Talk:Roman Catholic Mariology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Saints / Catholicism (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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 WikiProject Saints (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Mother of Mary[edit]

Who was the mother of Mary ?

Most Christians hold St. Anne (or just Anne) to be the mother of Mary the mother of Jesus ~ Dpr
Also, her father is traditionally believed to be Joachim. Wesley 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as such is not found in the Protevangelium of James such; according to the article, it didn't have its own feast until the 15th century, and certainly wasn't a dogma until the 19th. Wesley 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Centres of Study[edit]

As well as the Mariology place in Rome, there's a centre in Chicago and Lampeter - could these places be added?--Anthropax 11:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) The International Marian Research Institute in Dayton, Ohio, is affiliated with the Marianum and is empowered to grant the Licentiate of Sacred Theology (S.T.L.) and the Doctorate of Sacred Theology (S.T.D.) degrees. Samcssr 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)samcssr

Of course they should be added, but I had no exact webpage for the Ohio center, except a nice library page, while I know where the Marianum is - although I have not been inside. Do you have a webpage and an address for these other centers please? Interestingly, the Ohio webpage said somewhere that Gabriel Roschini met with those people before he went back to Rome to start the Marianum and somehow all these centers started from some famous meeting before WWII, but the reference was vague. Do you have any more info? Thanks History2007 (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

An attempt was made to vandalize the redirect page Mariology that links here. There was no vote taken, or no consensus. Many pages already link to Mariology and changing the redirect without votes and consensus amounts to vandalism. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of Title[edit]

I confirmed with user:Angr who said that he checked Webster's printed (paper edition) dictionary and it states that Mariology is usually capitalized. So I am moving the page title to upper case and I also agree with Angr's suggestion that it best capitalized everywhere. I think if Christology is capitalized, so should Mariology. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The same would seem to apply to the adjective "marian." --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Marian should be capitalized just as Roman is. History2007 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Text changes "no helpful"[edit]

Re my recent text changes. I do insist that they are necessary. Actually, I only changed one bit as the rest was merely integrating "see also" links into the article. Ideally, there should be no see also list at all.

What I changed was "Unlike most Roman Catholic theology which originates from the upper levels of the Church ..." - this is a questionable, stereotypical presentation of theology. And since it is not concerned with this article's topic - Mariology - I removed it. Str1977 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that comparison is necessary to provide context. I think we need to ask the pope to mediate perphaps. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
A false context? I don't think we need that.
And we can always provide the context without making such assertions, e.h. by saying something along the line of "Mariology was particularly popular driven". Str1977 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Question 1: Is most RC theology driven from above or below? History2007 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The categories are not really applicable. At different times, different areas of theology were driven by different people. The Trinitarian disputes were very much popular. The doctrines about the Eucharist around 1200 were partly popular-driven. Str1977 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we are not going to resolve this issue between the two of us. It is a minor issue anyway: we are talking about "one sentence" here. Possible solution: let us wait and see what other users have to say and it will be decided that way. Else please provide a "middle ground" sentence that saya Mariology is ground up and is different from the usual top down approach and we will settle on a mid-way point. Thanks History2007 (talk)

Luciano Alimandi[edit]

There ought to be a biography article or stub on Luciano Alimandi, who is a significant mariologist and monsignor currently writing for Fides in Rome. ADM (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I started it, so if you have other info, please add it there. History2007 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mariology and liturgy[edit]

There are various mariologists that have claimed that Mary has a certain role in the celebration of the liturgy, when she glorifies Her crucified Son in the Blessed Sacrament. It would be interesting if we could have referenced material on this. For instance, there is one marian title called reparatrix, which is used to illustrate Mary's role in the mediation of grace. [1] Another popular title for this is Mother of the Eucharist, which is an extension of the Theotokos doctrine to the eucharistic Jesus. [2]. The name Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament is also used in certain circumstances.[3]. In certain churches, there is a marian altar for specific liturgical feasts. [4] Finally, there is a special narrative on the Michaeljournal website that tries to explain this in detail. [5] ADM (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Article Name Change[edit]

WP naming conventions do not require "roman" for Catholic as in the article, Catholic Church. I propose to move this article to Catholic Mariology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastmeetsWest (talkcontribs) 04:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic and Catholic Church do not need the modifier "Roman," as has been made clear in the change to Catholic Church. If one is to claim ambiguity in a specific instance, he is going to have to make an argument and not just a revert. Make or your case.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First, please carefully clarify the following:
Are there no differences at all?
If there are differences, what are those differences when they apply to specific Marian dogmas, doctrines and Mariological issues?
If you can prove that there are no differences then fine, else the changes make the article content inaccurate. As you well know, Ukrainians are Catholics under the Pope, but not "Roman" Catholics. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands is fine for both East and West. Catholics of all rites share the same faith, though we practice it through different rites. (Besides, even if there were differences between the beliefs of the rites, this article ought to be called Mariology of the Latin Rite, to avoid the ambiguity of the term "Roman," which might lead some to believe it was referring to the the Catholic Church as a whole. (This is why the term, "Roman" is so inappropriate for Catholics in the first place!). As a Ukrainian Catholic I am well aware that I am Catholic without being Roman.

While there are some differences in the rites and the proper design of churches, Marian doctrine itself is not different. A note could be included that a minority of Eastern Rite Catholics consider some Catholic doctrines to pertain to the West only, though they do not deny these doctrines. Any such material would fit properly in an article on Catholic Mariology.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can you please provide the differences? This article was carefully researched as it was written by myself and my friend Ambrosius (who is no longer active). Since I am totally unaware of the Eastern beliefs, I can not just say "they are the same" with minor differences. As for the Ukrainian vs Roman, I know, it was tongue in cheek, I lifted it from your own user page. As for using the term Latin Rite in the title, it would be an educational disaster, for most people are unfortunately unaware of the terminology. Remember that we have a huge audience to educate in the far east, India etc. and many of them are very comfortable whenever they see Roman, because their churches are called that. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


My point is whether there are differences or not, whatever is intended by "Roman Catholic Mariology" is ambiguous. It either refers to the entire Catholic Church or to the Western tradition only. In either case, "Roman" is misleading. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I can not for one second agree with the statement that: the term, "Roman" is so inappropriate for Catholics in the first place. That is a pure POV statement, and there are thousands and thousands of books and churches that use the term Roman. Hence your basic premise as stated in that assertion is a POV statement. Sorry, but POV is not a wiki-policy. If Roman is misleading why are there thousands of churches called that? I may be off line for an hour so we can talk later. And this article was written ONLY for the Western beliefs, not the whole church. History2007 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course there are countless books, churches, schools, etc. which carry the name RCC. But, they are all Latin Rite references. This is why the article was changed from RCC to CC. See Catholic Church. I would not expect every Westerner, even educated ones, to know this important distinction. But, the term Roman really is a western term.

I will be glad to work on edits with you on the Eastern perspectives on Mary, if you like. Still, the title of the article does need to be changed, especially now that it has Eastern content. thanks. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I dont know if you are Catholic or not, but you might be interested in an article on the origins of the term "Roman Catholic." From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Roman Catholic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastmeetsWest (talkcontribs) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the page Catholic church, am very Catholic (see this) and have debated this issue at great length before. Any attempt at saying that the term Roman Catholic is inappropriate is a POV issue. Moreover, while this debate continues, by Wiki-rules I can restore the page to its previous "stable form" which had been there for many months. Hence I will put Roman back on the page while we debate. However, your items about Eastern Catholics were useful, but really belong here Ecumenical views of Mary#Roman_Catholicism. I think you can add a section on comparative Marian views there, but the Roman Catholic items need to be intact so users feel comfortable reading them, knowing that they have not crossed the line to other churches. By Wiki rules, there is no rush for a change away from stable content while we discuss the issue. Moreover, this debate needs to be coordinated with the page Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) on which you also commented. Hence we need to debate it there, since 18 months ago a similar debate on that page gave rise to the creation of this page in the first place. History2007 (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Wait a second. I am every bit as Catholic as you, even though I am not a Roman Catholic. I am an Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome. First, you wanted Eastern Catholic material, then you wanted remove that material if it in some way threatened your preference for the term "Roman." Of course, maybe you are really an Anglican, for all I know. Still, the term Roman does not belong to all Catholics in communion with Rome. That is not opinion, that is a fact. There is nothing in my Rite's history that is from Rome. We are a distinct tradition that grew up separately. We have the pope as you do, but we are not Roman Catholic. So, if you are going to write an article on a Catholic topic it must either be about the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church or the entire Catholic Church, but there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic church that includes the East. So, make a choice. Is this about the Latin Rite or the Catholic Church, either way the name must change.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree. Please see the Catholicism project discussion. History2007 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You have accused me of being uncivil in my above comment. Please show me how this is so. At any rate, there is no such article "Roman Catholic" or "Roman Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholicism" to which this article makes reference. So, for consistency's sake, this article's name must be changed to either some form of Catholic or Catholic Church or the Latin Rite, but it should not remain with the present title. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The civility warning was about your message on my talk page. Please refrain from starting an edit war while discussions continue. Please discuss on the project page for focus. History2007 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been about the title of the article which remains the same. References within the article, however, are a different story. Hostile reversion of good faith edits is uncivil.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

EastmeetsWest, actually the term Roman Catholic Church, (which is the unofficial but more popular name of the Holy Catholic Church) does not reffer to just the Latin Rite, but ALL catholics in full communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pope. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hostile Reverts[edit]

All of the edits I have made here are good faith edits. They are all consistent with the title of the main article. Please do not revert good faith edits without first discussing them here in talk. Please avoid hostile reverts--EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Roman Catholic[edit]

It is inconsistent to claim that RC refers to all Catholics and at the same time use the term to refer to Latin Rite Catholics who disagree with Eastern theology. It makes no sense. In the note on the Dormition of Mary, the term Roman Catholic is used to describe those who disagree with that Eastern doctrine. But, no Eastern Catholics disagree with the Dormition. So, you are therefore using RC to refer to Latins while claiming that it applies to all Catholics. It just simply does not. Please, I am begging you to do some more study on this matter. Eastern Catholics have suffered as much in history from Roman Catholics as we have from the Orthodox. It is a history of centuries of suffering on both sides. Please, please try to understand.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think it is good to quote what Xandar summarized frrom the page on Catholic Church, namely:

In the discussion on the name change for THIS article it was said that it did not mean other articles should rigorously follow. That is because, while it was important that people not be misled about the proper organisational name of the Church, particularly in this article, that principle did not apply so strongly to subsidiary articles.

So that discussion was mostly for that page and not subsidiary pages. Hence it is really not a Wikipedia policy at all. Therefore, an attempt to jump from the name change for that page to wide-ranging conclusions is really not logical. Unless you have other reasons, I will have to change those terms and put Roman back on the page again. Cheers. History2007 (talk)

There clearly is a problem here - which is complicated by the fact that a) "Roman Catholic" leaves some Eastern Catholics feeling that they are excluded from the Church and b) The term "Catholic Mariology" could be considered ambiguous - since the use of the term "Catholic" here can be taken as being in a theological not organisational context, and therefore covering all groups not in communion with the Pope that consider themselves catholic... (Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic etc) A possible solution would be to rename as "Mariology of the Catholic Church", showing that the specific church is being referred to, and making that clear in the article. Xandar 21:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Xandar's other comment on EastWest's talk page was also correct that given that this article contains theological issues sudden changes are not appropriate. This type of sudden change renders content incorrect. I have to revert your changes. Please seek arbitration if you are unhappy. History2007 (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mosaic from Chora Church[edit]

Is it really appropriate for the first image on an article about Roman Catholic Mariology to be an image of a mosaic from an Eastern Orthodox church? Deusveritasest (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The rationale was that one of the messages of Mariology is that the path to Christ is through Mary and that was a good image of Christ and Mary - one of the few in Wikimedia. Do you have another of Christ and Mary togther? Cheers History2007 (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for separate article[edit]

I've read both articles on Mariology, the so-called 'Catholic' one and the so-called 'Christian' one. It seems there is no need for separate articles. This original article, Mariology, already contains Catholic views. This "Catholic" version here seems to have been created for no other reason than to separate out Catholics from "Christians." It appears to be nothing more than a rack to hang POV on. I was going to edit this down and remove some of the claims here which are pushing a "Marian faith" that does not exist. This is typical evangelical language. There is no notability or credible reliable sources that claim "popular demand by Catholics" through this "Marian faith" lead the Vatican to acquiesce and raise Mary's status, or accept the apparitions. That's just pure nonsense.

I'm going to tag this article for merging. In the meantime, I'm going to remove the original, unsourced, research.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please follow WP:CALM and wait for a few days, e.g. for the Afd on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer to conclude before engaging on several pages. History2007 (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a need for the two different articles. Mariology is about all views in general, wherest Roman Catholic is specifically about the Roman Catholic perspective, which is very in-depth. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Feminists Contend..[edit]

The article needs to be careful not to imply that the critique is shared by all feminists. There are also feminists who see catholic mariology to be a redeeming feature of the church that provides an exaple of a strong woman with spiritual seniority. The wording changes are subtle, but they are important to avoid being misleading 121.45.228.201 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That section came about to present a "counter view" so was probably too strong. If you have a WP:RS reference that says some feminists like Mariology we can add a little about that. History2007 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


Mariology and Christology section feels like a mess[edit]

I'm neither a Catholic or a regular editor, so I thought it would be best to post my observerations rather than try to edit.

The section labelled "Mariology and Christology' is really awkward to read, and hard to understand. Rather than explaining the relationship between Mariology and Christology, it seems to focus on selling readers on the importance and/or validity of Mariology.

Secondly, it contains a lot of "abolute" statements like...

  • Mariology is a logical and necessary consequence of Christology.
  • Mariology is Christology developed to its full potential.
  • The Church is the people of God as she is the Body of Christ.

These feel like they should at *least* be prefaced by something like "According to current Catholic doctrine..." or "John Henry Newman has described Mariology as...". I don't think the citing someone making an absolute claim is sufficient reason for wikipedia to make the same claim. This is especially true since the article goes out of its way to describe Mariology as ongoing and evolving, which implies that some of these beliefs have changed over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.243.140.3 (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary/lead section[edit]

The entire article discusses The Roman Catholic view, there's disambiguation links at the top. The lead shouldn't serve to summarize other views, there are other articles for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.151.60 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"The multitude of perspectives" Section[edit]

Clearly, the article focuses on the Roman Catholic view Only and therefore the discussion and "bigger picture" discussion, including views from different fields, does not belong in here.

