Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:51, 17 August 2013

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Christianity: Catholicism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).

Women's History B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

article title

Why is the "blessed" in the title? nothing indicates such a name more than synthesis of editors. and per WP:Honorific the article should be preceded with titles.(Lihaas (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)).

I guess that is what Catholics call her, and a discussion per WP:Common could take place, but may not even be necessary, as be;low. I also saw that you added a pov tag. Are you saying the title is pov or the content, if so where in the content specifically. In either case, please clarify, thanks. But the title does need discussion anyway, else it will be discussed again in 6 months. There was a discussion above here, and on Talk:Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Requested_move_2010 there were search results for WP:Common were discussed. Above here, user:Xandar suggested a couple of titles and the one that I would support, would be a variation of his suggestion, namely: Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism given that this article does not address issues for Eastern Catholic Churches. That would avoid the parentheses and the honorific, and also avoid future debates. But suggestions for alternative names will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that no rationale for the NPOV tag is provided, I am removing it. Before adding a tag to the whole article, please discuss there. Discussion about the title is not handled by a NPOV tag. So please discuss first. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that "Blessed" should be removed from the title, that is the Offical Title that Catholics give her. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and think that discussion has for all practical purposes ended now. So let us leave it as is. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Revisited

Since this article purports to be not just about Mary herself (whose biography is covered at Mary (mother of Jesus)), but about Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, shouldn't it be titled, well, Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary? -- Jack of Oz 08:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Query: Are "remote mountains" an intrinsic element of all valid Marian apparitions???? This seems to imply that mountain top apparitions will continue to be approved, but desert or sea shore -- not so much.Mannanan51 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

The Catechism does not stipulate mountain tops. However, there seem to be no apparitions on Copacabana beach to date. And of course, the Transfiguration, etc. were all on mountain tops. So statistically mountains are some part of some equation, but the article does not seem to imply that they are a requirement. History2007 (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Other ancient Churches

Protestantism is the only Christian group that has by and large rejected the veneration of Mary. Why does this article just cover Roman Catholicism? Why does "Blessed Virgin Mary" redirect to an article about Catholic views of Mary? This should be expanded to cover the Marian theology of the various ancient churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental, Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.208.23 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Galatians 4:4 -- born of a virgin, or born of a woman?

Regarding the opening of the article:

Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is based on Holy Scripture: In the fullness of time, God sent his son, born of a virgin. (Reference: Gal. 4:4)

This is not what the verse says.

Galatians 4:4 reads in the TR, γενομενον εκ γυναικος, "born of a woman," so too Jerome, "factum ex muliere." The Virgin birth is not found here, else we would read γενομενον εκ παρθένος. All versions that I have consuled, including the Rheims, have "woman," and not virgin. This is not a verse to cite in favor of the Virgin Birth. I do not deny the Virgin Birth (God forbid), but this is not an appropriate use of the verse. To reference Scripture on this point, why not use the salutation of the angel in Lk. 1:27f? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.20.38 (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Co-redemptrix

Since this is not Roman Catholic dogma, is it appropriate to list this as one of her titles? Aside from being highly questionable, the doctrine has been explicitly and consciously left out of all papal documents referring to the Virgin even by so devoted a follower of the Pietas Mariana as John Paul II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.180.192 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Are Biblical references really appropriate

for the statement Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary (the mother of Jesus) is based on dogma as well as Scripture.?? I think we should have some secondary sources (preferably not written by Catholic clergy) that support the opening sentence of the article, rather than a string of three Bible quotes that could only support this statement in the eyes of devout Roman Catholics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, Isaiah (the second one) is a mistranslation. I'm removing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't having any trouble finding them. What else is it based on? The interpretation may not be everyone's today, but was accepted by the universal church for centuries. Unless of course you're one of those who think it's all based on the worship of Isis. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, nice personal attack. I'm one of those who actually studies history and wants the Misplaced Pages text to be based on scholarly consensus, not on one particular religion's theological viewpoint, and an interpretation of ancient mistranslation that almost all right-minded historians take as historically problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles