Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Validity of Catholic Church Authority

I would like to draw your attention to this AFD discussion. The article is badly organized and poorly written and thus a rewrite is probably in order. I have suggested that a more NPOV title would be Authority of the Catholic Church. I would like to solicit your opinions on the current article along with any suggestions for improving, salvaging or rewriting it. --Richard 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The arguement is moot. I am beyond convinced that there is no such thing as a NPOV as it relates to Religions and particularly Christian division, sects or whatever other subdivision exist. The fact that one presents an article on a religious belief should concentrate on particular facets of that belief system. It is not that Wikipedia accepts them as a particular truth. However, in some sense it has to provide some of the subject's actual belief otherwise it would be senseless to present it at all.

This what occurs when you have the others point of view (the so called neutral POV) affecting the belief system discussed? You can add prefixes where they do not exist... or stretch out a related though imprecise truth. The Catholic church, made up of 22 various rites does not call itself by the rite of its Latin Patriarch, the Roman Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, the Pope when functioning merely as the leader of the Latin Church DOES NOT have "papal" infallibility by the very fact he is speaking only the the Latin Church. Infalability comes in when he is functioning as the Globlal Pope to all the world and Churches(its 22 rites that span the entire earth). Thus the Catholic Church. Not the Roman Catholic Church as is unjustly imposed by non-Catholics or ill imformed Catholics in this website... in the name of "Neutrality" which realy waters down history not to mention is the an outright disrespect for the Catholic Christian belief. Micael 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 07:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra (from the chair [of Peter]), and when speaking of matters of faith and morals. In other words, if the pope came out and said the world is flat, it would not be considered an infallible statement. Guldenat 05:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Micael......the title "Sacred Tradition" would make more sense for the article, but ulimately should be spilt and various sections moved to better homes. Another problem is "validity." That is a legal term -- not a theological one. The article seems to be unclear as to its desire -- Law or Theology.DaveTroy 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In Addis and Arnold's 'A Catholic Dictionary' (1960) Routledge and Kegan Paul ltd p653, in the footnote they say that the reason Peter and the word 'Rock' in greek are different is because 'Rock' is feminine and would not do as a man's name. However, I did find that Jesus was called 'the Day' by early christians and I think 'Day' is feminine (I could be wrong). Someone told me Peter meant a little pebble and a theologian had said this title was given to him so he could remember humility. However, I did check and I'm sure there was a greek word for stone or pebble, and a word for rockmass and Peter's name falls in between. So perhaps he is like a column in the temple, with Jesus as the foundation rock mass. Thus there were at least 11 other columns. (I am not a student of this college) 165.228.114.24 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Link Restore?

The current link to Holy Orders does not go to the article on the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but to Priesthood (Catholic Church). While understandable, I believe the sacrament page to be better written, better cited, as well as containing more information. Should the link be switched back?DaveTroy 08:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact-checking

It appears from this URL that user:Essjay has edited this page no less than 24 times. As this user apparently lied about his credentials, a thorough reexamination of this article is in order. I will begin verifying this information tomorrow. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact-checking is an excellent thing to do. But posting a notice that the reason for doing it is an editor's (allegedly?) false claim of special credentials sounds to me like vindictiveness. I knew nothing of the dispute about Essjay until I read the above. I have not had the patience (or the interest) to read enough in the History part of his Talk page to understand it. I know one other editor who, when he was new to Wikipedia, annoyingly implied that he had a level of studies in the field higher than any other contributor, but that only made me and perhaps others check his edits (fact-checking) with all the greater care, and I am glad to see that he now acts in a more serious manner and makes valuable contributions. So why pillory Essjay here - instead of just doing the fact-checking? Lima 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed tag. This is ridiculous. It should be placed where there is an ongoing factual dispute, not for ad hominem assaults. If nothing else, this article receives enough attention by knowledgeable people that if Essjay had really added questionable material here it would have been noticed. This is Wikipedia. Even a PhD has to provide cites. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the tag. Do not remove it. The tag states "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed." I dispute the factual accuracy of this article because it has been edited by an editor who claimed false credentials and used those credentials extensively on Wikipedia. This is explained in more depth elsewhere. I am not attempting to "pillory" Essjay. But every article he made significant contributions to needs a thorough reexamination because he claimed credentials which turned out to be false, and because he used these credentials in edit disputes. Because he has had significant influence (many edits) on three articles, I have tagged them and will be checking them: I am not certain there will be factual errors. This is neither vindictive nor an ad hominem attack, and I would appreciate some civility. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with users above that the tag is not necessary. This article receives extensive edits, and there is constant fact-checking. Somebody's "credentials" would not make me, or any many other editors in here, concede anything. This article receives more edits and discussions than any in which I'm involved. So check away, if you think there are errors. But the tag, as stated by others above, is not appropriate. --Anietor 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote: I have read up on the Essjay controversy and I am dismayed by the whole thing. I'm sorry that he has left but I do believe that he needed to give up his admin, b'crat and ARBCOM positions.

All that notwithstanding, I agree that the tag is not necessary considering the paltry number of edits compared to the number of edits that have gone into this article. There were only 24 edits by Essjay which is a paltry number for an article of this length and history. There have been and still are a number of "eagle eye" editors who would not concede a point based only on purported credentials. By all means, find the 24 edits if you feel it's important to do so and check each one out to see if they are accurate and NPOV and also if they are still reflected in the current text. But leave the tag off until you have evidence that there is an actual factual problem with the current text. --Richard 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is worse than I thought. Going back in the history of this very talk page, there are claims as far back as 2005 that Essjay has "fine professional credentials", not from himself, but from other users here who he apparently gulled into thinking he was indeed a professional. Here is one example, during an edit dispute, where a user defends Essjay's edits, saying he has "fine professional credentials" and that his edits may only need some "perfecting". These edits were made in 2005. I hope that the "eagle-eyed" editors here have been correcting the mistakes since then, but I worry that wanting to keep the status quo is affecting the judgement of those who would rather think/believe there is nothing wrong with the article.

I am no expert in this area, but I would hope that those involved in the editing of this article will take a closer examination of the contents, making sure that they were not lured into a false sense of security because this article was edited regularly by an "expert". Because so many edits were made by a user who claimed false credentials during edit disputes, this article needs a review of its contents, just as we would review the contributions of any user whose claims turned out to be spurious.

Removing the disputed tag only pushes this situation under the rug. Rather than fighting me on this, please instead help me work to correct any factual errors which may have crept in. Do not settle for the status quo. Comments like "find the 24 edits if you feel it's important" are unhelpful, considering the media attention Essjay's claims have generated. Many sites are reporting this story, and The New Yorker has printed a retraction. Wikipedia's critics are eyeing this situation, and it would be nice to answer our critics with something more than "a disputed template was placed, but it was removed repeatedly because our eagle-eye editors would have caught any error, like they did on the Siegenthaler article". Firsfron of Ronchester 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Only time may tell how serious the fallout of that particular incident may be, but it is really irrelevant to this article in that any and all edits are held to the same standards (WP:ATT and WP:NPOV being the main ones), not just ones by any one particular user. Your hoped for correction of mistakes has been occurring since then, indeed since before then. I am not stating it is correctly without error; I do not know but have in the past corrected mistakes I saw, and will continue to do so. I suspect I speak too for many other editors of this page. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Baccyak4H. On the other hand, I would like to suggest a few things. First, let us please not get into a long discussion about the factual tag. Our energies are better spent elsewhere. Leave it on or take it off. It's not really that important either way. Second, let us all re-read the article and look for any glaring errors. Third, let us look closely at Essjay's "24 edits" and determine if there are any errors. I was disappointed that Essjay had manufactured a fake professional career on his user page. I could have forgiven that, though. I am really annoyed that his edits and thus this article are now called into question by his reliance on false credentials to argue his case in content disputes. Let's work quickly to identify and repair any damage. --Richard 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful to not misrepresent others' comments. The eagle-eyed editors were claimed to not concede content based on purported credentials, not to actually catch any error. Big, big difference. And I vehemently disagree with your characterization of the suggestion to examine the particular 24 edits as unhelpful. In fact, there is no better suggestion for any of us, and it extends to beyond the content of that editor's edits. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful not to misrepresent others' comments yourself. The statement above was "find the 24 edits if you feel it's important", not that "any of us" should examine the content of edits. "Find the 24 edits if you feel it's important" may indicate Richard doesn't think it's important, a statement which is all too tragic given the Siegenthaler debacle. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Firsfron, you're right. I didn't and still don't think that Essjay's 24 edits are likely to have resulted in any problems with this article and so I didn't think the task was that important hence my phrasing. However, reading your last couple posts has convinced me that we are now saddled with the tedious task of verifying that my assumption rather than just waving our hands and saying "Nah, not likely to be a problem". As I said above, I could forgive puffery on a user page and maybe even stupidly talking to the press while knowing that puffery was on his User Page. But tainting articles with false claims of expertise is just a royal pain in the butt. Let's get to work and stop worrying about the factual dispute tag. It's not the most important thing that we have to do.

--Richard 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments above, Richard, and am hoping there are no problems with this article, which has received widespread attention. Thank you for your concilliatory tone. However, the tags on the other two pages, which receive a lot less attention, were also removed, and a cursory glance seems to already indicate, in my mind, some problems. Cathedral of the Assumption in Louisville suffers from possible unintentional POV and other things which worry me. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no parallel with the Siegenthaler kerfuffle. The reason the libel in that article went undetected for so long is that it was practically unwatched and unmaintained. By contrast this article receives, and has received, constant and extensive attention from a large number of editors both Catholic and non-Catholic. Any clearly erroneous edits from two years ago would have long since been found and corrected -- admittedly without necessarily identifying the editor who inserted the material in the first place. Look at the talk page archives. There is a history of vigorous discussion on disputed points regardless of editors' stated qualifications. If, at the time Essjay's edits were made, no one thought them to be a problem, we can have confidence in them no less than anyone else's.

Let's take your example of another article he's worked on. Unlike this one it's a low-traffic article so his edits are easily locatable. He made two blocks of them, one in May, 2005 where he seems to have added most of the existing text, and the other in April, 2006 which consisted of some rearrangement. Yes, that one adjective you recently cut may have evinced some POV -- although I have to opine here that it's indeed a sad event when someone dies of yellow fever regardless of your POV -- but otherwise what exactly is the problem? It's not as if the edits are buried under mounds of other edits that are impossible to disentangle; they're easy to find. They're also not difficult to verify from the cathedral's website, for the most part, and a cathedral article is hardly a subject requiring the expertise Essjay claimed for himself.

Raising a general cloud over any article Essjay has touched is not useful. Most articles here have been edited by people far more dubious than he has shown himself to be. My original opinion of this activity is unchanged. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

While this article may be free of POV and errors, I don't agree that statements like "Like the great European cathedrals, the Cathedral of the Assumption has always been at the center of responding to the needs of the community", added by Essjay in May '05 and still there, in the "A Beacon of the community" section, agree with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am certainly open to suggestions for rewording. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not neutral there. But POV issues are very far from unique to Essjay, and in this case is something we might have seen even had he possessed the qualifications he claimed, and you don't have to be examining his edits specifically to notice them. Of course the Wikipedia community should fix NPOV problems -- but because they're NPOV problems, not because of who added them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My point was that even Essjay's most blatant POV edits have not been corrected, even after years. They're still there, despite many "eagle-eyed" editors presumably watching for such things. I don't want to speculate on why these edits were left in for so long, but it may have been in part due to Essjay's influence as an "expert in his field" which allowed unsourced edits like "The Cathedral of the Assumption is well known for its commitment to excellence in music and liturgy," etc, to remain for two years. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment of that cathedral edit. But I think you overestimate the expertise issue; the striking thing to me about the edit you mention is that that phrase was from a long (several scrollings) addition which itself was clearly not vandalous. Thus I can easily envision many editors starting to read it and say OK this is not an obvious revert (of the whole edit), but miss the specific point you make. It would have had a much greater chance of being toned down if that single sentence was the entirety of an edit. I can say that I was not around when that edit was made, nor knew anything about the false credentials of its author (as the author, not just from the controversy itself) until you pointed it out. Yet I never noticed that language as being problematic, despite having contributed for several months to the article, until you point it out, whereas now it seems pretty obvious. And let's not forget the 500 pound gorilla in all this discussion (at least with respect to this article): there are of course editors who demonstrate the "last acceptable prejudice" of anti-Catholicism (I forget who coined that phrase...). Your phrase has apparently escaped all of them too. So I would not lose any sleep over the long term impact of this controversy on this article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been jaded by working on religion topics here but these seem far from blatant to me. It's unsourced, but it may well be perfectly accurate to say that the place is known for excellence in music and liturgy. This is something that can be ascertained. (Recall this was 2005, when footnoting was nowhere near as common as it is now, and was not a necessary for an article to be considered well-cited and eligible for FA status. See, for example, [1] from the time it was FA'd on 9 May, 2005.) Ditto for being at the "center" of community service. It's not POV if it's so considered in that community, and they unquestionably keep themselves busy. I'd say these are POV if this is what the cathedral says about itself, but not if it's what others say about it. In that case it ought to be sourced by current standards, of course, but that's a different problem. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, "a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it...One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is." (For example, awards the choir has won). Additional advice is "Let the facts speak for themselves." Claims that "The Cathedral of the Assumption is well known for its commitment to excellence in music and liturgy." is a NPOV problem unless it is attributed to someone. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe a phrase like that does any serious damage. It certainly seems not to have been written for the purpose of getting across a POV, as have some decidedly blatant POV expressions that remain long unnoticed on pages with sparse traffic. The discussion here seems to be hurricane in a teacup. This is the place for discussing not Essjay but Roman Catholic Church. Lima 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this isn't the place. That's why it's already been moved to Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Essjay's edits. You probably didn't notice that post in the heading below. So let's stop clogging up this discussion page with the topic. There are so many other interesting things to talk about in here! --Anietor 05:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Essjay's contributions to this article

This Talk Page is too long and is making this exercise harder than it needs to be. I'm moving the log of Essjay's edits to Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Essjay's edits. See you there. --Richard 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Confession not Penance

Pardon me, but the roman catholic church has NO sacrament of penance!!! It's confession. Penance is given after confession. I have edited that part, kindly arrange it should someone change it to penance again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.77.200.93 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Pardon me, but this is absoluitely the opposite of the truth. The sacrament does not take place with the confession....e.g., a priest may give general absolution (and therefore the sacrament of penance) to an unconscious (usually dying) person on the presumption that they were in a state of habitual repenatnce for their sins. Confession - Absolution-performing of the penitential practice is the sequence, but the "penance" in that sense is not the same as the sacrament: the sacrament occurs when the priest utters the words of absolution (form) on the sins (matter) of the person, confessed or not. The official books of the Catholic Church have always called it Penance, and more recently also reconciliation. So, kindly arrange to not edit matters on which you have no expertise.HarvardOxon 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Informally, Catholics talk about "going to confession", but the official name is either the Sacrament of Penance or the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciation. It is confusing, because the actual sacrament is the absolution, not the confession which (usually) precedes it, or the penance which (usually) follows it. Incidentally, it's possible for a priest to hear a confession and to refuse or postpone absolution. If I were the pope, I'd change the name to "sacrament of absolution". In any case, I agree with HarvardOxon's revert. ElinorD (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Fortunately, the matter is easily settled by just agreeing to using the terms used in the catechism. As an aside, the tone of the initial comments were a little harsh, guys. Let's not forget about assuming good faith. I think the originator of this discussion (Mr. IP?) and HarvardOxon should ask each other for forgiveness...I mean absolution...I mean, oh, never mind.  ;-) --Anietor 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear Wikipedians, according to the Liturgy, the name is Ordo Paenitentiae and the CIC refers to Sacamentum Paenitentiae, while the Catechism does use other words, don't forget that it is a teaching, not a legal document. The legal name is PENACE, while confession is act that takes place within the sacrament, as is Reconciliation. The penance that HagermanBot refers to is the satisfaction imposed by the minister upon the penitent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveTroy (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

We have an authoritative teaching document (Catechism of the Catholic Church), an authoritative legal document (Code of Canon Law, canon 959), an authoritative liturgical document (the Ordo Paenitentiae), all of which call the sacrament simply by the name of "Penance". Enough said. Lima 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Examination, Confession, Penance, and Absolution are four parts of a single sacrament, which is most often called "Reconciliation", though in various texts use confession or penance as well. It seems to be using a term not limiting the sacrament to just one of its constitutent parts would not only be consistent with one of the many valid practices, but the least confusing. 76.22.103.246 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How about requesting semi-protection?

There seems to be an awful lot of puerile vandalism going on in the article. Someone always repairs it - but what a waste of time, and what a distraction.

The vandals typically seem to be anonymous; maybe to semi-protect this page would be just the thing.

I am comparatively new to Wikipedia: has semi-protection for this article been discussed or requested? Thank you.

Ivain 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been protection and semi-protection of this article and similar ones (like Pope Benedict XVI). It's unfortunate, but the subject matter is always going to attract vandals. I think the problem with protecting the article is that the vandalism will never go away...there will always be vandals, kooks and extremists looking to put their mark here, so unless the semiprotection is permanent, we'd be back to where we started as soon as it is removed. Fortunately, this article is also very well monitored. It's often a race to see who will revert vandalism first (kind of a nerdy game, huh?). It's also important to put the warnings in the vandals' talk pages, even the IP addresses, since that can result in the vandals being blocked. It's not a perfect safeguard, but it's one more tool. --Anietor 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, the vandal seem to never go away, they have tagged on this "Roman" prefex to the Church at large for some time now. ;o) Micael 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sex Abuse

The sex abuses in the Catholic Church are a tragic story, and I do not support the misconduct itself or the actions to cover the misconduct. I do not believe that the cases play a fundamental part in the Church's role in the world or represents its viewpoints. The article on the Catholic Church should be about the Church's mission, faith, and doctrine. The Cases should take on a major role in the History of the Roman Catholic Church article. PennsylvaniaPatriot 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment PennsylvaniaPatriot. The fixation on the sex scandal is more an American problem, and given the 2000 years of Catholic Church history, it would seem strange to have it mentioned in the article. We certainly don't want the Wikipedia to be trendy. Guldenat 05:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at all of the other pages on religion.

You're right. It's just not encyclopedic to have it there. It should be taken out, with a link to the main article in the "see also". --Paularblaster 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course its encyclopedic to have it, not only according to church documents this has been a problem for 250 years. As to comparing to other religions, they don't have there own country which they can use to give legal protection to wanted pedophiles. Also this scandle touches every country that the catholic church opperates in. WP:Idon'tlikeit is not a reason for deleteing it while NPOV is a clear reason to have this mentioned. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mona Lisa; Membership of Church

I removed the image of the Mona Lisa, since it is not related to the article IMO. The text accompanying it said: Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, according to some authors, is an illustration of Christian joy.

In the whole article "christian joy" is nowhere to be found, nor anything else related to it. What comes closest to it is the patronage of the Renaissance popes for the great works of Catholic artists such as Michelangelo, Raphael, Bernini, Borromini and Leonardo da Vinci.. If that's is the case, I suggest to add a church-commissioned painting to it, something what the Mona Lisa isn't. Syrion 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

p.s. question for those knowledgeable on this subject: I've met a fair share of people who have been baptised out of family tradition ( the "Granny wanted it"-reason), but they are non-practicing, agnostic, or atheist in life. Are these people still considered/registered as members of the church (since I doubt they ever cancelled their membership)?

No, it just means that if they turn away from the faith and come back, they don't need to receive the Sacrament again. They're still "registered" per say if they still have a certificate. 68.255.254.25 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Legally, they are Catholic. First, because Baptism -- once validily received -- can never be "undone." Second, the law you are refering to (I think) is the clause in marriage law (and a few other places) that refers to actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia Catholica. This is currently a debated point of law. The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts has put out an opinion, but not one that is authoritative (and hence law). The document is Prot. N. 10279/2006. It requires 3 things to have happened: a) internal decision to leave the Church; 2)realization and external manifestation of that decision; and 3) reception of that decision by competent ecclesial authority. This means the act must be valid according to the standards of canons 124 -- 126. For most lay members, this would have to do more with marriage law than any other set of law. This is because if you are Catholic, not defected, any marriage NOT in the presence of the Local Ordinary, Pastor, or delegated priest/deacon is INVALID (unless dispensed from Canonical Form).DaveTroy 10:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia Catholica is any longer a debated point of law. The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts didn't just give an opinion on the question: it laid down obligatory norms about when an act of defection to be considered a "formal act" with effects not only for the validity of marriage but also for the exercise of the rights that Catholics have within the Church. The text can be read in English on the Vatican website. As DaveTroy said, for the act to be considered formal, it must be explicitly recognized as such by the competent ecclesiastical authority, who then gives orders for the defection to be noted in the person's baptismal register.

If someone defects (apostasy, heresy, or schism) informally (merely de facto, at any age) that person can repent and return to the Church by the Sacrament of Penance and by the lifting, if necessary, of excommunication. If someone defects formally, in the manner indicated by the Pontifical Council, the competent Church authority would have to give orders for the return to the Catholic Church to be noted in the person's baptismal register.

Obviously, in neither case would a second baptismal ceremony be carried out. A person can only be baptized once. Lima 11:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fishhead64 has submitted a Request for Adminship

Just wondering what your thoughts on this were. You might wish to comment on his RFA at this page. --Richard 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I was nominated for adminship and agreed to the nomination. Fishhead64 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant to an article on the Roman Catholic Church? --kingboyk 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishhead64 was involved in a major dispute on this Talk Page last year with User:Vaquero100 and others over the use of the terms "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic". In particular, a major part of the argument was whether this article title Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church. In his RFA, Fishhead claims to have tried to observe Wikipedia policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV during that long, often acrimonious and disruptive debate. My recollection was that the debate was long, acrimonious and disruptive. The debate ran to pages and pages of back and forth argument. I don't remember that Fishhead64 was a paragon of civility or neutrality but perhaps I wasn't paying that much attention to who exactly was saying what. Mostly I was tired of the whole thing and wished everybody would shut up and go away.

I'm sorry to say that I have no positive impressions of Fishhead64. If anything, my impressions are negative but I allow that this may be the result of a negative association of him with my visceral reaction to the Catholic/Roman Catholic debate.

At this time, I have not !voted on Fishhead's RFA one way or the other and I may very well decide not to express an opinion. However, I figured there would be editors of this Talk Page who might remember the debate and might wish to register an opinion. User:Lima has !voted in support of Fishhead's RFA. Perhaps there are other editors who wish to express an opinion.

--Richard 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I allude to this protracted debate in my responses on the requests for adminship page. I believe that I maintained civility in my interactions, under circumstances of sometimes considerable incivility on the part of others, and I'd invite interested editors to review the relevant contributions here and here as well as the archived talk page of Vaquero100.

I have strong views on the issue of the terms "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic," which are per se irrelevant to whatever qualifications I might have to be an admin - but one thing I learned from this episode is not to allow myself to be drawn into long, verbose, and unproductive debates. Fishhead64 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

While I did not directly participate in the Catholic/Roman Catholic debate, I did follow it closely. Perhaps that allows me to have a more objective recollection. I found Fishhead64's comments to be both civil and informed. I will make any further comments on this page, where I encourage others to contribute rather than in this talk page. --Anietor 00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that discussion of Fishhead64's RFA should take place on the RFA discussion page. However, I wish to revise what I wrote above and this is the appropriate place to do that.

I commented above that I did not remember Fishhead64 as being a paragon of civility and neutrality in the Catholic/Roman Catholic debate and that was the truth... I did not have that recollection. Frankly, I had forgotten the details of who said what.

However, when I reviewed the debate earlier today, I came to the conclusion that Fishhead64 was far less acerbic and acrimonious than Vaquero100 and TSP. Given the nastiness that was being thrown his way, Fishhead64 was pretty damn civil.

Perhaps I should have been less lazy and dug up the debate first before saying anything. I tried first to say nothing at all and then I said what I said while trying to be tentative about my conclusions. Nonetheless, I feel I owe Fishhead64 an apology for what I wrote above. I implied that he was less than civil and that was not the right implication to make.

--Richard 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Richard - no apology is necessary. I was actually reviewing those interminable debates yesterday, and thought that I often sounded like a self-righteous ass. Regardless, the episode(s) taught me much about putting things in perspective. Fishhead64 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was going to let this drop because there didn't seem to be anything left to say. However, on re-reading it, something came to me.

Yes, Fishhead, but you were pretty damn CIVIL in your self-righteous asininity.  :^) Best of luck in your RFA.

--Richard 23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that degrees of civility do not equate with validity. It may only say something of the discussion in general and the lack of civility in behalf of those that opposted his point of view. Fact is his position was anything but neutral. And because of this I find it silly to place such a person is such a position regardless of civility much less simply his "relative" lesser lack if civility compared to those that opposed his POV as someone mentioned.

I am convinced this NPOV is a falasy. Sure you might want do present things with a NPOV on generic subjects sucg as articles pertaining dealing with the "Bible"(presenting Rabbinic Bible, Protestant, bible and Catholic/Orthodox POV together). However to water down the meaning, title, of a particular church in order not to side with anyone simply IS siding with at particular party. As I meantioned before if articles on Catholic and Catholicism are categorized with generic POV that favor the Non-Catholic POV it is only reasonable to allow Catholics to call themselves by what the grand majority of Catholics(including the 21 other non-Roman rites) worldwide call themselves as...simply Catholic. The fact that a leader with such a strong POV can request for Administratorship and may just get it says volumes. Good Luck Fish! Micael 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, I didn't "request" adminship, I was nominated by someone with whom I was not acquainted, it was put to avote of editors (and you could have put your two cents in if you had wanted), and I was chosen by my peers. I made there a full disclosure of the debates on this and related pages, linking the talk archives for anyone interested. Secondly, everyone has a POV about religion. Whether it is "valid" or not is a matter of debate, and on this there is no consensus. I have never claimed otherwise. fishhead64 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lima, if you want to assert that RCC can refer to Eastern Catholic Churches, please find some documents that refer to Eastern Catholics specifically as Romans. You will not be able to. All your references take place in the context of ecumenical dialogue. As Vaquero rightly states, that is diplomatic, not doctrinal speech.EastmeetsWest 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming

At the risk of poking at some wounds ...

It appears that the question of the title of the article has been settled. The intro, however, sticks consistently with the abbreviated "Catholic Church" ignoring the convention the title uses. I would say that the intro at least should be consistent with the title although, obviously, it should acknowledge that in common parlance, "Catholic Church" is more used (and the Church prefers that as well).

My two cents on the more general naming debate: Ultimately the term "Catholic Church" was used long before Rome split off into its own entity. Theological debates aside, Rome has no more objective claim on the term than the other Patriarchates. More importantly since the beginning of the Schism the leaders of the other Churches have never ackowledged Rome's right to appropriate that term for itself. Although one can argue that any entity has a right to name itself, that right does not extend to unilaterally appropriating a shared identity (it would be equally inappropriate for me to declare myself "the only true Christian" and insist that you recognize me as such just because I say so). The term "Roman Catholic" has been invented as a "compromise" and, lacking a better name, is the most appropriate term to use here in a formal context. --Mcorazao 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wondered how long the excision of the former opening words would be allowed to stand without objection. Now that the awaited objection has been raised, I have restored the old text, which has the advantage of corresponding more closely to the title of the article. Lima 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh... old disputes never die, they just keep on ticking...

So... the compromise that was brokered last year was that articles would use "Roman Catholic Church" in the first reference to the church which is in communion with the bishop of Rome but that articles could then use "Catholic Church" in all subsequent uses. I'm not thrilled with this but that was the compromise. --Richard 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I trust Richard is therefore satisfied with, even if not thrilled at, the return of "Roman Catholic Church" as first reference in this article. Lima 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... it's fine with me. The part of the compromise that I was "not thrilled with" was the switch from "Roman Catholic Church" at the beginning to "Catholic Church" in later references. Seems like it would be confusing in articles other than this one. In this one, the switch is sort of explained by the first sentence ("Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church"). Other articles are not likely to explain this and so the reader has to do the mental juggling for himself. --Richard 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know it will never happen but ...

I do think that Wikipedia should follow a policy of using consistent neutral but well recognized naming conventions. If "Roman Catholic" were used everywhere in Wikipedia then there would be little confusion (by the same token, it is more appropriate to use "Eastern Orthodox" than say "Orthodox Catholic" even though the Eastern Church often refers to itself as "The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church"; both churches have legitimate claim to the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic"). Sadly when I look around the pages I see lots of cases where one article on a particular topic uses conventions biased toward that topic and a related but different article uses completely different naming conventions biased toward that topic. It'd be nice if an effort could be made to a master list of "neutral" terms for naming things and use these consistently throughout the articles. As I say, I think this will never happen because, as this topic demonstrates, it is often impossible to gain consensus on neutral names for things.

Anyway, thanks. --Mcorazao 16:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec...if that was the compromise, why do we still have Catholic spirituality, Catholic devotions, etc.? There seems to be a lingering inconsistency in naming. Fishhead64 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See? I told you... old disputes never die. They just linger on and on... I think the problem was that the compromise discussed "first use of the phrase 'Roman Catholic' IN the article" but didn't discuss the use of the phrase in the title.

We were ready to start changing all Roman Catholic articles to have titles of the form "Catholic X" or "Catholic church and X". I don't have a clear memory but I think it was you who blew up the compromise when you realized that the compromise would result in articles such as the ones that you mention above. Now, it's not all your fault. The other side could have extended the compromise to include the title but they didn't and so the whole dispute started up all over again.

At that point, I stopped caring about the whole series of articles and went off to do other stuff. My one little personal crusade is to title all articles in the category Category:Roman Catholic Church by country to have titles of the form Roman Catholicism in X. Right now, the one exception is Catholic Church in Sweden which was moved there in April 2006 by our friend Vaquero100. For technical reasons, this will require a "Proposed move" which I will get around to doing someday.

I'm not sure what the current state of titles is across the entire range of articles related to Roman Catholicism.

--Richard 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't start this again. MCorazao is new, but the rest of us should know by experience that any change will not be worth the energy spent on it, and is likely to be overturned in a similar dispute less than a year later. Lima 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well spoken, Lima. This is one of those things which consumes energy better spent on productive editing. Fishhead64 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about opening old wounds. If my newby opinion means anything I think it is acceptable in this article to use the abbreviated name as long as the less controversial name is used up front. I say this on the principle that this article is entirely specific to the RCC and so being more tolerant of the Church's preferred choice of naming is not entirely unreasonably (truthfully I would still prefer the neutral naming but, as you say, it's not worth the battle). In any event, I still would advocate that for articles that are not specific to the Church the less controversial naming should be used consistently (applies to other Churches/religions as well). --Mcorazao 03:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this naming isssue, the ignorance of history in behalf of Catholics as well as non-Catholics is astonishing. How can one refer to a Maronite Catholic, a Byzantine Catholic, a Coptic Catholic or any of the 21 other Catholic Christian Churches as "Roman". Does anyone, for example, understand that the Orthodox Church is simply the same Byzantine Catholic Church(aka Greek Catholic Church) that separated from its communion with the Pope in 1054 AD. That the Churches that have returned to the unity with the Petrine Patriarch have simply returned to their status which existed the previous 1000 years. In that case the Church was called as it still is the Catholic Church as first discribed by the Great Eastern Catholic (and thus, also Orthodox) Church Father Ignatius of Antioch in the year 107 AD. Note this student of John the apostle, in the eighth chapter of his epistle to the Smyrnaeans[[2]] said

"wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

He did not say "Orthodox Church", but maybe he uses this "Catholic" in the same way Wikipedia defines "Catholic". However, Ignatius, shockingly describes all the doctrines his church doctines in the same manner the Catholic Church of today does(as well as all the other Early Church Fathers). Yet, though he was Catholic, he was never a "Roman" Catholic as he belonged to the Eastern Church of Antioch not the western "Roman" church that was being heavily persecuted- residing in the capitol of the tyranical Empire. Though also he understood the concept of the primacy of that church...

