Talk:Consecration in Christianity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Monks

"Ordination of a bishop or a monk is also called consecration."

Does anyone have a source (i.e. Orthodoxy or Anglicanism) that would speak of monks having Holy Orders/Ordination? Catholics only recognize three levels of HO: deacon, priest, & bishop. Monks take vows, and I suppose you could refer to them as consecrated (i.e. consecrated virgins) but unless they are also deacons, priests, or bishops, they do not receive holy orders and therefore are not ordained. As it stands, the line needs to be changed, but I'm not sure if it should be "Ordination of a bishop, and taking vows for a monk or nun is also called consecration." or "Ordination of a bishop or a monk is also called consecration. ([Relevant Church] recognizes monks as ordained, however Catholics [and Orthodox, Anglican, any other relevant churches] do not "ordain" monks." -- Essjay · Talk July 7, 2005 17:21 (UTC)

Monks frequently are ordained. That, however, was not always the case. I have never heard of a monk's being consecrated. But who am I to say? It's possible, I suppose.

--Sophroniscus 7 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

There are often monks who are also ordained clergy, i.e., they were already clergy when they became monks, or received Holy Orders after they became monks, but it is a separate ceremony. My concern is the suggestion that all monks are ordained, which is (at least in the RCC) not correct. For the RCC ordination refers specifically to receiving Holy Orders, and not to any other ceremony. I'm wondering if the rites for becoming a monk in Orthodoxy or Anglicanism (or another tradition with monks) use the term "consecration"; if not, it shoud be dropped. -- Essjay · Talk July 7, 2005 21:57 (UTC)

It used to be the case that most monks could not read or write and so there generally was no question that they be ordained. I suppose that has changed. For all I know, today most monks may be college graduates. In fact, the reason for the development of the rosary goes back to the illiteracy of the all-too typical monk. --Sophroniscus 7 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

However, there is a difference in function between monks and ordained clergy. The point of ordained clergy is to further the sacramental work of the Church. Monks (unless they are also ordained clergy) do not perform sacramental tasks. Monks have many secular and cloistered functions (praying, teaching, etc.) but these are completely divorced from the functions of deacons, preists, and bishops. There is some overlay, of course; many monks choose to become priests as well as being monks, and many former monks go on to be parish preists and bishops. Also, some orders are friars, rather than monks; monks are clositered or semi-cloistered, while friars are "out in the world." So, while some monks are ordained in addition to being monks, not all are; by far, most monks are not ordained, they are just monks. -- Essjay · Talk July 7, 2005 23:30 (UTC)

In the Orthodox Church, one does not speak of "consecrating" or "ordaining" a monk or nun; rather, one "tonsures" a monk or nun. Monks who also happen to be ordained a deacon are called "hierodeacons"; monks who are ordained to the priesthood are called "hieromonks"; all bishops are (supposed to be) monks, so they are simply called "bishops." MishaPan 14:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

somewhat disorganized

The "Eastern Orthodoxy" section has a long part about consecration of bishops and apostolic succession. Most of that applies equally to the RC Church, but that's not the impression you'd get from reading this article. Evidently several editors didn't coordinate their efforts with each other. Michael Hardy 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Other religions

I deleted a section called "Other Religions" which consisted solely of the sentence "Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Reform Judaism and Thelema all use the term." No sources were cited and the statement seems rather meaningless. Certainly Hinduism and Buddhism do not use this term as such, and the others are suspect. Perhaps they use an equivalent term, but in that case we need to know what it is.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Stupid list

I removed a stupid list of crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.253.37 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Consecration to Mary

I think the Catholic practice of consecration to the Virgin Mary, as well as the Consecration of Russia should be added. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. As well as other acts of "consecration" (e. g. to the Immaculate heart or the Sacred heart) these are in fact no acts of consecration in the way the Roman cathollic (and the orthodox) church defines consecration. Consecration means setting apart something completely and "using" it only for sacred purpose. It also means that the consecrated human being or object is being consecrated by the solemn prayer and acting of the church (which is reprented by the Bishop or the priest).--Turris Davidica (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Footnote in article "Consecration" re: "magic"

Because of the frequent confusion that is too often expressed regarding Jewish and Christian ceremonial religious rites of consecration as a perceived kind of "magical" practice, I deemed it absolutely imperative to include for the edification of the reader an immediately accessible treatment in footnote to the article "Consecration" of the differences between consecration to God and the self-elevatory practices of traditional magic and of New Age practitioners. (This accords with Wiki guidelines re: purpose of footnotes other than to cite sources.) Clear references to recognized authors and representative works substantiating the statements made in footnote are included together with links to Wikipedia articles offering more in-depth discussion of each of the aspects of magical practices and disciplines. I am convinced of the emphatic need to make clear to the reader that these "are in very marked contrast with the Jewish and Christian meaning of Consecration". The treatment set forth in the footnote might well be placed also in a separate Wikipedia article with some minor expansion. But I think it might be considered redundant and unnecessary. I do not believe the material can be reasonably placed before the reader within the body of the article for reasons of consonance, although unlike the deleted paragraph listing Wicca, et al., discussed above, it offers appropriate citations and documentation of the statements made, with internal Wiki-linked articles discussing, because the nature of the subject is so much in contrast with the primary subject of the article. I submit it to your judgment for consideration as a kind of justifiably appropriate defense at hand for the difference between magical practices and rites of sacred consecration to God Who alone makes creatures holy and authorizes delegated representatives from the midst of the human community to perform the rites of consecration in His Name HaShem, not by their own developed power but by His authority alone. Hermitstudy (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just so no one is confused by this long-winded, inappropriately toned, run on message, the entire, lousy section referred to above has been removed, as it too was a load of run-on, inappropriate material. Full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it was, frankly, a load of shit and needed to be removed.oknazevad (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)