Talk:Immaculate Conception
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Immaculate Conception article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 14 dates. [show] |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Immaculate Conception was copied or moved into Catholic views on Mary with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Index
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
rescued material
editWhile for some early theologians original sin was the consequence of Adam's act, for others it was Eve who was to blame, Irenaeus (born c.130) writing that "disobedient Eve" became "the cause of death, both for herself and the entire human race", and Ambrose (c.340-397) that Eve deceived Adam, while Origen (184-235) drew the lesson for all womankind: "God does not stoop to look upon what is feminine and of the flesh."
Merge
editThe short article about the play could easily fit under "Artistic representations". Manannan67 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- This kind of things should not be in broad articles, as it would be WP:TRIVIA. Thus, I oppose the merge. Veverve (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as this play would likely receive a brief mention in a GA/FA version of this article. The play's article should be taken to AfD if questions of independent notability persist. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, the stand-alone page for the play works, and, per above, including it outside of maybe a 'See also' link would be trivia. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Without any sin for all her life
editthe Council of Trent, held in several sessions in the early 1500s, exempted her from the universality of original sin and also affirmed that the Virgin Mary remained during all her life free from all stain of sin, even the venial one.
Where is this WP:original research? John Paul II affirmed this on 19th June 1996, citing the Council of Trent DG 1973.
The exit corrected an error of the WP article according to which:
the Council of Trent, held in several sessions in the early 1500s, made no explicit declaration on the subject but exempted her from the universality of original sin
.
Lumen Gentium n. 56
editWhy the Lumen Gentium is not considered to be related to the previous topic?? It is relevant to say that not only the Council of Trent, but also the Church Fathers affirmed the preservation of the Virgin Mary from all stain of sin.
The same concept was also affirmed by the Fathers of the Church. See Lumen Gentium, n. 56: "It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature."
176.200.140.47 (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Veverve:: Why Lumen Gentium is considered a "bias source"?
About the creation of the Gospel of James
editI don't see how is related the history about the alleged creation of the Gospel of James with the Immaculate Conception. The important thing is to show what the Gospel of James says, the rest does not belong to this article but to the main article. Or maybe I'm wrong? --Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)