Talk:Alta Vendita
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Secret Societies. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Secret Societies articles. | |
|
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
I'm not so sure about many of the conspiracy theories that many Catholics have regarding the Freemasons or the "Alta Vendita." I remain cautious, but intrigued. This article in itself is rather biased. It hints that this document was forged by the Freemason's opponents, namely Catholics and the Vatican, and that only fools believe it (cp. "it is nowadays considered by serious scholars to be a forgery"). None of these "serious scholars" are cited. Information from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon (Question 10) does not indicate one way or another into its authenticity.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also has entries on the Carbonari and Freemasonry.
corrected the poor language...it said the document is both allegedly written by Masons and is anti-masonic, and endorsed by popes yet anti-catholic.
Niasain 17:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. This needs to be looked at. This was seriously believed by two different Popes. The Carbonari were anti-Church. It's not inconceivable that they would have wanted to subvert the Church.
- The oddest thing about this is that it was published about 100 years before Vatican II.
- JASpencer 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the NPOV tag still needed? JASpencer 16:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I am removing it. Niasain 17:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's odd that people are arguing over a document the text of which is not referred to. Further there is no reference to any analysis of this document. So what are people discussing?--Gazzster 11:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's odd but that's always to be expected when discussing conspiracy literature. Here's a link to an English translation of the "Permanent Instructions" and some other letters by the members of the secret society:
Permanent Instructions of the Alta Vendita
Thank you. I was looking for the text but could not find it. Perhaps someone might like to summarise it for the article, and provide some analysis and commentary? Cheers. --Gazzster 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Poor article
I don't know really know why I'm commenting, but this article still irks me. There is no explanation about what this plot is about, aside from the vaguest of statements. There is no summary of the text, and no analysis of it, apart from the briefest of lines comparing it to Joly and the Protocols. There is no discussion of its purported authorship, nor of the reaction of the Roman Catholic Church to it. The references are to Freemasonic and fringe opinion websites. Overall, there is very little meat in this article. I suggest it is deleted or merged with Alta Vendita or Conspiracy theories or something else. It has little value by itself.--Gazzster 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well - the first part about "liberal ideas" (without spelling out what those ideas entail) is what you will always find in encyclopedia articles about secret societies. If you look up the Illuminati in the encyclopedia they will simply say that it was spreading "republican" or "enlightenment" ideas - if an entry is there at all. (I have a Funk and Wagnall's Encyclopedia where the term "illuminati" is not mentioned under any entry.) The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita says:
"Our final end is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution, the destruction for ever of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea which, if left standing on the ruins of Rome, would be the resuscitation of Christianity later on."
There won't be any sources that will be considered acceptable on this entry - because it is about an unacceptable topic.
The introduction for Illuminati in this encyclopedia reads
The Illuminati is the name used for several groups, real and fictitious. Most commonly it refers specifically to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment secret society. However, in the realm of conspiracy theory it refers to a purported shadowy conspiratorial organization which is reputed to secretly control world affairs, usually a modern incarnation or continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati. In this conspiratorial context, Illuminati is often used in reference to a New World Order (NWO). Conspiracy theorists believe the Illuminati (The People of The Light), or illuminated ones, are the masterminds behind events that will lead to a New World Order.
In rarer cases, the Illuminati refers to an elite set of enlightened individuals who may not cooperate but are uniquely empowered by their enlightenment, much like the intelligentsia are empowered by their education and intelligence. These are people who have become illuminated and have achieved a higher mystical understanding of the universe. Many secret societies and mystical traditions promise illumination or enlightenment, such as Zen Buddhism and the original Bavarian Illuminati.[1]
Then the authors proceed to go into a lengthy and scholarly analysis of the subject.So why can't the same be done for Alta Vendita?
'..unacceptable topic?' What does that mean? Whatever you do mean by that, if no source 'will be considered acceptable', we cannot reference the topic, can we? And if we can't reference the topic, then we should delete the article. But I really cannot believe that the topic has never been treated in a scholarly manner before. I suspect finding references for this topic is challenging and so editors have simply neglected to try.--Gazzster 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You complained that:
"There is no explanation about what this plot is about, aside from the vaguest of statements"
Well - the following from the Illuminati entry is every bit as vague:
"Most commonly it refers specifically to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment secret society."
There is no description of the methods and objectives of the organization - except "enlightenment secret society."
It is just as vague as the following:
"The document details an alleged Masonic plan to infiltrate the Roman Catholic church and spread liberal ideas within it."
Before I didn't bother to revise the article completely because I knew it would be deleted if I described in detail the objectives of the Alta Vendita.
OK. First, can I ask you to sign your contributions, unless of course, you think I'm an albino agent of Opus Dei who is hunting down anyone who is telling the truth about popery.Second, let's look at your extraordinary statement, 'I didn't bother to revise the article completely because I knew it would be deleted if I described in detail the objectives of the Alta Vendita'. Who do you think would delete it? You must be aware that there are criteria for deletion. If you edit an article of significance, using referable, sound sources, you cannot be deleted. You seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that we should not have to explain or source certain vague statements, solely on the grounds of their controversiality. If so, that is nonsense.--Gazzster 07:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
After you learned my POV you erased what I had added. I gave the source for the text and then you said it was from "fringe opinion websites." Well, it is still George F Dillon's book (from the 1880s) and it does contain translations of the Permanent Instruction and a few letters of members of that order. That's what the entry is about. The documents were first released in a similar book of Cretineau-Joly. Just as the Illuminati entry fails to quote Weishaupt's own admissions as to the goals of his order - so does this entry use the euphemism of "liberal ideas" instead of quoting the document which makes it clear that the goal was Voltaire's Ecrasez L'infame. At any rate - because the documents were discovered by Papal authorities and because they were released by a polemicist - their authenticity will never be generally admitted. That being said - It would be nice if the entry accurately described what the documents actually say - instead of using euphemisms like "liberal ideas." Weishaupt wrote:
"By this plan we shall direct all mankind. In this manner, by the simplest means, we shall set all in motion and all in flames. The occupations must be so allotted and contrived, that we may, in secret, influence all political transactions"
Does the Illuminati article give any inkling (referring to the original sources - the discovered documents) as to what the objectives of the Bavarian Illuminati really were?
It does not, nor does the 1911 Britannica article. I was hoping that in the case of the Alta Vendita there might be a chance to see a more honest approach. As opposed to the approach that makes it nearly impossible for those without an interest in conspiracy theory to be familiar with this topic and grasp its significance. Despite reading a great deal of history as a boy, and spending a vast amount of time looking through my encyclopedia - I was not familiar with the significance of the Illuminati conspiracy theory until I finally did a keyword search for it in 2000. I studied history - was very curious about such things - yet the existence remained largely concealed and the significance unexplained. I was hoping that an entry about the Alta Vendita would lead people to immediately grasp the nature and significance of the plot - a plot to destroy Catholicism by means of manipulating the clergy and by corrupting morals. "Make vicious hearts - and you will have no more Catholics." That's what the Alta Vendita is about. Not "liberal ideas."
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to continue this discussion with you unless you are going to sign your contributions. But I must correct you on one thing: 'After you learned my POV you erased what I had added'. I have done no such thing. Press the history tab.--Gazzster 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
