Talk:Treatise on Relics

Polycarp

Jack17212. In your source there is not a word about honoring the relics of Polycarp (worshiping them and kissing them). Why are you quoting this affiliated Catholic source?

"And so we subsequently took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place."--Wlbw68 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wlbw68 To address your first question, because the entire purpose of Calvin's writing is to critique and differentiate his theology from the Catholic Church. It is appropriate for the Background section to demonstrate and refer to the Catholic practice throughout the ages, briefly, so one can understand what Calvin is dissenting against. To this day the Catholic teaching is different than that of Calvin, so it's useful, in my estimation, to use them when describing facts about things that are specific to the Catholic teaching -- again, what Calvin is dissenting from. Likewise, the second source from the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans is exactly describing relic veneration -- the original text of this section even describes the acquisition of bones as a form of this practice. Did you read the full context? A longer quote would be poor style to quote in the body of this article, but it's simply a fact that veneration of his bones is being described (specifically sections 18:2 - 19:2), insofar as the fact that veneration is the term used to describe other examples in the section (such as the digging up of bones); no less important is that the document itself is promoting a martyrdom ideology to its audience. This is the type of practice that Calvin is writing against and is important information. As best I can tell, the only reason not to include it would be if the goal were to be lending arguments in favor of Calvin's writing. The point should be to explain the history and development of the practice. There may be better sources to use instead, though.

The original that you have once again reverted to is factually wrong claiming that this type of practice is "unknown" to early Christianity. I don't know who originally wrote it, but it's clearly not an NPOV. Even the Wikipedia article on Veneration quite literally says veneration began in early Christendom and includes encyclopedic, academic sources. I can add more sources, such as Peter Brown's "The Cult of the Saints", if you wish, which describes saintly cults as having the exact same character as what happened to Polycarp. If you have edits that you'd like to suggest, then by all means do so, but the reversion is so poorly written that, as it stands, it shouldn't be included at all. There are no sources, errors (and if you won't permit that term, at least we can note that it's an outlier when compared to other Wikipedia pages), and it seems to have been written polemically to support Calvin's theology. Note the use of the term "worship" in the first version, an obviously theologically loaded phrase in this context, despite the fact that the quote from Calvin's work within the body of the article uses the term "veneration" in addition to "worship." I'm going to restore my version, and add some additional citations. Please feel free to add more sources, but don't revert it to the original.

I'd also remark that the article as a whole suffers from a NPOV problem, which could be addressed as the lack of citations is also addressed. --Jack17212 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you read that the relatives of the deceased in a plane crash or a car accident take the remains of the deceased and bury them with honors? But this is not a church veneration of the remains of the dead (worship and kissing them). In your quote there is not a word about the worship and kissing of the relics of Polycarp. It is not said that the relics of Polycarp were placed in the church. Catholic theologians are trying to cite this quote as evidence of the antiquity of the veneration of relics. But this is not true even from a scientific point of view. The quote does not mention the worship of the relics of Polycarp. From a historical point of view, this is not true. The first Christians were Jews who kept Jewish customs. Touching a corpse was considered unclean. Polycarp lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries, at which time Jewish customs were still quite strong. Apart from this quote, there is nothing to confirm the antiquity of the worship of relics. In general, the quote itself confirms absolutely nothing. Scientists who name the date of the beginning of the worship of relics and icons are absolutely right - the 4th century. Until that time, there are no written sources confirming the worship of the relics. That is why, from a scientific and historical point of view, the Protestants abandoned the worship of relics and icons. Catholic theologians had nowhere to go, there are a huge number of relics in their churches. It was necessary by any means to prove the antiquity of this custom. But they do it very clumsily. They pass off wishful thinking.--Wlbw68 (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

