Talk:Nouvelle théologie

[Untitled]

Seems like the first paragraph is awfully biased. Viridia (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias

There is a significant amount of bias in this article, especially in the "Criticisms" and "Ideas" section. Namely, it offers criticism against the movement rather than actors of the movement without having demonstrated its defining characteristics; it subsequently directs the criticisms found in Humani Generis at the entire Nouvelle Theologie movement itself; a striking reliance on Mettepenningen, whose book's extreme bias is laid bare in the title Nouvelle Théologie - New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II; and a series of uncited parentheticals in the last paragraph of the "Ideas" section that are ostensibly there to discredit the associated theologians. The "Ideas" section also omits to include that one of the defining characteristics of movement according to the proponents of said movement was a return to the scriptures and writings of the early church fathers. I plan to work on this eventually, but I want to drop this note here in case someone else comes along to clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keathleymp (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article. Veverve (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve article should refer to the movement in the terms of its proponents not it's detractors. use of the name New Theology and Nouvelle Theology should be the parenthetical reference, not Resourcement Theology. 97.116.12.228 (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. Veverve (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Nouvelle théologie is not the common name for proponents of this theology. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It clearly is the most widespread name. You only need to have a look at the 'Further reading' section. Veverve (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No dice. I could provide a much longer list of books using the Resourcement label, including Joseph Ratzinger's book The Unity of the Church. This list proves nothing. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Then please go and ask the Christian Wikiproject to see if it is truly the case. Veverve (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Done! Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism § Nouvelle théologie vs. Ressourcement theology Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! This article should be renamed Resourcement Theology and completely re-written to NPOV. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Or at the very least the 'resource' redirect to this article should be deleted so a new article with the proper name can be created, and the two articles can reference each other. I would oppose this as a clumsy division of a subject to avoid NPOV arguments. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've rewritten the intro to help differentiate in preparation for the creation of a separate page for ressourcement, per discussion on WikiProject Catholicism. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)