Talk:Écône consecrations

message: Links to two sources are broken. These are #26 and #27. The fragment: "In line with general canonical opinion,[26] the Holy See holds that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act,[27] but not that he created a schismatic Church."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:9B43:3A00:54C7:985C:F57A:BE96 (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken links

message: We need to include criticism from reliable sources in the Lifting of excommunications section. --Loremaster (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally found the time to add the criticism I wanted. --Loremaster (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Lifting Needed 

message: Funny that "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent the following telegram" and "Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunications of four bishops" are the same person. Shouldn't the article mention this? Debresser (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. --Loremaster (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does here:  "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy See engaged in dialogue, and, on 5 May 1988, Lefebvre and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) signed the text of an agreement..." Afalbrig (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The same one 

message: "The historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. I believe there were no gas chambers..."   - Bishop Richard Williamson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.199.162 (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be and has been included as criticism in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the Allegations of Anti-Semitism of the individuals Involved?

message: The following is unclear: "violation of this rule has since 1951 entailed automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Holy See both for the consecrator and for the recipient of the consecration"  What does it mean for the excommunication to be both automatic and reserved? -ErinHowarth (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  reserved 

message: I find it rather odd that the controversy of this event is simply given a two-sentence explanation at the VERY end of the article:
The controversy is not grounded in the lack of papal consent for the original decision, but because the bishops were anti-Semitic and defied the rules of the Church (as far as I know).  If the bishops were simply tossed for some irrelevant reason, or something stupid and then reinstated, nobody would have cared, at least, not to this same degree. 
I ask that we encooperate the anti-semitic aspect, and not dump it at the bottom of the page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wikifan12345 that a mention of the controversy shoud be incorporated in the lead section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree; although, I don't think the original consecrations had anything to do with anti-Semitism. I think the original break had a lot more to do with ecumenism; however, the current controversy regarding the lifting of the excommunications seems to be all about anti-Semitism.-ErinHowarth (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, there is more to the controversy than simply anti-Semitism. There is also the issue of whether the lifting, which appeals only to Catholic Traditionalists, is a sign that the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI is becoming more conservative rather than progressive... --Loremaster (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It is. I've expanded the lead section of the article in order to explain the controversy comprehensively. --Loremaster (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This miniature ecumenism also links to the wooing of the high Anglicans and the orthodox.  By bringing in the sacramentally conservative SSPX they are giving a very clear message that there will not be a watering down of Byzantine or Anglican style liturgies to suit a Vatican II agenda, one of the bigger obstacles to closer co-operation in the Eastern churches and conversions of Anglicans opposed to women priests.  JASpencer (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Interesting! --Loremaster (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Have you read the current version of the lead section of the article? --Loremaster (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the new lead section very much.  I think it does a fine job summarizing the issues at hand.  Although it doesn't not say why Lefebvre ordained the bishops without consent or why the pope failed to give his consent in the first place.  The third paragraph, which explains the lifting of the excommunications and the controversy surrounding them, seems very gentle in its language.  For example: "The remarks of Bishop Williamson on a number of subjects, particularly on the subject of the Nazi persecution of the Jews, has led to the accusation that he is a Holocaust denier."  He is a Holocaust denier, isn't he?  Is that fact really in dispute? -ErinHowarth (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that we should clarify the Lefebvre and pope issue so feel free to do so. As for the language of the article being too gentle, you should know that we need to write this article from a neutral point of view. As for whether or not Williamson is a Holocaust denier, we should mindful of not making statements that could led to Wikipedia being accused of defamation. --Loremaster (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who openly declares that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz, or that they were not used for a genocide on the Jews -- and that he hase done so has not been denied by anybody -- commits the crime against § 130 III German Penal Code which is called Holocaust denial. And as the interview in question was on German soil, Richard Williamson is subject to German penal justice in this case. --84.154.89.240 (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that but stating that he has been accused of being a Holocaust denier is more than enough. --Loremaster (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes this news 

message: I removed the following as a WP:BLP , I highlighted the problems I see with this content:
The source for all three quotes is:
* 
The author of that page states that "." So he is saying these quotes may have a different meaning with more context. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, Dailycatholic is a WP:BLOG and not a WP:RS. Veverve (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  dailycatholic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ecône consecrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090124224451/http://dici.org:80/accueil.php?loc=US to http://www.dici.org/accueil.php?loc=US
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ecône consecrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131185044/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpbkisgs-EZ40shoCodJd4rfBNwAD960DPIG6 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpbkisgs-EZ40shoCodJd4rfBNwAD960DPIG6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The redirect Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Declaration of the Nullity of the Ecône Schism]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]