Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Map of Authority

I know it is a terrible name to use but it could definatly be worth while to create sort of a family tree of the Catholic Church. A lot of the information that would be included is already in the info box but this would be a way of linking everything together to show just how the Catholic Church is organized. Then there could be an explanation about exactly which sacraments the other churches that don't fall under the Catholic ubrella recognize. If no one objects I will set myself to the task.--Billiot 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fairly well written but needs editing. The section on the Reformation is not clear and entirely understandable. Information about the Inquisition is mixed into this section although it is a different topic and the relationship between the Reformation and Inquisition is not explained in a manner that justifies keeping them as one topic.
2. Factually accurate?: Not accurate at all. The Eastern Orthodox Churches arent in any way linked with the Roman Cathlic Chruch. they are called Orthodox due to being the continuers of the religion preached by Jesus. And the Pope isnt in any way the head of the Orthodox Churches as they have Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople who is the head of the Orthodox Churches on earth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.118.187 (talk • contribs) - This last statement has been strongly denied by the Moscow patriarchate, saying: "We do not regard the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a centre of the Orthodox world!"[1] Lima 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Neutral point of view?: This article often fails to stay neutral. Few historical facts are given about the Inquisition although it is a distinct period in history that people might want to research. Some comments about the Inquisition seem more focused on influencing popular opinion about this period in history.
5. Article stability?
6. Images?:

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Entwood 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Entwood's only edits (a total of four) involve failing this article as a GA. Although logged-in users technically are allowed to judge GAs, it is extremely likely that this is a single-purpose account. --Ginkgo100 talk 05:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Ginko100, this article needs some work. I specified what needs work. Please do not make this personal by questioning my intentions or expressing your doubts that I should be allowed to contribute. --Entwood 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Although it could be a single purpose account, it could also be a legitimate attempt to isolate heated issues. I see no reason not to respond to these comments on their merit. Freder1ck 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

Comment This section shuold not have been archived. Work has been done to correct original complaint. THe article is much better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.64.171 (talk • contribs)

Terminology

"Some apply the term Roman Catholic Church only to the Western or Latin Church, including those parts that follow a liturgical rite other than the Roman, but excluding the Eastern-Rite particular Churches that are in full communion with the Pope and thus part of the same Church. (The Holy See has never used the term Roman Catholic Church in this sense.)"


This is a tremendously convoluted sentence and really demands clarification. "Some" which is the subject of the sentence is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Why insist on "Some" as the subject of a sentence so important it takes 4 lines to complete? I would propose the subject of the sentence be "Eastern Rite Catholics among others." This resolves a great deal of the ambiguity. As a Ukrainian, I can testify that I am Catholic, in communion with the Pope but not Roman. I tried to make this change before but there appears to be some censorship police who refuse attempts to clarify the issue.


"including those parts that follow a liturgical rite other than the Roman, but excluding the Eastern-Rite particular Churches."

This phasing is particularly maddening. Are we trying to help readers or scare them away? Can we not just name the western rites? Ambrosian and whatever else may still exist.

So I would like to propose the sentence look something like this:

"Eastern Rite Catholics among others use the term Roman Catholic Church to refer to the Western Rites only including the Latin Rite, the Ambrosian Rite.... Eastern Rite Catholics contend that they are Catholic, and in communion with Rome but not Roman Catholic as their rites originate in the East and do not descend from the Roman rite."

I realize that Westerners have a hard time comprehending Eastern Rite Catholics, but our self understanding should not be exluded or ignored. I am appalled at how much energy it takes to makes simple and (at least to me) obvious clarifications. What is at issue here? Why the resistance?

Also, if the article has established that there is just one western or Latin Rite, why is this section bent on inferring there are other rites which are neither Latin nor Eastern? This is very confusing even for someone fairly familiar with the material. EastmeetsWest 23:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "Roman Catholic" is a term coined by the non-Catholic world to express its own non-Catholic ecclesiology. Thus, applying it in a Catholic context is very difficult. It has no real technical definition outside its non-Catholic articulators. Sure, Latin Catholics call themselves Roman Catholic, and mean rather benign things (such as their communion with the Roman Bishop), but this is not technical and thus will never properly be included in such a terminological discussion. In other words, as per Catholic ecclesiology, there is nothing un-Roman about Eastern Rite Catholics. The solution is to use the words that Catholics use to describe themselves in the technical sense so employed by that group, and to mention non-Catholic objections as a PoV, but not to allow the latter PoV to determine the description of the group. But since this is an English encyclopedia, we will probably be beholden unto the foreign terminology of the Church of England. Lostcaesar 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Lostcaesar, thanks. I agree with everything you just wrote with one exception, Western Catholicism descends from Rome, thus the term, Roman Catholic which really is alien to all Catholics, could at least make sense for Western Churches. And many Western Catholics have forgotten or dont care about the distinction. However, Eastern Catholics do strenuously object to the term Roman. Now, I just have to figure out why people on this page think it is their right to treat Eastern Catholics as if they do not matter. Haven't been around long enough to know whether the opposition to recognizing Eastern Catholic identity is coming from Latin Catholics or protestants or what. Still, this needs to be corrected as least for clarity's sake. EastmeetsWest 05:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The matter was brought up when the issue of the name of the article was debated, but there were not any Eastern Rite Catholics around to object, and so it looked like an artificial point being made simply to advance one position against another and was subsequently ignored. Sadly, the opinion by some was one of apathy toward Eastern Rite Catholics. I must include myself somewhat. At the time, though I knew Roman Catholic was technically imprecise, I did not loudly object, since I call myself Roman Catholic frequently (because I am proud of the Latin heritage of my faith). Since the issue was debated, I've grown disenchanted with the compromise. Lostcaesar 10:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lima, could you please use the talk page? The changes you have made do "lighten the text" but they hardly address what is at issue here. What is at issue is the Eastern Catholic Churches which are Catholic but not Roman. Why do you refuse to recognise us? EastmeetsWest 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I can use the Talk page. When I make a change in the text that I believe meets the unopposed desires of someone on the Talk page, there is of course no need to do so. But now, EmW has expressed disagreement with me, I must; I must do so also, because I have to change some of his edits.
It would have been helpful if EmW had indicated what precisely he thinks I did wrong. I have never expressed in the article the view that Eastern Catholic Churches should not be recognized. That is not in fact my view. What am I supposed to have now put in the article in support of that view? Some might think I did the opposite, since I relegated to a footnote the statement that was previously in the body of the article about how the Popes and the Holy See in general have disagreed with the notion that Eastern Catholics are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. So what, from EmW's viewpoint, did I do wrong? If only EmW would tell me, I would certainly try to correct any mistake I made.
Now to the changes that I must make to EmW's edits.
EmW's edit, which reads: "Eastern Rite Catholics apply the term Roman Catholic Church only to the Western or Latin Church", and his statement on the Talk page here that, if I interpret him rightly, declares it a fact that Eastern Rite Catholics are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, are both unsourced. As for the latter alleged fact, what official document says Eastern-Rite Catholics are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, which Pope Pius XII said is one and the same thing with the Mystical Body of Christ?[2]. As for the statement about usage by Eastern-Rite Catholics (not just some of them), how square that with, for instance, the statement made a century ago (and, for all I know, still true) about the Maronites, that, "Surrounded by Mussulmans, schismatics, and heretics, they are proud to call themselves Roman Catholics"?[3]
The other edit that I must change is the implicit statement that all Christianity in the Latin Rite or Church is "descended from Rome". This too is unsourced. Was the Christian Church that already existed in Pozzuoli near Naples when Saint Paul passed through there on his way to Rome (Acts 28:14) "descended from Rome"? We may disbelieve the tradition that southern Gaul received the Gospel through Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary, but have we any more reason to assert that that area had to wait for someone from Rome, and nowhere else, to bring it Christianity? Why should we have to think that the Roman province of Africa (present-day Tunisia) also had to wait in the same way? If before St Paul had ever set foot in Rome, he was making plans to go himself to preach in Spain (cf. Romans 15:24,28), what reason is there for declaring that Spanish Christians are "descended from Rome"? Lima 16:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The way the Holy See itself seems to use the term, "Roman Catholic" means "Catholic in communion with Rome", not "Catholic descended from Rome" (I'm not utterly sure what this would mean); and thus applies equally to all churches in communion with the Pope. I appreciate your opinion that the Eastern Catholic churches 'are not descended from the Church of Rome and are thus not "Roman Catholic"', but this doesn't seem to be how the Holy See itself uses the term (for example, in the two encyclicals cited in the article); it does so to include the entire church in communion with Rome, as distinct from others who call themselves Catholic but are out of communion with Rome. TSP 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is nearly impossible to assert this claim, TSP, as the Catholic Church virtually never uses the expression "Roman Catholic Church" except in ecumenical dialogue. If you can find a text in which the Church applies "Roman" to the Eastern Catholic Churches, then you've got an argument. EastmeetsWest 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would EmW please read my comment above, where I quote one papal encyclical in which the Pope, the visible head of the Catholic Church, either includes Eastern Catholics in the "Roman Catholic Church" or else excludes them from the Mystical Body of Christ. That reference has been in the article since I do not know when, along with a reference to another papal encyclical. And does EmW think that in ecumenical dialogue, the Eastern Churches of the Catholic Church are quite uninvolved? Lima 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More Terminology issues for Latin Rite Catholics and all

Gentleman, Catholic Christians, and Christians at large. When our Lord established his church as written in Matthew 16:17-19 and renamed Simon, Peter(Eng) or Cephas (actual Aramaic word utilized by Christ meaning "Rock") and He stated "on this rock" he would build his Church. Then reiterated the same authoritative character upon the rest of the apostles in Mt 18:17-19, He spoke of simply ONE church, a universal (Catholic) and apostolic Church of Christ unified earthily upon the Petrine Bishoprick and and the rest of the apostleship ministry. (Mt 16 as above, Mt 18:15-17, Acts 1:20-21,25)

Therefore we must understand the Church is not simply a specific geographical location (though it does have its headquarters); we Westerners(Latins) must remember the main focus of the Christian Church. It is One, universal(catholic), and apostolic Church. Thus, we must detach ourselves from this "Roman" thought and focus on the Petrine Ministry establish by Christ not the geographic center and his local "church" of Rome. Even in the few , seldom written Church documents, where calls itself "Roman" it is never utilized as a generic use term, but more so as a descriptive term for the "Petrine based" ministry which resides locally in Rome (thus "Roman") as its headquarters as a point of unity. Those that desire to call the Church "Roman" must recognize that they are simultaneously contributing to a significant point for misinformation in calling the church by such a word of various imprecise meanings.". As, though involuntarily, there are several inevitable potential misunderstandings they could imply by calling the Church at large by such a term. 1)In calling itself "Roman" some may implicate that it is a separate division from the Universal church- i.e., if one is Roman Catholic, then there certainly may be an Anglican catholic church and so on and so forth. 2)Saying the church is Roman may also implicate some association with the Roman Empire, thus possibly leading others to implicate an acceptance pagan association and integration. 3)In utilizing "Roman", instead of the more proper Latin, you elevate the Roman-ness of the Church instead of the real divine association of the Petrine Ministry established by Christ. 4)Lastly, and personally most unacceptable to me, you elevate the Roman-ness of the torturers and true ruthlessness of the murderers of Christ. You see in our day, regardless of the desires of the Jewish hierarchy, it would be Pontius Pilot and the Roman Empire which would be classified as the ones responsible for the death of Christ. Additionally, we can say that at least the Jewish leaders, even with their ulterior motives, desired death to Jesus, but at least they had some religious basis. On the other hand, the Roman authorities murdered Christ for mere political advantage and the barbaric Roman soldiers tortured a known innocent man to death for their shear pleasure (did anyone see "The Passion", I did not see a single Jew physically harm Christ, in fact, Simon of Cyrene actually assisted him in bearing his cross.)

Thus I remind all my Western Catholics to remove themselves of this "Roman" pride. While it is perfectly fine to be proud of our Latin Liturgical heritage, it is even more powerful to remember the Universality of OUR entire Catholic Church. By letting go of this Western-centric concept of the Church, and respect the Eastern Church we will empower the entire body of Christ throughout the Globe. When we do this we will finally find ourselves rekindling worldwide Christian unity as we may welcome our Orthodox brothers back (after a nearly 1000 year separation from the Petrine Ministry).

Lima and other "Latins" do you realize that EmW is a Ukrainian-Byzantine Catholic in many ways the SAME Orthodox except that Uk-Byzantines (truly are 100%, just as Catholic, as us Latin Catholics) are in Communion with the Pope. Also, did you realize that the Eastern Church is OLDER than the Western/Latin Church. Why? Because before Peter became the Bishop of Rome, he was the first Bishop of Antioch of the EASTERN Church. Thus, interestingly, Peter was first Patriarch of Antioch as well as the first Patrioch of Rome. As Peter was the Patriarch of Antioch (East) and then of Rome (West) all along he was functioning as the Pope of the Universal Christian Church, remembering that Peter's primacy was establish by Christ upon Peter not a geographic center. Thus lets let the "body of Christ" breath with its TWO LUNGs as our beloved John Paul II so perfectly described, so that the Church may "be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me." John 17:22-23

All Latins, should embrace and be proud of the Catholicity of their entire Church including the too long ignored and disrespected Eastern Church. Think about it what would the Church be without such eastern Church Fathers as St. Athanasius of Alexandria (defended the Church against Arianism which denied the divinity of Christ during the Council of Nicaea- where we received the Nicean Creed), St. Basil the Great, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Nicolas of Myra (a.k.a., Santa Claus), St. Gregory of Nazianzum, the "Golden Mouthed" St. John Chrysostom, and Ignatius of Antioch (the third bishop of Antioch after St. Peter and a direct student of St. John the apostle) which first described the Church as the Universal- Catholic Church in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans: "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."Micael 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I say Amen to all that Micael states in positive form. I consider Ukrainian Catholics to be of the same Church to which I belong, though I am of the Latin autonomous or particular Church within that Church (but not of the Roman local or particular Church within that Church). I am no better nor no worse off, with respect to membership of that Church, than are Maronite or Syro-Malabar Catholics. No more and no less than I am, they are members of the same Church. I have participated in the Divine Liturgy in the rites of several autonomous particular Churches. As Micael says, it is indeed the one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic Church, with a Petrine ministry exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as Peter's successor. ...
I could go on and on, repeating what Micael says, including his remarks about possible misunderstandings of the adjective "Roman" when applied to the Church. One of those misunderstandings is to think that the adjective "Roman" means "Western" or "Latin", when neither Micael nor anyone else has found a single instance in which it has been officially used in that sense. It has been officially used only of a) the local Church of Rome or b) the Catholic Church as a whole. I am not responsible for this objective and undeniable fact of the official use. So what sin does Micael wish to convert me from? Lima 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree, "Roman" Catholic, to be frank, makes Anglicans feel good and Eastern Rite Catholics feel bad - and since this is English speaking wiki, guess who gets the trump. Lostcaesar 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I very much doubt that the Holy See's usage is due to some wish to make Anglicans feel good and Eastern Rite Catholics feel bad. Again, don't blame me. I don't decide official usage. Lima 19:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want anything in particular from you Lima except what I'd like from you all. When Lostcaesar pointed out above that in the past when the name of the article was debated, not many understood why they should stick to the proper name of the Church. Irregardless of his excuse that there were not any Eastern Catholics around to object...for in this apathy to defend the truly real Universality of the Church we are all shortchanging the true nature of the Church. By ignoring the Global nature of the Church and elevating the Western subsection of the Church we circumvent the meaning of its very eternal Catholicity. No Eastern Catholic needs to be present, they are 100% Catholic as we Latins are and in our apathy we not only let them down, but our very own Church down.

Thus I ask you all to re-introduce a discussion in order to apply the proper name for the Church to this article and at least eliminate further confusion and error for the sake of political correctness. I am sure Jews, Muslims, or other groups would not tolerate potentially error encouraging term to the title of their believe system.

Stating that this is a near impossibility is a very lame excuse. For though we are all English speakers we are not under the reign of a British government which suppressed, persecuted, and shunned Catholicism for centuries, and still does in certain ways.

As for those that still believe the Roman prefix is an appropriate terminology for the Church in general. Read this article[4] by James Akin regarding the pejorative roots of the term and the trap fellow Latin Catholics have fallen into by allowing themselves to be referred by such vague and truly insultive terminology whether we recognize it or not. Do not kid yourselves that this is the precise reason why the non-Catholics here are so stubborn and contiguously insist to belittle the Church by this pejorative term. They say they will not allow for the name simply Catholic because Anglicans an a few others will think they are taking away from their "catholicity"...nothing but hogwash. As everyone knows what is meant by simply the "Catholic Church" and none of them would ever catch themselves saying they "go to the catholic church" for Sunday church service. Micael 05:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Micael recognize that "Roman Catholic Church" has been used and is still accepted by the Holy See, which is not under the reign of a British government? Lima 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No Lima, the usage of the "Roman Catholic Church" is not, I repeat is not offially accepted by the Holy See for its name. I believe you are probably confusing that reference to what the Chuch describes as Latin church (the Western or Latin Rite of the Catholic Church the largest albiet a SUBsection of the Catholic Church at large). In fact, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it does not even describe that section of the Church as "Roman", but as simply the Latin church. The problem with many has been the slang interchanging of the word "Latin" for "Roman". Additionally, the seldomly used times the Church has mentioned "Roman" it has always been as descriptive term in the sense to its unity with the Bishop of Rome(the "local" diocese)- the Pope. It is sort of like saying the United States in union with "Washington" then naming that North American nation "Washington United States" or "United States of Washington". Its other use has been in dealing in eccumenical dialogue where the Church has allowed the refering of itself as "Roman Catholic"- unfortunatly I think this is an error, but I'll leave it to the Church.

Lastly, not many are aware that the Church(the Universal Church at large) does not have an official name utilizing "Roman" or "Catholic", but simply uses "The Church". Also, I believe, another confusion is that the Latin American aspect of the Church has a common habit of refering to the Church as "Santa, Catolica, Apostolica, y Romana", however this is not official by Vatican standard. It is probably yet another (likely inocent) Roman-centric bias (as the overwhelming majority of Latin American Catholics are Latin Rite Catholics) that developed more out of ignorance of the Eastern church and the true Universality of the Church. You see we are still living the effects of the East-West Schism of 1000 years ago. In losing the grand majority of the Church's eastern lung(exept for the Maronite Catholics and few churches which "defected" from Eastern Orthodoxy/Oriental Orthodoxy after the Schism) the church's believers have overly consentrated on its Latin-ness, instead of its Universality...Catholicity (as our initial general apathy in the naming of this article serves as a clear example.) Hopefully, an by the grace of God, the Eastern sister churches (Orthodoxy/Oriental Orthodoxy) will re-unify with the "Patriarch" of the West as existed for the first millenium of Christiandom so that we can truly see our Catholicism and Universality of Christ so that "they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me " John 17:23.

Also, the Eccumenical dialogue between the Vatican and Orthodoxy since the lifting of the neary 1000 year old mutual excommunications 40 years ago has certainly provided hope for re-unification in some sense. See the site of Orthodoxy's symbolic leader Eccumenical Patriach Bartholomew I [5] , note the clear verbage of the Common Declaration by Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I signed by both leaders stating its eventual purpose: "We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue,, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion." Micael 09:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I fully agree with all, or nearly all, that Micael states positively. His denials are another matter. Take the, to my mind, self-contradictory statement, "... the usage of the 'Roman Catholic Church' is not, I repeat is not officially accepted by the Holy See for its (of the Church) name. ... in ecumenical dialogue the Church has allowed the referring of itself as 'Roman Catholic' - unfortunately I think this is an error, but I'll leave it to the Church." On the one hand this statement claims that the Holy See has "not" officially accepted that the Church be called the Roman Catholic Church; on the other hand it reluctantly admits that the Church (presumably through the agency of the Holy See) has accepted that it be referred to as the Roman Catholic Church.
And when Pope Pius XII taught that "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing" (Humani generis, 27), was he excluding Eastern Catholics from the Mystical Body of Christ?
Micael suggests that I confuse "Roman Catholic Church" with "Latin Church"! It should be obvious that, on the contrary, I have repeatedly stressed the distinction. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the Church itself has never, even once, used "Roman Catholic Church" in the sense of "Latin Church". Who in actual fact confuses "Latin" with "Roman"? Is it not those who deny that Eastern Catholics are members of the Roman Catholic Church (one of the several names that the Church has officially used to speak of itself)? Lima 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"in ecumenical dialogue the Church has allowed the referring of itself as 'Roman Catholic' - unfortunately I think this is an error, but I'll leave it to the Church.." - like I said, it makes Anglicans feel good, and Eastern Rite Catholics feel bad. I'm not saying that is the intent, just the result. If it makes you feel better, Micael, you're right that the Church calls itself "The Church" and "The Catholic Church", and uses "Roman" only when expressing communion with the See of Rome, and when trying to find language to communicate to other Christian groups. Don't worry Micael, the Church has been around a long time, and seen a lot of other groups come and go - she isn't going anywhere. Lostcaesar 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lima, there is nothing contradictory. In nit-picking the issue you remove the essence of my plea... to name the article as it should, simply the "Catholic Church"

Making a consession in the name of dialogue with others does not equate to officially conseding to a change of name. It is simply making a consession to specific groups in the name of eccumenism. Since this article is not an eccumenical document, but simply something descibing the Church, as a whole, it should represent the Church as it recongnizes itself; the Catholic Church made up of 23 autonomous churches and rites in communion with each other. Along with a consiliatory statement and references to the other meanings of "cathlolic" which already exist in this site. Any further drivel among us Catholics regarding this "Roman" issue only serves to empower those that desire to maintain the status-quo.

You can contact me at my talk page or email.

Support a change for the proper naming of the Church in this site.

Thank you Lima.Micael 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Micael. As long as you do not put forward a claim that Eastern Catholics are excluded from what Popes and the Holy See in general have called the Roman Catholic Church, there is no need for me to intervene. Lima 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. The "Catholic Church" is NOT the name given to any Churches, it is just an umbrella term for those under his holiness' administration. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest of these churches, and the one people are most familiar with. Catholic Church is too broad. While the above arguements are all valid, it is irrelevant as the name of the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church. Eedo Bee 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to slip in another example of a similar case in Wikipedia. Western Sahara is recognized by most nations and the UN as an 'occupied territory of Morocco'. Most countries have diplomatic relations with Morocco and accept that W Sahara is Moroccan. However, certain countries do have diplomatic relations with the self-proclaimed 'Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic'. But, on Wikipedia, the article for the 'Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic' is not something like 'the self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic' or 'Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara)', as many people who are not Moroccan or Western Saharan would call it, but the title is rather what the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic calls itself. I think the article should be called 'Catholic Church' and NOT 'Roman Catholic Church' because the Church has not officially called herself the latter, and the article title should refer to what the Church calles itself, rather than what others call her. Thank you, Bonus bon 09:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Believe it our not, we've actually had this discussion before (check the archives). Why this issue needs to be disinterred every two months is beyond me - the fact is no name is going to make everyone happy. "Roman Catholic" was chosen because it is the most unambiguous term (see Catholic and Catholicism for the reasons why "Catholic Church" is ambiguous), and does not tread on the toes of competing claims to the name/description. It is, incidently, a term also used by the institution to describe itself (see, for example, ARCIC). Fishhead64 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The last time a poll was taken regarding the name of this article, a majority (but not a super-majority) of editors supported changing it to "Catholic Church." The reason this issue has arisen yet again is because the current article name is not consistent with the name the Church calls itself, and it is not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. Those conventions do not specify the use of "the most unambiguous" name, but instead "a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". It has been demonstrated here that "Catholic Church" is understood to mean this church with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. It is disingenuous (and a violation of WP:Undue Weight) to assert that the ARCIC (a body that is half Anglican) better defines the Church's name than does the "Catechism of the Catholic Church". SynKobiety 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bonus bon, all I can say is simply "BINGO!". It certainly appears that this is a pure case of reverse discrimination. If this was a case of a small church Wikipedia would have no problem using the appropriate terminology by which the Church calls itself.

As for Fishhead's commentary, this topic is constantly revisited because there is certainly something very wrong academicaly, historically, as well as politically. The historical evidence points out a specific "Catholic" Church with specific doctrines. Now, if over a period of 2000 years other groups have somehow associated themselves with the term "catholic" church, politically one might have to concede something in the name of respect as the differing parties may have conflicting points of view (a NPOV is non-existent). In this case, instead of taking the middle groud by conceding something from both parties in the name of fairness for all POV, Wikipedia has sided against the Catholic Church's POV and its 1.1 Billion Catholics(some of which may be ill informed about their own Churches position on this issue) in every case. You see in providing non-Catholics generic articles on "Catholicism" and "Catholic" and simultaneously force the one single unified Church which actually calls itself the "Catholic Church" to go by a name it does not recognized to represent the Church at large Wikipedia unjustly goes against the Catholic POV in all examples. (By the way, the rare usage of such a term "Roman.." by a particular Pope as a description of unity with the church of Rome or for eccumenical dialogue does not constitute an official acceptance of such a term for the Church at large.)

Additionally, the error manefests itself clearly when Wikipedia calls the Church at large "Roman Catholic", but at the same time accepts that the Eastern affiliated churches not go by the same term...accepting the term simply Eastern Catholic churches and not Eastern "Roman" Catholic term (as obviously this makes the entire term an oxymoron in that Eastern Churches are not Latin Rite in any way.) Thus mere logic tells us, if there is an Eastern Catholic Church and a Western Catholic Church which also goes by Latin Rite(sometimes imprecisely Latin is interchanged for "Roman") as well, then the entire organization as a whole should be called simply the "Catholic Church" not Roman Catholic.

Wikipedia seriously needs to reconsider this issue. "Catholicism" and other articles are not described as pertaining exclusively to the Catholic faith, fine. However in the name of justice at least let the Church go by the name it chooses for itself as so exemplified by the title of its official teaching document "The Catechism of the Catholic Church."Micael 08:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"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)
The foregoing comment was put in because of the implied claim that the Catechism of the Catholic Church had declared "Catholic Church" to be the official name of the Church. I am not denying the possibility that the Church may have made this declaration elsewhere. But not, it seems, in the Catechism. The claim that the Church has declared a single name, "Catholic Church" (and no other), to be its name remains unsourced. I, at least, have not found any document in which it can be supposed to have done so. Lima 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Lima, what about the official website of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (note the use of Catholic Church on the home page) or South African Catholic Bishops' Conference? 219.77.22.36 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And against that several of the official websites of indvidual dioceses within England and Wales do use "Roman Catholic" in their descriptions (or at least they did when I last looked). David Underdown 14:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
An individual diocese or parish may describe itself as "Roman Catholic" if it is exclusively Latin Rite, just as it may describe itself as "Greek Catholic" if it is Byzantine Rite. That use of the "Roman" descriptor is in no way in contradiction with the fact that religious body which includes those parishes and dioceses is "the Catholic Church." Those bishops conferences to which 219.77.22.36 referred include Catholic bishops from rites other than the Latin Rite. "Roman" is properly not used to describe those conferences. SynKobiety 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is beginning to go off topic. Lima, I disagree with your deduction that I implied the Church had made "Catholic Church" it its single official name. No, my point is not a denial of other "adjectives", but of the various adjectives she describes herself it IS the most commonly used term inside and outside the Church throughout the entire world. Thus its use as the title for the CCC distributed throughout the globe.

Additionally, the issue is the Church being called by a term that better describes itself. The "Roman" term causes confusion, as the Church's largest Rite is also commonly called the "Roman Catholic church", but is not the institution at large described in the article. Hence, the term is not only improper, but is also too ambiguous in that it may mean something to a Catholic and something else to a non-Catholic.

Lastly, and probably the most ignored, yet most important- the HISTORICAL significance of the term "Catholic Church" regardless of anyone's point of view.

WHAT church was originally described as the "Catholic Church" by the very first Christians which first utilized and AUTHORED the term?

This already scholarly scrutinized and authenticated fact should be the decisive FACT by which a source of facts, an encyclopedia, should be making terminology decisions. Not "points of view". Micael 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is not Latin versus Eastern Rite, or differing PsOV. The distinction is that since the eleventh century there have been churches in communion with Rome, and churches not in communion with Rome. Hence, Roman Catholic Church as opposed to Catholic churches in communion with other Sees. In short, the name is:
  1. Precise - One cannot confuse it with another entity.
  2. Accurate - It describes Catholic churches in communion with Rome.
  3. Proper - It is a name used by the institution itself (see, for example, ARCIC), as well as countless parish churches which so describe themselves on their signage.
  4. Common - No one can seriously argue that the term is obscure, technical, or that no one knows what is being spoken about. Fishhead64 22:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fishhead, with all due respect where have you recieved your information:

"The distinction is that since the eleventh century there have been churches in communion with Rome, and churches not in communion with Rome." ???

If there was an East-West Schism in the 11th century what what kind of communion existed before?

Was there simply a community of Bishops without a spokesman or unifying figurehead (as has occured in Orthodoxy for nearly a millenia) or was the office of Peter always the unifying force which is utilized to strengthens his brethern (Luke 22:32)?

Also, were Popes before the Schism mearly representative to the Roman Rite or did the speak for the entire Eastern and Western Church?

Additionally...,

Presice ???- Yet how do we know if when you say "Roman Catholic Church" you really mean the 1)"Roman Catholic Church" a term commonly referring to the "Latin Church or Rite" or 2)The "Roman Catholic Church" the Global/Universal Church including the "Roman Catholic Church" (a.k.a.) the Western Church as well as the Eastern Churches.

Accurate-??? communion with Rome existed for 1054 years before the East-West Schism, yet it was it was not refered to as the "Roman Catholic Church". In fact, why would the Eastern church refer to itself as Roman by the simple fact that it is in communion with the Bishop or Rome if Eastern Churches their liturgies and customs are OLDER than the Latin(Roman) Church. As a matter of fact, all these churches were in communion with Peter even before there was a Church of Rome. Thus, is the point "Rome" or is it Peter's primacy.

Proper???- No, because the ARCIC is an accordance made with the basic purpose of dialogue. In fact, it is well know the Catholic Church made this consession "in the name of dialogue" not to be taken a general acceptance of such as a term for the entire church. It is an exception as the Church relates to the Anglican Church in particular not the world at large. So its is rather improper to utilize a term made as a consession to a particular group then suddenly turn around and use it as proof of acceptance for the world at large. Additionally, it is rather inappropriate as it is known the term was (and may very well still be the case) actually utilized by the Anglicans as a highly pejorative term against Catholics see [6] and [7].

Common??? "No one can seriously argue that the term is obscure,... or that no one knows what is being spoken about." Really? Just refer to the above.

Obvious, everything makes a lot more sense when we call the Chuch at large the by the most generic term "Catholic Church" and everything underneath is by an additional adjective Roman Catholic Church(Latin Church/Rite), Byzantine Catholic Church (Greek Catholic Church), Maronite Catholic, etc., ect.

Lastly, history does make a HUGE difference. Because PsOV carry little weight if we find out that the original authors of the term actually used the term to either-

describe ONE church of unified doctrine versus a smorgasbord of churches of varios disunited traditions and conflicting doctrines.

Then that alone takes presidence over all points of view as POV carry little weight compared to cold hard facts.

Respectfully yours Micael 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Micael, you make my point for me: History does matter. The situation which pertained prior to the east-west schism no longer pertains. If this were Wikipedia pre-1054, you would have a very good point that there is one church, properly and unambiguously called the Catholic Church, with one locus of unity in the Bishop of Rome. If that were still the case, we wouldn't be engaging in these interminable debates and this article wouldn't be called "Roman Catholic Church." This suggests to me that, yes, history does matter.
Second, the attribution of leadership in the Gospels is to Peter. The Gospels do not mention a papacy, nor do they mention that Peter was consecrated Bishop of Rome, much less that the locus of institutional unity was to be vested in that position, and in fact there is no historical evidence to suggest he ever even visited Rome. All this is a denominational POV, and, again, if it were uncontroversial, the Reformers of the sixteenth century would have been entirely more circumspect.
Third, "Roman" means of or pertaining to Rome, not of or pertaining to the Latin Rite. Rome is a locale, not a language. Of course I know that you're aware of that - but I wouldn't expect anything less of most readers, and in any event, the intro of the article makes the point very forcefully. It is Roman Catholic, because it consists of churches in communion with Rome. I don't know how any more clear it can be.
Fourth, ARCIC is offered as a single example. In my old place, I could have thrown a paper airplane out my window and hit a building with a sign above its door reading "Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church." The Anglicans were certainly not compelling signage - "Roman Catholic" is a term used by the church itself to refer to itself when the name "Catholic Church" is likely to be seen as ambiguous. The Holy See would certainly not authorise its use were it considered derogatory. Again, if ambiguity were not a problem, the term would not be used.
Fifth, there is already a smorgasbord of churches, of which the Roman Catholic Church is one plate. Like, say, the Southern Baptists, it has a unified doctrine and a locus of authority - there is nothing unique about that. What is unique is its antiquity, and its claim to unbroken apostolic descent. But that claim is maintained by other churches as well, sometimes episcopally (Anglican, Old Catholic, Orthodox), sometimes not. But as I've said before, WP cannot ajudicate the conflicting claims - and where a legitimate alternative exists to an ambiguous name, that alternative should be used. Fishhead64 18:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fishhead, regarding your Fourth point do you realize that that in those instances where term IS used by the instituion, it does not refer to the Universal church, but the RITE, the Latin Rite... thus, you provide further proof of the ambiguity of the term. As I mentioned above, it means one thing to the Catholic and another to the Non-Catholic.Micael 19:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for this? Why would one rite of the Church have an international commission with another denomination? When, in Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII said "...the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing", was he referring only to the Latin rite? TSP 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure I have evidence; its in that same document! You see the Church at large does not entitle itself by a any particular region or place. The Church, by far, has most commonily referred to itself by the most generic term, either simply the Church or the Catholic Church. When it adds adjectives to these titles it is more for "descriptive" purposes. Sort of like, say there were two or more countries (Churches) calling themselves by the same name then in the name clarity adding a geographic description to point out which country is being described.

For example, assume the following senario. An 1860 America where the North and South never unified, and the South decided to go by the same name "USA" - Then in a speech to the South Abe Lincoln in referring to the North must add a descriptive term to clarify which nation he is speaking of. Thus he may have to say : the "Washingtonian USA" .

Would Abe be changing the title of the country by making such at statement? No, he would be simply adding a geographical adjective as opposed to saying the more brash " the USA in union with me (the President)."

Thus when Pope XII made that statement he was using "Roman" as simply an additional adjective in pointing out what Church he was speaking of he was not suddenly changing the name of the Catholic Church.

Let us review Pope XII's encyclical where he mentions "Roman Catholic Church"

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine (such as Anglican Catholic, Orthodox Catholic Churches, etc.), explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith."

Hence, when he makes that statement, he humbly mentions the geographic descriptive term "Roman", instead of saying "the Church in union with me (the Pope)". However, this in turn created other problems because one must ask as occurs with Non-Cathlics did he mean a church simply called the "Roman Church" in the same like as to a Greek or Anglican Church, etc. or as in the Latin rite only which you TSP point out. Those erroneous interpretations are clarified as we read the entire document in context. You see, usage of this term is not utilized by the Church when it speaks in the general sense. It is used referring to the particular Latin Rite section of the Church or when specifically speaking to others which do not recognize the Church's authority. This is exemplified in Humani Generis. In that very same encyclical, Pope Puis does not attempts to limit the confines of his church to simply a "Roman" Church audience but to the entire/universal body of Christians. Because, except for that one instance where he is speaking directly of those outside the Petrine authority, he refers to that religious institution not as the "Roman Church" , but simply as "The Church" none-the-less than 46 times to 1. (including "the true Church" in that very same paragraph)

Whereas,

1) the Church's, by far, most utilized title is "Catholic Church" (officially simply "The Church"),
2) this article is not a religious or eccumenical document,
3) the added prefix only creates more confusion as it may relate to the Western Rite (not the Church at large) and/or those in union may be Catholic, but not Roman (Latin) Catholic by title.
4) the use of such a term "Roman...", for those outside the church historically and in many ways even today, is used in a highly insulting and derogatory sense. [8] [9]

I reiterate the need to change the title of this article to simply the "Catholic Church" not only because it truly IS the lone institution that goes by such a title, but because those that do not recognize it as such already have their non-Catholic point of view - a neutral POV does not exist- based articles well represented in Wikipedia. ( see Catholic, or Catholicism). Micael 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm entirely confused by your argument. It appears to be in answer to my request for evidence that "in those instances where term IS used by the institution, it does not refer to the Universal church, but the RITE, the Latin Rite"; but I can't see how it provides it. You do assert again that the term "is used referring to the particular Latin Rite section of the Church or when specifically speaking to others which do not recognize the Church's authority"; but the only instance you are quoting, of Humani Generis, seems clearly to be the latter rather than the former (unless you believe that the Pope was asserting that the Eastern Rites are not part of the Universal Church); and again you don't seem to provide any evidence that the former exists.
Your comparison with the situation if there were two countries called "United States of America" is apt. Would we give one of those countries the article name "United States of America"? Probably not, because that would be to adopt a particular stance on which is entitled to it (just as neither of the two beers called Budweiser is found at Budweiser, even though one of them is the world's best-selling beer). We might indeed put one of them at the article title "Washingtonian USA", if that appeared to be the name that body used when for reasons of ambiguity or consideration for other groups it could not use its preferred name - not to say that the body is truly called the "Washingtonian USA", but because that is a mutually acceptable and reasonably unambiguous title. That is analagous to what we are doing here; because there are different opinions on what "Catholic Church" means, we use "Roman Catholic Church" to be entirely clear which is referred to.
I fully understand that the Church in question, when speaking internally, prefers the term "the Church" or "the Catholic Church"; because it views itself as the one universal church of Christ. However, other Christians, who also assert themselves to be part of "the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" every Sunday, view the term in another way - just like the situation you hypothesised with two USAs. So, is there a term that is used by the Church itself when it needs to clarify that it means itself, not any of the other things referred to by the term "Catholic Church"? Yes, there is - "Roman Catholic Church". This term is used by the Church in many situations, and as far as I can tell never to mean anything other than "the entire church in communion with the Pope". TSP 18:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First, your Eastern Rite quote makes no sense to me "unless you believe that the Pope was asserting that the Eastern Rites are not part of the Universal Church". Why do you presume that "in communion" or lack thereof only applies to Eastern Christianity. For the Church universal, Western Rite is no more in communion than Eastern Rite, period. Thus, I really can not understand where you can deduct such a conclusion from that paragraph in Humani Generis. My point is that in that paragraph Pope Pius XII was speaking of and to schimatic churches and I provided examples of both Western (Anglican Church) and Eastern Rites (Greek Orthodox Church). Thus, Pius was speaking to those churches not in full communion (whether from the western rite or the eastern rites), when he adds the adjective "Roman" to specifically clarify he is speaking of unity as it pertains to the Church headquartered in the City of Rome (a geographical description) relative to an Anglican or Greek Church and not offering an official recognition of the tern "Roman Catholic Church". Therefore, it is pointless to use Humani Gerenis, or any other example where the Church uses the term "Roman Catholic Church" as an excuse for the use of this otherwise pejorative term, as a standard term for the Church at large. As this encyclical provides a clear example that the Church does not refer to itself by such a term for the Church at large, but only in specific discussions concerning churches not in communion within the Church- whether from the Latin or one of the Eastern Churches- as a geographical adjective is used simply to make a distintion from the other separated Churches.Micael 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

a geographical adjective is used simply to make a distintion from the other separated Churches. Precisely. That's why this article is called "Roman Catholic Church," and why that body itself uses ther term self-referentially when ambiguity is possible. Obviously, usage "in-house" is going to differ from usage in external dialogue - and WP is not a Roman Catholic outlet.
Anglicans - who incidentally also refer to their institution in-house as "the Church" - have never referred to themselves officially as "The English Catholic Church" (or even the Canterbury Catholic Church). For reasons you yourself very persuasively have argued, however, there is no reason why they couldn't and retain accuracy...from their POV. As with "Roman," the term "Anglican" is a geographical adjective applied to the noun "Church."
I suppose I could link images of parish churches with signs reading "Roman Catholic Church" as a counterbalance to your claim that the only non-pejorative use of the term is in the form of generous concessions to "ecclesial communities" which insist on applying the name "Catholic" to themselves - but I have a sense that you are probably aware that parishes and individuals use such self-designation all the time with no consciousness that they are defaming themselves or minimizing their claim to be Catholic Christians.
Given the preponderence of evidence to this effect, and the conclusions you yourself have drawn about the very legitimate purpose of the adjective "Roman," I can't really see why this discussion is being prolonged. Fishhead64 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My analysis:

1)Using a geographic description in addition to the title of a Church has to be one of the poorest excuses. What you do not understand 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 were 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)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.

Lastly since, several here pretend to not comprehend the clear reason's why the title should be changed, and instead use the legitimate reasons to the contrary I conclude there is a preponderance of unreasonable discrimination and bias against the Catholic Church. This is shocking despite all the reasonable arguments they still find a way to turn things around no matter the strong evidence against them. Therefore I must conclude that there are many here with ulterior motives to maintain the term Roman in their favor as they take great pleasure in maintaining a pejorative term(since they are not Catholic this can certainly be the case.) Maintaining a scholarly Inquisition in their favor. Face it, the only way to prove an article's description is not meant pejoratively is if it comes from within the Church. Since, the Catholic POV is struck down repeatedly and comes from a non-Catholic POV I can conclude that the majority against the change are fervent and unreasonable representatives of Anti-Catholicism. (Wikipedia should not ignore the fact this does exist)

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 above, 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.[10] [11] Where are the concessions coming from the non-Catholics?

The injustice is truly preposterous! Micael 06:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as you are going to fail to assume good faith, I can't really see the purpose in continuing what has clearly become a soapbox for our differing views. If others wish to, that is entirely up to them, but I can't see anything productive coming from it - simply the talking past one another that has become characteristic of this protracted 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. Fishhead64 08:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fishhead, you must understand that no matter how long, and repeated this discussion has occured in the past it does not mean it should never be revised or appealed. While you may find this discussion protracted you must attempt to comprehend the very reason why this continues to be brought up and will continue to be in the future...there obviously is a very significant problem being ignored.

Regarding past "acceptance" by some Catholics, I have evidence, that some of them are discontent with this consession after further study regarding the subject.

The bottom line points are these:

There is no neutral point of view where both sides are equally respected. Since, the non-Catholic POV is represented in everycase (i.e., Catholic, Catholicism- both presented by their descriptive meaning); and the lone institution which presents itself as simply the "Catholic Church",not a desciptive term, but a title it should be respresented as such. Especially considering, 1)that Catholics already consede the aformentioned two definitions and 2)the reality is that the term "Roman" is representative of anti-Catholic POV where they are well please in the usage of such an insulting derogatory term, whether the ignorant Catholic realizes this or not.

Therefore, with the goal of achieving a neutral-POV by consensus of articles (not by particular articles as a NPOV is non existent) Wikipedia must and should review this subject again. Continual improvement and revision are essential elements for any informative site such as this. I truly mean this beyond my personal views regarding this subject, consistent with the good faith policy, sincerely.

Micael

PS: The condescending tone to last sentence is highly inappropriate, disrespectful, and patronizing.

" 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." .

I can understand that from a newcomer, but you should know better. Micael 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to receive lectures in civility when someone accuses those who disagree with him of perpetrating an "injustice," "maintaining a scholarly Inquisition," "taking great pleasure in using a pejorative term," imposing an "anti-Catholic" perspective, and "employing outlandish excuses" in an effort to get Roman Catholic editors to "shut up and take it." I thought my tone in response was rather moderate, all things considered.
Finally, and this will really be my last word on the subject for now, there has never been in the past, there is not now, nor is there likely to be in the future a consensus on renaming this article. If I seem impatient over disinterring this discussion once again, it is because I know how these discussions have unfolded in the past. This one is so far going according to spec. Fishhead64 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, actually, I am a Catholic editor and I am strongly against the use of 'Roman Catholic'. There is nothing wrong with ONE particular rite within the Catholic Church to have relationships with other churches. The Latin Rite has an international commission with Anglicans, and other Eastern Catholic Rites have relationships with other churches within their areas. 'Roman Catholic' is simply NPOV, and a term that only non-Catholics use. PS It is WikiProject:Catholicism, NOT WikiProject:Roman Catholicism. Ghfj007 16:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You might want to check out ARCIC. Fishhead64 16:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC
Thanks, Fishhead64, I do know about ARCIC. However, the ARCIC was not created by the Catholic Church at Vatican/papal/Holy See level, but rather by an agreement between some high members of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church. Also, the ARCIC is not an official means of communication between theh Anglican Church and the Catholic Chuch, but rather an informal commission created with the hope of better dialogue between the two communions. Ghfj007 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It was created by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, an official organ of the Holy See accountable to the Pontiff [12]. It is thus a formal initiative of the Holy See on behalf of the whole RCC, and its documents are official documents [13]. I'm curious on what you base your assertions. Fishhead64 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I trust Fishhead will not mind me making something of a correction to his last comment. The ARCIC documents are not, properly speaking, "official documents" of either Church. They are proposals by groups of theologians for consideration by the two Churches. The official documents are the judgements expressed by the two Churches on those proposals. However, Fishhead is right in his main contentions:
  1. the name ARCIC (with "RC" standing for "Roman Catholic") is officially accepted by the Holy See and so by the Church in communion with it, and the commission itself has been set up officially by the Holy See.
  2. Catholic participation in ARCIC, as in other similar joint commissions, is not on behalf of the Latin Church alone: some of these commissions have Eastern Catholics as members, and all are studying the possibility of agreements involving the Church as a whole, not just its Latin component, and the Catholics participating are acting on behalf of the whole Church, not just of whatever particular Church each of them belongs to. Lima 17:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There is something about this whole process that seems a little unusual to me. In virtually every setting the Church calls herself either "The Church", the "Catholic Church", or the "Church of Christ". Pointing out that there happens to be one group with the name "Roman" in it, obviously for the purpose of indulging another group to allow for dialogue, doesn't seem to change the above. Indeed, it, by its very conspicuousness and context, implies that the aforementioned names are the ones used by the Church. It seems a little unusual to seize upon this example as the precedent to follow, when the real precedent seems clear enough. It strikes me akin to calling African Americans "colored people" and using the NAACP as the precedent for justifying this use. Lostcaesar 18:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"There happens to be one group with the name 'Roman' in it."{{fact}} If this statement means that, apart of course from the diocese of Rome (which does not seem to be the writer's intention), there is just one particular group with the name "Roman" within the Catholic Church as a whole, on what official document is the statement based? Lima 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant that the "ARCIC" is a group with the name "Roman" in it. Just to clarify, I don't think there has to be anything wrong with saying "Roman Catholic" - not at all. But what bothers me is that there is a hidden agenda behind its use. If by "Roman Catholic" all someone means is "Catholic, emphasis = Rome", then it seems perfectly well. But if someone implies that being "roman catholic" is different from being "catholic", then it feels to me like an agenda is being pushed. Lostcaesar 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, Lostcaesar, for misunderstanding you. (There is in fact more than one such working group.) I certainly do not imply that being a Roman Catholic is at all different from being a Catholic. Neither did Pius XII. Lima 19:02, 25 February 2007

It would be appreciated if:

1. correspondents would "sparse' their references. Wading though references to "Western Sahara" , A non Catholic would quickly abandon this discussion as hopelessly turgid. Clarity to all viewers is our directive, I believe?

Lima, although churches at Naples & North Africa existed before Rome, their doctrine was replaced by Rome. This is the defining line,IMHO, between "roman catholic" & the communion, then the non communion, faiths.

One desn't want to see any corner of Wikipedia devolve .. May I add this summary: The term "Roman Catholic" is acceptable where the theology, worship form and application, is directed by the Vatican.

If not acceptable,I'll humbly retract it...

Opuscalgary 13:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, Opuscalgary's text makes too many questionable statements, explicit and implicit, to be at all acceptable. The Church in Saint Paul's Naples (Puteoli), Saint Cyprian's Carthage, and Saint Augustine's Hippo held "doctrines" different from that of the Church in Rome, doctrines that were replaced by Rome? And the doctrine of the Maronite or the Syro-Malabar Church today is different from that of the Church in Rome? And the theology of the Church in Spain is "directed" by "the Vatican", but not the theology of the Church in Eritrea? ... Lima 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lima, as a Catholic I appreciate your strong defense. "Roman Catholic" is not a prejorative ,& about 20 % of the parishes in my city use it in their titles.

The fact that the name was bestowed by the Anglicans centuries ago does not make it invalid. Remeber that it was a 'term of equity'. Diminutives should not be used against other Christians,IMHO." Catholic" means universal,& includes all believing Christians.

As to your last point- sorry,I view it as rhetorical. If you are arguing that Rome never gave precise directives to local churches.....I stand amazed... cheers Opuscalgary

I thought Opuscalgary was arguing for a distinction between Latin and Eastern Churches based on whether "the Vatican" "directed" their theology. My question was: Did he really believe that the Holy See "directs" the theology of the Church in Spain (Latin) but not the theology of the Church in Eritrea (Eastern)? He responds by implying that "the Vatican" "directs" every Church. Even the non-Latin Catholic Churches, it seems. So what was he saying before? I prefer that he should not answer. I just give up. Lima 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Opuscalgary thought I was arguing not for but against the legitimacy of the term "Roman Catholic". If so, he misunderstood. I am sorry I responded to his invocation of me. I will do so no more. Lima 16:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lima, WADR,I can only defend what I say. I can't,& won't,argue your outtakes on what you feel I imply.

For example, doctrine on the Perpetual Virginity of MAry (I WON"T please, argue the doctrine! It's an EXAMPLE) was promugated after the 4th century. At the time St. Peter visted Naples, it wasn't an issue. Obviously,the doctrine flowed from Rome to the local churches. That's just logical. We are here to provide accurate POV, not to crusade.

I agree with Fishhead on terminology. "Roman Catholic" is accepted.It works. It beats the perjoratives. cheers

Opuscalgary 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the best way to deal with this matter is to put a clause into the article that mentions the fact that saying Roman Cathlic Church is a peculiarity of the English language. It is indeed accurage that officially The Church is The Church but this can cause some distinction problems since many churches claim to be The Church. If I am not mistaken, someone from the Eastern Orthodox Church would likely refer to Catholics as Latins. Churches that do not accept the Trinity might call Catholics Trinitarians. It all revolves around how to say who we are so that we are not confused with someone else. This issue is important because if a Catholic moves to a new area and looks for a Church he needs to know that he is attending a church with the same faith as he professes. The Church has a way to describe itself in each langage so that members can feel safe in the knowledge that they are in the right place. This is why in America and maybe Britian Roman Catholic might be necessary but in Japan only Catholic spelled in Katakana need be used. In Greece I don't think either is used. Indeed, it may be a very long list if one were to list all the varying names of The Church in each language and explain why and how they got to it. I think Roman Catholic is the best name for the article provided the 'us vs them' explanation is added as this is an English site. --Billiot 06:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Footnote 11

Google searches confirm that the term "Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" is not very common in Spanish or in Portuguese.

Igreja católica - 1,340,000 hits.

Igreja católica apostólica romana - 49,100 hits.

Iglesia católica - 1,270,000 hits

Iglesia católica apostólica romana - 62,200 hits

Also, the Argentine Constitution refers to "culto católico apostólico romano", a rare usage found only 532 times in a web search. By comparison, "culto católico" is found 22,000 times. SynKobiety 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If "Iglesia católica apostólica romana" (the phrase, not just the words) produces 62,200 hits, and "Igreja católica apostólica romana" 49,100, that shows that in Spanish and Portuguese the expression "Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" is indeed common. It is a strange conclusion to say it proves that the expression is "uncommon". It may perhaps be "less common" than another. But it is common, indeed very common. If SynK had lived for some years in a Spanish-speaking country, he too might have had the experience of someone telling him: "Yo soy muy católico apostólico romano." "Católico apostólico romano" is a way that people do have of identifying themselves. If Synk still has doubts, he should consult the Wikipedia Spanish and Portuguese articles on the Catholic Church. The Spanish says of the Church: "En ocasiones es aludida como Iglesia Católica Apostólica Romana o como Iglesia Católica Romana." (The second of these two expressions is indeed in much less common use than the first.) The Portuguese article even has the title "Igreja Católica Apostólica Romana"! Lima 05:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I am doing my best to assume good faith here. There is usage X, which has 62,000 google hits; and usage Y, which has 1.4 MILLION google hits. This is a ratio of greater than 25:1!! Please explain why usage X is "very common" and usage Y must not be mentioned? I originally changed the text because it is grossly misleading. The numbers support the statements that the usage you are promoting is "relatively uncommon" and "not very common." SynKobiety 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is inaccurate to only report that in Spanish and Portuguese the Church is called "Católica Apostólica Romana" when it is much more often called "Católica." SynKobiety 12:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't think we can use other languages as a precise guide here because we seem to be dealing with a matter somewhat particular to English. And, moreover, the article is not named "The Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church", in which case it might be more relevant. Most people, at least in English, use Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church interchangeably in common parlance without ado or ill-intent. It so happens, however, that some would use Roman Catholic in an alternate sense to push a certain pov (or even in the disparaging sense that romish or papish has / had), and furthermore using "Roman" makes it very difficult to talk about the Eastern Catholic Churches. Thus I am not content with the article name. However, it is unjust, I think, to accuse all users of "Roman Catholic" as purposefully meaning something hostile to the faith. Also, though I think the terminology section is problematic, it has been the subject of much effort and I think that effort has done a lot considering the problems of the current title and all. Maybe the solution is to replace "terminology" with "ecclesiology", so that we can really say what it is we are talking about - the meanng behind the words. Lostcaesar 12:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You are right - this foreign language reference doesn't really belong in this English language Wikipedia article. SynKobiety 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In general references should be in English (unless the only available sources are non-English). However, in this particualr case it has previously been argued that the usage of "Roman Catholic" is exclusively English (and even more particularly British English), this at least shows that it is used (albeit less commonly) in other languages too. I'd say that the main issue with its inclusion is actually whether it breaches the prohibitions on Original research within Wikipedia. I have some sympathy on the issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches, however, the Vatican references that Lima has established seem to show that the Vatican deosn't think this is an issue, don't they? David Underdown 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Good points I mostly agree with. Its a bit tricky about the other languages, though, for two reasons. One, they say "Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" etc., which is potentially rather different from Roman Catholic. The former affirms several "marks" of the "True Church", whereas the latter, in certain contexts, is a limiting phrase employed to distinguish this Roman Church from the True Church, which is something else. The uses of the Vatican seem to be saying the opposite, namely that the Roman Church and the Catholic Church as essentially one and the same. And like I said, Roman, even by itself, need not imply anything hostile to the faith. But it so happens that, especially in English countries, it may be employed to imply something else - something else indeed. Furthremore, while it is not inherently contra Eastern Catholic Churches, the use of the term as the principal title does make it difficult to talk about them, evidenced by the lack of use of the term by the Vatican in dialogue with them (and in general). This article has some minor mistakes, or at least vagueness, about ECCs anyway, and though I would like to fix it slightly, I see no clear way given the current structure. We would need to change the title and / or at the least rework the "terminology" section into an "ecclesiology" section. That is, after all, what the whole debate is about. The titles "Holy Roman Catholc Apostolic", "Roman", and "Catholic" are all used to express particular stances on the nature of the Church - its not just terminology. Lostcaesar 09:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I just do not understand on what grounds it is claimed that the inclusion or omission of the adjective "Roman" necessarily expresses a particular stance on the nature of the Church. I would have thought that within the Church all those who are happy to call the Church "Roman Catholic" or "Roman Catholic Apostolic" and and all those who prefer to call it just "Catholic" or simply "the" Church have exactly the same ecclesiology and consider that the one (true) Church must be that which is in communion with the local Church in Rome. The only ecclesiology to be considered in this article is the ecclesiology of "the ... Church" - fill in the blank with any adjective you wish (or none). The ecclesiologies of other Christian groups are dealt with elsewhere.
Nobody is obliging anyone to attach the adjective "Roman" to, for instance, "Armenian Catholic Church". "Armenian Roman Catholic Church" would seem an absurdity, especially to anyone who took the first two adjectives to refer to contradictory localities. All that is objected to is saying that Armenian Catholics do not belong to the same Church that is called (officially, within the Church itself) by several names, one of which is, as an undeniable matter of fact, "Roman Catholic". "Roman" and "Latin" are not synonymous terms. Lima 11:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The only ecclesiology to be considered in this article is the ecclesiology of "the ... Church" - fill in the blank with any adjective you wish (or none). - Then how do you explain the following sentences in the article:
As for the term Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Old-Catholic, and other Christians claim to be, or to be part of, the catholic Church (often writing "catholic" with a lower-case 'c' to distinguish it from the Roman Catholic Church).
Theologians of the English Reformation at the end of the sixteenth century, who saw themselves as part of the catholic church
It would seem from these that we are, in the terminology section, brushing up against variant ecclesiologies. Obviously, within the Church, as you say, all those who use the many names (including Roman Catholic) mean the same thing ecclesiologically speaking, which is great. But ought we not explain what that ecclesiology is when explaining the use of the words? If not it just seems confusing, like a dance around the issue. After all, why are we using the title Roman Catholic Church anyway? Its not to endorse one certain name used by those within the Church, but to appease holders of variant ecclesiologies. Like I said, I appreciate the terminology section and all the work that has gone into it. But I do consider the above difficulties to be at issue. Lets take an example. The following sentence, from the lead:
The Catholic Church is a worldwide organization made up of one Western or Latin and 22 Eastern Catholic particular Churches, all of which have the Holy See of Rome as their highest authority on earth.
Its not exactly right. The Eastern Catholic Churches have their own direct head(s), usually a Metropolitan who governs via an episcopal synod or something akin to that. The Bishop of Rome is an equal in rank, but has special juristiction, a "right to intervene" as a "first among equals". Does that make the Bishop of Rome their "highest authority"? Indirectly, perhaps, directly it would seem not, as the local Metropolitan is the higest direct authority. But you can see, of course, how emphasizing the Roman nature of the Church in its title can blur the role of Rome in the West (Latin particular church, where the Bishop of Rome is the highest direct authority) and in the Eastern Catholic Churches, where it is a bit different. All this could be explained in an ecclesiology section, but what would result would be a text that would not exactly altogether fit with the lone emphasis of "Roman" in the title (and notice that Church documents speaking in this context do not employ "Roman Catholic"). Perhaps "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" would work as a proper title wherein such explination could occur. Lostcaesar 12:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I intervened here, because I have at present too many things to do. So, although I am not convinced by what Lostcaesar says, I will not discuss the question of ecclesiology, which might take too long to discuss. Nonetheless, in view of the Eastern Orthodox (not Eastern Catholic) ecclesiology enunciated by Lostcaesar, I will just draw attention to the following:
All Catholics, including Eastern Catholics, are directly subject to the bishop of the eparchy or diocese (the local particular Church) to which they belong. Also, they are all, including Eastern Catholics, subject directly (immediately, not through intermediaries) to the Pope, as is stated in canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Most, but not all, Eastern Catholics are also directly subject to a patriarch, major archbishop, or metropolitan who has authority for all the bishops and the other faithful of his autonomous particular Church (canons 56 and 151 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lima (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, it should perhaps be noted that, as far as I am aware, the term "Roman Catholic Church" is not used in the canon law. Canon 43 granted, I don't think its fair to characterize the above view as that of Eastern Orthodox and not Eastern Catholics, given the explination found in "We extend out arms in brotherhood" section 5, cf. Orientalium Ecclesiarum section 9, which reads:
In harmony with the tradition handed down from the earliest centuries, the Patriarchal Churches have a unique place in the Catholic communion. One need only think that in these Churches the highest authority for any action, including the right to elect Bishops within the borders of the patriarchal territory, is constituted by the Patriarchs with their Synods, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in singulis casibus.
So, while not contraducting your point, which is taken, I think there is still merit to what I iterated in the current context. Lostcaesar 13:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's is also however worth noting that that particular sentence is in the lead of the article which is supposed to give a brief overview, yes there are practical restrictions on how that authority can be exercised, but that should be explained elsewhere in the article, not in that section - unless we can come up with an equally concise alternative. David Underdown 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Micael, amazing job explaining. Keep going.
1. Fishhead, thank you for your contributions. They have been noted and answered.
2. The Ukrainian was right. Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. For those of you not familiar with the relation between these rites and Churches, and their development, here's a little explanation in English for ya, by Francis Cardinal Arinze.
http://www.adoremus.org/Arinze_StLouis06.html
3. Micael was dead on.
4. a nice little ditto by Pius XII http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_09041944_orientalis-ecclesiae_en.html

32. Cyril, saint, apostle, etc - well qualified - uses "Roman" interchangeably for "Latin". :(Directed at Lima - and I will get to the wiki Latin Rite page, to see whether this Latin =! Roman business is just another attempt at conformism.)

5. The first subsection under the intro addresses Fishhead's and other critics' theological misgivings about the Catholic Church designating itself by that title. And Lima, Fishhead, you find one document, out of billions, that support your argument, while the stance of Micael, EastmeetsWest, and men of good will have not enough libraries to fill up all the books written using our convention; and yet you do not submit? Behold, I say unto ye, The Jackal God 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What Anubis has written is confused and confusing. What does he mean by "our convention"? Why on earth does he think, or so it seems, that "To my orthodox faith the Roman Church has borne witness, and so too has a holy Synod gathered together, so to speak, from the whole of the earth that is under heaven" (Orientalis Ecclesiae, 32 - directed at me!) equates "Roman" with "Latin"? Why on earth does he think that "Roman" is equated with "Latin" in the Cardinal Arinze document, which repeatedly distinguishes them (e.g. "Four parent rites can be identified as the Antiochene, Alexandrine, Roman and Gallican. They gave rise to nine major rites in the Catholic Church today: in the Latin Church the Roman Rite is predominant")? Has he even read the article he is commenting on? If he had, he should surely have seen that "Roman Catholic" refers officially to one or other of only two things: a) the local particular Church (diocese) of Rome; or b) the Church as a whole, including all the dioceses in the Latin Church and all the eparchies in the Eastern Catholic Churches. He cannot quote any page of any book, even from the imaginary libraries he speaks of, in which "Roman Catholic" has been used officially to mean Latin (Western) Catholic. Ukrainian Catholics are indeed not normally referred to as Roman Catholics, but they are members of the same Church (taken as a whole) that even Popes have referred to as the "Roman Catholic Church". Lima 04:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
1.Why Roman = Latin --> Council of ephesus:
Antiochean Church were adverse to the designation Theotokos. Cyril, patriarch of the Alexandrean Church, was the leading opponent of Nestorius. The Pope, the Roman Patriarch, affirmed Cyril's stance.
2.For Cardinal Arinze doc, Roman Rite is predominant in the Latin Church - hence Roman Catholic - Catholic you worships, communes, and attends the cannon law of the Roman Rite-Latin Ecclesial Law.
3.Roman Catholic refers to Latin Church predominantly, although Lima and Fishhead have discovered instances where it was used outside this designation. However, as others have already pointed out, those are particular instances and not the norm.
4.as made clear, Roman does not apply to Eastern Catholics and you will not see them using that designation to refer to the entirety of all Churches in the Catholic Communion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
1. The Bishop of Rome supported the stand of the Bishop of Alexandria against the Bishop of Antioch, and therefore Roman = Latin. Curious logic. Is it also claimed that Alexandrian = African, and Antiochian = Asian?
2. Cardinal Arinze said the Roman Rite is the predominant (but not the only one - he explicitly mentions the Gallican) liturgical rite in the Latin Church, and therefore Roman = Latin. Just as curious.
3. The Jackal God affirms (on his own authority, it seems) that Roman Catholic "refers to Latin Church predominantly", and therefore Roman = Latin. No better.
4. The Jackal God affirms that Eastern Catholics do not apply the adjective "Roman" to the whole body of Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Another own-authority affirmation, and one that seems to be contradicted by the Catholic Encyclopedia article Maronites. In any case, the authority of Popes Pius XI, Pius XII and John Paul II, who verifiably have applied the adjective "Roman" to the whole body, is greater: see Divini illius Magistri, 54; Humani generis, 27; audience of 26 June 1985. Lima 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith with Regard to section on Sexual Abuse Scandals

There have been some unintentional errors made on this page.

Without intending to do so, someone has referred to 'Scandals'. This would be corrected by use of a less subject term, such as 'Allegations'.

A mistake has also been made in the placement of the section titled 'Sexual Abuse Scandals'. Clearly that topic does not have more scholarly clout than the sections on Beliefs, Nature of God, Scripture, The Church, Salvation, and several others. To correct this, the 'Scandals' section should be moved much farther down the page.

There is another mistake contained in the wording of the section titled 'Sexual Abuse Scandals'. Here is the current wording: “In 2002 a major scandal erupted in the United States when a wealth of allegations, with supporting evidence, were made…”. Obviously no one would argue that 'wealth' is the appropriate term. In order to correct this unintentional oversight, 'wealth' should be replaced by a much less value-laden term, such as 'several'.

Misanthrope67 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done on Assuming Good Faith, but please also bear in mind Civility. The fact that you disagree on a particular editing decision doesn't make it a mistake. It's best to approach an article with the assumption that the editing choices were not only made in good faith, but were also made by intelligent people with reasons for their choices; suggesting changes is usually best done as a debate on the most encyclopedic approach, rather than pointing out the 'errors' people have made in employing an editing style different to yours. TSP 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I am new to this. I did review Civility thoroughly. If I were to restate my original points, I would simply state that the article, I believe, could be improved by making certain changes. These changes would be made toward the end of presenting the information from a more NPOV. If I am not mistaken, a NPOV, though elusive, is what we are striving for. As close as we can get to a NPOV, I should say. Misanthrope67 04:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to voice support for the change of the words "scandals" and "wealth." Redtizzy 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take note that any allegations of this sort in the Church is a "scandal". There is no acceptable number other than zero. When it comes to the sexual abuse of children, even one is a very large number indeed. Wassupwestcoast 02:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree that "scandals" while important, and probably deserving their own page, do not constitute an article "about" church. Because of that, I would tend to relegate it to a section toward the end of the page, with a refs for further informationDaveTroy 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole sex abuse thing is overblown. Yes, the priests that did it are guilty, but the media makes it bigger than it really is. Lots of the "new" cases are from the 70s and 80s and stuff, and if, for example, a public school teacher molested a child, the chances of it appearing in the news would be tens of times less likely than if a priest abused a child. I once even read in the National Catholic Register that the number of kids abused in public schools in california was higher than the total number of kids that go to Catholic Schools in the state.

I take a different view. Many "new" cases turn out to have been incidents that occurred decades ago because (a) often, the victims are unable to talk about their experiences until they reach adulthood, and (b) the church had an active policy of hushing the abuses up for as long as possible. If any lay parishioner confessed to a priest that he had been engaging in sexual abuse, the priest would recommend, nay demand, that they immediately admit their acts to the police and suffer whatever punishments the legal system provided. But when it came to priests and brothers being the perpetrators, the church just gave them an internal slap on the wrist and hushed up the crimes, often with monetary payments to the victims, payable only upon condition that they keep quiet. Yes, if they took the bribe, they were assisting the church to seem cleaner than they were, but that doesn't alter the fact of the abuse. Teachers are bad enough when they abuse kids in their charge, but they aren't the guardians of the kids' spiritual lives. Priests are. As for the numbers, you may be right. But some stories demand a greater degree of telling, because of the greater degree of public revulsion involved. If we can't trust priests, we may as well go and cut our throats. JackofOz 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So the obvious solution is to sue the Church for hundreds of millions of US$ and take that money, which would go to the poor and whatnot, and give most of it to major law firms, and then give some to the victims and act as if piling money upon them solves all problems. That seems more the real scandal to me. Lostcaesar 07:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to the History of the Papacy article

I would appreciate comments and feedback on the following text which I have written as an introduction to the History of the Papacy article...

The office of the Pope is called the Papacy. In addition to his spiritual role as head of the Catholic Church, the Pope also has a temporal role as Head of State of the independent sovereign State of the Vatican City, a city-state and nation entirely enclaved by the city of Rome. The history of the Papacy, then, is the history of both the spiritual role and the temporal role over a timespan of almost 2000 years from the arrival of Peter in Rome to the present day.
The history of the Papacy's temporal role can be divided into three major time periods. During the period before Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire, the Pope had no temporal power and served only as the spiritual head of the Christian church in Rome. Even in that spiritual role, it was contested whether the patriarchs of the other churches were subordinate to the bishop of Rome.
The second major time period in the history of the Papacy runs roughly from the time when Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire until Rome and Latium were annexed by the Kingdom of Italy in 1870. During this time period, the Pope exerted varying amounts of temporal and spiritual power until the Papal states were slowly taken away from the Papacy in the 19th century. During this same period, the role of the Pope as spiritual leader of the Christian church was successfully challenged by the East-West Schism and the Protestant Reformation. It is argued by many that the focus of the Papacy on temporal power was responsible for the loss of moral authority which engendered the corruption which inspired the Protestant reformation.
The third major time period runs from the end of the Pope's temporal power in the 19th century until the present day. During this period, the Papacy has asserted its spiritual role as leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.

--Richard 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Pope's temporal power, even at its height (and even then it was far from being a match militarily for any of the leading powers of the time) was always seen as decidedly secondary to his spiritual power. The above text gives an exaggerated impression of its importance. In my poor opinion, it does not at all merit mention in an introduction. Lima 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously I disagree but let me explain my overall framework and maybe you will see why I have put the temporal power in the intro.
When we talk about the History of the Papacy, how is this different from the History of the Catholic Church? If there is no difference, then we may as well merge the two articles and redirect History of the Papacy to History of the Catholic Church and be done with it.
However, I think there is a difference between the two topics.
In my view, the difference is that the Catholic Church is bigger than the Papacy and so the History of the Catholic Church should include discussions of things which might not be mentioned in the History of the Papacy. There are many examples but the sex abuse scandal in the U.S. is an example of something that deserves only a line or two in the History of the Papacy but would deserve an entire paragraph in the History of the Catholic Church. Conversely, the History of the Papacy is inextricably intertwined with the history of the Papal States and the interactions with the Holy Roman Emperor and other European monarchs.
The article that I have written on the History of the Papacy talks quite a bit about the temporal power of the Pope as well as challenges to the spiritual primacy of the Pope such as the East-West Schism and the Protestant Reformation. I had some reservations about including the sedevacantists but since they fit in the theme of challenges to the authority of the Pope and since they are part of the discussion of where the Pope and the Vatican are taking the Catholic Church, I figured it was appropriate to include them.
That said, do you now agree that it makes sense to include the discussion of temporal power in the intro? It might not make sense to include it in the intro to the Pope article but I think it is important to mention in the intro to the History of the Papacy article.
Please review the entire article and consider whether the intro is appropriate for the content. If you have comments about the article itself, I would be happy to hear those as well. I am particularly concerned about the structure of the article. The current structure came from something that was proposed on the Talk Page for the Pope article. The time periods map to historical eras relevant to the history of Rome and the Papal States. This might not be the best way to structure the article but I am not aware of a better one. Your thoughts on this question would be much appreciated.
--Richard 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"Well, obviously I (in my turn) disagree." In my opinion, the text in question would better fit as the introduction to an article on "History of papal temporal power". The important considerations that it contains should of course be included in "History of the Papacy", but not as the introduction. Making it the introduction of "History of the Papacy" stresses the temporal power aspect to an extent that I find altogether exaggerated.
"The time periods map to historical eras relevant to the history of Rome and the Papal States." Precisely. But the papacy is not and was not the Papal States.
Well, you asked for opinions. That's mine. Lima 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the Church of England Protestant?

I have no objection whatever to Vilĉjo's change of "English Protestant theologians" to "Theologians of the English Reformation". But I permit myself the luxury of questioning his qualification of the former text as non-NPOV. I have just read an article that quotes from the text of the Coronation Oath by which the Supreme Governor of the Church of England promised, before 1910, to "maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law", and from 1910 on declared himself or herself "a faithful Protestant". In view of this, I find it difficult to understand on what non-subjective grounds references in various Wikipedia articles to "Anglicans and other Protestants", or similar expressions, have been objected to. Lima 10:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just speculating, but perhaps it's due to their view that they are both Catholic (?) and Protestant (??)... Now that you mention it, I also wonder about that, too. "Theologians of the English Reformation" is of course more specific and detailed than "English Protestant theologians", but NPOV-wise, I'm none the wiser (pun intended). Ariedartin JECJY Talk 11:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It seemed to me that to use the term "Protestant" to describe theologians "who saw themselves as Catholics" amounted to saying that they were wrong so to think of themselves. Of course that point is arguable, but this is surely not the place to do so, and whether intentionally or not introduces a POV which is easily avoidable. The C of E describes itself as Catholic and Reformed (not Protestant) and none of its foundational documents, liturgies, canon law etc. use the term Protestant. The Coronation Oath, though often cited in this connection, is not a C of E liturgy but a state ceremony (see "The English Coronation Service" by E.C. Ratcliff). But that's all slightly beside the point anyway - my edit was simply to avoid the sense that this article was seeking to correct a fallacious self-definition by the likes of Hooker etc. Vilĉjo 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the Coronation Oath is a sufficient summary of Anglican faith. The tradition, as Vilĉjo notes, is both Reformed and Catholic, pace the Book of Common Prayer, wherein the word unfailingly rendered in its capitalised form appears in the three creeds, as well as several collects and exhortations. In a tradition in which doctrine is largely delimited by the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, I think this - not to mention the reflections of the majority of Anglican divines over the past 500-odd years - trumps the oath of the Supreme Governor of the English Church. Fishhead64 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what to conclude from the above. All three say that the Church of England is "Catholic", one of them adding a question mark. One says it is also "Protestant", adding two question marks, while the Church's Supreme Governor adds no question mark. The other two say it is "Reformed", but not "Protestant", while the pre-1910 Coronation Oath applied both adjectives to the "Religion established by law" in England. They refer to documents that apply other adjectives to the Church of England, but none, as far as I can tell, that denies the applicability to it of the adjective "Protestant". The article Protestantism says, without reservation, "In England, the word 'Protestant' can be used to refer to the established Church of England." Does this mean that on the contrary, where Fishhead and Vilĉjo come from, the word "Protestant" cannot be used to refer to the Church of England? I hope nobody takes these observations of mine quite seriously. I am only expressing some amusement at the apparent confusion about identity. Lima 08:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, Lima, I'm amused by my Communion as well! It is Protestant, insofar as it is a Christian movement of the Reformation which rejected papal authority. It is Catholic, insofar as it has maintained the four marks of catholicity and considers itself an entity unbroken from earliest antiquity. The issue is whether the rejection of papal authority perforce renders a Communion Protestant. And the answer seems to be "yes" and "no." How typically Anglican! BTW, a very good discussion of the rationale for the Reformed and Catholic tags is provided in the History section of Anglicanism:
While Anglicans acknowledge that the repudiation of papal authority by Henry VIII of England led to the Church of England existing as a separate entity, they also stress its continuity with the pre-Reformation Church of England. Quite apart from its distinct customs and liturgies (such as the Sarum rite), the organizational machinery of the Church of England was in place by the time of the Synod of Hertford in 672–673 when the English bishops were for the first time able to act as one body under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The effect of Henry's Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533) and the Acts of Supremacy (1534) was simply to declare that the English crown was "the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Ecclesia Anglicana," and that the Bishop of Rome had no "greater jurisdiction in England than any other foreign bishop." The development of the Thirty-Nine Articles of religion and the passage of the Acts of Uniformity culminating in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement resulted in a Church that is both Catholic and Reformed with the English (later British) monarch as its Supreme Governor. Fishhead64 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
To answer Lima's question: I cannot recall the last time I heard any members of my communion describing themselves, or their Church, as "Protestant", other than in a context of self-deprecatory humour. (Self-deprecatory humour is something that Anglicans have become adept at, particularly when discussing ecclesiology - for reasons which Fishhead64 makes clear!) This discussion risks becoming extremely off-topic, but I feel I must point out that the monarch's label of "Supreme Governor" carries with it absolutely no authority whatsoever to determine doctrine. Whether or not QE2 believes herself to be a Protestant (an issue of which I know nothing) has no bearing on the doctrinal basis and ecclesiological self-understanding of Anglicanism. Vilĉjo 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
My last comment was a remark on the opinions of (four?) Anglicans with no authority whatsoever to determine either doctrine or correct description. It was meant as no more than a concluding remark. My question was merely rhetorical, all the more so because I suspected that Vilĉjo is from England! Lima 05:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
In my experience living in the US and UK, in the US, Episcopalians (Church of England USA) call themselves prot. often (but not all of them do), whereas in the UK Anglicans call themselves prot rarely and sometimes employ the term catholic, but not in common parlance (but sometimes they do the opposite, using prot. or catholic). The term "reformed" is something I never hear because it sounds like Calvinism sic Puritanism. Lostcaesar 08:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the C of E is Catholic because they have Doctrinal differences with the "Roman" Catholic Church. (BTW, the Catholic church was first called the "Roman Catholic Church" by anglican people who considered themselves "anglo-catholic".) And if, for example, some Mormons started calling themselves Catholic, that would not make them Catholic, even if they think they are.

