Jump to content

Talk:The Imitation of Christ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrexelGregory (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 22 December 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChristianity: Catholicism Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as High-importance).

Translators

Perhaps someone could add a list of translations and dates? Pied beauty 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page move

Seeing as how most resources (including the Library of Congress) tend to list the book as The Imitation of Christ (rather than just Imitation of Christ), are there any objections to me moving the page to The Imitation of Christ? Esrever 15:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Esrever 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV?

Excellent as these counsels are, they are set in the minor key and are especially adapted for souls burdened with care and sorrow and sitting in darkness. They present only one side of the Christian life, which can be supplemented by counsels for integrity, bravery, and constancy in the struggle for daily existence which encompasses the bulk of humanity.

What do such POV remarks have to do with WP and with such an article? I've deleted them. Lumendelumine 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References needed

I like what this paragraph says, but it needs to be more specific and avoid weasel words, and to do that it needs sources. For that reason I'm pulling it out of the text and putting it hear for future work. Rwflammang (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary Protestant complaints[citation needed] about the book are with regard to what they might call non-biblical practices or beliefs based on church tradition: the merit of good works and transubstantiation & Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (IV:2 - i.e., volume IV, chapter 2), purgatory (IV:9), and the honoring of saints (I:13, II:9, III:6, III:59). Also, the book quotes passages from the Apocrypha along with canonical books (vol. III, 12:4). These aspects of Kempis' writings, however, are in full conformity with the Catholic faith which he practiced and with the Catholic faith today. Some editions published by Protestant publishers, such as one by Moody Press, do not contain certain portions of the book; 17th century editions from Calvinist printers in Holland also censored parts.

The Author

Nobody is sure about the author of this book. There are three possible authors: Tommaso da Kempis or Jean Gerson or Giovanni Gersen (citations in the italian wiki).--93.149.140.77 (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Opinion?

I sort of feel like the following paragraph reflects opinion: The work is a manual of devotion intended to assist the soul with its pursuit of holiness and communion with God. Its sentences are statements, not arguments, and are pitched in the highest key of Christian experience. It was meant for monastics and ascetics. Behind and within all its reflections runs the counsel of self-renunciation. This seems more like speculation than provable fact.

John Paul I

The article asserts that John Paul I is said to have died with a copy of this book. I read that this is actually untrue; he died with work papers. I suggest removing this. Opinions? J.J. Bustamante (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]