Jump to content

Talk:Blessed Virgin Mary/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Question about merging

Is there any reason why this can't be simply merged with Mary, the mother of Jesus? Eclecticology 00:33 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Mary, the Mother of Jesus is a universally recognised person throughout christendom. The Blessed Virgin Mary is a catholic concept accepted by many Anglicans but rejected by more fundamentalist Protestants. They are two fundamentally different visions of the same person, both in terms of their history and in terms of how they are perceived in terms of their roles within different strands of religion. In some ways, while the person may be the same, the concept relating to issues like the virgin birth or the Immaculate Conception are fundamentally different. JTD 01:19 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

The above argument is terribly flawed - if the reasoning were valid, for example, we would have a different Wikipedia article for the prophet Muhammad from the viewpoint of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc. - or even particular Muslims, particular Jews, etc. I accept that a reference to a single person could have multiple senses; "Alexander the Great" could refer to the youth, the man, the prince, his position as King of Macedon, the victorious military figure, etc. But what would be the point of having our knowledge of the person in all his forms scattered in fragments around the encyclopedia under different and possibly inconsistent headings? Incidentally, I've been following the Manual of Style discussion around an appropriate epithet for the prophet Muhammad. I would recommend, not only that this article be consolidated with the article Mary, the mother of Jesus, but also that the epithets in use, especially for religious figures, be addressed. Looksharp 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The separate existence of this article is an absurdity whose real purpose is to deny the identity of the Mary venerated by Catholics with the Mary of the Bible, and thereby deny that Catholics are Christians.

This is extremely POV! Just the title. Comeon. -- Zoe

I'll admit that this stuff is quite stomach wrenching, but religious dogma is like that. You must believe what you are told to believe. Lucifer is literally the bringer of light, and any attempt to expose the subject to the light of reason may be viewed as heretical. ☮ Eclecticology 22:50 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
The title of the article reflects the title given to her by Rome. It's the same reason that we call the Pope 'His Holiness' or the Queen 'Her Majesty', and shouldn't be taken too seriously. --Spudtater 00:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Leandrod has replaced some, but not all, occurrences of "(Roman) Catholic" to "Roman" or "Romanist". I assume this is an attempt to get a more NPOV (which is a very delicate problem in matters concerning religion).

However, the term "Romanist" is obscure to me. It is not linked, and in fact there is no wikipedia page "Romanist" at the moment; I assume that if there were one, it would point to Catholicism. Is "Romanist" or even "Roman" a generally accepted term? As far as I know, members of the Roman Catholic Church refer to themselves as "Roman Catholics"; is this term offensive?

Aleph4 10:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

"Romanist" --don't we all really call them Papists when they aren't around? Wetman 10:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Um, no. We don't call them Papists. If they do in the U.S. or some other countries I don't know but in Asia they don't. Never heard of the term and I make this claim because I am a lecturer on Christian ecumenism and history and have not come across this term except in very rare cases.Anthony Permal 19:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Papist was fairly common in the US, although not so much any more. I'm pretty sure I've heard Romanist as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Romanist, or simply Roman, is a shortend to Roman Catholic. I substituted it for Catholic, since Catholic also encompasses Protestants and specially Eastern Orthodox Catholics.User:Leandrod

Actually Romanist is a POV term, in so far as it is used as a perjorative term implying an agenda behind the use of the term. In Ireland, for example, the term is used by 0% of main stream crhirtsian and non-christian religions. It is only used by the fiercely anti-catholic (and anti-jewish, homophobic politically far right) Free Presbyterian CHurch. It is used in the same context in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and in South America by fundamentalist protestant groups. As a result, however genuine the original user may have been in including it, it is linguistically alkward and laiden with POV implication in much of the planet, making it unusuable in an NPOV encyclopaedia article. For tha reason I have removed the term. FearÉIREANN 17:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes. My big unabridged dictionary (a Random House) flags it as often disparaging and offensive. Indeed. –Hajor 17:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I find it odd, to say the least, that anyone could consider petitioning the Pope to proclaim something infallibly. How could something become inerrantly so just because millions of people would like it to be so? I always, as an admitted outsider, just assumed that such "ex cathedra" proclaimations were made by a Pope based upon his belief that he had been led to an inevitable conclusion by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not by the petitioning of the masses, regardless of the sincerity of their devotion. If such a thing were to happen, would not this give even more creedence to Old Catholics and others who reject the First Vatican Council and the whole concept of Papal Infallibilty?

P.S. This article is for the most part well-written, well-researched, and scholarly, but it is very much from a devout Catholic POV in my opinion.

User:Rlquall 22:29, 11 June 2004 (UTC)

Third Secret of Fatima

The description of the official third secred of Fátima is missing.

I added the text about the 3rd secret. (That section tended to be very "ultra-conservative" Catholic, i.e. more Catholic than the Pope, and I tried to balance it some.

I wouldn't object to combining the information in this page with Mary, the mother of Jesus and putting a relocation here. Obviously there is a huge problem with how to maintain a neutral POV, since various statements are not accepted by various groups. I'd be willing to give it a stab. Mpolo (sorry about the empty bio...)

Absolutely not. It would be absurd to try to blurr different religious concepts of Mary in the one article, as so many of those concepts are mutually contradictory. It would also produce endless edit wars as each side thought the other side's view was getting priority. The separate concepts of Mary are best dealt with on separate linked pages. For a start, any mention of the Blessed Virgin Mary would infuriate many protestants, and any playing down of that title would infuriate many Catholics. So a single page is a non-starter. FearÉIREANN(talk) 00:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the "Protestants" who would be offended are. Perhaps the Presbyterians might be, but I'm not qualified to speak on their behalf. However, as a member of the Church of Ireland, I can assure you that Anglicans use the phrase the Blessed Virgin Mary, and honour her: with very good reason. Millbanks 09:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Three Secrets of Fatima have their own page now. As does Marian apparitions, for that matter. --Spudtater 00:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Mary as a patron saint

In the article on Patron saint, Mary was listed in several different capacities. This recent edit removed all of them and substituted this comment: "The Blessed Virgin Mary is only a Patron of a place in the sense that she is the Patron of All Things blessed and good. Her virginity is famed." That new comment obviously has POV problems, but more important is that the deletion is removing quite a bit of information. If "patron saint" isn't the appropriate place for what's been removed, should that information be inserted somewhere in this article? JamesMLane 14:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree with the comment given. The Immaculate Conception is most certainly the patron feast day of the United States (and most countries of the New World have Mary as patron in some capacity). I think the information belongs in Patron saint Mpolo

"Catholic" vs "Roman Catholic" vs "Christian"

The word "catholic", like most words, has various meanings. For instance, "Catholic" can mean

1. Pertaining to the faith or practice of the ancient undivided Church, especially as regards its universality.

2. Roman Catholic.

3. Pertaining to the faith or practice of the part of Western Christianity (including Roman Catholicism) that 1) identifies itself as "Catholic" (usually as opposed to or contrasted with "Protestant"), 2) regards itself as historically and organizationally continuous with the ancient Church, and 3) is characterized by belief in things like baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the intercession of Saints, the indissolubility of marriage, the Apostolic Succession, prayers for the dead, the use of statues and icons and medals, the use of the "Apocrypha" as part of the Bible, appeal to the ancient Ecumenical Councils as theologically authoritative, etc. (Yes, I know, not all Protestants deny all these things.)

4. Christian in general.

Roman Catholics generally use "Catholic" in sense #2 (which of course they consider equivalent to #1), unless they're distinguishing between sense #2 and sense #3, in which case they usually say "Roman Catholic" for sense #2. Old Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, etc., use it mostly in sense #3 when talking about modern things, or sense #1 when talking about ancient things (and use "Roman Catholic" for sense #2). Protestants usually use "Catholic" in sense #2 (or in sense #3 if they think about the distinction at all), and very occasionally in sense #4.

There isn't a single right way to use "Catholic", just ways that are more or less useful in various contexts.

Now, when we're talking about devotion to Mary, sense #3 is the obvious one to use to distinguish Catholics (and Orthodox) from other Christians (in general, Protestants). If you write "Roman Catholics honour Mary, but other Christians don't", you're wrong, because you're claiming that Anglican Catholics, for instance, don't honour Mary, which they do. If you write "Catholics honour Mary but Protestants in general don't", you're being (fairly) clear, and using "Catholic" (fairly) obviously in contradistinction to "Protestant".

Sure, I know that some people use "catholic" (generally with a lower-case c) to mean "Christian". But if you ask them "Are you a Catholic?", they'll understand what you're asking; and if they're, for instance, Lutheran or Baptist or Seventh-Day Adventist, they'll say "No, I'm not a Catholic."

