Talk:Impeccability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

see ref. in the online Catholic Encyclopedia. -- Someone else 04:34 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Assert?[edit]

The key words to look for in the above link are "theologians assert", and a theologians assertion does not a dogma make. Additionally, none of the titles of Our Lady nor dogmatic decrees concerning her assert that she couldn't sin, only that she didn't.User:Jtocci

Straw dogma. The Church teaches a lot of doctrines: they're not all dogmas. More seriously, the idea is to write in Wikipedia primarily about what other people have asserted, not what you think is logical or ought to have been asserted. The article on the Wikipedian "ideal" of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) might be interesting reading. In terms of here, if you can find a theologian who taught the BVM wasn't impeccable, that would be an interesting addition to the article. -- Someone else 05:23 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Example of an interesting POV: 'The Church teaches a lot of doctrines: they're not all dogmas.'

Not to mention the point I was making you ignored. The church has never asserted Our Lady was impeccable, theologians were not mentioned in the post I changed: The Roman Catholic church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a special grace of God, impeccable. And I changed it only to reflect that fact, yet you accuse me of POV?

Look, I'm not looking for an apology, just don't put words in my mouth in future, ok? User:Jtocci

I didn't in the past, and won't in the future. And it's just plain fact that the Church teaches doctrine that is not dogmatically defined. -- Someone else 06:49 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ah, whatever ;-)
Look, I see now you're an admin, so I'm going to assume I took you as being more harsh than you were trying to be.
The Church cannot teach anything for the same reason it can't walk into a bar and have a beer. I point this out because I prefer to be more precise when posting to an Encyclopedia. As far as doctrine vs Dogma, there is a book called the Enchridion which lists many, many defined statements, and outside of these statements I wager you'll find only 'doctrine' that theologians publish, but no one believes. This is because the Catholic Church is unique in that no matter what any priest or theologian says, unless it's in the book, it ain't Catholic. This is also why, despite many, many people including priests and theologians teaching many things that are wrong, accidentily or not, Catholics in general have always held what they do now.
So doctrine and Dogma are only different, when using a POV. User:Jtocci

Points of view are perfectly valid, as long as they are neutral: in most cases, that means presenting both sides and attributing views to the people that hold them. Again, I suggest reading the NPOV page. -- Someone else 00:59 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'm note exactly sure what words have taken to be harsh, but they were not intended to be so. And just to be clear, my being an administrator doesn't mean anything other than I've been around a while. I have no more authority than any other user. -- Someone else 01:04 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to you having authority, only that at some point, someone designated you an admin, and to me that says you are likely a reasonable person. And that was not my initial impression, but I was wrong. I apologize. As far as the NPOV page, I discovered Wikipedia on Google, and NPOV was the second Wikipedia page I ever saw. It almost turned me off the site. It's long-winded and full of fluff. I couldn't even force myself to skim it. If there was a summary somewhere and someone pointed it out to me I'd read it, otherwise, no way.
No matter though, really I'm not in need of improvement as much as you think ;-). I'd say we just got off to a poor start. See ya 'round. User:Jtocci

Dictatus papae[edit]

Regarding the Dictatus papae, J. P. Whitney writes in "Gregory VII", The English Historical Review, Vol. 34, No. 134 (April 1919), pp. 129-151 at pp. 131-132:

This tendency of historians to accept the Register as authentic and, therefore, of first-rate importance has been justified more lately. Peitz in his Das Originalregister Gregors VII. (Vienna, 1911) asserted as a result of fresh study of the Vatican MS. that it was nothing less than the original Register of Gregory's pontificate, an opinion which an earlier Jesuit scholar, Lapôtre, had suggested but not supported. His argument is now generally accepted, and although the new edition, which he has promised us, has been delayed by the war, the letters, and as a consequence, the Dictatus (Reg. ii. 55a) and the Commentarius (Reg. i. 1), may now be used without any reserve. The Register must be taken as a precious survival of a papal register, and thus we have a clear and strong foundation upon which to construct a history of the pontificate, and still more, for a trustworthy view of Gregory himself.

-- Cat Whisperer 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Infallibility of the Church[edit]

Should a section on the Infallibility of the Church be added? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)