User talk:Lima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives /Archive 1

Contents 1 Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon 2 Moved from user page 3 Your background 4 Benedictine rite 5 The "Roman" Catholic terminology issue 6 Various adjectives by which the Church describes itself 7 The Dominican rite 8 John Dowling 9 Baptism 10 Rite tridentin 11 canonical penalties and Lefeb. 12 some help on another page? 13 Papal oath 14 Could we ,perhaps, agree to stop all Nazi references? 15 Re: Annuario Pontificio 16 Christian mysticism article 17 Moses a saint? 18 Latin help 19 RCC page 20 Timothy Ware text excerpt. 21 Rv of NAB in ((bibleverse)) 22 Vandal tags 23 Just to save me some trouble 24 Your attention may be helpful on a CfD

[edit] Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon

I reverted your edit because my Latin text of the Supplices te Rogamus is exactly as the Tridentine Missal, and is so attributed. Also my translation is preferable: 1)whoever heard of suppliantly? 2)shall is the correct future for 1st person sing. & plur. 3)in hac altaris participatione hac agrees with participatione. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelaCollins (talk • contribs).

(My reply on the article's Talk page has elicited no response. Lima 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Moved from user page

I wonder when your will stop persecuting Eastern Catholics by deliberately using negative terminology to describe them or denigrating them by insisting that they are simply a part of the "Roman Catholic Church" and not the Catholic Church?? Your arrogance is only matched by your ignorance of the Eastern Catholic experience. Sorry that we do not wish to throw away nearly 2000 years of our own history to fit neatly into your worldview! Your elitist and condescending attitude is woefully out of touch with the dialogue of rapproachement sought by many Catholics, both Eastern and Western, with those separated through the tragedies of human misunderstanding between communities of the Christian family and only leads to exacerbate the pain of the separation. Please cease from your thoughtless edits of Eastern Catholicism as your self serving interests are not welcome there by those of us who actually live in the world you see as a mere encyclopedia article!

65.41.92.16 05:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Sick and Tired of Your Disgraceful Attitude!

(Unhelpful response to a request for a citation in support of a statement contradicted by cited evidence. Lima 13:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Your background

I was curious. What is your background? Are you a priest, a scholar or both? I found treasure trove of pre-Tridentine Missals on Google Books that you might take a look at.--FidesetRatio 05:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lima, I found such goodies as the York Missal and Breviary; the Hereford Missal and Breviary and the Sarum Breviary in Latin

among others. --FidesetRatio 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that should you wish to review it, you can click on the download feature and save the book as a pdf for future review. I've already gone through the trouble of hotlinking many of them in Wikipedia, so it makes getting there easier.--FidesetRatio 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benedictine rite

What do you think about describing the Bendictine rite as a usage of the Roman rite akin to the Sarum, York, Dominican, etc., in the article you started on the Benedictine rite--FidesetRatio 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lima,

In your revision of the article Ge'ez as of 14:03, 10 January 2006, you added to the table, that Ge'ez is the official liturgical language of the Ethiopic Catholic Church. You did not cite the source for this claim. This statement has persisted to this day, and it is still unsourced. I'd like to request that you indicate the source for this claim. Thanks Itayb 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the citation you've added. Thank you. :) Itayb 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Roman" Catholic terminology issue

Lima, I read your last post on the terminology page. While you are correct, and I was well aware that the Church does use various other adjectives to describe itself, I really do not see how it contributes to the push for a change. Actually, I feel it hurts my effort by straying from the focus of the topic. I am not offended, but it is a bit frustrating.

By the way, I am working on a verifiable support for identifying the "Catholic Church" as the true historial Catholic Church. If you do not want such a change I appreciate you tell me asap as I am taking some time researching the material and any lack of support from actual Catholics would destroy my plea for such a change no matter the verifiable and accurate evidence I provide for support. Otherwise, please, place your additional commentary on my talk page especially if it does not contribute significantly to the topic at hand. Thanks.Micael 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"The points you make, replete with the claims of injustice and oppression (despite the fact that there are several Roman Catholic editors who support the current name or don't care about the issue one way or the other) have all been made before, as Archive 7 above will reveal in all its prolix glory. I invite you to read it if, for nothing else, the strange sense of deja vu it will likely inspire in you, as it does in me. Cheers."