I want the content of this section, that includes different views from that of the Roman Catholic Church, to be moved out from the article since the content simply does not belong into it. I failed, however, to find a suitable Wikipedia tag template as to label the section whilst the discussion lasts. 190.251.151.60 (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the "I want" directive is not going to apply here. That material was added after a long discussion with people who insisted on it being there because without it the article was too narrow. In general, these overview articles need to include multiple views - like it or not, that is Wikipedia. It is fully referenced text that was added after much discussion and I must revert you. Sorry. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Move Mediatrix to dogma section[edit]

I've already created a section for the dogma Mediatrix. Oct13 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I will bet you $1 two to one that after reading Miravalle's book you will change it back yourself. History2007 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
A book to a dogmatic constitution, an ecumenical council, and the official index of dogmas? Bring it on. Oct13 (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Now that you have accepted, WP:Secondary always beats the WP:Primary you are reading. Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion by Mark I. Miravalle 1997 ISBN 1882972066 page 102-110. It traces all he papal teachings. And Miravalle is the expert. History2007 (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Miravalle might be an expert on papal teachings, but I referenced the dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, which in turn references the Church's index of dogmas. That means I referenced the Church's Magisterium, because a dogmatic constitution is dogmatic and is the Pope's highest level of decree, an ecumenical council (which SVC is) is infallible and can teach dogma, and the index of dogmas is without error and is a list of dogmas. And the Magisterium beats any experts. Oct13 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, the other user's comments upset me, and I will stop for a while now. Let us discuss this later, but do look it up on EWTN in the meantime. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand. Oct13 (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for understanding. In the meantime, please try this search, specifically the EWTN articles that refers to Mediatrix in general and specifically to L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English 25 June 1997, page 10. Then we will talk in a day or two about it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The article mainly talks about Coredemptrix. However, it does say Mediatrix wasn't dogmatically defined.
But, a dogmatic constitution - as the name means - deals with dogma.
Still, one could argue that Mary wasn't formally defined Mediatrix in the constitution.
But, that would be ignoring the constitution referencing the Church's list of dogmas, where the Mediatrix is defined.
And the constitution references the Church's list of dogma quite a bit:
(1) Conc. Florentinum, Decretum pro Graecis: Denz. 693 (1305).
(2) Praeter documenta antiquiora contra quamlibet formam evocationis spirituum inde ab Alexandro IV (27 sept. 1958), cfr Encycl. S.S.C.S. Officii, De magne tismi abusu, 4 aug. 1856: AAS (1865) pp. 177-178, Denz. 1653 1654 (2823-2825); responsioner S.S.C.S. Offici, 24 apr. 1917: 9 (1917) p. 268, Denz. 218 (3642).
(7) Cfr. Gelasius I, Decretalis De libris recipiendis, 3: PL 59, 160, Denz. 165 (353).
(12) Cfr. Cone. Vaticanum Const. De fide catholica, cap. 3 Denz. 1794 (3013).
(15) Conc. Tridentinum, Sess. 25, De invocatione... Sanctorum: Denz. 984 (1821) .
(20) Conc. Nicaenum II, Act. VII: Denz. 302 (600).
(21) Conc. Florentinum, Decretum pro Graecis: Denz. 693 (1304).
(22) Conc. Tridentinum Sess. 35, De invocatione, veneratione et reliquiis Sanctorum et sacris imaginibus: Denz. 984-988 (1821-1824); Sess. 25, Decretum de Purgatorio: Denz. 983 (1820); Sess. 6, Decretum de iustificatione, can. 30: Denz. 840 (1580).
(12) Cfr. Pius IX, Bulla Ineffabilis 8 dec. 1854: acta Pii IX, I, I, p. 616; Denz. 1641 (2803).
(13) Cfr. Pius XII, Const. Apost. Munificensissimus, 1 no. 1950: AAS 42 (1950) ú Denz. 2333
(14) Cfr. Pius XII Litt. Encycl. Ad coeli Reginam, 11 Oct. 1954: AAS 46 (1954), pp. 633-636; Denz. 3913 ss. Cfr. S. Andreas Cret., Hom. 3 in dorm. SS. Deiparae: PG 97, 1089-1109. - S.
(16) Cfr. Leo XIII, Litt. Encycl. Adiutricem populi, 5 sept. 1895: ASS 15 (1895-96), p. 303. - S. Pius X, Litt. Encycl. Ad diem illum, 2 febr. 1904: Acta, I, p. 154- Denz. 1978 a (3370) .
(22) Conc. Nicaenum II, anno 787: Mansi 13. 378-379; Denz. 302 (600-601) . Conc. Trident., sess. 2S: Mansi 33, 171-172.
Other dogmatic constitutions also reference the list of dogmas:
Dei Verbum - DENZ. 1789 (3008) / Denzinger 1789 (3008)
Sacram Unctione - Denz. Schon, 1695, 1716
Like I said: If Mediatrix is in the list of dogmas, than it is a dogma.
Here's a google search on 'Enchiridion symbolorum dogma'
Oct13 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I am sorry, three separate issues:
  • L'Osservatore Romano is a WP:Secondary source that by its very nature is of the highest quality on this issue as a WP:Secondary source. And as you stated: "it does say Mediatrix wasn't dogmatically defined". And that is exactly the case. Mediatrix is not dogmatically defined. And that is why as the L'Osservatore Romano stated that 500 bishops are signing petitions to declare "a fifth dogma". Think of it this way: if the Mediatrix had been the fifth Marian dogma, the bishops would not have had to sign the letter for it to be dogmatically defined. Is L'Osservatore Romano incorrect in stating that there is "no 5th Marian dogma" yet?
  • Your reading of the specific lists and the assumption that references in such lists or amount to a dogmatic definition is "your own interpretation" and in Wikipedia is a case of WP:OR. Do you have a few solid WP:RS references that state "there are 5 Marian dogmas in the Catholic Church and Mediatrix is the 5th of them". If am prepared to increase the bet to $2, three to one that you will not be able to present WP:RS sources that state: "there are 5 Marian dogmas in the Catholic Church and Mediatrix is the 5th dogma". Do you accept the bet?
  • In order to include material in Wikipedia you need to have WP:Secondary sources that state what you include, not just "reason by looking at WP:Primary sources". Hence to include the statement that "Mediatrix is the 5th Marian dogma" you need WP:RS sources that clearly state: ""Mediatrix is the 5th Marian dogma". You can include it without those sources, else by looking up sources and "reasoning on your own" you will be performing WP:OR. And WP:OR content cannot be included in Wikipedia.
I have researched this issue for several years now, and I am sure. That was why I offered teh bet. So as the next step please provide WP:RS sources that include the sentence: "Mediatrix is the 5th Marian dogma". If it is, that sentence should be easy to find, say on EWTN. But I am ready to bet it is not there. And this search and this one may help you find it, if it is there. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm still sticking with Enhiridon Symbolorum.
Oct13 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No, sorry, that is no longer an issue of sources now, but an issue of policy. I do not have to "prove the Vatican wrong" (that was in yoru last edit which changed as I typed this) given that per WP:Burden you must justify your reasoning. And in any case the Second Vatican Council issue was clearly referred to in the L'Osservatore Romano article which stated that the 500 bishops want to have that statement become a dogma, because it is not.
Now, the way Wikipedia works, if you have no source that states "there are five Marian dogmas" you can not type "there are five Marian dogmas" into Wikipedia. But given that I have plenty of WP:RS sources (say EWTN, L'Osservatore Romano, and several books) that say "there are four Marian dogmas" I can type that in the article and you can not remove it. And I can type that "many bishops are hoping to see a fifth Marian dogma", given tha it has solid WP:RS sources. That is how Wikipedia works. But instead of starting a revert game, I will ask on Wikiproject Catholicism. Let us do that and be done with this. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I changed what I said twice because I wasn't sure if I was being imprudent.
At any rate, I'm still sticking with what Enhiridon Symbolorum says, for now.
I'll join you on Catholicism (should I link to it?)Oct13 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No worries my friend, I will do it. The way to do it is to ask for an opinion, but not indicate which way you want the answer. So let me do it that way. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By the way, I think you may have noticed that Esoglou edited the Mediatrix page to reflect that it is not a dogma and also commented there to that effect. So given that the Mediatrix page says it is not a dogma, this page can not contradict that one. So can we call this settled based on Esoglou's comment there and move on? Else please discuss with him and finalize on the Mediatrix page, then we will reflect the results here consistently. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Are there four Marian dogmas, or five?[edit]

