Talk:The Stripping of the Altars

Duffy's own POV

I removed this section because it read very much like a subjective book review, rather than a wikipedia article. It referred to Duffy allegedly "betraying" his "fondness" for Catholic liturgy, spoke of his supposed reputation, and called the book "ideological" and "polemical." All this, but not one citation to any respected commentator, historian or reviewer, and not a single citation to specific sections in the book that were being criticized. If someone has another view, feel free to offer it.Cloonmore (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone back to see what was removed here (I just came across this article), but I would point out that Duffy does reveal his partiality in the Preface to the Second Edition. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but there is a point where he mentions how his views on this topic were largely influenced by the changes in the liturgy that happened with Vatican II, and how he saw parallels between Vatican II and the Council of Trent. Serogers02 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Book review not encyclopedia article

This whole article reads more like a book review rather than an encyclopedia article about a book. The book sounds interesting but is not shown to be notable by any independent citations or comments from other historians etc. stating its importance to the historical scholarship of the period. Dabbler (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not Scriptural

"Feast days were celebrated, fasts solemnly observed, churches decorated, images venerated, candles lit and prayers for the dead recited with regularity". None of the above is scriptural and it was this deviation from Scripture that resulted in the reformation and the swing to Protestantism. Popayetwo (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Duffy's book. It is not a forum for discussion of the pros and cons of the Protestant belief in sola scriptura. The comment should be removed.203.31.52.137 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We're discussing the book, not theology. There are other places on the internet for that!--Bagration1944 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-Vatican II iconoclasm

I think certain liturgical authors have made similar analogies with the evolution of Catholic ritual in the years that followed the Second Vatican Council. This type of comparison notably comes up in the writings of Michael Davies and Louis Bouyer. ADM (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Attacks on Catholic Beliefs

Anti-Catholic Inuendo in "Counter-Arguments"

I am letting all page followers here know that unless the unsubstantiated attacks on the Seven Sacraments, Feasts and solemnities, etc., are not tempered with a more fair and balanced view in one week's time, then I will contest all the "non-scriptural" allegations. This gives an unrealistic presentation of the Catholic POV. Clearly, the author being quoted in Counter-arguments has no idea what he is talking about or likely even what the Seven Sacraments are, because Baptism is a Sacrament, and no Protestant imagines Baptism, for example, is non-scriptural ; furthermore, Catholic apologetic websites make heavy use of Scripture to prove the validity of each of the Seven Sacraments (see, for example, http://www.scripturecatholic.com by the American Lawyer and expert in Catholic Canon Law, John Salza). Following this, we traditionally trace these beliefs and their defense (by the Church Fathers, for example), and subsequent organic development, as they are attacked by various heresies down the centuries. This process is how we trace the development of the early Church's beliefs and doctrines.

On Feasts, solemnities, etc.

The Old Testament and New Testament is replete with feasts. God Himself, according to the Old Testament Scriptures, ordained most of these feasts and solemnities. Anyone even remotely familiar with Scripture knows this. Jesus, His family and His Apostles all solemnly celebrated and observed the feasts and solemnities of the Old Testament religion ; therefore, one cannot say that such things are not "biblical," for they are to be found practiced in both Testaments, with some being ordained by the command of God (according the Moses), while others appear to have developed organically as memorials of important historical events for the people of the Old Covenant, enshrined in their national worship and liturgy as special feast days. Jesus Himself commanded, "Do this in remembrance of me." This, at a minimum, is the institution at the Last Supper by Jesus of at least one feast.

It is neither my desire nor wish to subtract or distract from the subject of the book, but I do feel this page has been used as a platform to defend Protestant beliefs or undermine Catholic ones. Let's try to keep the focus, though controversial, on the historical facts that surround the events. This can be educational and beneficial to all readers, be they Protestant, Catholic or secular/non-Christian.

Timothy17 (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Timothy17

Your post is full of original research. It does not matter if you believe Daniell's arguments are wrong. The point is that the book has received criticism by an academic and it is right to include this because if it was removed there would be no criticism of the book at all in the article and the article would be unbalanced.--Britannicus (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

On Being Unbalanced for the Sake of Appearing Balanced

Dear Britannicus, While I appreciate your very cordial reply, I am, nonetheless, firm in my contention that any desired balancing ought to be truth set against truth ; otherwise, we produce fiction to dispute with fact. Timothy17 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So basically you don't agree with the opposing viewpoint so you want it removed from the article. If that happened across Wikipedia, no article would be neutral. David Daniell is an academic and has written a book, published by a university press, that disputes some of the arguments of the book this article is about. He is therefore a legitimate source. I am more than happy to have an administrator settle this dispute.--Britannicus (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

POV (portions)

Some parts of this article do not appear to be written from a netural viewpoint. Eg, paragraph 7 in the Summary states "So we see how candlesticks and church plate had to be melted down and sold off, altar tables removed, rood screens defaced or torn down and chasubles unstitched." At least, the paragraph should be prefaced with "Duffy shows how...". Also, the same section ends with "Duffy's narrative demonstrates how centuries of religious practice evaporated in the face of fierce centralist control." I don't think a large majority of other views would consider the Reformation a demonstration of "fierce centralist control" - Henry VIII just wanted a divorce, while his successors such as Elizabeth I at least somewhat tried to strike a balance between the CoE and the Pope's Roman Catholicism at a time when Calvin and others in the Protestant movement were moving far away from Rome's unbending dogma and lavishness (in their opinion). What does everyone think? Facts707 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Counterargument

The part after the block quotation in this section doesn't seem to be necessary. The section is about counterarguments but this paragraph defends Duffy's argument. Moreover, it cites Catholic websites as proof that Duffy is correct. This is not an objective POV. (Additionally many scholars agree with Daniell so rejecting his argument is not the best use of space in an encyclopedia article.) I recommend that this paragraph be removed. Serogers02 (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It does seem strange that the 'Wikipedia voice', which is supposed to be neutral, is attacking a book published by the Yale University Press in 2001 by relying on the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1912. I agree it should be removed.--Britannicus (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a standard reference book that is used in a single sentence for factual information only. parts of the Bible had been translated into English well before the 16th century,[7] as well as the Biblical instruction conveyed through the religious theatre [8] these are non-controversial non-religious statements of fact. That is not a POV violation. Rjensen (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph is pursuing a dishonest line of argument by using the 'Wikipedia voice' to criticise Daniell's argument without really doing so or engaging with his argument. Daniell claims that the "complete New Testament" was forbidden: Wikipedia (in this paragraph) warns the reader that in evaluating claims such as Daniell's one must be aware of now much the Bible already reached the laity through plays and traditional devotional Catholic works. It's an irrelevant argument when one looks at the works cited by the 'Wikipedia voice' in this paragraph. None of them are concerned with, for example, providing St. Paul's writings to the laity (which is part of Daniell's argument). Also, is it problematic that none of the sources in the paragraph are replies to Daniell (including the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia) but the 'Wikipedia voice' is using them to criticise Daniell? Wikipedia in this paragraph is adopting a POV that is not neutral and poorly sourced.--Britannicus (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)