Talk:Veneration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Saints / Catholicism / Eastern / Anglicanism (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 Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Low-importance).
 

Sunni Islam is a sect?[edit]

This caught my attention: "Other sects, such as Sunnis and Wahhabists, abhor the practice."

When you follow link for Sunni Islam, nowhere does it says that it is a sect (like for Wahhabi movement or Shia Islam).

But on Shia wiki page there is notable effort to call both sides as a sects.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensarija (talkcontribs) 13:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dulia ≠ Veneration[edit]

Is a redirect in a search for "dulia" to "veneration" truthful? Given the definitions' of the two words being so dissimilar, the existence of a separate page seems fruitful and enlightening.

Dulia (Greek δουλεια) = bondage, slavery, servitude (e.g. Romans 8:15, 21; Galations 4:24; 5:1; etc.)
Veneration (Latin veneratio) = traditionally, respect or honor given to icons, physical or figurative

It is most clear, to equate the two is to hide knowledge. New Advent, among others, more correctly gives the Latin equivalent, "servitus," even if the denotation is subsequently ignored.

In short, I'd like to create a separate page for "dulia" if there are no reasonable objections or perhaps alternatives. Thanks for your time.CalebPM (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Religions?[edit]

"Veneration" in academic literature often refers to religious reverence for some individual through various religious avenues (religious poetry or prose, storytelling, paintings, music, etc). For example, there is a monograph by Annemarie Schimmel titled, And Muhammad Is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety. So the topic can have a much wider scope than just Christianity, even though the term veneration is often used in Christian writings to refer exclusively to the reverence of Christian Saints. --Semaphoris (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraphs on Hebrew, which were full of errors. There is no word שחה meaning veneration. The word שחה appears only once in the Bible, in an obscure verse, where it seems to mean 'lie down on the ground' (and not in veneration). All the verses that were cited in these paragraphs have the word השתחוה, which may or may not be from the same abstract, hypothetical root as שחה. Anyway, השתחוה does not mean 'venerate' but rather 'bow down', that is, a physical act, not a spiritual/mental/emotional or verbal one. The source that was given for the information in the paragraphs, http://sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/h7812.htm, is antiquated nonsense. No modern scholar talks about "a primitive root"; why should prostration be "reflexive"; and this Hebrew word certainly does not mean "humbly beseech". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.215.227 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The comments indicating that Lutherans practice "veneration of saints" are incorrect. According to The Augsburg Confession, Article 21 "Lutherans keep the saints, not as saviors or intercessors to God, but rather as examples and inspirations to our own faith and life." [1] Additionally, in response to the question "To whom should we pray?" Martin Luther responds "We should pray to the true God only, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not to idols, saints, or anything God has created." [2]Happyday01 (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lutherans do venerate saints, but not through intercessory prayers. The Magnificat, Liturgical Calendar of Saints (Lutheran), and Books of Saints are all ways in which Lutherans venerate the saints. It is very different than most other forms of Christian veneration, and I wish the article would mention more on the subject. The article needs much improvement. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church prays to Mary and the saints, see here [1] --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Different Churches, Different Veneration[edit]

I think that the article should be broken up into the different kinds of veneration. I know that catholic, orthodox, anglican, and lutheran veneration all differ. Lutheran Veneration probably needs to be explained better, because unlike Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox, Lutherans do not pray to saints, they do however celebrate their feast days, have a calender of saints, and believe the saints pray for them. I think this needs to be explained in the article. 74.167.245.190 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Lutheran and Anglican references should be removed unless documentation is cited. Grantmidnight (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed. A year of challenge is long enough. Grantmidnight (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod www.lcms.org
  2. ^ Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation, question 195

Mariology[edit]

The references sited are not accurate on timetable. Although the conception of Mary was celebrated in the East in the early christian period, the concept of immaculate conception by the Roman Catholic Church was not universal. It was allowed in 1806, and established as dogma in 1854. This is not a 'long' history as indicated.

The Assumption was not established until 1871. And these Roman dogmas are not accepted by most the other Christian religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Angel=Saint?[edit]

The article lede currently gives a definition of saint that I'm not finding to be a widespread one in different religions and sects, at least in the neutral and academic reliable sources I'm searching. We currently define saint as ":an angel, or a person who has been identified as having a high degree of sanctity or holiness." I'm bringing it here because Elizium23 reverted my removal of "angel" from the definition of "saint." I also notice that the article body mentions "angel" only once, and even then, not to show that angel=saint. The lede "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article," so on that count alone it shouldn't be in the lede as the article currently stands (and in the first sentence yet!).

