Talk:Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Immaculate Heart of Mary School (Massachusetts) page were merged into Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary on December 25, 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Merge discussion from Immaculate Heart of Mary School (Massachusetts)
[edit]I agree that this article should be merged, but I don't think it should be merged into Feeneyism, which is an article centered more on the theological position than on the group. Rather, I think this article should be merged into The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary page, since that page deals directly with the group and its divisions. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Done
history of conflict
[edit]It might be a little disingenuous to say 'In January 2019, the vicar for canonical affairs for the Diocese of Manchester advised the group that they were to stop representing themselves as Catholic. "The Diocese of Manchester said ...the theological teachings of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Richmond, N.H., were declared "unacceptable" last year by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome ....' As this article implies, the problems existed long before. https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/why-is-the-vatican-taking-action-against-the-slaves-of-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary/ The article seems to want to eliminate the history of excommunication (while not admitting that Fr Feeney was reconciled with the Church). --134.153.14.79 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Feeney has his own page. This one is about the organization he and Clarke founded and what happened to it after the death of Clarke. Manannan67 (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Clarification of the phrase "by ascription"?
[edit]I'm puzzled by the following sentence: "Maluf was a Melkite by ascription." Is this equivalent to simply saying that Maluf was a member of the Melkite rite Catholic Church? Is some subtle point about canon law being made by the person who thought it necessary to say "by ascription"?
As things stand, the term "ascription" links to a Wikipedia article about the sociological and linguistic senses of that word. The link is thus unhelpful and can only create confusion until someone competent to do so adds a proper definition of the Catholic sense of ascription to that article.
Perhaps it would be better to simply replace the sentence here with: "Maluf was a Melkite rite Catholic." I'm inclined to think that the phrase "by ascription" is redundant here. Ps8v9 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Start-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- Stub-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- Stub-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Stub-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Stub-Class Massachusetts articles
- Low-importance Massachusetts articles
- WikiProject Massachusetts articles
- WikiProject United States articles