Suggestions will be appreciated from Project Catholicism regarding the existence of four or five Marian dogmas based on the discussion above. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oct13, Thanks for going back to the previous version. I think I will now clarify the situation a little more there, so in 9 months it will not arise again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Rosary[edit]

No mention of the Rosary is made in this article. Perhaps a new section should be introduced? TopazStar (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and in fact it should be part of a section called Marian devotions, for none of those is mentioned here, except in the template. Pretty easy to do, given that there is a detailed article on that. I will do it in a day or two. Thanks. But it should be light on devotions given that "Mariology is theology concerned with the Virgin Mary" as the page states. So the positioning of the article should be less devotional and more theological. History2007 (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Understood. And thanks. My idea, when I thought I might create the section, was that it should introduce the Rosary, give a small one-sentence history of how it came about (tradition says Mary gave it to St. Dominic), and comment on how it affects Mariology. The Battle of Lepanto comes to mind. Regardless of what you write, it should be pointed out somewhere in the article that the rosary is meant to ask for Mary's intercession and is not meant to worship her in place of God.TopazStar (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are already discussed in the Rosary article, and History of the rosary, etc. The St Dominic issue is there with the controversies, etc. Please do look at the History of the rosary article and how it was reworked etc. The latria, hyperdulia and dulia issues are in the 3rd paragraph of the Marian devotions article I will just include them here from there. But again it is not just the Rosary but all Marian devotions. History2007 (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition of the term, and is scope[edit]

Esoglou and myself have been discussing the definition of the term and its scope, and should probably do that here.

Regarding the definition, different sources have different forms, e.g.

  • The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3 2005) defines Mariology as "the systematic study of the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of her place in the economy of the Incarnation".
  • In a broader context the Encyclopedia of Social History (ISBN 0815303424 page 573) says: "Mariology is the study of devotion to and thinking about Mary throughout the history of Christianity."

Other suggestions from other sources will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The two cited source are not different in substance, both declaring that Mariology is not "devotion to" or a generic "thinking about Mary", but study of all that and more (as indicated also in the Wikipedia article Mariology). In the same way, Christology is not devotion to Christ or a generic thinking about Christ, ecclesiology is not devotion to the Church or a generic thinking about the Church, theology is not devotion to God or a generic thinking about God, and so on for the other related -ologies. Esoglou (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Other sources that agree with these two include:
  • Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia (ISBN 9780879736699 page 649) defines Mariology as "The study of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian theology, especially in the Roman Catholic Church";
  • In his Mariology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Blessed Virgin Mary (Herder 1953, page 1), Joseph Pohle writes: "Mariology is that part of Dogmatic Theology which treats of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of our Divine Redeemer. Mariology is closely related to both Christology and Soteriology."
  • Encyclopedia of World Religions (ISBN 9781601360007 section 21) defines Mariology as "In Christian, especially Roman Catholic. theology, the study of doctrines concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus";
  • Dictionary of Feminist Theology (ISBN 9780664229238 p. 170) defines Mariology as "the theological reflection of the Christian church on the significance of Mary, the mother of Jesus, for life and faith";
  • Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Saints (ISBN 9781931709750 page 917) defines Mariology as "Branch of theology that focuses on the Blessed Virgin. It examines her life, virtues, and important role in the economy of salvation."
  • Christian Theology: An Introduction (ISBN 9781444397703 page 39) defines Mariology as "the area of theology dealing with Mary". Esoglou (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of those are good WP:RS sources, and most say almost the same thing. Of the two OSV sources the first is pref. since the 2nd is about saints, the 1950s is too old, and the feminist one will be viewed as less than general. But there is a larger issue which I have now clarified in the Mariolgy article, in the section called Mariology and theology. As Rahner's book says there, there are two approaches to viewing Mariology and theology. So these several sources do not seem to be contradictory, but in some cases have separate perspectives, or two separate camps: one which sees Mariology as totally embedded within formal theology, the other that differs on that. And as explained there, each has its advantages and disadvantages. By the way, Rahner's book even separates "Biblical Mariology" from "Theological Mariology" and treats them separately.

Anyway, regarding the definition, the best thing would be to get a couple of sources from each camp and present the overall view as such. I think the 4 good sources would be:

  • The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3 2005) defines Mariology as "the systematic study of the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of her place in the economy of the Incarnation".
  • In a broader context the Encyclopedia of Social History (ISBN 0815303424 page 573) says: "Mariology is the study of devotion to and thinking about Mary throughout the history of Christianity."
  • Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia (ISBN 9780879736699 page 649) defines Mariology as "The study of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian theology, especially in the Roman Catholic Church".
  • Encyclopedia of World Religions (ISBN 9781601360007 section 21) defines Mariology as "In Christian, especially Roman Catholic. theology, the study of doctrines concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus";

So the long and short of it is that Mariology is "the study of Mary" and some see it as a general/systematic study that may go beyond a pure embedding in theology, others see it as an island within theology. And both perspectives need to be represented here. In particular the issue of the history of Marian devotions comes into play. Is that study part of Mariology? The two books we discussed below both seem to think so, while others just look at the theological angle. But to cover all aspects they need to be mentioned. As stated before a "specific devotion" is not Mariology in itself, but how the devotions grew, what the popes said about them, what the saints such as Kolbe wrote is part of the study of Mary, and hence part of Mariology as the breadth of the coverage in books indicate. Anyway, I think the definition of the term should be based on the 4 sources above. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A definition of Mariology in a reliable source that deals primarily with something else (especially on a related subject such as saints) is still a definition of Mariology. A definition given in a source that is hostile but reliable (the feminist view is given in a book published by an authoritative evangelical house) should be seen as strong confirmation, when it is in full agreement with the definition given in other reliable sources. A definition that does not explicitly mention theology does not deny that Mariology is a theological study. There is no contradiction whatever between the four definitions History2007 picks out, nor between them and the others mentioned above. So much for commentary on History2007's initial request about the definition of "Mariology". I will now go on to the conclusion that he is now basing on his interpretation of some of those definitions as precluding from theology, and will avoid any use of the words "theology" or "theological", which indeed are not needed.
Specific Marian devotions are objects of study in Mariology. Mariology evaluates them. They belong to Mariology under the aspect of their Mariological evaluation and under that aspect alone. Whether canonized or not, writers like Kolbe or Rahner provide Mariological evaluation of these specific devotions. In the case of Catholic Mariology, as opposed to general Mariology, the most important evaluation is that expressed in exercises of the Church's magisterium. Indeed, evaluations that contradict that most important evaluation simply do not belong to Catholic Mariology.
The specific devotion to the heart of Jesus, the Sacred Heart, belongs to Christology under the aspect of its Christological evaluation. In the case of Catholic Christology, the highest importance in this regard belongs to the magisterial evaluation given in response to the negative evaluation by Scipio de Ricci and other Jansenists. But to make such devotions central to Christology would be a distortion. The present article on Catholic Mariology is utterly unbalanced. It is what an article on Catholic Christology would be if it focussed far less on the teaching expressed in the likes of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon than on devotions such as those to the Sacred Heart or the Left Shoulder, on practices such as the Jesus Prayer, on movements such as the Holy Name Society, on visions of Jesus by Juliana of Liège, Catherine of Siena, Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Ávila, Marguerite Marie Alacoque ... Esoglou (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like we are heading towards a heated agreement here on the term definition. As for the rest, do you have sources for those, or are they just personal opinion? History2007 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to see that you have removed what you first wrote, and I am sorry for whatever expression of mine was capable of being interpreted as an offensive innuendo against you. I am sorry also to see that the discussion has grown heated to the point of provoking personal attacks rather than discussion of the composition of the article. As the article stands, I see it as objectively distorted, but I do not mean to suggest that you or others wrote it for the sake of distorting. I don't doubt the good intentions and good faith of whoever worked on it. As it stands, it is largely an account of devotions, practices, movements and visions with little Mariological evaluation of them, and even starting with a surprising claim that Roman Catholic teachings on the subject of Mariology (defined as "theology concerned with the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ") have been based on belief that Mary holds a certain infinite dignity - rather than on broader and indeed more important elements of Scripture and Tradition? (I have no access to the main source that is cited for that claim, which is certainly not supported by the also cited statement of Aquinas, who also stressed elsewhere in the Summa Theologica, III, q. 25, art. 5, sed contra, that Mary is a mere creature, pura creatura.) In the interest of letting the heat cool down, I have removed this article (with its Talk page) from my watchlist and will not return to it for at least a week. Esoglou (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. As a side note that quote is Aquinas in any case, and is also used elsewhere e.g. by Hauke page 200 of the first book discussed below. The other Aquinas statement points to her being human and not divine, but no one claims that anywhere anyway, although other religions get confused at times and think Catholics teach that, but of course not. History2007 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have come back after just over a week and found that I had not been clear enough. I never doubted that, in answer to the claim that, because Christ as a human being cannot be better than he is, and because created happiness as the highest cannot be better that it is, and because Mary as raised above the angels cannot be better than she is, it follows that God cannot make all things better than He has made them, Aquinas responded by saying that it is because of their association with God that Christ's humanity, created happiness and Mary all have "a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God". What I question is the claim that it is on this remark of Aquinas that Roman Catholic teachings on Mary (and for that matter Roman Catholic teachings on Christ and Roman Catholic teachings on eternal happiness) are based. As far as I know, the sources now cited in support of that claim do not in fact support it. The only one of which I am not sure is the second, since I have no access to page 122 of that book by Haffner. When I first expressed my doubt about the claim, the source cited was a book by Pohle to which, as I said, I had no access; the Aquinas citation was given only as a "cf." By the way, I suppose that the Second Vatican Council may perhaps have been echoing the remark of Aquinas when, instead of saying this remark was the basis of Roman Catholic teaching on Mary, it exhorted "theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God" (Lumen gentium, 67 - emphasis added).

The article has been improved while I was away and I appreciate that. But (among other things) it still claims that (Roman Catholic) Mariology "includes" Marian piety rather than "studies", "examines", "evaluates" Marian piety, some forms of which it may judge to be "exaggerated Marian piety" (Nichols), Marthaler). I presume you fully agree that, "when separated from mainstream Catholicism, popular movements can emerge in a teaching vacuum with sometimes distorted and exaggerated understandings of Mary" (Souza/Durka), and that some devotions can at times nourish in the faithful "superficial spiritual emotion, leading them to exaggeration and extremism and veiling the true reality of the face of Mary" (Gemayel). In other words, as the Second Vatican Council said, there are forms of Marian piety that Roman Catholic Mariology has to qualify as "gross exaggerations", while of course also decrying "petty narrow-mindedness".

I had better withdraw now for another week as a remedy or partial remedy for any high temperature. Esoglou (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you had not been clear enough. But the "issues" are not a big deal and just need minor copy editing really. I do not remember where the "is based on" in the lead came from but obviously not all of Mariology is based on that. I will touch that up. As for including piety or studying piety, it is of course the study of, and can not by definition include it. That is another minor touch up I think. However, I specifically added Benedic XVI's characterization of Mariology as having 3 components, one of which is the study of piety. Regarding Marian excess, again that is clear, and the issue of maximalism versus minimalism is discussed in the main Mariology article, with Pius XII recommending a balance. So apart from these that I see as minor touch ups, I do not see what the major comment above is about. There probably needs to be something about "minimalism vs maximalism" here as well. The quote in Aidan Nichols' book is good, but I will look for a direct quote, mention Pius XII's need for balance statement, etc. The Protestants do of course accuse Catholics of Mariolatry, but the minimalism aspect needs to be sourced to papal/Vatican teachings. Should not be hard to do. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the claim that Aquinas's remark is the basis of Roman Catholic teachings on Mariology, a claim that had been in the article for over 14 months. Perhaps now I can up the frequency of my comments from once a week to once in four days. Esoglou (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It must have been there much longer than that because the editor who originally wrote that stopped over 3 years ago I think. But I think he had exactly the right perspective, although the Aquinas quote may or may not be the best expression fo that idea. The idea is that the study of Mary within Roman Catholicism has always been driven by a high level of respect and exaltation of the position of Mary - far, far greater than most other denominations - except the OE perhaps. That is the "basis" that distinguishes RC Mariology from most other Mariology. That was the idea, and again one way or another I saw that as a minor change really. History2007 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The claim that Aquinas's remark is the basis of Roman Catholic teachings on Mariology, which you have rightly removed, has been in the article only since 09:36 25 October 2011. But Aquinas's remark itself, unencumbered by the claim of being what Roman Catholic teachings are based on, was first mentioned at 15:18 on 14 May 2008. Esoglou (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-published tags[edit]

I saw the self-published tags on this book. This book is neither self-published, nor by a single author. It is a totally WP:RS source in the study of Mary.

  • Queenship Publishing is not a self-publisher, it is just a Catholic publisher. I should know, because I have worked on the list of self-publishers at length for the Wikipedia page for it. And if you look, you will see that Queenship produces a wide range of material. It is not a self-publisher like iUniverse, etc. at all.
  • The book is not by a single author. Different chapters are by different authors, and they are all knowledgeable in their field. Miravalle is the main editor for the volume, but this not a self-published item and clearly a WP:RS source.

The book's chapters are by respected scholars such as

  • Fr. Luigi Gambero, Professor of Patristics at the Marianum Pontifical institute
  • Fr. Manfred Hauke, professor of dogmatic theology in Switzerland
  • Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, professor of theology at the Imacculatum Franciscan seminary in Italy, and former editor of Miles Immaculatae
  • Msgr. Arthur Calkins, member of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

And the list goes, on and on... And note that the book bears the imprimatur of Raymond Leo Burke, and the nihil obstat from Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, effectively reducing any chances that it includes significant errors in the presentation of Catholic teachings.

These are highly respected theologians and WP:RS authors in the Roman Catholic context. I see no reason for the rejection of their work as self-published drivel, if that is the implication of those tags. History2007 (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless that book, whose editor is Mark Miravalle, is published by Mark Miravalle, as stated here: "Editor Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D. ... Publisher Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2008". Similarly, this other book, whose author, not just its editor, is also Mark Miravalle, and which is also repeatedly cited in the article, is published by him: "Author Mark I. Miravalle; Publisher Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2006". The tag "self-published source?" with its question mark, attached to the article's citations of these two works published by Miravalle, serves to alert Wikipedia editors to the need to decide whether one or both of them may nevertheless, in spite of being self-published, be admitted on the basis of the WP:OR rule: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Perhaps a third-party publication can be cited for Miravalle. History 2007 obviously considers that the first of the two works that bear his name and that are cited in the article is acceptable. He has not yet given his opinion on the second. It is, of course, obvious that the article's attribution of the first of the two to Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, instead of to Miravalle, must be corrected. Esoglou (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to discuss the books one at a time. I started with the Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians because it is more related to the topic. I added a few specific authors for the specific chapters in that book anyway, so it is clear who said what now. Will get to the next book next. One step at a time.
Now, your link that says Miravelle is publisher does not apply at all, because it is a Google books auto-extracted summary link, and those auto-extracts can often fail. Trust me, the printed copy of the book says "Queenship Publishing", as World cat clearly indicates. Else please do look up the page ISBN. Specific positions in the ISBN 13 identify the publisher. The very best way to determine a publisher is by the ISBN, and 57918 is the publisher identifier for Queenship Press. So
  • Try this or or this and see that the code is 57918 (i.e. Queenship) and the author is Fr. Herbert Burke,
  • Try this or this and see that the code is 57918 (i.e. Queenship) and the author is Fr. Michael O'Carrol
  • Or try this and also see the same, i.e. code is 57918 (i.e. Queenship) and the author is Msgr. Magnan, etc., etc. etc.
Let us resolve this obvious issue about ISBN/Publisher, then we go further. So now do you agree that 57918 is the publisher code for Queenship? History2007 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
One can simply click on the Google Books preview of the two books and see directly, without any argumentation, that in each case the imprint is that of Queenship Publishing. The same Google Books source says each of the two books is published by Miravalle, seemingly equating Queenship Publishing with Miravalle. I have no way of knowing whether Google Books is right or wrong. I have only placed the question for consideration by others.
The same holds for the second book. Is Google Books right in calling it self-published, or is Queenship Publishing instead a body independent of Miravalle? I don't know. I just think the question should be given consideration either now or when you prefer to get to it.
Perhaps answers could be got more quickly by posting these questions on the reliable sources noticeboard. It would not surprise me if the verdict is against Google Books.
The only thing I feel certain about is that it was false to present the first of the two books as Cardinal Burke's, rather than Miravalle's, and I am glad to see you have attended to that. Whether in the foreword that Cardinal Burke wrote for that book he really made the statements that the article in its present form attributes to him is an independent question. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But I am again seeing a discussion of the second book. Let us discuss these one step at a time to avoid confusion. We can go over to WP:RSN again and spend time explaining it, but this should be easy to answer here:

Those answers will show that the book is published by Queenship. I am 100% certain that WP:RSN will confirm that the book is published by Queenship Press, but for the life of me can not even understand why we are debating it at such a length. The physical book says Queenship Press, and the ISBN is theirs. And let us only discuss this book for now to determine its publisher. So again:

Answer these in yes/no terms, before we go and waste time on WP:RSN now. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you are much more anxious than I am to have a speedy decision, and since it looks unlikely that others will either support you or oppose you on this Talk page - I myself remain uncertain - I have asked here for a decision, which I expect will come within hours, giving you perhaps the support you wish. Esoglou (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I am only anxious not to spend time discussing the obvious.... I responded there anyway... History2007 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I wonder will your rather long argument there delay rather than speed up the decision, which I expected to be clear before I wake up tomorrow. I look forward to it, whatever it will be. Esoglou (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In any case, the issue was discussed on WP:RSN and the conclusion was that the two books are not self published, and that the chapters in the first book are WP:RS given that they are by respected scholars.

Now about the 2nd book: Introduction to Mary, ISBN 1882972066. The book bears the imprimatur of Bishop Gilbert Sheldon, and the nihil obstat of Fr. James Dunfee (Censor Librorum) and is hence reliable with respect to Roman Catholic teachings. Moreover, in the preface to the book, Cardinal Edouard Gagnon states (page 1 of the book), that Mark Miravalle is "internationally renowned for his unquestioned fidelity to the Church's Magisterium and for his outstanding schoalrship". On page 2, Gagnon states: "You can rest assured that the Mariology contained in his excellent work, Introduction to Mary, is a true and faithful summary of Catholic teachings on the Mother of the Lord". Hence I think it is clear that the book is totally WP:RS with respect to Roman Catholic Mariology. So I think we can assume this discussion has concluded. History2007 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I got anyone else's support for History2007's point of view, I stated my satisfaction at having obtained what I wanted and removed the tags. As far as I know, nobody has since argued that the two books are self-published. Esoglou (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let us consider that issue as concluded. My additional point however, was that the 2nd book has a ringing endorsement from Gagnon. A point that had not been mentioned before. History2007 (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
When the question of the Google Books qualification of the two works as self-published was raised, it was explicitly stated that Wikipedia rules did not thereby condemn them as unreliable, and nobody here argued that either of them was in fact unreliable. Esoglou (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Aquinas's remark[edit]

