removal of sourced content without explanation of how excising it improves the article is unideal (especially when repeatedly reverting it). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So this relates to the lead? The number of Anglo-Catholics in the world is miniscule, making this too trivial to include in the lead. I have no objection to it being in the body, and in fact would support it there. Achar Sva (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The removal you implemented not only made an arbitrary judgement on whether there were sufficient totals of anglo-catholics to make them worthy of mention (even though the source makes reference to the devotion being among some Anglicans generally, not anglo-catholics), but also altered the lede to suggest no Protestants approve/accept the teaching. Further, you removed reliably sourced content repeatedly about the Oriental Orthodox. This article is about not just Catholic views and how the Eastern Orthodox disagree, but how the concept is dealt with universally. Heck, once I find a decent reliable source, a secular view of the Immaculate Conception would be more than appropriate in the lede, which until recently it seems like you thought ought be expanded. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)