User talk:Bonus bon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings...

Hello, Bonus bon, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Sincerely, The Transhumanist   17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Church vs RCC issue

Bonus Bon, I am trying to gather the support of Catholics on this site so we can somehow gather consensus to change the name of the Catholic article from RCC to CC.

This has been brought up in the past and struck down due to primarily Anglican bias which is prevalent here.

In addition to the usual points of discussion I am also providing a difference reasons not mentioned before. Namely that the status quo does not provide a neutral point of view. That the only way to achieve this is by consensus of articles, you see, both Catholic and Catholicism articles represent the Protestant/Anglican POV. Thus, if we can change the name to simply CC then the overall consensus of articles with the non-Catholic POV vs Catholic POV would at least be 2:1 and lead to a proper NPOV via consensus of articles. Also, I am trying to present a historical point. There are Church Fathers which originally coined the term "Cathoic Church". I will point out that the church that they described is the same a todays Petrine Church, adding powerful historical evidence for what church deserves the right to be called the "Catholic Church" , emphasizing that this is not a religious or POV arguement but simply historica fact.

Lastly, if you are an Eastern rite Catholic you are of ultmost importance in the push to correct this problem. Eastern Rite Catholics are notoriously the most ignored in this discussion, obviously by non-Catholics, but as well by Latin Catholics, mostly out of ignorance. Thus, if you can add your input showing them how inpropriate it is to use the term, you certaily would be adding another powerful weapon for success.

The following is a generic post I am sending so you can be familiar with the most important and common points of discussion:

"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. The lone way to achieve some type NPOV is by consensus non-Catholic POV 2 articles to Catholic POV 1..

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 12:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

From someone who also works on Eastern Catholic-related articles. Majoreditor 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Al edit

Hi, I support you in maintaining the Controversy section. However, I would be grateful if you could temporarily refrain from undoing the edits of those who remove the section because I would like to discuss this issue with those people. Thanks! Ghfj007 05:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)