Talk:Veneration/Archive 1

Relic

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)

Apologetics

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.

Iconoclasm

I'm not sure if the Seventh Ecumenical Council link is sufficiently relevant, but if so, the probably iconoclasm should be there as well ?

Good point. I've tried to indicate the 7th E. Council's significance, and included a link to iconoclasm too. Wesley 18:02, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

I gather that "labelling" is pejorative; would you kindly explain further? Also, I gather that apologist is pejorative; would you mind also explaining that a bit? (I ask because I thought that apologist was a term for a person presenting an argument, without implied criticism of the person presenting the argument.) I did not intend to criticize the "apologists" for presenting their argument at all. I simply wanted to describe whom I was talking about, and what they argued.

Oh, and I was alluding to both traditional and modern "apologists" as an allusion to the fact this particular apology (argument) for the practice is not actually new; it is quite an old one (I think ?). They are simply rehashing (or recapitulating if you will) the traditional argument (but I don't mean to denigrate them for so doing).

What is there now is very awkward. "Critics charge..." then "Those without objection...". How about "Critics charge..." "Defenders argue" -- much less awkward, and quite parallel (which parallelism is, I think, appropriate). Or even "Critics charge..." and "Defenders counter...". That sounds a familiar point/counterpoint to my ears.

Then, my observation that the position of the defense is actually a restatement of an ancient apology may be inserted later, somehow, rather than at the start of the sentence; I think that would be better anyway. I'm willing to take a shot at it if you'd like (and perhaps post it here rather than in the article).

Or, maybe the whole argument doesn't belong here, as it appears in some length on the idolatry page... :)

Without looking at the current article, I agree that "apologist" is not an inherently pejorative term. Veneration of icons and relics goes back to the earliest days of the church, as soon as there began to be martyrs; According to some, St. Luke painted the first icons; then there's Eusebius' account of the "icon not made with hands" that Jesus is said to have sent to King Abgar. Veneration of icons wasn't really defended until the 7th or 8th century, because it wasn't really attacked until then; not coincidentally, this was also during the first rise of Islam. The greatest defenders at the time were St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite; this history is I think covered in the iconoclasm article. The real question is whether to "recapitulate" the whole argument here, or just mention it briefly and point elsewhere. Personally, it might make the most sense to have the full length version in the iconoclasm article, and have this article and the idolatry article mention the issue and point readers to where they can find the full length version. Does that sound reasonable? Other suggestions? Wesley 18:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Veneration of plants and animals

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)

Doesn't belong in the Category:Roman Catholic worship

This article does not belong in this category. I am removing it. Any objections? --Elliskev 22:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't it belong in the category? Smerdis of Tlön 01:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Because venertion is not worship. --Elliskev 03:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic worship defines itself as being about "articles pertaining to sacraments and other practices of the Roman Catholic Church," which seems to me to cover it. Would Category:Roman Catholic prayers or Category:Catholic theology and doctrine be better? Smerdis of Tlön 05:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If the category is renamed Category:Roman Catholic practices, that would be best okay. It's just that veneration is specifically not worship - a misconception that many non-Catholics have is that Catholics worship the saints. Catholics venerate the saints and worship God. --Elliskev 14:13, 18 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 suppose so — this is the locus classicus of "distinction without a difference" — but if so this probably ought to be reflected in the categorization scheme for Roman Catholic rituals itself. Smerdis of Tlön 20:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, smart guy, regardless of your snooty, high-brow attempt to minimize the it, there is a difference. --Elliskev 00:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend, but the apparent Protestant inability to see the distinction leads some Orthodox theologians to suspect that Protestants no longer have a clear understanding of what worship is. What the Orthodox call veneration the Protestants call worship, so to the Orthodox, it can appear that we worship only God but venerate nearly everything else, while Protestants venerate only God and worship no one at all. I don't think what I just said belongs in this or any article (consider it original research unless you find another source for it); I mention it only to refute the suggestion that this is a distinction without a difference. Wesley 05:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I mention this mostly because it suggests that the categories about Roman Catholic devotional practices were set up by someone who shares the Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim understanding of monotheism, and who does not understand the subtle distinction drawn by the liturgical churches. If this is so, they perhaps need to be reorganized to reflect the distinctions drawn in those theologies. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, I think we all want people who are browsing through the categories about Roman Catholic worship/veneration/ritual to see this article. Removing it from the category removes it from those readers' potential notice. Smerdis of Tlön 05:59, 21 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)

Really, I think that the entire categorization scheme of Catholicism needs a hard look. Presently, there are far too many categories. I think work needs to start at the top with a catgeory of Catholicism and its subacategories of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Catholcism, etc. I'm not sure that I'm knowledgeable enough to do this on my own. It's a major undertaking that will require the input of a lot of Wikipedians. --Elliskev 20:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandal alert!

I am pretty sure "hot hookers" and "sluts" are not venerated in christianity!

Fixed. NawlinWiki 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

images only?

I've removed this opening sentence:

Veneration is a religious symbolic act giving honor to someone by honoring an image of that person, particularly applied to saints.

It's simply incorrect. Veneration is often given in other ways than via images. jnestorius^(talk) 20:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)