![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This entry defines what the term "Assumption of Mary" means, but does not explain its origins or history. Although dogmatically defined in 1950, we know that this ex cathedra statement of Papal infallibility requires that "his teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously." So, where did it really come from originally? Who first spoke of this concept?
The Church repeatedly uses dogmatic declarations to settle spirtitual and loving controversies; these help us to think of Mary: Nicene Creed (Arian controversy), Council of Trent (Protestant controversy), etc. Was there a controversy about Mary's assumption that the Pope settled? The text is really vague: "Theological debate about the assumption continued until 1950 when it was defined as definitive doctrine." Was there particular controversy before 1950 that motivated the promulgation of doctrine? Jonathan Tweet 15:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, Pius's Declaration is given in full twice at the moment; this is, obviously, unnecessary and interrupts the flow of the article. Unless there is some reason currently hidden for this duplication, I will remove it. If I am mistaken, feel free to revert me. Cheers, Lindsay 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made a few changes, including the first sentence of the lead. WP policy states that the lead should start with a sentence including the title name and explaining the notability of the subject. I have added this. It also stresses the fact that this is an ecumenical article on the subject and not only about the Catholic viewpoint. I also added a more comprehensive list of countries celebrating August 15th with a public holiday. Xan dar 23:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm just wondering about this line I found in the first section of this article, "According to Catholic theology, Mary is the pledge of the fulfillment of Christ's promise." Can we get a CITATION NEEDED stamp on that sentence? User:rtadopaw, Andrew B 10:39a PDT, 12 March, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtadopaw ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the Christianity "importance=top" rating.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on the talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). Carlaude: Talk 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This article contains the text "The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary ..." The use of the word "ascension" is at odds with other Christian ideology, in which the only entity to have gone bodily to Heaven under the entity's own power ("ascending" is the English word chosen to refer to that) is Christ. All other entities who went bodily to Heaven did so not by their own propulsive power but, rather, by Heaven's attractive-power, and the English term chosen to refer to that is "being assumed", not "ascending". However, the correction to "assumption" may not be the correct remedy. The text is a quotation from Ludwig Ott. If these are Ott's exact words then a "[sic]" should be added after the word "ascension". If Ott's words are in German then please check and see if a translator, not Ott, made the ascension/assumption mistake. 69.86.126.190 ( talk) 00:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Christopher L. Simpson
There possble could be error in this section, because they episcopal/anglican churches agree with sinlessness of Mary, and with her body and soul being taken into heaven. This is half right and needs to be better researched. They said there is some bibical view within it, but did not say all anglican would agree with it. So this is wrong and please let thrid person view on this topic. I would be wrong, but I think right after reading it.(~~)
Question: In the Episcopal Church, August 15 is observed as the commemoration "Of the Blessed Virgin Mary", and the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic agreed statement on the Virgin Mary assigns a place for both the Dormition and the Assumption in Anglican devotion.
Is there any truth to this ? I have the book on this and I got idal Mary will be view more, but the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are still in limbo for the episcoplian/anglican. Would you agree with my statement or this other person who did on wikipedia? I agree with you.
I'm sure there are a few Anglican congregations celebrating these feasts, but they are not in our official calendar. Faithfully, Clay Morris The Rev. Dr. Clayton L. Morris Office for Liturgy and Music Irishmonk 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I am an Anglican and BOTH holidays are celebrated at my church with the utmost seriousness. After Christological holidays they are the highest ones on the calendar - not mere saint days, something VERY special. I don't know that this is the norm in the communion, but I am sure we are not the only ones who behave in this manner. I will look at the artical and add what I can.- SECisek 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Do Old Catholics, Independent Catholics, Liberal Catholics, the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the African Orthodox Church, the Apostolic Catholic Church, Lusitanian Orthodox Church, Philippine Independent Church, and any other Catholic Churches not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church celebrate the Assumption of Mary? I know that Old Catholics deny Papal Infallibility, but do they also deny the Assumption, or just that it is dogma? I think if any of these churches celebrate the holiday it would be important to include in the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I was raised a Catholic, and I understand the importance of church history and tradition, but how can this dogma exist with zero documentary evidence to support it for over 3 centuries after Jesus's crucifiction? Calling this "dogma" only puts into question the, for me, incontrovertible dogma of Jesus's bodily resurrection. Don't mix up this Assumpton issue with truly fundamental Christian dogma like the resurrection. There is no comparison in terms of textual evidence. Vertex11 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertex11 ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
I was raised a Catholic too ! and I believe the Holy Mother went up. up, body and Soul to heaven.Never mind Dogma you should Know Mary's Canticle, " My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord. My spirit finds joy in God my savior. For he has looked upon his servant in her lowliness.all ages to come shall call me blessed.God who is mighty has done great things for me,holy is his name,His mercy is from age to age on those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, he has confused in their inmost thoughts . He has disposed the mighty from their thrones and raised the lowly to high places. The hungry he has given every good thing,while the rich he has sent empty away. He has upheld Israel his servant,ever mindful of his mercy: Even as he promised our fathers,promised Abraham and his descendents forever. Luke 1. 40-55 and when our Lady went up I guess she said pray for yourselves ! (four tildes) 65.92.98.29 ( talk) 10:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 15 August, 2011 6:20 a,m,
Hi. I'm a Catholic, but of the more broad-minded variety. The idea behind the proclamation of the dogma by Pius XII was that, since the generality of Catholics believed in the Assumption of Mary since the year dot, they must have believed in something that was passed down by the Apostles of Jesus. There are other reasons behind it too, connected with the idea of the Immaculate Conception, that is, the idea that Mary was preserved from original sin. Original Sin was the cause of death. If Mary did not have original sin, then she could not die. Though she could choose to die, as Jesus did, in imitation of her son, and be resurrected, as he was. Cheers. -- Gazzster 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a factual error on this page. The Lutheran Church does not teach or believe in the bodily assumption of Mary. Nor does the Lutheran Church believe that Mary was without sin. Martin Luther stated that Mary was unique because God chose her to give birth to his Son, but in every other way she was just like the rest of us sinners dependent of God's grace. All of the Lutheran Confessional Documents found in the Book of Concord and other historical documents agree on these points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.122.20 ( talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The link referenced by citation #12 is returning error 404 page not found. It links to " http://www.christiantruth.com/assumption.html" It appears the correct web address may be " http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html"? 72.76.134.165 ( talk) 23:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Names of established articles can only be changed with prior discussion - not at the whim of an editor who prefers another name. I have therefore reverted the recent name change. I cannot at present see any justification for the change based on "full title". Anglicanus ( talk) 18:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has fixed this, but the painting by Murillo shown is actually a depiciton of the Immaculate Conception (in the Escorial Palace outside of Madrid) and NOT the Assumption. Generally, in post-Mediæval art, when Mary's hands are crossed on her bosom it is a depiction of the Immaculate Conception; when her arm is extended out or her hands are folded in prayer it is the Assumption. Miguel ( talk) 18:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me why after all the sex abuse cases, the paintings of naked babies everywhere is not politically incorrect? Can't angels be adults? What it the facination with this in the eyes of Catholics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.233 ( talk) 02:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please ask User:Johnbod, for he would know best. Also see Roman Catholic Marian art. History2007 ( talk) 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Miguel is probably right that it is the wrong painting. Please see image above on the right which is the same painting with the Immaculate title. I will use another image now. However, the image above on the left, suggests that the artistic assumption (pun intended) about hands being open or closed is not universally correct. History2007 ( talk) 06:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article state "While Catholic dogma leaves open the question of Mary's death before rising to Heaven"? It is doctrine that Mary died, it is not open for theological debate. From the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary:
It is superficial to claim that the dormition or Assumption are separate doctrines or separate feasts, even if Catholics and Orthodox have different understandings of them. They are the same event and same holy day. If you want to treat them differently, than make one article for Catholics and one for Orthodox about the Assumption. Oct13 ( talk) 23:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaaagh, I saw you edit again. One of these days you need to read up on theology my friend. See:
The only formal dogma in the East Orthdox Church goes back to the Nicene period. So your edit is just confused, mixing Catholic dogma with EO ideas... sigh... History2007 ( talk) 16:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Although Lutherans do not, at least officially, recognize the Assumption, they do celebrate "Mary, Mother of Our Lord" on August 15th.. the same day Catholics celebrate the Assumption. Should this be added to the article? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 03:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The article says that the doctrine spread throughout the church in the 7th century. If this were the case, I'd expect to find that it did not spread to the Nestorians nor the Jacobites who had already separated from the Catholic and Orthodox church. It would be interesting to see some information on Nestorian and Jacobite views of the Dormition, if any such information is available. Rwflammang ( talk) 21:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be a bit odd to think that Mary would have gone to the other place! I thought all good people go to heaven and the rest to the other place. Is the essential difference that she has ascended BODILY as well as spiritually? Maybe someone would like to tackle the making of a simple english version. I see that there isn't one at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntersMoon22 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If Mary's actual physical body was assumed into Heaven, presumably it still exists somewhere, in an actual physical place. Should not this article explain where that place is? Or at least tell us what the Churches' position is on where it is? Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 04:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is the use of "AD" really necessary when discussing a Christian teaching? If so, then it should be used with all the dates mentioned, not just two. Caeruleancentaur ( talk) 08:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Assumption of Mary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted the recent changes and put in a request to have the move reverted. This article is about the concept currently, but a move to Feast of the Assumption makes it about the liturgical event, which would need discussion. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the statement "Dormition of the Theotokos.....is the same as the Assumption" is a POV which is argued against. The Dormition ("Falling Asleep") is the actual death of Mary, whereas the Assumption (Latin "ad sumere", to take to oneself) includes the removal of her body to heaven after she was buried. The distinction is easily appreciated by looking at Jerusalem. The church of Dormition Abbey to the south of the walled city is the traditional site of the Dormition, whereas the Tomb of Mary outside the east gate is that of the Assumption. I've heard a Russian Orthodox archimandrite expound the distinction in an anti-Roman Catholic sermon, carefully and with vigour. [1] Basilwatkinsosb ( talk) 08:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
References
After all, most Western Catholics believe in the Assumption but not the Dormitionis 100% false. The overwhelming consensus within Western Catholic theology is that Mary died. Pius XII simply didn’t define that bit dogmatically. Every secular academic course I’ve taken on the matter considers the two terms to be synonymous in use, with dormition being simply the Eastern equivalent. I’d need time to find the sourcing but the secular religious scholars I’m familiar with view the two as functionally equivalent in terms of how they are used in pratice. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
While it is certainly true that the Assumption is not mentioned in the New Testament canon, I'm not entirely sure this needs to be in the lead. That seems to give undue weight to what is essentially the sola scriptura view of Christian theology: a view which is rejected by the ancient Christian traditions of both the East and the West who profess belief in the Dormition/Assumption. Basically, the scriptural presence of the claimed event isn't really necessary for those who believe in it, and discussing it in the lead presents the entire article in a Protestant framework. It can certainly be mentioned in the body, as it is, but no need to give prominence to it in the lead.
Johnbod, I see that you've been cleaning up some of the other changes on related articles recently, and I'd appreciate your thoughts here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I have reformulated the statement in the lead to read:
"The Christian canonical scriptures contain no explicit narrative about the death or Dormition, nor of the Assumption of Mary, but several scriptural passages have been theologically interpreted to describe the ultimate fate in this and the afterworld of the Mother of Jesus (see below)."
This after Willthacheerleader18 reversed a less carefully worded paragraph on the topic. I want to make sure it's not again being removed, because the number one question in any issue of Christian religion is: how well is it rooted in Scripture? And the Assumption is not present, anywhere, in a straightforward description of events, like in the case of Jesus' birth, baptism, crucifixion, burial, deeds and miracles before and after resurrection etc. There is none. Period. All else is theology, and has many opponents.
Willthacheerleader18's argument that stating this fact openly is "unnecessary and discredits Catholic, Anglican, & Orthodox interpretation of scripture (see scriptural basis section)" is from a different realm than an encyclopedia (and 21st-century internet) altogether. I didn't mock anyone, I just gave the most important bit of info any Christian and non-Christian user would be looking for here, and which was missing. Please make sure it stays in the lead. The wording is not essential, as long as it does not hide the facts. Thanks and cheers, Arminden ( talk) 19:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
... and TonyBallioni has reverted it without reading anything, and all the other small, but useful edits I made along with this main one. Exactly the type of knee-jerk reaction I was afraid of. This is an encyclopedia, not a diplomatic letter to the Vatican's emissary to the jungle. Because the Pope & modern Catholic theologians can easily deal with this fact, and have no need to keep it hidden in paragraph 15 B from the bottom. Arminden ( talk) 19:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
the most important bit of info any Christian and non-Christian user would be looking for here. That assertion in itself is clearly a Protestant assertion as how theology is to be viewed: significantly over 50% of Christians (Catholics and Orthodox Christians)do not view
how well is it rooted in Scripture?as
the number one question in any issue of Christian religion, and claiming so shows the POV behind framing it this way in the lead.NPOV requires that we represent legitimate points of view in the article. It does not mandate that we frame articles on Catholic and Orthodox theological beliefs in a Protestant framework from the very beginning of the article. Please revert until we can get consensus on how to deal with this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
"The Annotated Book of Common Prayer" edition of 1907, offered as a source, is not available online [1]. Only the 1866 edition is fully available, and it contradicts the quote given in the article: here the Falling Asleep is only mentioned in the "Comparative View" on p. [52] as "Eastern", as opposed to the "modern Roman" term "Assumption", so as an Eastern, not Anglican term or feast. [2] The 1872 edition has the same content [3], as apparently do the 1884 and 1892 editions (the last before 1907 offered by Google Books). [4] [5] Even if it is known that it was in the 20th century that some Anglican-Catholic rapprochement has taken place, this is a concrete book published in 1866 or 67 by John Henry Blunt, who has been dead since 1884, not an official and constantly updated prayer book of the Church of England, so that as long as a readily available quote from a more recent edition (1907, or why not 2017!!!) isn't provided, I must conclude that the source has been misquoted and remove it from this context. PS: the editor who introduced the source filled in the author as "|first= England |last= Church of" (or the other way round, whatever), which makes me totally doubt the reliability of this reference. Arminden ( talk) 10:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there a contradiction in the article?
In one place it says: "There is a complete lack of historical evidence for belief in the Assumption in the traditions of the EARLY church.
and a second place it says: "From EARLIEST times there have been two different traditions about the Assumption, the first being that Mary's soul was taken to heaven by Christ after her death her while her body was taken by angels to Paradise (located on Earth) where it would remain until the general resurrection of the dead, while the second held that her soul and her body were reunited, so that Mary is a complete and a perfect person in heaven; the first is broadly the position of Eastern Orthodoxy, while the second is that of the Catholic church." Rafaelosornio ( talk) 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
1) There is a complete lack of historical evidence for belief in the Assumption in the traditions of the early church. (33-325 = 4th century)
2) The Dormition/Assumption of Mary makes its first appearance in two apocryphal texts from the THIRD and fourth centuries.
The Assumption appears in the third or in the fourth century?-- Rafaelosornio ( talk) 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a new contribution by tue user "Oct13" but...
As far as I know in the Catholic Church "Assumption" is not the same that "Ascension"
Was Jesus assumed to heaven? Was Jesus taken to heaven by someone?
In theology, Assumption is when someone is taken to Heaven by someone else. Mary was taken (assumed) into heaven.
Ascension is when someone goes to heaven on their own means. Jesus' Ascension. Rafaelosornio ( talk) 22:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a text that says "while the second held that her soul and her body were reunited, so that Mary is a complete and a perfect person in heaven"
Is this talking about Assumption? The text doesn't mention the Assumption. The article is about Assumption of Mary, right?
I think it needs more references and a better explanation. The part "her soul and her body were reunited" is not about Assumption.-- Rafaelosornio ( talk) 21:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The current definition reads:
The Assumption of Mary into Heaven (often shortened to the Assumption) is, according to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodoxy,[3] among others, the bodily taking up of Mary, the mother of Jesus, into Heaven at the end of her earthly life.
This is unsourced (the numeral 3 refers readers to the 1907 Anglican Book of Common Prayer, but the quoted page doesn't support the statement and the Book of Common Prayer is in any case not a statement of Anglican belief). It is also incorrect: Orthodoxy holds the Dormition, not the Assumption, and the Protestant churches hold the belief to be in error (a few Anglo-Catholics don't alter that). We need an accurate, sourced statement, such as the one from Ford which I provided:
The Assumption of Mary (often shortened to the Assumption) is a dogma of the Catholic Church, proclaimed in 1950 by Pope Pius XII, which states that the Blessed Virgin Mary was "assumed" (meaning taken up) into Heaven, body and soul, on the completion of her earthly life; it does not state whether she died, or whether she went to sleep in the Lord (the latter view is known as the Dormition of Mary).[3]
Achar Sva (
talk)
05:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a new thing to me. I have never heard of the difference between the Eastern Orthodox view and the allegedly Catholic view of what happened to her soul vs. her body. There is no Catholic doctrine about this. It cannot be said to be the "position" of the Catholic Church something which is not declared in the dogma. Beliefs about the details of her body, soul, paradise, the resurrection, etc. These are "pious beliefs" and permitted for the faithful to hold them, but do not rise to the level of doctrine that is taught. You won't find this in the Catechism. Elizium23 ( talk) 03:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The doctrine is: soul and body are together in heaven. This is what all the saved are supposed to get eventually, it is just that Mary, alone, got it first.
The question is: were the soul and body ever separated? Some say yes, some say no. There has never been a definite statement; the Catholic 1950 declaration only states what happened to the body. This only underlines that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven, whether the soul stayed with it (uniquely), or left to be reunited with the body later (as will happen in future with all the saved) is unclear. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:F110:7B50:5361:ED7D ( talk) 17:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, so I noticed that these Catholic articles have combative tones, more or less, and I think the common denominator is @ Achar Sva:. I don't know the background, but I think a more diverse editing team is needed than just a single person. -- 70.24.84.148 ( talk) 05:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Until what century is there no historical evidence?, because of course the assumption of Mary is in history. The Eamon Duffy book says until the fourth century, but the user Achar is removing it at all times.-- Rafaelosornio ( talk) 04:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Rafaelosornio, you are obviously committed to your version of the sentence that's based on page 25 of Shoemaker's 2006 book, so I'll explain why I can't accept it. The page in question is to long to quote in full, but the relevant part says: This earliest evidence for the veneration of Mary appears to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu.
You quote this as it stands, not realising that it's referencing two texts, the "Book of Mary's Repose" and the "Six Books Dormition Apocryphyon" - when in my version I say that "Both appear to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu," this is the "both" I'm talking about - the two texts. In other words, you and I are saying exactly the same thing in different words, but mine, unlike yours, avoids copyvio.
At that point you break my sentence, but don't restore a source - the source is right there, just copy and paste it. Then you say: "This could suggest that the cult of the Virgin had its origins..." etc (the rest of the sentence is identical with mine). This replaces what I had: "...suggesting that the veneration of Mary had its origins..." Of course, "cult" is the word used by Shoemaker, but I changed it to avoid copyvio. Apart from that, I can't see what point you're trying to make, although I can certainly see that your version is stylistically inferior (it's two sentences instead of one and destroys the clear link to the preceding reference to "two aprocryphal texts"). Now please discuss this here before I have to take it to dispute resolution. Achar Sva ( talk) 10:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Achar Sva: I am not very happy about the fact that I (and it seems others) seem to have no say in this. Wikipedia is nothing if not a team effort, and we respect your contributions, but reverting every single edit feels a little disheartening. I spent a good deal of time making sure that I cited sources accurately and gave specific page numbers.
I would appreciate if we could edit this article together, rather than you simply reverting anyone who disagrees.
Thanks -- 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 06:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear @ Achar Sva: I am not sure what I am doing wrong. You keep insisting I call myself a name, which is not required by Wikipedia rules. I am following wiki procedures and you seem to have no regard for it. I did not merely write my opinion. Every single edit was cited and I made sure to leave every one of your edits in. I do not know why there is no possibility of co-operation on this article -- 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 06:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
1) Shoemaker himself takes this to be important to how early the doctrine could have been believed. Also, it is worth noting that the idea that Dormition traditions came before developed assumption is cited by Shoemaker numerous times. This gives the historical perspective and is important as to how early the tradition is.
2) We add names like "Duffy states" when something seems straightforwardly contentious. There is no evidence of any kind is a categorical statement. What counts as evidence is a matter of philosophy. It is not a statement of historical fact (since evidence can be many things). What I would NOT contend is something like this "the evidence is on very shaky grounds" or something like that. It must be noted that this is a conclusion. It is also something that would be challenged, since even the Church as you noted would argue that there is evidence. After all, who are we to say that someone's private revelation does not count as evidence. Sure, it's not something historians would consider GOOD evidence
3) With respect I am not. Shoemaker is careful to avoid the argument from silence, and clarifies that we need to keep in mind just how limited our sources are before making grand statements. This is an important point.
4) You missed one more. I quoted about how nothing in sources contradicts the belief in Assumption.
Thanks 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 07:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
1) Shoemaker's point is that PRIOR to these 5th century texts, we see dormition stories developing special treatment of Mary's death. That's what it adds. It also implicitly brings back the research cited by Shoemaker regarding the alleged development of this doctrine
2) No. It is not contentious to me. It is contentious factually. I have no problem with it staying, but it needs to be clear that this is what ONE, not particularly notable, historian concluded. I have no problem with quoting it.
3) By citing a source that says that it is generally agreed this was unknown in the church, and then not allowing a source that CLARIFIES this and makes it clear that this consensus COULD BE faulty bcs of data, you are committed to the arg from silence.
4) Once again, I was not making an argument. Simply verbatim quoting Shoemaker. In fact, not even a paraphrase. Verbatim quote
65.94.99.123 ( talk) 08:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The question is, which version is better, version 1 or version 2? Or perhaps some middle position?
For the reasons we give for our preferred versions, please see the immediately preceding section. Please note also that the ISP and I are not hostile towards each other.
Achar Sva (
talk)
10:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
(Note: Because the other party is an ISP, I cannot inform him of this, but I understand he follows the page. He might like to add to what I have written above).
References
Note: I do not want this debate to turn about the competence of Achar Sva @ Tgeorgescu:, @ Rafaelosornio:. I fully concede that they seem like a very reasonable and a competent editor. I think that my version is more accurate to the sources, and is able to accommodate all view points referenced. This debate is about how this article should look, not on who is more competent. 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 19:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I have given multiple reasons for thinking that my version is better. 1, like Achar Sva's version, it relies on reputable sources with no original research. It is worded better and accommodates writers' perspectives better, and sounds more neutral and distanced. 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 19:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, @ Tgeorgescu: I would appreciate if you went over the arguments themselves, rather than supporting someone due to prior experience. Thanks 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 19:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Everyone, thanks for your comments, but we're not after support or non-support, we're after comments on what will be best in the article. Achar Sva ( talk) 22:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This entry defines what the term "Assumption of Mary" means, but does not explain its origins or history. Although dogmatically defined in 1950, we know that this ex cathedra statement of Papal infallibility requires that "his teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously." So, where did it really come from originally? Who first spoke of this concept?
