Talk:Protestant views on Mary

Generalizations

Quote:

Various Protestant churches accept some of the teachings of Ephesus and regard this title of Mary as theologically correct.

• Who are the various Protestant Churches?
• Which some teachings are accepted?
• Which Ephesus teachings are theologically not correct or not accepted?

This sentence, which really does not say anything, highlights a problem in serveral passages: Generalizations without any back ups. I like to propose that we abstain from generalities as much as possible for the time being and focus on specifics. Once these are documented, generalities will come much easier.-:)) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I adressed your concerns in my latest edit. Cheers.

--Mordecai99 (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Assertions are normally cited at the end of sentences!

This would or could be verified with one sourse-- all the more if they "really does not say anything"!

But they are not my assertions-- how would I know if they are a quote? I am making these edits to conform to good style.

Stop putting in ". " -- Use "" --Carlaude (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Merges

I have proposed merging Martin Luther's views on Mary, John Calvin's views on Mary, and Karl Barth's views on Mary here. Those articles could be considerably condensed without losing anything, this article is not overly long, and that material could easily be incorporated here, not to mention at Mary (mother of Jesus)#Christian views of Mary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose All the articles are long enough, this article is likely to expand, the current arrangement aids categorization. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

At least the articles on Calvin's and Barth's views of Mary should be merged into this article, as they are little more than original research citing primary sources with sometimes dubious interpretation (coupled with largely redundant info found in the biographical articles on the individuals). Without doing any violence to the verifiable or substantive import, these articles could be merged to a phrase, sentence, or paragraph with a citation to a reliable secondary source (something lacking from the current articles). A small mention in the main article should do nearly any of them justice. Luther may be an exception. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support merger - An article contrasting the varying views of different theologians on Mary would be useful. One setting out merely that a given person accepted or dispute the Catholic position is of very little value. Merging three (or five) articles ought not to multiply the legth by that factor, as several theologians are likely to take similar positions. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge There is enough to say for each of them, & it should not be conflated. DGG (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Could you clarify what should not be conflated? --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The request from Flex has to be viewed in context of his failed attempts to have these aricles eliminated, and, on June 14, the Category:Protestant views of Mary eliminated as well. From a substantive point of view, the merger does not make any sense whatsover, since the claim by Flex, those articles could be considerably condensed without losing anything", is simply not feasable.

The Protestant views of Mary already incorporate some elements of these three articles on Luther, Calvin and Barth. To add three articles in their entirity, would overload Protestant views of Mary with Luther, Calvin and Barth. POV! That article needs more substance, but not more of the same. I made these and other contributions, now its time that others contribute as well. How about it flex? -:)) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Ambrosius007, I have repeatedly asked you to stop insinuating that I have something personal against these articles. This is simply not the case. I am merely trying to help organize the Wikipedia as I believe is most in keeping with the WP's guidelines. You'll note in my history that I have proposed many other mergers and deletions for articles and cats -- this is part of the regular "janitorial" work I do here. Please don't take my merger or deletion requests personally or as an affront to the Virgin herself, and please stop your uncivil ad hominem.

As for the substance of your comment on feasibility, we may disagree, but it is not at all an absurd suggestion as you make it out to be. The coverage here should reflect secondary sources, not primary sources. To wit, one author in surveying the literature on this subject indicates that there was some literature that over-emphasized the positive aspects of the reformers' views, motivated by a "desire to foster a liturgical space for the Protestant veneration of Mary or by an anti-Catholic reaction against any mention of Mary." Likewise, the author states that Jesuit preist Albert Ebneter "also criticizes the earlier works on Luther's views of Mary, not only for their extreme positions but also for mistakes in interpretation, for removing quotations from their contexts, and for generally twisting the evidence to support their own ends." (Beth Kreitzer, Reforming Mary, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 7-8).

All this is to say that primary source quotations are not acceptable to establish a fact in this context because of dispute in the reliable sources (cf. WP:PSTS). Note that I'm not suggesting that the articles actually misrepresent anyone (though I know there is some scholarly debate on this issue which I have not delved into), just that they do not meet verifiability requirements as sourced. I suggest the merger because I think if the style of the articles is cast in a more encyclopedic style by summarizing rather than quoting (of course a select quote is fine here or there), then the articles could be much reduced without at all obscuring the salient facts. Indeed, I think it would highlight them.

Certainly, Luther's view of Mary is complex, but in the article as it stands now, virtually entire sections consist of direct quotations from primary sources. Similarly, the articles on Barth and Calvin's views have a problem with excessive primary source quotations/citations and a lack of secondary sources, though the interpretation of Barth's views is admittedly much less disputed than the reformers'. Most all of these should be summarized in prose with citations to (possibly varied) interpretations by reliable sources. If we condense that articles thusly, I'll wager that they would not overwhelm this article if they were merged in. Of course, if any section here expands to a greater length, spinning it off into a separate article would be appropriate under WP:SUMMARY.

Moreover, the coverage in separate articles (and the proposed article of Zwingli's views) seems to me to be a bit excessive in terms of the reliable source material out there. Being true is not sufficient reason to merit extensive coverage (cf. WP:IINFO). As Kreitzer says in her survey:

Several Protestant authors have pointed out that Luther and the other reformers simply were not very interested in Mary as a theological issue, and in light of the volumes of their writings on other topics, this appears to be true. Beyond those theological points that the reformers accepted (the virgin birth, Mary's perpetual virginity, and her title of Theotokos) and those few disputed mariological issues (her conception and assumption), the main theological interest in Mary was in the context of the communio sanctorum. How do the saints relate to the church and to the living Christian community?

What I'm suggesting is that, by following the reliable sources, these men's views of Mary (both theological and personal), with perhaps the exception of Luther, can be expressed with greater brevity and clarity and verifiability/authority than they have been, and those briefer accounts, once written, should be merged here. Perhaps I should have addressed the articles individually in this manner and then proposed the merge, rather than simply suggesting a merge of articles that were yet to be condensed and reliably sourced as the merge would require. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support merger of the articles that Flex has mentioned since there is not much material on these. I think that the article on Luther's views of Mary should not be because there would be too much material to assimilate into this article. There might be an issue about Luther being considered a "Protestant."--Drboisclair (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merger The articles seem long and are of interest either from the perspective of attitudes towards Mary or the development of early Protestant doctrine. JASpencer (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support merger A grouping of Protestant views about Mary helps to present a broader, historical understanding of the Protestant Church and the areas which it differs and disagrees with Catholicism. It also helps show a more accurate view of the honor that was paid to Mary in contrast to some Protestants today who cannot hardly say anything good about her. It helps show why some of the disagreements exist and what are some of the arguments. In other words it puts the doctrine of Mary into an historical perspective showing how the diverse Protestant branches basically agree in their condemnation of the Catholic churches' understanding but divedrge on specifics, and thus it helps to better distiguish Protestantism from Catholicism in areas deeper than the surface issues such as sola Scriptura etc. If there was a merger some of the biographical info should be cut down as much as possible and focus should be on the actual views of each person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic2705 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger There is no monolithic Protestant view. Calvin's adherents are a particular branch of the Protestant Reformed tradition. It would be best to keep them separate and create a simple link page that may have all the different pages represented with hyperlinks to each particular article.--WillisAdair (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger There is no reason to merge these articles when they are discussing two separate individuals that are historical figures that have similar views on some issues. They are completely separate and stand alone on each subject. It would be the same as saying all republicans should be in one article and all democrat in another. Simply because you don't agree with the subject matter that they believed in is not a reason to hide their belief and the impact that they had on the history of the world and the history of the church. If the case is made to merge these individuals and their beliefs then why shouldn't the same thing occur with all of the Popes that are all listed separate on here. They all had basically the same view on most issues but yet they all have separate articles on many different subjects and you have not requested that they all be merged. why not? Simply because you agree with what they believe and do not see any reason to merge them because they are relevant to you and these historical figures are not to your liking so you would like to combine their enormous efforts of their lifetime achievements on separate topics so that there are less articles stating the subject you do not agree with. I say if you merge these people then you need to merge all of the popes and nuns and all of those people that have the same beliefs as well. Now do you see how ridiculous that suggestion really is. Why don't you do something productive instead of trying to hide what some people believe with all of their heart and soul just as you do your beliefs. Really these men have earned a right to have an article about every single thing they ever did and believed just as Pope John Paul II, Pope Pius XII and Pope Leo XIII have that same right. They earned that right and you could if you would start building things up instead of tryig to tear others down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HOTCC (talk • contribs) 10:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Almost certainly some of this article was copied from somewhere (witness the Latin citations rather than English ones). The questions are: how much was copy and pasted, and is it copyrighted material? --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly some of this article was copied from somewhere (witness the Latin citations rather than English ones). Hm, as the poor author of the "Latin copies", let me just say: Quidquid agis, prudenter agas et respices finem! To the best of my knowledge, those folks wrote in Latin, French, and German and not in English! Without engaging in original research, to quote them in the original ... -:))) Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the Reformers wrote in Latin for a scholarly audience and the vernacular for the locals, and Barth in the vernacular. The point is, when citing, say, Calvin, modern scholars don't cite his Opera (unless perhaps the work in question hasn't been translated into English, but that's not the case here).