All of which means that to use "Catholic" to mean "Christian" (sense #4) 1) can be pretty confusing, 2) is often inaccurate, 3) is not standard English usage, 4) leaves us with no word or phrase for sense #3, and 5) seems kind of POV.

So I'm remaking my edits, which Sunborn reverted. If there's a problem here, let's discuss it; but don't just say "Catholic means Christian" as if that's the final word. It isn't. Frjwoolley 21:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A) Every single one of the "old world" churches believe in the creeds (This includes many of the protestant denominations)
B) Both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed proclaim belief in the one holy catholic Church.
C)For this reason wikipedia has consistently the word catholic has always been used in the holy catholic church sense. See your own link on Catholicism.
--metta, The Sunborn 03:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is definitely not true that Wikipedia "consistently" uses "Catholic" in the sense of "Christian". (Does Wikipedia do anything consistently?) You yourself, on User:Sunborn, use "Catholic" in the more usual sense, when you write

It would be like the Catholics calling the Protestants "weak" Christians, no one would stand for it, except the Catholics.

(Of course, you also say "I take religion as something to be laughed at", so maybe I'm missing something of your point.)

If we use "Catholic" to mean "Christian", what word or phrase are we going to use for "Catholic" in my sense #3? "Roman Catholic or other non-Roman Catholic non-Protestant Western sacramentalist traditionalist Conciliar Creedal Church"? Simpler, and far more accurate, just to say "Catholic".

Yes, Protestants explain the word in the Creeds differently than Catholics do. Still, though, if you ask Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, "Are you a Catholic?", 99 out of 100 will say "No, I'm a Methodist" (or whatever), not "Yes, I'm a Methodist". Frjwoolley 14:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition to what Frjwolley wrote, let me add that not all chruches that use the Apostles' Creed would accept the term Catholic. Some translate it into their particular language as "universal" to avoid the term, while at least the mainline protestant churches in Germany do replace "Holy Catholic Church" with the idiosyncrasy "Holy Christian Church". Str1977 (smile back) 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of facts that might help since I noticed some opinions that seem to differ above. The term "Eastern Orthodox" is only used in the "West" and the people of the religion to whom that term refers actually refer to themselves as "Christian", meaning the original Christian religion. Keep in mind that they haven't changed nor branched off of any other religion. The "Roman Catholic Church" was at one time a part of that original religion, but due to differences and changes became a religion of its own. There isn't any such thing as an "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church". In the west, the term "Christian" refers to practically any religion that centers around Jesus being Christ and is used as an adjective. The "Orthodox" Christians, on the other hand, do not recognize any of those religions whatsoever and to them the word "Christian" is a proper noun. It is not a two-way street. So, even though the Catholic church will recognize an "Orthodox" Christian, the reverse is not true and even the term "Orthodox" itself is looked upon by the original religion rather like a tool of propaganda to give some validity to the existence of other religions that have stemmed from it. To them, it is not just a matter of naming, or of proprietary rights, or such, but they feel that the existence of the Romans Catholic church has dissuaded a great many people from life after death. This rift is very, very old, but seldom in the "West" is the other side of the coin given any respect whatsoever. Metrax 05:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Co-Redemptrix" - clarify?

I would suggest that the Co-Redemptrix section needs to contain an explanation of what is meant by 'Co-Redemptrix', since this doctrine is so frequently misunderstood.

EDIT: I made some slight alterations in Co-Redemptrix section to make it accurate. Added link to full explanation of the term.

The explanation of the literal Latin meaning of "coredemptrix" was just plain wrong, so I backed it out. Whoever wrote it at http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian14.html was badly in error. The Latin prefix co- (or con-) derives from cum (with), but it means "with" in the sense of acting-together-with — just as it does in English. There are dozens of common examples in ecclesiastical Latin &mdash coepiscopus, an associate bishop, not someone accompanying the bishop; cohaeres, a fellow-heir, not someone with the heir; concivis, fellow-citizen, not someone acting alongside the citizen. And the ending -trix is just the feminine form of -tor, and turns redemptor, a male redeemer, into redemptrix, a female redeemer. To argue that coredemptrix means "woman with the redeemer" is wrong in almost exactly the same way as it would be wrong in English to say that a "co-authoress" didn't help write the book, but is merely the "woman with the author". Frjwoolley 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

boldface & caps in the opening sentence

It seems silly to me to have to bring this here, but since my initial, extremely minor copyedit to bring the opening sentence of the article into conformity with basic rules of English grammar was summarily reverted without even the courtesy of an explanation, I'm going to mention it here before restoring the edit.

At present the opening sentence begins with "The Blessed Virgin Mary" and then goes on to point out that she is also called "The Blessed Virgin". The use of the second name has two issues: capitalisation and boldface; it should actually appear as "the Blessed Virgin".

The is not part of her name. This is pretty obviously displayed within the very sentence we're talking about, not to mention in the article's title. Because The is not part of her name, it is not included in the article's title and is not boldfaced at the beginning of the opening sentence ("The Blessed Virgin Mary", where it's only even capitalised because it's the first word of the sentence). Nor is it capitalised at any other point in the article when she is referred to by a name or title preceded by a definite article ("the Virgin Mary" or "the Blessed Virgin").

I'd also point out that, if it was part of her name, it would be included in direct address. (Would a child pray, "If you help me with this, Blessed Virgin, I'll never ask you for anything again", or would they pray, "If you help me with this, The Blessed Virgin, I'll never ask you for anything again"?)

I'm going to restore my original edit now, as well as post what I've written here to User:Jtdirl's talkpage, since they're the one who reverted me in the first place. I can't possibly imagine what argument anyone could bring against the edit, but if they have one, I implore them to bring it here, rather than summarily reverting the edit. Binabik80 21:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been explained to you on your talk page. (BTW I could not do an edit summary. WP is screwing around right now and requiring multiple saves, as it keeping treating saves as previews. The only save that finally worked was the one where the previous edit summary had been lost.) In formal title usage, the The is used, in general usage it is not. As per standard, as the opening paragraph was mentioning formal title, the formal title include The was used. That is standard on WP. Monarchs usually are described in their opening paragraph as The King in the opening paragraph, then the King (ie grammatical, not formal) in the body text. WP only uses the definite article as part of a title on those rare occasions where it is part of a title (eg. The Guardian). In most cases it follows the simple rule of strictly formal title in the opening paragraph, standard grammatical usage in the rest of the body of the text. Blessed Virgin Mary uses the in the grammatical, not title, form (hence BVM, not TBVM.) but The Blessed Virgin is used in a formal sense with the definite article. It relates to the existence of other honoured virgins who came to be called blessed virgins (lower casing and no definite article) in the early mediæval period. Though such titling for the other women died out as early as the reformation period, the use of the is still used with regard to Mary as a hangover from the time when it was thought necessary to distinguish between a blessed virgin and The Blessed Virgin, of which in religious terms there was just one, Mary. FearÉIREANN 22:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Perpetual Virginity

Need help. I added the Perpetual Virginity section because the article did not make it clear that this is a fundamental teaching of Catholicism.

  • I don't know whether perpetual is a teaching of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
  • I don't know the technical terminology, whether that is a "dogma" or a "doctrine".
  • Regarding "brothers", I don't know the Greek words and how to put Greek into the text. That would help.
  • Regarding "brothers", I have heard those two explanations but don't have sources. I don't know if there is an official explanation or if there are others.
  • I don't know if there is a special theological term for "perpetual virginity".
Charles Ulysses Farley 00:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
There are now two sections on this, which seems odd. One would be sufficient? Could be combined? I like the final sentence in the first. Springnuts (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

History

There isn't really any mention of historic development in this article. It makes it look like the entire iconography, concepts, etc. of the BVM suddenly appeared exactly as it is now out of thin air in early Christianity. I suspect that not even the Roman Catholic Church itself would advocate such a view of the history of Marian devotions; does anyone know anything about this, and if so could it be added to the article? Clinkophonist 19:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fifth Dogma

Why is co redemptrix and mediatrix included as a fifth dogma? It has never been proclaimed a dogma, and catholics can dissent from it without been outside of the doctrine of the Church... hence it is not a fifth official dogma. I think it should be renamed Cjrs 79 03:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is widely proposed as a candidate for dogmatic declaration, because of the fact that nowadays some people deny it. It is expected to happen within the next 50 years (which is very fast in church history). Stijn Calle 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly not a sure bet that it will become church dogma. Many in the Eastern churches have reservations; thus, it could be a major impediment to communion with the Orthodox. Given the Holy See's emphasis on improving relations with the Eastern churches, this whole movement may stall. Majoreditor 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't an actual dogma at this time. When/if it is declaired a dogma, it'll be fine to put it in it's place, but now it's just a belief about Our Lady, even though it would seem to be a widely held one. Anthropax 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not change the heading to 'Proposed Fifth Marian Dogma' - or, better still, change all the headings to The Assumption, etc, instead of Fourth Marian Dogma, etc ?

Marianism?

"Marianism" describes the excessive veneration of Mary, as opposed to Jesus. The term was first used in the 19th century to condemn the "perversion of Christianity into Marianism".

Passive voice makes it impossible to determine whether this was a term of internal or external criticism. I have little idea what the sentence means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Do (nearly) all the pictures in the article have to be Victorian?

Johnbod 04:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Actually an original photo would be good ...! Failing that whatever is most commonly in use - there is probably some good iconography, if it could be used. Or perhpas what is in use is indeed be the Victorian stuff in the article. Springnuts (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Queries

i) Does the Eastern Orthodox Church go along with the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

ii) Does the Immaculate Conception mean that not only was the Blessed Virgin born without sin, but never sinned once in her life?

iii) I once heard (from a high church Anglican) that Roman Catholics believed that the Blessed Virgin was herself the product of a virgin birth. Is that so?

Millbanks 22:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) (a) Regarding the Immaculate Conception: Short answer: No. Longer answer: The Eastern Church does not have the same doctrine of Original Sin as the Catholics, so they never have posed and pondered the doctrinal question that the Immaculate Conception answers.
(i) (b) Regarding the Assumption: There is a similar, but not exactly identical, belief in both the Eastern and Western Churches. For more details, see Dormition and Munificentissimus Deus.
(ii) It is Catholic (and, I think, Orthodox) doctrine that she never sinned. This is not a direct consequence of her lack of Original Sin (though it helps), since Adam & Eve also were without Original Sin, yet sinned.
(iii) No, this is not at all true, but it is a very common misunderstanding. Catholic doctrine is that she was conceived in the usual way from human parents. Mlouns 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a speedy and clear reply: much appreciated. Being Protestant (Church of Ireland), I have a somewhat different "take" on the above, as you'd expect, but there's no doubt that the Immaculate Conception was, and I imagine still is, most important to Roman Catholics. For example, Manning Clark's "A Short History of Australia" records that, "when the news reached Melbourne that...Pius IX had proclaimed it as a dogma of the Catholic faith...the Catholic community sent a medal struck from Victorian gold to His Holiness to commemorate what was to them a momentous event in human history."

Be that as it may, a less comfortable aspect was (?is) that if you didn't believe in it, you weren't eligible for eternal salvation. Of course by the standards of the time, we Proddies were hell-bound anyhow! Millbanks 09:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent "Semiramis" stuff

I loathe revert wars, so I won't re-revert today's edits by 69.29.253.82 . I think they're poor encyclopedia quality, regardless of one's opinion on their factuality. Does anyone else want to comment on them? Mlouns 07:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just in this article; it's been spammed into over a dozen articles, from at least a half-dozen IP addresses. Check my edit history, especially the edit just before this one. -- 70.171.52.50 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WELL WELL WELL The Jesuits are playing games again protecting Fairy tales obscuring The LORD Jesus Christ to their own damnation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.29.48 (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2007

We aren't Jesuits (at least, I'm not Jesuit) and reverting vandalism isn't a game. You just need to make sure your content is verifiable, and put it in the right place. In this case the right place is in the Hislop article, or better yet on the Hislop article's discussion page. -- 70.171.8.250 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm not Jesuit either. Your problem is not Jesuits, Masons, and the Trilateral Commission, it's your lack of good citations. Here's a tip for you: you are making some pretty extravagant claims. That's fine, provided you can verify them, but the more extravagant they are, the better your verification has to be. In particular, someone doubting your claims has to be able to actually look them up for himself and find a specific passage in a specific source that verifies them. Vaguely citing "some ante-Nicene Fathers" just won't cut it -- Which author? In which passage? You mention Augustine, yes, but even there, you don't get specific enough that anyone who has his complete library can actually find the sentence that says what you claim. Also, Hislop is simply not a good resource. He is writing 1900 years after the fact, and himself doesn't cite sources in a strong enough way either. So citing him won't convince anyone. If your facts are as pervasive as you suggest, you should have no trouble finding them all over the place in ancient sources. Mlouns 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy it, you two are guarding some fanasty version of Semiramis that defames Mary. As for sitations they are many and you can do your own research like I had to, anyway I am convinced your questions are insincere. The burden of proof is on you, how was Mr. Hislop in error, at what points do you have solid historical evidence he was mistaken or misrepresenting history? You know lying is a sin, calling valuable contributions vandelism is wicked, as for vandelism would you think it right if I followed up on all of your contributions and undid them? If you two keep harasing me I will gather a team to set up fort at the Blessed Virgin link, and set every section straight, and press it until we come to the end of a fair resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.11.17 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2007

Actually, you are the one posting extravagant claims in wikipedia, so according to standard wikipedia rules, the burden of proof is on you. If you don't like wikipedia's rules, you are free to operate your own website with whatever theories you like. Anyway, the Jesuits haven't been running the world since 1965. These days, all the trendy conspiracists know that it's Opus Dei. Mlouns 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "you can do your own research like I had to" -- That isn't how Wikipedia works. People need to be able to verify your sources, without doing their own extensive research. Re: "The burden of proof is on you" -- That isn't how Wikipedia works; see WP:VERIFY#Burden of evidence. Re: "how was Mr. Hislop in error, at what points do you have solid historical evidence he was mistaken or misrepresenting history?" -- Ralph Woodrow was Hislop's biggest supporter. His book Babylon Mystery Religion is the reason Hislop's ideas achieved some popularity in the 20th century. When he learned that Hislop's book was fiction, Woodrow decided to stop printing and selling his own book, even though it was his biggest source of profit. Read about it here. -- 70.171.14.133 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen here, I love people that GOD died for, even Catholics, I am close to several. YET because this perversity that divides, we should honestly examine this so we can find unity Psalm 133, I really think it is fair to put this up. Lets look hypothically that all of these men fabricated this information in some kind conspiracy they made up, to pick on catholics. Why would you have to defend this woman if she is god? Just like the Bible with Gideon, let Baal deal with me, and stop earsing my articals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.11.17 (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2007 Do you live near Tacoma? I'm in Gig Harbor, I'll meet you for coffee, and we can discuss it cordually, I'll bring some books, in the Spirit of peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.11.17 (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2007

Anon, actually it is you who are posting "some fanasty version of Semiramis that defames Mary", all this based on no of references. The burden of proof is on you to give specific refernce as to said this and where. So spare us your nonsense about "many (Ante-nicene fathers [which, where], Josephus [where, a book called Sacred Writings does not exist], Augustine in City of God [book? verse?])". And please learn how to spell. Str1977 (smile back) 08:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Anon: You speak of love and peace. When I love people, I show it by making sure I know the facts before I accuse them of defending perversity, or making wild allegations about them being in league with some Jesuit conspiracy, or telling them they are damned. If your allegations are based in truth, I expect you can find some real citations that pass wikipedia's standard: How about 3 specific passages in ante-Nicene Fathers that compare Mary with Semiramis? (Even one would be interesting!) If you can't find them, your love should lead to you apologizing for false witness. You also might want to read the above link to Woodrow, author of "Babylon Mystery Religion,". Mlouns 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Mary isn't the only one being defamed; now even the Statue of Liberty stands accused of complicity in the Great Babylonian Religious Conspiracy. I wonder if there is a preacher somewhere who just can't bear to see any woman being honored in any way, and teaches his flock to react accordingly, seeing Babylonian goddess worship everywhere. -- 70.171.36.101 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I moved the controversy section further down, so that the flow of actual information remains intact. However, that particular section is of a very questionable quality, as the controversy is not properly stated nor the facts properly given (that almah can very well encompass the meaning "virgin", that basing the concept of the "Blessed Virgin" solely on this quote is already contentious). IMHO, the "almah" issue is already well enough covered in Mary (mother of Jesus) and Virgin Birth. Str1977 (smile back) 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(The controversy section was moved back up, by the vandal.)
That section doesn't make any sense at all. If "the Virgin Mary arose from a single mistranslation" when a translator accidentally changed "young girl" to "virgin," then you could change the story into a normal birth story just by changing every occurrence of "virgin" to "young girl."
I don't see how such a one-word change could affect the meaning of "before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" or "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" or "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
Obviously, the meaning of those sentences doesn't depend on the translation of a single word "young girl" or "virgin." -- 128.227.142.209 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I propose removing the controversy section alltogether. This issue is already covered elsewhere. Str1977 (smile back) 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Str1977. The controversy section does not add anything to the article on the BVM. I have brought this up several times in Christian article discussions -- does it really need to be stated why atheists don't believe? Wikipedia is not a forum to disprove belief. Instead, it is a place to gather information that can be supported by legitimite and unbiased source material. The links to atheist websites refuting the BVM have no place here. Discussion about why atheists don't believe in the BVM belong in a section on atheism. Without objection, the section on 'Controversy' will be removed as some of its issues have been metnioned previously. Hecman111 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As to not remove entirely the section since some users believe this maintains NPOV, I will instead remove the discussion and links of "prominent atheists." It does not make sense to state that non-believers don't believe and then link to it. Hecman111 20:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

