![]() | Catholic Mariology received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Merge. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
Who was the mother of Mary ?
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as such is not found in the Protevangelium of James such; according to the article, it didn't have its own feast until the 15th century, and certainly wasn't a dogma until the 19th. Wesley 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As well as the Mariology place in Rome, there's a centre in Chicago and Lampeter - could these places be added?-- Anthropax 11:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) The International Marian Research Institute in Dayton, Ohio, is affiliated with the Marianum and is empowered to grant the Licentiate of Sacred Theology (S.T.L.) and the Doctorate of Sacred Theology (S.T.D.) degrees. Samcssr 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)samcssr
An attempt was made to vandalize the redirect page Mariology that links here. There was no vote taken, or no consensus. Many pages already link to Mariology and changing the redirect without votes and consensus amounts to vandalism. History2007 ( talk) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I confirmed with user:Angr who said that he checked Webster's printed (paper edition) dictionary and it states that Mariology is usually capitalized. So I am moving the page title to upper case and I also agree with Angr's suggestion that it best capitalized everywhere. I think if Christology is capitalized, so should Mariology. History2007 ( talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Marian should be capitalized just as Roman is. History2007 ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Re my recent text changes. I do insist that they are necessary. Actually, I only changed one bit as the rest was merely integrating "see also" links into the article. Ideally, there should be no see also list at all.
What I changed was "Unlike most Roman Catholic theology which originates from the upper levels of the Church ..." - this is a questionable, stereotypical presentation of theology. And since it is not concerned with this article's topic - Mariology - I removed it. Str1977 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Question 1: Is most RC theology driven from above or below? History2007 ( talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Clearly we are not going to resolve this issue between the two of us. It is a minor issue anyway: we are talking about "one sentence" here. Possible solution: let us wait and see what other users have to say and it will be decided that way. Else please provide a "middle ground" sentence that saya Mariology is ground up and is different from the usual top down approach and we will settle on a mid-way point. Thanks History2007 ( talk)
There ought to be a biography article or stub on Luciano Alimandi, who is a significant mariologist and monsignor currently writing for Fides in Rome. ADM ( talk) 20:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There are various mariologists that have claimed that Mary has a certain role in the celebration of the liturgy, when she glorifies Her crucified Son in the Blessed Sacrament. It would be interesting if we could have referenced material on this. For instance, there is one marian title called reparatrix, which is used to illustrate Mary's role in the mediation of grace. [1] Another popular title for this is Mother of the Eucharist, which is an extension of the Theotokos doctrine to the eucharistic Jesus. [2]. The name Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament is also used in certain circumstances. [3]. In certain churches, there is a marian altar for specific liturgical feasts. [4] Finally, there is a special narrative on the Michaeljournal website that tries to explain this in detail. [5] ADM ( talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
WP naming conventions do not require "roman" for Catholic as in the article, Catholic Church. I propose to move this article to Catholic Mariology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastmeetsWest ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Catholic and Catholic Church do not need the modifier "Roman," as has been made clear in the change to Catholic Church. If one is to claim ambiguity in a specific instance, he is going to have to make an argument and not just a revert. Make or your case.-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 06:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The article as it stands is fine for both East and West. Catholics of all rites share the same faith, though we practice it through different rites. (Besides, even if there were differences between the beliefs of the rites, this article ought to be called Mariology of the Latin Rite, to avoid the ambiguity of the term "Roman," which might lead some to believe it was referring to the the Catholic Church as a whole. (This is why the term, "Roman" is so inappropriate for Catholics in the first place!). As a Ukrainian Catholic I am well aware that I am Catholic without being Roman.
While there are some differences in the rites and the proper design of churches, Marian doctrine itself is not different. A note could be included that a minority of Eastern Rite Catholics consider some Catholic doctrines to pertain to the West only, though they do not deny these doctrines. Any such material would fit properly in an article on Catholic Mariology.-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
My point is whether there are differences or not, whatever is intended by "Roman Catholic Mariology" is ambiguous. It either refers to the entire Catholic Church or to the Western tradition only. In either case, "Roman" is misleading. --
EastmeetsWest (
talk)
19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course there are countless books, churches, schools, etc. which carry the name RCC. But, they are all Latin Rite references. This is why the article was changed from RCC to CC. See Catholic Church. I would not expect every Westerner, even educated ones, to know this important distinction. But, the term Roman really is a western term.