This it the type of patronizing rhetoric I've received from what I consider at this point, outwardly Anti-Catholic editors in this site. I know there is a good faith policy, sure, but the repeated disrespect and blatantly forward condescending attitude is just too obvious to conclude anything less.

I am aware you have supported the change of the article for the proper name "Catholic Church" in the past. I am determined to have our voice heard again and have this issue reviewed and hopefully repealed. However, there is no way I can do this myself, I need you help and anyone else that may assist us. (by the way where the due process ?)

My most significant points for change are found in the one of my latest post as follows:

"1)Using a geographic description in addition to the title of a Church has to be one of the poorest excuses. What is not understood is that regardless of additional descriptive properties "Catholic" Church IS the common title of the Petrine Church in the equivalent manner as "Anglican" Church is the common title of the Church of England...regardless of any descriptive meanings of the words "Catholic or Anglican". If anything it proves how inappropriate it is to impose an extrinsic adjective upon an institution that is not titled in such a manner. If that is allowed then where does it end. Why not add to the Greek the Athenian Orthodox Church, or say London Anglican Church since the symbolic head of the Anglican communion resides there.

2)Since "Catholic Church" is NOT a description, but the title of the lone Church titled as such, by far, historically, in the present and by the world at large it deserves to be title as such. It is not ambiguous, Anglicans do not say they are going to the Catholic Church, do they? Thus, no point in pulling out the ambiguity alibi Also, the article describes one Church, it is not a comparative study of several churches, no confusion to be entertained.

3)The personal ignorance of a Catholic which refers to himself as Roman Catholic is not an excuse to go by such a term. Many of these same Catholics are the same ignorant Catholics that think Catholics of other rites are not real Catholics. Thus, ignorance is no reason, if any a reason for proper education.

4)The listing of a Parish as Roman Catholic is reference to the Rite not the Church at large(albeit slang, where "Roman" is interchanged for "Latin") just as Byzantine Catholic churches are frequently listed as Greek Catholic Church. Since this article is discussing the Church at large and not the Rite, the usage within the church by the "listing" excuse does not apply to this article.

5)The Church in the few instances where it does add the descriptive adjective "Roman" it is used in reference to its Petrine primacy and only when describing or comparing the Church with other schimatic churches. This fact, is perfectly exemplified in Pope Pius XII's encylical Humani Generis where he mearly mentions "Roman Catholic Church" as he speaks of churches not in full communion. Because, in that entire encyclical Puis referrs to the Church as simply "The Church" vs RCC 46 times to 1.

6)Since, this article is NOT from within the Church there is no way to confirm that it is not mentioned pejoratively, thus the additional push to disregard this disrespectful term. Face it, the only way to prove an article's description is not meant pejoratively is only if it comes from within the Church. (Wikipedia should not pretend that anti-Catholicism does not exist)

7)There is no neutral point of view where both sides are equally respected. Since, the Protestant/Anglican POV is represented in everycase (i.e., Catholic, Catholicism- both presented by their descriptive meaning); and the lone institution which presents itself to the world as simply the "Catholic Church", as a title, it should be respresented as such. Not to mention that it is the historical first "Catholic" Church, and thus should be reserved that entitlement, by that fact alone.

Lastly,Wikipedia is not a Protestant or Anglican outlet. I mean really how many Protestants, Anglicans, or Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic", yet that article is presented from the non-Catholic POV(as well as Catholicism). Yet, the Catholic is supposed to shut up and take it - fine, I'll take that for the terms "Catholic and Catholicism". However, we are not allowed the common title of our Church in the name of outlandish excuses, instead the Catholic is supposed to swallow a term imposed by others outside the church, Anti-Catholicism, as is the preferred connotation of those against the Petrine Church.[9] [10] Where are the concessions coming from the non-Catholics?

The injustice is truly preposterous! "

Additionally, and possibly the strongest point is historical. (What do you think about this?..) How did the initial author of the term "Catholic Church" describe that church as and does it still exist? Yes,, and there is documented proof that leaves no doubt that it is the present day Petrine Church and its 23 churches in full communion. (I am presently researching the material, it is facinating!) If anyone or any group has the right to be named by such a term it should be the actual institution which the original author and his companions were referring to.

Thank you very much for your support.Micael 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lima, with due respect, if Ignatius is the first person EVER to document the term "Catholic Church" is it wrong to infer that he was the origiinal author? Additionally, if his cohorts also used the term and referred to a specific church and its teachings is it not safe to assume they are speaking of the same church.

Lastly,there is clear evidence that sets Ignatius and all the other early Apostolic Fathers apart from Orthodoxy. Guess what that is? Its quite easy.

By the way, no offence, but are you really (Petrine) Catholic? Cause as you already mentioned... I am beinginig to question...why am I thanking you? Micael 13:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various adjectives by which the Church describes itself

"Catholic", according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is only one of the adjectives that the Church applies to itself (CCC 751-871), of which the principal are "one", "holy", "catholic" and "apostolic" (CCC 811-871); but its basic name for itself is "the Church", in forms derived from Greek ἐκκλησία or Κυριακή (CCC 751-752). Lima 09:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dominican rite

I am changing saying the Dominican rite is distinct from the Roman rite because it is a usage of the Roman rite, just as the differences between the liturgical customs of the Greek and Russian Churches are usages of the Byzantine rite.--FidesetRatio 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Dowling

Let me know if you can't access google books. There's a partial text here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

here - Kendrick7^talk 04:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be pg. 140. Sorry, I wish g.books links were more stable.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'd be interested to know the answer to your question. My latin got past ubi o ubi est me sub ubi but stalled out at Quid, me vexare? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really did pause and wonder if it wasn't vexari. It's been 16 years since high school Latin, but I ain't a complete slouch! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baptism

Hi. The article was originally in American English. It became mixed. I changed it back. That's what the WP:MOS says we should do. Please focus on improving article quality, not spelling wars. Thanks. P.S. The original quote used the 'z' spelling. --Justice for All 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rite tridentin

Hello, only to tell you that the french fr:rite tridentin has been promoted as a featured article... I am very proud of it. regards Marsouin | speak 18:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] canonical penalties and Lefeb.

Lima,

First thanks so much for your awesome work!! You have much more patience that I do!! To answer an (old) question about Archbp Lefebre (sp?), he would have been expelled ipso facto for creating a bishop w/o madate from the Holy See. Because the consecreation would have been (was) an act of schism, the dimissal is automatic (CIC 1983).DaveTroy 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some help on another page?

Lima, I know that you write well, and as I said above, I have great respect for your wiki work. I found an article priesthood (catholic church). First, I think it needs to be re directed to Holy Orders, but if not, it almost completely needs to be re written, as the writer has many errors of doctrine, validty, law, and on and on and on. I think someone was trying in good faith, but simply is in error. Thoughts?DaveTroy 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Papal oath

You are right, I think, that this article is being used to push a POV. I liked the categorisation change, if we could state in the lead that it is an urban legend, the whole thing would be less problematic - do you have a source saying that? Guy (Help!) 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lima, discussion on this article become sidetracked. I suspect trads won't appreciate their story being called a legend without some reference. Has it merited a mention from anyone else, outside the websites repeating the story? What would you like to do about the AfD? Gimmetrow 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out what "does not provide enough to determine consensus" refers to. It sometimes happens in deletion discussions, if only 3 or 4 people have an opinion (usually when it is 2-1 or 2-2), that it gets relisted for "further discussion". In this case, would have been better to stop right then. Article has a lot of good material about a minor conspiracy theory, and it's not just the category calling it that. (In case it's not clear, I wouldn't want the article deleted, but rather better cited.) Gimmetrow 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could we ,perhaps, agree to stop all Nazi references?

I feel that ersaltz Nazi comparisons are not only in extremely bad taste, they automatically peg you as an intellectual lightweight.

whatever happened to the love of Christ in these religious discussions?> or tempore! oh Mores! SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBB! 70.72.1.203 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, that was me...