She is called Our Lady

In the intro paragraph we mention she's called our lady and then translations into French and Tagalog are given. I feel that those are unnecessary. I'm deleting them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.21.96.49 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Sources

"although most Reformers regarded Mary as ever virgin." Where is the source for this? Sounds like personal opinion to me. Removed until sourced... Anapologetos (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following links which are extraneous, not external links 'per se', or unrelated to the topic of the BVM, proper:

--Derek 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Cult of the Virgin" vs. "History of Devotion"

The term cult may be technically accurate, but not only does it have a negative connotation, but the alternative title that has been used here, "History of Devotion" is much more apparent in its meaning to English speakers. I think it's a better section header. Thoughts? MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

'Cult' may have negative connotations to a layman, but it really is the most precise term. It means much more than merely a devotion. You may wish to have a look at Cult (religious practice). The 'negative connotation' is generally foremost in the minds of those not familiar with the technical vocabulary of religion, and placing a link to Cult (religious practice) is, I feel, the best option. There is no way to avoid jargon in Encyclopaedic writing. If we have to restrict ourselves to the inadequate vocabulary of the average American, we might as well convert the rest of Wikipedia to the Simple English Wikipedia. Particularly since this page is solely about Roman Catholic devotion, there should be no hesitance in using terms which the Roman Catholic Church herself uses, duly explained of course. InfernoXV 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Origins

Worship of Mary has its origin in fertility goddess worship,vestal virgins etc etc.Should there be a paragraph on origins/inspirations ? Gerfinch 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to write material of that sort, you will need to have some pretty good references. There was someone a few months ago who tried to use material from Hislop, but this did not meet wikipedia reference standards. See the section entitled "Recent Semiramis stuff" below for a play-by-play. Mlouns 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't easy to provide specific references, and the subject is a sensitive one, but it is argued by some that the cult of the Blessed Virgin replaced various popular goddesses, such as Aphrodite, Isis and, not least, the Norse Frigga. If you see the Wikipedia entry on the third of these, you will see that she had a Queen of Heaven role. As I say, this is sensitive, but Christianity has adapted various pre-Christian themes, the most obvious of which is replacing Saturnalia by Christmas. Millbanks 09:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Protestants

The Anglican standpoint is referred to in the main article, but readers might be interested in a book recently published by SPCK: "The Real Mary", by Scot McKnight. This seeks to redress Protestant neglect of Mary. 86.41.149.8 14:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC) (Millbanks)

I'm Millbanks, and I didn't write the above. What seems to have happened is that someone altered the script but kept my name. Having said that, I've no objection to what's been written, nor to the changes that have been made to the piece I wrote in the main article, which I took largely from a Church of Ireland article.Millbanks 09:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

--- I declare a Protestant background, which disqualifies me from editing but qualifies me to express the following concern.

I hope that the above statement is not, even by implication, attributed to me. Yes, I am a Protestant, but no, I am not disqualified from editing. My church recognises the unique position of the Blessed Virgin and honours her accordingly. Millbanks 09:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please review the NPOV of this article, which appears to be a Catholic text with added qualifications - cf unqualified phrases like "Later, the belief that Mary intercedes for us with her Divine Son...", as Protestants in general refute this, principally on the grounds that "No-one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6). Protestants, particularly on the evangelical wing, believe in a direct relationship with God, while in classical Roman creed the Church Heirarchy intervenes, extending into the Marian intervention described here, particularly in Confession.

Similarly, the Protestant views in this Article are subordinated to the Catholic doctrinal structure, and there is no reference to the discussion concerning the confusion between the Marys.