I will be glad to work on edits with you on the Eastern perspectives on Mary, if you like. Still, the title of the article does need to be changed, especially now that it has Eastern content. thanks. -- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I dont know if you are Catholic or not, but you might be interested in an article on the origins of the term "Roman Catholic." From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Roman Catholic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastmeetsWest ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait a second. I am every bit as Catholic as you, even though I am not a Roman Catholic. I am an Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome. First, you wanted Eastern Catholic material, then you wanted remove that material if it in some way threatened your preference for the term "Roman." Of course, maybe you are really an Anglican, for all I know. Still, the term Roman does not belong to all Catholics in communion with Rome. That is not opinion, that is a fact. There is nothing in my Rite's history that is from Rome. We are a distinct tradition that grew up separately. We have the pope as you do, but we are not Roman Catholic. So, if you are going to write an article on a Catholic topic it must either be about the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church or the entire Catholic Church, but there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic church that includes the East. So, make a choice. Is this about the Latin Rite or the Catholic Church, either way the name must change.--
EastmeetsWest (
talk)
17:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You have accused me of being uncivil in my above comment. Please show me how this is so. At any rate, there is no such article "Roman Catholic" or "Roman Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholicism" to which this article makes reference. So, for consistency's sake, this article's name must be changed to either some form of Catholic or Catholic Church or the Latin Rite, but it should not remain with the present title. -- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been about the title of the article which remains the same. References within the article, however, are a different story. Hostile reversion of good faith edits is uncivil.-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
All of the edits I have made here are good faith edits. They are all consistent with the title of the main article. Please do not revert good faith edits without first discussing them here in talk. Please avoid hostile reverts-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It is inconsistent to claim that RC refers to all Catholics and at the same time use the term to refer to Latin Rite Catholics who disagree with Eastern theology. It makes no sense. In the note on the Dormition of Mary, the term Roman Catholic is used to describe those who disagree with that Eastern doctrine. But, no Eastern Catholics disagree with the Dormition. So, you are therefore using RC to refer to Latins while claiming that it applies to all Catholics. It just simply does not. Please, I am begging you to do some more study on this matter. Eastern Catholics have suffered as much in history from Roman Catholics as we have from the Orthodox. It is a history of centuries of suffering on both sides. Please, please try to understand.-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think it is good to quote what Xandar summarized frrom the page on Catholic Church, namely:
So that discussion was mostly for that page and not subsidiary pages. Hence it is really not a Wikipedia policy at all. Therefore, an attempt to jump from the name change for that page to wide-ranging conclusions is really not logical. Unless you have other reasons, I will have to change those terms and put Roman back on the page again. Cheers. History2007 ( talk)
I think Xandar's other comment on EastWest's talk page was also correct that given that this article contains theological issues sudden changes are not appropriate. This type of sudden change renders content incorrect. I have to revert your changes. Please seek arbitration if you are unhappy. History2007 ( talk) 08:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate for the first image on an article about Roman Catholic Mariology to be an image of a mosaic from an Eastern Orthodox church? Deusveritasest ( talk) 07:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I've read both articles on Mariology, the so-called 'Catholic' one and the so-called 'Christian' one. It seems there is no need for separate articles. This original article, Mariology, already contains Catholic views. This "Catholic" version here seems to have been created for no other reason than to separate out Catholics from "Christians." It appears to be nothing more than a rack to hang POV on. I was going to edit this down and remove some of the claims here which are pushing a "Marian faith" that does not exist. This is typical evangelical language. There is no notability or credible reliable sources that claim "popular demand by Catholics" through this "Marian faith" lead the Vatican to acquiesce and raise Mary's status, or accept the apparitions. That's just pure nonsense.
I'm going to tag this article for merging. In the meantime, I'm going to remove the original, unsourced, research. Malke 2010 ( talk) 05:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The article needs to be careful not to imply that the critique is shared by all feminists. There are also feminists who see catholic mariology to be a redeeming feature of the church that provides an exaple of a strong woman with spiritual seniority. The wording changes are subtle, but they are important to avoid being misleading 121.45.228.201 ( talk) 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
May I also question where the word "liberal" in the "Liberal Views" section came from? According to Google the true definition of liberal is "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." however, many of the views are already centuries old. And with Mariology constantly growing, determining what views are the new non-traditionalist ones seems highly problematic. Add to that that most people will read "liberal" and assume that it refers to a group of political views attributed to the democratic party, and I would think it would be best to rename the section to criticisms. As this appears to be what the section contains, but is missing from the rest of the article. (P.S. I am protestant) 18:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm neither a Catholic or a regular editor, so I thought it would be best to post my observerations rather than try to edit.
The section labelled "Mariology and Christology' is really awkward to read, and hard to understand. Rather than explaining the relationship between Mariology and Christology, it seems to focus on selling readers on the importance and/or validity of Mariology.
Secondly, it contains a lot of "abolute" statements like...
These feel like they should at *least* be prefaced by something like "According to current Catholic doctrine..." or "John Henry Newman has described Mariology as...". I don't think the citing someone making an absolute claim is sufficient reason for wikipedia to make the same claim. This is especially true since the article goes out of its way to describe Mariology as ongoing and evolving, which implies that some of these beliefs have changed over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.243.140.3 ( talk) 13:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The entire article discusses The Roman Catholic view, there's disambiguation links at the top. The lead shouldn't serve to summarize other views, there are other articles for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.151.60 ( talk) 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, the article focuses on the Roman Catholic view Only and therefore the discussion and "bigger picture" discussion, including views from different fields, does not belong in here.
I want the content of this section, that includes different views from that of the Roman Catholic Church, to be moved out from the article since the content simply does not belong into it. I failed, however, to find a suitable Wikipedia tag template as to label the section whilst the discussion lasts. 190.251.151.60 ( talk) 23:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've already created a section for the dogma Mediatrix. Oct13 ( talk) 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. In the meantime, please try this search, specifically the EWTN articles that refers to Mediatrix in general and specifically to L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English 25 June 1997, page 10. Then we will talk in a day or two about it. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 09:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I think you may have noticed that Esoglou edited the Mediatrix page to reflect that it is not a dogma and also commented there to that effect. So given that the Mediatrix page says it is not a dogma, this page can not contradict that one. So can we call this settled based on Esoglou's comment there and move on? Else please discuss with him and finalize on the Mediatrix page, then we will reflect the results here consistently. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestions will be appreciated from Project Catholicism regarding the existence of four or five Marian dogmas based on the discussion above. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No mention of the Rosary is made in this article. Perhaps a new section should be introduced? TopazStar ( talk) 21:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou and myself have been discussing the definition of the term and its scope, and should probably do that here.
