Talk:Green Scapular
Green Scapular edit
Basically we have a problem here as History2007 is selectively editing the article to be about the 'Apostolate of the Green Scapular' or 'Society of the Green Scapular', and not the actual 'Green Scapular'.
The 'Society' or 'Apostolate' is a group of recent origin, putting forth private revelations, worthy of at least high doubt.
But the actual Green Scapular originated in the 1800s, and is Church approved, as recorded in 'The Green Scapular and Its Favors' by Rev. Father Marie Edouard Mott, C.M.
Said book which has an Imprimatur from Francis P. Keough, D.D. Archbishop of Baltimore, August 4, 1961.
If History2007 wants to make a separate article on the Society and knock its private and unapproved revelations, that's another article, on another topic. Not this one.
But instead he's been censoring citations from reliable books on the actual Green Scapular, and misusing sources such as Ann Ball's book which promotes the Green Scapular as well, by selectively citing the book as if it were actually not doing so. Ann Ball's book too notes that the scapulars are approved by Pope Pius IX, has historical information, and has an imprimatur as well.
These are good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.169.101 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- An imprimatur does not make an item historical. A separate article would be a WP:CONTENTFORK and against policy. You have provided no WP:RS sources to refute Ball's book which is WP:RS. History2007 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The Green Scapular and the so-called 'Society of the Green Scapular' are two different subjects, and not a content fork.
Ann Ball's book says regarding the Green Scapular, and I quote:
"Formal permission and encouragement for the sisters to make and distribute the scapulars was given by Pope Pius IX in 1870.'
P. 129.
But you have censored this quotation from the article, and instead cite that the scapular is 'not the habit of any confraternity'. That is quite true, most scapulars are, this one isn't, that has nothing to do with its official status.
And it has nothing to do with the 'society' which although another topic, doesn't claim to be a confraternity.
Is there some part of this you don't understand? It is quite clear and you are replying in a way that seems intentionally misreading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.169.101 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I had presented reliable sources:
- The Green Scapular and Its Favors by Rev. Father Marie Edouard Mott, C.M., Imprimatur 1961.
- Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotions and Practices, by Ann Ball, page 217, 2003; ISBN 087973910X
- Different Kinds of Scapulars by Fr. William Saunders, CatholicCulture.org, 1999.
- The Green Scapular by Robert A. Macdonald, C.Ss.R., The Fátima Network.
Why you delete it all? 84.90.91.89 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotions and Practices by Ann Ball does not say what your text was saying. Indeed that book, which is the WP:RS source to rely on discounts the Green scapular as "not properly a scapular", as the article says. So while Ball's book does mention it, it says that it is not a "formal scapular". Then CatholicCulture.org, is NOT a WP:RS source, neither is the The Fátima Network, etc. So the main WP:RS source, namely Ball's book says: "not properly a scapular". You really need to read WP:RS and also read Ann Ball's book more carefully. If Ball had said it was approved, I would have never deleted it. History2007 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- But The Green Scapular and Its Favors by Father Marie Edouard Mott, C.M., and many other sources and books avaliable about the Green Scapular have the Imprimatur which is an official declaration by a Church authority (Bishop or Cardinal) that a book or other printed work may be published and present a mark of approval or endorsement by the Catholic Church. Are you sure that are not a WP:RS sources? 84.90.91.89 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure. Look, I built many of these scapular pages, if I had not been sure, I would not spend time arguing with you. Ball's book is the WP:RS source in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)