Talk:Our Lady of Mount Carmel

message: User Marley2289 added text and a link Oct 8 2009 which I removed Oct 20, to an article on Haitian immigrants and their syncretistic practice of Voodoo and Catholicism. I removed the text, after careful consideration and reading/skimming the article. The text/link was placed inappropriately in the introduction section of the article, did not contribute important information and was worded as an opinion, and the article linked does not describe typical devotion to Our Lady of Mount Carmel. The article describes Harlem, NY Haitian immigrants' participation in Catholic worship including the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, and their covert inclusion of voodoo elements and interpretations. It is much more about Voodoo than Catholicism (about which the author does not seem to know much nor treat respectfully nor make clear that voodoo beliefs and practices are truly incompatible with faithful Catholic Christianity) I think it's a big stretch to think it belongs in an encyclopedia type article about Our Lady of Mount Carmel. The same user had promoted the same article on a number of mostly Voodoo and Haitian related Wikipedia articles, so I think they were promoting the link rather than sincerely feeling that it informatively enhanced the article. --Elizdelphi (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you made teh right decision. History2007 (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2009 

message: Some IPs continue adding a main page image that is not representative of most of the statues in the world. I have reverted these, and I think the page will need protection if this continues. History2007 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not vandalism, there is no need for page protection.  This is a content dispute, where two editors have two different opinions about which image to use in the lede.  Talk it out, rather than page protect to avoid discussion with an IP.  [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree. And stop WP:WIKIHOUNDing Mr Litpack. History2007 (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, who is Mr. Litpack?  But I am guessing you are trying to respond to me, my user name is Xanderliptak.  A bit off, but forgiven.  Secondly, suggesting that you discuss this rather than block editors making good-faith contributions is not harassment, it is how Wikipedia works.  Are you familiar with the consensus building Wikipedia promotes?  You seem good at finding policy pages, so might I suggest you take a look at it.  [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those comments are beside the point here. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to believe discussion and disagreement with you is besides the point.  Mentioning that this should be discussed and that there is a policy about building consensus, however, is relevant.  [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your really deep thoughts Mr Liptak. This must be a truly edifying and life enhancing conversation with you here. History2007 (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was just stating that you should build a consensus, as is suggested by Wikipedia policy.  But by your actions, it is easy to see how you could misconstrue such a simple suggestion as "deep thought", since you would be incapable of ever thinking of something so simple or so common. :-)  [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

text:  I will give your comment some deep thought. History2007 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

text: In that image the child Jesus is holding the scapular, or I can use another representative image in any case. However, the last line of this very article clearly states that those purgatory images were based on an incorrect doctrine and were condemned. That image is NOT representative. It can not be the main image since it contradicts the article. History2007 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The Purgatory would benefit from being cropped tighter.  [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Representative main image, that does not contradict the article