Regarding the definition, different sources have different forms, e.g.
Other suggestions from other sources will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 10:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Most of those are good WP:RS sources, and most say almost the same thing. Of the two OSV sources the first is pref. since the 2nd is about saints, the 1950s is too old, and the feminist one will be viewed as less than general. But there is a larger issue which I have now clarified in the Mariolgy article, in the section called Mariology and theology. As Rahner's book says there, there are two approaches to viewing Mariology and theology. So these several sources do not seem to be contradictory, but in some cases have separate perspectives, or two separate camps: one which sees Mariology as totally embedded within formal theology, the other that differs on that. And as explained there, each has its advantages and disadvantages. By the way, Rahner's book even separates "Biblical Mariology" from "Theological Mariology" and treats them separately.
Anyway, regarding the definition, the best thing would be to get a couple of sources from each camp and present the overall view as such. I think the 4 good sources would be:
So the long and short of it is that Mariology is "the study of Mary" and some see it as a general/systematic study that may go beyond a pure embedding in theology, others see it as an island within theology. And both perspectives need to be represented here. In particular the issue of the history of Marian devotions comes into play. Is that study part of Mariology? The two books we discussed below both seem to think so, while others just look at the theological angle. But to cover all aspects they need to be mentioned. As stated before a "specific devotion" is not Mariology in itself, but how the devotions grew, what the popes said about them, what the saints such as Kolbe wrote is part of the study of Mary, and hence part of Mariology as the breadth of the coverage in books indicate. Anyway, I think the definition of the term should be based on the 4 sources above. History2007 ( talk) 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have come back after just over a week and found that I had not been clear enough. I never doubted that, in answer to the claim that, because Christ as a human being cannot be better than he is, and because created happiness as the highest cannot be better that it is, and because Mary as raised above the angels cannot be better than she is, it follows that God cannot make all things better than He has made them, Aquinas responded by saying that it is because of their association with God that Christ's humanity, created happiness and Mary all have "a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God". What I question is the claim that it is on this remark of Aquinas that Roman Catholic teachings on Mary (and for that matter Roman Catholic teachings on Christ and Roman Catholic teachings on eternal happiness) are based. As far as I know, the sources now cited in support of that claim do not in fact support it. The only one of which I am not sure is the second, since I have no access to page 122 of that book by Haffner. When I first expressed my doubt about the claim, the source cited was a book by Pohle to which, as I said, I had no access; the Aquinas citation was given only as a "cf." By the way, I suppose that the Second Vatican Council may perhaps have been echoing the remark of Aquinas when, instead of saying this remark was the basis of Roman Catholic teaching on Mary, it exhorted "theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God" ( Lumen gentium, 67 - emphasis added).
The article has been improved while I was away and I appreciate that. But (among other things) it still claims that (Roman Catholic) Mariology "includes" Marian piety rather than "studies", "examines", "evaluates" Marian piety, some forms of which it may judge to be "exaggerated Marian piety" ( Nichols), Marthaler). I presume you fully agree that, "when separated from mainstream Catholicism, popular movements can emerge in a teaching vacuum with sometimes distorted and exaggerated understandings of Mary" ( Souza/Durka), and that some devotions can at times nourish in the faithful "superficial spiritual emotion, leading them to exaggeration and extremism and veiling the true reality of the face of Mary" ( Gemayel). In other words, as the Second Vatican Council said, there are forms of Marian piety that Roman Catholic Mariology has to qualify as "gross exaggerations", while of course also decrying "petty narrow-mindedness".
I had better withdraw now for another week as a remedy or partial remedy for any high temperature. Esoglou ( talk) 14:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw the self-published tags on this book. This book is neither self-published, nor by a single author. It is a totally WP:RS source in the study of Mary.
The book's chapters are by respected scholars such as
And the list goes, on and on... And note that the book bears the imprimatur of Raymond Leo Burke, and the nihil obstat from Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, effectively reducing any chances that it includes significant errors in the presentation of Catholic teachings.
These are highly respected theologians and WP:RS authors in the Roman Catholic context. I see no reason for the rejection of their work as self-published drivel, if that is the implication of those tags. History2007 ( talk) 11:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
But I am again seeing a discussion of the second book. Let us discuss these one step at a time to avoid confusion. We can go over to WP:RSN again and spend time explaining it, but this should be easy to answer here:
Those answers will show that the book is published by Queenship. I am 100% certain that WP:RSN will confirm that the book is published by Queenship Press, but for the life of me can not even understand why we are debating it at such a length. The physical book says Queenship Press, and the ISBN is theirs. And let us only discuss this book for now to determine its publisher. So again:
Answer these in yes/no terms, before we go and waste time on WP:RSN now. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 16:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
In any case, the issue was discussed on WP:RSN and the conclusion was that the two books are not self published, and that the chapters in the first book are WP:RS given that they are by respected scholars.
Now about the 2nd book: Introduction to Mary, ISBN 1882972066. The book bears the imprimatur of Bishop Gilbert Sheldon, and the nihil obstat of Fr. James Dunfee ( Censor Librorum) and is hence reliable with respect to Roman Catholic teachings. Moreover, in the preface to the book, Cardinal Edouard Gagnon states (page 1 of the book), that Mark Miravalle is "internationally renowned for his unquestioned fidelity to the Church's Magisterium and for his outstanding schoalrship". On page 2, Gagnon states: "You can rest assured that the Mariology contained in his excellent work, Introduction to Mary, is a true and faithful summary of Catholic teachings on the Mother of the Lord". Hence I think it is clear that the book is totally WP:RS with respect to Roman Catholic Mariology. So I think we can assume this discussion has concluded. History2007 ( talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
In the Christology article it would be totally incongruous to give as the lone example of Catholic teaching on Christ Aquinas's remark that "the humanity of Christ, from the fact that it is united to the Godhead, has a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God." Within the same remark, Aquinas added that "the Blessed Virgin, from the fact that she is the mother of God, has a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God", something that seems not to have been utilized in official teaching of Catholic Church until the second half of the twentieth century. Yet our article on Roman Catholic Mariology opens by giving as the lone example of Catholic teaching on Mary the belief that she has a "certain infinite dignity from the infinite good which is God". Is that appropriate? Esoglou ( talk) 08:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we are discussing details and terminology really; and I do not see a big deal here. The situation as I see it is that:
So let me look for other wordings and refs in a day or two and we should be able to resolve that I think, for it does not seem to be a big deal. History2007 ( talk) 01:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The article's hatnote declares that the article excludes from its consideration of Roman Catholic Mariology the perspectives of Eastern Catholics and of unspecified other segments of the Catholic Church. Since the only other segment is the Latin Church, the hatnote seems to exclude all segments of the Catholic Church. So whose perspectives does it consider to be Roman Catholic Mariology?
The hatnote attaches to "Roman Catholic" the wikilink, Roman Catholic (term), essentially a disambiguation page that indicates different senses in which people use the term "Roman Catholic". The central authorities of the Church use the term to refer to the Church itself, including all its members, Eastern and Western. Some others use it to mean the Latin Church, a sense in which the Church itself never uses it. If this unofficial usage is what the hatnote means, it should say so. However, forcing an unofficial usage on an article on Roman Catholic Mariology would be controversial. It would also be very strange. In expounding the Roman Catholic Church's Mariological teaching, the Bishops of Rome draw perhaps more on Eastern than on Western (Latin) Christianity. At the very least, they have not excluded Eastern Christianity, either from the sources they draw on or from the faithful that their Mariological teaching is intended for. Surely nobody wants to exclude papal teaching from consideration of Roman Catholic Mariology!
If a disambiguating hatnote is needed (which I strongly doubt), it would be better to restore
Esoglou ( talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"In a broad context, Mariology may be seen as the study of devotion to and thinking about Mary throughout the history of Christianity" (second sentence of the article). The context indicated in the cited source seems to be that of social history. So shouldn't that read: "In the context of social history, Mariology may be seen as …"? I don't have access to the book and so cannot judge whether the context into which it puts Mariology is a broad one or one confined specifically to social history.
This sentence in the article also seems to be about Mariology in general ("throughout the history of Christianity"), not about Roman Catholic Mariology. But that is scarcely worth discussing. Esoglou ( talk) 07:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I see that a lot of work has been done on the article in the last week. I have had only one more comment to make on the lead. (Well, I did wonder whether to comment on a doubt whether the phrase "alliance of the sacred hearts" was really as notable as it is presented - considering also that there are proponents of a feast of "the Three Sacred Hearts" - but it is doubtless very difficult to weigh the significance of the use of such a phrase.) My only further comment on the lead is just about an inexact quotation.
The lead says that Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI stated: "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to the truth about Jesus Christ". What he said (when he was not Pope Benedict XVI but Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) was: "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to that 'truth about Jesus Christ', 'truth about the Church', and 'truth about man' that John Paul II proposed as a program to the whole of Christianity when, in 1979, he opened the Latin American episcopal conference in Puebla. The bishops responded to the Pope's proposal by including in the first documents (the very ones that have been read only incompletely by some) their unanimous wish and concern: 'Mary must be more than ever the pedagogy, in order to proclaim the Gospel to the men of today.' Precisely in that continent where the traditional Marian piety of the people is in decline, the resultant void is being filled by political ideologies. It is a phenomenon that can be noted almost everywhere to a certain degree, confirming the importance of that piety which is no mere piety.".
That's all. Esoglou ( talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Catholic Mariology. It has been established that "Catholic" in most contexts refers to "Roman Catholic" and a strong case hasn't been made why this article should be an exception from WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY. As for upper- vs. lower-case Mariology, it does seem that the uppercase dominates in RS, (being derived from Mary, although it's an open point). History of Catholic Mariology thus also moved to uppercase for consistency. No such user ( talk) 09:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Mariology of the Catholic Church →
Catholic Mariology – As proposed above.
WP:CONCISE, per
WP:CONSISTENCY with
History of Catholic mariology, and all other equivalent articles in
Category:Catholic theology and doctrine that I could thing of, such as
Catholic theology,
Catholic moral theology,
Catholic ecclesiology, etc.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
07:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
My recent edit to the effect that the Church formulated the doctrine of the Theotokos before it did that of the perpetual virginity was reverted with the note that the reverter found this a dubious idea. Theotokos was adopted at Chalcedon in 451, PV was not fully formulated until the Lateran Synod in 649, which was the first occasion on which all three elements were laid out. I'm curious to know why this is considered dubious. Achar Sva ( talk) 22:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Catholic Mariology received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Merge. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
Who was the mother of Mary ?
