Talk:The Lady of All Nations

NPOV?
It seems a little odd that most of the sourcing for this article comes from the website for the apparition. Biased a bit, perhaps? 69.21.84.93 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lady of all Nations. 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/20120322222051/http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.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) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
My reason for removing the phrase "According to Miravalle" was that it misrepresents the fact that there are multiple cited sources saying the same thing about the 2005 CDF letter. My reason for removing the content about Msgr. Scicluna was that its placement under the heading "Rulings by Church Authorities," combined with the mention of his job title in the CDF, implied that he was speaking in an official capacity. In both cases, the content or its placement was misleading, though I'm sure this was not done intentionally. I'm sure there's another way we can integrate the truths behind these edits in a way that is accurate. Jdcompguy (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "'According to Miravalle' ...misrepresents the fact that there are multiple cited sources saying the same thing". The point is that your multiple sources do not, in fact, say the same the same thing. It is Miravalle, in the long quote in footnote 18, that alleges that "The CDF has concern only with "one particular aspect of the devotion" …" -That is Miravalle's view and should be attributed to him. The quote itself is disingenuous, implying that "acknowledgment" of current conditions somehow equates to approval of them. (Footnote 19 from Catholic Exchange is simply Miravalle again restating his views. This seems a tad excessive, given that he is a deeply-vested proponent of a 5th dogma.) Manannan67 (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Scicluna
, The deletion of Scicluna's observations was unwarranted. 1) they were not a "private" opinion, but part of an essay, specifically on the Norms of discerning presumed apparitions and revelations, delivered at the 22nd Mariological Congress in Lourdes, and subsequently printed in the journal of the Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis; 2) Scicluna is not just some "priest", but the Adjunct Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 3) Paul VI approved the neg-dec in 1974. Punt doesn't mention any revised CDF view in his 2002 statement. The 2005 response took note of the purely local approval and forbid prayers "to the Mother of God under the title of 'Lady of All Nations' with the added expression 'who was once Mary'". 4) The fact that the CDF expressed this concern does not mean that they don't have others, -contrary to Miravalle's suggestion. The EWTN link to the 2006 letter appears to be broken, the other two so-called sources give their versions. 5) Benedict as Pope was tired, ill, overwhelmed, and non-confrontational. You have someone at the CDF publicly questioning whether Punt had jurisdiction. The presentation was made in 2008, the publication in 2010; well after some claimed reversal of 2005. Please note Archbishop Argüelles of Lipa was forced to retract his endorsement of the derivative Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace cultus. -if you want to promote this devotion start a blog. Manannan67 (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When continuing a discussion, you should indent your response and place it under the same section as the original post, instead of starting a new section. Perhaps you didn't see my section above? In any case, I will reply here. As I mentioned in the above section, the problem was not with the Scicluna content, but with the placement of the content, which implied that Scicluna was speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the CDF, when in reality he was speaking in his private capacity as a theologian. I deleted it because it was misleading, not because I disagreed with it. After you re-added it, I edited it to resolve the issue. I always try to edit objectively, so my personal opinions shouldn't matter, but since you're accusing me of bias (contrary to WP:Assume good faith), let me state that I agree with Msgr. Scicluna's argument, I agree that Bishop Punt did not have the requisite authority to approve the apparition, and I disagree with Mark Miravalle on the primacy of the bishop's judgement. I removed your edits because they were factually misleading and non-objective (either in their content or in their placement), not because I disagreed with their implications. In any case, I hope the article as it stands now is something we can both agree on. Jdcompguy (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reason your post is above mine is that you hit "save" first; this is not "Jeopardy". "...the placement of the content, which implied that Scicluna was speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the CDF, when in reality he was speaking in his private capacity as a theologian." Scicluna's observations were placed chronologically as they were subsequent to the CDF letter. You don't like it there. Fine. However, Scicluna's "private" opinion publicly questioned the actions of a sitting bishop, and were reported in a number of outlets; and this from a man who was known to have worked at the CDF under someone who was then the sitting Pope -and you've buried it in a footnote. Manannan67 (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Theology of the Messages
This is a mess and needs to be completely reworked. The first three paragraphs are a treatise on nomenclature attributable to no-one in particular. Six of ten citations are someone's application of biblical passages, therefore primary sources. It would be better to have first, a very brief, appropriately cited, mention of the most important and relevant messages; followed by the theological analysis of what they purportedly mean by a reputable source -if any actually undertook such. Presumably Punt or one of his commissioners would have done this. Manannan67 (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)