Talk:Triclavianism

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 30 July, 2007, see discussion.
No consensus, April 22, 2007, see discussion.

Christianity: Jesus / Theology Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Stub

Am I correct in reading this article as a stub consisting manly of a very long quote? Am I correct in reading the quote as highly POV, labelling St. Francis of Assissi as an imposter? I'm not an authority in this area nor do I have any expertise or special knowledge. Just saying how it reads to me. --xavier says--68.120.198.168 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sure, it's a stub. At least a sourced one, that's more than we usually get. If you can add other viewpoints to the discussion, you are certainly most welcome to do that. dab (ᛏ) 22:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only person concerned that the primary notability offered by this topic is this one single Anglican who coined this neologism, the parody website ObjectiveMinistries.org, closely followed with google searches by a forum post at everyone's favorite white power group Stormfront.org, and followed by a large host of blogs, forum-esque posts, and personal websites? In fact, the google search appears to indicate that the primary notability of this term period is because of ObjectiveMinistries interesting decision to make parodies of this specific neologism. It doesn't appear to be a very frequently used term, indeed, the Catholic encyclopedia external link doesn't use the word at all, I question the notability of this topic in terms of WP:NEO. Homestarmy 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the term was only a joke- and it isn't clear to me from reading this article that it isn't. Has anyone here actually read the Faber citation? JoshuaZ 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book appears to exist,[1] so its existance itself doesn't seem to be a parody. Homestarmy 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to suspect that even if this is a genuine quote from Faber, that the argument is nonsense, as the St. Francis of Assissi article indicates that Francis died "Here, in the place where it all began, feeling the end approaching, he spent the last days of his life dictating his spiritual testament. He died on the evening of 3 October 1226 singing Psalm 141. His feast day is observed 4 October.", rather than having Jesus' punishment inflicted upon him. But, then again, you'd think a relatively famous Anglican wouldn't get the facts wrong on such an important figure historically.... (Though I can't be sure I understand the paragraph right, as I don't know what "preternaturally" means) Homestarmy 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is genuine. Faber's book is an enjoyable read, well worth an hour or two. Andrel 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge amount of material that can be used to fill out this article and related articles. For example, look at [2] --Filll 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the Holy Nails article, certainly. For Triclavianism however....well, the word never seems to come up very much. Homestarmy 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a genuine controversy? It seems rather preposterous, but then again, people have killed over the number of fingers to be used in crossing oneself, so preposterousness alone isn't a useful criterion in judging the reality of religious debates ... Nik42 09:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any support for the statement "but Pope Innocent III finally and infallibly determined, that four nails were used, and that the Roman soldier pierced the right side of Christ; a decision, which of course stamped the brand of heresy upon Triclavianism." There's no reference for that statement. Much Roman Catholic iconography uses three nails. The term might have existed, might even have been the matter of some debate, but I'm beginning to suspect anything else is designed to help support a joke web site. UnSpace 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is part of the long quote from Stanley. However, if no other historians agree with Stanley, that would make Stanley a much less reliable source here. Homestarmy 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible sources for expansion

Short History of the Italian Waldenses who Have Inhabited the Valleys of the Cottian Alps from the ancient times to the present by Sofia Van Matre Bompiani (term used on page 38)
A Theological Dictionary, Containing Definitions of All Religious Terms (43MB download) by Charles Buck (page 130) (43MB download)
Catholic Encyclopedia has a very interesting discussion on the three nails and symbology associated with Jesus on pages 421 and 649 (Note: This URL currently returns a 404 -- UnSpace 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
The Apocryphal and legendary life of Christ by Donehoo, James De Quincey cites Luke on page 350, "Most painters represent Christ as fastened to the cross with three nails, one for each hand, and one for the two feet."
Also see the Coats of Arms of Drahovce, Saint Saviour, Jersey and St. Clement Parish, Ottawa, as well as Passion_fruit#Names. Abecedare 06:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification?

From the article as is I am unable to glean what the Catholic view of the location of the four nails is. Does it correspond to the four limbs? If so, that should be stated explicitly bear the top of the page. 2001:1C00:221D:6A00:7986:B018:D1D7:EE6A (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]