It appears that this section of the debate was created to irk the Anglican respondents.

Since Vatican 2, the Catholic Church, of whom I am a member, holds to the belief that "salvation flows to non Catholics through the Church."

There must be the ‘larger church,'

As Christ said:

"I have sheep in many folds". Bishop Lefebvre’s SSPX doctrines have been repudiated- have my fellow Catholic WIKI correspondents heard this?I accept the term "Roman Catholic ", as it implies the humility Christ calls for. So do 90% of my fellow Catholics.

So do not presume, in your pride, to speak for all Roman Catholics. We are not ignorant of our Faith. Cheers Opuscalgary 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sex Abuse in History Section

I see that the issue of sex abuse scandals has been placed in the History section. As it stands, it is way too much emphasis on this (historically) limited matter. The section is longer than the section on the entire middle ages, or Antiquity, &c.! The sex abuse matter is a mostly US issue anyway. I think this, and the "traditonalist catholic" material should get one sentence at most, if not go unmentioned altogether. The whole of the crusades (far more historically significant) only gets two. Lostcaesar 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have a U.S.-centric view of the world if you believe that the "sex abuse matter is a mostly US issue anyway". For example, the enormous scandals in Newfoundland, Austria and Poland. It isn't just an American thing.Wassupwestcoast 23:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
1) I live in the UK, and 2) Its historically insignificant. Whatever the case it doesn't deserve two paragraphs when the crusades get 2 sentences. Lostcaesar 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mr/Ms Lostcaesar; I agree with you stylistically: the article is unbalanced. However, I wouldn't dare say that the sex abuse scandals are historically insignificant. Until the sex abuse scandals, criminal prosections against the Catholic Church were mainly anti-Catholic persecutions. The sex abuse scandals are of a different order. I think it is safe to suggest that the Church is in full agreement with the various child protection laws. And yet the documented cover-ups and official down-playing of the scandal in North America and Europe have led to - also well documented - popular suspicion of the Church's own morality. This is historically significant. Until the sex abuse scandal, the popular view was of a Church as beleagured bastion of morality. After each wave of sex scandal, well ... it is significant. So, why not increase the content on the crusades and medieval period to gain balance? Wassupwestcoast 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note, since the article is 3 times the recommended article length, I'd advice not solving the situation by increasing the content in other sections. Better to add info to the sub-articles Ashmoo 02:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we shold either cut it or move it from the history section. I don't see it as historically significant, except perhaps for the large financial drain where millions of dollars went from the Church to law firms, which might be akin to viking plundering (which we do not mention at all). We are talking about 2000 years of history and some major, world changing events - best to keep perspective. Lostcaesar 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe that came off the wrong way. I'm not trying to say the events are not significant, but I think, historically, we have lost a sense of balance and perspective and would do well to correct it. Many events that loom large today fade in history. There is a main article on the topic, and that seems the place to me for the matter. Lostcaesar 09:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Down-grading the sex abuse section would be seen as offensive. Roman Catholic Church is the main Catholic Church article on Wikipedia and as such should reflect knowledge that the common Wikipedia user would be seeking. The sex abuse scandals have historic significance even if they seem so contemporary. In the U.S. alone, inquiries have gone back 50 years. In Canada, one Royal Commission has reported on the abuses in Newfoundland which went back at least 40 years. The common Wikipedia user would be surprised to see just a passing mention and an internal link to a separate article. Yes, the second article should provide the details but the main page should provide a bit more information. The survey that found "64% of respondents agreed that most Catholic priests "frequently abused children" might be possibly interpreted this way:the common user searching for information about the Roman Catholic Church would foremost want information about the issue of sex abuse of children by priests. I'm afraid such a user won't be searching for "some major, world changing events" that occurred centuries ago. My perspective only. Take it as you will. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I very much disagree that the common user "would foremost want information about the issue of sex abuse of children by priests." Let's give people more credit than that. And if there is a survey that says 64% of respondents think that most priests frequently abuse children (an obviously ridiculous conclusion), Wikipedia certainly shouldn't enforce that view (or itself be persuaded by it) by making it such a prominent feature in the article. I do agree that it is something that should be mentioned, but I also agree with my fellow-editors, like Lostcaesar, who note that it is not "historically" relevant to the extent currently reflected in the size of the section in the article. It belongs, but let's be balanced about where and to what extent. A user who wants to know about the history of the church is probably not looking for so much contemporary information on sexual abuse scandals. He will be looking for a broader view. If someone wants info on the recent scandals, it might be more practical to have it in a more obvious section. For example, the Anglican Church of Canada article includes abuse information under a "social issues" section, and the Anglican Communion article has a "controversies" section. Perhaps we can organize it like that...although it may take some more signifant editing and reorganizing. --Anietor 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there probably needs to be a 'Current Issues' section, or similar. I think this would add balance to quite a few areas of the article. At the moment, external perceptions of the Church are largely dealt with the 'Beliefs' section, which draws primarily on the Church's official publications; so, for example, the church's positions on issues such as abortion and homosexuality is dealt with primarily from an internal rather than an external perspective. If news reports or external studies are mentioned at all, it is in passing after reporting in depth from the Church's official documents. A 'Current Issues' or 'Recent History' section would hopefully allow a more balanced perspective on recent events and issues involving the Church.
On an entirely unrelated note, I note that you changed the title of the Sex Abuses section from 'scandals' to 'accusations' (an anonymous IP's bid for 'cases', matching the main article, was reverted). As at least some of the abuses are well-recorded, is 'accusations' a little weak? I'm not sure I know what the best term is, though - 'scandal' does seem rather sensational. TSP 03:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you make some good points, TSP. A Current Issues section, or something similar, would be a good idea. I moved the sex abuse info to the Civilization section, but I actually didn't anticipate it staying there. It's not really a perfect fit there, don't you agree? But it seemed like a better place than in History, where it certainly didn't belong. So I moved it (and edited it) so it could be in a sort of staging area until a better solution comes along. I also agree with you that my choice of "accusations" is not a great one. I think it was just a reaction to the rather dramatic and loaded term "scandal" that didn't seem appropriate either. But I kind of like "cases". It's neutral, accurate, and corresponds with the title of the linked article. But I don't want to change it right now, since it was so recently changed from that term. The last thing we need here is another edit/revert war! So I'll wait a bit to see if there is other input on this from anyone, including Ginkgo100, who removed "cases" earlier today. --Anietor 04:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Anietor and TSP that cases is the better choice. As TSP notes well: "some of the abuses are well-recorded". Best not to use language that reinforces the perception of denial or falsehood that "allegation" or "accusation" imply. Although "scandal" certainly carries the implied meaning of sensationalistic, the word also implies deep embarrassment - the cases of sex abuse have been deeply embarrassing to the Church. Articles in Wikipedia must be fair and neutral; not a public relations exercise in spin to save face. Yes, there has been a loss of dignity and majesty but too rosy a picture is offensive to the victims of sex abuse. Wassupwestcoast 13:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Definitely does not need a place in the article, let alone an entire section (and a large one I might add). Such a brief and historically unimportant issue does not require presence in this article, whether recent or not. People tend to forget that besides this point, it is an issue completely fabricated by the media. I guess it doesn't matter that there have been reports that the percentage of Protestant clergymen who sexually abuse children is quite larger than for Roman Catholic clergymen, or that for US teachers the figure is nearly 5%. Just check out the section's main page. 67.186.151.231 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Reasonable people can disagree about how much info about the abuse cases to include. But talking about media conspiracies and how it's not as bad as scandals in other religions is not going to help your position. I doubt my own diocese would have issued a written statement, with an apology, just last week if there was no foundation for the accusations. As a Catholic, it pains me greatly that a small number of priests have so damaged the reputation of their fellow-clergy, and the Church in general. But I must acknowledge that it is an issue that deserves some mention in the article. I do think the section should be smaller, particularly since there is a separate article. But the section has been significantly improved over the past week, with some major editing, reducing and moving to a different part of the article, by a group of editors (including me). It used to be prominently placed as a subsection under the Origins and History section, if you can believe that! It's a particularly sensitive issue, so best not to just delete the entire thing like was done earlier. --Anietor 07:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it could be mentioned, but how should it be treated? Should it be presented as the result of a society that thinks money solves all problems and cures all wounds? Should it be presented as part of the development of multi-million dollar law firms becoming even more multi-multi-million dollar firms by suing deep-pocket institutions so they can collection 60% or more of the profits (or is it judgments) for themselves? Should the abuse itself be presented as resulting from a lax or permissive attitude toward sexual vice, especially homosexuality and pederasty, and thus apart of recent social trends to open the Pandora's box of sexual licentiousness? Those are some questions to think about. Lostcaesar 08:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it should be presented as a "result" on anything in particular. Theories on the root cause of the abuse, whether permissive attitudes, corporate greed or the devil, don't belong in an encyclopedia. Of course, any policies instituted as a result of a commonly-held belief may require mention. For example, the Church's Congregation for Catholic Education's official document that seems to blame homosexual "tendencies" for the problem needs to be mentioned (as much for it's official nature as for its many critics). But general theorizing belongs in a different forum...and definitely not in this specific article. So I agree that "those are some questions to think about". But not to write about in the article. --Anietor 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason why I mentioned figures for other groups is because not only are they larger, but the articles on these groups do not make a single mention of the issue. Also, the protrusion of this "issue" into the mainstream by the media is enough to result in an apology, at the least, however true it may be. The numbers suggest no conspiracy, rather factual evidence of neglect, avoidance, and unfair focus. I think that priest reputation has little to do with the issue. Priest stereotyping, on the other hand, may be a result. Being a Catholic myself, I do not look down on my parish priest (nor the priests of other parishes) at all because of it. Anyway, nice editing work. I still think it doesn't deserve it's own section. Maybe that's just my bias talking. But I mean, isn't a section in the "Criticism of the Catholic Church" article enough? And speaking of that article, why would an encyclopedia have an entry that is a "criticism" of something. Isn't criticism (of anything) one's bias and opinion? Since when does judgement belong in reference material? It is proving that Wikipedia is just another example of how the common person can now publish his/her personal beliefs into the public (via the internet), and pass it off as valid, factual information. 67.186.151.231 00:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

This is simply a quick note to explain the recent correction I made to the categorization of the article. The major rule is that if Article C belongs in Category B, and Category B is a sub-category of Category A, C should be in Category B but not Category A. The major exception is when the article is the 'main article' of the child category -- if the article was really Article B in Category B, in other words -- and then Article B should be in the same categories that Category B is in.

Thus, this article, Roman Catholic Church, the main article of Category:Roman Catholic Church, should be in Category:Christian denominations just as Category:Roman Catholic Church is. However, because Category:Christian denominations is a sub-category of Category:Christianity, and Roman Catholic Church is already in Category:Christian denominations, it should not be in Category:Christianity as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not a denomination; it rejects this ecclesiology and it is disrespectful of the Church to call it such. Never has the Church used such language to describe itself. I am removing the category. Lostcaesar 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the Roman Catholic Church most certainly is a religious denomination; it is "a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity." Even if it was the official position of the Roman Catholic Church (rather than some overenthusiastic self-appointed representatives) to "reject this ecclesiology" (which would certainly be news to me, a Roman Catholic) that would make little difference from Wikipedia's standpoint. Wikipedia does not limit itself to describing people or organizations in the language they would prefer for describing themselves; to do so would be a violation of NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
With every other religion we call them what they call themselves. Mormons are called Christians, as are Liberal Christians &c. Old Catohlic Church get the name Catholic. But the Church is labeled as a denomination when it rejects this characterization. Antaeus, I promise you will see no official document which uses such a word. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity): When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use. Lostcaesar 08:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if you were to submit something from a reliable source indicating that the Roman Catholic Church does not call itself a denomination, that would only be grounds to note in the article that they decline such terminology, not to change their categorization and thus privilege their own view of themselves over everyone else's. If an obviously living person were to assert in a reliable source that they were in fact dead, would we remove them from Category:Living people? Obviously not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If an obviously living person were to assert in a reliable source that they were in fact dead, would we remove them from Category:Living people? Obviously not - Check the policy I linked. If an obviously female person were to call herself male (or something else), we call that person what she (he, it) wills: For example, a person who appears female or who was born female may identify as male or something else other than female. Besides, we're not here to prove if denominationalism is right (and thus if the Church may be called a denomination); we must call the Church what she calls herself. Show me one document from Rome where the Church is characterized as a "denomination" and I'll move along. Lostcaesar 15:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Lostcaesar should give up on this dispute not because his arguments are wrong but because the entire question of whether the Catholic Church is or is not a denomination seems to have been sidestepped by Wikipedia articles on the topic. This suggests that we could argue about this endlessly and without making progress. Here are some quotes that you might find relevant:

From Denomination

Christianity is composed of four major divisions of Churches: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Protestant. Each of these four divisions has important subdivisions. Because the Protestant subdivisions do not maintain a common theology or earthly leadership, they are far more distinct than the subdivisions of the other three groupings. Denomination typically refers to one of the many Christian groupings including each of the multitude of Protestant subdivisions.
Denominationalism is an ideology which views some or all Christian groups as being, in some sense, versions of the same thing regardless of their distinguishing labels. Not all churches teach this. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not use this term as its implication of interchangeability does not agree with their theological teachings. There are some groups which practically all others would view as apostate or heretical, and not legitimate versions of Christianity.

Note: "Denomination typically refers to one of the many Christian groupings including each of the multitude of Protestant subdivisions." This suggests that Roman Catholic, Orthodox etc. are "typically referred to" as denominations but that "the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not use this term".

From Denominationalism

This particular doctrine is, of course, unacceptable to those Christian groups that see themselves as being the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" as a whole. This includes the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and the Oriental Orthodox Communion, each of which claims to be the exclusive "Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". In these denominations, it is not possible to have a separation over doctrinal or leadership issues, and any such attempts automatically are a type of schism.

Note: I'm not sure if the second sentence of the above paragraph is accurate. I don't think the churches mentioned in the second sentence each claim to be the "exclusive HCAC" to the exclusion of others. I think they claim to be parts of the single, universal HCAC under separate, independent leadership. In very loose terminology, one theological belief, separate administrative hierarchies. Protestant denominations have different theological beliefs.

In summary, it appears that there are two different definitions of denomination:

1) a "denominationalist" and "secular" definition which includes the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches 2) a "Catholic" and "Orthodox" definition which does not include the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

It is relatively easy to describe both definitions in prose as has been shown by the quotes I have provided above.

It is much harder if not impossible to capture this in a categorization scheme which is binary in nature (a church either is in the category or it isn't, no wiggle room for "some say it is but it says it's not").

I would suggest that, although this argument seems similar to the debate over the name of the Catholic Church, it is dissimilar in nature. You can pick a name to use in Wikipedia and then provide alternate names with explanations in disambiguation pages and in the article itself. You could even put an explanatory note next to a list entry. You can't do this with a category.

Given the discussion above, my recommendation would be to leave the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the category of Christian denominations and leave it to the reader to figure out, if he cares, the nuances of the above discussion.