The Church repeatedly uses dogmatic declarations to settle spirtitual and loving controversies; these help us to think of Mary: Nicene Creed (Arian controversy), Council of Trent (Protestant controversy), etc. Was there a controversy about Mary's assumption that the Pope settled? The text is really vague: "Theological debate about the assumption continued until 1950 when it was defined as definitive doctrine." Was there particular controversy before 1950 that motivated the promulgation of doctrine? Jonathan Tweet 15:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, Pius's Declaration is given in full twice at the moment; this is, obviously, unnecessary and interrupts the flow of the article. Unless there is some reason currently hidden for this duplication, I will remove it. If I am mistaken, feel free to revert me. Cheers, Lindsay 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made a few changes, including the first sentence of the lead. WP policy states that the lead should start with a sentence including the title name and explaining the notability of the subject. I have added this. It also stresses the fact that this is an ecumenical article on the subject and not only about the Catholic viewpoint. I also added a more comprehensive list of countries celebrating August 15th with a public holiday. Xan dar 23:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm just wondering about this line I found in the first section of this article, "According to Catholic theology, Mary is the pledge of the fulfillment of Christ's promise." Can we get a CITATION NEEDED stamp on that sentence? User:rtadopaw, Andrew B 10:39a PDT, 12 March, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtadopaw ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the Christianity "importance=top" rating.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on the talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). Carlaude: Talk 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This article contains the text "The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary ..." The use of the word "ascension" is at odds with other Christian ideology, in which the only entity to have gone bodily to Heaven under the entity's own power ("ascending" is the English word chosen to refer to that) is Christ. All other entities who went bodily to Heaven did so not by their own propulsive power but, rather, by Heaven's attractive-power, and the English term chosen to refer to that is "being assumed", not "ascending". However, the correction to "assumption" may not be the correct remedy. The text is a quotation from Ludwig Ott. If these are Ott's exact words then a "[sic]" should be added after the word "ascension". If Ott's words are in German then please check and see if a translator, not Ott, made the ascension/assumption mistake. 69.86.126.190 ( talk) 00:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Christopher L. Simpson
There possble could be error in this section, because they episcopal/anglican churches agree with sinlessness of Mary, and with her body and soul being taken into heaven. This is half right and needs to be better researched. They said there is some bibical view within it, but did not say all anglican would agree with it. So this is wrong and please let thrid person view on this topic. I would be wrong, but I think right after reading it.(~~)
Question: In the Episcopal Church, August 15 is observed as the commemoration "Of the Blessed Virgin Mary", and the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic agreed statement on the Virgin Mary assigns a place for both the Dormition and the Assumption in Anglican devotion.
Is there any truth to this ? I have the book on this and I got idal Mary will be view more, but the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are still in limbo for the episcoplian/anglican. Would you agree with my statement or this other person who did on wikipedia? I agree with you.
I'm sure there are a few Anglican congregations celebrating these feasts, but they are not in our official calendar. Faithfully, Clay Morris The Rev. Dr. Clayton L. Morris Office for Liturgy and Music Irishmonk 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I am an Anglican and BOTH holidays are celebrated at my church with the utmost seriousness. After Christological holidays they are the highest ones on the calendar - not mere saint days, something VERY special. I don't know that this is the norm in the communion, but I am sure we are not the only ones who behave in this manner. I will look at the artical and add what I can.- SECisek 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Do Old Catholics, Independent Catholics, Liberal Catholics, the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the African Orthodox Church, the Apostolic Catholic Church, Lusitanian Orthodox Church, Philippine Independent Church, and any other Catholic Churches not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church celebrate the Assumption of Mary? I know that Old Catholics deny Papal Infallibility, but do they also deny the Assumption, or just that it is dogma? I think if any of these churches celebrate the holiday it would be important to include in the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I was raised a Catholic, and I understand the importance of church history and tradition, but how can this dogma exist with zero documentary evidence to support it for over 3 centuries after Jesus's crucifiction? Calling this "dogma" only puts into question the, for me, incontrovertible dogma of Jesus's bodily resurrection. Don't mix up this Assumpton issue with truly fundamental Christian dogma like the resurrection. There is no comparison in terms of textual evidence. Vertex11 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vertex11 ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
I was raised a Catholic too ! and I believe the Holy Mother went up. up, body and Soul to heaven.Never mind Dogma you should Know Mary's Canticle, " My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord. My spirit finds joy in God my savior. For he has looked upon his servant in her lowliness.all ages to come shall call me blessed.God who is mighty has done great things for me,holy is his name,His mercy is from age to age on those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, he has confused in their inmost thoughts . He has disposed the mighty from their thrones and raised the lowly to high places. The hungry he has given every good thing,while the rich he has sent empty away. He has upheld Israel his servant,ever mindful of his mercy: Even as he promised our fathers,promised Abraham and his descendents forever. Luke 1. 40-55 and when our Lady went up I guess she said pray for yourselves ! (four tildes) 65.92.98.29 ( talk) 10:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 15 August, 2011 6:20 a,m,
Hi. I'm a Catholic, but of the more broad-minded variety. The idea behind the proclamation of the dogma by Pius XII was that, since the generality of Catholics believed in the Assumption of Mary since the year dot, they must have believed in something that was passed down by the Apostles of Jesus. There are other reasons behind it too, connected with the idea of the Immaculate Conception, that is, the idea that Mary was preserved from original sin. Original Sin was the cause of death. If Mary did not have original sin, then she could not die. Though she could choose to die, as Jesus did, in imitation of her son, and be resurrected, as he was. Cheers. -- Gazzster 09:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a factual error on this page. The Lutheran Church does not teach or believe in the bodily assumption of Mary. Nor does the Lutheran Church believe that Mary was without sin. Martin Luther stated that Mary was unique because God chose her to give birth to his Son, but in every other way she was just like the rest of us sinners dependent of God's grace. All of the Lutheran Confessional Documents found in the Book of Concord and other historical documents agree on these points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.122.20 ( talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The link referenced by citation #12 is returning error 404 page not found. It links to " http://www.christiantruth.com/assumption.html" It appears the correct web address may be " http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html"? 