Anyway, the Latin and German titles aren't really a big deal in themselves. The real issue is that such non-modern citations make me suspect a copy-and-pasting from somewhere. That may also be ok, but it may not be -- depending on the copyright. As the author, could you please share if you used any sources in creating those sections, and if so, which ones? Thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that Latin an German titles are not the problem anymore, can you kindly document and detail your accusation Almost certainly some of this article was copied from somewhere

• From where did I copy,
• What did I copy?
• What did I not copy?
• Are all three articles copied?

Thank you --Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are the questions I'm asking: was this material original with you? Did you use any sources? If so, which ones? Was it copied illegitimately from anywhere? These are important questions here (cf. WP:COPYVIO). When the (mostly) obsolete Latin titles for, say, Calvin's works show up in the Wikipedia, it usually means the material was derived in whole or in part from an older source. Newer sources typically use translated, unabbreviated titles (when available). --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are the questions I'm asking: To me this is not a question but a statement : Almost certainly some of this article was copied from somewhere.

Verify or take it back!

Flex, it seems to be your policy to insult, and simultaniously ask for prove, that the insulted party is not a crook. -:)) Nice try! Last message on this subject! As I will expand on both Calvin articles at a later occasion, I most certainly will continue quoting these sources in front of me. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the difference between the indicative and the interrogative, but "almost" indicates that it is not a statement of absolute fact. I have not asserted that I have definitive proof; only circumstantial evidence.

So I ask again, what sources are you using (and particularly, where did you get the Latin citations)? Have you copy and pasted from your sources at all? I am simply asking for your honest answers to those questions. It is a violation of copyright laws to plagiarize here, and we want to be above board in all things before God and man. If your answer is, "I am using source x and source y [with links/publication info as applicable], and I have not copied these but have used them in accord with the Wikipedia guidelines," then my question is answered and anyone can verify the material at their leisure.

As for my alleged policy of insulting and asking for proof, can you cite a specific instance. I strive to be civil, and I will seek to make right any wrong I have done. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

if the refs need improving to give the standard sources, improve them. Most or all of the works cited are probably avail free on line by now, so that should be cited also. Taking refs from an older source doesnt mean the text was copied. DGG (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On your last sentence: Agreed that it doesn't necessarily mean that, but it could. Virtually no one cites the Latin version of Calvin's works anymore, so the fact that these show up here (or rather, once showed up before I converted most of them; they still appear in greater number at John_Calvin's_views_on_Mary) are a likely indication that some (perhaps older) source is being used. Hence it seems quite plausible that these citations were copy and pasted here from another work rather than dug up for the WP, and so it seems legitimate to ask, If these were copied, was more of the text? Again, it's circumstantial evidence, not proof. I'm just asking for an answer as to where this material originated. (This is purely a matter of copyright. I'm not challenging the basic content.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you DGG!

I happen to live next to a theological library which claims to have some 175 000 volumes, (I did not count).

As to the substance, I welcome questions on specific articles or quotations in the respective talk pages. Summary accusations on a different page without any foundation are POV.

Flex made over time mutually exclusive claims: Copy and past, plagiarism AND original research!:

• ==Copy and paste==Almost certainly some of this article was copied from somewhere. May 19 No proof offered!

• Plagiarism:It is a violation of copyright laws to plagiarize here June 13,no proof offered!

• Original Research: At least two of these articles, which are little more than original research from primary sources, (June 14, no proof offered![1]

This is confusing. On May 26, I asked him to verify his claim. We all are still waiting for his evidence.

Thank's again--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll narrow it down to one specific section since you have not given any answer the more general questions: What source(s) did you use for the section of this article article on Calvin's views (with publication info and/or links)? Did you dig up the Calvin references by hand, or did you copy them from somewhere else? Did you originally compose the prose summarizing Calvin's views, or is it based on some other work?

As for my three "mutually exclusive claims," they are nothing of the sort. A copy-and-paste from a copyrighted source would constitute plagiarism. Those two go part and parcel together. The claim of original research comes from WP:OR#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources because your sources here are all primary, even if they were borrowed from some secondary source (citing that source could solve this problem). It could be the case that some secondary source summarizes Calvin by saying, "If the Catholic Church praises her as Queen of Heaven, it is blasphemous and contradicts her own intention, because she is praised and not God," and then cites his commentary on Luke, as this article does. That text could be, at the same time, copy-and-pasted plagiarism (because it borrows from a copyrighted work without attribution) and original research (because it still cites only primary sources where a secondary source is needed.

I have repeated several times that I make no claim to proof of copy-and-pasting or plagiarism; only that there is circumstantial evidence that raises suspicion. I apologize if I overstated the case with "almost certainly." The evidence for borrowing is neither overwhelming nor trivial, and even if it is borrowed, it may be quite simple to bring it in line with WP policy. If you answer the above questions directly, my concerns will be assuaged and/or we can work through where to go next.

Let me also reiterate that I have nothing against you personally or the subject matter at hand. I'm thankful that you're willing to work on these articles and make the WP better, and I trust you will assume good faith on my part when answering my honest questions above. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

claims of copyvio and plagiarism need to be backed up by evidence. We don't conduct inquisitions. It's acceptable to ask for page numbers for sources, however. It can also be a good idea to rewrite text to improve the style if it sounds old-fashioned--often someone working legitimately with older sources adopts that century's stylistic patterns even in original writing. DGG (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I will again apologize for overstating the case with my initial "almost certainly," and I have said repeatedly that I have only circumstantial evidence that I have already presented. My request is for page numbers or links (see above) as you suggest. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Karl Barth's views on Mary

This is different from Catholic teaching, by which Mary, by her "Thy will be done", consented to the will of God and contributed an unequal share to her grace.

I deleted this sentence because it is simply a false statement. In fact, the whole point of the concept of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary has received grace without any previous merit on her part! Lumendelumine (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Relationship with Holy Spirit

The important question for Protestant theologians of today would be does Mary have a special relationship with the Holy Spirit, what is it ? While even many evangelicals call her the Mother of God, what does this mean in relation to the nativity and the incarnation ? The Holy Spirit, who is also called God, is said to have played a major role in the birth, life, motherhood and apostolate of Mary, and even many mainstream theologians such as Mr. Barth will recognize this. 69.157.229.14 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well other than the birth of Jesus (Matt 1:18, Luke 1:35) No more than anyone else. "is said to have played a major role in the ("birth" deleted, see previous sentence), life, motherhood and apostolate of Mary" - by who? Is this in the Bible? If not, most protestants probably don't believe it. Rmccaff (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The questions presented would have been better served with a representation of quotations from current Protestant theologians, rather than your own presumption to speak for the majority of Protestants. Blendenzo (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

More Protestant views

There is nothing in the article about protestant views that Mary was not sinless. (Rom 3:10, 3:23) Nor anything in the article about Mary being the mother of other children. (Joses, Jude, Salome, James the Less) (Matt 12:46-50, Matt 13:54-58, Matt 17:1, Matt 27:55-56, Mark 6:2-4, Mark 15:40,47, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10, John 19:25-27, Acts 1:14, Galations 1:18-19, Jude 1:1) The thought here is that is that if any of Jesus' divinity came from Mary, then of course her other children would have had part of this same divinity. There is a little about "The Mother of God", but not really explained that protestant believe Mary to be the mother of Jesus (on Earth), but not the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in the article about her genealogy, most protestants do not believe her parents were Anne and Joachim. However believe Joseph and Mary's genealogy are in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-37 respectively. There is nothing about the protestant view of Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" (Jeremiah 44). Also nothing about Mary as Mediatrix (1Tim 2:5, John 14:6, Heb 8:6-7) Not even anything about the protestant view of "Hail Mary" (Praise Mary) (Psa 148:13). I do see a link to the immaculate conception here, but I personally think it might be a good idea to have a sentence or two defining the protestant view (that the immaculate conception was Jesus rather than Mary). I'm not sure how much of a technical sticking point this is, but many protestants find it offensive that many Roman Catholic churches are named after Mary (i.e. Our Lady of..., Church of the Blessed Virgin, etc..) opposed to the protestant practice of naming churches ( church of God, church of Christ the King, church of Our Redeemer, church of the Good Shepherd, etc... ) Overall this is a very incomplete article. Rmccaff (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"A newer and controversial Protestant view of Mary, emerging out of the Evangelical movement, sees Mary as a "subversive", "dangerous" and radically Christian woman" - This may be true (I suspect in a very small group), however I would dispute that many protestants see Mary as dangerous or evil. The question becomes where do you draw the lines between the different views of Mary? Is she sinless? (The thought here is that if Mary had already broken the curse of sin, what did we need Jesus for?) Was she just a normal woman, who other than the fact that she was Jesus' mother (impregnated by the Holy Spirit), was no different from anyone else? It might be possible that they don't believe that Mary herself was dangerous or evil, but rather the concept of venerating her above other people is dangerous and evil. Rmccaff (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Rmccaff. It is particularly misleading to state that any significanty portion of Evangelicals think of Mary as evil. That's just bizarre. The points about whether Protestants say she was sinless (not), had other children (did), has a role insalvation (not), etc. well, those are the points repeatedly referenced in Protestant systematic theologies. |talk) Waynenoogen (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the Mariolatry section is sadly lacking. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