--Richard 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Describing the Catholic Church as a Christian denomination is like describing Orthodox Judaism as a church of Judaism. The terminology is simply not appropriate. Putting the article in such a category gives a fundamentally misleading and inaccurate view of the Catholic Church as a whole. In fact, as Lostcaesar has pointed out, it's quite offensive to describe Catholics as a Christian denomination, as that implies that it is just one shop in the marketplace. Such a categorisation is redolent with modern American Protestant-influenced secularist bias. I agree with what Richard has said above about this being a binary debate, but for that reason the category should not be applied. Doing so implies that the Roman Catholic Church is fundamentally the same kind of organisation as, say, the Southern Baptists - no doubt this viewpoint is satisfying to an uneducated outside observer, but we have higher standards of accuracy here than that. Slac speak up! 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of categorization, "self-identification" is merely a starting point. "Self-identification" is always contingent that misrepresentation, fraud, or libel have not been committed and that there is neither ccopyright nor trade-mark infringement. While nothing of this sort is occurring, the limitations illustrate that “self-identification” is not absolute. It is merely a starting point and not an end-point. Also, the issue of categorization is administrative and not definitive. For the convenience of Wikipedia users, the use of “Christian denomination” allows quick access to a desired piece of knowledge. Common usage and understanding of the phrase “Christian denomination” – the person on the street’s understanding – would indeed categorize the Catholic Church as a denomination. Would you ever hear something like this? “The town square was faced by churches of three denominations and a Catholic Church”. And while only hearsay it seems to me that lay church going Catholics don’t assiduously distinguish themselves as not a denomination. Hope I’ve added something. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue of accuracy, not of self-identification. As I stated above, the perspective that the Roman Catholic Church is fundamentally the same kind of organisation as the Southern Baptists - or an equivalent type of organisation - is merely one worldview among many. Specifically, it's a worldview very much rooted in time and space to American history and the American experience of religion. As much as it would be convenient to state that the issue of categories is purely an administrative one, this is simply not true. There are plenty of categories that incorporate a definitional element. I believe that accuracy must win out over administrative convenience anyway. Articles are primary; categories are secondary. How is it that various sects of say, Buddhism are not described as denominations? It is because denomination is a description used predominantly in a Christian context, and underpinned by the theoretical understanding of denominationalism, which is not an objective thing in the world, but merely a certain understanding of Christianity promoted by certain people. Slac speak up! 02:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because x identifies itself as something doesn't make it an accurate self-identification. Charles Manson self-identifies as innocent of the Tate-LaBianca murders, but it has been established that he isn't, and his article and categorisation reflects that reality. Self-identification in WP:NAME refers to proper names, not descriptions - remember, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Fishhead64 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Editors here who argue strenuously that this article should be called the Catholic Church because that is how it is commonly known surely must concede that it is also commonly known as a Christian denomination. And it is rightly understood as such. It is, after all, one shop in the Christian marketplace. It certainly meets the standard definition of a denomination, namely, a "large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy." How on earth is this inaccurate or offensive? Fishhead64 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While this is not the place to get into a full-blown discussion of the ins-and-outs of Catholic ecclesiology, I will attempt with my basic knowledge to give an overview. If you want the accurate version, read Lumen Gentium - it's on the web. PS. I don't think the article should be called "Catholic Church", so this argument doesn't apply to me. Slac speak up! 08:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Some points:
  • Common usage and understanding of the phrase “Christian denomination” – the person on the street’s understanding
  • Editors here who argue strenuously that this article should be called the Catholic Church because that is how it is commonly known surely must concede that it is also commonly known as a Christian denomination
This is a great example of inconsistent (hypnotical) application of policy. One cannot, on the one hand, say that the term "denomination" should be used because it is "common use", but then also say the article should be called anything but "Catholic Church", since that is common use. But we don't call the article that, we call it Roman Catholic Church. Now, I'm not reopening that debate. But I am saying that "common use" is not being employed here as the final standard and hence it seems ultimately irrelevant here. And besides, this is different because the terms "Roman Catholic Church" is (albeit very rarely) used in official documents, and is not inherently offensive. "Denomination" is never used in official documents and is hostile to Catholic theology.
"Self-identification in WP:NAME refers to proper names, not descriptions" — but have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), which is about identity (and is the policy I referenced, if you would only read what I wrote).
What we have here is a misapplication of policy resulting in a double standard and thus an environment where, even though the Catholic Church does not self-identify as a denomination, it is nonetheless tacitly being told that it is wrong and in fact is a denomination.
Lostcaesar 08:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have read what you have written - I just disagree with it, is all. I would invite you to read WP:NCON#Dealing with self-identifying terms to see the root of the dispute here. To disintereted observers, the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian denomination. It is also a major branch of Christianity. I would wager most people don't think too clearly about the distinction. Some other folks might speak of Catholic denominations, of which the Roman Communion is one. My main interest is in helping ease of use: People looking up "Christian denominations" will be chagrined to see that the Roman Catholic Church has been "inexplicably" excluded. It is not for you or me or anyone else to prescribe how the Roman Catholic Church is described by people, since we cannot govern common parlance. Pace my citation above, we can only note the entity's self-concept and the purpose for it. Fishhead64 16:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What you are saying isn't foolish or anything. I just think its inconsistant to use a common parlance argument for the categorization as a denomination, but not use it (indeed go against it) in regards to the name of the article itself (and others like "Catholicism" etc.). And it seems like the Church comes up short on both ends, which is a little annoying. I think you can see what I mean. Anyway, Richard has a good idea below. Lostcaesar 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm relieved it's not foolish, at least! The perceived inconsistency arises, I believe, from the real distinction between categorization (a focus from without, using a general organizing principle) and articles (a focus from within, describing what the subject is). Regrettably, semantic distinctions between religious groupings are a little more fraught with ambiguity than the taxonomy of trees. Fishhead64 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that the nuances of the term denomination escape me. To me it really is stating simply that a group is a member of Christianity. To maintain the position that the RCC is not a denomination because it is the Christian church is dependent upon one's perspective or affiliation. If I was Roman Catholic I am supportive. If I am Baptist, then I am not supportive because your church is no better than my church. This is an evalutive discussion that should be maintained on each church's home page. However, it certainly appears to be POV not to acknowledge the RCC as one (the very biggest) of many churches within Christianity. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of ecclesiology; is sum, group A say X ecclesiology is true, whilst group B says Z ecclesiology is true; what wiki has done is to employ the terminology of Z to describe A group, tacitly saying that group A is wrong. Lets put it like this: should Mormons be in category: Christian? Mormons say yes, Baptists say no - imagine if wiki put Mormons in category: paganism (and not cetegory: Christianity). The policy says, when this conflict happens, call the group what it calls itself. Lostcaesar 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No. It really doesn't. Wikipedia's policy in this case is to employ the Neutral Point of View. Self-identification has nothing to do with it. You may be recalling Vaquero100's justification for moving the article to Roman Catholic Church; that argument applied only to the title of the article (under the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict), and even then only if the matter could not be resolved under the usual Wikipedia:Naming conventions.
The NPOV policy (one of Wikipedia's three core content-guiding policies) says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." As far as I am aware, no policy any point say that the organisation's own views take precedence.
So, where does this leave us on disputed categorisations? Wikipedia:Categorization says "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." Is the category referred to well, and neutrally, defined and named? If so, and if under its definition this article should be in it, we need to follow that neutral assessment, not necessarily the Church's own preferred terminology. TSP 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So its NPoV to tell the Church that she is wrong about how she describes herself, and to impose a contrary ecclesiology ? Doesn't that sound a little obnoxious or arrogant? How is that neutral? What would happen if someone went on every bio of a transsexual and gave them the category of the gender they were born with (and their DNA still is) rather than post "change"?Lostcaesar 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No; it's NPOV to only use categorisations that you have defined in an objective and neutral fashion. However, once you've defined them, you have to adhere to those definitions regardless of the fact that some who fit them may not themselves use that categorisation. Given that the neutral point of view is a consistent point of view, two bodies which fit the same criteria are either both denominations, or neither is a denomination; it can't be neutral to say that one is and the other is not, unless your criteria cover one but not the other. That would be the case here if you applied the criterion "bodies that consider themselves Christian denominations", but I'm not sure that would be a very useful category.
What would happen if someone labelled every male-to-female transexual as "male"? Well, first of all if they did that to lots of articles without discussion it would be a violation of Wikipedia's procedures, and if they did it because of this debate they would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Leaving that aside, whether they belong in 'male' or 'female' categories depends on how those categories are defined; if they are defined objectively, they need to state whether they are categories for "people who were born male" or "people who self-identify as male"; which will determine in which category transgender people belong. TSP 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It has not been objectively and neutrally defined (maybe its your pov that is has, but that is, after all, just a pov, no?). Is the Catholic Church a denomination? Is that an objective fact? Some have the point of view that it is an objective fact (and thus that the Church either is or isn't), others that it is not an objective fact. Believe it or not, you will likely run into the same problem with gender, even with biological birth traits and whatnot. What we have is a disputed matter amongst groups and no objective way to choose amongst them; in that case, we call the group what it calls itself, pure and simple. Lostcaesar 19:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you as far as the problem. Yes, it's possible that 'denomination' has not received an objective and neutral definition (though under at least the American Heritage Dictionary's definition - "A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy" - the Catholic Church as described in this article appears to fit). That the solution is to "call the group what it calls itself, pure and simple", however, isn't a solution I see coming from anywhere in Wikipedia policy. TSP 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the editors of the AHD, I think "denomination" has usages that aren't quite captured by that definition. For example "common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy" to my mind sounds awfully Christianity-specific. Importantly, one rarely sees "denomination" used outside of a Christian context. Adding Charles Manson to category:murderers is fine - but that category itself is not completely clear-cut and there will be other cases where definitional issues crop up. This is not a clear-cut case: to those who see it that way, might I suggest that there are very deeply ingrained POV's at work in the clash of outlooks (are all Christian denominations just different shops in the marketplace? An observer might conclude that, but it's not undisputed and it can't be taken as read). I think LC makes the point that we're going to have fine-grained "denomination" disputes as a constant background argument in the same way that we're going to have constant fine-grained "Christian" versus "non-Christian" disputes. We do in this instance need to have reference to some other criteria - in which self-definitions can be quite handy. Slac speak up! 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, Charles Manson doesn't self-identify as a murderer, so would classifying him as such be a mis-categorization? I speak facetiously, of course, but it does illustrate a point, which is that self-definition is indeed relevant to articles, but I am hard pressed to understand how that spills over into the way people categorize things - which may not be always how the categorized subject would think appropriate. Is it accurate or true? In a way, that's a relative question - relative to the person using the list, in other words. Why make things unduly difficult for people? Fishhead64 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You have just provided the argument I was refuting. My argument by way of example is that it is valid to categorise Manson as a murderer, since there is such an overwhelming weight for his being so categorised. I can also think of other instances where putting somebody in the "murderer" category is going to be much more difficult. This is one of those less-clear-cut cases. Yes, it's a relative question - so that's why assuming "the person using the list" - i.e. the standard of objectivity - will agree with the "Christian denomination" category is not valid. That is what is making things unduly difficult - treating an all-or-nothing, judgement-call categorisation as something objective and clear when in reality it's not. Slac speak up! 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, Lac, let me put it to you this way. Which of these statements is closer to being true?
  • The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination of Christianity.
  • The Roman Catholic Church is not a subgroup of Christianity at all.
Because you see, Category:Christian denominations is intended to be a category for groups that are subgroups of Christianity. If you argue that "denominations" doesn't really apply to all such subgroups, then fine, help us find an easily comprehensible new category name that's more inclusive. But what started this whole nonsense was someone removing the article from Category:Christian denominations and thereby asserting -- whether they ever comprehended, or cared, that they were doing so -- that the Roman Catholic Church is not any kind of subgroup of Christianity. That's just ludicrous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What we have bumped across is the fact that there is really no absolute "neutral" pov - to begin to know anything one must have a point from which to view and such is not neutral (nor need it be, thankfully, since that would be impossible). But we can still do things, such as respect what we judge to be reasonable views by including them &c. What we have here is, as I have tried to point out, an unwillingness to see the bias in denominationalism. For example: "that the Roman Catholic Church is not any kind of subgroup of Christianity - That's just ludicrous." Now I'm not picking on you but its worth discussing. I personally find it ludicrous to think that The Church could be thought a "sub-group" at all - sub-group of what? It is The Church - without it there would be no Christianity at all. Interestingly, this is something that most Christians agree with, but they just don't see the [Roman] Catholic Church as The Church - they either see themselves as The Church, or they employ denominationalism. Now, it is certainly a PoV to see yourself as The Church - but it is just as much a PoV to see denominationalism as true (and its not neutral whatsoever). Which is the objective truth? Well, policy here is generally to avoid such judgments, but applying the tag "Christian denomination" is such a judgment - its akin to categorizing Jehova's Witness Movement as "nonchristians", because they fit a certain definition (do not worship Jesus Christ as God), a definition that from many views would be thought objective. Because there is no such thing as a neutral point of view, and because the matter here is disputed with good reason (that some are not able to see the reasons behind the other point of view is unfortunate) the best move here is a compromise. Sometimes we have to take a point of view to disrespect another point of view, i.e. that Manson is a murderer, and just say his point of view is, according to us, wrong. But here we are dealing with a point of view held by one billion people, so it cannot be dismisses so easily. Lostcaesar 08:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we're now moving into even more ludicrous territory. It is not a matter of POV that the Roman Catholic Church is a subgroup of Christianity. It is cold, hard fact. All Roman Catholicism is Christianity; not all Christianity is Roman Catholicism. All Roman Catholics are Christians; not all Christians are Roman Catholics. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church is a subgroup of Christianity, period. Now you can argue until you're blue in the face about whether the correct term for the type of sub-group the RCC is is a "branch", a "denomination", a "communion", a "franchise" -- whatever, that's fine, knock yourself out. But asserting that RCC is not a subgroup of Christianity is to either be completely misunderstanding the question (willfully?) or to be in plain flat-out denial. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
All Roman Catholics are Christians; not all Christians are Roman Catholics. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church is a subgroup of Christianity, period. You missed a possibility: [Roman] Catholicism is Christianity (and Christianity is [Roman] Catholicism). The extent to which a group is Christian and the extent to which it is in communion with the Catholic Church are one and the same. Hence [Roman] Catholicism is no more a subgroup of Christian than train is a subgroup of locomotive. A cable car is enough like a locomotive to be called classified as a "sub-group" of locomotive insofar as it is akin to a locomotive but imperfectly so. So, there are other Christian groups (groups that are akin to Catholicism-Christianity but imperfectly so), yet the [Roman] Catholic Church is not a sub-group of Christianity. Another example: dark pink can be in the category "red" but it is not the color red (and "rouge" is not a sub-group of "red" - its just another word for the same thing). The only difference between [Roman] Catholicism and Christianity that may be discerned is that employment of the former term denotes the group that is self aware of this reality. Lostcaesar 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well if you really want to take a view that doesn't seem to be taken even by the current Pope, yes. But think about this (from Benedict XVI#Protestants):
'In more general terms, Pope Benedict addressed Protestant churches in a speech during his trip to Cologne, Germany in 2005, discussing a "renewed sense of our brotherhood" and "a more open and trusting climate between Christians belonging to the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities."' David Underdown 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No I wholly agree with the above statement (though I am sure "Churches" is not to be capitalised) - words like "ecclesial communities" are very careful constructions meant to express the exact point I am giving (and note, there is no use of the word "denomination"). Lostcaesar 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
He does at least allow us to be Christians, which your previous statment appears to deny. David Underdown 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, I dont mean that at all. There are degrees of being Christian. And its not an individual thing - its about doctrine &c. E.g., if one group drop one of ten lines of the creed, then it is 90% Christian - a crude and imperfect example, but you get the idea. Lostcaesar 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Lostceasar, your construction still renders Roman Catholicism coterminous with Christianity. If Christian communions did not consider themselves the most authentic expression of the faith, they wouldn't have bothered to form in the first place. A neutral POV takes no stance whatsoever on the question of which of them is the locomotive. Antiquity is not a sufficient ground, imo. The first locomotive only closely approximates the bullet train, and can in no sense be described as the "ideal type," if you will, of the class of locomotives. Fishhead64 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
A neutral POV takes no stance whatsoever on the question of which of them is the locomotive - then it ought not tell you "your not really The Locomotive, rather your just a cablecar, like the rest of us - the real Locomotive is something else that you cannot attain". Lostcaesar 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not saying x is a cable car, or x is not a locomotive, it simply isn't taking a stance on the identity of the locomotive. There are a lot of ecclesial bodies claiming to be the locomotive, and Wikipedia cannot ajudicate those claims. The root of the word "Reformation," is "reform," since people like Calvin and Luther held that that the Roman Catholic Church had strayed from the apostolic faith - ie., that it had ceased to be the locomotive. Their agenda was to redesign the Church so that it was the locomotive once again. I'm not taking sides on that question, I'm merely saying that this is one example of how such claims overlap, necessitating impartiality. Fishhead64 17:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I'm going to stop grinding the axe. Sorry if I took this too far. I don't understand why there is all the insistence about calling the Church something it'd rather not be called, but if thats the common will here I cannot do much else. Maybe in time minds will change. Lostcaesar 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Church's view of itself (i.e. not as a denomination)

  • In the Great Commission, Christ gave the apostles specific instructions to baptise all people - to bring them into the assembly of Christians - the ekklesia, the Church. He gave instructions on how this body was to be ordered and ordained Peter as its head. "The Church is both the means and the goal of God's plan: prefigured in creation, prepared for in the Old Covenant, founded by the words and actions of Jesus Christ, fufilled by his redeeming cross and his resurrection, the Church has been manifested as the mystery of salvation by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. . .The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the mystical body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine. This is her mystery, which only faith can accept. The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men". (CCC, 778-780).
  • The Church is, therefore, Christ's body on earth. (789, 795)
  • Thus Church is one. It's diverse (814), filled with different people and different functions, but it is not a scattering of different groups: it is one group. "The unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion: - profession of one faith received from the Apostles; -common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments; -Apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family." (815)
  • For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God (816).

To summarise - (1)Christians are those who follow the commands of Christ. To be part of the community, the Church of Christ, is one of Christ's commands. (2) The Church of Christ was specifically established by him with Peter as its head. Everybody who wishes to fully obey Christ's commands must be baptised into this body on Earth, whose visible head is the pope, and which is unified, continuous from the time of the apostles, and guided by the Holy Spirit. (3)Those who are not baptised into this body do not fully adhere to Christ's commands. Even though they may legitimately be called "Christians", (819, 838), the grace and salvation that flow from their groupings is really only a reflection of that which flows from Christ's Catholic Church.

Denominationalism as a view is a definition that is in opposition to the above. It believes that unity of worship, sacrament and belief are not necessary components for Christian life and in fact a Christian may be known by many different names (de nomina) while still being Christian completely. In fact, Christ did not imbue the Catholic Church with any specific authority: Christians are free to chose whether or not to adhere to it.

The idea that "one thing is pretty much as good as another" when it comes to religion is monstrously false in the Catholic view: a serious error that goes directly against the explicit command of Jesus and creates schism, heresy and apostasy within Christianity on Earth, leading people away from God. To rank the Catholic Church as "one of many possible alternatives" is to deny the legitimacy of the Catholic Church altogether. Slac speak up! 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacrimosus, the Roman Catholic Church is "one of many possible alternatives", whether the Roman Catholic Church likes it or not. We are not here to describe people and organizations according to their POV, but according to NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Slac's four bullet points accurately define the four marks of Catholicism, of which the Roman Catholic Church is - I think all can agree - not the sole representative. A NPOV in categorization needs to pertain, not a Roman Catholic POV. The ins and outs of the RCC's self-concept is best discussed in the article, and should not govern how others conceive it. As an Anglican, I am willing to concede that in the popular mind, the Anglican Communion is not the sole, legitimate expression of Anglicanism, although the theology of my Communion is that splinter groups are schismatic, and not being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot legitimately call themselves Anglican. The situation is entirely synonymous, and I grudgingly accept that the Reformed Episcopal Church can be listed under [[Category:Anglicanism]], because of the popular understanding of the category in which that body fits. Fishhead64 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and I grudgingly accept "Old Catholic Church". Should they be put in "Category: false churches"? That the OCC is a "false church" is a PoV. That Catholicism is a "denomination" - or that "denominationalism" even is true at all - is a PoV disrespectful to the Church. Look at it this way: Jehova's Witness does not identify as a "church", but a "movement". Should we categorize them as "Chrisitan churches" anyway? Lostcaesar 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To try to rephrase my point above, denominationalism is not an objective, real-world standard, universally applicable to all Christian groups. It is one view about how Christian groups should be categorised. It's quite appropriate when we want to look at say, the differences and the similarities between Calvinists and Lutherans. For me to be POV, I would be insisting that these groups can't be described as Christian denominations, when in fact they fit into denominationalist theory quite nicely. It is singularly inappropriate when we're describing bodies that do not conform to what a denominationalist's idea of a denomination is. That the Catholic Church is not a denomination in the same sense that Lutheranism and Calvinism are denominations is an objective fact about the world, not a POV - a fact that arises partly from self-definition (as explained above), partly from organisation, and partly from history. Slac speak up! 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, I think it's a false dichotomy: Catholicism is a branch within Christianity consisting of numerous denominations. Standard dictionary definitions of "denomination" state that it is a "large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organised under a single administrative and legal hierarchy." There are several Lutheran denominations - and Calvinism itself includes offshoot movements, such as Presbyterianism. In that sense, they are movements within the branch of Protestantism. The RCC is objectively capable of being two things at once. Fishhead64 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think perhaps that I'm doing a poor job of getting across the key point of Catholic ecclesiology. From this point of view, it's not an option for one who professes to be catholic to say "oh, I adhere to the Archbishop of Cantebury" - by definition that renders them non-catholic. This is where the conflict of definitions is coming in, as per Lostcaesar below. The Anglican point of view is that catholicism is, for want of a better word, the Christian "mainstream", and Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism are both "currents" within that stream. You're entitled to hold this point of view, but it is a point of view - witness the fact that the Catholic understanding is different. People outside of communion with the bishop of Rome might call themselves catholic, but from his viewpoint they're not - that's why calling them "catholic" is a point of view and not objective. And, coming back to my original point, viewing different forms of Christianity as different outlets offering versions of the same product might be convenient from certain points of view, but the Catholic outlook is that of a hierarchy, or, if you like, a series of concentric circles with orthodoxy and the bishop of Rome as the centre. The more peripheral you are, the less entitled you are to view yourself as Christian or catholic. My point is not that WP should adopt this viewpoint, but just to stress that just as this is a point of view, so the alternative, denominationalist outlook is a categorisation system that's based on a particular non-neutral perspective. Slac speak up! 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Catholicism is a branch within Christianity consisting of numerous denominations. - That's your point of view, and its not neutral. You're free to it, and I give you no trouble. But you ought not impose that on Catholics, no? Lostcaesar 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Which Catholics are you talking about? See, that's the problem. Fishhead64 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No, respectfully, its not - with the Church we can examine official documents and notice that such language is never used and the ecclesial system is indeed rejected. The Church has a specific way of officially speaking, so its not an issue. Lostcaesar 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm: ways out of this dilemma?

While I have an opinion on the this dispute, I'd prefer to try to interject another perspective. Given that the term "denomination" is evidently both ambiguous and controversial, is there another term which captures the ordinary meaning of the word, without running afoul of the ecclesiastical distinctions? Something like "Branches of Christianity" ? Presumably it would replace Category:Christian denominations). If not, I think the current denomination-or-not issue can probably be resolved with enough attention, but the resolution won't make everyone happy. --lquilter 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It won't work, I suggest. For example, is the Reformed Mennonite Church, consisting of some 300 members a branch of Christianity? It is a branch of a branch of a branch - let's say a twig. I like the idea of perhaps a levelled box called Category:Christian branches and denominations - but I'm open to a better name - the five levels being "Roman Catholic," "Reformed Catholic," "Protestant," "Reconstructionist," and "Other." That seems to be a compromise, in that it approaches some accuracy, while leaving just about everybody dissatisfied. Fishhead64 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
<grin> if everyone is unhappy it must be a good compromise, right? Surely we could use "denominations" within the Protestant branch, without forcing that term on the Catholic branch; but by including both Bs & Ds in the top, we could avoid triggering wars between the grammar purists & the ecclesiastical purists. I like Fishhead64's proposed "Christian branches and denominations"; are there other ideas? --lquilter 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I made the suggestion of Category:Christian communions over at the Christianity talk page. Let me make a case for it here as well. (1)The churches in question have, in various ways (especially through the modern ecumenical movement) identified themselves as "communions." (2) This avoids "denomination" for those who do not use it as a self-descriptor. (3) This avoids the category of Protestant, for those that fall between Protestant and Catholic. (4) This avoids the question of "Catholic means Rome" for those that consider themselve Catholic but not Roman. -- Pastordavid 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't support this, because communion has a specific, technical definition that doesn't always allow for an easy fit - in other words, it's not a synonymous term, IMO. Communion, in this context, means "fellowship," and there are varying degrees of fellowship, including churches being in full or partial communion with one another. In any event, the proposal I suggest of five groupings satisfies your four points. Fishhead64 00:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How about something simple, like "Christian groups"? Lostcaesar 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Catholics believe the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and that other christians have only part of the church. We believe we are the same church as the early church, and that all other christian churches are schismatic split-offs that split off through the years. And Christian Group wouldn't really work, because the Catholic Church is not a group within a Religion but is a religion itself.

Question about "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"

I raise this point in the "Categorization" debate above but it's a sidenote to that discussion so I'd like to start a separate thread on the topic here.

In the Denominationalism article, the last paragraph says:

This particular doctrine is, of course, unacceptable to those Christian groups that see themselves as being the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" as a whole. This includes the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and the Oriental Orthodox Communion, each of which claims to be the exclusive "Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". In these denominations, it is not possible to have a separation over doctrinal or leadership issues, and any such attempts automatically are a type of schism.

I think the second sentence is inaccurate because, as I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and the Oriental Orthodox Communion do not EACH claim to be the EXCLUSIVE "Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" but rather they ALL claim to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but under separate leaderships (patriarchates). OK, the Roman Catholics don't completely buy into this formulation but neither do they consider the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches to be OUTSIDE the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". I'm not quite sure what the Roman Catholics think about Protestants but I know that they think the Protestants are a different kind of church from the Orthodox churches (I would guess that, in many cases, Protestant churches are considered heretical churches with the notable exception of the Anglican Communion).

If I got any of the above wrong, please correct me. I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about this area and "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing". However, I do think the last paragraph of the Denominationalism article gets it wrong and I would like your help in fixing it.

--Richard 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I'm afraid you are at least partially wrong, in that the official Catholic view is that the Church led by the Pope is (or at least subsists in, see Lumen Gentium) the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church (also referred to as the Church of Christ). In order to be the true Church, a body must manifest all of the four relevant marks. In the Catholic view, only the Catholic Church is undivided, universal, and in full accordance with the organisational structure laid out by Christ. The point at which the Orthodox and other groups broke away from papal authority, they became schismatic. The Eastern Churches have maintained apostolic succession in that their bishops can authentically be traced back to the apostles and their ordinations are valid, but they are not fully apostolic as they do not accept the authority of the head of the apostles, as manifested in the successor of Saint Peter. Most Protestants have been considered by the Church over the years to be out-and-out heretics. The Catholic Church specifically denies that Anglican priestly ordinations are valid, thus, in the Catholic view the Anglicans have broken apostolic succession.
However, in recent years, sparked by Lumen Gentium and Vatican II generally, the Church has been clarifying some of its doctrine in this regard. While it has not in any sense backed away from its claim to make fully manifest the Church of Christ, it also accepts that some people outside the physical boundaries of the Catholic Church are able to be saved, and that non-Catholic Christian denominations have a (limited) claim to the inheritance of the Church of Christ. In particular, the Church has acknowledged that relationships between it and the Orthodox Church are almost but not quite at a state of full communion. A similar rapprochement was underway with the Anglicans but has faced setbacks in the form of the recent Anglican practice of the ordination of women. Slac speak up! 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, thnaks. I guess I sort of knew that but I wouldn't have been able to explain it as clearly as you did. But here's my question: Do the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches EACH claim to be the EXCLUSIVE "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" or do they claim to be part of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" in a sort of collegial brotherhood of patriarchies of which the patriarch of the Roman church is but one member who is equal but not superior to the other patriarchs? This is the nub of my concern about the sentence in question.
--Richard 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What you're describing is basically the situation before the various schisms. The Roman Patriarch was always accorded with the honour of being "first among equals" by the other patriarchates. The troubles were when doctrinal disputes meant that different sees were heading in different directions. The basic fallout from this is that the various patriarchates recognise each other's existence, but they view them as being in schism. There are three basic categories of "Christian waywardness" - schism, heresy and apostasy - in order of seriousness. So, for example, the Catholic Church will accept that Orthodox priests can validly administer sacraments, the administration of these sacraments will be quite illegitimate. And although Catholics will recognise that the eastern Patriarchs exercise de facto authority over a group of Christian believers, they don't do so legitimately (for centuries, the Catholic Church maintained their own claimants to the various patriarchates, and to this day, it's really quite unclear exactly who is the patriarch of Antioch, there are so many contenders to the title). So to summarise, when the various patriarchs started endorsing incorrect theology, they voluntarily placed themselves outside of the collegial brotherhood of patrarchies. Their existence is recognised, but they don't, in this view, have legitimate authority. Slac speak up! 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eastern Orthodox Churches administer the sacraments both validly and licitly. This can be seen in Unitatis Redintegratio 16 and Orientalium Ecclesiarum, for example. This is why Eastern Orthodox confession (and marriage) is valid, while SSPX confession (and marriage) is invalid. -- Cat Whisperer 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to connect what Slac and Cat Whisperer wrote with the sentence that I have questions about.

If Slac is correct that all the churches (Roman and Orthodox) consider each other to be in schism, then it would be correct to say that they consider themselves EXCLUSIVELY to be the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus, one could argue that the patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church doesn't recognize the Pope as the patriarch of the Roman Church? And that he doesn't consider Roman Catholics to be part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

This conflicts with my sense of the current state of affairs (an uninformed opinion from a layman, I admit). I would have thought that the various patriarchs all recognize each other, including the Pope as patriarchs of their respective churches without admitting the primacy of any one patriarch (i.e. not of the Pope). I would further have thought that the Pope recognized the patriarchs as the heads of their churches but considered them to be in schism because they refused to accept his primacy.

In my view, then, all the churches are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church and recognize each other as parts of it. The only dispute is about who, if anyone, has primacy.

And this is why I'm objecting to the wording of the sentence in question. I'll shut up if I'm wrong but I just want to be clear about this and learn if I have got it wrong.

--Richard 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck trying to straighten this issue out. In addition to the two Vatican II documents I cited above, you may also want to look at Lumen Gentium 8, and the Wikipedia article about it, "Subsistit in" in Lumen Gentium. -- Cat Whisperer 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---collins, matt Feb 14 07

I would suggest a discussion of the term "catholic" - even as used in the Creed and in fact taught by the Church, "catholic" is understood to be "universal". So that, yes, we Catholics believe the Church to be Universal (in that it trancends space, time, plane), we also see it as a church (albeit the standard bearer in communion with the will of Christ). In this sense, all of Christianity is part of the universal church... united in Baptism.

I believe, however, that from my own point of view, to call the Catholic Church (RCC) a "branch" is inaccurate. In fact, the succession of Peter is unbroken through today. I do not try to offend, but we could approach it thusly: there is the Catholic Church and theere are schismatic churches (all other denominations). Or, to put it another way, the Catholic Church and her members see the Church as the roots and trunk. Others may be branches, but branches issue forth from the trunk. (Unsigned remarks by 12.124.116.62)

Believe it or not, we have discussed it. If you have evidence that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, I'd be interested to read it - but as far as I know it's a tradition, and its veracity is very much in dispute. And even if it wasn't in dispute, apostolic succession through Peter is just one POV with respect to "genuineness" (for lack of a better word). Bottom line: every strain of Christianity believes in its own authenticity as the undiluted expression of the faith of the apostles: WP cannot ajudicate those conflicting claims. Fishhead64 02:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
12.124.116.62, you are expressing the Roman Catholic POV, which claims exclusivity. This is unacceptable to many other Christians who have other POVs, and thus it cannot be stated just as you did on Wikipedia. Another POV that is missing in the arguments (and a very common one) is that the real Cathlic church is the one great, but invisible church, and all the visible churches are more or less imperfect expressions of it. A Protestant who states the latter viewpoint is not slamming or being pejorative toward his Roman Catholic brethren; he's just not accepting the claim of exclusivity. Pollinator 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"This is unacceptable to many other Christians who have other POVs, and thus it cannot be stated just as you did on Wikipedia." I do not mean to be a pest, but it is unacceptable to a billion or so Catholics to refer to the Church as a denomination. We politely disagree with comparing a Church with 2000 years of history to any recent schismatic "protest-ant" off-shoot. To do so would provide gravitas to any denomination (even the least of them), as if to say that theirs is the fruit of the Catholic Martyrs, for instance. Or, for that matter to share in the triumph pioneered by the Church in areas such as Art, Science, Intl Law, Medicine, Astronomy, Literature, et cet. Again, not to be a complete madman here, but this is precisely the same way we object to the use of the term "marriage" for institutions which have zero in common with this institution. It is much more than an issue of semantics, I would submit to you. Much, much more. It is saying 'yes' when you mean 'yes' and 'no' when you mean 'no'.

In any event, the issue stands: what is the proper manner in which to the distinct Christian Societies? I am not sure.

12.124.116.62 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Matt Collins

12.124.116.62, you appear to have a horse to ride ;) Fishhead64 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected Article Kept an Incorrectly Placed Example Image...

Admins, just a heads up, please remove the Image:Example.jpg from the external links section to protect under the appropriate version please. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution to debate over categorization of Catholic Church in Category:Christian denominations

I have made a proposal over at Talk:Christianity which, in essence, proposes replacing Category:Christian denominations with Category:Major branches of Christianity and Category:Protestant denominations. Hopefully, this will address the issue.

I believe this proposal should be debate at Talk:Christianity so I have placed the proposal on that page. Please place your comments in the section titled Proposal for change to the category "Christian denominations"

--Richard 16:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It might do. But, arguably, Catholicism is the major branch of Christianity; and the Roman Catholic Church is (by far the largest) church within that (others being the Old Catholics, and suchlike). So the name is still required.
In any case, doesn't the Catholic Church reject the concept of branches just as vehemently as it rejects the concept of denominations? TSP 15:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We Catholics don't consider old Catholics to be real Catholics. However, we consider Catholics of the Byzantine Rite and other eastern rites to be part of the Catholic Church. Using the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish it from Old "Catholics" and other "Catholics" isn't really appropriate because Eastern Rite Churches are part of the Church, but they definately don't consider themselves "Roman". And "Roman Catholic" is slightly offensive in a way to Catholics because we are the Catholic (ie universal) church, and aren't just Roman.

Moving the category to "Christian branches and denominations"

I don't want to jump the gun, but unless I'm mistaken, there seems to be a fair degree of consensus to retitle the category Category:Christian denominations to Category:Christian branches and denominations, but moving category pages seems to require a technical expertise beyond my ken. Does someone have one of those bot thingies that will make such a move easier? Fishhead64 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can just manually shift the articles by editing them individually. Slac speak up! 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Alas, there are 56 subcategories and 125 articles! I'm a WP fanatic, but quite that hardcore. Fishhead64 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been away for awhile. So, let me through in my two cents. The Catholic Church does not subscribe to the Branch Theory and therefore does not recognize itself as either a denomination (Protestant) or a branch (Anglican). The Catholic Church recognizes itself only as a Church. It's nomenclature is Church and eccesial community. It recognizes historical bodies with sacraments and legitimate apostolic succession as Churches and other Christian bodies as ecclesial communities. Of course WP has no reason to follow the nomenclature of the CC as it describes other churches, but WP would do well to define the category as "Category:Christian denominations and churches" or perhaps even better, Category:Christian churches and denominations. The CC is definitely not a denomination, but neither is it a "branch."EastmeetsWest 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I would think that Anglicanism would be defined as a Communion of Churches, as each "province" is quite autonomous (although these arrangements appear to be currently in question).

Also, as I look at the category in question, I am finding no discussion of a move on its talk page. I dont understand.EastmeetsWest 00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place here and at Talk:Christianity partly because the initial discussion was not about changing the name of the category but about whether or not this article should be in the category Category:Christian denominations. I came up with the idea of resolving a seemingly intractable issue by changing the name of the category. If we come to some agreement, then the next step would be to make a formal proposal over at the category's talk page. I just wanted to hash it out here first before making a proposal over there. --Richard 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about an article, it's about how people categorize things. As I mentioned above, Charles Manson doesn't categorize himself as a murderer, but Wikipedia does, and he has been ajudicated as such by entities external to himself. The difference between an article and a category is key here, and what is important is how would Roman Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church categorize itself with respect to other Christian fill in the blanks? It doesn't exist in a vacuum, obviously, but stands in relation to similar structures and must somehow be categorized with them, or not be categorized at all - which is, I'm sure you'd agree, simply ludicrous. Fishhead64 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


First, I'll thank you not to make more comparisons between the Catholic Church and Charles Manson in the future, no matter what your opinion on the subject. Furthermore, your reply did not address my suggestions Category:Christian denominations and churches and Category:Christian churches and denominations, both of which meet the dual criteria of how the Church categorizes itself and how most English speakers would categorize. "Churches" would certainly be more common parlance than "branches." Do we really have to do comparative google searches on this? And why continually antagonize Catholics? I just dont get it. EastmeetsWest 05:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, while the Catholic Church does not exist in a vacuum, it's membership constitutes nearly two thirds of Christianity. The Catholic Church is not an "also ran" Church. What it teaches and it's nomenclature represents the teachings and nomenclature of the majority of Christians. That ought to have some consideration on WP, at least not to simply arbitrarily use language to categorize it which is alien to its thinking when there are perfectly acceptable (even preferable) alternatives. EastmeetsWest 05:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Furthermore, non-denominational church would categorize themselves as churches but certainly not denominations or branches, so it is a nomenclature that is friendly to more than simply the Catholic Church. It is just simply good common English. EastmeetsWest 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to have discussions with you because of your constant imputations of bad faith and antagonism on my part. The comparison was one of categorisation, and was the first one that came into my head - I've used it before and nobody complained. Do you seriously think that I believe that RCC is like a mass murderer? As it happens, I would agree that your suggestion works just as well as mine - my essential point was that the RCC does not exist in a vacuum, and needs to be categorized with other Christian groups. I'm pleased to see you agree. Fishhead64 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"the RCC does not exist in a vacuum, and needs to be categorized with other Christian groups" - then lets do that: [Category: Christian groups] Lostcaesar 09:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with "Christian groups" is that it could potentially include organisations like the YMCA or Youth With A Mission. I think we need to be more specific, unfortunately. Do you have any specific problems with either "Christian branches and denominations" or "Christian churches and denominations"? Fishhead64 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Christian ecclesial groups" would omit Christian groups that were not churchlike. Just a suggestion. Lostcaesar 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance. The only group I can think of that fits this definition is the "Jehovah's Witnesses" and even then I think they ARE church-like; they just don't use the name "church". Can you expand on what you meant? --Richard 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I assume LostCaesar means groups like the YMCA. 'Ecclesial groups' would indeed solve this, but is very far from being the commonly-understood English that Wikipedia is supposed to be written in. TSP 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I also agree Category:Christian churches and denominations is a good compromise. I'm going to float it over at Talk:Christianity and see if they agree. --Richard 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've started a straw poll on the different alternatives over at Talk:Christianity. Please indicate your position over there. --Richard 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and added my support. I hope everyone realized that we are being politically correct here. I know that the term PC has negative connotations, but there is nothing wrong with adopting more inclusive language to avoid offending others. This is a textbook example of PC at work.-Andrew c 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This whole conversation/debate reminds me of a Wizard of Id comic I read once. The King walks up to a priest and says, "So, Padre, how many different Churches are there in the Kingdom?" to which the priest replies, "Just the one, Sire." So the King then asks, "Then why are there so many...churches?" to which, the reply, "Well, the cults have to go somewhere." --SigPig |SEND - OVER 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Recent Page Vandalism

Ok look...the reason the Roman Catholic article is protected was because I kept trying to edit it. I'm new to wikipedia, and I wanted to put something on this article. Everytime I loaded the page, my edit was gone, and I couldn't figure out why, so I would do it again. It was not my intention to "vandalize" or start an "edit war" it's just that I did not understand that my edits were reverted each time. I did not realize the editor was sending me multiple messages calling that "vandalism" but as soon as I did, I stopped. Sorry for causing so much trouble, but whoever's choice it is, PLEASE unprotect this page. I'm owning up to the mistake, now I know that I cannot delete content without causing problems (previously did not know that was not allowed), and I'm not gonna do it again. It was just a matter of me realizing what was happening when none of my edits would show up. PLEASE unprotect this page...it's not fair to protect it from these other users just because of my mistake. Please unprotect, I feel bad... Kosmkrmr 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You feel bad? I doubt it. Your "I am new to Wikipedia, I am poor and innocent" statement doesn't really convince me. In Wikipedia as well as in any encyclopedia you must be NEUTRAL, Wiki people call this "NPOV" (Neutral Point Of View), anyway it is a matter of common sense: you should never express a personal opinion/belief in an informative text.

I took the time to review your "innocent and neutral" edits:

"(...) Basically, to put it simply, the great majority of Catholics either do not read the Bible themselves, or they read it and ALWAYS understand it as meaning only what the Church says it means.

With this authority, the Pope has the power to make all sorts of other things authoritative over Scripture. These things can include Church Councils, writings of prominent (ancient) Christians, and oral traditions. THEREFORE, although the Church claims Scripture and Tradition having equal authority, the realized "breakdown" is that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has the Pope as #1, Tradition as #2, and Scripture as #3. (...)"

