Talk:Stages of Christian perfection

Box about "primary sources"... not really?
As a very infrequent editor I'm not sure what the procedure is for putting up those boxes at the top of articles with warnings. However, I disagree with the assessment of the box that says that this article is using a religious text as a primary source. The References section at the bottom of the article explicitly says it was taken from an old encyclopedia, which is a secondary (or even tertiary) source. So, it's a rather specialist secondary source, I agree. And of course critical perspective is welcome. But I think the box should be removed. The article provides a helpful summary of an intricate concept in an interesting area of human thought. However, I agree that it can sound biased to a reader today, because it was written in 1913 and presumably aimed at a Catholic audience, so it could be re-phrased a bit to make the language more NPV. Megercliff (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest some such notice is useful here, as this approach to spirituality has yielded to many precisions and to different ways of understanding Christian growth, in contemporary Christian society. Jzsj (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Found paragraph that needs splitting
Specifically, the first paragraph of this section. Could anyone please tell me a good place to split it?

Also, could anyone please tell me how this, from the same section, should be punctuated after "keenly"?

"The temptations that assail the soul in this state are similar in their nature to those that afflict souls in the illuminative way, only more aggravated, because felt more keenly.;The withdrawal of the consolations of the spirit they have already experienced is their greatest affliction."

--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)