Is it possible that Elizium23, and whoever inserted "angel" in the lede previously is not trying to define them as the same thing, but wanting to show that angels are also venerated? If that's the case, then we could simply add a sentence after the first one saying, "Angles are also shown veneration in many religions."

By the way, here is how a neutral, very broad-based, academic reliable source introduces the concept of saints:

Historians of religion have liberated the category of sainthood from its narrower Christian associations and have employed the term in a more general way to refer to the state of special holiness that many religions attribute to certain people. The Jewish hasid or tsaddiq, the Muslim waliy, the Zoroastrian fravashi, the Hindu rsi or guru, the Buddhist arahant or bodhisattva, the Daoist shengren, the Shinto kami and others have all been referred to as saints.

The quote is from:

  • Lindsay Jones, ed. (2005). Thomson Gale Encyclopedia of Religion (in Tajik). Sainthood (Second ed.). Macmillan Reference USA. p. 8033. 

Additionally, our Saint article mentions "angel" once, and only then to state that angels are not saints ("By this definition, Adam and Eve, Moses, the various prophets, except for the angels and archangels are all given the title of "Saint".)
First Light (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am the one who originally inserted the word, and I would not object to rephrasing as you propose to avoid the 'angel=saint' assertion and show that they are also shown veneration. However, the quote you give from the Saint article is referring to the Eastern Orthodox, which are at variance with Catholic tradition which does give the title of 'Saint' to the angels and archangels, and considers them as members of the communion of saints. Here is an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia which I hope will explain things to your satisfaction. Elizium23 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand after reading that quote, and used it because it was the only mention, however peripheral, in that article. As you can see, I'm trying to give the broadest perspective in the lede, and then allow for the views of different branches and religions in the main body of the article. And thanks for that link — I'm neither Catholic or Orthodox, so this is all an education for me :-). First Light (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Veneration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It's not even completely clear what the eventual move proposal was, let alone who !voted on what, but it's clear that there is no possibility of a consensus to move based on this muddled RM. So strongly suggest discuss informally on the various talk pages, starting with the several suggestions raised below to improve the articles, and raise another RM only if a considered direction emerges that needs a renaming. Andrewa (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)



– Wikipedia is not the Catholic Encyclopedia or any other Christian work, there 's no dab page, and if you're in this particular religion (Catholic/Orthodox), veneration can refer to Veneration of the dead instead, or other things. This should be replaced by a disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support I am the nominator. Indeed the Veneratioo nof Christian Saints can easily be seen as a subtopic of veneration of the dead, since all Saints are dead, and they are being venerated. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose currently the article covers Buddhism and Islam too In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • With the way the lede is written, this appears to supposed to be a Christian article, with the other religions being coatracked onto the Christian topic. (hence the need for a disambiguation page, and refactor of this page) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't see the OP's point; the concept of veneration is not limited to Christianism and the article correctly addresses this. If you think there is too much emphasis on one religion, that's a content discussion to be held on this very talk page. — JFG talk 14:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Then veneration of saints (with the mix of religious content, but with a rewritten lede, since it implies a Christian article). Though it still remains that those being venerated are dead, and still as such should be a subtopic of veneration of the dead -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • I'm confused. (1) Why is |multiple=yes used in the {{requested move}} in this section as it appears the suggestion is that only this article be renamed and that Veneration of the dead be left unchanged? (2) Why is an article with non-Christian content being proposed for renaming to a title which is specific to Christianity? YBG (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - What a mess.
  • If this article is named Veneration it should not have the current Christian undue weight in the lede. This is a content issue. I don't think this article needs to be stripped back to a disambig, but it does need an overhaul to be more balanced. For sections that are addressed more fully in already-existing-articles, the usual, brief overview with a link to the full article is the thing to do.
  • If you want more content for Veneration of Christian Saints than is already in this article, sure, make another article and, as above, brief summation with See main article link.
  • I don't suggest merging Veneration of the dead and the Saints stuff, as the former covers all sorts of non-Christian religions and I'm not sure the approaches would fit well together. But if you want to try, YMMV. Meanwhile, I'm adjusting the template over at that article, as a request to move the article to where it already is... well, I don't think that's really helping. - CorbieV 23:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.