--Wlbw68 Based on your description, I have to admit your comment suggests that you are more interested in writing the article to defend Calvin and attack an opposing Church than using the academic understanding of the history of Christian veneration of saints and relics. I have provided numerous, academic sources that describe saint veneration and relic veneration as having origins in the earliest of Christendom, but beginning to take new form in the 4th century onward. Even a quick Google Search will lead one to see that the Martyrdom of Polycarp is considered early evidence for veneration of martyrs among early Christianity by non-church sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica. You also claim that this doesn't "prove the worship of relics." I don't see how that's at all germane to the inclusion of the quote, because the background is about worship and/or veneration of saints, martyrs, and relics. There is an obvious similarity between the actions described in Martyrdom of Polycarp and the practices that are also labeled as veneration by academic sources later on, and this is why sources that are academic use this as an example. In fact, it's unusual to me that you are insisting that veneration and/or worship of relics must include kissing, etc., when the academic definition of veneration includes behaviors described in MartPol. The source you cited, while not in English, seems to be a commentary on Calvin's work itself, which is not at all the same as academic, neutral sources like the Britannica, published journal articles, or books by scholars. Indeed, the book from Brown that is cited in the article's text explains your point exactly that the practices of keeping the bones and carrying them around was entirely distinct from pagan attitudes at the time. If you're going to insist on reverting my good-faith edits again, I'm going to have to ask that you bring in dispute moderation and/or third parties, because, in my view, your edits reflect a non NPOV religious perspective attempting to lend credence to Calvin's work rather than provide a comprehensive academic understanding. It is far more "scientific," as you say, to use neutral, academic sources describing the history of the practice in Christendom than Calvin himself or a commentary on Calvin's Treatise.--Jack17212 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Jack17212. As the main source for writing the article, I took an independent source - an article by Radzig. This man did not belong to any denomination, and considered the issue from a truly scientific point of view. Instead, you offer only affiliated authors associated with the Catholic Church: Protestant scientists and learned atheists are fools, relics in Christianity were revered in early Christianity, and only Catholics are good fellows. And you're trying to pass off wishful thinking. The information that the Christians took the remains of the body of Polycarp to pass off as worship of the relics. Sorry, but this is not true from start to finish. You also excluded from the article the dispute between Vigilantius and Jerome of the 4th century about the relics. This dispute shows that in the 4th century there were opponents of the worship of relics among the clergy of the church.

You started a war. In order not to fight with you, I offer an alternative. Let the article present both points of view: moreover, with a quote in which the Catholics saw the worship of the relics of Polycarp. Alternatively, I, as the author of the article and editor-in-chief, will exclude everything that does not relate to Calvin's book from the article.--Wlbw68 (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Wlbw68, I think your proposed solution is getting in the right direction, but let's clear things up: everything that is stated in the background section can be based on non-religiously affiliated sources. The only "catholic" source was an encyclopedic entry describing relic worship/veneration to begin with (not just a polemic). Every single other source is academic and non-sectarian, and many of them unequivocally use the Polycarp example as an early instance of Christian veneration of martyrs. Indeed, I would suspect a Catholic would probably disagree that the relics were "impossible" to verify, but since that is probably closer to the academic view (this would benefit from a citation, FWIW), then it should stay, even if a Catholic thinks it's wrong. If you don't think that Polycarp is relevant to the article at hand, that's one thing, but to remove it and assert something contrary to what the academic sources say is not good editing practice. I removed the dispute between Vigilantius and Jerome because it had no references nor citations. That should most certainly be added back, but needs citations (as do some of the other claims). The other issue was that it gave a false impression, absent more context, that the topic was disputed throughout the ages, when in reality (as the quoted sources in the article show now), academics recognize that it became very widespread among laypeople (which is what Peter Brown's work, which is cited, is about), which to me gives crucial context about Calvin's work and what makes it important, and is actually very important to Calvin himself since he distanced himself from the Latin church at the time in part for these reasons. I'd like to go back to your issue with the inclusion of Polycarp. You suggest it doesn't show "worship". What continues to confuse me about that is that the article itself, as with Calvin's point in his treatise, is attacking all forms of veneration, whether out of respect, or actual worship as he would see due to God. The text itself is quite literally veneration: the taking and distributing of bones, treated as holy objects, for the remembrance of his death annually in the churches by Christians. I don't see why we need a quote about them bowing down or kissing them to include it, because the practices Calvin is against are not simply bowing down to or kissing relics, but of their veneration as a whole. Putting the bones of the martyrs in churches or other places, treating them with honor, for the purpose of commemorating the person on a regular basis is the definition of veneration. Theological views on this aside, from an academic perspective, it's clear that this is veneration and is a precursor to what flourished starting in the fourth century, which is not my opinion, but what these academic sources themselves claim. This isn't a war. The original post had uncited falsehoods, not from a Catholic or Calvinist perspective, but from an academic one. Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether or not, from a Christian view, what happened to Polycarp "counts" as a contemporary practice or whether that makes it "okay" in a religious sense. It would certainly be appropriate -- a good idea, no less -- to explain why Calvin did NOT think it was okay, but that should go in the section about the work itself, not the background. The article already does a good job explaining Calvin's views expressed in the work in part, but it too could probably be expanded.

The article's job should not be to present points of view. I believe it would be inappropriate here to add anything like "Catholic responses" as a subheading to put refutations to Calvin. What would be much more helpful would be more context on Calvin's issues with what is described in the background section, with citations, in the section about the work. Calvin does not determine what the academics say, nor do academics determine Calvin. So to your suggestion, I think it would be a good idea to add more content under Calvin that connects more with what he saw as a pervasive issue throughout the church, but keep it separate from the "academic" section. And likewise I think "Catholic" sections attacking Calvin would not be helpful at all. If you can find contemporary scholarly sources that disagree about the early church, then perhaps you could change it to "many sources argue ..., but others say ...". But please, do not remove the Polycarp example, so long as the background section is a brief overview of the development of veneration of saints and relics through the history of Latin Christendom. If you think other quotes are not helpful, feel free to condense them, but I think I have provided a succinct and appropriate explanation of the origins and quick growth of relic veneration, which is very helpful in understanding the context in which the treatise was written. --Jack17212 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Jack17212. Regarding the worship / veneration of the relics. One of the causes of the Reformation in the 16th century was the revival of early Christianity. Protestants abandoned the worship/veneration of relics because this was not the case in early Christianity. The official beginning of the worship / veneration of relics is the middle of the 4th century. For you, English is your native language, I think it is easier for you to find this information.--Wlbw68 (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wlbw68, I am aware of that. However, the definition of "Early Christianity" may be different from a Protestant perspective vis a vis an academic one. From my understanding, it is generally seen that anything prior to 200 AD, or anything involving the Apostolic Fathers (so the Apostles and their immediate disciple groups, such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, etc) is considered "early." It is certainly true that it became far, far more widespread beginning in the 300s from what I have read and what the sources seem to say, but I do not think it is true to say it "began" in the 300s according to academic sources, as Polycarp was living in the 1st and 2nd century and the account of his martyrdom is accepted as genuine, insofar as authorship is concerned. However, what Calvin says in the treatise, and what I think may be useful to include in the section about the work itself, is that Calvin noted that there is nothing explicit about relics or veneration of martyrs/saints in the New Testament scripture, which he states would have been there if it were practiced. That would be in the time before the account of Polycarp's Martyrdom. However there seem to be various theories if the idealizing of martyrs originated before this from what I can tell. For instance this blog site (not the best source) suggests that 2 Maccabees shows that the heroics of martyrs were idealized pre-Christ and states that we don't know when it really began. From an academic perspective it seems to me that the agreed upon "earliest evidence" is "no later than Polycarp," but also that there is nothing academically conclusive about what the Apostles taught, as there is nothing describing it in the earliest writings including the NT, but also no prohibitions. Hence I suppose it could be best to add more info about Calvin's view regarding the Scripture and the practice, that he believes that its silence on the matter indicates it was not practiced.Jack17212 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)