In the Christology article it would be totally incongruous to give as the lone example of Catholic teaching on Christ Aquinas's remark that "the humanity of Christ, from the fact that it is united to the Godhead, has a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God." Within the same remark, Aquinas added that "the Blessed Virgin, from the fact that she is the mother of God, has a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God", something that seems not to have been utilized in official teaching of Catholic Church until the second half of the twentieth century. Yet our article on Roman Catholic Mariology opens by giving as the lone example of Catholic teaching on Mary the belief that she has a "certain infinite dignity from the infinite good which is God". Is that appropriate? Esoglou (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly the main issue about Roman Catholic Mariology vs the others: the study of Mary within Roman Catholicism has always been driven by a high level of respect and exaltation of the position of Mary - far, far greater than most other denominations - except the OE perhaps. And it was not just Aquinas who expressed that concept, and throughout the centuries, the likes of Suárez, Liguori, etc. have echoed that notion, at times referring to Aquinas. So that concept has been a key part of the study of Mary within Roman Catholicism for centuries - distinguishing it from the Protestant traditions who view Catholics as over emphasizing ex-Biblical issues. This really goes back to the idea that over the centuries the exaltation of Mary has taken place by the likes of Montfort, Liguori, etc. and has been criticized by the Protestants, and at times from within by the likes of William of Ware. But over the centuries the popes have flexed their muscles to formalize those notions by declaring her the Queen of Heaven, etc. So the real issue is not that exact Aquinas quote, for one could use a Suárez item instead, etc. but the message is that Roman Catholic Mariology is based on a much higher level of respect and exaltation for Mary than most other denominations - and of course such a large divide does not exist in Christology - needless to say, for it would be stating the obvious. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
To indicate in what way Roman Catholic teachings – "teachings" is the term used in the article – differ from those of other Christians, by far the most important and appropriate matters to mention are the defined dogmas of Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption. It is not at all as important and appropriate to mention a merely ordinary-magisterium teaching that Mary's dignity is in some way "infinite".
That is the essence of what I want to say, but much more could be said. The pre-1953 papal descriptions of Mary as "Queen of Heaven, etc.", which here on the Talk page you mention in defence of the lead's presentation of the dignity of Mary as infinite, seem quite compatible with a finite though superlative creaturely dignity. "Exaltation", even if very high, need not be infinite. Explicit statements in the liturgy are of course Church teachings too, but I can think of none in the Latin Church's liturgies that speak of Mary in terms of infinity. The Greek Orthodox Church, which explicitly venerates Mary as the Πλατυτέρα τῶν οὐρανῶν, More Spacious Than the Heavens (for she contained the Creator of the universe in her womb), associates Mary with infinity more than the Catholic Church does.
If it is desired to keep in the lead (or indeed anywhere in the article) Aquinas's remark (especially when shorn, as it is, of its context), it seems better to drop the reference to "Roman Catholic teachings on Mary" and speak instead generically of Roman Catholic Mariological "speculation" or "studies" or "thought". And a balanced picture of Roman Catholic Mariology would require mention also of, for instance, Saint Louis de Montfort's statement that "Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing" (True Devotion). In comparison to the dignity that is really infinite, any other dignity is zero. Esoglou (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think we are discussing details and terminology really; and I do not see a big deal here. The situation as I see it is that:

  • The Roman Catholics have more Marian studies than all other Christians, except the Eastern Orthodox types whose views are often mixed with their liturgy and doxology. So something needs to be said that apart from the smaller EO groups, the Roman Catholics have spent more time systematically writing about Mary, studying her, coming up with encyclicals, doctrines and dogmas about her than the rest of Christians combined - a few times over. I see that as a really well accepted item in all literature. And the Protestants often think that the Roman Catholics are going overboard in their focus on Mary, given the brevity of Biblical material to support them.
  • Although something along those lines needs to be said, whether the word infinite comes in or not does not seem to be a big deal to me, in that it is just an Aquinas quote and one could have used other saintly quotes in any case. However, to pick Montfort as a Marian minimalist would make him scream in pain, for he was pretty much a maximalist. So some wording needs to be found that Roman Catholics have had much more focus on Marian studies than others, given that the EO groups did not actually do as much systematic writing while having key Marian elements in their liturgy. Ernst Benz's book on the Eastern Orthodox Church (page 63) does a comparison, but is beside the point here probably.
  • Instead of teaching, one could say study so that terminology issue should not be a big deal really.

So let me look for other wordings and refs in a day or two and we should be able to resolve that I think, for it does not seem to be a big deal. History2007 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I fear (perhaps needlessly) that taking me to have "picked Montfort as a Marian minimalist" betrays a residual heat that advises a return by me to once-a-week commenting. There is nothing minimalist about considering even the most exalted creature to be finite rather than infinite, and Montfort's statement, a no less important part of Roman Catholic Mariology, should be included in an account of Roman Catholic Mariology that still claims (even if no longer in the lead) that the remark of Aquinas, which it quotes out of context, has been Roman Catholic "teaching" ever since Aquinas made it. However, I am confining myself to the opening of the article in which you stirred up my interest by starting a discussion on my Talk page. So I pass to the very first words in the article. Esoglou (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually this pick a quote situation can go on fr ever, for there are 30 other quotes than can then come in (one could add 20 other Montfort quotes), providing an absolute guarantee that no one will read the page. So to avoid that ping pong, the best way may be to only use those items that appear within somewhat more recent (say 20th century + 21st) papal statements/encyclicals/etc., else we can go back and start a quote antique shop. History2007 (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I applaud your proposal to present as Catholic Marian teachings (apart of course from the Church's much older definitive teachings, in other words, its extraordinary magisterium) only "those items that appear within somewhat more recent (say 20th century + 21st) papal statements/encyclicals/etc." Regarding statements by Catholic theologians (as distinct from Catholic teachings), if for some reason it is desired to go back well over 700 years to quote out of context a remark by one such theologian, it would really be right, in order to avoid giving the impression of pushing a single emphasis, to add to it statements by more recent Catholic theologians (who can by no means be accused of being anti-Marian) that clarify the remark. The lead is now free of its presentation of the mid-13th-century remark as Catholic teaching ever since. So I would prefer if we dropped discussion of any seeming lack of objectivity elsewhere in the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, if you like I will go through and trim the older sayings that are not in the recent papal encyclicals, etc. from the other section. But the historical part probably needs to refer to how the saints etc. wrote things that influenced popes etc. E.g. it is well known that John Paul II read Montfort's book many times as a seminarian and then quoted him in encyclicals, so some of those issues do deserve a mention on how things took shape - but not presented as formal Holy See teachings. History2007 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I am sorry I have not had time to focus here due to unrelated Wikinightmares (mostly waste of time discussions on noticeboards)... An IP is born every minute... History2007 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry. Here I have only wanted to add to your concluding phrase, "... but not presented as formal Holy See teachings", a further, "and not presented onesidedly by, for instance, highlighting a selected remark and silencing a corrective statement." Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps some day you or someone else will examine it. For me, it is enough at this time to register the problem here. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I got side-tracked and it just skipped my mind... beginning to approach old age I guess... I will try to gather my thoughts this week. History2007 (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote[edit]

The article's hatnote declares that the article excludes from its consideration of Roman Catholic Mariology the perspectives of Eastern Catholics and of unspecified other segments of the Catholic Church. Since the only other segment is the Latin Church, the hatnote seems to exclude all segments of the Catholic Church. So whose perspectives does it consider to be Roman Catholic Mariology?

