This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Écône consecrations 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 |
A news item involving Écône consecrations was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 January 2009. |
The contents of the Remission of the Ecône Excommunications page were merged into Écône consecrations on 13 February 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Links to two sources are broken. These are #26 and #27. The fragment: "In line with general canonical opinion,[26] the Holy See holds that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act,[27] but not that he created a schismatic Church." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:9B43:3A00:54C7:985C:F57A:BE96 ( talk) 09:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
We need to include criticism from reliable sources in the Lifting of excommunications section. -- Loremaster ( talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia:Criticism sections page:
“ | Criticism sections can be found in many Wikipedia articles. While sometimes appropriate, this structure is not optimal, as relegating all criticisms to one section usually results in an unbalanced presentation. When present, such sections should be considered a temporary solution until the article is restructured to integrate criticism into each relevant section. It may then be desirable to have a "General criticisms" section near the end of the article, for those points which did not neatly fit anywhere else. | ” |
-- Loremaster ( talk) 17:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We are off to a good start but we need more criticisms. -- Loremaster ( talk) 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Funny that "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent the following telegram" and "Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunications of four bishops" are the same person. Shouldn't the article mention this? Debresser ( talk) 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It remains unclear to me why the pope failed to approve these ordinations in the first place and why the bishop thought is so important to proceed. - ErinHowarth ( talk) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be thick, but how can they be both illicit and valid at the same time? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I did hear it said from a pulpit that, despite the lifting of said excommunications, the Society is not in good standing with Rome, and its priests, including those 4 bishops, are considered as suspended from functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 16:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
"The historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. I believe there were no gas chambers..." - Bishop Richard Williamson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.199.162 ( talk) 11:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The following is unclear: "violation of this rule has since 1951 entailed automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Holy See both for the consecrator and for the recipient of the consecration" What does it mean for the excommunication to be both automatic and reserved? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it rather odd that the controversy of this event is simply given a two-sentence explanation at the VERY end of the article:
The controversy is not grounded in the lack of papal consent for the original decision, but because the bishops were anti-Semitic and defied the rules of the Church (as far as I know). If the bishops were simply tossed for some irrelevant reason, or something stupid and then reinstated, nobody would have cared, at least, not to this same degree.
I ask that we encooperate the anti-semitic aspect, and not dump it at the bottom of the page. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying everything is about anti-Semitism, but all the reports I've read excluding wiki are centered on the fact that the bishops being reinstated were anti-Semitic, and as a response Israel severed ties with the Vatican. Either way, it's a major part of the story, and should be recognized accordingly...IMO. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
But the controversy is still only mentioned to its full extent at the END of the article. It should be en-cooperated in the intro of the article, not the concluding paragraphs. This story is making headlines all over the World, even those where Catholic hierarchy isn't a crucial part of society, like in the Middle East, United States, and Asia. Why? Because the controversy is largely generated by the Bishop's anti-Semitism, not because the pope wasn't involved in the original dispute. Even now the Pope is trying to separate himself from the issue in regards to Jewish complaints: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7855816.stm And that info is at the INTRO, not the end. If we're going to synthesize news, dropping one of the most important aspects at the BOTTOM of the article is utterly ridiculous. There is a wealth of information to support a heavy cleaning. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, it wasn't there before I responded. Anyways, it's definitely not enough. The anti-Semitism is the biggest source of complaint (and therefore controversy), and even the Pope himself offered a lengthy opinion on that central issue. This needs to be seen throughout the article, and a 4-sentence intro is certainly not enough. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be getting confused between the events of 1988 and the lifting of the excommunications. Is it time to seperate out the articles? JASpencer ( talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following as a WP:BLP with this edit, I highlighted the problems I see with this content:
the canonist Count Neri Capponi, [1] Fr. Gerald Murray of the Catholic University of America, [2] Fr. Patrick Valdini of the Catholic Institute in Paris, [3] and Karl-Theodor Geringer and Rudolf Kaschewski of the University of Munich have taken this position. Murray and Prof. Geringer have since stated that their views have been misrepresented; it is not clear whether this is true of the other authorities.
