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,, 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 (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. (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)


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 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


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)
    • ^ The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
    • ^ Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation, question 195