John Wesley's views

Should there be a section on John Wesley (anglican priest who started Methodism)'s views of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious Photo Caption - Methodist Church

The photo caption on the main page showing a Madonna and Child painting is dubious. The painting appears with a table, a votive candle rack, altar candles, etc. There is no evidence of a kneeler or that this is a ritual space where Mary is venerated. Rather, it appears to be a vestry where liturgical items are kept that happen to be beneath a painting representing Madonna and Child. Paintings of this type became very common in American Protestant churches at the turn of the last century, almost always placed in church parlours or other rooms rather than the sanctuary. They do not imply Marian veneration, although they do represent an increased comfort with the role of Mary (and women in general) in mainline Protestantism. --IACOBVS (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Low grade sources

I am concerned that the section about Protestant views is very weak, from the viewpoint of historical scholarship. It cites so heavily from Catholic sources that it actually introduces Catholic polemic into the article.

For example: some of the cited Catholic secondary sources attempt to make the argument that because the Reformers held to Catholic Marian views ergo later Protestants were wrong to reject those views. They are therefore invested in making the Reformers seem as "Catholic" as possible, at least on the issue of Mary.

If our aim is to produce the most reliable historical accounting of Protestant views, I would suggest that sources motivated by this sort of religious polemic are not high grade:

It is undeniable that the quote attributed to Wycliffe in this article can only ever be found in Catholic sources with a polemic bent. All of those sources reference merely "an earlier sermon by Wycliffe", but never directly cite any primary source material. I have checked Wycliffe's advent sermons and found no such quote. Moreover, the quote actually repudiates Wycliffe's well-documented views. That the source for this quote is always secondary strongly suggests the quote is pseudepigraphical, if not completely spurious. Certainly, it would raise red flags for any impartial historian.

I would also submit that Catholic apologetics materials and the hundred year-old Catholic encyclopedia are not impartial scholarly either, insofar as they assume a Catholic viewpoint and subordinate facts and sources to that viewpoint. Thus, citing them as a solitary source is unlikely to be historically accurate.

Already I have needed to remove outright polemic that might be suitable for a Catholic blog, but not an encyclopedia article. Originally, in the introductory section, an editor had made the assertion that Luther supported the veneration of Mary and introduced a quote whose primary qualification seems to be Luther's use of the word "obligatory". Yet several paragraphs later, the very same source completely destroyed the assertion. Thus, far more representative quotes for Luther's views were overlooked in favour of a non-representative quote that would have misled the reader into thinking Luther's position on Mary was essentially a Catholic one.

This is merely one example of extraordinary intellectual dishonesty in the handling of sources. While the source itself (in this case) seems to be of fair quality, both the handling and the assertion drawn from it was so selective as to be outright deceptive.

The views of Reformers on this topic were subject to change over time for a range of reasons. This adds a level of complexity to accurately representing them, since their earlier views may not comport with their latter opinions. But, selective citations is not scholarly and the purpose of this article is surely not to grind religious axes.

I would suggest that all editors need to be particularly sensitive to the existence of a wider context of religious sectarian contest over these sources that unfortunately can lead people with religious commitments to handle them in a partisan fashion.

Thank you for our contribution 203.219.235.133, but you did not sign this talk post or cite sources to back your argument (such as Wycliffe's Advent Sermons). IACOBVS (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)