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as such is not found in the Protevangelium of James such; according to the article, it didn't have its own feast until the 15th century, and certainly wasn't a dogma until the 19th. Wesley 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As well as the Mariology place in Rome, there's a centre in Chicago and Lampeter - could these places be added?-- Anthropax 11:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) The International Marian Research Institute in Dayton, Ohio, is affiliated with the Marianum and is empowered to grant the Licentiate of Sacred Theology (S.T.L.) and the Doctorate of Sacred Theology (S.T.D.) degrees. Samcssr 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)samcssr
An attempt was made to vandalize the redirect page Mariology that links here. There was no vote taken, or no consensus. Many pages already link to Mariology and changing the redirect without votes and consensus amounts to vandalism. History2007 ( talk) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I confirmed with user:Angr who said that he checked Webster's printed (paper edition) dictionary and it states that Mariology is usually capitalized. So I am moving the page title to upper case and I also agree with Angr's suggestion that it best capitalized everywhere. I think if Christology is capitalized, so should Mariology. History2007 ( talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Marian should be capitalized just as Roman is. History2007 ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Re my recent text changes. I do insist that they are necessary. Actually, I only changed one bit as the rest was merely integrating "see also" links into the article. Ideally, there should be no see also list at all.
What I changed was "Unlike most Roman Catholic theology which originates from the upper levels of the Church ..." - this is a questionable, stereotypical presentation of theology. And since it is not concerned with this article's topic - Mariology - I removed it. Str1977 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Question 1: Is most RC theology driven from above or below? History2007 ( talk) 20:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Clearly we are not going to resolve this issue between the two of us. It is a minor issue anyway: we are talking about "one sentence" here. Possible solution: let us wait and see what other users have to say and it will be decided that way. Else please provide a "middle ground" sentence that saya Mariology is ground up and is different from the usual top down approach and we will settle on a mid-way point. Thanks History2007 ( talk)
There ought to be a biography article or stub on Luciano Alimandi, who is a significant mariologist and monsignor currently writing for Fides in Rome. ADM ( talk) 20:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There are various mariologists that have claimed that Mary has a certain role in the celebration of the liturgy, when she glorifies Her crucified Son in the Blessed Sacrament. It would be interesting if we could have referenced material on this. For instance, there is one marian title called reparatrix, which is used to illustrate Mary's role in the mediation of grace. [1] Another popular title for this is Mother of the Eucharist, which is an extension of the Theotokos doctrine to the eucharistic Jesus. [2]. The name Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament is also used in certain circumstances. [3]. In certain churches, there is a marian altar for specific liturgical feasts. [4] Finally, there is a special narrative on the Michaeljournal website that tries to explain this in detail. [5] ADM ( talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
WP naming conventions do not require "roman" for Catholic as in the article, Catholic Church. I propose to move this article to Catholic Mariology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastmeetsWest ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Catholic and Catholic Church do not need the modifier "Roman," as has been made clear in the change to Catholic Church. If one is to claim ambiguity in a specific instance, he is going to have to make an argument and not just a revert. Make or your case.-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 06:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The article as it stands is fine for both East and West. Catholics of all rites share the same faith, though we practice it through different rites. (Besides, even if there were differences between the beliefs of the rites, this article ought to be called Mariology of the Latin Rite, to avoid the ambiguity of the term "Roman," which might lead some to believe it was referring to the the Catholic Church as a whole. (This is why the term, "Roman" is so inappropriate for Catholics in the first place!). As a Ukrainian Catholic I am well aware that I am Catholic without being Roman.
While there are some differences in the rites and the proper design of churches, Marian doctrine itself is not different. A note could be included that a minority of Eastern Rite Catholics consider some Catholic doctrines to pertain to the West only, though they do not deny these doctrines. Any such material would fit properly in an article on Catholic Mariology.-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
My point is whether there are differences or not, whatever is intended by "Roman Catholic Mariology" is ambiguous. It either refers to the entire Catholic Church or to the Western tradition only. In either case, "Roman" is misleading. --
EastmeetsWest (
talk)
19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course there are countless books, churches, schools, etc. which carry the name RCC. But, they are all Latin Rite references. This is why the article was changed from RCC to CC. See Catholic Church. I would not expect every Westerner, even educated ones, to know this important distinction. But, the term Roman really is a western term.