"(the Church) which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandment" - Preface to Igantius' epistle to the Romans [[3]]

Do I even need to mention among the greatest Christian theologian-philosopher of history St. Augustine of Hippo(354-430 AD) which mentions simply the "Catholic Church" over 400 times in his writings and describes it all as the present Catholic church...and which Wikipedia refers to as "Roman Catholic" church contradicting Ignatius', Augustine's and all the other early church fathers definition of "Catholic".

But who am I to say what wikipedia can say or do in the name of maintaining a so called "neutral" POV with regard to religion. They have every right to change history in the name of this biased "NPOV". Ciao Micael 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

How can one refer to a Maronite Catholic, a Byzantine Catholic, a Coptic Catholic or any of the 21 other Catholic Christian Churches as "Roman". Does anyone, for example, understand that the Orthodox Church is simply the same Byzantine Catholic Church(aka Greek Catholic Church) that separated from its communion with the Pope in 1054 AD.

So the question is... is a church that has separated from its communion with the pope still "Catholic"? Is "communion with the Pope" the critical feature of being a "Catholic Church"? This part of your argument seems to fit well with the current naming scheme. Roman Catholic Church describes those "Catholic churches" which are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Catholicism describes the wider meaning of "Catholic" to include the other churches that you mention.

Unfortunately, your argument seems to change somewhat later in your post so I don't quite understand your point.

--Richard 14:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite the desires of some like Fishhead and Lima, this is an issue that simply will not die. Vaquero100 got burnt on it as well as others before him. But, the truth will continue to rear its head despite the fact that some find it inconvenient. Lima has worked very hard to distort the record. There is no ecumenical council document that mentions RCC and no mention of the RCC in the Catechism. Roman Catholic is clearly only a term used in the West. It comes from a long tradition of Anglican anti-Catholicism. Of course none of this is permitted to be mentioned in the article because Catholics continue to be held in disdain by many who control WP. That Fishhead is now an admin is just further proof of the anti-Catholic bias of WP which is well established and is there for anyone to see. Fishhead for instance has never made a positive substantive contribution to an article on a Catholic topic but trolls Catholic topics daily to ensure his Anglican bias is enshrined on every page.EastmeetsWest 15:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"No ecumenical council document mentions RCC" - doubtful statement, at best. What Church did the First Vatican Council mean when it said: "The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection"? Aren't Popes (Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, John Paul II) good enough, requiring an appeal from them to an ecumenical council? In any case, has any ecumenical council ever outlawed any particular name for the Church or declared that any particular name is the only name to use? "Roman Catholic is clearly only a term used in the West" - how square this with the inclusion of "Roman Catholic Church" in, for instance, the joint declaration signed by Pope Paul VI (yet another Pope!) and Patriarch Athenagoras I, and in the joint declaration of 1971 of the same Pope and Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Mor Ya`qub III? I prefer the authority of the Popes to that of those who contradict them here, and who impugn the motives of other editors. Now may we have a rest? Lima 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because we disagree on a particular issue is no excuse for violating WP:CIVIL. I don't understand how, by any stretch, this contribution of yours to the talk page can be considered in any way helpful or productive. As I've mentioned in previous contributions, there are plenty of buildings around with signs out front reading "Roman Catholic Church." I suppose, therefore, your contention would be that "Anglican anti-Catholicism" has seeped into the ranks of Roman Catholic clergy. Moreover, I find it odd that you would consider my election as an admin to be a demonstration of such bias on WP, when you did not even bother to express your views and to vote. WP is a creature of its editors. fishhead64 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishhead, as you know and has been stated here many, many times but you intentionally ignore, all references to "Roman Catholic Church" among parishes, schools, etc. occur in the Western Church. You will never find a Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church. Yes, all the buildings you speak of belong to the Roman Catholic Church--the Western Rite of the Catholic Church which properly has no modifier.

It is a plain admission by you of your own constant Anglican bias that you ignore such facts and continue to assert such empty arguments. If you have ever made a substantive contribution to a Catholic Church page which was not just an assertion of Anglican bias, I would be very interested in seeing any evidence of it. What is most evident is that our latest admin. has a long history as a bias troll of Catholic articles. You will likely use your new powers to further diminish the Catholic Church on WP. Time will tell.EastmeetsWest 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? You have an interesting concept of the power of administrators. If you want to see a substantive contribution to Roman Catholic articles, you need look no further than section on ecumenism in the present article, to which I made a fairly substantial contribution, I think. Next? fishhead64 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it. EastmeetsWest concedes that "Western" Catholic churches use the name "Roman Catholic Church" but the "Ukrainian Catholic Church" doesn't use the word "Roman". What's the big deal here? I don't recall anybody ever claiming that the "Ukrainian Catholic Church" should be called the "Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church". Perhaps EastmeetsWest objects to the idea that the "Ukrainian Catholic Church" is in communion with the "Roman Catholic Church" and wants to assert that it is in communion with the "Catholic Church"?

I think it's easier to step around this game with words by saying that it is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. At the end of the day, I think it boils down to this... there are "Catholic" churches that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome and "Catholic" churches that are not. The "Ukrainian Catholic Church" is, the Anglican and Orthodox churches are not.

Why waste any more time with this?

--Richard 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I am going to resist your attempt to dumb this topic down. The Roman Catholic Church is the Latin Rite. The Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are both part of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the universal church (Catholic means universal after all) which is a collection of Churches in communion with Rome. Only one of the Catholic churches is "Roman."

Other churches which consider themselves to be part of some invisible "catholic church" all have other names. Only one church bears the name, "Catholic Church." Others consider themselves to be a part of the Catholic Church but all have other names.

This really isnt difficult to grasp. It actually how we most commonly speak in English. Anglicans are the only Christians who routinely ad the monkier "Roman" at every opportunity. It is a 500 year chip on their shoulder, which no WP article can remove.EastmeetsWest 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that "Roman Catholic Church," when applied to the Western Rite is (a) inaccurate, (b) ambiguous, or (c) derogatory? I think the evidence suggests that it is none of these things. There's a "Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church" (so the sign reads) near where I play soccer. So I guess Anglicans aren't the only Christians to add this moniker. fishhead64 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lima, if you want to assert that RCC can refer to Eastern Catholic Churches, please find some documents that refer to Eastern Catholics specifically as Romans. You will not be able to. All your references take place in the context of ecumenical dialogue. As Vaquero rightly states, that is diplomatic, not doctrinal speech.EastmeetsWest 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion will never end with these recurrent examples of mis-interpretation of historical quotes/terms. Lima states:

"Roman Catholic is clearly only a term used in the West" - how square this with the inclusion of "Roman Catholic Church" in, for instance...

This statement is actually correct! But used in the incorrect context. The church/rite of the west IS the Roman Catholic church/rite. What you don't understand is that the Petrine Patriarch is the Patriarch of the West/Roman rite AND the unifying Pastor to the entire Catholic(universal) world...the 21 other AUTONOMOUS churches in union with it, BUT not the same rite. Unity with the Latin Church does not equate with Latin-ness. Its sort of like saying Puerto Rico is in the United States because it is a US territory. Yet it has its own culture, history, language, and is self governing...thus is the case with the 21 other churches of the "CATHOLIC" Church. However the US does not state that a meeting of the Puerto Rican Congress in celebration of a "national" holiday is the equivent of a US holiday. Yet, this is the Catholic Church's veiw regarding the Mass at any of its 22 rites:

The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In "faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds ALL lawfully recognized rites to be of EQUAL RIGHT AND DIGNITY, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way." CCC 1203

Thus the "Roman" Mass, is not better than the Byzantine Mass, or the Maroninte Mass etc. Hence you have the simpy the CATHOLIC Church. Now why do you continue this song and dance. The battle clearly has a winner here. Congrats to all non-Cathlolics and particularly the Anglicans. Oh, and congrats again Fishhead! Micael 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't help it even Anglicans consider themselves to be a part of "the entire Catholic world," albeit not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I don't make the news, I just report it. fishhead64 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

By way Richard can you tell me were did I loose you in my prior post, I'll gladly clarify things for you. Send me a post to my talk page.

Thanks Micael 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

thank you for your perseverance Micael. I had continued where you left off, and then this conversation was archived while I allowed a few days to pass (make your own judgments); I was allowing for some cooldown because Lima got a little ad hominem. anyways, here is Lima's post:

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)

My response:

• 1. The Bishop of Rome supported the stand of the Bishop of Alexandria against the Bishop of Antioch, and therefore Roman = Latin. Yes, where all these three Bishops were also Patriarchs, overseeing their respective Churches, Alexandrian, Antiochean and Roman. See Patriarch.
• 2. Cardinal Arinze mentions some liturgical history, that the Roman rite is predominant, with vestiges of Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites that are fossils of their former use. So no the Roman Rite is not the only one, but for all intents and purposes, it is the only one in use today, for +99% of Latin Rite.
• 3. Hence my saying "Roman" distinguishes a Catholic worshipping according to the Latin rite, and hence a part of the Roman Catholic Church, from those who worship according to other Rites, and hence part of those Churches who use those rites, yet all belonging to the same One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. At any time feel free to observe the relation between Rite and these different Churches.
• 3a. Why Cardinal Arinze never once uses the term "Roman Catholic Church" but only Church to refer to the entire Church. Whereas he uses Roman Rite Church and Roman Church to refer to the Latin Church. To refresh your memory:

"The Roman Rite Church showed extraordinary missionary dynamism." "The Popes and the Roman Church have found Latin very suitable for many reasons."

• 4. Do the Popes or Church ever refer to the Catholic Church as Roman? Yes, you have shown a few instances, btw Humani generis merely paraphrasing Pius XII. But others have already shown that "Roman" is not applied regularly, systematically, perhaps not even often, or in some very important communiques of the Catholic Church, as in the case of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On my own-authority I refer to what has already been stated by other users. It is by your own-authority that you choose to ignore this?
• 4a. www.armeniancatholic.org and all the ones listed in the archive of Eastern Catholic Churches.
• 5. I have only repeated things that Micael and others was illuminated in detail, though for some reason have been misunderstood or ignored.
• 5a. Before any more of this own-authority pleasantry, keep in mind all you have merely done is pontificate your own conclusions drawn from a few documents. Be tolerant of others as they are of you. The Jackal God 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

one last thing, regarding point #4: for an institution of some 2000 years, you can only cite a mere handful documents, among millions, to support your naming convention? can we say tunnel vision? The Jackal God 01:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anubis, I rest my case, which is that the Church is officially (e.g. by the Popes and the Holy See, in documents cited in this article and available at www.vatican.va) called the Catholic Church and other names as well, including "Roman Catholic Church". Lima 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm here, use this to rest your case. Try and find the Vatican calling the entire Church the Roman Catholic Church. I only see universal Church. The Jackal God 21:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an assignment. Find ONE church document in which 'Roman Catholic' is used to denote 'Latin Catholic'. One. One will suffice. Virginia is part of the US even if it isn't called 'United State of Virginia'. Yes, the Ukrainian Catholics are Roman Catholics. No, their official name doesn't have - nor need - 'Roman'. Guess what, 'Roman Catholic' is nowhere an official name of anything. 85.241.119.67 04:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough with POV based definitions. What does Ignatius of Antioch say the Catholic Church TRULY IS?

We can not change history based on today's POV's; thats nothing but watered down history based on today's biases. Lets make this even easier. I'm just going to go by what ONE man says the REAL Catholic church IS, the first Christian to ever document the words CATHOLIC CHURCH and defined its specific beliefs.

St. Ignatius of Antioch(35-107 AD), a student of John the Apostle, and 3rd Bishop of Antioch of the Eastern Church (Peter was its 1st Bishop before leaving this position for Rome) is the ONE person which FIRST coined the word Catholic Church for the Christian Church of Christ. He stated:

"wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (citation [[4]] Letter to the Smyrneaeans Chapter VIII 1PP 4th sentence)

and whereas he defined this Church specifically Catholic dispite he personally belonging to the Greek Catholic (Eastern Rite), he specifically states in his Letter to the church of Rome[[5]]...

" to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son....also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united."(See the preface)

"Ye (The church at Rome) have never envied anyone; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]. (Chapter III)

And whereas this Catholic Church also defined heretics as: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ"

Then considering that this Catholic Church as defined by its first author, a Greek Catholic, and Father of the Catholic Church (not simply a Roman Church), with precisely the SAME core beliefs as simply the Catholic church. And considering the lone Church on earth today which abides by that same critieria, is a church made up of 22 worldwide rites all of EQUAL stature*, I conclude and demand that this is SAME church be entitle by its very name he proclaimed and defined, simply the one Catholic Church that still fits his same criteria for the "Catholic Church". The historical evidences is truly overwhelming, but I will leave this short and consise.

• CCC PP1203 states "Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites (the Roman and 21 others) to be of EQUAL right and dignity" emphasis mine

Thus, we see the true fallacy of calling this worldwide church by the prefix "Roman",grossly deceitful not only in present terms, but historically. In essence, a way of disconnecting the historical Catholic Church and its well defined essential doctrines of faith away from today's Church which abides by the same essential doctrines. Ignatius' and all early church fathers writings categorically disagree with this site's NPOV definition of Catholicism But in the name of political correctness I concede that definition (as well as Catholic] 0, for the proper name of my Church as simply the, Catholic Church.

Give us Catholics, true justice with a true NPOV by consensus. Thank you! Micael 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. You begin by complaining about others imposing a modern POV, and then proceed to call St. Ignatius of Antioch "Eastern rite" and "Greek Catholic"! (Tell me, in what language was the Eucharist celebrated, Scriptures read, and homilies proclaimed in the Church of Rome in those days?)

The rest of your post is entirely circular reasoning and so can be safely ignored -- nothing you quote from Ignatius is to the point -- but you really need to acquire some knowledge of history to give yourself a firmer grounding in the discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The prefix "Roman" is a problem. The italian article "Chiesa cattolica" does not have this problem, and I venture to guess that many italians have ever heard about the "roman" part. The swedish article, similarly has "Katolska Kyrkan". The castillian article has it as "Iglesia Católica". I dont like the prefix "Roman" very much, but is this not is the only way of distinguishing this particular church from all others that contain the word "Catholic" but do not feel like obeying the pope? I would love to get a better solution to this. DanielDemaret 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

right, because if I hear someone say he's catholic, i automatically assume he meant Traditional Catholic, or Old Catholic...never Catholic practicing according to the Roman Rite. The small other Churches should carry the burden of distinguishing themselves from the 1 billion Catholic Church, not the other way around. Can you actually spell out the circular argument Csernica? I think your argument is circular. Yay, now I proved Micael's point. The Jackal God 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. He attempts to prove that the modern Papal church is the Catholic Church of which St. Ignatius wrote by citing the CCC! I would hardly expect that compendium to say otherwise. Yes, it's circular reasoning to use the Pope's documents to validate the claims of the Pope's church.

This is the sole example he bothers to provide of the "truly overwhelming" historical "evidences (sic)" he assures us exist(s), as if it were the strongest he had. It makes me think that anything else he might have in mind is unconvincing indeed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TCC, I am rather appauled by your post. Calling my belief "pretty funny" is not very civil or charitable, these are core Catholic beliefs! Is that how you feel about our faith and the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch? Wow!

Regardless, what is circular about providing, not my views, but the views of the person which HISTORICALLY first coined the words "Catholic Church? I repeat these are not my words, but his own:

"wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (citation [[6]] Letter to the Smyrneaeans Chapter VIII 1PP 4th sentence)

and whereas he defined this Church, specifically as, Catholic dispite he personally abiding to a Byzantine (Greek liturgy) Catholic (Eastern Rite- See Patriarch of Antioch), he specifically states in his Letter to the church of Rome[[7]]...

" to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son....also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united."(See the preface)

"Ye (The church at Rome) have never envied anyone; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]. (Chapter III)

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" [[8]] Chapter VII Letter to Smyrnaeans

Now what present Church does that decribe? It that what is discribed by Catholic , Catholicism, or the Catholic Church made of 22 various rites, all of equal standing and including, but not limited to the Roman church, which is mis-represented in this article as the "Roman Catholic Church."

Mercy, peace, and love TCC. PS: the citations provided are not from a Catholic site. Ignatius and all Early Church fathers writings are studied a nearly every Christian seminary, Catholic, Anglican, or generic Protestant. Micael 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am well familiar with St. Ignatius and his writings, thank you, and am perfectly capable of recognizing work attributed to him. I am not a member of your communion, nor am I Anglican or any kind of Protestant, generic or otherwise.

I am also familiar with this style of argumentation. I told you specifically what I thought was so funny, yet you tried to represent I was laughing at your religious beliefs and by extension -- here's the kicker -- those of St. Ignatius himself.

Were this to be taken seriously, it would allow you to assume an air of wounded humility, thereby affording you the moral high ground and making me look boorish. Fortunately for me, it's completely specious -- as everyone can see, because my post is right here on the page. No, I was laughing at your own complete lack of historical perspective when you started out by complaining about how no one else had any. "Greek Catholic" indeed! Young man, you should learn some ecclesiastical history before you presume to lecture others on it.

The circularity isn't in what St. Ignatius says, but in the reasoning by which you identify in what body the church he describes is now subsisting. Let me take your question as something other than rhetorical and answer it. What present-day church does St. Ignatius describe? Mine, of course, which neither abstains from prayer nor fails to confess the Eucharist as the Flesh of Christ. What other answer could you possibly expect from me? If I thought that the modern Church of Rome closely resembled that described by the early Fathers in such laudatory terms over 1,800 years ago, and taught the same Faith, I'd belong to it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TCC, you're bringing up a related, but different point. This naming thing was a dispute as to what we Catholics call ourselves. Some Catholics, and Anglicans, were confused and thought Roman Catholic means all Catholics, but for Catholics, it does not mean that. Micael is quoting Ignatius, and in the Catholic context, it's relevant, and the Catholic interpretation of that quote.

You, and others would likely agree, don't think the Catholic Church of which we speak is the same spoken of by Ignatius. That is a whole different matter, whether the Catholic Church or the Orthodox, Anglicans, etc are the True Church w/ the fullness of Christ's grace etc. But in lingua franca, this page should be titled Catholic Church, because RCC refers only to one, though the largest, of the 22 Churches in that communion. The Jackal God 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think Micael brought the point up in the post that started this thread, and then only amplified it in his response to me, where I had originally not intended to talk about it at all. The anachronisms of "Greek Catholic" and "Eastern Rite" hit me right in the irony, and that was all I intended to bring to his attention. He missed it entirely though.

His chain of reasoning seems to be thus: 1 - According to Ignatius, the Catholic Church has certain attributes; 2 - The churches in communion with the Pope of Rome possess those attributes; and 3 - Therefore, "if we go by what [St. Ignatius] says" we can only conclude that this church's proper name is the Catholic Church. I see what he wants to argue, but as presented it's a completely invalid chain. Ignatius' words simply cannot be twisted to say what he wants them to say.

His basic point may be true within this communion, but it looks rather different from the outside where its main distinguishing feature appears to be its subjection to Papal authority. "Roman" seems therefore not inappropriate if you do not belong to it yourself even if many of its constituent parts do not consider themselves Roman. Lingua franca implies a very broad context, necessarily inclusive of this POV.

When you consider that the word "Catholic" is something of a hot-button -- since the time of Ignatius, it has uniquely distinguished the genuine Church founded by Christ from heresy in a way that no other word has -- it perhaps becomes understandable why those who also claim Catholicism want to qualify it somehow in this case. Labeling it "Catholic Church" makes a truth claim they are not willing to concede. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at "wikipedia:naming" to find guidlines for the name, mostly to see if the list of arguments I have are valid, and found that "Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church" is listed as the first example of naming disagreements :) Is there a separate place to discuss this name issue before it engulfs this article talk space totally? DanielDemaret 06:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it wouldn't be the first time. It's a perennial argument, and tends to engulf the talk page whenever it erupts. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

TCC, yours is a valid point, but I think the way to solve it is to use the title Catholic Church and add some clarification that covers your point, explaining the nature of the word "Catholic." However, the title as is is erroneous, and serves only to continue a certain misconception. Whether the Catholic Church is the "Catholic" Church is a POV topic, but that it is most commonly referred to as the Catholic Church is not POV. Title needs to change. The Jackal God 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I concede that it may well be most commonly referred to in that way -- by its own members anyhow, although I've never seen a survey on the subject. But how is it most commonly called by those who are not its members?

Misconception it may be, but right now the article does exactly the inverse of what you're suggesting here; i.e. gives a name and then explains the issues surrounding it, only from the opposite direction. I don't see why it should be a good approach one way but not the other. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That the title is incorrect IS true. That the Catholic Church refers to itself as the Catholic Church IS true. That the Catholic Church is more correctly referred to as the Catholic, instead of Roman Catholic, Church IS true. That the Catholic Church is the one, true, etc Church MAY or MAY NOT BE true. As it stands, it's definitely wrong, and that's NPOV; change it to Catholic, and it's right, though it may be used correctly or incorrectly.

really, where is the issue on this? according to the Catholic point of view, the Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox Churches are the Heretical [name] Church, but we don't see those POV titles. They are titled according to usage. That's the issue here, not theology. The Jackal God 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a theological word. Theology cannot but be an issue. "The Catholic Church" has a very clear, specific theological meaning, and many people are very sensitive about how Rome has, through sheer force of numbers, appropriated that name for itself. That's why, even if we grant that "Roman Catholic" is incorrect, there's going to be an argument about this.

Seriously, what's so hard about living with "Roman Catholic" anyway? The Orthodox Churches don't really call themselves "the Eastern Orthodox Church" either, but that's what the title of the article says, and what we usually call ourselves if someone asks. Sometimes accuracy has to make way for clarity. At least the Pope really is the Bishop of Rome. Most "Eastern" Orthodox Churches aren't particularly eastern at all. If I wanted a truly POV name for the article, I'd be advocating the "Papist church" or -- as I've seen more than one conservative Orthodox Chistian use -- "Roman Catholic Religious Organization". People who use that name for it don't even consider it strictly proper to apply the name "Church" to it.

By the way, the Orthodox Churches are not heretical according to Rome, but schismatic. This isn't a bit of post-Vatican II political correctness either. I've never even seen an historical document that calls the Orthodox that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem at all reasonable to quote a 2000-year-old document naming an organization that dates from before there were other churches claiming the title of "Catholic". "Roman Catholic" is unambiguous, and indeed, official church documents use the term for the purpose of distinguishing the Catholic Church from others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs).

TCC asked : "But how is it most commonly called by those who are not its members?" I can not say for certain. I can tell you that I have rarely heard norread the term "Roman" before "Catholic" anywhere in europe", in any language. I have heard and read it mostly in US media, and a few rare times in Britain. If this holds for the rest of the world, and the addition is mainly a US usage, then that would be a strong argument for changing it in this article. How about the rest of you? Do you know more? DanielDemaret 09:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan said,

"It doesn't seem at all reasonable to quote a 2000-year-old document naming an organization that dates from before there were other churches claiming the title of "Catholic". "Roman Catholic" is unambiguous, and indeed, official church documents use the term for the purpose of distinguishing the Catholic Church from others."

Now, with that reasoning why respect anything "original". Where do you make your cut-off, 200 or 300 years or the second you have a schism. Does the fact that you have a dissenter disqualify an organization's right to abide by a name it has used for centuries? THAT, would be unreasonable.

The Church does not refer to itself as the Roman Catholic Church though it has used it, though extremely seldomly, as you stated in an attempt to make this disinction, but not as an authorization as a title for the entire Church.

Also, the concept that "Roman Catholic is unambigious" is really myopic. It truely is ambigious, for it jumbles all 22 EQUALLY legit but differing rites of the Catholic church into the name of one rite, the Roman Rite. Byzantine(Greek) Catholics, are certainly Catholic but not Roman Catholic. I am Roman Catholic, but not a Maronite Catholic. However all of us are Catholic. Benedict XVI is the Patriarch of the West- the Roman Catholic church/rite, but not a Patriarch of the Eastern church/rites, however he is the the Pontif of the entire Catholic Church. What people can not seem understand is that the Pope has essentially two SEPARATE positions:

1- As the Patriarch of the West he funtions as THE major bishop of the Latin Church (say the governor of a large states such as Texas) which means that in this sense he has no direct say as to what other separate but equal rites have to say (likewise every State makes their own separate laws).

2- However, he also has the position of leader,spokesman, prime ministership of the ENTIRE Catholic Church- includine the 22 various rites/churches (in essence he proclaims and verifies the federal laws-church dogma- which no state contradicts.)

Additionally, when speaking as simply the leader of the (Western) Roman Catholic Church he DOES NOT speak infallibly, this is reserved only when he is speaking to the Catholic Church at large ex cathedra. Thus we see the great error and fallacy of calling the Church as a whole "Roman".Micael 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that. SarekOfVulcan did. He just did not sign it, and so confused the text. Could I kindly ask you to replace "Daniel said" to "SarekOfVulcan wrote", Micael ? DanielDemaret 10:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Daniel, thanks. Micael 23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just found out about this discussion. It is unwarranted. Roman Catholic has NEVER meant Latin Catholic. The Church isn't keen on using the term Roman Catholic for one because it presupposes there could be a non-Roman (that is, not in communion with the Pope) and Catholic Church, but mostly because it's a misnomer, since the Church is to be universal and not especially 'roman' in any way. In other news, the Pope has dropped the title of Patriarch, which was not used historically anyway but a 19th century retro-inclusion. And to repeat what I said first, 'Latin' does properly designate the Roman Rite, and 'Greek', 'Syro', etc are used as counterparts in the Eastern Churches. In case it isn't clear by now, in the view of the Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches are as *Roman* Catholic as the Latin Church, to the extent that the Church uses the *Roman Catholic* formula. 85.240.126.193 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Um...referring to the Bishop of Rome as a Patriarch is not a "19th century retro-inclusion." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "As a Christian title of honour the word patriarch appears first as applied to Pope Leo I in a letter of Theodosius II (408-50; Mansi, VI, 68)." (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Patriarch and Patriarchate"). MishaPan 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The word certainly appeared throughout the centuries, and the full expression was used on occasion. However, what is being discussed is its official use, and that is 19th century. The crux of the matter is that the West was never neatly organised into a patriarchate structure as the East, even considering it to be composed of only one patriarchate. The patriarchate per se was chiefly devised as a practical administrative concept, not a religiously hierarchical one (the patriarch is just a bishop, not an additional rank of the holy orders), so its relevance in a territory in which it never had practical use is reduced. Actually in many ways the Pope has a stronger grip on his bishops than the eastern patriarchs do. 'Roman Catholic' means what it does. It doesn't mean 'Latin Catholic'. If it meant 'Latin Catholic', one of the two would be redundant. They are not. 'Latin Catholic' properly denotes the Latin rite. 'Roman Catholic' is NOT a term found pertinent by the Church; it was devised to designate the people in communion with the bishop of Rome, originally by those who were not and later by themselves. It has never served to distinguish between latin and other rite catholics except by people who know little of the issue and don't know that all churches consider themselves 'catholic' (hence, they see 'roman catholic' as redundant except if as they do 'roman' is taken to mean 'latin' - but that is ignorance on their part). Nothing more needs to be said about it, really. 85.241.119.67 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

it pains me to inform you that your notion that Roman Catholic not meaning Latin Catholic was addressed and dismissed prior. The political strain was entertaining, thank you for that. The Jackal God 04:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"...dismissed prior" by what smart-alecks? 195.74.254.155 07:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move: Catholic Church in Sweden => Roman Catholicism in Sweden

Despite suggestions from Fishhead64 and Lima to let this go, I believe that consistency is a virtue and that all articles in [[Category:Roman Catholic Church by country]] should use the same convention in their title. Since Catholic Church in Sweden is the sole exception, I am proposing to change its title to match the other articles in [[Category:Roman Catholic Church by country]].

Please express your opinion at Talk:Catholic Church in Sweden.

--Richard 07:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The title of this article points out the utter sillyness of the stubborn "Roman Catholic" term for all Churches though authonomous, but in union with the Pope. Its is quite obvous the articles speaks of other types of Catholics beyond those of the Roman/Latin rite "several Divine Liturgies in the Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Armenian and Syrian Eastern Rites. Swedish-born priests from these groups also exist, and the first Swedish-born Maronite priest was ordained in August 2002 in Beirut. " Yet all is bundled under the "Roman" letterhead. Absurdly stubborn. One even mentioned the ridiculous "Armenian Roman Catholic Church" Blah!

Ok, I guess all Americans should call themselves Columbian Americans by virtue that they are all in union with the President which resides in the District of Columbia. Alright I'm a Floridian Columbian American, maybe you are a Texan Columbian American, and hey those from that Island in the Caribean are Puero Rican Colubian Americans. The ends you go to maintain this terminogy circus is rather alarming.

What next the Roman Catholic Church in America, which includes large numbers of Greek (Byzantine) Catholics, Maronites Catholics, as well as the Roman Catholic. Not to meantion all the other 18 other "Catholic" churches which are stubbornly compiled into the Roman Catholic simply to maintain this insane rhetoric. Micael 18:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are far too many editors in the Wikipedia who have an ideological agenda to make all references to "Catholic" be "Roman Catholic". (Related to that is the pseudo-scientific distortion to change "Church" to "-ism".) Common sense is radically broken here. patsw 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated... I am not interested in fighting the "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" debate here. I simply wanted to have article titles for all countries follow a single convention. If you wish to change that convention, feel free to propose a change. If you feel that Roman Catholicism in country X should not cover "Melkite, Maronite, Chaldean, Armenian and Syrian Eastern Rites" in country X then start a new article on the subject. --Richard 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

The first line of the terminology section reads: This is a false church. Was this vandalism or is it the context I'm not understanding? It should be changed either way.

EDIT: XD Someone edited it just after I posted.

Footnotes Section

The foot notes section is messed up. I would fix it if I knew how. :/ Mashtato 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mashtato, for drawing attention to this. It was my mistake. I apologize. Lima 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"conversion of heretics" ?

The section named "Inquisition" has the text "the Inquisition, were aimed at securing religious and doctrinal unity within Christianity through conversion, and sometimes persecution, of alleged heretics."

However, conversion I take to mean "conversion to the Catholic faith, from some other faith", and a "heretic" in these cases refers to "a person belonging to the Catholic faith, but who has heretical views". This would mean that the sentence in the article states that it aimed at "conversion to the catholic faith... of Catholics.", which does not seem possible. Perhaps aimed at "repentance and retraction of heretical views" would be a more accurate aim? DanielDemaret 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question you raise, DanielDemaret. But actually, a convert can refer to a heretic who "returns" to the true catholic faith. It does not require that the convert be of another faith. Therefore, a convert may be an infidel, a (catholic) heretic, or a schismatic. Check out this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia for more details. --Anietor 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Anietor, it certainly can. But how many readers can we assume to know this? I think there is an overwhelming risk that most readers will interpret "conversion" here as meaning that, for example the Spanish Inquisition was used to make Jews convert to Christianity, which seems false by all accounts. The spanish monarchs did that job by proclaiming that Jews had to leave their Kingdoms.

To avoid misunderstandings here, we might :

1. Explain that this is the meaning of conversion used in this article, or
2. Exchange the word "conversion" to one that will be less prone to misinterpretation.

