Talk:Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Christianity 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.

United States: Massachusetts Stub‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]