The hatnote attaches to "Roman Catholic" the wikilink, Roman Catholic (term), essentially a disambiguation page that indicates different senses in which people use the term "Roman Catholic". The central authorities of the Church use the term to refer to the Church itself, including all its members, Eastern and Western. Some others use it to mean the Latin Church, a sense in which the Church itself never uses it. If this unofficial usage is what the hatnote means, it should say so. However, forcing an unofficial usage on an article on Roman Catholic Mariology would be controversial. It would also be very strange. In expounding the Roman Catholic Church's Mariological teaching, the Bishops of Rome draw perhaps more on Eastern than on Western (Latin) Christianity. At the very least, they have not excluded Eastern Christianity, either from the sources they draw on or from the faithful that their Mariological teaching is intended for. Surely nobody wants to exclude papal teaching from consideration of Roman Catholic Mariology!

If a disambiguating hatnote is needed (which I strongly doubt), it would be better to restore

This article is about Roman Catholic theology. For Anglican views, see Anglican Marian theology.

Esoglou (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We had discussed the RC issues for a while on that page, but in any case, given that the Anglican issues are not that easy to confuse, maybe we can just say for general views see Mariology, make it simple and be done with it. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
But one thing I am not sure about is this: Do the Eastern Catholics accept all the Marian dogmas? On the other hand, given the history of debates on the west/east issues I think opening that Pandora's box may not be a good idea anyway. I think these people often focus so much on minor details that they forget John 13:34 in any case. History2007 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Eastern Catholics accept the teachings of the Catholic Church just as their Latin brethren do: they are not heretics or schismatics! Ephesians 4:5 applies fully to Eastern and Western Catholics alike. Read this on their attitude to councils that, though held after the East-West Schism, are classified as ecumenical by the Catholic Church of East and West alike, and this on their attitude to papal encyclicals.
Perhaps now we can close discussion on this point and the previous point. Esoglou (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I did a quick search and I think from a practical point of view you are right that the Eastern Catholics follow all Holy See teachings at the moment. As a side (and almost unrelated) point, I was surprised to read this: "Vatican II freed Eastern Catholics to do their own theology" so to speak, but they have not gotten around to doing it. I am not sure what Vatican II action that refers to, but in any case, as of now, there seem to be no major variations in Eastern Catholic theology, because they have not done any thing different. So anyway, as you said, we should close this point now. History2007 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no "at the moment" about it. Scotists and Thomists and Molinists have different theologies, but all have the same faith, accept the same magisterium, the same Church teaching, and do so fully, without reservations. The various Catholic Eastern Churches do have distinct theologies, but all have the same faith, accept the same magisterium, the same Church teaching, and do so fully, without reservations. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Broad context"[edit]

"In a broad context, Mariology may be seen as the study of devotion to and thinking about Mary throughout the history of Christianity" (second sentence of the article). The context indicated in the cited source seems to be that of social history. So shouldn't that read: "In the context of social history, Mariology may be seen as …"? I don't have access to the book and so cannot judge whether the context into which it puts Mariology is a broad one or one confined specifically to social history.

This sentence in the article also seems to be about Mariology in general ("throughout the history of Christianity"), not about Roman Catholic Mariology. But that is scarcely worth discussing. Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right, and I just touched it up to say just that. Yet given that Marian devotions are largely a Catholic and E Orth activity, it is not that far off. But as you said not a major issue. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
On second thought it might have been a better fit in the main article, if that was part of your point, so let us do that. I also trimmed the saintly statements & just used the items from current papal statements, etc. I think I checked the refs in the rest of the page a while ago, but I may as well go thorough and double check them again - will do in the next few days. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ratzinger quotation[edit]

I see that a lot of work has been done on the article in the last week. I have had only one more comment to make on the lead. (Well, I did wonder whether to comment on a doubt whether the phrase "alliance of the sacred hearts" was really as notable as it is presented - considering also that there are proponents of a feast of "the Three Sacred Hearts" - but it is doubtless very difficult to weigh the significance of the use of such a phrase.) My only further comment on the lead is just about an inexact quotation.

The lead says that Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI stated: "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to the truth about Jesus Christ". What he said (when he was not Pope Benedict XVI but Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) was: "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to that 'truth about Jesus Christ', 'truth about the Church', and 'truth about man' that John Paul II proposed as a program to the whole of Christianity when, in 1979, he opened the Latin American episcopal conference in Puebla. The bishops responded to the Pope's proposal by including in the first documents (the very ones that have been read only incompletely by some) their unanimous wish and concern: 'Mary must be more than ever the pedagogy, in order to proclaim the Gospel to the men of today.' Precisely in that continent where the traditional Marian piety of the people is in decline, the resultant void is being filled by political ideologies. It is a phenomenon that can be noted almost everywhere to a certain degree, confirming the importance of that piety which is no mere piety.".

That's all. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually by next Sunday I should have cleaned up a lot more in the body of the article now that I am at it. Your comment about Ratzinger's quote being a much longer item is correct, and we can touch that up or use something else. The Alliance item was used as an example of how popes do come up with new ideas. By the way, the 3 hearts does not seem like a papal item - the two hearts on the other hand is in the Mariology book and so may be more relevant than the 3-way item. But let me be done with the rest of the ref checks and body clean up and then can touch up as you suggested. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The "Three Sacred Hearts" idea, which I mentioned by the way, is certainly not a papal one. I have now exhausted the interest in this article that was stirred up in me and that led me to make concrete comments on the lead. I do not intend to return. I will only make a final by-the-way comment before leaving: This article attributes more weight to Mark Miravalle and his Queenship Publishing books than does the article on Philomena. Perhaps with reason. Esoglou (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
In any case, the two hearts item and the Ratzinger quote are no longer in the lede anyway. About the usage of the two books, I went back and counted them. For the Mariology book, there are 15 references used is 20 cases out of 188 references in the article used in 227 cases, so the ratio is 15/188 = 7% or 20/227 = 8% whichever way one counts it. So that book is not overused by any measure. And by the way, as discussed above, the specific chapters are by various other authors who were deemed experts on WP:RSN, so they really stand on their own. The counts are: Hauke = 5, Fehlner = 4, Burke = 3, Mangan = 3, Gambro = 1, Haffner = 1, Richter = 1, Siri = 1, Miravalle = 1. So it is pretty distributed among different authors. And in the intro to that book Cardinal Burke vouches for the entire volume, as discussed before. Moreover, in many/most cases where that book is used, there are also other references, and that is not the only source for statements. Similarly Miravalle's other book (written by himself) is used 15 times out of 188 references, so that is about 15/188 = 7% as well. And again, in the intro to that book, Cardinal Gagnon calls it a faithful summary of Catholic teachings on the subject, so it is a good reference in any case. And again in many cases where that book is used, there are other references, and it does not stand alone. So overall, 14%-15% from those two books, and given that the issue was discussed on WP:RSN there is no reason for removing those books
In fact the most frequently referenced author in the article is Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI and his book "Mary, The Church at the Source" is used 10 times in 7 references, and two of his encyclicals are also used. So that is in fact the most frequently used item, because Ratzinger was a well known theologian even before he became pope and his book represents the current themes at the Vatican as well as the field. The next two most frequently used authors are Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII because they had highly influential encyclicals, and Pius XII defined the very last Marian dogma. So the page really draws on a wide range of authors. Yet, I will still go through it next week and add more references (which are often easy to find) so most of the items in the page will multiple sources in any case. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)