72.76.134.165 ( talk) 23:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Names of established articles can only be changed with prior discussion - not at the whim of an editor who prefers another name. I have therefore reverted the recent name change. I cannot at present see any justification for the change based on "full title". Anglicanus ( talk) 18:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has fixed this, but the painting by Murillo shown is actually a depiciton of the Immaculate Conception (in the Escorial Palace outside of Madrid) and NOT the Assumption. Generally, in post-Mediæval art, when Mary's hands are crossed on her bosom it is a depiction of the Immaculate Conception; when her arm is extended out or her hands are folded in prayer it is the Assumption. Miguel ( talk) 18:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me why after all the sex abuse cases, the paintings of naked babies everywhere is not politically incorrect? Can't angels be adults? What it the facination with this in the eyes of Catholics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.233 ( talk) 02:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please ask User:Johnbod, for he would know best. Also see Roman Catholic Marian art. History2007 ( talk) 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Miguel is probably right that it is the wrong painting. Please see image above on the right which is the same painting with the Immaculate title. I will use another image now. However, the image above on the left, suggests that the artistic assumption (pun intended) about hands being open or closed is not universally correct. History2007 ( talk) 06:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article state "While Catholic dogma leaves open the question of Mary's death before rising to Heaven"? It is doctrine that Mary died, it is not open for theological debate. From the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary:
It is superficial to claim that the dormition or Assumption are separate doctrines or separate feasts, even if Catholics and Orthodox have different understandings of them. They are the same event and same holy day. If you want to treat them differently, than make one article for Catholics and one for Orthodox about the Assumption. Oct13 ( talk) 23:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaaagh, I saw you edit again. One of these days you need to read up on theology my friend. See:
The only formal dogma in the East Orthdox Church goes back to the Nicene period. So your edit is just confused, mixing Catholic dogma with EO ideas... sigh... History2007 ( talk) 16:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Although Lutherans do not, at least officially, recognize the Assumption, they do celebrate "Mary, Mother of Our Lord" on August 15th.. the same day Catholics celebrate the Assumption. Should this be added to the article? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 03:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The article says that the doctrine spread throughout the church in the 7th century. If this were the case, I'd expect to find that it did not spread to the Nestorians nor the Jacobites who had already separated from the Catholic and Orthodox church. It would be interesting to see some information on Nestorian and Jacobite views of the Dormition, if any such information is available. Rwflammang ( talk) 21:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be a bit odd to think that Mary would have gone to the other place! I thought all good people go to heaven and the rest to the other place. Is the essential difference that she has ascended BODILY as well as spiritually? Maybe someone would like to tackle the making of a simple english version. I see that there isn't one at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntersMoon22 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If Mary's actual physical body was assumed into Heaven, presumably it still exists somewhere, in an actual physical place. Should not this article explain where that place is? Or at least tell us what the Churches' position is on where it is? Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 04:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is the use of "AD" really necessary when discussing a Christian teaching? If so, then it should be used with all the dates mentioned, not just two. Caeruleancentaur ( talk) 08:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Assumption of Mary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted the recent changes and put in a request to have the move reverted. This article is about the concept currently, but a move to Feast of the Assumption makes it about the liturgical event, which would need discussion. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the statement "Dormition of the Theotokos.....is the same as the Assumption" is a POV which is argued against. The Dormition ("Falling Asleep") is the actual death of Mary, whereas the Assumption (Latin "ad sumere", to take to oneself) includes the removal of her body to heaven after she was buried. The distinction is easily appreciated by looking at Jerusalem. The church of Dormition Abbey to the south of the walled city is the traditional site of the Dormition, whereas the Tomb of Mary outside the east gate is that of the Assumption. I've heard a Russian Orthodox archimandrite expound the distinction in an anti-Roman Catholic sermon, carefully and with vigour. [1] Basilwatkinsosb ( talk) 08:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
References
After all, most Western Catholics believe in the Assumption but not the Dormitionis 100% false. The overwhelming consensus within Western Catholic theology is that Mary died. Pius XII simply didn’t define that bit dogmatically. Every secular academic course I’ve taken on the matter considers the two terms to be synonymous in use, with dormition being simply the Eastern equivalent. I’d need time to find the sourcing but the secular religious scholars I’m familiar with view the two as functionally equivalent in terms of how they are used in pratice. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
While it is certainly true that the Assumption is not mentioned in the New Testament canon, I'm not entirely sure this needs to be in the lead. That seems to give undue weight to what is essentially the sola scriptura view of Christian theology: a view which is rejected by the ancient Christian traditions of both the East and the West who profess belief in the Dormition/Assumption. Basically, the scriptural presence of the claimed event isn't really necessary for those who believe in it, and discussing it in the lead presents the entire article in a Protestant framework. It can certainly be mentioned in the body, as it is, but no need to give prominence to it in the lead.
Johnbod, I see that you've been cleaning up some of the other changes on related articles recently, and I'd appreciate your thoughts here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I have reformulated the statement in the lead to read:
"The Christian canonical scriptures contain no explicit narrative about the death or Dormition, nor of the Assumption of Mary, but several scriptural passages have been theologically interpreted to describe the ultimate fate in this and the afterworld of the Mother of Jesus (see below)."
This after Willthacheerleader18 reversed a less carefully worded paragraph on the topic. I want to make sure it's not again being removed, because the number one question in any issue of Christian religion is: how well is it rooted in Scripture? And the Assumption is not present, anywhere, in a straightforward description of events, like in the case of Jesus' birth, baptism, crucifixion, burial, deeds and miracles before and after resurrection etc. There is none. Period. All else is theology, and has many opponents.
