Talk:Catholic Mariology

message: Who was the mother of Mary ?
:Most Christians hold St. Anne (or just Anne) to be the mother of Mary the mother of Jesus ~ Dpr
: Also, her father is traditionally believed to be Joachim. Wesley 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother of Mary

message: 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)
replies: text: Of course they should be added, but I had no exact webpage for the Ohio center, except a nice library page, while I know where the Marianum is - although I have not been inside. Do you have a webpage and an address for these other centers please? Interestingly, the Ohio webpage said somewhere that Gabriel Roschini met with those people before he went back to Rome to start the Marianum and somehow all these centers started from some famous meeting before WWII, but the reference was vague. Do you have any more info? Thanks History2007 (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Centres of Study

message: 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)
thread_title: Redirect

message: 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)
replies: text: The same would seem to apply to the adjective "marian." --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of Title

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. I started it, so if you have other info, please add it there. History2007 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Luciano Alimandi

message: 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.  Another popular title for this is Mother of the Eucharist, which is an extension of the Theotokos doctrine to the eucharistic Jesus. . The name Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament is also used in certain circumstances.. In certain churches, there is a marian altar for specific liturgical feasts.  Finally, there is a special narrative on the Michaeljournal website that tries to explain this in detail.  ADM (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mariology and liturgy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hostile Reverts 

message: 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)
replies: text: The rationale was that one of the messages of Mariology is that the path to Christ is through Mary and that was a good image of Christ and Mary - one of the few in Wikimedia. Do you have another of Christ and Mary togther? Cheers History2007 (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mosaic from Chora Church 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please follow WP:CALM and wait for a few days, e.g. for the Afd on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer to conclude before engaging on several pages. History2007 (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a need for the two different articles. Mariology is about all views in general, wherest Roman Catholic is specifically about the Roman Catholic perspective, which is very in-depth. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for separate article 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. That section came about to present a "counter view" so was probably too strong. If you have a WP:RS reference that says some feminists like Mariology we can add a little about that. History2007 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminists Contend... Liberal Views 

message: 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...
* Mariology is a logical and necessary consequence of Christology.
* Mariology is Christology developed to its full potential.
* The Church is the people of God as she is the Body of Christ.
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)
thread_title:  Mariology and Christology section feels like a mess 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Summary/lead section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, the "I want" directive is not going to apply here. That material was added after a long discussion with people who insisted on it being there because without it the article was too narrow. In general, these overview articles need to include multiple views - like it or not, that is Wikipedia. It is fully referenced text that was added after much discussion and I must revert you. Sorry. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The multitude of perspectives" Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oct13, Thanks for going back to the previous version. I think I will now clarify the situation a little more there, so in 9 months it will not arise again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there four Marian dogmas, or five?

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, and in fact it should be part of a section called Marian devotions, for none of those is mentioned here, except in the template. Pretty easy to do, given that there is a detailed article on that. I will do it in a day or two. Thanks. But it should be light on devotions given that "Mariology is theology concerned with the Virgin Mary" as the page states. So the positioning of the article should be less devotional and more theological. History2007 (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. And thanks. My idea, when I thought I might create the section, was that it should introduce the Rosary, give a small one-sentence history of how it came about (tradition says Mary gave it to St. Dominic), and comment on how it affects Mariology. The Battle of Lepanto comes to mind. Regardless of what you write, it should be pointed out somewhere in the article that the rosary is meant to ask for Mary's intercession and is not meant to worship her in place of God.TopazStar (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are already discussed in the Rosary article, and History of the rosary, etc. The St Dominic issue is there with the controversies, etc. Please do look at the History of the rosary article and how it was reworked etc. The latria, hyperdulia and dulia issues are in the 3rd paragraph of the Marian devotions article I will just include them here from there. But again it is not just the Rosary but all Marian devotions. History2007 (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rosary 

message: "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)
replies: text: You are right, and I just touched it up to say just that. Yet given that Marian devotions are largely a Catholic and E Orth activity, it is not that far off. But as you said not a major issue. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought it might have been a better fit in the main article, if that was part of your point, so let us do that. I also trimmed the saintly statements & just used the items from current papal statements, etc. I think I checked the refs in the rest of the page a while ago, but I may as well go thorough and double check them again - will do in the next few days. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Broad context" 

message: 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)
replies: text: "...is not held outside the Catholic church" (your edit summary) is certainly wrong. I'm getting rather concerned by your edits, which I will raise elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ""...is not held outside the Catholic church" is correct, so far as I know. What other branches of Christianity hold it?Achar Sva (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps you don't know enough to be making such drastic edits to a series of articles in this area. You removed "also held by Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, and many other Christians" - based on what?  The main article Perpetual virginity of Mary has "is held also by the Orthodox churches and by some Lutherans and Anglicans" (with a reference). See also Theotokos. Both of the doctrines you mentioned had long lives before being formally adopted by councils, and are widely believed outside the CC without formal doctrinal statements by particular churches, and careful wording is needed. Not sure that's your thing.  Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You need sources for all statements.Achar Sva (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit