Talk:True Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inasfar as this organisation claims that Fr Pulvermacher is the pope, it cannot be described as sedevacantist.

Shouldn't "Latin" and "Latin Mass" always be capitalized? Also, shouldn't what is required from the Pope to celebrate Tridentine Mass be be called a "dispensation" rather than is "dispense"?

Wouldn't it be good to have the explanation of why the "t" must properly be lower case? I assume that this is because followers believe it to be the only "true" Catholic Church and hence, the continiuing body. The usage "True Catholic Church" might imply a new group.

Persnickety as I am about not spacing after punctuation marks,I have little patience with refusal to capitalize proper names,and don't see why unorthodox capitalization should be called "the correct" way it "must properly" be,regardless of the preference of those referred to.To give this organization a description that maximizes their desire to be described the real RC Church is not remotely NPOV,after all.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree over over wikipedia's capitalisation policy. It follows a form used in some American style books. Newspapers for technical reasons often use these rules. Some publishing houses do, many don't, and those that do have constant rows with academic authors to regard the capitalisation rules as "illiterate". IMHO if those capitalisation guidebooks were all binned we'd have a far better standard of English. I always uppercase Latin Mass and Mass and revert any lowercasing of them I find. Many European contributors positively hate the lowercasing policies on wikipedia and quite a few have left in frustration.

I have removed the invalid boilerplate. Instead I have inserted a footnote to explain why we had to uppercase True. That is a better procedure. FearÉIREANN 20:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not realise that we now have a boiler plate to cover this issue. I have reverted to the version including the agreed boilerplate. The long boilerplate used was incorrect. The casing issue was nothing to do with NPOV. I created the article so I know the precise reason for the casing. It was for technical reasons and nothing else. I originally sought to see if we could have a lowercase true but it is currently technically impossible. FearÉIREANN 20:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The boilerplate,Jtdirl's opinions notwithstanding,is NOT appropriate for this case.To treat the group's name for itself as "the correct" title for the article is necessarily a statement that it and it alone is the true Roman Catholic Church,as no one in the world but this group claims,and that the version in the Vatican is a fraud.Wikipedia has no business saying that.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 14:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has every business using a name for an organisation when no other organisation says they can't use it. No other organisation says they can't use it so under NPOV we have to call them that. Issue closed. FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^{(caint) 16:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)}

That the organization in Rome considers itself to be the true Roman Catholic Church constitutes its denial of the legitimacy of the Montana organization's claim of that identity.NPOV requires that the Montana assertion be treated as not accepted by others.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 02:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

On their website, the first thing I see is the title "True Catholic". With an initial capital. From that, I conclude that it is perfectly correct, even in their opinion, to capitalize it in titles: after all, capitalizing most words in titles is the usual English convention. Also, if there is some place that they say, explaining why they capitalize it that way, that their "true" should be lowercase (which I assume there is, but haven't been able to find), preferably there should be a direct external link to that and an (brief) explanation in the article about why it is mainly lowercase. However, since I couldn't find their (presumed) explanation/statement of the correct way to capitalize it, I don't feel like I have enough certainty/information to be sure about any changes I could make to the article. Isaac Dupree 19:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 NPOV concerns 2 NPOV and factual accuracy 3 Commenting out 4 Lowercase template 5 "Title", "tCC"

[edit] NPOV concerns

Some parts of this article sound pretty damning. While this may or may not be so, it must be written in a non-judgemental tone. I myself do not have the time to devote to researching and rewording it, so it is up to those of you who are already working on it.

Many thanks to those of you who look into this. Garrett^Talk 03:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and factual accuracy

I have twice (so far) changed this passage:

"The "true Catholic Church" claims that Pope John XXIII, whom mainstream Catholics believe succeeded Pius XII in the papacy ..."

to

"The "true Catholic Church" claims that Pope John XXIII, who succeeded Pius XII in the papacy ..."

While I understand some concerns about avoiding POV in this matter, factual accuracy trumps NPOV. And it is a fact that John succeeded Pius as Pope. Even the "tCC" disputed this only after 40 years and then elected their "replacement". Granted, it is true that mainstream Catholics believee that John succeeded Pius, but so does everyone else except for sedevacantists. Why do so many people agree in this belief (not in what that means for them) - because it is a fact (just like that the moon moves around the earth and not vice versa). Anything else is rewriting of history or at least going into that direction. Next, we will say that King William III and Queen Mary II did not succeed King James II/VII in Britain because it was not legal transition. And the transition in the respective Pope's case was legal and completely acording to the rules, notwithstanding Pulvermacher's self-invented reasoning.

So please don't revert this. Str1977 08:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commenting out

I commented out the objection to Fr. Harrison's analysis because no source was given disputing his work. If a dispute can be sourced, feel free to reinsert the text with source. Iceberg3k 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lowercase template

I think the use of {{lowercase}} is incorrect in this article. The template is intended for locutions that always start with a lower-case letter; even though "von Neumann" is a proper name, but starts with a lowercase "v" in the middle of a sentence, still von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory does not need the template, because if you start a sentence with that phrase, you use the upper case "V".

Now, it's hard for me to imagine a sentence that starts with "true Catholic Church"; still, if the correct explanation is that "true" is being used as an adjective rather than as a part of a proper name, then clearly the template should not be used, because adjectives are normally capitalized at the start of a sentence. --Trovatore 04:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The template is also used to explain cases where the title of an organisation is lowercased but cannot be on Wikipedia in the article title due to technical constraints. It is quite normal to use the template in this way. This is a silly argument. You are the only one ever to see a problem with it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The template is for things like "eBay" and e (mathematical constant). You don't write "EBay" or "E" for these things, ever, so an article title about them ought to start with the lowercase letter, but can't.

That's not the case here; if "true" is just an adjective, then it should be capitalized at the start of an article title, even if it wouldn't be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. Therefore the template is not appropriate here. --Trovatore 04:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't and yes it is. The template is used for many reasons, not just the ones you mentioned. (Templates by their nature are transferable.) So it is 100% appropriate here. If you want to create a special template for "things like "eBay" and e (mathematical constant)" go ahead. This template is for all examples where for technical reasons Wikipedia cannot replicate the opening letter correctly. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be called "true Catholic Church", therefore no template at all is appropriate. The capitalization issue is explained in the text, which is more than sufficient. --Trovatore 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Title", "tCC"

From the website, I see no evidence that this group considers "true Catholic Church" to be its "title", or that they ever use the abbreviation "tCC". I have a suspicion that the exposition and usage of these terms in the article may be original research. If not, please provide appropriate citations. --Trovatore 19:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)