I might also have expected a mention of the Gospel of Mary, appropriately qualified by the general thinking that the text is from a much later date.

I accept that there is a qualification in the opening paragraph, but I feel a fair balance should give Catholic, Protestant and agnostic-atheist views as separate heads, not intermingled as they are.

Jel 19:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added Anglican. We are a church in the catholic tradition. Millbanks 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most Common English Name

People call her the Virgin Mary, not the Blessed Virgin Mary. Shouldn't it just be Virgin Mary, as per the wikipedia naming policy? Titanium Dragon 03:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the purpose behind removing my edit. I also don't understand the strange little section on Protestant critiques of Catholic doctrine. Patiently awaiting explanation. Catholic monarchist 03:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "strange little section" refers to, but if you tell me precisely what you don't understand, I'll at least try to help. Please remember though that there is no such thing as "The Protestant Church". I speak as an Anglican (Church of Ireland). Millbanks 21:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my original change, if others agree that it was unconstructive I shall not restore it again. But I am still having difficulty understanding the appropriateness of the idolatry section. I've done some looking I don't see anything comparable anywhere else.Catholic monarchist 04:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparitions

As a Protestant (Church of Ireland) I'm aware of apparitions of the Blessed Virgin at Lourdes, Fatima and elsewhere. My question is, are apparitions confined to the Blessed Virgin? Are there pilgrimage visits for example, to where other saints appeared? And have there been formally recognised (by the Vatican, that is) apparitions of Lord Jesus himself (after the Ascension). Millbanks 09:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Church doesn't really "recognise" apparitions, no Catholic is bound to believe any apparition. There have been apparitions of Our Lord (quite a few of the Marian Apparitions involve Christ appearing as child/baby with the Virgin). I don't think there are any major pilgrimage sites associated with Apparitions of God the Son. There are some major devotions that trace back to these apparitions, ex: Devotion to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, St Gertrud's prayer (I think it was Gertie) for the Holy Souls, etc.Catholic monarchist 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks: helpful. The only point you don't answer is whether there have been apparitions of other saints, but since you make the valid point that your church doesn't really recognise apparitions, I suppose the answer could be that people might claim to have seen, say, St Paul, but this would not be "official". A cousin of mine in Australia, by no means conformist in her beliefs and not a Roman Catholic, claims to have seen an angel. Millbanks 08:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The possible Theophany at Knock involved the Virgin and several other New Testament saints (as well as a possible apparition of Christ as a lamb floating above an altar). There have been others I'm not certain who. I (unable to conceal the shocking scarlet Papism of my nature anymore) saw what I believe to have been the Resurrected Christ and St Paul in a vision at Walsingham (the Anglican Shrine, not the Catholic, oddly enough) last year.Catholic monarchist 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, after putting the above question to you, I looked at the Wikipedia entry for Apparitions, and specifically Marian apparitions, and it was very helpful. There's nothing shocking about "scarlet Papism", of course. I speak as a Church of Ireland member from the Republic and I'm happy to live in a town which is overwhelmingly RC. I suppose I could be called "Protestant Republican"! Millbanks 07:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

theological impossibility

Just wanted to note that I reverted the recent edit by Catholic Monarchist:

--this is a theological impossibility in Catholicism as women and men are not regarded as the parents of "natures," but rather of persons.

which I thought breaks up the flow of the paragraph and doesn't seem to add much beyond what is contained in the next sentence,

Catholics do not believe Mary is the source of Jesus' Divine nature, but the source of his human nature. Yet as a person he is truly God and truly man, thus making her His mother.The.helping.people.tick 04:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused article structure

It seems to me that the article's structure is both confused and confusing. I mean, in particular, sections 4–6: 

 4 Four Marian dogmas
 4.1 The Mother of God
 4.2 The Perpetual Virginity
 4.3 The Immaculate Conception
 4.4 The Assumption of Mary
 
 5 Other Held Beliefs
 5.1 Co-Redemptrix
 5.2 Queen of Heaven
 5.3 Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate for the People of God
 
 6 See also
 6.1 Perpetual virginity
 6.2 Immaculate Conception
 6.3 Assumption
 6.4 Co-Redemptrix

Later, there's the usual "See also" section with links to other wiki articles. I'm sure the material in section 6 ought to be merged into 4 and 5, but don't have time to do that myself just now…. Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 10:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary/Archive_1&oldid=1223015797"