Opuscalgary 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Annuario Pontificio

Thank you for the clarification. I don't have the book myself, and I could definitely be wrong about the year (especially the printing year) of the book. The homepage of the diocese of Helsinki says (roughly translated): "The papal yearbook "Annuario Pontificio" of this year was published on February 12th. [...] The most interesting parts of the book are naturally the numbers concerning the growth of the church. The book contains statistics of changes from the end of 2004 to the end of 2005. During that time, the number of Catholics grew from 1098 million to 1115 million, or 1,5 per cent. Global population grew approximately 1,2% during the same time. Catholics comprise 17,2% of global population." --Martin C. 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that is necessary, let's wait then. (http://www.catholic.fi/ does explicitly mention the numbers, though it's in Finnish and it doesn't mention total global population (though neither does the Wikipedia article).) --Martin C. 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your precision is admirable - I hadn't even thought that the numbers might be from dates six months apart from each other. Iirc when the number of Catholics of 31 December 2004 was published, it was said to be 17,1 percent of global population. As you said, that means the global population of 30th June 2004 - but being rounded to one in six (16,666... per cent), the expression is accurate enough in the article now. Fine, let's just wait for the new yearbook to be published. Thank you very much. --Martin C. 06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian mysticism article

Your review of, and comments concerning, the "Experiencing God" section of the Christian mysticism article talk page would be much appreciated. --Midnite Critic 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moses a saint?

I wonder if you could find the time to look at Moses#Moses in Christian thought. As far as I knew, Catholics didn't venerate Moses as a saint, but I found him listed in an older edition of the Roman Martyrology so now I'm confused. If Catholicism should be listed in the infobox there, please let me know. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin help

Hey, can you double check my translation of the map at the top of Palestine. I kinda winged it a while back.... -- Kendrick7^talk 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it's time to archive your user page. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

all set. Ox wasn't far from how I rendered it, just unsure of one word. I'll write you up a transcription tomorrow. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, frankly. And what do you think Aug. Vindel. at the bottom means? Some guy's name?HarvardOxon 15:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. That's why I translated it as "Augsburg, Germany," and you made some snide remark about how "Germany" had been appended on the end of the translation, implying it to be a ridiculous error. I know very well what I'm doing. I don't need you cutting and pasting encyclopedia articles explaining to me how right I am after you've thrown off sarcastic remarks about online translation programs knowing more than I do.HarvardOxon 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RCC page

Why are you objecting to the inclusion of the Latin names? Lostcaesar 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that the names have been something that people have thought to change from time to time as per personal taste. I gathered that adding footnotes by them was a means of averting this. I thought that adding the Latin names might help also. They have a different weight to them, if you know what I mean, and having them there tends to satisfy different tastes. So it was an attempt to help. The order of the sacraments was something I did not have in mind when adding the footnote; rather, I just thought it might be useful, since the CCC gave those sources. As for the Latin, I still like the idea of having the Latin there, and I don't see why it would be such a bother, but I never meant it to be a matter of dispute or trouble.Lostcaesar 10:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if its important to you then we'll just leave it out. Lostcaesar 10:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Ware text excerpt.

Here's an online copy of the book, which I use as a source indirectly... as it seems the text which I had transferred (which we have disputed over) was sourced to this text on the Eastern Orthodox Church page, as well.

The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the reality of the change, it has never attempted to explain the manner of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the neutral term metaballo, to ‘turn about,’ ‘change,’ or ‘alter.’ It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox Councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term ‘transubstantiation’ (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between Substance and Accidents (In medieval philosophy a distinction is drawn between the substance or essence (i.e. that which constitutes a thing, which makes it what it is), and the accidents or qualities that belong to a substance (i.e. everything that can be perceived by the senses — size, weight, shape, color, taste, smell, and so on). A substance is something existing by itself (ens per se), an accident can only exist by inhering in something else (ens in alio). Applying this distinction to the Eucharist, we arrive at the doctrine of Transubstantiation. According to this doctrine, at the moment of consecration in the Mass there is a change of substance, but the accidents continue to exist as before: the substances of bread and wine are changed into those of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the accidents of bread and wine — i.e. the qualities of color, taste, smell, and so forth — continue miraculously to exist and to be perceptible to the senses). But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible (Doubtless many Roman Catholics would say the same). Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms Substance and Accidents were not employed (This is an interesting example of the way in which the Church is ‘selective’ in its acceptance of the decrees of Local Councils (see above, p. 211)).