Willthacheerleader18's argument that stating this fact openly is "unnecessary and discredits Catholic, Anglican, & Orthodox interpretation of scripture (see scriptural basis section)" is from a different realm than an encyclopedia (and 21st-century internet) altogether. I didn't mock anyone, I just gave the most important bit of info any Christian and non-Christian user would be looking for here, and which was missing. Please make sure it stays in the lead. The wording is not essential, as long as it does not hide the facts. Thanks and cheers, Arminden ( talk) 19:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
... and TonyBallioni has reverted it without reading anything, and all the other small, but useful edits I made along with this main one. Exactly the type of knee-jerk reaction I was afraid of. This is an encyclopedia, not a diplomatic letter to the Vatican's emissary to the jungle. Because the Pope & modern Catholic theologians can easily deal with this fact, and have no need to keep it hidden in paragraph 15 B from the bottom. Arminden ( talk) 19:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
the most important bit of info any Christian and non-Christian user would be looking for here. That assertion in itself is clearly a Protestant assertion as how theology is to be viewed: significantly over 50% of Christians (Catholics and Orthodox Christians)do not view
how well is it rooted in Scripture?as
the number one question in any issue of Christian religion, and claiming so shows the POV behind framing it this way in the lead.NPOV requires that we represent legitimate points of view in the article. It does not mandate that we frame articles on Catholic and Orthodox theological beliefs in a Protestant framework from the very beginning of the article. Please revert until we can get consensus on how to deal with this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
"The Annotated Book of Common Prayer" edition of 1907, offered as a source, is not available online [1]. Only the 1866 edition is fully available, and it contradicts the quote given in the article: here the Falling Asleep is only mentioned in the "Comparative View" on p. [52] as "Eastern", as opposed to the "modern Roman" term "Assumption", so as an Eastern, not Anglican term or feast. [2] The 1872 edition has the same content [3], as apparently do the 1884 and 1892 editions (the last before 1907 offered by Google Books). [4] [5] Even if it is known that it was in the 20th century that some Anglican-Catholic rapprochement has taken place, this is a concrete book published in 1866 or 67 by John Henry Blunt, who has been dead since 1884, not an official and constantly updated prayer book of the Church of England, so that as long as a readily available quote from a more recent edition (1907, or why not 2017!!!) isn't provided, I must conclude that the source has been misquoted and remove it from this context. PS: the editor who introduced the source filled in the author as "|first= England |last= Church of" (or the other way round, whatever), which makes me totally doubt the reliability of this reference. Arminden ( talk) 10:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there a contradiction in the article?
In one place it says: "There is a complete lack of historical evidence for belief in the Assumption in the traditions of the EARLY church.
and a second place it says: "From EARLIEST times there have been two different traditions about the Assumption, the first being that Mary's soul was taken to heaven by Christ after her death her while her body was taken by angels to Paradise (located on Earth) where it would remain until the general resurrection of the dead, while the second held that her soul and her body were reunited, so that Mary is a complete and a perfect person in heaven; the first is broadly the position of Eastern Orthodoxy, while the second is that of the Catholic church." Rafaelosornio ( talk) 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
1) There is a complete lack of historical evidence for belief in the Assumption in the traditions of the early church. (33-325 = 4th century)
2) The Dormition/Assumption of Mary makes its first appearance in two apocryphal texts from the THIRD and fourth centuries.
The Assumption appears in the third or in the fourth century?-- Rafaelosornio ( talk) 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a new contribution by tue user "Oct13" but...
As far as I know in the Catholic Church "Assumption" is not the same that "Ascension"
Was Jesus assumed to heaven? Was Jesus taken to heaven by someone?
In theology, Assumption is when someone is taken to Heaven by someone else. Mary was taken (assumed) into heaven.
Ascension is when someone goes to heaven on their own means. Jesus' Ascension. Rafaelosornio ( talk) 22:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a text that says "while the second held that her soul and her body were reunited, so that Mary is a complete and a perfect person in heaven"
Is this talking about Assumption? The text doesn't mention the Assumption. The article is about Assumption of Mary, right?
I think it needs more references and a better explanation. The part "her soul and her body were reunited" is not about Assumption.-- Rafaelosornio ( talk) 21:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The current definition reads:
The Assumption of Mary into Heaven (often shortened to the Assumption) is, according to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodoxy,[3] among others, the bodily taking up of Mary, the mother of Jesus, into Heaven at the end of her earthly life.
This is unsourced (the numeral 3 refers readers to the 1907 Anglican Book of Common Prayer, but the quoted page doesn't support the statement and the Book of Common Prayer is in any case not a statement of Anglican belief). It is also incorrect: Orthodoxy holds the Dormition, not the Assumption, and the Protestant churches hold the belief to be in error (a few Anglo-Catholics don't alter that). We need an accurate, sourced statement, such as the one from Ford which I provided:
The Assumption of Mary (often shortened to the Assumption) is a dogma of the Catholic Church, proclaimed in 1950 by Pope Pius XII, which states that the Blessed Virgin Mary was "assumed" (meaning taken up) into Heaven, body and soul, on the completion of her earthly life; it does not state whether she died, or whether she went to sleep in the Lord (the latter view is known as the Dormition of Mary).[3]
Achar Sva (
talk)
05:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a new thing to me. I have never heard of the difference between the Eastern Orthodox view and the allegedly Catholic view of what happened to her soul vs. her body. There is no Catholic doctrine about this. It cannot be said to be the "position" of the Catholic Church something which is not declared in the dogma. Beliefs about the details of her body, soul, paradise, the resurrection, etc. These are "pious beliefs" and permitted for the faithful to hold them, but do not rise to the level of doctrine that is taught. You won't find this in the Catechism. Elizium23 ( talk) 03:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The doctrine is: soul and body are together in heaven. This is what all the saved are supposed to get eventually, it is just that Mary, alone, got it first.
