Talk:Immaculate Conception
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Immaculate Conception article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 14 dates. [show] |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Immaculate Conception was copied or moved into Catholic views on Mary with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
rescued material
editWhile for some early theologians original sin was the consequence of Adam's act, for others it was Eve who was to blame, Irenaeus (born c.130) writing that "disobedient Eve" became "the cause of death, both for herself and the entire human race", and Ambrose (c.340-397) that Eve deceived Adam, while Origen (184-235) drew the lesson for all womankind: "God does not stoop to look upon what is feminine and of the flesh."
Lumen Gentium n. 56
editWhy the Lumen Gentium is not considered to be related to the previous topic?? It is relevant to say that not only the Council of Trent, but also the Church Fathers affirmed the preservation of the Virgin Mary from all stain of sin.
The same concept was also affirmed by the Fathers of the Church. See Lumen Gentium, n. 56: "It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature."
176.200.140.47 (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Veverve:: Why Lumen Gentium is considered a "bias source"?
About the creation of the Gospel of James
editI don't see how is related the history about the alleged creation of the Gospel of James with the Immaculate Conception. The important thing is to show what the Gospel of James says, the rest does not belong to this article but to the main article. Or maybe I'm wrong? --Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Reinserted content
editI have again removed a new set of content from the article that is poorly written and contains both original research and POV issues. It presents Catholic teaching as presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (not even the doctrinal pronouncements) as fact. No content- or policy-based rationale was provided for its reinsertion. Ignoring the actual content for a moment, if it is reinserted, I'd encourage swapping out the links to the parish website for the more stable Cite CCC format. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Means And Methods
editDid Gabriel have a massive syringe? I’m wondering if this is the first case of artificial insemination and maybe we should indicate so. Angel-gabriels-blessedartthoughamongwomen-syringe (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- At the risk of appearing to take this seriously, there are no reliable sources that I am aware of that discuss this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)