Which do you think is best? DanielDemaret 07:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith". Being a Catholic is not part of that definition; being a Christian is. More important, changing one's religion is not the original and basic meaning of "conversion": "Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; And sinners shall be converted unto thee" (Ps 51:13 - KJV); "My brethren, if any among you err from the truth, and one convert him ..." (Jm 5:19 - KJV). Lima 08:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing what Canon Law says. I am well aware of that part, and I did not misunderstand the text myself. Never mind. If you are all perfectly certain that nobody could possibly misunderstand this text, and point to it and say "Hey, look, the inquisition converted jews to become catholics", then I will not pursue this further. DanielDemaret 10:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would never object to an edit that helps clarify a point, as long as it is accurate. My response to your initial post, DanielDemaret, was based on your statement that YOU thought conversion meant "from some other faith", which is not correct. Don't take my or Lima's comments so personally. "Conversion", the word and the act, has a rather complex meaning. I actually agree with you that many readers may misunderstand the term as used in the article. But it is used correctly. One thing to do is to link the word to the religious conversion article. I will do that. However, that article has a few issues itself, and should be cleaned up a little. It's not very clear...I'll try and edit that one in a bit. --Anietor 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Anietor, the text is correct. Had I thought it incorrect, I might have changed it instead of discussing it :) It is just so very easily misinterpreted. :( DanielDemaret 07:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Church" vs "church"

I have changed "Church" to "church", when appropriate. This is to reflect a NPOV, distinguishing between any single "church" and The Church. Additionally, this is the standard put forth in the Chicago Manual of Style. I have left quotations unaltered for accuracy. Church names have been similarly unaltered, since it is appropriate usage. Vassyana 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work. That was a fairly big job. I support the change as being appropriate for NPOV. -SESmith 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(More discussion here.) --Meyer 04:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am old-fashioned enough to think that the distinction that understands "church" (small c) only as a building is a very useful one. (For me, "There are 12 churches on the island" does not mean "There are 12 Churches on the island": the island might have only one or two Churches.) However, if the majority insist on abolishing that distinction even in articles that have hitherto observed it, I do not have the strength to fight them! Lima 06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think "the church", when it refers not to just any of them but to the precise subject of the article, should be written "the Church", on the analogy of "the Constitution" in the article United States Constitution, or "the President" there and elsewhere. So I make bold to change back to "the Church" in those cases (only). Anyone who thinks this disrespectful towards other Churches can either restore the Church/church distinction or consider whether the United States Constitution article would capitalize "constitution" when referring to analogous documents of other countries. I think the distinction is even necessary for correct understanding of phrases such as "the bishops of the Church", when it means "the bishops of the church dealt with in this article", not "the bishops of the church" as understood in other contexts. There are other phrases also in the article, such as "The church claims infallibility" or "baptized in the church", that will be misunderstood without that distinction. I see that Vassyana has even "corrected" two direct quotations within inverted commas from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to make those texts conform to the idea that "the Church" must always be written "the church". Oh, please don't revert immediately my partial restoration of the previous state. (While restoring it, I also noticed just a few other decidedly minor matters that needed correction.) It is only right to wait for observations by others before insisting on a novelty that has met opposition. And I repeat that I do not intend to fight any majority that may appear.

(I've had difficulty in saving this because of "loss of session data".) Lima 07:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also tend to see church as a building as against church being an (organised) body of Christians. I think at least one instance of Rite (in the context of Latin and Eastern Rites) got changed to rite - again I'd see a distinction between a rite e.g. the rite of baptism or therite of marriage and a Rite (being in this case more or less analogous to Church) David Underdown 09:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see now that, on the page he referred to, User:Meyer came to the same conclusion that User:David Underdown and I came to here. Since the concrete question is about usage within this article, not more generally, I think here is really the place to discuss it. Please excuse me if I am guilty of a misunderstanding. Lima 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima, your recent change back to Church when referring to the topic of the article seems very logical; however, it is exactly what the Chicago Manual of Style states is not appropriate. Your understanding and mine of the English language is the same, but unfortunately it seems dated for writing today. Also, I lost this argument on the LDS page using the same logic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this Chicago Manual of Style would also say that "constitution" and "president" should be written with small letters. Lima 15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) It does not matter what rules other titles and names use. Standard and proper English usage demanded "church" instead of "Church" when not used as part of the name of a Church. Additionally, there is a significant POV concern that "Church" indicates THE Church or the "one true" Church to many people. This has been raised for other churches on Wikipedia and so far consensus has indicated "Church" should be avoided. We should follow current proper usage instead of following an outdated and potentially POV usage. Vassyana 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we are not talking about the lone word "church/Church". We are talking about the use, in a particular context, of the phrase "the Church". Several of us, it seems, see no reason why it should be treated differently from, in their particular contexts, "the Constitution" or "the President". Lima 03:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone knows the context in which this is being discussed. I think what Vassyana meant was the use of of the word "church" in referring to the Roman Catholic Church—if not accompanied by the words "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic", etc.—should not be capitalized. You ask why this should be—the simple answer is because that is what modern English usage now dictates. At the end of the day it's not a NPOV issue or a WP issue, it's just a proper use of English rule. And it's not just found in the CMOS, which you evidently have issues with. Check other modern style guides and you will likely find the same rules. A good example of the proper usage being implemented is found the Encarta Encyclopedia's entry on the Roman Catholic Church. -SESmith 04:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have "issues" with any particular style book. Tell me, though, whether your preferred one says that the style used in the Encarta article in question is obligatory when speaking about "the President", "the Constitution", "the Church" in contexts where "president", "constitution" and "church" refer to one particular president, constitution or church. Perhaps it does. Then that, rather than generic rules about "church", is what we need. Thanks. Lima 07:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we've been trying to say, I believe. The rule applies when referring to a specific church, and the fact that a rule exists about it at all would suggest that it's meant to be obligatory. Otherwise—no point in having the "rule". I've not looked into 'president' and 'constitution' rules. -SESmith 07:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's a rule, of course it's obligatory. I would have liked an actual quotation of the rule that I asked for, that non-capitalization of the word "church" when used with "the" in the context in question is not merely permitted, but is the only correct form; but I do not want to suggest that Sesmith has said something that is not exact. Still, I do express my surprise that some style book or other has enunciated this rule specifically for "the Church", instead of generically for all similar words with "the" in similar contexts. Lima 08:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The rules I've looked at address the "church" issue in isolation—or at least it is listed as a sub-group of the more general, generic rule. It depends on the guidebook. They also tend not to say, "oh, and this rule is opinional". As I mentioned above, a guide book usually sets down rules it accepts and it's assumed by the very existence of the rule being in the book that it's "obligatory" (or at least the one form that that particular guide accepts). There's a raft of these style guides at your local library, in all liklihood. Sounds like a good research project for you. I'm off to Greenland (woo hoo!) shortly and don't have the time nor the inclination to reproduce pages of style guides here in WP since they are readily available elsewhere for those who may want to investigate things further. -SESmith 10:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia does not slavishly follow Chicago, it is suggested as being authoritative when our own manual of style does not give guidance on something, which on this subject it arguably does WP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents. In most cases in this article Church is being used as a shortening of (Roman) Catholic Church and is hence the name of a religion and should be capitalised per Wikipedia style. David Underdown 10:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This controversy is a matter of writing style and not one of proper English. It would be helpful if each of us posting here asked ourselves how much WP:LOVE we are showing when we write or imply that someone who disagrees with us on a style issue is advocating sub-standard English.

Regarding the CMOS, it should be noted that the published style manual does not give an absolute rule on use of "the Church" to refer to a specific church. The deprecation of the usage by the CMOS mentioned above is based on an e-mail exchange between a WP editor and CMOS Online staff.

Other Wikipedia standards to keep in mind as we develop a consensus on "Church" vs. "church" are:

1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style which states, "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."
2. Wikipedia:Naming conflict which gives the following principles:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

My opinion after reviewing Vassyana's original edit is that prior to the edit "Church" was overused (that is, in some instances it was referring to non-RCC entities with "Church"), in almost every case in the article the text reads equally well (and without compromising either Church positions or article neutrality) with either "the Church" or "the church", and there was no substantial reason to change most of Vassyana's edits.

For reference, the following is an excerpt of the relevant discussion I mistakenly started on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism:

8.106 Church 
When used alone to denote organized Christianity as an
institution, the church is usually lowercased. 
church and state
the early church
the church in the twenty-first century
the church fathers
Church is capitalized when part of the formal name of a 
denomination (e.g., the United Methodist Church; see other
examples in 8.105) or congregation (e.g., the Church of St.
Thomas the Apostle).

--Meyer 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the link above for Wiki and I still don't see the rule applying here as you have stated David. You can see quotes on the Chicago Manual here.[[9]] This is not similar to the President or the Constitution. There is one Persident of the United States and one Constitution of the United States; there are over 33,000 Christian churches in the world. It is there singleness that is important. For those of us who are Catholic, there is One Holy and True Church; but for those members of the other 33,000 Chrisitan churches Church should only be used when speaking of Christianity as a whole or not at all. It is both proper usage of English and more NPOV to use church. Please understand, I am playing a bit of the Devil's advocate (I hate using that analogy in this context), I prefer to use Church when referring to the topic of an article or paragraph, but it is obviously not the best usage in English to do so. Vassayana speaks wisely and I find her/him convincing and fair. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One of Storm Rider's observations seems highly apposite. "There is one President of the United States" (and in articles about him, he may be referred to as "the President", rather than "the president") - but there are many presidents. "There is one Constitution of the United States" (and in articles about it, it may be referred to as "the Constitution", rather than "the constitution") - but there are many constitutions. I make bold to add explicitly: There is one Roman Catholic Church (and in articles about it, it may be referred to as "the Church", rather than "the church") - but there are many churches (33,001 of them according to Storm Rider, if I may joke). It is the singleness of the Roman Catholic Church within this article that is important. It seems to me that in this context "the Church" is at least permissible English when speaking about the subject of the article, perhaps even better English. Lima 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima, forgive me for taking so long to see your comment. Between you and me, I agree with you. In my early education I seem to recall that when we have the name of the main topic, the Catholic Church in this instance, being referred to it is best to refer to it in the capital form, Church. We employ this same principle when writing contrats to designate a defined term. However, it appears with the passage of time this rule has been put aside.

This started with an editor insisting that in the LDS church page article that the "Church" should only be referred to as the "church". I rejected the editor's position, did my own research by writing the Chicago people and was corrected. On this site I use "church" in articles about the LDS church to comply. My request to those who contributed in the disucssion is if we are going to force LDS to use "church" then all churches needed to comply. In fairness, Vassayana agreed to do so. When I write about any church in their own article, my normal writing style would be to refer to it as Church; given the context it should be understood to be a defined term of the article. Regardless, I applaud Vassayana for the willingness to apply a rule across the board rather than just one church. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Organization of content

On May 4, i did some moving around of sections, and where it seemed necessary added a brief intro. I was asked to provide a little more info on some of those moves, given how almost everyone who edits this page has a heightened sense of editorial defensiveness or a particular apologetic agenda. Basically, it seems that for most people, they want to know what the beliefs, worship, and organization of a church are, along with history and in this case, the terminology issue. Most everything else falls into one of those categories. My moves were just to clean up the table of contents, not really to delete or change much of anything. Many of the one or two line entries i did add would welcome expansion and polishing, i just hadn't had time. The two major examples: Prayer and Worship section, and Nature and Mission of the Church section.

In Catholic prayer and worship, liturgy is distinguished from devotion and spiriutuality. There are only three things that are considered liturgy: Sunday Eucharist(Mass), the other Sacraments, and the Liturgy of the Hours. All else is devotion, private prayer, spirituality, etc. It seemed helpful to make that distinction.

In the Church, all the sections on ministry, membership, clergy, laity, religious, worldwide distribution... all seemed to me aspects of what the church is and what its about. I just put them all under a single section header. Protoclete 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest we remove map of medieval universities

This has the caption "A map of medieval universities shows the universities established by the Catholic Church in Europe". The article on medieval universities explains that this is not the case: some were established by students and teachers, like Bologna, others by the state, such as Oxford and cambridge, while others were founded by the Church. The article uses the map in a misleading way, to suggest that all medieval universities were established by the Church. --Duncan 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

*snip* I agree. Feel free to edit boldly. --Meyer 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Church is not just composed of the priests but the laity as well. Please read section on the laity. The laity are the Church. Read also the section where the photo appears, on church and science. It talks about the contributions of Catholic lay scientists. Even the state at the time were Catholic monarchs!! Rabadur 10:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should separate actions of lay mambers of the church through and with church, from actions taken by people who happen to be Catholic because of their location. It's misleading to suggest that anything done by a catholic is done by the Church. --Duncan 11:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1.1 billion Catholics??

Add up the censuses for all the countries and you don't get 1.1 billion. (Alex71va 11:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Alex71va)

Says who? Lima 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The words Pope, Catholic, and Cardinal appear exactly ZERO times in the ENTIRE BIBLE

That is a fact that is not mentioned on the main page??????? Angry Aspie 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)!

Sounds appropriate to me. This is an encyclopedia, not an anti-catholic pamphlet. There is an article on Anti-Catholicism. Perhaps you would like to edit that one. --Anietor 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Angry, you obviously have some very strong feelings about this issue; being passionate about a subject is not bad. We appreciate your feelings, but this topic is the Roman Catholic church; it is not criticism of the Catholic church. I hope you can understand that articles can not address everything in a single article, particularly ones thta have a religious context. We necessarily are limited to the highlights about the church in order to allow for a readable article. There are other articles, as suggested above, that might be of more appeal to you and be more appropriate for your edit.

As an aside, and speaking as a non-Catholic, does it really matter that words we use today are not mentioned in the Bible? If you look at the Christian religion you will find an evolution of both terminology and thought. This does not mean necessarily that these new words are evil or wrong, but simply that there was a need for new terminology. Does that make sense to you? Also, do all the words you use in your church come from the Bible? One area that I have always found interesting is the names of so many churches are not mentioned in the Bible; does that make them wrong? Boy, that would be a wake up call to the Southern Baptists, Methodists, etc. etc. etc. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible either. And, now that I come to think of it, I've never seen the word "Bible" in it either. :) ElinorD (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whaddya mean? It says Bible right there on the cover!!!!1! TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pleasant to see how this matter has settled into light-hearted humour. Lima 08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All religious matters that begin as heated debates should dissolve into lighthearted humour! Gavin Scott 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the word humor is not in the Bible so I shall ever be in sackcloth and ashes. :)

Angry, I hope you do not feel that we have dealt unjustly with your position, but I also hope that you come to understand that there are legitimate reasons to believe differently. We as members of churches and as individuals come to different interpretations of scripture and we value Tradition differently. However, the kind of position you bring up is one that I personally find less than valid. It finds its evolution not in thought, but in emotional reaction. One thing I heard often as a child is that when we point our finger at another, we have three fingers pointing back at ourselves. If we are going to judge another we must be prepared to be judged in the same manner. Unfortunately, your position would condemn every Christian church known today. Peace. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

An unbelivably ingnorant and pointless statement. Thus, no need for such ill founded statement...

Neither is "Trinity", "Incarnation", or even the word "Bible". Does that fact make any of these words do not exist in scripture make it any less legit...absolutely NOT. This is not some message board necessitating your ill guided personal commentary. Now just go back your own unbiblical "bible" of self-authority and interpretation. This encyclopedia article simply describes the institution described in 1 Timothy 3:15 which provided all the words described above. Fortunatly, your opinion can not change that fact of history.Micael 06:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"The words Pope, Catholic, and Cardinal appear exactly ZERO times in the ENTIRE BIBLE" So what? The words "Hymnal", "Sermon", "Pulpit" and "Altar Call" don't appear in the Bible either. Although I'm not Roman Catholic myself, it's only fair to point out that the user who posted the original comment in this section is making a baseless argument. Even the most fervid sola scripturist will use words that do not appear in the Bible. MishaPan 16:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This debate about words that are assumed to not be in the bible comes off as a little petty to me. If you take the time to learn how to read Greek you will find that the words Pope and Catholic do indeed appear in the Bible as well as the word bible itself. The word bible is in fact the very first word in the Gospel according to Holy Saint Mathaew. Even the word cardinal, when meaning is taken into consideration, could be said to be in the bible as several words could easily translate into it. This entire discussion is really centered around asking to put Anti-Catholic matterial into what according to ya`ll`s rules is supposed to be Neutral. The entire pressice of the suggestion focases on the English Language bible that is thought by many to be the very worste of all the translations of the Holy Text. Then, Even those that are posing as defending the article of The Holy Church like this StormRider here, presents his arguements in such a way as to still try to poke hate speech at The Holy Church. Please, everyone, you need to understand, the bible is not written in English. No Text that was originally written in English or survives to this day with English as its oldest form is considered cononical or liturgical by The Holy Church. Anyone who makes arguements based on English Language assumptions is very much in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Priesthood

I am going to take the last paragraph of the article and move it to a section about homosexuality and priesthood. First of all there is no proof that most cases werre by homosexuals, second there is a difference between a pedophile and a homosexual. Pedophiles don't necesarily choose their victims based on gender but based on age. Plus, it sound way too POV. I want to try to make it sound NPOV. Cjrs 79 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not move it again, but i will edit it to take away what links homosexuality with pedophilia or sexual abuse. Also, thanks for discussing it. Cjrs 79 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have twice removed language in the sexual abuse section along the nature of making the abuse cases a matter of homosexuality and not of pedophilia. It is rare that I break the 1RR guideline, but I feel that this edit is extremely misleading and outright original research. Individuals do not sexually abuse minors because they are homosexuals anymore than the reason for Ted Bundy's actions being because he was heterosexual. It is terrible to link criminal activity to one's sexual orientation. The cited source does NOT do this, and it is original research to make the claim. Here is a proposed compromise. What I believe editors are trying to say is that the majority of the sexual abuse did not technically fit one common definition of "pedophilia" because many of the victims were post-pubescent. I believe the current wording and citation makes it clear that this is the case. However, adding commentary that the abuse was related to or caused by homosexuality is simply not what the source is saying (and making that connection here, without a source, is original research). What do others think? Please discuss this before reinserting the disputed language. Thanks.-Andrew c 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing an explicit reference to homosexuality. My difficulty was with the version that from the report about the study quoted only: "It said that 22 percent of the victims were under 10. It added that 51 percent were 11 to 14 years old and 27 percent were 15 to 17 years old." That has now been remedied. Lima 04:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oxford Unabridged Dictionary : "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic"

User:Lima removed the following text with an edit summary suggesting that we should not reference "one country's law".

According to the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary, "Roman Catholic is the designation know to English law, but 'Catholic' is that is ordinary use on the continent of Europe, especially in the Latin countries; hence historians frequently contrast 'Catholic' and 'Protestant', especially in reference to the continent; and in familiar, non-controversial use, 'Catholic' is often said instead of 'Roman Catholic'".

I reverted Lima's deletion and restored the text because Lima's edit summary suggests that he may have missed the point being made here. The purpose of citing the text is not to appeal to "English law" but simply to say that, in English legal documents, the phrase "Roman Catholic" is used but historians tend to use "Catholic" instead of "Roman Catholic" because that is the standard usage on "the continent of Europe".

In effect, the Oxford Unabridged is saying that the "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" argument is uniquely English because the Anglican Church (which has special legal status in the UK) claims the term "Catholic" and insists on styling the Church of Rome as "Roman Catholic" whereas this dispute does not exist on the continent where Christians are either "Catholic" or "Protestant" and there is no "third option". If the quoted text needs clarification, we should add that clarification but, IMHO, the text is very germane to the topic of nomenclature.

The argument above completely disregards the existence of the Orthodox Church, which considers itself the Catholic Church--and it does have parishes on the continent. So there is in fact a "third option." MishaPan 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

--Richard 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have presumed from the start that the text should read "... is the designation known to English law, but 'Catholic' is that in ordinary use on the continent of Europe ...") "English law" seems to me (wrongly?) to mean something much more precise than what Richard calls "English legal documents" (in the sense of "legal documents in English"). To me this quotation adds nothing substantial to what is already in the article. Even if Richard's interpretation is correct, the observation is irrelevant: it is the English-language Wikipedia that we are editing, not that in any other language. It may be that I misunderstand it, so I leave the discussion to others. Lima 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally doubt that the quoted text is directly from the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary. First of all, the dictionary is entitled Oxford English Dictionary; there is no Oxford Unabridged Dictionary. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the editors of the OED haven't mastered subject-verb agreement. Finally, a Google search finds strikingly similar text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1978 Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, but nothing out of Oxford. Gentgeen 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is it copy and pasted from the OED online (2nd ed, 1989) ROMAN CATHOLIC is the designation known to English law; but ‘Catholic’ is that in ordinary use on the continent of Europe, especially in the Latin countries; hence historians frequently contrast ‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’, especially in reference to the continent; and, in familiar non-controversial use, ‘Catholic’ is often said instead of Roman Catholic.-Andrew c 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not calling anybody a liar, but I have the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and on page 1408 it opens the article on Roman Catholicism as

The term, which denotes the faith and practice of Christians who are in communion with the pope...

It has everything to do with context. If you are talking about Calvin versus the Pope, nobody is going to be confused if you use shorthand like "Protestant" or "Catholics", even though Calvin was not one of the German princes who protested and Catholic may mean something else, somewhere else - everyone is going to have the meaning.

On the other hand, if one is discussing the "Catholic Priesthood", you are going to have a mess on your hands because here it is not so clear. I am talking about usage, not theology. This has nothing to do with faith, bear with me a moment:

The Lutherans and most Protestant would say that all Christians are Catholic Priests. The Anglican view is that the orders that are in Apostolic Succession, as they understand the term, are Catholic Priests. Rome - and you see here it is impossible to discuss this clearly WITHOUT bringing in Rome - feels another way. Roman Catholics believe that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church have Catholic priests. The ordinations in the East and the Orient are not legal, but Rome feels they are valid and Catholic. In the East, however, only Orthdox Priests are thought to be Catholic Priests, hence Orthdox Catholic = true Catholic, versus Roman Catholic. (in general - I know they are autocephalas and AMMV).

Read that again, esp. the final parts and insert Catholic everytime you see the word Rome, Roman, or Roman Catholic. The article makes little sense and the sense it does make is shifted to a CLEAR POV that wasn't there before.

It is about common sense, context, and respect. This isn't the 16th century, people. As an English speaker, I feel that in most cases, for clarity, it wise to use Roman Catholic in reference to the Church that is in union with the Pontifex (which in English is, of course, the Roman High Priest.) That said, if terms are properly defined, yes, Catholic Church can be made to clearly mean Roman Catholic. That HAS TO BE DONE however, it is not enough to go through an article and delete the word "Roman" again and again.

Removing the word "Roman" from from some uses is nothing more then equivocation - it is a falacy. Like it or not, Catholic means more than one thing. Removing it presents a variant of No true Scotsman - roll over the word and read the Wikified links:

Argument: "All priests who are Catholic are in union with Rome."

Reply: "But the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't in union with Rome, yet he is Catholic."

Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no TRUE Catholic priest would not be in union with the Pope."

Just as important as context, remember courtesy and compromise. One indivdual insisted on using "Catholic" as an opposition to "Anglican" in one context. The Vatican have the courtsey and sense not to do this: [10] - why would anybody at WP insist on it? The whole issue could have been avoided with different language entirely, but some folks are spoiling for a fight - I am sure on both sides that is true.

I got caught up in a small scuffle about this and only now became aware of the wider conflict. I figured I would come here and put in my two cents. Best to all, Orthodox, Roman, and Anglican. (best to none of the above, too.) SECisek 02:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very much in agreement with your argument here. One slight question, though: you state regarding (Eastern) Orthodox: "I know they are autocephalas [sic] and AMMV". What does AMMV mean? I did an internet search, and found "American Merchant Marine Veterans", "Add to Make Market Value (US customs policy)" and "Ash Meadows Milk Vetch" (!?), none of which seems to fit the context. MishaPan 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an old thread now, but AMMV means "Actual Mileage May Vary".

Lord, I am a poor speller on the these talk pages! -- SECisek —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Vandals

As far as I am concerned, these vandals should be banned from using Wikipedia. It's not cute and it's not funny. Maybe if the computers get banned from Wiki, someone will do something about it. People have said, "well, they might be using a computer at a public library." Well, if that public library gets shut out of Wiki, I guarantee you, they will have a record of who did it, and they will take the appropriate action. My neighbor told me tha anyone on AOL is automatically banned from editing on Wiki... they had so many problems.A E Francis 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical, or a Document of faith?

Personally, I think this article is more written for catholics than an accurate representation of Catholic history. Being a Christian and not a catholic myself, I find it offensive to say that the catholic Church was started by Jesus Christ and that Peter is the first Pope.

In actuality, the Roman Catholic Church was started by Constantine I, and until that time the Christian faith was largely persecuted. Popes, Bishops, and Cardinals had no such existence until after it became a state religion formed by Constantine. Until then, you were just a "Christian".

It would be more accurate to say that the denomination known as Catholicsm was begun during the reign of Constantine, and according to Catholic faith, Peter is understood to be the first Pope.

207.34.120.71 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Correcting Christian

The article clearly states that "The Church traces its history...", letting the reader know that it is how the Catholic Church describes its history. It is important to include how the Church identifies its own history and origins (just as articles on other churches would need to note). That doesn't make it a POV article, or inaccurate. It is important to know. Otherwise, it would be necessary to include "according to the Church" or "the Church claims" to thousands of sentences in this, and other religous-based articles. Researchers, readers, students, etc., reading this article will want to know about Catholic doctrine, and how the Church views its origins. The same would be true if I wanted to learn about Lutheranism, Judaism, Islam, etc. Informing me that Jews trace their history to 2000 BC when God entered into a covenant with Abraham is not an inaccurate representation of Jewish history. It's what I would want to know. I think there is an implied caveat "the following is not scientific and historically proven fact" when one reads an article about a religion. There's no need to make it explicit, is there? --Anietor 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anietor. Encyclopedia articles are about the topic and not critiques of the topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. "The Church traces its history ..." is the appropriate terminology to use to describe an accepted belief of the Catholic Church. "The Church claims to trace its history ..." would only be appropriate terminology if there were a question as to whether the Catholic Church believes itself to have been established by Jesus Christ, which there is not. -- Cat Whisperer 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, early Church scholars are agreed that bishops were present long before Constantine I. -- Cat Whisperer 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the article is factual and neutral. All it says is that the church traces its origins to the apostolic age. It doesn't say that others do. (In a non-religious context, one could say that the Romans traced their history to Romulus and Mars-- also a factual statement, as it refers only to what the Romans held, not what others hold.) It is not however factual to say that the church was started by Constantine. The history of the creation of the episcopal structure of the church is far more nuanced than that. Kablammo 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Anietor, Wassupwestcoast and Cat Whisperer. The problem is that this is NOT an article about Babylonian mythology where the reader is clearly expected to understand that none of it is true. The problem is that this article is a mixture of incontrovertible fact (the current pope IS Pope Benedict XVI), church doctrine open to debate (e.g. transubstantiation) and church tradition open to debate (e.g. the origin of the Papacy). Thus, there is not a single blanket implied caveat that applies to the entire article and therefore those assertions which are more debatable than others (such as the early history of the Church) should be identified as such. Part of this can be done by allowing introduction of opposing views even if this is done with brief statements which then link to a fuller discussion in some other article (e.g. Papacy, Transubstantiation or even Criticism of the Catholic Church). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 July 2007

Richardshusr, I agree with your argument to a point. This article must not be a panegyric to the Roman Catholic Church nor should any article in Wikipedia be a paean to its subject. But ... in an argument ad absurdum, should the Roman Catholic article carefully counter balance every point of argument with the Protestant counter-argument, and the Protestant article were to do the same, then - logically - the two articles would be functionally equivalent. That is, argument A vs. counter argument B is equivalent to argument B vs. counter argument A. Then to extend the argument, one could make the Catholic and Protestant articles equivalent to the Anglican article, and thence to every article in the pantheon of all religions where every article would feature nothing but all the possible arguments and counter arguments in all the combinatorial majesty known to logic. No, I think the Roman Catholic Church article should be about the Church and not a forum for opposing viewpoints, or a quest for a grand unified article of comparative religion. But that is just my argument. The official Wiki policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion and must be followed in writing a good article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above. Reading the article for the first time I note that statements of belief ARE delineated as such with terms like 'The chuch believes...' and 'The church maintains...' etc. Going beyond such delineation moves into the relm of critical debate which is beyond the scope of this article. I see no difference in how the RC church is treated in this article then any other religion is treated in their respective articles.--Lepeu1999 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, the second sentence in your last post is clearly POV. The fact you disagree with how the Church traces it's origin does not mean that it is not true. It not being proven is a far cry from simply labeling it false. Guldenat 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with the "claims..." crowd. To the casual reader, "traces its origins..." implies "can be traced" which would appear to be a statement of historical fact when it is not. This claim is in fact disputed by both christian and secular scholars; Eastern Orthodox, some Baptists and even a few of the more obscure sects make the same claim. I do not see "claims to trace..." being in any way weasel words. It is merely clarifying and separating known historical fact from religious doctrine.--Steve64 00:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not imply historical fact at all. Quite the opposite, actually. If it were presented as historical fact, it would say the Church "originated" or "was created" or something similar. The article's current language of "traces its origin" is not POV at all. As stated above, the article clearly states that "The Church traces its history...", letting the reader know that it is how the Catholic Church describes its history, not how Wikipedia describes it. Inserting weasel words like "claims" throughout the article is not only unnecessary, it is also POV and, frankly, makes for a sloppy-looking article. --Anietor 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anietor. Most all Christian denominations trace their origins to Jesus and the Apostles. The current wording is hardly misleading. Majoreditor 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of this article

I have reduced the semi-protection of this article as 2 weeks is too long a period.

The IP editor wasn't vandalizing, he was POV pushing; please try to engage him in discussion and seek a compromise solution to address his concerns which (IMO) have some validity.

--Richard 23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If the editor in question uses one of the IP addresses listed below, a review of the contributions of the editor is warranted. That person uses at least three different IP addresses:

• Special:Contributions/74.249.12.91
• Special:Contributions/129.252.106.159
• Special:Contributions/70.144.10.3

As shown on the editor's talk pages, there were attempts to engage the editor in discussion; all were refused or ignored. Instead the editor claimed (in edit summaries, not in discussion) that the text at issue was "are mere biased tradition to support their [i.e., Catholics'] myths"-- hardly a starting point for rational discussion. The anonymous editor declined the opportunity to discuss and stated the changes would continue to be made. POV-pushing, multiple times each day from multiple sockpuppet accounts, without discussion despite being invited to discuss, and an accusation that sincerely-held beliefs are "myths", are not a good basis for discussion (which the editor clearly does not want to do), much less compromise. This is an article about the RC church, not a forum, and not a study in comparative religion. Kablammo 01:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The most recent edits under 70.144.10.27 seem to be similar to the above three IP addresses. The editor appears to be in editing disputes on Churches of Christ and International Churches of Christ. Also the editor links two IP addresses - 70.144.10.3 and 74.249.12.221 here [11] with a comment. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 02:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor User talk:70.144.10.3 makes a comment here [12] which leads one to think that the editor does not wish to compromise with the International Churches of Christ editors. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He told me I was obviously very blinded by the 1500 year old cult of Roman Catholicism and can't be objective or neutral. How nice. IrishGuy ^talk 03:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I'm not trying to accuse, start a flame war or make enemies here, but I have to ask: might your position on this IP individual be colored by your own beliefs on this article? Based on your comment in the section above, I see you've some issues with the tone of the article in question - while I don't agree with your position, I see nothing wrong with your raising it nor the way you've edited or debated your position. Looking at the edit history for the IP addresses in question (and judging from the location it seems pretty likely they're all the same individual) the edits done by that indivudual(s) go way beyond POV pushing and into outright disruption - which is, indeed, vandalism. Further, should the individual wish to re-enter the 'debate' on the direction this article should go in he or she needs only get a registered account to do so. I really don't believe 2 weeks at semi-protected status is too long.--Lepeu1999 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for the long delay in responding to this. I obviously missed the fact that a message had been left for me here and just now found it.

