Talk:Eugenia Ravasio

Heretical Content

I have made some changes to remove content which state that some Catholics consider the text of God to Mother Ravasio to be heretical. On one hand these alleged Catholics state that it is heresy to say that God wanted to be depicted as an old man because God is incorporeal - but the use of old man images have been used to symbolize God since early Christianity (remember the "Creation" in the Sistine Chapel). It is bizarre that someone would edit this page and say it is idolatrous. Whoever made those edits is clearly not a Catholic or they would know this.

Furthermore, the deleted text stated that the statement of God the father regarding salvation is heretical - but Mary said almost the exact words to St Simon Stock when giving him the scapular: "whoever dies clothed in this shall not suffer eternal fire, rather, he shall be saved" - this does not mean the person is saved independently of the sacraments. The Church has approved the scapular and devotion to it and there is no reason that the words to Mother Ravasio are any more heretical than those of St Simon Stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.151.5 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this change, which seems to have been undone. I think the entire controversy section should be deleted. I attempted to do this and my deletion was undone also.

The following "facts" still need to be proven and verified in this bio: 1) there is a controversy within the Catholic Church regarding the writings of Mother Eugenia 2) there are persons who can reasonably be called Catholic writers who are claiming the writings are heresy 3) the identity of the Catholic writers 4) legitimate publications where these controversies are discussed by these writers. In the absence of this proof, the entire section that makes these allegations should be deleted. WP:BURDEN WP:OR WP:RS WP:POORSRC WP:SELFPUBLISH WikiWriterCCC (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

content that is transferred

Material for the site about the message - it seems to me that it is better to keep this page biographical so I threw this

Mother Ravasio reported a series of messages from God the Father, which were published as "The Father speaks to His children". The Bishop of Grenoble (who was mentioned in the messages) recognized these messages as authentic after ten years of examination. However, the Vatican has neither approved nor disapproved of these messages, and Catholics are not required to believe them. To date these are the only reported private revelation from God the Father that have been approved by a Bishop.

In her book, Mother Ravasio wrote that she personally saw God the Father and that God the Father sat next to her. On July 1, 1932, in Book 1, part 1, she quoted God the Father and wrote:

... "Look, I put aside my crown and all my glory to take the attitude of the common person"... After having taken the attitude of a common person, placing his crown and glory at his feet, he took the globe of the world to his heart. Supporting it with his left hand, then he sat down next to me...

Mother Ravasio also wrote messages from God the Father to Bishop Alexandre Caillot, who later approved of the book. In Book 1, part 3 she wrote:

"I also want to say a word to you, My son Alexander, so that My desires may be realized in the world. You must join with the father confessor of this “little plant” (Mother Eugenia) of My Son Jesus, in promoting this work"

Mother Ravasio also wrote of acts by the Devil. On August 12, 1932 she wrote that the Devil took the book and slashed its covers with a pair of scissors. On that day she also wrote of a new path to salvation and quoted God the Father as follows:

"ALL THOSE WHO CALL ME BY THE NAME OF FATHER, EVEN IF ONLY ONCE, WILL NOT PERISH, BUT WILL BE SURE OF THEIR ETERNAL LIFE AMONG THE CHOSEN ONES."

As in all other private revelations, Catholics in general are not required to believe the messages of Mother Eugenia Ravasio. The decision about the authenticity of private revelations is left to the conscience of each individual Catholic. Thus despite the approval letter and the imprimatur, some Catholic writers point to a number of specific doctrinal errors within the messages of Mother Eugenia Ravasio.

Given that the Catechism of the Catholic Church #239 specifically states that "God is neither man nor woman: he is God", some writers reason that the reported message that God the Father desired his image as an icon to be used in worship contradicts the Catholic teachings that God the Father is invisible and formless.

Other Catholic writers have viewed some of Mother Ravasio's messages as heretical, e.g. the message stating that "a person can achieve eternal salvation, with certainty, merely by calling God by the name 'Father,' even only one time". The argument asserting the heretical nature of this statement relies on the assertion that this promise ignores and rejects all tradition, scripture, and the teachings of the Magisterium (e.g. cf.) on the subject of salvation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nominalan (talk • contribs) 12:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia policies

Thank you for the welcome. The referenced page, on Eugenia Elisabetta Ravasiohad degenerated into an off-topic discussion of whether her writings were heresy. This is best addressed under the topic: heresy. It can be very controversial what criteria is used to determine heresy and who has the authority to do so. If we could resolve this under Mother Eugenia's topic, it would not only be a miracle, but also unite the thousands of Christian denominations around the world. However, the Roman Catholic Church, which is the context of this biography, did not declare Mother Eugenia's writings heresy, so this is not a controversy in the Church. Those who maintain that it is are simply wrong. On the contrary, the writings were twice considered, by two bishops, of no danger to faith and morals, which is the meaning of the Imprimatur. Continuing to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church out of context to prove that these writings are heresy is misleading and is an attempt to confuse those who do not know the full teachings. One has to quickly ask, by what authority does a Wiki editor declare anyone's writings "heresy" or declare there is controversy within the Church? And that brings us back to the heresy topic in general. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First comment: I forget who it was, but the CEO of some big European bank said that he was "terrified of Wikipedia" because the page about his autobiography was edited by a 15 year old high school student. To edit Wikipedia one needs a heartbeat and a modem, but the policies MUST be followed. Many 18 year olds do make good contributions, I have seen. I am not aware of any Cardinals editing here. The statements therein stated that the heresy opinuions were by "Catholic writers" and that is good enough. If you only quote the Bible or people within 4 miles of Rome you will get a "primary sources" or NPOV flags. So there is NO authority in Wikipedia, but there are MANY policies that keep it almost usable. I think Wikipedia has done well, so far. Not perfect, but good. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor Mother Eugenia - the subject of a 15 year old with a modem. "Catholic writers" without names is not good enough for me. Which Catholic writers? Citations needed. But then, this has bigger problems, in the source publications cited, which are self-published web sites, so I didn't bother asking for the identity of the Catholic writers. The sources are poor. One of the sites is written by someone who identifies himself as "The webmaster, Jonn". A whois confirms that he is the sole owner of the site. See below. Ohh, that I could be 15 again... I think even a 15 year old Catholic would have spotted this section as "personal opinion" and "self published" right away. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I added fact flags to the "personal commentary" you added. Please provide references for them, or they can be deleted based on WP:RS. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you have a point. I was on a bit of a rant. Let me try a different approach. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the Canon law reference did not buy much. The bottom line is that you need to find a book or article, etc. that says that, else it is your own deduction and WP:OR. It s not if it is ok with "me", as I said there are MANY rules in Wikipedia. I did not invent the rules. What has happened here is that you are trying to refute the writers who claimed heresy. The ONLy way to do that is to find someone else who said that. Please see this. As I said there, if you happen disprove Newton's work, and you happen to be correct, you can not add it to English Wikipedia until some reputable physics journal in English publishes it. Same issue here. History2007 (talk)

I don't think I need to "refute the writers". Consistent with Wikipedia policy, in my earlier edit I had deleted the text that claims there are really legitimate Catholic writers who claim heresy. These statements are personal opinions, not verified and not cited with reliable sources. The "sources" are web pages produced by unnamed "self-published" individuals with no official standing as writers or experts in the Catholic Church or anywhere else regarding topics of theology and Christian heresy. The fact that they are even Catholic has not been substantiated. These are unverified claims and poor sources. They need to be deleted as I did earlier which is consistent with Wikipedia policy. [WP:OR]] WP:RS WP:POORSRC WP:SELFPUBLISH Thanks for helping me learn the right terminology for justifying this. Now can we delete this entire controversy section from this bio, along with the sentence that precedes it? From WP:Burden "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page." Although they mention only living persons, I find this even more offensive when speaking of the reputation of the dead, but of course, the dead cannot sue Wikipedia, so they are not the priority. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to the Vatican web page, I realize your point is that I should go in another direction, and I have responded to that. I would, however, like to address the comment that WP policy states that I need an article written by someone other than the Vatican to discuss Cannon Law. I challenge you to find a more "peer reviewed" and "reliable" book or periodical on the Canon Law of the Catholic Church than the Vatican's own web page. To suggest that the Vatican is not a good source for the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is like saying the U. S. Library of Congress web page is not a good source for referencing the U. S. Code of law. From WP:SOURCES, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." The objective is to ensure that the source is really qualified to speak on the topic and has the facts. With regards to laws and policies, only the owning organizations should be the source. Is there a magazine article you can cite as a source on Wikipedia policy? Just kidding.:) WikiWriterCCC (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the Vatican is the best source for Canon law. However, making inferences from Canon law needs another source. Else anyone can write an article on the interpretation of Canon law as WP:OR. That was my point. And the long and short of it is that your edits point to support for her, and said edits would like to paint her as gloriously as possible. - part of which is kicking the opposing writers. If you do not agree to that, confessions are due... not kidding - or kidding History2007 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am supporting the truth, not Mother Eugenia. I really don't have enough information on her from objective sources to know if I should support her. Frankly, the claims about discovering the cure for leprosy should also be deleted, but I'll leave that to someone else. It is taking far too much of my time just to deal with the claims of heresy in this text. The truth is, based on the opinion of the theologians and bishops who reviewed her writings, she did not write heresy and she wrote nothing against any doctrines of the Church, regardless of where she got her information. I am waiting for a reliable, expert, credible source to be cited to prove otherwise. Haven't seen it in this bio yet. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as an example of how your last paragraph you wrote is not consistent or correct in my view is here. Rivas has an imprimatur from her Archbishop (no less) who still supports while and some of her books pages were found to be exact copies of training manuals for seminrians and books written by other authors. That is what happens when you try to interpret Canon law yourself: much of what you wrote would also apply to Rivas! History2007 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your reference to Rivas is interesting, and demonstrates your lack of understanding. Rather than an example of the misapplication of Imprimatur, it is, I think an excellent example of the proper use and understanding of the Imprimatur. It is not a seal of approval of the person, or a canonization for sainthood. The person who wrote the book could have stolen the material, could have fabricated or imagined it. The Imprimatur does not answer those concerns or even investigate them. It simply states that the material, at face value, for what it says, is not a danger to faith and morals. If you believe it, you won't go to hell. But you don't have to believe it. The fact that these writings were stolen from books that are used in seminaries is further evidence of the appropriateness of the Imprimatur for these writings. It says nothing at all about the character or sanctity of the author, the claim of authorship, or whether they are really getting these messages from divine or spirit sources. If you really understand the meaning of Imprimatur, you would not be surprised if someone whose writings receive it is a crazy person, a felon, or a plagiarist. They could also be a saint. It is all irrelevant to the meaning of the Imprimatur. It is given to the writings, not the author. I am not interpreting Canon Law. I am simply trying to get you to understand the meaning of the term Imprimatur by referring you to the explanation of Imprimatur in Wikipedia, which I think is excellent. You should read it. From your last comment it is clear you still don't get it. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I know what imprimaturs are and have read the article. The example was that what an Archbishop says about a person is not the final word, as you had above. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Archbishop in the example of Rivas gave the imprimatur to the writings, not the person of Rivas. There is no statement of fact about the person of Mother Eugenia from a bishop in this bio. Once again, the imprimatur references in this bio are about one very specific writing of hers, not the person of Mother Eugenia. You still don't get it. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What I get is that some people like her, and try to write bloated, glorified text in support of her, e.g. that she can "unite the Church" etc. What I get is that said claims were nonsense and you were right to backtrack on them. I also get that they do not print imprimaturs on the foreheads of people (or do they), but some text on this page, often hints between the lines that "she must be nice" if her writings got an imprimatur. I read that between the lines, not on the lines. I get that part. History2007 (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

By the way, as in here:

In November 2005, Mrs Ryden obtained an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat from a bishop and a cardinal, both long-time Catholic supporters of the seer. The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat have been included in all the linguistic editions of the messages printed since then. In January 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed an internal communication to all the Presidents of the Bishops' conferences around the world reconfirming the doctrinal judgment (negative) of the 1995 Notification regarding Mrs Ryden's writings and advising against the participation of Catholic faithfuls in TLIG prayer groups.

So an imprimatur can include controversy in the Church. The game is not over once an imprimatur is given. History2007 (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. As indicated in the text written by another editor, the game is not over, it passes to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and they have been silent on Mother Eugenia, so far. They would not likely rule again on the possibility of heresy, though they have that option, they would rule on whether the feast day for the Father should be declared, which is a change in the Church calendar, not the doctrines. There is reason to believe they may come back with a negative ruling, since her "devotions" and her images of God the Father have been suppressed within her order and she was removed from her post and made to sign a resignation declaring herself incompetent. This is not because her writings were heresy, it is because she was disobedient and promoted the devotions to the Father and the images within her order of 1400 nuns without the approval of her superiors, the same bishops who gave her writings the Imprimatur. However, sometimes this is just a an obedience test to find out if the person is self-promoting or is willing to wait for the actions of the Church on this matter. Mother Eugenia accepted the ruling of the Church, and was stripped of her position and her habit 3 times during her lifetime to prove her obedience. It is possible that Mother Eugenia's devotions and request for a special day for God the Father will eventually be accepted by the Church. This may take another 100 years. With sufficient support from the faithful, theologians, bishops, other mystics, and evidence that this is a movement of the Holy Spirit, not just a personal opinion of Mother Eugenia, there can be a sudden turn around and the person can be declared a saint. A good example is Saint Faustina, whose writings were really condemned by the Church and on the forbidden list officially for years. Suddenly she was a saint and her writings were ok. 96.241.52.57 (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a friendly pope does help. History2007 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eugenia Elisabetta Ravasio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721055236/http://www.lhncbc.nlm.nih.gov/lhc/docs/published/2003/pub2003048.pdf to http://www.lhncbc.nlm.nih.gov/lhc/docs/published/2003/pub2003048.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

changes needed

the point of the talk page is not to decide Vatican policy nor discuss the merits of the person, but rather to improve the article. a) "(Ravasio) was an Italian nun, visionary and mystic, from the Roman Catholic Church." No, she was an Italian nun and alleged visionary and mystic. and not from but of the Roman Catholic church. The reference can include the Bishop. b) the reference for chaulmoogra oil doesn't mention her at all and should be removed. c) is taking oil capsules "chemotherapy"? If it is, then all pharmaceuticals are "chemotherapy". d) The RC church has not declared her writings heresy but that does not mean there is no controversy. The text above this claim shows that there is disagreement. I suspect the author means something like "so no Church action has been undertaken". e) "The decision about the authenticity of private revelations is left to the conscience of each individual Catholic." This is not supported by the footnote, which states, that individuals are not required to believe private revelations with divine faith. The previous statement in the text gets this correct. Individuals cannot decide that something is authentic if it isn't, and vice versa. f) this site says she became superior general at age 25, not 28. g) is it Wiki style to use the title 'Mother' in an article? If so, shouldn't she be 'Mother Eugenia'? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Her revelations likely deserve a stand-alone article

They probably pass WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. They have one already on pl wiki (pl:Objawienia Boga Ojca). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. 98.173.0.114 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)