message: === Third opinion ===
 wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.  Also, please provide an easy link to the two disputed images.
; Viewpoint by History2007: 
This is a controversial image and not representative of what the Carmelites themselves use. The Sabbatine privilege page clearly states that:
:Today, the Carmelite Orders, while encouraging a belief in Mary's general aid and prayerful assistance for their souls beyond death and commending devotion to Mary especially on Saturdays which are dedicated to her, explicitly state in their official catechetical materials that they do not promulgate the Sabbatine privilege. Catechesis and Ritual for the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Prepared under the direction of the North American Provincials of the Carmelite Orders. 2000. Online text of the Catechesis portion of this booklet
Therefore, a less controversial image must be used for this page, without fires, etc. The fires are not a Carmelite tradition, as the Sabbatine privilege page points out. I think an image similar to what the Carmelites use on their page is more appropriate. This is a page about the Carmelites, we should take a hint from what they use on their websites.
Strategy:
:1. Let us look at Carmelites.
:2. Look at external links
:3. See how many Carmelite websites use images with fire on their front page.
It is simple. The fire image is not representative. It must change. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and no problem and no need for an apology. A simple, non-theological way is this:  This Carmelite website has a traditional image, a Virgin Mary with the Child holding a scapular. Just like the statue that was replaced. In general, you just need to look at their sites and pick a similar image. Carmelites do not use fire on their pages. They use teh Virgin with scapular, or the Child holding it. It is a simple comparison. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for your answer.  How do you feel about the image on the Sabbatine privilege page? It's interesting to me that it would seem to suit you for this page, while the anon's image might actually fit better on that page, given your arguments. This is really neither here nor there, just a comment.  — e. ripley\talk 20:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh the other image is nice - I added that one! It fits there because it has a large scapular. I have many Marian image galleries on Wikimedia - I use the same user name there. I know Marian images, e.g. see my article: Marian art in the Catholic Church, so I know what I am doing on this topic. But the anon image will not fit there either, for it is again non-representative, and the best representation would be a simple image here to represent the simplicity of Carmelite life - like teh image that was there before, or another simple image, but nothing like this fire fanfare. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a higher quality piece of art, I added an image. It will work great, and is high quality. By the way, the statement that: "this page talks about Our Lady of Mount Carmel and its iconography, not about the history of the Carmelites" is not accurate. The page starts: Our Lady of Mount Carmel is the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary, in her role as patroness of the Carmelite Order. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: You say "usual image" - can you elaborate more on this? — e. ripley\talk 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Lady of Mount Carmel has been related with Purgatory from centuries ago, with prohibitions or without them. This is a mistical tradition, popular and universally acepted (and we can find a lot of paints and sculptures about it, all around the world). We don't speak only about what is right now, neither about what the Holy Church has forbiden. Finally, the image in question does not show a fire fanfare; please, look all the sculptoric group and try to get its complete meaning. Nowdays, this holy image is venerated still inside a church, and people pray in front of it (carmelites priests too), so I think it must not be so much heretic. 83.49.55.209 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you did not answer the question about what was meant by "usual image". Moreover, I have not seen you provide one single reason, really not one reason why the fire image you propose should be preferred. What is the advantage of that image, apart from the fact that you have reverted to it? I see no advantage, but see the disadvantage of not being liked by some Carmelites. So why should it it be given a preference over images that Carmelites use more often?  There is NO advantage except the fact that it comes from close to your geographic location. And that is no justification. History2007 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: E. Ripley, thank you for taking the time to provide the opinion. Actually, the purgatory image was and is within the gallery. It was its existence in the gallery which prompted comments from Elizdelphi, who used to edit many Carmelite pages. Therefore, I will move the non-purgatory image to the top of the page. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O]] 

message: wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.  Also, please provide an easy link to the two disputed images.
; Viewpoint by History2007: 
This is a controversial image and not representative of what the Carmelites themselves use. The Sabbatine privilege page clearly states that:
:Today, the Carmelite Orders, while encouraging a belief in Mary's general aid and prayerful assistance for their souls beyond death and commending devotion to Mary especially on Saturdays which are dedicated to her, explicitly state in their official catechetical materials that they do not promulgate the Sabbatine privilege. Catechesis and Ritual for the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Prepared under the direction of the North American Provincials of the Carmelite Orders. 2000. Online text of the Catechesis portion of this booklet
Therefore, a less controversial image must be used for this page, without fires, etc. The fires are not a Carmelite tradition, as the Sabbatine privilege page points out. I think an image similar to what the Carmelites use on their page is more appropriate. This is a page about the Carmelites, we should take a hint from what they use on their websites.
Strategy:
:1. Let us look at Carmelites.
:2. Look at external links
:3. See how many Carmelite websites use images with fire on their front page.
It is simple. The fire image is not representative. It must change. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and no problem and no need for an apology. A simple, non-theological way is this:  This Carmelite website has a traditional image, a Virgin Mary with the Child holding a scapular. Just like the statue that was replaced. In general, you just need to look at their sites and pick a similar image. Carmelites do not use fire on their pages. They use teh Virgin with scapular, or the Child holding it. It is a simple comparison. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for your answer.  How do you feel about the image on the Sabbatine privilege page? It's interesting to me that it would seem to suit you for this page, while the anon's image might actually fit better on that page, given your arguments. This is really neither here nor there, just a comment.  — e. ripley\talk 20:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh the other image is nice - I added that one! It fits there because it has a large scapular. I have many Marian image galleries on Wikimedia - I use the same user name there. I know Marian images, e.g. see my article: Marian art in the Catholic Church, so I know what I am doing on this topic. But the anon image will not fit there either, for it is again non-representative, and the best representation would be a simple image here to represent the simplicity of Carmelite life - like teh image that was there before, or another simple image, but nothing like this fire fanfare. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a higher quality piece of art, I added an image. It will work great, and is high quality. By the way, the statement that: "this page talks about Our Lady of Mount Carmel and its iconography, not about the history of the Carmelites" is not accurate. The page starts: Our Lady of Mount Carmel is the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary, in her role as patroness of the Carmelite Order. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: You say "usual image" - can you elaborate more on this? — e. ripley\talk 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Lady of Mount Carmel has been related with Purgatory from centuries ago, with prohibitions or without them. This is a mistical tradition, popular and universally acepted (and we can find a lot of paints and sculptures about it, all around the world). We don't speak only about what is right now, neither about what the Holy Church has forbiden. Finally, the image in question does not show a fire fanfare; please, look all the sculptoric group and try to get its complete meaning. Nowdays, this holy image is venerated still inside a church, and people pray in front of it (carmelites priests too), so I think it must not be so much heretic. 83.49.55.209 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you did not answer the question about what was meant by "usual image". Moreover, I have not seen you provide one single reason, really not one reason why the fire image you propose should be preferred. What is the advantage of that image, apart from the fact that you have reverted to it? I see no advantage, but see the disadvantage of not being liked by some Carmelites. So why should it it be given a preference over images that Carmelites use more often?  There is NO advantage except the fact that it comes from close to your geographic location. And that is no justification. History2007 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: E. Ripley, thank you for taking the time to provide the opinion. Actually, the purgatory image was and is within the gallery. It was its existence in the gallery which prompted comments from Elizdelphi, who used to edit many Carmelite pages. Therefore, I will move the non-purgatory image to the top of the page. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: It must be added that she is the Queen and Patron of Chile, the Chilean armed forces and Carabineros de Chile (Chilean police).
--A2falcone (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patron of Chile 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Our Lady of Mount Carmel. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.ocarm.org/pls/ocarm/consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=648
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523112955/http://www.icspublications.org/bookstore/others/b_others13.html to http://www.icspublications.org/bookstore/others/b_others13.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504164642/http://www.zenit.org/article-23225?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-23225?l=english
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could you add our parish to the list. Our Lady of Mt Carmel I’m Roseto Pa.
we will be celebrating 130 years OLMC Big Time Celebration 
7/26 thru 7/30 65.78.82.155 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roseto Pa 

message: The Catholic Church has always recognized and appreciated the Holy Scapular, through the lives of many saints and many supreme pontiffs who have recommended and worn it, confirming the goodness and relevance of this sacramental.
 
Among the most recent popes:
*Pope Pius X - while always recommending the use of the traditional scapular, granted the faithful-by decree of Dec. 16, 1910-to be allowed to substitute for the scapular the blessed medal bearing the images of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
*Pope Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli, 1939-1958) stated that "whoever wears it is associated more or less closely with the Carmelite Order", adding "how many good souls have owed, even in humanly desperate circumstances, their supreme conversion and their eternal salvation to the Scapular they wore! How many, moreover, in the dangers of body and soul, have felt, thanks to it, the maternal protection of Mary! Devotion to the Scapular has caused rivers to pour out over the whole world of spiritual and temporal graces"; and again: "The most pious Mother will not fail to intervene with her prayer to God, so that her children, who atone for their sins in Purgatory, reach their heavenly homeland as soon as possible according to the so-called "Sabbatine privilege" handed down by tradition"; on another occasion he also recalled that those who wear the Scapular belong "through a particular bond of love to the same family of the Most Blessed Mother".
*Pope John XXIII confirmed and recommended its use several times.
*Pope Paul VI in 1965 exhorted: "We hold in great esteem the practices and exercises of piety towards the Blessed Virgin, recommended over the centuries by the Magisterium of the Church, among which we believe we must expressly mention the religious practice of the Rosary and the Scapular of Carmel"; previously, while he was still Nuncio in Paris, he said to the Discalced Carmelite Fathers of Avon: "Through the Scapular I belong to your family of Carmel and I greatly appreciate this grace as an insurance of Mary's very special protection".
*Pope John Paul II was a great devotee; he, in a letter dated 25 March 2001 to the Carmelite fathers Joseph Chalmers and Camilo Maccise wrote: «Whoever wears the Scapular is therefore introduced into the land of Carmel, so that "he may eat its fruits and products" (see }), and experiences the sweet and maternal presence of Mary, in the daily commitment to interiorly clothe herself with Jesus Christ and manifest him alive within herself for the good of the Church and of all humanity. (...) I too have carried the Scapular of Carmel in my heart for a long time! For the love I have towards the common heavenly Mother, whose protection I continually experience, I hope that this Marian year will help all the men and women religious of Carmel and the pious faithful who venerate her filially, to grow in her love and to radiate it in the world the presence of this Woman of silence and prayer, invoked as Mother of mercy, Mother of hope and grace. With these wishes, I willingly impart the Apostolic Blessing to all the friars, nuns, lay men and women of the Carmelite Family, who work so hard to spread true devotion to Mary, Star of the Sea and Flower among the people of God of Carmel!".Il segno di Maria. Lo scapolare del Carmine, Santuario Ragusa, pro manuscripto, 26-30.
176.200.134.98 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Pontifical approbations