Talk:Our Lady of the Good Event

"Mythology"? Seriously?
The "Mythology" header is utterly POV at best, insulting to Catholics at worst. While the article could clearly be expressed in a more NPOV manner, this header - which is a rather large chunk of the article - is pretty unacceptable. It's no more acceptable than calling the life and times of Gautama Buddha as mere "mythology" regardless of whether or not it opposes the opinions of oneself. I think we can all improve on this article if we get to work. 98.196.146.115 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation
I am asking the help of some Wikipedians to treanslate this page to other languages. Thank you. Mark j 10:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
This article treats catholic religious beliefs as if they are fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainManacles (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: NPOV
any suggestion on how we can improve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.196.242 (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Private revelation disputed
I do not have time to edit this article or get into an edit war with determined promoters of OLGS as a private revelation, but it is important to note that the connection of a private revelation attributed to Mother Mariana with the OLGS devotion is disputed. Although the content of the alleged private revelation seems excellent from a 20th c traditionalist Catholic perspective, for instance a Catholic.com user says: "My problem with Our Lady of Good Success is there no documentation before 1930. You won't find a single piece of paper on the apparition before that date as all were destroyed. The document that is the basis for the apparition is supposedly a 20th century copy made by a very old nun from another document written in a secret code that no one but her could crack which in turn was a copy of a eighteenth century document which in turn was a copy of a seventeenth century document. However, only the 1930s document still exists." from: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=598847 This is being promoted by any number of Catholic traditionalists today as being an "approved" private revelation (there is certainly approved devotion related to the statue titled OLGS), however there is a serious need to find out from the diocese in Ecuador what they say about the alleged private revelation. The Wiki article should reflect the uncertainty regarding the private revelation.--Elizdelphi (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Venerable?
Which Pope declared Mariana de Jésus Torres "Venerable", and when? Since her cause was only opened in 1986, it should be easy to narrow down. Mannanan51 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She's called "Venerable" in books (example) and all over the Internet (4K exact matches on Google for "Venerable Mother Mariana de Jésus Torres" in quotes). There are enough sources to make it verifiable, but I'm interested as well to know whether it's actually true. Jdcompguy (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it's not. That depends on the sources. (N.B. Footnote 6: a seemingly anonymous blog which states "This is a compilation from various Internet Sources".) So far, with the exception of Dayton and the Monastery -which say nothing of her, apparitions, nor any alleged prophecies, all I see are citations to Traditional Catholic websites, touting so-called prophecies that support their current views. People repeating tall tales, no matter how much they like them, does not constitute a verifiable fact. Where are the academics? the feminist historians? the social anthropologists who write on post-conquest religion in Latin America? I've looked, and all I find are these semi-apocalyptic proselytizers. The more I look, the less I see. If any Pope in the last thirty-five years actually declared her "venerable" that's should be the easiest thing to establish -there have been only three, but the article makes the claim without saying who or when. ...It is telling that that there is no mention of her in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is long after this alleged event occurred, -not even in article on the Archdiocese of Quito, where you might expect at least a blurb. Nor do the Conceptionist sisters make any mention of her, an apparition, or even being in Ecuador, nor does the Archdiocese of Quito appear to say anything, which you might expect they would if they currently really have a pending cause. On the other hand, Mary Anne de Paredes, her contemporary is established.


 * I am beginning to think that this is no more than popular fiction, and would have proposed this article for deletion years ago were it not for the references to a somewhat related devotion in Spain and the Philippines. Spain is actually Virgen de la Buena Suerte and has some legitimacy in Madrid. It should be separate or at least that portion restored to the original page. These are two different subjects. One can be at least marginally supported with RS, whereas, OLGE not so much. Mannanan51 (talk)


 * The first book is self-published, as for the second, Calloway gives no sources and is actually talking about Gabriel García Moreno. Anyone can manufacture a "prophecy" and attribute it to anybody two hundred years after the event. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There is, however, a "Virgin of Quito" (aka Virgin of the Apocalypse) which has nothing at all to do with OLGE. It is a wooden sculpture based on the description of Mary as the Woman of the Apocalypse. It would seem that there's been more than a little conflating going on. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I did a rather thorough search, and the only local ecclesiastical authority I can find asserting that Sr. Mariana is "Venerable" is the Franciscan Province of Quito. But one would think that, if she actually was declared Venerable by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, one would be able to find some mention of it from a Vatican or archdiocesan publication. So I'm in agreement with you that her supposed status as "Venerable" is most likely an online rumor spread by traditionalist websites, without any factual backing, that has been picked up by a few published books, such as Calloway's. It's also possible that the Spanish-language sources calling her "venerable" are doing so as an epithet, a la "The Venerable Bede." It is, however, clear that she can be titled Servant of God, since her canonization process is open. As far as I can tell, the last official update on her canonization process is a 1997 bulletin article from the Archbishop of Quito stating that the diocesan phase of the process is concluded and that the process has been handed off to the Congregation. Jdcompguy (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Authenticity of the prophecy and apparition
Man, this article needs a rewrite and fast. It should raise eyebrows that there aren’t any autographs or 16th-century sources for the story surrounding the statue in Ecuador. The earliest source for the prophecy is a book from 1790. Look at the article for St. Nilus. The prophecy attached to his name, which is nearly identical to the Good Event prophecy, is at least given a long treatment for its dubiousness. This article needs the same. Marisauna (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)