Talk:Cilice

message: Sorry, I'm having trouble with getting the image to load, it seems. That's why I've edited twice. Yurfxrendenmein 19:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: sorry

message: In peer review you ask about the history paragraph. I can verify at least that the device is called "cilicium" in Latin and "cilicio" in Spanish. At least up to Vatican II it was very common in religious orders. Mpolo 13:18, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
----
There was a modification taht you can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Cilice&diff=5230522&oldid=5230518
- It has been customarily used in different institutions of the Catholic Church for centuries, and even by laity|lay people
+ This is a longstanding practice within parts of the Roman Catholic Church.
The replacement suggest that this is a fact, that nowadays it is in use. It's barely a fact (rather an aspersion) so I would change back to the original sentence, if there is no considered opinion to hold the current one. BTW It would be good to point the reference sources, who used and who not in the past, or nowadays. It would promote the scientific point of view of the topic. As I see, the current source is odan.org (picture), and other resources?? that Opus Dei members use this tool.
--I just came across this page and find the opening statement "...it is often work during Lent..." completely inaccurate. It possibly was often worn in previous times, but as a Roman Catholic who was raised in the Church and attended RC schools my whole childhood (beginning in the 1950s) I encountered NOBODY wearing the circe during Lent. We did often "give up" certain foods or pleasant activities during Lent, but never anything as extreme as this.67.166.185.131 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: peer review

message: It isn't the device of the cilice itself that is exaggerated by Brown's book (I haven't seen the movie, it may be exaggerated in that), but the character Silas who exaggerates his piety by cinching it far too tightly.  --Purplezart 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Da Vinci Code 

message: Anon, I compromised with you by leaving it in the article as a footnote, which is how you are supposed to link to external sites on Wikipedia. If you insist on violating the Manual of Style on the Wikipedia:Lead section (no footnotes in the lead), and violating the manual of style on how to link to external sites, violating standard practice of uploading images to Wikipedia directly instead of linking to them externally - I'll simply remove it entirely, there is already an image just like it, one we don't need another, in particular when it is copyright. I could come up with a dozen reasons to remove that link and image if you insist on making an issue over it. You obviously have some self-serving interest in having this image on the page. -- Stbalbach 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this image because it has a dubious source.  It purports to be a cilice, though it shows a chain with hooks, whilst a cilice is generally a haircoat or similar cloth item (see the definition).  The image comes from the "Opus Dei Awareness Network", a network with the aim to make this organization look bad, holding that such items are used as self-mortification.  The description on the image states as much, then pleads: "However, the cilice is really used." — this sounds very odd to me.  I think we should find another image without the source problems. Lostcaesar 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I ran across this article while reading about Thomas Becket. I noticed that the "construction" paragraph said nearly the same things as the "usage" paragraph (and mentioned nothing about how a hairshirt is constructed). So, I combined the two paragraphs (I don't believe I deleted anything, just moved it). Since "construction" was not about construction I renamed it "modern usage" as it's talking about a metal belt.Estreya 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combined and Reordered

message: I might have missed it, but the article doesn't give the plural of cilice 81.156.149.117 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of Cilice 

message: Why remove this from Modern Usage?
"In 2007, Italian Conservative Senator and Opus Dei member Paola Binetti admitted wearing a celice[3] in order to recreate the sufferings of Christ." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paola Binetti removal 

message: I've come across this phrase somewhere as an advanced form of humble pie, so I've created Sackcloth and ashes as a redirect to this article.  If someone knows more, could they create a section with this title? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go.  Improvements welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of this section reads in part "Jesus expected people to repent using sackcloth and ashes:". Could someone knowledgeable about Christian doctrine comment on whether this is widely accepted? --Jarsyl (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sackcloth and ashes" 

message: I have just removed this from the article. There was a statement that what appears to be a hairshirt is visible at the neck and wrists, under his robe of office. This material is unsourced. 
It appears to me that what More is wearing is fine white linen, as one would expect. Sir Thomas Elyot, on the other hand, is obviously wearing something hairy inside his shirt. 
Amandajm (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas More

message: Hello! I just stumbled across this article while trying to document a paper on the history of christian practice, and found the wording and arrangement a bit wanting. If nobody complains, I'll make some deep changes in the next few days, including:
* The metal belt may date back to the 17th century, so it is not as recent as it seems.
* It was fairly accepted (even recommended) prior to 1965.
* There is too much emphasis on recent events (the Da Vinci code and the italian discussion), and Wikipedia is not a blog.
* There are two merges that need to be reconsidered (to/from sackcloth and hairshirt).
Those come to mind at the moment. Louie (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvements 

message: According to the British documentary 'History of Britain', when Thomas a Beckett was assassinated it was discovered that he was wearing a hair shirt under his robes. Should this be included? Grimerking (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas a Beckett (Arch Bishop of Canterbury'

message: How was the cloth made? "Woven like other textiles" or what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Construction of hairshirt

message: Was  "Catalhöyük culturoritual" untranslated in the quote or not translated from another language. It appears to say "catholic culturo-ritual" or, the culture of Catholic ritual. Just asking, Manytexts (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you've missed something. Çatalhöyük (see article) is a very well known archaeological site.  The city uncovered at the site predates Christianity and Catholicism by several thousand years.  It has nothing to do with either.  "Culturo-ritual," on the other hand, is just unnecessary anthropological jargon that turns "cultural ritual" into an adjective.  96.35.160.223 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  have i missed something? 

message: These trivia-type sections are generally deprecated. It used to have an  tag, but someone removed it without explanation. I am restoring the tag, though a few of the references (e.g. T S Eliot, Molière, Flaubert, and Tristan and Iseult) hardly count as "popular culture". Vilĉjo (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" 

message: The article mentions opposition to the cilice, but it doesn't say what these opponents say.  There don't appear to be any link to opposition.  Only the response to the opposition is mentioned. It would be better if we knew specifically what the opponents say.   Tgiesler (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to cilice 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cilice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630153119/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can we add Dominic Savio in here? There is proof that he at least attempted to have it on? Edward Zeke Rivera (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Addition