In short, it may be the case that I might agree with the position of the IP editor. I honestly don't know because I don't remember what the dispute was about. However, I very much doubt that agreeing with the IP editor motivated my action here. Quite simply, Wikipedia policy strongly discourages semi-protection of pages. Different admins have differing views on what the appropriate length of semi-protection is. I think it is the minimum needed to stop vandalism. I prefer semi-protection for periods of 3 days or less, preferably 24 hours initially with additional increments if vandalism resumes after semi-protection. For content disputes, full protection may be necessary to encourage discussion on Talk Pages. For particularly obnoxious IP editors who violate Wikipedia policy, blocking is perhaps a superior answer to semi-protection. However, I have never blocked an IP editor because I'm a new admin and I haven't really learned how to figure out if an IP is shared and how much collateral damage would be done by blocking a shared IP.

--Richard 07:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Catechism of the Catholic Church and NPOV

Hello. On Talk:Second Vatican Council#Vatican II is Infallible I have been told by User:Cat Whisperer that statements made in the Catechism of the Catholic Church may not be cited as the Church position because it violates NPOV. In short the editor is saying that we can not use the Catechism as a source to cite a Church position. I believe the editor is just trying to deny that Vatican II was infallible. Any help is appreciated. (Runwiththewind 19:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Your portrayal of my comments is just as inaccurate as your portrayal of the Church's magisterium. What I said was that WP:NPOV precludes asserting an opinion (i.e., a statement which is the subject of notable dispute) as a fact. Thus, the issue of how completely incompetent your interpretation of the CCC is doesn't even enter into the discussion. -- Cat Whisperer 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Runwiththewind seems to be confused. I haven't traced this argument back to where it began, but it might be helpful if Cat Whisperer would say how he is confused instead of just insisting (correctly) that he's wrong. This is not a case where we have a quote from the CCC saying "Vatican II is infallible", but rather a more general statement that Runwiththewind is applying on his own to a particular case. This looks to me like not so much a POV problem as original research.

I'm no Catholic scholar, but my understanding of the situation with Vatican II is that, although it's considered an Ecumenical Council, it issued no teachings on faith or morals. Runwiththewind keeps harping on CCC.891, which states that the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council is on expressly those subjects. But that's not what Vatican II was about. Its decrees had to do entirely with discipline, liturgy, pastoral issues and so forth; it issued no dogma at all. If we had something authoritative saying a Council is infallible on subjects other than faith or morals, it would be a different discussion all around.

Besides, Cat Whisperer has sources on her side. Runwiththewind does not, regardless of how often he mentions CCC.891. Sources win. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct TCC, Vatican II did not offer any additional dogma to my knowledge. Guldenat 19:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Church finances and property holdings

Reading about the $660 million settlement between the Archdiocese of LA and sex abuse victims got me thinking about the church's money. Is there information available about the total wealth of the Catholic church? I think those would be interesting facts to include.

Individual dioceses and eparchies as well as some religious orders keep their own books. I do not believe that there is a consolidated balance sheet kept anywhere. TMLutas 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

teenage Jesus

Is there anything written about Jesus as a teenager?Just think of what positive views that it would give to our youth;where is it?

Possibly some uncannonical works. Nothing that would go in this article. -- SECisek 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Only the bit in Luke where he stayed behind at the Temple while his parents started the trip back to Nazareth. He was 12 at the time, but that's almost a teen. Actually, I don't think there's even anything in non-canonical texts about Jesus' teenage years. All the "fanfic" I can think of is from his childhood. These include some not-so-admirable incidents, such as striking dead other children who annoyed him. This is from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which also contains the incident of Jesus making sparrows out of clay and bringing them to life. Oddly, the sparrow incident is canonical for Muslims, since it was written into the Koran. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing! -- SECisek 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead reference to Jesus: best term?

In the second sentence, the community is said to be founded by "Jesus Christ". I would like to discuss changing that to "Jesus of Nazareth", as I believe that is the more universally accepted historical term. "Christ" is more of a religious title which may not be as applicable a reference to this person to, say, a non-Christian. And certainly that title can be introduced later and expounded upon as needed.

I know this may be a sensitive issue, so I wanted to bring it up here, and while I thought of being bold, I will defer until there is some consensus to make this change. Please chime in with pros and cons of this change; I have stated my (pro) opinion above Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to making the change. It seems to me that Pope Benedict's recent book, titled Jesus of Nazareth, affirms the Catholic acceptance of that way of referring to Jesus. The.helping.people.tick 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that book is indeed intended to have a historical (among others) perspective, so that title choice makes perfect sense. And I am sure other Christians acknowledge the title too, even if "Christ" may be better suited for certain purposes. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 12:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just "Jesus", the name of the article on him? Lima 05:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems acceptable too (as is "Jesus Christ" for that matter), although my preference would still be Jesus of Nazareth, as this is completely unambiguous. Not that many would be confused upon implementing your suggestion, but I note that while "Jesus" does direct to the proper page, it has an {{about}} tag on it, suggesting that vanilla "Jesus" could be improved upon for that page. But in any case, I am glad the discussion is being taken up. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 12:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Editing Controversy"

The BBC report from which the controversy originated did not say - as anonymous editor 24.65.11.121 from Calgary, Canada has said in his addition to this article - that "the website Wikiscanner revealed that they (the Catholic Church) had removed information pertaining to the sexual abuse scandal from the Catholic Church wikipedia page." It was more guarded than the Calgary editor, when it said that the website "purportedly shows that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams." Even that is inaccurate. All that the website found was that some anonymous editors of Wikipedia had worked from computers served by ISPs in the Vatican, just as I could see that anonymous editor 24.65.11.121 worked from a Calgary computer. I cannot tell whether the Calgary editor is an official of the city of Calgary or of the ISP Shaw Communications, Inc. And I certainly do not suppose that the Calgary editor did his editing on behalf of the city authorities of Calgary or of Shaw Communications. Yet the Calgary editor wanted Wikipedia to say that it has been "revealed" that the few anonymous edits of Wikipedia from computers in the Vatican (perhaps in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, which is reserved to cardinals and other officials during conclaves - and is then cut off from contact with the outer world whether by Internet, telephone, radio or whatever - but normally receives visitors from many places and many churches) were done by "the Catholic Church"! Lima 04:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if this were done by the Catholic Church, it absolutely does not belong in this article. The Catholic Church is the largest organized religious group in the world, with a history spanning two millennia. The fact that some dude at the Vatican edited some article on Wikipedia is absolutely irrelevant to an article on the Catholic Church. Seriously, get a grip. john k 06:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Mr. Kenney. Beyond that, what was done was more than appropriate and it should be appreciated. Anyone can make edits to wikipedia. One of the goals of this site is to be as accurate as possible. Who else is better situated to bring an authoritative and accurate view as possible. We all here can then review and modify as necessary, but it is important to be careful and not let our emotions and/or agendas take a front seat during this process, beyond what our knowledge and conscience allows. Samba 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that the assumption is that everyone is free to opine on the CC except Catholics. This is a constant problem on this page an is one of the serious flaws in WP. A few editors can play gatekeepers on an article in order to get their agenda across. This is evident all over this article.EastmeetsWest 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

History Section

There is something very odd about the history section. It seems to have be a dumping ground of complaints against the CC. Five out of the seven headings are defined by opponents:

1. 2.2 East-West Schism
2. 2.3 Crusades
3. 2.4 Inquisition
4. 2.5 Reformation
5. 2.6 Modernity

A proper outline of Catholic history would look something more like this:

• Apostolic Age
• Patristic Age and Persecutions
• Constantinian Era and Christological Councils
• Early Medieval Period,
  • Benedictine movement
  • Papacy and canon law
• High Medieval Period
  • Mendicant Orders
  • Crusades
  • East-West Schism
• Renaissance
  • Evangelization and the New World
  • Catholic Reformation
• Modernity
  • French Revolution
  • Apostolic Orders
  • Second Vatican Council
• Post Conciliar Era
  • John Paul II
  • Benedict XVI

Any of the above points can be argued. My point is that a real history of an institution has both positive and negative. The majority of the Church's development is absent in this article and leaves me wondering if what is presented here is a collection of other's axes to grind. EastmeetsWest 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with EastmeetsWest, and also think that, since there is another (much improvable) article that claims to inform about the History of the Roman Catholic Church, this article should only refer readers to it for information on the history of the Church, and should have no history section itself. Lima 17:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a public instrument, it often attracts editors who are passionate about specific subjects. It is not surprising that "axes" are held by editors and the section entitled "History" is really more an examination of very specific criticism. It is not unique to this article. Lima, I would suggest having a section entitled History that links to the subarticle, but summarizes the gist of the 2000 year history of the Catholic church. It is without question that the prepoderance of the history is exemplary of faith, charity, and sharing the hope of Jesus Christ with the world, but there are also topics of conflict and pain. Don't you think at least a cursory overview is appropriate? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Particularly because the History of the Roman Catholic Church article does not outline the history with the same sub-headings. It could be edited here to allow more consistency with the larger subarticle. Stanselmdoc 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and attempted some form of a clarified history section. Care to offer some thoughts? It's longer than the one currently in the article, but I would like to see it cut down a little. Also, I added in information that I believe is central to the Catholic Church, and important historically (like the belief in the Trinity has been around since the early Church)... So I was just hoping to get some thoughts on it: Stanselmdoc 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

==Constantinian Era and Christological Councils ==

After an initial period of sporadic but intense persecution, Christianity was legalized in the fourth century, when Constantine I issued the Edict of Milan in 313. Constantine was instrumental in the convocation of the First Council of Nicea in 325, which sought to address the Arian heresy and formulated the Nicene Creed, which is still currently used by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglican Communion, and various Protestant churches. In 326, Pope Sylvester I consecrated the first Basilica of St. Peter built by Constantine.

On 27 February 380, Emperor Theodosius I enacted a law establishing Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire and ordering others to be called heretics.[25] This time period in history also marked the rise in Christological Councils which determined much of the theology of the Church. In 382, the Council of Rome set the Canon of the Bible, listing the accepted books of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Also, the Council of Ephesus in 431 declared that Jesus existed both as Man and God simultaneously, clarifying his status in the Trinity. The meaning of the Nicene Creed was also declared a permanent holy text of the Church.

==Medieval Period==

Following the decline of the Roman Empire, the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. In 480, St. Benedict began his Monastic Rule, setting out regulations for the establishment of monasteries. Monasticism was highly successful, and gave rise to various centers of learning, most famously in Ireland, Scotland and Gaul, and contributed to the Carolingian Renaissance. Later, cathedral schools developed into Universities (see University of Paris, University of Oxford, and University of Bologna), the direct ancestors of modern Western institutions of learning.

Catholicism spread among the Germanic peoples (initially in competition with Arianism); the Vikings; the Poles, Croats, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Finns and Estonians. In 452, Pope Leo I (the Great) met Attila the Hun, and dissuaded him from sacking Rome. However, in 455, the Vandalssacked Rome.

The Middle Ages brought about major Church changes and statements. Pope Symmachus, in 502, ruled that the laity should no longer vote for new popes, and that only higher clergy (now cardinals) should be allowed. Pope Gregory the Great dramatically reformed ecclesiastical structure and administration. When iconoclasm became a large issue throughout eastern Europe in the early eighth century, the Church established the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) to determine its stance on the subject.

===Crusades===

Beginning in 1095 the Crusades, a series of military campaigns in the Holy Land and elsewhere, sanctioned by the Papacy, began under the pontificate of Urban II in response to pleas from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I for aid against Arabic expansion. This and the subsequent crusades ultimately failed to stifle Islamic aggression and even contributed to Christian enmity with the sacking and occupation of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.

===East-West Schism ===

Through a gradual process over a number of centuries, the church underwent a great schism that divided the church into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been known as the Catholic Church and an Eastern (Greek) branch, which has become known as the Orthodox Church. These two churches disagree on a number of administrative, liturgical, and doctrinal issues, most notably the Filioque clause and papal primacy of jurisdiction.

The Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439) attempted to reunite the churches, but in both cases the Orthodox refused to accept the decisions. The two churches remain in schism to the present day, although excommunications were lifted mutually between Rome and Constantinople in 1965, and efforts to end the schism continue. Some Eastern churches have reunited with the Roman Catholic Church, acknowledging papal primacy, and others claim never to have been out of communion with the Pope. (See Eastern Catholic Churches.)

===Inquisition===

Beginning around 1184, and continuing through the Protestant Reformation, a number of historical movements^{[citation needed]} involving the Catholic Church, broadly referred to as the Inquisition, were aimed at securing religious and doctrinal unity within Christianity through conversion, and sometimes prosecution, of alleged heretics. A conviction of heresy, seen as treason against Christendom, could involve penalties ranging from a fine to a sentence of capital punishment such as burning at the stake administered by the state. Historians distinguish between the Medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition, and the Portuguese Inquisition as distinct historical events. The extent of the Inquisition's activity, and particularly the exact number of deaths, has been the subject of much subsequent propaganda. (See Black Legend.)

==Renaissance and Reformation ==

The Renaissance brought about the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492, and the Catholic Church sought to spread the faith throughout the colonies. Pope Alexander VI awarded sole colonial rights over most of the New World to Spain.

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, which protested some key points of Catholic doctrine and the sale of indulgences. His efforts against the Church developed into a movement called the Protestant Reformation. Other repudiated issues included the primacy of the pope, clerical celibacy, the seven sacraments and various other Catholic doctrines and practices, as well as abuses (such as simony and the sale of indulgences) that were common at the time.

In 1534, the English Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy making the King of England Supreme Head of the Church of England Beginning in 1536, the monasteries throughout England, Wales, and Ireland were dissolved. As a result, Pope Paul III excommunicated King Henry VIII in 1538, marking a decisive schism between the Catholic Church and England.

Reformers within the Catholic Church launched the Counter Reformation or Catholic Reformation, a period of doctrinal clarification, reform of the clergy and the liturgy, and re-evangelization begun by the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent was convened by Pope Paul III in 1545, and its reforms provided the central theme for the next 300 years of Catholic history. The period emphasized catechesis and missionary work, in which the Jesuit and Franciscan orders were prominent. Catholicism spread worldwide, at pace with European colonialism: to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania.

==Modernity==

Throughout the centuries, the Church has responded to people or groups attempting to change core beliefs. Some of these opponents were declared heretical. The 18th and 19th century church found itself facing not only the teachings of Protestantism, but also Enlightenment and Modernist teachings about the nature of the human person, the state, and morality. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, and the increased concern about the conditions of urban workers, 19th and 20th century popes issued encyclicals (notably Rerum Novarum) explicating Catholic Social Teaching. The First Vatican Council (1869-1870) affirmed the doctrine of papal infallibility which Catholics hold to be in continuity with the history of Petrine supremacy in the church.

===Second Vatican Council Reforms===

The Catholic Church undertook one of the most comprehensive reforms in its history during the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). It was convened by Pope John XXIII and continued through the next decade. For changes in the liturgy, see Mass of Paul VI. The Council stressed what it saw as positive rather than what it saw as negative in other Christian communities, other religions, and the aspirations of human beings in general.