This is "neutral" for you? This looks more like vandalism for me, you don't have to be an expert to understand you're expressing here your OWN and PERSONAL opinion rather than the "official" version. I don't argue your opinion, you may be right, you may not, it actually doesn't matter, because you're obviously not being neutral and this is not allowed in Wikipedia. Thepeak 16:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kosmkrmr, you are far from neutral indeed. Not only is your contribution biased, it is also factually incorrect. You state that the Pope is at all times infallible, while a Pope (or rather his remarks) is only considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (meaning "From the See (of Saint Peter), the Pope doesn't have to be physically on the See, ex cathedra is rather comparable to a judge speaking "from the bench" instead of speaking as a private person). The last time a Pope's remarks were infallible was in 1950, to clarify the Assumption of Mary. Infallible remarks are only reserved for matters of faith (in other words rituals and costums) which throughout the years have become unclear. Controversial issues like contraception, euthanasia, abortion and gay marriage are simply not subjected to an ex cathedra remark. Since the creation of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, founded by the current Pope, such remarks are becoming increasingly obsolete as the Congregation is clarifying ever more matters of faith and worship without the Pope having to resort to ex cathedra remarks. Finally, all I have left to say is that Papal infallibility has only been in existence since 1870, a relatively short period if you look at the history of Catholicism.--84.26.116.26 17:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Lighten up, guys. Refer to WP:BITE. POV-pushing is bad but it's not vandalism. People new to Wikipedia take a while to learn how things work here. NPOV can be a really hard thing to understand especially when you don't have the perspective to understand that what you believe to be the truth is not the only truth but just a POV. Speak gently and educate the editor rather than biting him. --Richard 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a little odd that a NPOV isn't always neutral. For example, the Catholic church is one of the richest organizations in the world and it doesn't seem to be helping anyone with that wealth like they claim to do. Now we see that they are sheltering illegal immigrants. I don't see this discussed on Wikipedia. --Flashstar 06:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of odd...I don't even know where to begin with that last comment. I do note, Flashstar, that you have been dinged for vandalism, particularly on the illegal immigrant article [14]. But putting that aside, if you feel that there needs to be something in Wikipedia about the Catholic Church's activities related to "illegal immigrants", feel free. However, I have my doubts, given your comments here and in other locations, that we should expect a very neutral article. I sense that you view the Church's assistance towards undocumented aliens as a negative thing, as well as some secret operation. Well, you have a right to your opinion. But the Church's ministry and assistance to migrants, documented or otherwise, is something that is quite open, and not some hidden agenda. In fact, in my humble (and Catholic) opinion, it is something that the Church, and all Christians, have a mandate to do. Providing shelter, food, consolation, etc., to those in need is right up the Church's alley. Besides, WWJD? But let's keep it to what is appropriate for this discussion page...be bold, my xenophobic Wikipedian! Don't treat the discussion page as a soap box. Write your own little piece on it and see how it fares with the community. Cheers. --Anietor 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Flashstar, your point of view is very biased and inaccurate. First of all, althought the Church as a whole does own many priceless treasures, no one single person owns them and therefore no one in the Church is rich because of the Church (The pope isn't rich - he doesn't receive a salary and he lives in a modest abode. And if they sold all their art treasures, the money would be able to feed all the poor in the world for only one day, and all those treasures would be in private collections, away from the public. Second of all, the Church DOES help those in need. In fact, the Church probably has done more to help the poor than any other organization. The Church has a huge network of charities, schools, missinaries, and stuff like that. And lastly, have you given all your belongings away to the poor. Probably not. So don't complain about the church's belongings.

Factual Disputes

1. The Catholic Church Never calls itself the Roman Catholic Church. 2. The term "Roman" Catholic is a religious slur from Protestants akin to calling a Jewish person a "Kike" 3. It traces it's origins directly to Jesus Christ with the Apostle Paul being the first Pope. 4. All other Christian churches and denominations are offshoots of the Catholic Church.

You are attempting to rewrite history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.51.146.210 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

" … the Apostle Paul being the first Pope." Interesting theory. Who is it that's rewriting history here? Vilĉjo 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note,"it traces its origins", not "it's". As for Roman Catholic, I know a lot of RCs don't like the phrase, but others are quite happy with it, and it seems to be used officially or semi-officially in England, eg "RC Primary School". In Australia on the other hand, it's only used by Anglicans.Bill Tegner 09:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If the term is a slur "akin to calling a Jewish person a kike," I wonder what's with all these churches with signage identifying themselves as Roman Catholic? Self-loathing, p'raps? Fishhead64 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, "Roman" Catholic DID start as a slur. Now it refers to the Western or Latin rite Catholics. But, seeing how Anglicans have dominated this page, this will never be allowed to be said on the main page or anywhere else on WP. 129.74.201.70 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Now it refers to the Western or Latin rite Catholcis." Does this user know better than the Holy See? Lima 19:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Speaking for myself as an Anglican, I have absolutely no objection to a discussion of the etymology of the name "Roman Catholic," provided it doesn't consitute original research. And certainly if one is sensitive about denigrating remarks, one shouldn't be implying that Anglicans want to shut down or censor discussion of this subject. To my knowledge, that has never happened. Fishhead64 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a Dutch Roman Catholic and as far as I know the Roman Catholic Church doesn't call itself Roman Catholic. Like a couple of dozen other Christian denominations it uses the word Catholic in the sense of "universal". Off course the Roman Catholic Church is called Roman to distinguish it from the other Catholic churches. In this context it means "the Catholic Church from Rome" -84.26.116.26 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on my own experience, the term Roman Catholic is used primarily today to differentiate the majority of the Catholic Church (which uses the Roman rite) from the Maronite Church and the other Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. It is in no way an even remotely "official" designation.

Why is there then no mention in this article of the origin of "Roman Catholic" as a slur? This is well known. 129.74.201.70 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! So long as it isn't original research, that is. Fishhead64 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy to say when the article is locked.129.74.201.70 05:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't you insert the intended text here, and it can be moved over by an admin or when the article is unlocked. Fishhead64 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article discuss idol worship? Like in argentina how they worship san guachito gil(saint little cowboy idiot), saint death, the virgen mary, and a million more. It's the major part of their beliefs there, I think this article should mention something about it. 24.2.109.127 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Because those beliefs and actions are not an official part of the Catholic Church, but are actions of individual members or specific segments of the church, generally acting without official approval. They are basically irrelevant to the Catholic church as a whole, and on that basis are not included in the main article. Even the Virgin (note the spelling) Mary, the most important of the Saints to Catholics, is at best of secondary importance to Jesus, and is more appropriately dealt with in other articles, not the main article. John Carter 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
my answers were found in religion of argentina, the argentines actually mixed catholicism with andean pagan beliefs. I just didnt know how diverse the catholic relgion was throughout the world. 70.58.41.89 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The term Roman Catholic was first used by Anglicans when they split off, because they considered themselves "Anglo Catholic". We Catholics almost never call ourselves Roman Catholic, mostly only protestants call us that. And most other catholic churches, like the Byzantines and stuff, aren't different churches, but are different rites in the one Cathoic Church. They agree on all doctrine with the Latin Rite, and the only way they differ is in some customs and stuff. There are, however, very, very, small churches that call themselves Catholic, like the Old Catholics. But its their fault they called themselves Catholic, why should the real Catholic Church call itself Roman to distinguish themselves? If some strange religion was created which claimed to be the "New Anglicans" , would the Anglicans have to change their name to the English Angicans? And Paul was not the first Pope - Peter was. I don't know if you accidently messed the two up or meant that, but either way, Peter was the first Pope.

We Catholics do believe that we are the very same church as the one Jesus created. Some people have tried to change the Founding of the Church to the times of Constantine, Charlamagne, the schism, or some other date, but the writing of the early church fathers are very Catholic, and a saint (forgot the name) even used the term Catholic as early as the 100s.

summa reg theo nomenclatura:

"I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also. They too will listen to My voice, and they shall be one flock with one shepherd." --- John 10:16

Since Vatican 2, the Catholic Church, (of whom I am a member,) holds to the belief that "salvation flows to non Catholics through the Church."

I accept the term "Roman Catholic ",as an alturnate to catholic as it implies the humility Christ calls for. So do at least 90% of my fellow Catholics. The term no longer carries any perjorative .

So do not presume, in your pride, to speak for all Roman Catholics. We are not ignorant of our Faith. Heck, since Galdiator hit the screens I'm pretty happy being called 'Roman' :') & as Christians, don't we have bigger fish to fry?

Opuscalgary 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol

If anyone could provide some Catholic input over at Christianity and alcohol (or Talk:Christianity and alcohol), I'd appreciate it! --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Catholics believe Alcohol is okay in moderation (getting drunk is a sin, unless it was your first time so you accidently drank more than you could take or something like that.) We use wine (with alcohol) in communion, that turns into Jesus' blood. Anyone that took first communion (around 2nd grade) can take Jesus' blood, so technically 2nd graders and up can drink alcohol during communion. (It's a small amount though.)

I wonder if Catholics were allowed to have communion during the prohibition years in the US.

Yes, they were. The Treasury Department (which enforced prohibition) issued special permits for sacramental use -- that was necessary for many: Catholics, Orthodox, and Jewish people (who use wine for certain blessings) for instance.HarvardOxon 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality

In this section it mentions that a lot of activities like sex before marriage and abortion are looked upon as a sin by the church. Could it also mention that a lot of catholics (I would say most) don't follow these practices? 153.18.17.22 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't say that most Catholics go around having abortions. As far as sex before marriage goes, well, it's certainly common generally, particularly in Western society, but I think statistically Catholics are lower than average. Anyway, all of this is just shooting the breeze without a reputable source and accurate figures. Slac speak up! 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is about the Church's teachings, not about who does/not follow them. Because the Church's teachings on sexuality are quite clear (whether or not people agree with them), it would make more sense to have a section on dissent, possibly including those who publically dissent.DaveTroy 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
As a nonCatholic, but a realtively long time editor, I think it is best to focus strictly on the Roman Catholic church's teachings. Obedience to teachings is a personal matter and all fall short of perfect obedience in all things. Those who dissent from the teachings in a public or vociferous manner are not the topic and should be ignored. Their actions and their story are best covered in their respective articles if sufficiently important. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the relevant section should be called "Teachings" not "Beliefs" to more accurately characterize it. Especially since the Church defines itself as its membership, "beliefs" would logically seem to apply to the individual beliefs and not just the organizational doctrines. --lquilter 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lquilter. I think "teachings" would be more logical. The underlying belief in the sanctity of human life and ethical behavior owuld be the "belief," while the concrete effects or results of them would be "teaching."DaveTroy 11:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's also a lot easier to be encyclopedic about. A belief is internal and we can only take someone's word for what it is; a teaching is external and observable. TSP 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church does prohibit many types of sexual activity that are increasingly prevalent in our culture. Such prohibitions may seem puzzling, even arbitrary, to non-Catholics. My hope in my addition today was to place somewhat greater emphasis upon the Church's endorsement of sexual expression within marriage, and to balance those prohibitions against that endorsement. Ivain 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As a western European, I think it really is quite important to state how the church's teachings are followed these (and not only these) days (at least in European societies). Not having sex before marriage is seen less often than in the Americas (I do not know anyone following the church in this case), and western Catholics are usually very tolerant concerning abortions and homosexuality - and I never met anyone not approving contraception, even having had Catholic religion as part of my high school exams (that is, their German equivalent). There certainly is a large difference between the Catholic church's teachings and the way people see and do things. --84.75.56.190 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Distribution map

Would those who can revise the map in the Worldwide Distribution section please examine the case of Lebanon, which should surely be shown in a colour different from that of neighbouring countries: the CIA Factbook puts Christians in Lebanon at 39% and strongly suggests, by the order in which it mentions the various Christian groups, that the Catholics (Maronites, Melkites, Syrians, Armenians, Latins and Chaldeans) are much more numerous than the other Christians (Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian, Copt, Protestant). Lima 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Typo

Could someone please correct #9, "The Catholic Chruch in popular culture". I'd do it myself,but editing seems difficult.Bill Tegner 08:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of Roman Catholics

The figure of 1,098,366,000 seems remarkably precise. I wonder how it's arrived at? Does it, for example, included baptised RCs who have never practiced? Or who have converted to other churches? When the late Pope died the figure of "a billion Catholics" was bandied about. Within two weeks of his death I heard a presenter on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation refer to the world's "1.4 billion practicing Catholics". Fascinating. I wonder who fed them that? And how do you define "practicing"?Bill Tegner 09:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it includes both those baptised into the Church who have never practiced, and those baptised into the Church who have joined other churches but never formally defected. We used to have a footnote explaining this - I wonder what happened to it. TSP 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Might it be registered parish members? -Fsotrain09 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but some baptized Catholics (unfortunately) don't go to mass much, so they probaly won't register at a parish. I think parishes keep records of every baptism they did, so that might be the number. And unfortunately, a large number of Catholics don't practice their faith. But its seems likely that over a billion ppl are Catholics, since most of S and C America, Mexico, and Europe, as well as a growing number of ppl in Africa and a quarter of Americans are Catholic.

Relations with Anglicans

Pope Paul VI referred to the Anglican Church as "our beloved sister church". Is this description still accepted by the Vatican? Until recently it appeared on the website of the RC Ampleforth College, referring to its Anglican pupils. It has now disappeared from that website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Tegner (talk • contribs) 09:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't exptrapolate too much from the website of Ampleforth College. In fact, relations and mutual respect between the two faiths has improved in significant ways over the past 40 years. The International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) is about to release a document summarizing the progress made, with many recent news articles reporting that there are plans for a "reunification" of the two churches (this claim was immediately downplayed by the Commission). As the Commission leaders commented, "unity was desired by both churches, but was a long-term vision." --Anietor 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have an uneasy feeling that the phrase has been allowed to slip, so to speak, since the post-Paul VI regime at the Vatican seems to regard the Anglican Church not as a church at all, but as a mere "ecclesial community". At grass roots, of course, things are a lot better, with close and friendly relations, and more inter-communion than the powers that be might imagine. In addition, think back fifty years. The Roman Catholics then had the Latin Mass, no hymns, and the priest facing the altar. The Anglican main service was Mattins, with Communion often being celebrated only once a month (before breakfast). The Anglican main service is now Eucharist, and many "outsiders" plus some church-goers would be pushed to spot the differences between the Anglican and RC services.Bill Tegner 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)--Bill Tegner 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why under West Christianity? Catholic Church=Western Catholicism?

This article is categorized under Western Christianity. If the Catholic Church traces its roots to Jesus Christ and St. Peter and the twelve apostles (who were all Orientals) and if the Catholic Church covers the Syrians, the Greek Catholics, the Russian Catholics, and the Korean, Filipino, and Vietnamese Catholics, why does the Catholic Church fall under Western Christianity and is supposedly the same as Western Catholicism, a term that's not commonly used? Marax 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone else can probably fill out the detials better than me, but broadly speaking Western Christianity refers to the Latin Rite of the (Roman) Catholic Church and those traditions which split from it during the Reformation such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism and the various other forms of Protestantism as against the Eastern Christianity of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Catholic Churches which although in full communion with the Pope use eastern style liturgical rites. The separation of these two streams of Christianity occurred ealier than the Reformation, with the ultimate split (of the Orthodox from Catholicism) being around the East-West Schism of 1054. The reason for the naming effectively traces back to the division of the Roman Empire into eastern (Byzantine) and western (Western Roman Empire) in the later 3rd Century AD, in the East, Greek was the main language, in the West, Latin. There are also the Oriental Orthodox churches but these split even earlier, but could also be considered to form part of Eastern Christianity. This simple historical picture is clouded by later missionary work which spread Christianity of one sort or another around the world. There would also be a case for categorising this article under Eastern Christianity as well I suppose in order to better recognise the Eastern Catholic Churches. David Underdown 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
David's "stab" at an explanation is a good one, but incomplete. It is almost true of the situation at the time of the East-West Schism. I say "almost", because the Maronites boast of never having been separated from Rome. There were also the Christians in India who knew nothing of the East-West Schism and, except for the trouble caused by Portuguese attempts to completely Latinize them, have not declared themselves in opposition to Rome. These are more truly Eastern than the Eastern Orthodox Church: I remember a conversation with one of their bishops who I found was using the phrase "the Western Church" to mean the Byzantines! But David's explanation does not fit the present situation, in which the Church in question certainly includes, as Marax says, many who are in no sense "Western Christians".
What does Marax mean by saying that this article is categorized under Western Christianity? I don't see the category "Western Christianity" given at the foot of the article. If somewhere else Wikipedia puts it in that category, I would think that it must clearly be a mistake.
On the other hand, there is such a thing as Western Christianity. There are differences in liturgical rites, traditional devotions, organization, emphases, language, etc. between the Western and the Eastern forms of Christianity, even when the faith is exactly the same. The Western form is what is called the Latin Rite in the Catholic Church, which includes both Eastern and Western Christians, and so does not completely fit into either category.
That is, at least, how I see the situation. Lima 12:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Checking the article again, I think it is the Christianity template/infobox that is being referred to, in which under "Western Christianity" appears "Western Catholicism" in bold. This should presumably instead say "Western or Latin Rite Catholicism" as it is set out in the article, and should ideally also highlight Eastern Catholicism to show that (on Wikipedia at least) Roman Catholicism as a whole includes both these strands (please let's not carry on the naming thread here...). Whether that would be technically possible iwth the make up of the infobox I don't know. David Underdown 13:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring indeed to the infobox, the Christianity Portal. I agree with you, Lima, and very much appreciate your examples and anecdotes. Quite enlightening I must say. There is a mistake in the infobox indeed. The basic problem is the existence of a division of Western and Eastern Christianity. The whole thing must be redone I believe. Marax 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope no one minds if I pipe in on this one. As the first commentor noted, the main difference between what can be called the Western and what is called the Eastern Christianity is mostly about language. The Latin speaking church and the Greek speaking church in a way of speaking both were founded by Christ and trace their roots back to the Apostoles. Other Churches besided just these two can also make the same claims as they were founded by Christ and the message was carried by an Apostole to that area. From an Apostole point of view, you could say that each of the different rites were founded by a different Apostole that studied under Christ. In this sense, the so called schism that occured between the Eastern and the Latin Catholics isn't so much a schism in the difinition of that word but more like a prolonged disagreement between the heads of each rite and a general feeling among the members of the different rites that the way the others were doing things was wrong. In the most academic sense, there is no spit between the Eastern and Western Catholics or of any other church started by an Apostole. This is of course different in practice and in people's perceptions. However I think it would be good to note the paper written by Tia Kalbaba on the matter. It would probably be best to describe the ancient church as several different traditions founded by different Apostoles in different places and how those traditions co-operated with each other to form the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Looking at the history of the councils also give one an appreciation of just how this functioned. In the days when communication was not easy nor fast it was difficult to make sure that everyone was on the same page and hard feeling arrose due to one reason or another. A lot of it had to do with saeculor politics and not religous issues. Now that communication is very fast and fairly easy, and the invention of the translator, the Eastern and Western Churches are finding that they indeed have a lot to link one to the other as well as to the other traditions founded by Apostoles. Prodestanism is another matter entirely and I will reframe from comment of that issue lest my academic definition of what they are should anger anyone and cause all of what I have said to be misquoted by fanatics.--Billiot 14:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)