From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Low-importance).

Roman Catholics[edit]

I understand that catholics also have a theory of glorification. If anyone knows anything about that i would greatly appreciate there posting it.

I'm no theologian, but it could have something to do with the Catholic views on the relationship between body and soul. The eventual glorified body recieved would be a true (or true-er) reflection of the beauty of the soul rather than the unglorified, which has the imperfections of this world.

This needs to begin by establishing context for these inventions: "In dirt-road Fundamentalism..." or "Among Revivalist Christians.." or whatever applies. Remember, there are plenty of us who don't know whose personal opinions are being expressed in this heartfelt essay. --Wetman 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this article needs a clean up. All points are stated as fact, without giving reference to the denomination that believes this school of theological thought.

"For the most part, all protestant denominations believe in this form of glorification, although some have alternative names."

Say what? "For the most part", "all", "some". What is actually meant to be conveyed with this phrase. That most of all denominations believe this but some don't? Huh?

I'd also like to see the direct quote by C.S. Lewis which has been paraphrased in this article. I have read the book "The Weight of Glory" and did not get the impression that Lewis was conveying this thought at all. Citation, please?

Catholic & Orthodox[edit]

Don't know anything about the Catholic understanding of glorification, but I added a space for it-- to show that the article is incomplete. Also added Orthodox Christian use of "glorification," and subsumed the rest of the article under a Protestant heading. It'll take a Protestant theologian or five to parse the details of which denominations/ schools practice which theory of glorification. Buddhagazelle 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Buddhagazelle

I moved the cleanup tag to the Protestant section and made it more specific. There should probably be a general statement about 'glorification' above the table of contents? Buddhagazelle 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Buddhagazelle

I removed the entire Eastern Orthodox section on glorification. I am sorry to say this as an Orthodox theologian, but it was full of mistakes, and although it would be better to be re-written, it is better that it is withdrawn until such a time as a more accurate piece is submitted. One of the several mistakes is the supposed use of 'glorification' as, supposedly the Orthodox word for canonization. I have no idea where this is coming from, because there is no word δοξασμός or anything similar, that could be translated as glorification. Traditionally the expression is the 'recognition' or even 'proclamation' of one's sainthood. I cannot tell if 'glorification' is used in a part of the Orthodox world, or if it a particularly American Orthodox use, but either way it is certainly not correct to say that "glorification is the usual word for canonization in the Eastern Orthodox tradition". I don't know who Fr Alexey Young is, and whether he grew up as Orthodox, but it is apparent that while he thinks of the use of 'glorification' as normative for Orthodoxy, it does not appear in any of the sources he cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger with Glory[edit]

by no means should this article be merged with 'glory' while the idea of glorification is based in the idea of glory they are too distinct to be grouped together under either name. in the same was that you can't put sanctification under saint you can't classify glorification under glory. J.L.Main (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Canonization and Glorification[edit]

The Canonization article gives a much more in depth look at Glorification in the Orthodox Church than this Glorification article. Should I just copy and paste that information over to here? Or would anyone be in favor of a merger? They are both very similar concepts (neither of the 2 churches create saints, but rather, they recognize a saint through their respective canonization/glorification processes as a person that is in heaven). However, I don't know how to title the merged article. Maybe: Saint Recognition Processes. Or: Canonization and Glorification. Then have Canonization and Glorification redirect here? --Icehcky8 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Glorification covers more than just canonization but at the same time canonization is definitely worthy of its own article. i think simply putting a "see also" link to the canonization article would be the best solution. J.L.Main (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I made some changes regarding this. --Ephilei (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the part of the article under the Protestant subheading really needs to be included in an expansion of the article Glorification (theology) rather than here. The glorification outlined there is in fact a theological concept rather than something equivalent to Catholic canonization or Orthodox glorification. (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Glorification article[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge. – Paine (Climax!)  17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible we could discuss the merger of Glorification (theology)? What were you're reasons for the merger? Glorification contains a long unreferenced section from the Eastern Orthodox perspective which creates the impression it's primarily an Eastern Orthodox term. Given the often completely divergent views within Christianity wouldn't it be better to have separate articles? Knobbly (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Knobbly, I see where another editor reverted a previous attempt to redirect this article. I will, of course, discuss this with you, however since other editors are involved, the place for the discussion is the article's talk page. So I will continue this discussion with you there. – p i e (Climax!)  15:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Knobbly, the reasons I merged Glorification (theology) into Glorification are that the first is a stub article and Glorification is a short article as well. So it made sense to me to place that extremely short content, which has been a stub for more than two-and-a-half years with very little improvement in all that time, into the more general article. I still see no reason for this small stub to continue on its own, unless you and others are willing to expand it. I will not merge it again right away, however I still think the merge should be strongly considered. It would be better to expand this in the general article, as well as to expand the other short sections in that article, than it would be to maintain separate short and very short articles. So I will open a merge discussion to see if other editors have opinions like yours and mine. – p i e (Climax!)  16:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. The stub article, Glorification (theology), has previously been merged twice into Glorification apparently without discussion, and both merges were reverted. The stub article has been a stub for more than two-and-a-half years with little improvement. This longer article would be enhanced by the addition of the stub article's content. – p i e (Climax!)  16:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. Just because an article is a stub or has remained a stub for a period of time doesn't necessarily reflect negatively on it's notability. Wikipedia is a work in progress and many stubs languish before being expanded. Furthermore the unsourced content of Glorification is heavily focused on an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint which would create the misleading impression that "glorification" as a theological term is purely about sainthood, having separate articles improves NPOV. Knobbly (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"Glorification" has more than one meaning. However, the descriptions of those meanings appear to make up only a short article even with this merge. There are two things to consider:
  1. The obvious past expansion of one section of this article seems to call for expansion of the other sections for WP:NPOV balance. Merging Glorification (theology) into this article will help to expand this article, make it more neutral and perhaps promote further expansion of the other short sections, and
  2. The subject of Glorification is notable enough, but what makes that one single doctrine, the theological doctrine, notable enough to be in its own standalone article? The notability of an article is expected to be found in its lede. Precisely what part of that lede shows the standalone notability of the theological doctrine? Is it not one of several doctrines that should be described in the main Glorification article?
Those two points, NPOV and notability, strongly call for this merge. – p i e (Climax!)  18:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Heavily weighted[edit]

It has been suggested by editor Knobbly that this article is heavily weighted toward the Eastern Orthodox meaning and usage of the term "glorification", and I agree with Knobbly. Since the above merger discussion will close soon, this discussion is moved to its own section. Please feel free to share your opinion about this NPOV issue. – Paine (Climax!)  17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)