The Second Vatican Council was established primarily as a pastoral^[1] but authoritative council,[29] to make the historic teachings of the Catholic Church clear to the modern world. It issued documents on a number of topics, including the nature of the church, the mission of the laity, and religious freedom. It also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy, including permission for the Latin liturgical rites to use vernacular languages as well as Latin in the Mass and the other sacraments. ^[2]

Sensibilities of other Christians

Is the phrase "in view of the sensibilities of other Christians" an unencyclopedic euphemism for something? A.Z. 18:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reserved sin

What is a reserved sin and can we have an article/ redirect please. Cutler 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it deserves an article. At most a brief mention within an article on the sacrament of Penance. Faculties for a priest to absolve sin validly in the Church's name are given either by canon law (as to cardinals and, each within his own territory, a diocesan bishop and a parish priest) or by someone who has authority to grant the faculties (in particular, the bishop of the diocese). These faculties were sometimes given with certain exceptions. The authority to absolve from the excepted sin or sins was not granted to all priests who were given ordinary faculties, but was "reserved" to a few. The present Code of Canon Law has suppressed the reservation of sins. So the topic is now only of historical interest. On the situation as it was a century ago, see the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Reservation of sins is, of course, not to be confused with reservation of ecclesiastical penalties such as excommunication. For example, it is reserved to the Holy See to remit excommunication incurred because of ordaining a bishop without a pontifical mandate (canon 1382) or because of directly violating the secrecy seal of the sacrament of Penance (canon 1388 §1). Lima 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Movie

Well I don't know if anyone here happens to be interested in the topic but the recent Zeitgeist Movie is fairly rabidly anti-catholic for the first third of the movie. There has been a lot of discussion about the movie on the blogosphere, and a lot of authors have really come out debunking the Horus=Jesus thing. Anyway, I started the article and am rapidly wishing I hadn't as there seem to be interesting points of view coming out of the woodwork - folks quite interested in reptillian satanists theories and all sorts of things. So I think that article could use a subject matter expert. I was contemplating adding a link here as well. Sandwich Eater 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is about the Roman Catholic Church not about one of the many alleged conspiray theories. Your anti catholic views needs to stop here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wis (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Excuse me, but (1) I do not harbor anti-catholic views, (2) It's innappropriate of you to assert that I do, (3) I am not clear on what your issue is with stating what the conspiracy theories are or addressing them elsewhere. Sandwich Eater 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes Sandwich, I did not detect anything anti catholic in your post at all. However, I'm not sure that a movie be linked on this page, otherwise we'd have to link other movies concerning Catholicism like *sigh* The Da Vinci Code, which an alarming amount of people take as factual. Guldenat 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

3 September 2007 protection

May I suggest to El C that it would be better to freeze the article in a form other than that given it by a recent anonymous contributor whose first language seems not to be English ("has been of forefront"; "Cathlic (sic, and without article) church also extablished (sic) hospitals"). Lima 04:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see now that the page was only semi-protected. It wasn't really frozen. Lima 11:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Vatican II

It seems to me like this article places too much emphasis on Vatican II, based on that as a council it gets much more attention then virtually all the other councils combined. To me this is mentioned explicitly because, relatively speaking, it is still more or less a council of our time. However, historically their were many other councils that were much more important, namely the First Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent. "The Catholic Church undertook one of the most comprehensive reforms in its history during and immediately after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)" lacks citation, and seems to be the opinion of the author. Personally, I move that the information regarding Vatican II be slimmed down, especially since it has it's own Wiki Page. Guldenat 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely agree with you, Guldenat, and I would go further to suggest adding more information on the other Councils, because they were so important. A minor slim down of Vatican II, with a redirect to the Vatican II page, I think, would be just fine for this article. However, I would hesitate to remove too much information, as I think it would be better to balance this particular article by adding more information than subtracting it. Stanselmdoc 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I think this whole page needs a major rework to bring it closer to a NPOV. From my brief study of the page, it seems to be full of overly Catholic-sympathetic language, especially in the "Beliefs" section. For example: "It is in cases in which sexual expression is sought outside sacramental marriage, or in which the procreative function of sexual expression within marriage is deliberately frustrated, that the Catholic Church expresses her grave moral concern." could only have been written by a Catholic. I lack the necessary expertise to addess this issue myself, but addressed it must be.
Static Sleepstorm 12:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an accurate account of Catholic teaching. It isn't POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.133 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is a Catholic?

Editor 65.141.251.61 has made some changes which I have reverted several times. The proposed edit, while it has some merit, also has serious problems. A few:

• The definition of who is a Catholic is not supported and, it seems to me, idiosyncratic.
• The citations go to foreign-language (Polish?) pages; note that this is an English WP page, and citations are best when also English-language.
• The edit is POV, as seen in 65.141.251.61's charges of statistics-manipulation.

For these reasons, I hope we can discuss the proposed edit here rather than continue reverting each other. Thanks! The.helping.people.tick 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the criticism?

This article lacks any real critism and no criticism section! Anyone have any ideas where i should place these LIES [13] by Maputo Archbishop Francisco Chimoio in which he claims condoms from two (unnamed) european countries contain the HIV virus. Not only a lie but a scientific impossibilty as HIV can only last 15mins outside a human(or other chimp) body. I've decided on "Role of the Church in civilization - Church doctrine and science" ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What one archbishop said yesterday does merit mention in an article covering a 2,000 years of history, practice and doctrine. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I do think of myself as a serious editor. Put this info on the archbishop's personal biographical page. not here. - SECisek 17:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to SECisek's suggestion </not intended pun> Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an archbishop, what he says is catholic doctrine. Once the holy see denounces his lies it can go from here but until then this is what the catholic church says about aids. Anyway i'm trying to find info on the last lot of lies about condoms, that was that condoms have holes in them to let the aids through, i think that was an arch bishop nigeria but i'm not sure. I'll add that when i find it. This is classic catholic church using fake science to push their views on condom use. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on this post (e.g., "what he says", "push their views" and "using fake science"), it is evident you clearly misunderstand both the nature and promulgation of Catholic doctrine (c.f., see below on magistarium). And to furthermore ascribe a deceitful motive to actions of a man you do not know and whose motives you thus cannot know is not at all constructive. I think researching as you suggest is a good idea, but perhaps you should extend the scope of it to include issues of doctrine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"but perhaps you should extend the scope of it to include issues of doctrine." I don't care which commity decides what god thinks for him, i'm a scientist. The whole section on the catholic church and science is one of the most biased pieces ive read on wikipedia. Failing to metion the section of the catholic church which routinely tortured people to death was used to enforce the holy see version of the truth, that maths books were burned etc. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

His beliefs could cause deaths of a genocidal proportion either they are flat out lies or he is so mis-informed that it does not matter either way, WHAT HE IS SAYING IS LEATHALLY DANGEROUS. If he had any EVIDENCE to back up his claims then he is under a moral obligation to present that evidence to save the lives of those who could be infected by the methods he claims. As he has no evidence he will not bring any forward. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Archbishops cannot set doctrine that is job of the magistarium. For all you know, this guy will be excommunicated in the morning. More over, he is so unimportant that he red linked until this afternoon. I created a page for him: Francisco Chimoio. Have at it there, it is irrelavent here. -- SECisek 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"For all you know, this guy will be excommunicated in the morning." You taking bets on that? As for him being red linked, SO? i think all arch bishops are irrelivent, this is just a case of pro-western bias as i bet most of the archbishops with wikipages are white. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"i think all arch bishops are irrelivent" - so you admit to POV pushing? If you think that the Catholic Church and science section is biased, then propose changes that belong here, not this nonsense.

If you don't care "which commity (sic) decides what god thinks for him" you probably shouldn't be editing articles about groups that exist to study what God thinks. I wasted enought time on this archbishop already today and I hope a Roman Catholic editor will pick up this fight and keep this out of the article. It doesn't belong here. -- SECisek 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The above behavior is reminiscent of a troll; I suggest ignoring further interaction until some substantial edit is in question. Let's just move on. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And calling people trolls is a violation of NPA, but hey. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have encouraged him to keep in mind the POINT guideline when editing. Yeah, WP:NOFEEDING and all that... This discussion appears to be finished. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One revert is hardly disruption. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism in medieval period

"Catholicism spread among the Germanic peoples (initially in competition with Arianism); the Vikings; the Poles, Croats, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Finns and Estonians."
Exactly these nations and no more? Squash Racket 13:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. But it did spread among these. Add more if you like. Lima 15:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My proposal would be something like: 'Catholicism spread all over Europe'. Squash Racket 16:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to Bulgaria etc. (The northern peoples mentioned became Christian after 1054.) Lima 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning nations' names is less exact than that. And you can also refer to parts of Europe the religion didn't spread into. You could say: 'except for the Southeastern part of the Continent'. A good map would help. Squash Racket 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Class

This article lacks enough in-line citations to pass a GA, let alone qualify as "A class". I have demoted it to "B" which is more realistic. "A" suggests that it is approaching FA. If this were nominated, it would be quick failed in a heartbeat. More citations will improve this article. -- SECisek 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 7, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are a multitude of Manual of Style problems with this article, and much of the prose is very poorly written. Repetition of the same facts in multiple sections, Blockquotes of less than four lines, single-sentence paragraphs, sections that need integrating with other sections (Example:Modernity and Vatican 2), and sections that go into excessive detail (Salvation) are all present. Also, many sections lack the appropriate mainarticle or see also templates. These don't even begin to deal with the extensive grammar and minor style issues needing to be reviewed.

2. Factually accurate?: This is a problematic area for the article. Remember, the bare minimum of inline citations is one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. The only exception to this rule is the introduction, as lead sections often speak in generalities. For true GA status, a direct citation to any statement likely to be challenged (see WP:V) is desirable. I would normally list all the sections needing inline citations, but there are so many here it would be ridiculous. Especially of note are the {{fact}} tags in Inquisition and Sexuality, as the presence of these is a quick-fail criteria.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all points.

4. Neutral point of view?: I'm not going to go into all of the individual phrases that violate the fair treatment side of NPOV, but they are many. More importantly, several sections fail to honestly and fairly address all significant points of view. The Inquisition section is utterly shameful in glossing over the brutal role of the Church in that episode in history. Both the Modernity and Church doctrine and science read like defenses of the Church, as the former leaves out a significant criticism of the Church (that it fails to fulfill the needs of a modern humanity with modern morals).

5. Article stability? No recent or on-going conflicts between good-faith contributors.

6. Images?: A few minor issues here. The CouncilofClermont.jpg has no author information. Image:Johnvianney.jpg and Image:Map of Medieval Universities.JPG have deprecated public domain tags, which need replacing. Image:Sainte Monique.jpg has no source info, which is still required even if the image is in the public domain. While the following are not failing GA criteria, the images need work per WP:MoS#Images. Remember that sandwiching text between images on both sides is discouraged, and that the article has plenty of space for the images to be more spread out in general. Also, having a lead image situated to the right is desirable.

Closing comments: Because this article meets one or more the quick-fail criteria and the major improvements needed would require more than the maximum hold period of a week to complete, I have failed it without a hold period.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 23:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions

In an effort to get things moving, I’m happy to begin the reediting process. Presently, the introduction states:

The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church (see terminology below) is the Christian church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, currently Pope Benedict XVI. It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus and spread by the Twelve Apostles, in particular Saint Peter.[1][2]

The Catholic Church is the largest Christian church, representing around half of all Christians, and is the largest organized body of any world religion.[3][4] According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Catholic Church's worldwide recorded membership at the end of 2005 was 1,114,966,000, approximately one-sixth of the world's population.[5]

The worldwide Catholic Church is made up of one Western or Latin and 22 Eastern Catholic autonomous particular churches, all of which look to the Bishop of Rome, alone or along with the College of Bishops, as their highest authority on earth for matters of faith, morals and church governance.[6] It is divided into jurisdictional areas, usually on a territorial basis. The standard territorial unit, each of which is headed by a bishop, is called a diocese in the Latin church and an eparchy in the Eastern churches. At the end of 2006, the total number of all these jurisdictional areas (or "Sees") was 2,782.[7]

I believe this introduction is too ‘Rome-centric,’ especially since there are numerous other churches in full communion with Rome, and who also claim direct decent from other Apostles. So, I would suggest the following (I have included other source material in the body of the text—obviously these will need to be remade as endnotes):

The Catholic Church constitutes the body of Christian communities in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, more commonly known as the Pope. See, Can. 204 § 2. The Catholic Church traces its origins to the Twelve Apostles who followed Jesus of Nazareth, and the communities that they founded across the Roman Empire in the first decades following Jesus’s execution. The senior of the Apostles was Saint Peter, and it is from him that the Bishops of Rome have traditionally claimed direct descent and resultant primacy in religious and doctrinal matters within the Christian world. See, Can. 330.

The Catholic Church is the single largest church, counting approximately half of all professed Christians as adherents. Indeed, according to the Catholic Church’s Statistical Yearbook, its worldwide membership as of 2005 stood at 1,114,966,000 individuals, or one sixth of the world’s population, making it the largest organized religion. [Need citation.]

The Catholic Church is made up of one Western—or Latin—and twenty-two Eastern Catholic autonomous particular churches, all of which collectively acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as their highest authority on matters of faith, morals, and church governance.[6]; see also, Cann. 330, 336-341, 400-402. The Catholic Church is divided into jurisdictional areas, usually based on territory. The standard territorial unit in the Latin church is called a diocese, while the Eastern churches refer to an eparchy. In either case, the territory is headed by a bishop, who represents the highest authority within that jurisdiction. Cann. 381-399. As of December, 2006, there were 2,787 diocese and eparchies (also known as "Sees") within the Catholic Church.[7] --Mikhelos 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to this proposed edit to the introduction, or suggestions for improvement? --Mikhelos 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The present introduction is the result of compromise laboriously arrived at. I think that any change to that part should be proposed piecemeal, not as a bloc. Perhaps it would be best to try experiments elsewhere in the article, not in the opening

I do not understand the affirmation that "there are numerous other churches in full communion with Rome, and who also claim direct decent (sic) from other Apostles". Other than what? The Catholic/Roman Catholic Church is by definition the Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. It considers itself to be one. It considers full communion with the Bishop of Rome to be essential for it, and that all who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome are part of it. It is Rome-centric. So the article must present it as Rome-centric.

Apologies if I have misunderstood. Lima 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lima -- SECisek 19:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The compromise opening (that came as a result of much blood shed and tears here at WP) should be retained:

The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church (see terminology below)...

--SECisek 18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Rome-centric" was probably a poor choice of words. Obviously, Rome is the nexis about which the Church turns, including all those in communion with her, without exception. My point focused more on the appellation "Roman Catholic" in the opening line. It was my understanding that the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" was not entirely synonymous with "Catholic Church." Thus "Roman Catholic" specifically referenced Latin Rite churches, but did not include those Eastern Catholic, Antiochian, Chaldean etc. churches, which while in full communion with and subject to Rome, are nonetheless founded by Apostles other than St. Peter, and are subject to their own rituals, rites, laws, and internal hierarchy. Actually, I think this point is made very well later in the article. I just think to have Roman Catholic appear as it does in the beginning might create some consternation with Eastern Rite Christians, who are in communion with Rome, but object to an over-application of a Latin Rite sentiment, which they may not feel rightly describes them. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. :)

As you've probably picked up, I'm new to this page. If there's already been a bloodbath in getting it to where it is now, I have no interest in instigating another. My only goal was to suggest a more tightly edited text that answered the requirements of the earlier call for a reedit. In that vein, I also included references to Canon Law.

I would note that my proposed changes to the article were quite conservative. They in fact mirror the article's current formulation very closely. I just think the result reads better. But again, that is a matter of taste and opinion. If there’s no agreement on a change moving forward, then it shouldn’t be inserted into the article. --Mikhelos 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "It was my understanding that the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" was not entirely synonymous with "Catholic Church." That is one of the points that caused the (figurative) shedding of so much blood and tears, to which Secisek referred. Your understanding, though shared by not a few others, is not that of Pius XI, Pius XII and John Paul II, as is indicated in the article. Lima 08:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)