Talk:Veneration

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).