I will be glad to work on edits with you on the Eastern perspectives on Mary, if you like. Still, the title of the article does need to be changed, especially now that it has Eastern content. thanks. -- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I dont know if you are Catholic or not, but you might be interested in an article on the origins of the term "Roman Catholic." From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Roman Catholic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastmeetsWest ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait a second. I am every bit as Catholic as you, even though I am not a Roman Catholic. I am an Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome. First, you wanted Eastern Catholic material, then you wanted remove that material if it in some way threatened your preference for the term "Roman." Of course, maybe you are really an Anglican, for all I know. Still, the term Roman does not belong to all Catholics in communion with Rome. That is not opinion, that is a fact. There is nothing in my Rite's history that is from Rome. We are a distinct tradition that grew up separately. We have the pope as you do, but we are not Roman Catholic. So, if you are going to write an article on a Catholic topic it must either be about the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church or the entire Catholic Church, but there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic church that includes the East. So, make a choice. Is this about the Latin Rite or the Catholic Church, either way the name must change.--
EastmeetsWest (
talk)
17:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You have accused me of being uncivil in my above comment. Please show me how this is so. At any rate, there is no such article "Roman Catholic" or "Roman Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholicism" to which this article makes reference. So, for consistency's sake, this article's name must be changed to either some form of Catholic or Catholic Church or the Latin Rite, but it should not remain with the present title. -- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been about the title of the article which remains the same. References within the article, however, are a different story. Hostile reversion of good faith edits is uncivil.-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
All of the edits I have made here are good faith edits. They are all consistent with the title of the main article. Please do not revert good faith edits without first discussing them here in talk. Please avoid hostile reverts-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It is inconsistent to claim that RC refers to all Catholics and at the same time use the term to refer to Latin Rite Catholics who disagree with Eastern theology. It makes no sense. In the note on the Dormition of Mary, the term Roman Catholic is used to describe those who disagree with that Eastern doctrine. But, no Eastern Catholics disagree with the Dormition. So, you are therefore using RC to refer to Latins while claiming that it applies to all Catholics. It just simply does not. Please, I am begging you to do some more study on this matter. Eastern Catholics have suffered as much in history from Roman Catholics as we have from the Orthodox. It is a history of centuries of suffering on both sides. Please, please try to understand.-- EastmeetsWest ( talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think it is good to quote what Xandar summarized frrom the page on Catholic Church, namely:
So that discussion was mostly for that page and not subsidiary pages. Hence it is really not a Wikipedia policy at all. Therefore, an attempt to jump from the name change for that page to wide-ranging conclusions is really not logical. Unless you have other reasons, I will have to change those terms and put Roman back on the page again. Cheers. History2007 ( talk)
I think Xandar's other comment on EastWest's talk page was also correct that given that this article contains theological issues sudden changes are not appropriate. This type of sudden change renders content incorrect. I have to revert your changes. Please seek arbitration if you are unhappy. History2007 ( talk) 08:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate for the first image on an article about Roman Catholic Mariology to be an image of a mosaic from an Eastern Orthodox church? Deusveritasest ( talk) 07:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I've read both articles on Mariology, the so-called 'Catholic' one and the so-called 'Christian' one. It seems there is no need for separate articles. This original article, Mariology, already contains Catholic views. This "Catholic" version here seems to have been created for no other reason than to separate out Catholics from "Christians." It appears to be nothing more than a rack to hang POV on. I was going to edit this down and remove some of the claims here which are pushing a "Marian faith" that does not exist. This is typical evangelical language. There is no notability or credible reliable sources that claim "popular demand by Catholics" through this "Marian faith" lead the Vatican to acquiesce and raise Mary's status, or accept the apparitions. That's just pure nonsense.
I'm going to tag this article for merging. In the meantime, I'm going to remove the original, unsourced, research. Malke 2010 ( talk) 05:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The article needs to be careful not to imply that the critique is shared by all feminists. There are also feminists who see catholic mariology to be a redeeming feature of the church that provides an exaple of a strong woman with spiritual seniority. The wording changes are subtle, but they are important to avoid being misleading 121.45.228.201 ( talk) 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
May I also question where the word "liberal" in the "Liberal Views" section came from? According to Google the true definition of liberal is "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." however, many of the views are already centuries old. And with Mariology constantly growing, determining what views are the new non-traditionalist ones seems highly problematic. Add to that that most people will read "liberal" and assume that it refers to a group of political views attributed to the democratic party, and I would think it would be best to rename the section to criticisms. As this appears to be what the section contains, but is missing from the rest of the article. (P.S. I am protestant) 18:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm neither a Catholic or a regular editor, so I thought it would be best to post my observerations rather than try to edit.
The section labelled "Mariology and Christology' is really awkward to read, and hard to understand. Rather than explaining the relationship between Mariology and Christology, it seems to focus on selling readers on the importance and/or validity of Mariology.
Secondly, it contains a lot of "abolute" statements like...
These feel like they should at *least* be prefaced by something like "According to current Catholic doctrine..." or "John Henry Newman has described Mariology as...". I don't think the citing someone making an absolute claim is sufficient reason for wikipedia to make the same claim. This is especially true since the article goes out of its way to describe Mariology as ongoing and evolving, which implies that some of these beliefs have changed over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.243.140.3 ( talk) 13:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The entire article discusses The Roman Catholic view, there's disambiguation links at the top. The lead shouldn't serve to summarize other views, there are other articles for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.151.60 ( talk) 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, the article focuses on the Roman Catholic view Only and therefore the discussion and "bigger picture" discussion, including views from different fields, does not belong in here.
I want the content of this section, that includes different views from that of the Roman Catholic Church, to be moved out from the article since the content simply does not belong into it. I failed, however, to find a suitable Wikipedia tag template as to label the section whilst the discussion lasts. 190.251.151.60 ( talk) 23:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've already created a section for the dogma Mediatrix. Oct13 ( talk) 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. In the meantime, please try this search, specifically the EWTN articles that refers to Mediatrix in general and specifically to L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English 25 June 1997, page 10. Then we will talk in a day or two about it. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 09:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I think you may have noticed that Esoglou edited the Mediatrix page to reflect that it is not a dogma and also commented there to that effect. So given that the Mediatrix page says it is not a dogma, this page can not contradict that one. So can we call this settled based on Esoglou's comment there and move on? Else please discuss with him and finalize on the Mediatrix page, then we will reflect the results here consistently. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestions will be appreciated from Project Catholicism regarding the existence of four or five Marian dogmas based on the discussion above. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No mention of the Rosary is made in this article. Perhaps a new section should be introduced? TopazStar ( talk) 21:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou and myself have been discussing the definition of the term and its scope, and should probably do that here.
Regarding the definition, different sources have different forms, e.g.
Other suggestions from other sources will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 10:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Most of those are good WP:RS sources, and most say almost the same thing. Of the two OSV sources the first is pref. since the 2nd is about saints, the 1950s is too old, and the feminist one will be viewed as less than general. But there is a larger issue which I have now clarified in the Mariolgy article, in the section called Mariology and theology. As Rahner's book says there, there are two approaches to viewing Mariology and theology. So these several sources do not seem to be contradictory, but in some cases have separate perspectives, or two separate camps: one which sees Mariology as totally embedded within formal theology, the other that differs on that. And as explained there, each has its advantages and disadvantages. By the way, Rahner's book even separates "Biblical Mariology" from "Theological Mariology" and treats them separately.
Anyway, regarding the definition, the best thing would be to get a couple of sources from each camp and present the overall view as such. I think the 4 good sources would be:
So the long and short of it is that Mariology is "the study of Mary" and some see it as a general/systematic study that may go beyond a pure embedding in theology, others see it as an island within theology. And both perspectives need to be represented here. In particular the issue of the history of Marian devotions comes into play. Is that study part of Mariology? The two books we discussed below both seem to think so, while others just look at the theological angle. But to cover all aspects they need to be mentioned. As stated before a "specific devotion" is not Mariology in itself, but how the devotions grew, what the popes said about them, what the saints such as Kolbe wrote is part of the study of Mary, and hence part of Mariology as the breadth of the coverage in books indicate. Anyway, I think the definition of the term should be based on the 4 sources above. History2007 ( talk) 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have come back after just over a week and found that I had not been clear enough. I never doubted that, in answer to the claim that, because Christ as a human being cannot be better than he is, and because created happiness as the highest cannot be better that it is, and because Mary as raised above the angels cannot be better than she is, it follows that God cannot make all things better than He has made them, Aquinas responded by saying that it is because of their association with God that Christ's humanity, created happiness and Mary all have "a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God". What I question is the claim that it is on this remark of Aquinas that Roman Catholic teachings on Mary (and for that matter Roman Catholic teachings on Christ and Roman Catholic teachings on eternal happiness) are based. As far as I know, the sources now cited in support of that claim do not in fact support it. The only one of which I am not sure is the second, since I have no access to page 122 of that book by Haffner. When I first expressed my doubt about the claim, the source cited was a book by Pohle to which, as I said, I had no access; the Aquinas citation was given only as a "cf." By the way, I suppose that the Second Vatican Council may perhaps have been echoing the remark of Aquinas when, instead of saying this remark was the basis of Roman Catholic teaching on Mary, it exhorted "theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God" ( Lumen gentium, 67 - emphasis added).
The article has been improved while I was away and I appreciate that. But (among other things) it still claims that (Roman Catholic) Mariology "includes" Marian piety rather than "studies", "examines", "evaluates" Marian piety, some forms of which it may judge to be "exaggerated Marian piety" ( Nichols), Marthaler). I presume you fully agree that, "when separated from mainstream Catholicism, popular movements can emerge in a teaching vacuum with sometimes distorted and exaggerated understandings of Mary" ( Souza/Durka), and that some devotions can at times nourish in the faithful "superficial spiritual emotion, leading them to exaggeration and extremism and veiling the true reality of the face of Mary" ( Gemayel). In other words, as the Second Vatican Council said, there are forms of Marian piety that Roman Catholic Mariology has to qualify as "gross exaggerations", while of course also decrying "petty narrow-mindedness".
I had better withdraw now for another week as a remedy or partial remedy for any high temperature. Esoglou ( talk) 14:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw the self-published tags on this book. This book is neither self-published, nor by a single author. It is a totally WP:RS source in the study of Mary.
The book's chapters are by respected scholars such as
And the list goes, on and on... And note that the book bears the imprimatur of Raymond Leo Burke, and the nihil obstat from Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, effectively reducing any chances that it includes significant errors in the presentation of Catholic teachings.
These are highly respected theologians and WP:RS authors in the Roman Catholic context. I see no reason for the rejection of their work as self-published drivel, if that is the implication of those tags. History2007 ( talk) 11:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
But I am again seeing a discussion of the second book. Let us discuss these one step at a time to avoid confusion. We can go over to WP:RSN again and spend time explaining it, but this should be easy to answer here:
Those answers will show that the book is published by Queenship. I am 100% certain that WP:RSN will confirm that the book is published by Queenship Press, but for the life of me can not even understand why we are debating it at such a length. The physical book says Queenship Press, and the ISBN is theirs. And let us only discuss this book for now to determine its publisher. So again:
Answer these in yes/no terms, before we go and waste time on WP:RSN now. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 16:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
In any case, the issue was discussed on WP:RSN and the conclusion was that the two books are not self published, and that the chapters in the first book are WP:RS given that they are by respected scholars.
Now about the 2nd book: Introduction to Mary, ISBN 1882972066. The book bears the imprimatur of Bishop Gilbert Sheldon, and the nihil obstat of Fr. James Dunfee ( Censor Librorum) and is hence reliable with respect to Roman Catholic teachings. Moreover, in the preface to the book, Cardinal Edouard Gagnon states (page 1 of the book), that Mark Miravalle is "internationally renowned for his unquestioned fidelity to the Church's Magisterium and for his outstanding schoalrship". On page 2, Gagnon states: "You can rest assured that the Mariology contained in his excellent work, Introduction to Mary, is a true and faithful summary of Catholic teachings on the Mother of the Lord". Hence I think it is clear that the book is totally WP:RS with respect to Roman Catholic Mariology. So I think we can assume this discussion has concluded. History2007 ( talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
In the Christology article it would be totally incongruous to give as the lone example of Catholic teaching on Christ Aquinas's remark that "the humanity of Christ, from the fact that it is united to the Godhead, has a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God." Within the same remark, Aquinas added that "the Blessed Virgin, from the fact that she is the mother of God, has a certain infinite dignity from the infinite good, which is God", something that seems not to have been utilized in official teaching of Catholic Church until the second half of the twentieth century. Yet our article on Roman Catholic Mariology opens by giving as the lone example of Catholic teaching on Mary the belief that she has a "certain infinite dignity from the infinite good which is God". Is that appropriate? Esoglou ( talk) 08:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we are discussing details and terminology really; and I do not see a big deal here. The situation as I see it is that:
So let me look for other wordings and refs in a day or two and we should be able to resolve that I think, for it does not seem to be a big deal. History2007 ( talk) 01:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The article's hatnote declares that the article excludes from its consideration of Roman Catholic Mariology the perspectives of Eastern Catholics and of unspecified other segments of the Catholic Church. Since the only other segment is the Latin Church, the hatnote seems to exclude all segments of the Catholic Church. So whose perspectives does it consider to be Roman Catholic Mariology?
The hatnote attaches to "Roman Catholic" the wikilink, Roman Catholic (term), essentially a disambiguation page that indicates different senses in which people use the term "Roman Catholic". The central authorities of the Church use the term to refer to the Church itself, including all its members, Eastern and Western. Some others use it to mean the Latin Church, a sense in which the Church itself never uses it. If this unofficial usage is what the hatnote means, it should say so. However, forcing an unofficial usage on an article on Roman Catholic Mariology would be controversial. It would also be very strange. In expounding the Roman Catholic Church's Mariological teaching, the Bishops of Rome draw perhaps more on Eastern than on Western (Latin) Christianity. At the very least, they have not excluded Eastern Christianity, either from the sources they draw on or from the faithful that their Mariological teaching is intended for. Surely nobody wants to exclude papal teaching from consideration of Roman Catholic Mariology!
If a disambiguating hatnote is needed (which I strongly doubt), it would be better to restore
Esoglou ( talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"In a broad context, Mariology may be seen as the study of devotion to and thinking about Mary throughout the history of Christianity" (second sentence of the article). The context indicated in the cited source seems to be that of social history. So shouldn't that read: "In the context of social history, Mariology may be seen as …"? I don't have access to the book and so cannot judge whether the context into which it puts Mariology is a broad one or one confined specifically to social history.
This sentence in the article also seems to be about Mariology in general ("throughout the history of Christianity"), not about Roman Catholic Mariology. But that is scarcely worth discussing. Esoglou ( talk) 07:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I see that a lot of work has been done on the article in the last week. I have had only one more comment to make on the lead. (Well, I did wonder whether to comment on a doubt whether the phrase "alliance of the sacred hearts" was really as notable as it is presented - considering also that there are proponents of a feast of "the Three Sacred Hearts" - but it is doubtless very difficult to weigh the significance of the use of such a phrase.) My only further comment on the lead is just about an inexact quotation.
The lead says that Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI stated: "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to the truth about Jesus Christ". What he said (when he was not Pope Benedict XVI but Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) was: "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to that 'truth about Jesus Christ', 'truth about the Church', and 'truth about man' that John Paul II proposed as a program to the whole of Christianity when, in 1979, he opened the Latin American episcopal conference in Puebla. The bishops responded to the Pope's proposal by including in the first documents (the very ones that have been read only incompletely by some) their unanimous wish and concern: 'Mary must be more than ever the pedagogy, in order to proclaim the Gospel to the men of today.' Precisely in that continent where the traditional Marian piety of the people is in decline, the resultant void is being filled by political ideologies. It is a phenomenon that can be noted almost everywhere to a certain degree, confirming the importance of that piety which is no mere piety.".
That's all. Esoglou ( talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Catholic Mariology. It has been established that "Catholic" in most contexts refers to "Roman Catholic" and a strong case hasn't been made why this article should be an exception from WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY. As for upper- vs. lower-case Mariology, it does seem that the uppercase dominates in RS, (being derived from Mary, although it's an open point). History of Catholic Mariology thus also moved to uppercase for consistency. No such user ( talk) 09:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Mariology of the Catholic Church →
Catholic Mariology – As proposed above.
WP:CONCISE, per
WP:CONSISTENCY with
History of Catholic mariology, and all other equivalent articles in
Category:Catholic theology and doctrine that I could thing of, such as
Catholic theology,
Catholic moral theology,
Catholic ecclesiology, etc.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
07:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
My recent edit to the effect that the Church formulated the doctrine of the Theotokos before it did that of the perpetual virginity was reverted with the note that the reverter found this a dubious idea. Theotokos was adopted at Chalcedon in 451, PV was not fully formulated until the Lateran Synod in 649, which was the first occasion on which all three elements were laid out. I'm curious to know why this is considered dubious. Achar Sva ( talk) 22:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)