References
The source for all three quotes is:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) This
tertiary source reuses information from other sources without citing them in detail.The author of that page states that "if you are internet-savvy, you may already have come upon people like Shawn McElhinney, Pete Vere, and others, who are trying to dismantle these quotes by 'showing their context'." So he is saying these quotes may have a different meaning with more context. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ecône consecrations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ecône consecrations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The redirect Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 4 § Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism until a consensus is reached. Veverve ( talk) 06:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Écône consecrations 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 |
A news item involving Écône consecrations was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 January 2009. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Remission of the Ecône Excommunications page were merged into Écône consecrations on 13 February 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Links to two sources are broken. These are #26 and #27. The fragment: "In line with general canonical opinion,[26] the Holy See holds that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act,[27] but not that he created a schismatic Church." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:9B43:3A00:54C7:985C:F57A:BE96 ( talk) 09:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
We need to include criticism from reliable sources in the Lifting of excommunications section. -- Loremaster ( talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia:Criticism sections page:
“ | Criticism sections can be found in many Wikipedia articles. While sometimes appropriate, this structure is not optimal, as relegating all criticisms to one section usually results in an unbalanced presentation. When present, such sections should be considered a temporary solution until the article is restructured to integrate criticism into each relevant section. It may then be desirable to have a "General criticisms" section near the end of the article, for those points which did not neatly fit anywhere else. | ” |
-- Loremaster ( talk) 17:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
We are off to a good start but we need more criticisms. -- Loremaster ( talk) 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Funny that "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent the following telegram" and "Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunications of four bishops" are the same person. Shouldn't the article mention this? Debresser ( talk) 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It remains unclear to me why the pope failed to approve these ordinations in the first place and why the bishop thought is so important to proceed. - ErinHowarth ( talk) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be thick, but how can they be both illicit and valid at the same time? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I did hear it said from a pulpit that, despite the lifting of said excommunications, the Society is not in good standing with Rome, and its priests, including those 4 bishops, are considered as suspended from functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 16:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
"The historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. I believe there were no gas chambers..." - Bishop Richard Williamson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.199.162 ( talk) 11:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The following is unclear: "violation of this rule has since 1951 entailed automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Holy See both for the consecrator and for the recipient of the consecration" What does it mean for the excommunication to be both automatic and reserved? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it rather odd that the controversy of this event is simply given a two-sentence explanation at the VERY end of the article:
The controversy is not grounded in the lack of papal consent for the original decision, but because the bishops were anti-Semitic and defied the rules of the Church (as far as I know). If the bishops were simply tossed for some irrelevant reason, or something stupid and then reinstated, nobody would have cared, at least, not to this same degree.
I ask that we encooperate the anti-semitic aspect, and not dump it at the bottom of the page. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying everything is about anti-Semitism, but all the reports I've read excluding wiki are centered on the fact that the bishops being reinstated were anti-Semitic, and as a response Israel severed ties with the Vatican. Either way, it's a major part of the story, and should be recognized accordingly...IMO. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
But the controversy is still only mentioned to its full extent at the END of the article. It should be en-cooperated in the intro of the article, not the concluding paragraphs. This story is making headlines all over the World, even those where Catholic hierarchy isn't a crucial part of society, like in the Middle East, United States, and Asia. Why? Because the controversy is largely generated by the Bishop's anti-Semitism, not because the pope wasn't involved in the original dispute. Even now the Pope is trying to separate himself from the issue in regards to Jewish complaints: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7855816.stm And that info is at the INTRO, not the end. If we're going to synthesize news, dropping one of the most important aspects at the BOTTOM of the article is utterly ridiculous. There is a wealth of information to support a heavy cleaning. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, it wasn't there before I responded. Anyways, it's definitely not enough. The anti-Semitism is the biggest source of complaint (and therefore controversy), and even the Pope himself offered a lengthy opinion on that central issue. This needs to be seen throughout the article, and a 4-sentence intro is certainly not enough. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be getting confused between the events of 1988 and the lifting of the excommunications. Is it time to seperate out the articles? JASpencer ( talk) 23:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following as a WP:BLP with this edit, I highlighted the problems I see with this content:
the canonist Count Neri Capponi, [1] Fr. Gerald Murray of the Catholic University of America, [2] Fr. Patrick Valdini of the Catholic Institute in Paris, [3] and Karl-Theodor Geringer and Rudolf Kaschewski of the University of Munich have taken this position. Murray and Prof. Geringer have since stated that their views have been misrepresented; it is not clear whether this is true of the other authorities.
References
The source for all three quotes is:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) This
tertiary source reuses information from other sources without citing them in detail.The author of that page states that "if you are internet-savvy, you may already have come upon people like Shawn McElhinney, Pete Vere, and others, who are trying to dismantle these quotes by 'showing their context'." So he is saying these quotes may have a different meaning with more context. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ecône consecrations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ecône consecrations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The redirect Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 4 § Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism until a consensus is reached. Veverve ( talk) 06:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)