The question is: were the soul and body ever separated? Some say yes, some say no. There has never been a definite statement; the Catholic 1950 declaration only states what happened to the body. This only underlines that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven, whether the soul stayed with it (uniquely), or left to be reunited with the body later (as will happen in future with all the saved) is unclear. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:F110:7B50:5361:ED7D ( talk) 17:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, so I noticed that these Catholic articles have combative tones, more or less, and I think the common denominator is @ Achar Sva:. I don't know the background, but I think a more diverse editing team is needed than just a single person. -- 70.24.84.148 ( talk) 05:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Until what century is there no historical evidence?, because of course the assumption of Mary is in history. The Eamon Duffy book says until the fourth century, but the user Achar is removing it at all times.-- Rafaelosornio ( talk) 04:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Rafaelosornio, you are obviously committed to your version of the sentence that's based on page 25 of Shoemaker's 2006 book, so I'll explain why I can't accept it. The page in question is to long to quote in full, but the relevant part says: This earliest evidence for the veneration of Mary appears to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu.
You quote this as it stands, not realising that it's referencing two texts, the "Book of Mary's Repose" and the "Six Books Dormition Apocryphyon" - when in my version I say that "Both appear to come from a markedly heterodox theological milieu," this is the "both" I'm talking about - the two texts. In other words, you and I are saying exactly the same thing in different words, but mine, unlike yours, avoids copyvio.
At that point you break my sentence, but don't restore a source - the source is right there, just copy and paste it. Then you say: "This could suggest that the cult of the Virgin had its origins..." etc (the rest of the sentence is identical with mine). This replaces what I had: "...suggesting that the veneration of Mary had its origins..." Of course, "cult" is the word used by Shoemaker, but I changed it to avoid copyvio. Apart from that, I can't see what point you're trying to make, although I can certainly see that your version is stylistically inferior (it's two sentences instead of one and destroys the clear link to the preceding reference to "two aprocryphal texts"). Now please discuss this here before I have to take it to dispute resolution. Achar Sva ( talk) 10:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Achar Sva: I am not very happy about the fact that I (and it seems others) seem to have no say in this. Wikipedia is nothing if not a team effort, and we respect your contributions, but reverting every single edit feels a little disheartening. I spent a good deal of time making sure that I cited sources accurately and gave specific page numbers.
I would appreciate if we could edit this article together, rather than you simply reverting anyone who disagrees.
Thanks -- 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 06:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear @ Achar Sva: I am not sure what I am doing wrong. You keep insisting I call myself a name, which is not required by Wikipedia rules. I am following wiki procedures and you seem to have no regard for it. I did not merely write my opinion. Every single edit was cited and I made sure to leave every one of your edits in. I do not know why there is no possibility of co-operation on this article -- 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 06:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
1) Shoemaker himself takes this to be important to how early the doctrine could have been believed. Also, it is worth noting that the idea that Dormition traditions came before developed assumption is cited by Shoemaker numerous times. This gives the historical perspective and is important as to how early the tradition is.
2) We add names like "Duffy states" when something seems straightforwardly contentious. There is no evidence of any kind is a categorical statement. What counts as evidence is a matter of philosophy. It is not a statement of historical fact (since evidence can be many things). What I would NOT contend is something like this "the evidence is on very shaky grounds" or something like that. It must be noted that this is a conclusion. It is also something that would be challenged, since even the Church as you noted would argue that there is evidence. After all, who are we to say that someone's private revelation does not count as evidence. Sure, it's not something historians would consider GOOD evidence
3) With respect I am not. Shoemaker is careful to avoid the argument from silence, and clarifies that we need to keep in mind just how limited our sources are before making grand statements. This is an important point.
4) You missed one more. I quoted about how nothing in sources contradicts the belief in Assumption.
Thanks 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 07:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
1) Shoemaker's point is that PRIOR to these 5th century texts, we see dormition stories developing special treatment of Mary's death. That's what it adds. It also implicitly brings back the research cited by Shoemaker regarding the alleged development of this doctrine
2) No. It is not contentious to me. It is contentious factually. I have no problem with it staying, but it needs to be clear that this is what ONE, not particularly notable, historian concluded. I have no problem with quoting it.
3) By citing a source that says that it is generally agreed this was unknown in the church, and then not allowing a source that CLARIFIES this and makes it clear that this consensus COULD BE faulty bcs of data, you are committed to the arg from silence.
4) Once again, I was not making an argument. Simply verbatim quoting Shoemaker. In fact, not even a paraphrase. Verbatim quote
65.94.99.123 ( talk) 08:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The question is, which version is better, version 1 or version 2? Or perhaps some middle position?
For the reasons we give for our preferred versions, please see the immediately preceding section. Please note also that the ISP and I are not hostile towards each other.
Achar Sva (
talk)
10:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
(Note: Because the other party is an ISP, I cannot inform him of this, but I understand he follows the page. He might like to add to what I have written above).
References
Note: I do not want this debate to turn about the competence of Achar Sva @ Tgeorgescu:, @ Rafaelosornio:. I fully concede that they seem like a very reasonable and a competent editor. I think that my version is more accurate to the sources, and is able to accommodate all view points referenced. This debate is about how this article should look, not on who is more competent. 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 19:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I have given multiple reasons for thinking that my version is better. 1, like Achar Sva's version, it relies on reputable sources with no original research. It is worded better and accommodates writers' perspectives better, and sounds more neutral and distanced. 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 19:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, @ Tgeorgescu: I would appreciate if you went over the arguments themselves, rather than supporting someone due to prior experience. Thanks 65.94.99.123 ( talk) 19:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Everyone, thanks for your comments, but we're not after support or non-support, we're after comments on what will be best in the article. Achar Sva ( talk) 22:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)