Today Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts. The general position of Orthodoxy in the whole matter is clearly summed up in the Longer Catechism, written by Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow (1782-1867), and authorized by the Russian Church in 1839:

Question: How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?

Answer: …The word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord (English translation in R. W. Blackmore, The Doctrine of the Russian Church, London, 1845, p. 92).

And the Catechism continues with a quotation from john of Damascus: ‘If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit ... we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable (On the Orthodox Faith, 4, 13 (P.G. 94, 1145A)).

That seems to be all that is in regard to the the Presence. Here's the text. --C.Logan 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rv of NAB in ((bibleverse))

Hi. Noticed you reverted my "imposition" of the NAB in the bibleverse searches. For the record, I'm not a US Catholic either; I'd've preferred the New Jerusalem, actually. As it stood, many of the links went to the NRSV, NIV, and others, and I wondered about the use of Protestant bibles to define Catholic doctrine. NAB was the only Catholic translation I saw in Bibleverse at the time (I just looked again and saw Douay-Rheims 1899, tho'). Is there no policy or guideline on which edition of the Bible is used in quoting? Or is each note to link instead to that massive list of editions?

Note that the last sentence is not said in a negative way: if that is the consensus of usage, then fine. But is there any such consensus? And if there is no guideline to use any particular edition, why is it even a factor in the template?

Thanks in advance for your attention. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no real objection to the buffet of bibles; your rationale is sound. Maybe I will address it later and ask for some comments, but it's OK for now. Again, I only selected the NAB because there seems to be a lack of online Catholic bibles, or even print ones, for that matter; my own family bible, bought in Canada, is an NAB. I bought myself a Jerusalem later on. Douays seem to be hard to find, altho' I haven't really looked since I got to the big city.

If you don't mind my asking, which version do you prefer, if not the NAB?

And thanks for the prompt reply. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just nosy curious. I've used NAB since my First Communion (big white Family Bible thing with gilt edges, colour pics of the Vatican, genealogical pages, glossary, order of the Mass, etc), and a big softcover used-bookstore New Jerusalem sometime in my thirties. I also have my Canadian Forces Good News New Testament with Psalms (complete with the CF "cornflake" badge on the front); that one I carried in my right breast pocket of my combat uniform. I haven't looked at the RSV (I have read there's actually a specific RSV for Catholics!), but I avoid the KJV due to its arcane language and accuracy issues -- I have read some of it, tho', and after 1 Kings 16:11, I make it a point to never pee on walls.

Here's a silly question. What I've read about certain versions is that some are liberal (Good News), some are too conservative (Douay, KJV), yadda yadda, in that the translations are guided/influenced by the religious ideology of the translators. Are there any NPOV Bibles out there? You know, translated by translators with no axe to grind except in linguistics? Besides the New World Translation? --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!
Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. -- Cat Whisperer 05:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed your vandalism reversion on Catholicism, and when I traced back to the user, I found the same user had vandalized several more pages which had gone undetected. Using warning tags can help to spot this kind of repeated vandalism. Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 05:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC

[edit] Just to save me some trouble

Just so I know whether I should save myself the time and stop contributing to Wikipedia: are you going to follow me to every single article I ever assist in editing, remove all of the information I added, replace it with sentences that read like the most boring footnotes in the driest canon law text ever written so as to put off any lay reader, and which leave out a lot of the information previously there? I mean, is the goal simply to make it absolutely futile for me to contribute to any article, are you that passionately offended that I'm trying to add one person's professional expertise? Or is it just to drive a contributor away so they won't want anything to do with the project? Just let me know, to save me all the work of typing what you clearly hold as offensive attempts to contribute.HarvardOxon 03:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your attention may be helpful on a CfD

This appeared at CFD, and its three articles (Papal Gentlemen, Prince Assistants to the Papal Throne and Prince of Civitella-Cesi) were recategorized. What exactly is awarded by the Vatican as opposed to the Holy See? And are "Papal Gentleman" et alia more titles, awards, or occupations? Gimmetrow 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)