Talk:Impeccability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
see ref. in the online Catholic Encyclopedia. -- Someone else 04:34 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The key words to look for in the above link are "theologians assert", and a theologians assertion does not a dogma make. Additionally, none of the titles of Our Lady nor dogmatic decrees concerning her assert that she couldn't sin, only that she didn't.User:Jtocci
- Straw dogma. The Church teaches a lot of doctrines: they're not all dogmas. More seriously, the idea is to write in Wikipedia primarily about what other people have asserted, not what you think is logical or ought to have been asserted. The article on the Wikipedian "ideal" of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) might be interesting reading. In terms of here, if you can find a theologian who taught the BVM wasn't impeccable, that would be an interesting addition to the article. -- Someone else 05:23 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Example of an interesting POV: 'The Church teaches a lot of doctrines: they're not all dogmas.'
Not to mention the point I was making you ignored. The church has never asserted Our Lady was impeccable, theologians were not mentioned in the post I changed: The Roman Catholic church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a special grace of God, impeccable. And I changed it only to reflect that fact, yet you accuse me of POV?
Look, I'm not looking for an apology, just don't put words in my mouth in future, ok? User:Jtocci
I didn't in the past, and won't in the future. And it's just plain fact that the Church teaches doctrine that is not dogmatically defined. -- Someone else 06:49 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Ah, whatever ;-)
Look, I see now you're an admin, so I'm going to assume I took you as being more harsh than you were trying to be.
The Church cannot teach anything for the same reason it can't walk into a bar and have a beer. I point this out because I prefer to be more precise when posting to an Encyclopedia. As far as doctrine vs Dogma, there is a book called the Enchridion which lists many, many defined statements, and outside of these statements I wager you'll find only 'doctrine' that theologians publish, but no one believes. This is because the Catholic Church is unique in that no matter what any priest or theologian says, unless it's in the book, it ain't Catholic. This is also why, despite many, many people including priests and theologians teaching many things that are wrong, accidentily or not, Catholics in general have always held what they do now.
So doctrine and Dogma are only different, when using a POV. User:Jtocci
- Points of view are perfectly valid, as long as they are neutral: in most cases, that means presenting both sides and attributing views to the people that hold them. Again, I suggest reading the NPOV page. -- Someone else 00:59 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I'm note exactly sure what words have taken to be harsh, but they were not intended to be so. And just to be clear, my being an administrator doesn't mean anything other than I've been around a while. I have no more authority than any other user. -- Someone else 01:04 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I wasn't refering to you having authority, only that at some point, someone designated you an admin, and to me that says you are likely a reasonable person. And that was not my initial impression, but I was wrong. I apologize. As far as the NPOV page, I discovered Wikipedia on Google, and NPOV was the second Wikipedia page I ever saw. It almost turned me off the site. It's long-winded and full of fluff. I couldn't even force myself to skim it. If there was a summary somewhere and someone pointed it out to me I'd read it, otherwise, no way.
No matter though, really I'm not in need of improvement as much as you think ;-). I'd say we just got off to a poor start. See ya 'round. User:Jtocci
[edit] Dictatus papae
Regarding the Dictatus papae, J. P. Whitney writes in "Gregory VII", The English Historical Review, Vol. 34, No. 134 (April 1919), pp. 129-151 at pp. 131-132:
This tendency of historians to accept the Register as authentic and, therefore, of first-rate importance has been justified more lately. Peitz in his Das Originalregister Gregors VII. (Vienna, 1911) asserted as a result of fresh study of the Vatican MS. that it was nothing less than the original Register of Gregory's pontificate, an opinion which an earlier Jesuit scholar, Lapôtre, had suggested but not supported. His argument is now generally accepted, and although the new edition, which he has promised us, has been delayed by the war, the letters, and as a consequence, the Dictatus (Reg. ii. 55a) and the Commentarius (Reg. i. 1), may now be used without any reserve. The Register must be taken as a precious survival of a papal register, and thus we have a clear and strong foundation upon which to construct a history of the pontificate, and still more, for a trustworthy view of Gregory himself.
-- Cat Whisperer 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
