![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I changed the link from "relics" to "relic", then someone changed it back again, and now Wesley has changed it to "relic" for the second time. Will this be an editing war? I also completed the sentence, then someone changed it back to an incomplete sentence without the highlighted word veneration; now I've done the same sentence-completion again. Michael Hardy 22:10 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
I removed the following two sentences when I refactored to create a new apologetics section. I found it difficult to formulate the apologetics section; the critical view is very simple, and doesn't really need elaboration, but I fear that may make the whole section appear POV slanted towards the historic Church.
However, these traditions expressly reserve worship for
God alone, as expressed both in their doctrinal statements and in the texts of the prayers offered together in the
Divine Liturgy or the
Mass,
Vespers,
Matins, etc.
The practice of veneration is widely considered by Protestants to be idolatry.
I'm not sure if the Seventh Ecumenical Council link is sufficiently relevant, but if so, the probably iconoclasm should be there as well ?
I believe that "traditional and modern apologists" is not actually the same as Catholics. I think that most of the Orthodox would be included. I suspect there might be a very few others as well, but primarily Catholics and Orthodox. Note, however, that some of the traditional apologists predate the Catholic/Orthdodox split (ie, the Great Schism), and so I tend to call them simply traditional Christians. That is, I believe some parts of this debate go back to the Iconoclasm, and even before.- # 209.8.184.25
Nontheless, it's perfectly possible to describe this without insisting on labelling. "Apologists" is not particularly helpful in this context. -- Binky
Someone asked in an edit comment about the intent of the sentence or paragraph that mentioned veneration of plants and animals. This is there to illustrate both the extent of things that are venerated, and the meaning of the practice, and to further distinguish it from true worship. By honoring plants and animals, we honor their Creator. In so doing, we do not confuse the animals with the God who made them. It is much the same with the saints, icons, and so forth. Perhaps there is a better way to say this in the article? Wesley 16:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article does not belong in this category. I am removing it. Any objections? -- Elliskev 22:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Elliskev, you're absolutely correct. Unless I'm mistaken, veneration is also not regarded as a sacrament. A category named "Roman Catholic worship" should not be a catch-all for every one of their practices. Wesley 17:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right, the "Roman Catholic worship" category should probably be renamed. Its description at present is "This category comprises articles pertaining to sacraments and other practices of the Roman Catholic Church." Clearly the RCC has a number of practices that everyone knows are not worship, and some like veneration that different people may perceive differently. I notice that thus far Baptism isn't included; I wonder if this is because no one has gotten around to it yet, or because the intent of the category is to include practices that are uniquely Roman Catholic. Would Category:Roman Catholic practices be sufficiently clear and useful as a replacement name? That would be broad enough to include keeping certain fasts, which really aren't even "rituals," much less "worship." Perhaps this discussion should move to the category's talk page. Wesley 17:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I am pretty sure "hot hookers" and "sluts" are not venerated in christianity!
Fixed. NawlinWiki 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this opening sentence:
It's simply incorrect. Veneration is often given in other ways than via images. jnestorius( talk) 20:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I changed the link from "relics" to "relic", then someone changed it back again, and now Wesley has changed it to "relic" for the second time. Will this be an editing war? I also completed the sentence, then someone changed it back to an incomplete sentence without the highlighted word veneration; now I've done the same sentence-completion again. Michael Hardy 22:10 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
I removed the following two sentences when I refactored to create a new apologetics section. I found it difficult to formulate the apologetics section; the critical view is very simple, and doesn't really need elaboration, but I fear that may make the whole section appear POV slanted towards the historic Church.
However, these traditions expressly reserve worship for
God alone, as expressed both in their doctrinal statements and in the texts of the prayers offered together in the
Divine Liturgy or the
Mass,
Vespers,
Matins, etc.
The practice of veneration is widely considered by Protestants to be idolatry.
I'm not sure if the Seventh Ecumenical Council link is sufficiently relevant, but if so, the probably iconoclasm should be there as well ?
I believe that "traditional and modern apologists" is not actually the same as Catholics. I think that most of the Orthodox would be included. I suspect there might be a very few others as well, but primarily Catholics and Orthodox. Note, however, that some of the traditional apologists predate the Catholic/Orthdodox split (ie, the Great Schism), and so I tend to call them simply traditional Christians. That is, I believe some parts of this debate go back to the Iconoclasm, and even before.- # 209.8.184.25
Nontheless, it's perfectly possible to describe this without insisting on labelling. "Apologists" is not particularly helpful in this context. -- Binky
Someone asked in an edit comment about the intent of the sentence or paragraph that mentioned veneration of plants and animals. This is there to illustrate both the extent of things that are venerated, and the meaning of the practice, and to further distinguish it from true worship. By honoring plants and animals, we honor their Creator. In so doing, we do not confuse the animals with the God who made them. It is much the same with the saints, icons, and so forth. Perhaps there is a better way to say this in the article? Wesley 16:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article does not belong in this category. I am removing it. Any objections? -- Elliskev 22:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Elliskev, you're absolutely correct. Unless I'm mistaken, veneration is also not regarded as a sacrament. A category named "Roman Catholic worship" should not be a catch-all for every one of their practices. Wesley 17:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right, the "Roman Catholic worship" category should probably be renamed. Its description at present is "This category comprises articles pertaining to sacraments and other practices of the Roman Catholic Church." Clearly the RCC has a number of practices that everyone knows are not worship, and some like veneration that different people may perceive differently. I notice that thus far Baptism isn't included; I wonder if this is because no one has gotten around to it yet, or because the intent of the category is to include practices that are uniquely Roman Catholic. Would Category:Roman Catholic practices be sufficiently clear and useful as a replacement name? That would be broad enough to include keeping certain fasts, which really aren't even "rituals," much less "worship." Perhaps this discussion should move to the category's talk page. Wesley 17:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I am pretty sure "hot hookers" and "sluts" are not venerated in christianity!
Fixed. NawlinWiki 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this opening sentence:
It's simply incorrect. Veneration is often given in other ways than via images. jnestorius( talk) 20:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |