Talk:Catholic Church: Difference between revisions

Template:FAOL

Archives
April 2004 – November 2005 August 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006

Why did you choose a picture of Angelo Cardinal Sodano showing him with Condoleezza Rice. What has she got to do with the article? Or is it just to point out that there are different Secretary of State? --- Jan, 25. March 2006

Simply because we've got one, I think. The article as a whole is a bit short of images - do feel free to add some if you have some (on appropriate licences, of course) which you think would improve it. It does show a cardinal doing some of his work as a cardinal, though, so it's not particularly inappropriate. I'd worry more about the one illustrating the Episcopate, which seems to have a bishop standing with an entirely irrelevant other person. TSP 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I picked Sodano's pic because it's public domain, and at the time was the only pic I could find at Commons showing the nifty red-trimmed cardinal suit (I don't know if it still is, havn't checked recently). The fact it showed the dean of the college of cardinals was a bonus. I also picked Belo's pic, which shows him in a "clergy suit", standing with some random person. For some reason, most of the pics we've got of bishops are of Cardinals, and I didn't think it would be good to show a cardinal in both sections. I also liked contrasting the informal attire of Belo with the formal outfit of Sodano; I felt it conveyed more information. I was also trying to be more representative, showing a non-european in the pics of the clergy on the page. I'm not really attached to either of them, so feel free to change them if there are better pics available. Gentgeen 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Angelo Sodano (it is fairly widespread "superstition" among certain English-speakers to think the correct form is "Angelo Cardinal Sodano") will cease to be Dean of the College of Cardinals in November 2007, when he reaches 80 years of age. He may well cease to be Secretary of State (corresponding to Prime Minister, not to Minister of Foreign Affairs) within a few months. He is pictured wearing full formal dress, reserved for special occasions. Bishop Belo's full formal dress would be exactly the same except for the shade of red of sash etc. The colour of the basic fabric of the formal dress would, for both ecclesiastics, be black in Italy, white in East Timor.

FYI, the dean of the sacred college does not lose his position as dean simply because he can't vote in future conclaves. He retains the position, the precedence, and the pre-conclave duties of the dean, but simply cannot attend the conclave. Pmadrid 00:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMadrid must be right. In 2002, Cardinal Gantin resigned as Dean on reaching 80, but apparently did not have to. [1] Lima 04:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Pope Benedict would much more appropriately be placed, restored to its former size, in the section "The Pope". The picture of St John Lateran Basilica at present in that position is quite uninteresting. The picture of St Peter's Basilica, with the statue of St Peter, and the comment on the Pope being considered St Peter's successor - the picture now in the Liturgy section - would be much more suitable for the beginning of the article.

Lima 08:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else has responded to my proposal about the placing of the pictures, I make bold to move them myself, though, for lack of the necessary experience, I leave the picture of Pope Benedict in reduced size. Lima 04:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In some cases this figure includes those who most readers would not consider 'members'," says TSP. What is a member? Would TSP consider that a Durham Anglican ceases to be an Anglican if that person has not been to church for a month? for a year? for ten years? Some 98% of the population of Greece are considered members of the Greek Orthodox Church, and (perhaps mainly because of considering this religion an essential part of being Greek) self-identify as such. Would TSP insist on including a rider to the effect that "this figure includes those who most readers would not consider 'members'"?

In one country with which I am familiar, and probably in others, dioceses report a lower number of Catholics than what they consider to be the reality. Why? Because the diocese's contribution to the expenses of the national episcopal conference and its commissions is in proportion to its reported Catholic population. I have had direct experience in TSP's own country of parishes that routinely reported a lower figure to the diocese for the sake of reducing their financial contribution to the common diocesan fund for Catholic schools.

On the whole, the figure for Catholics given in the Statistical Yearbook of the Church quite certainly understates the reality. And not for this reason alone. As the publication itself mentions, it receives no statistical reports from some areas, which it does not name, but which obviously include mainland China, where the members, by any standards, of the Church are not just a few.

TSP's addition, "According to official Church figures," which has confessedly been inserted to suggest that the figures are exaggerated, is misleading and inadmissible.

Lima 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map of Catholic population percentage seems to be strangely inaccurate, especially in Latin America. For example, Venezuela is 96% Catholic so it should be colored red. We may want to re-check the figures to make sure they match with what's in other articles.

It seems to me that there has been some massive rewrites of the article with no discussion about what should be removed. For example what happened to this statement: "The Church traces its origins to the Apostles Peter and Paul." ? --WikiCats 14:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The (Roman) Catholic Church has as its central see the diocese of Rome, founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul, but is wider than that: it comprises sees founded by other Apostles too. It traces its origins not just to Peter and Paul, but to Jesus himself and the whole body of the Apostles. (Already explained briefly at 19:12, 25 March 2006.) Lima 19:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to eliminate jargon in the lead section, and still have it technically acceptable? I wrote this revision which I considered to be a reasonable summary, in terms understandable to the average reader unfamiliar with the details of the Church or Christianity, of the content of the article. Lima, on the grounds of accuracy, made this change, which removes all explanation of why being the 'successor of Peter' might be considered important (making it effectively simply a jargon term); and adds in the unexplained jargon terms 'sanctifying', and 'Apostolic Tradition' (the first of which is unlinked; the second of which simply links to the Twelve Apostles, which seems to indicate that we are making the NPOV statement that there definitely are traditions handed down from the Twelve Apostles - Wikipedia has no article on Apostolic Tradition, which, if we consider it a common enough term to use unexplained in a Lead Section it probably should). I accept that I was wrong on one point - I'd implied that the Church's teaching was based on tradtions including those not held to be past down from the Apostles - but the correction of this seems to have introduced several terms which are inaccessible to the average reader. Is it possible to write an introduction which would be satisfactory to the various Catholic editors, but still readily understandable to the average non-Catholic reader?

Incidentally, another thing bulking out the intro at the moment is the inclusion of sources for various information, and the expression of one part of it as a quote. It's my understanding that, as the lead section is a summary, it's the one place where sources don't need to be included - because all information mentioned should be given in more detail elsewhere in the document - and quotes from primary sources aren't necessarily the best way to summarise something; particularly if (as seems likely) they contain terms which are then going to need to be explained.

Sorry if I sound like I'm whingeing; I don't mean to; but I want to get this intro as good as we can without having an edit war over it. TSP 14:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that "all information mentioned (in the introduction) should be given in more detail elsewhere in the document." I think the function of the introduction is to indicate what the article will be about. A clear definition of the subject matter will usually be the best way to do this. Other matters should be left for the body of the article.

I believe that the introduction should not attempt to go into matters that require long explanations to be properly understood, such as what exactly the Church bases its teaching upon. In my revision I left these matters stay, but signalled that I believe they are out of place in the introduction. If I had known TSP considered "therefore charged with leadership of all Christians" to be important, I would certainly have kept that too, out of deference, once again, for his opinion. I simply thought it unnecessary to include this phrase, which some previous editors had attacked as POV, and which seemed to me to be of no help towards identifying the Church that is the topic of the article.

If, in addition to explaining what the article will be about, the introduction attempts to deal with other questions, it runs the risk of giving undue importance to relatively minor matters. I felt that the out-of-context mention of "the administration of seven sacraments" gave the impression that the Church's work of "accomplishing the salvation of all people" was limited to teaching (all people or only its own members?) and administering the sacraments to, of course, its own members alone. I really should have added not just "sanctifying", but also "guiding": guiding, teaching and sanctifying are the three functions (tria munera) that the Church devotes herself to. Is sanctifying really so difficult a concept to understand?

If "successor of Peter" (with a link to "Saint Peter") is considered jargon, we can add a few words of explanation; but to add instead that the Pope is therefore charged with leadership of all Christians scarcely makes it any more comprehensible. Some would think that explaining "teaching" by a link to "Magisterium" is more certainly an insertion of jargon.

Do other editors think the introduction should speak of "Magisterium|teaching, and the administration of seven sacraments ... bases its teachings on both Scripture and the traditions ..." and/or of the Church's functions of guiding, teaching and sanctifying? I think all such matters should be left for the body of the article. What do the Wikipedia guidelines say about introductions?

Lima 19:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - you're probably right that that sentence is unnecessary. I put it back after your previous edit, along with various other bits, because I was a bit alarmed by how much you'd taken out, and replaced it with what seemed to be very dense and inaccessible - by the standards of what I'd expect from an article's lead section, anyway - technical discussion on the definition of the church. I think we probably do also need back at least a brief note on the history of the Church.

Wikipedia:Lead section says this:

The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and news style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of ...' and similar titles).

To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."

This seems a pretty good, and concise, guide for what we should be aiming for. A summary of the most important points, in a form that could stand alone as a concise version of the article; and presented, even more than the rest of the article, in a way that is accessible and clear to non-specialists.

The Guide also notes that the plan for a Wikipedia 1.0 paper version is to use the Lead Section for each article; so consider what, if you were reading a general-use paper encyclopedia with just room for 3 or 4 paragraphs on each topic, you might hope to find covered in the Roman Catholic Church article. TSP 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TSP. I think some might say the "rose to prominence" sentence is inappropriate in the introduction (or perhaps anywhere), but I do not intend to oppose it. Lima 04:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, it could probably be expressed better - the term Constantinian Shift could particularly do with being eliminated, as it is a more loaded term than I had realised. I think this summary is better than none, however. TSP 04:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a footnoted references section - initially spurred on by a wish not to have inline references making the initial section harder to read. However, we should really be referencing every part of this article. Here's the summary of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy - one of Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

In other words, at the moment almost every part of this article is subject to someone coming along and removing it for failing to cite a source; and they would be entirely within their rights. (The Lead Section is a bit of an exception, in that information in here is probably covered, and cited, elsewhere in the article, so might be OK not cited in the lead section as long as the lack of citation doesn't give a misleading impression.)

Wikipedia requires that, for every bit of information in this article, we be able to, and preferably explicitly do, provide a reputable and reliable source for that information. Wikipedia prefers credible, third-party sources for information (e.g. respected newspapers, other encyclopedias, published books by people qualified in the subject); but official publications of non-neutral bodies are OK when making claims about themselves (e.g. the Vatican website can be considered an acceptable source for information about the Roman Catholic Church, as long as that information is not contradicted in credible third-party sources; but not for information about, say, the Church of England). Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline is useful for this.

Adding references is pretty easy - just put <ref>, followed by your source, followed by</ref> - so, from the current draft of the intro:

It defines itself as "the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of [[Saint Peter|Peter]]" - i.e. the Pope - "and the bishops in [[Communion (Christian)|communion]] with him" <ref>''[[Lumen Gentium]]'',8).[http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html]</ref>

This puts a numbered footnote marker where you've put the <ref> text, and adds a footnote containing the text you put between <ref> and </ref>. The ones I've added to the intro should show you what I mean. Wikipedia:Footnotes has more details, including how to re-use the same footnote.

I hope we can work together on this; it'll take a long time to finish, but doing so will hopefully encourage us to take a rigorous approach to only including in the article information that we can definitely say we can show to be true; as well as making an article that readers can have much greater confidence in the accuracy of than at present. TSP 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty on the relationship with the Eastern Rite churches, and a very brief paragraph on relations with Protestant denominations, but none with other Catholic communions, such as the Anglican Communion or the Old Catholics. Would anyone object if I were to augment the material in this regard? I have some knowledge of the work of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission. Fishhead64 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pending the development of some consensus concerning consolidating the articles concerning Catholic topics into one page, Catholic Church, I want to survey folks about temporarily reverting it to a disambiguation page from its current status as a redirect to Roman Catholic Church. Given that the consensus in the previous survey was that Roman Catholic Church should not be renamed Catholic Church, it seems disingenuous to have Catholic Church redirect here anyway. So the proposal is: That Catholic Church be reverted to a disambiguation page as it appears here. Fishhead64 01:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done - though it could use more development. The redirect is, in itself a POV, so it should be a disambig page. Pollinator 01:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose. I admit that your page and mine have both the same meaning, but my version is just to enlighten first time viewers of Wikipedia or to the subject. Do not assume that all viewers of this page Catholic Church are like us who knows about this topic! 203.87.151.226 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose. We already had a disambiguation link at the top of this article, and effectively redundant disambiguation articles at Catholic, Catholicism, Catholicism (disambiguation), and One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is absurd. There is no reason to create another layer of disambiguation without consolidating the rest. I am skeptical that this reversion will be "temporary" without prior consolidation of the redundant articles. --Hyphen5 04:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC) This vote has been compromised by attempts to preempt it over at Catholic Church. Fishhead64 and company are trying to hijack this whole article. I absolutely oppose what they are trying to do. --Hyphen5 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you can expect things to happen all at once. If you want Catholic Church to eventually have a merged article at it, it has to start with something; it's no use saying that there should be something different there, but opposing any change for not immediately being exactly what you want there. As a thought, though, moving Catholicism there would perhaps be a better start. TSP 04:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Strongly oppose --WikiCats 13:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposal, and oppose the re-voting of an issue that has already been settled by consensus of the vote above. Catholic Church is not synonymous with Roman Catholic Church. This vote simply gives the losing side another chance to bypass consensus, recruit some more supporters, and try to establish a POV anyway. Contributed by User:Pollinator
• Oppose. Let Catholic Church become a page where Catholicism and Catholic are merged, and, if that is really feasible, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic too - if that is what it takes to get peace from Hyphen5. Lima 11:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I suppose, though I would support even more a proposal begining by moving, say, Catholicism to the location. For what it's worth, I don't believe that any change in Catholic Church was necessarily implied by the concensus above; so we should seek to build a new concensus on the use of that page, possibly over on its own talk page. TSP 13:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My understanding is that the consensus revolves around the fact that Catholic Church is ambiguous, and that an article for the specific institution of the Roman Catholic Church should not be there. Catholic Church or Catholic church should be a more elaborate and explanatory disambiguation page or, better yet, a separate article, that explains the various entites that claim the title as part of their self-designation. I certainly would have no quarrel with making prominent the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the largest such body, and that it often calls itself simply the "Catholic Church." Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; we already have a consensus (see above). KHM03 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support making "Catholic Church" a disambig page. JohnnyBGood 22:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have protected Catholic Church to avoid the edit war over this issue. Ask me (or any other admin) to unprotect when consensus is reached.--Commander Keane 06:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catholic Church is now unprotected, it seems there may be some consensus (as per the section below)--Commander Keane 08:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Smerdis of Tlön. In my opinion the relevant policies leave no other option. But even without invoking policy, there is a practical reason why the RCC article should not be renamed/moved to CC: it would have to be preceded by a long list of other churches that view themselves as a (or the) CC, sort of detracting from the (R)CC article itself. AvB ÷ talk 11:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It seems that in every English speaking country, the term Catholic Church refers to the Catholic Church - the Church with the Pope as its visible head. It is true, that many (most?) other Christian communities claim to be Catholic, but that is not the general meaning of the term. All Christian communities also claim to be orthodox, but it would be inappropriate to describe the Catholic Church or the Anglican Church on the Orthodox Church page. --67.32.150.213 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the survey is 5 Support and 6 Oppose. --WikiCats 02:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is it over already? Then what was the point of posting it over at WP:RfC yesterday? Fishhead64 17:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was reached on this page that Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church are not synonymous. I made a good faith proposal that we merge material from Catholicism, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and Catholic into Catholic Church, one that would include disambiguating links, and Hyphen5 has already indicated support for that. Now has enlisted the support of an obliging editor to block edits to the page, making it a redirect to Roman Catholic Church, hence rendering Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church synonymous anyway! This not only goes against the consensus of the editors, including (I would add) in the above survey - but against Hyphen5's own consent to my proposal. I'm beginning to think that it is time to take this to RfA. Fishhead64 07:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to declare the results of a current debate to be superseded by a previous discussion. The issues surrounding the disambiguation page that are being discussed are distinct from what has been discussed at a previous time. --WikiCats 11:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishhead, you've GOT to be KIDDING me with your deceitfulness in all of this. There is a REVERT WAR going on at Catholic Church, and hence it should be protected. The status quo was a REDIRECT. It was like that for MONTHS until you and your friends changed it THE OTHER DAY. Now you have a vote going on immediately above this section, and you are losing it. It is IMPROPER to PREEMPT an ONGOING VOTE about this VERY TOPIC. You're trying to strongarm me and other editors into a compromise. News flash: COMPROMISES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COOPERATIVE! Because of your conniving and immaturity about this whole thing, I will no longer support your compromise at all. This is utterly ridiculous. How would you feel if I started acting as you have with the Church of England page? --Hyphen5 12:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of deceit, conniving, and immaturity at the very least assumes bad faith, which is unfortunate. The compromise solution - one previously endorsed by you - was to have two articles, Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church. All my survey asked was whether we should have a temporary disambig page while the articles are merged, and the majority response has been either "yes" or "no - do the merge immediately." If I've misunderstood those comments, I apologise. But anyway you slice it, even if you peel off those "noes," the prevailing sentiment is still against a redirect. Do you honestly believe in these two surveys that the prevailing sentiment has been that "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" are synonymous? Or do you simply want your will to prevail by any means necessary? Your opposition to reasonable ambiguity in the naming conventions in this case, which would have the significant effect of disenfranchising members of the Catholic Church not in communion with Rome, is overweening. Fishhead64 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not assume bad faith; indeed, I even agreed with you at first. Until you tried to shove your "compromise" down our throats (in disregard of an ongoing vote) and got us into a revert war at Catholic Church (even pressuring an admin to unprotect). That was when I concluded bad faith. Because of Protestants who have hijacked the Catholic articles, all of the search terms that an average user could be expected to type when searching for my religion -- Catholic, Catholicism, and now Catholic Church -- are NOT actually directed to articles about that religion. Instead, all the corresponding articles obsess over how "ambiguous" the terms are. What are we supposed to call ourselves? "Roman Catholic" is simply an incorrect and misapplied term from our perspective. So who's being "disenfranchised" in all this? Your Church has unchallenged space at all the names it is known by -- Church of England, Anglican Communion, Anglican Church, and Anglicanism. Your claim to the name "Catholic Church" is an attempt to account for a POV. Our claim to "Catholic Church" is an attempt to recognize both common usage and self-reference. Anyway, I responded to your other points here. --Hyphen5 08:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote on the redirect page was proposed by Fishhead64. Now to same contributor is proposing that the vote be declared void. There are enough editors here to come to a compromise on this issue. --WikiCats 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. If you read Lima's response to this survey, and KHM's reference to his above comments in the previous survey, you will see that their opposition was to making this a temporary disambig page, and not to the merge proposal, which they explicitly endorse. Taken in concert with the supportive votes, the prevailing sentiment is to rewrite Catholic Church which is precisely what JohnnyBGood was beginning to do. How long would you propose the vote continue until that compromise - until yesterday, supported by Hyphen5, who requested mediation - is enacted? Perhaps you'd like to suggest a better compromise. Fishhead64 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed this matter over at WP:RfC and WP:CS in order to try to elicit additional input and hopefully resolve this unfortunate impasse. Fishhead64 01:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the prevoius discussion about Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church being or not synonymous? --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 02:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been archived (see above) Fishhead64 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present there are 10 editors contributing to the debate on the redirect page. There was no agreement of the need to call for even more editors. There are quite enough editors to come to a compromise. I move that the request for even more help be removed. --WikiCats 02:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from WP:RfC:

This page is a way that anyone can request other Wikipedians to help them resolve difficulties and disputes in articles or talk pages. Anyone may visit any of these articles, to help them reach agreement. A good quality RfC can help contributors resolve differences, add different insights, give comments and opinions on how others might see some wording, and so on. When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page.

If I've misunderstood the procedure, please enlighten me. Fishhead64 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seems to me the debate has been resolved. --WikiCats 02:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See proposed compromise below. --WikiCats 09:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no section on the priest abuse scandals of late?JohnnyBGood 19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be? There are lots of sex abuse scandals throughout all of the major denominations, not to mention secular and government organizations, and that never gets brought up in the majority of those articles. More people just happen to know about the one within the Catholic Church because it's more fun to talk about. Contrafool 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be? Because they are notable, verifiable and relevant to the article. Joelito 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was in Cleveland on business and there was one on the news there. There was also one on the TV this past week here in the SF Area. Seems to be happening quite a bit. Granted I don't think it happens any more proportionally within the Church versus other churches, however numerically it has happened alot more in the Church. JohnnyBGood 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the scandals relevant? What I want to get at is this: What to do they explain about the Roman Catholic Church? Answer, they don't as they neither explain teaching, nor do they explain what teh Roman Catholic Church is. If you proposed an article about HOW the church dealt with teaching (incidentally, contrary at times to its own law), that I would support and/or articles dealing with specific persons or prelates involved.DaveTroy 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant thing to remember that this article is already 85 kilobytes long (more that twice the "recommended" size). This topic can be developed in other articles, like: Criticism of the Catholic Church. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. We should be sure that there are links to those relevant sections however. And possibly a small blurb on the main page.JohnnyBGood 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of a page called Catholic Church (disambiguation) has already been mentioned twice in Talk:Roman Catholic Church.

Wikipedia guidelines ask the question: “What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?” If they are looking for the Catholic Church then they would put “Catholic Church”. So leave the redirect as Catholic Church.

This is the compromise:-

The article called Roman Catholic Church with the disambig. line:

"Catholic Church" redirects here. For other uses of the term, see Catholic Church (disambiguation).

--WikiCats 07:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is a good idea. It's exactly what is done on the Jesus article. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly acceptable solution. To recap: CC is the common name used/understood by the majority of the 1 billion (Roman) Catholics and an unknown number of others. RCC is the common name used by the rest of the world, thus outnumbering the claim notability-wise. This compromise addresses Hyphen5's point that the vast majority of CC searches will apply to the (Roman) Catholic Church. AvB ÷ talk 12:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take a similar apporach as to what is done with protestants? Protestant Church is a redirect to Protestantism so Catholic Church would redirect to Catholicism. Joelito 14:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the WikiCats' proposal. Protestant Church doesn't usually refer to a specific church, but Catholic Church usually does. Is there anyone disputing that most "Catholic Church" searches in Wikipedia will probably apply to the (Roman) Catholic Church? --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strenuously object to WikiCat's proposal. Again, the naming conventions speak about "reasonable ambiguity." Considering the claims that many Catholics not in communion with Rome have on Catholic Church, an automatic redirect here is not only misleading, it is offensive. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to have Catholic Church as a separate article that describes, well, the Catholic Church. The survey we took a couple of weeks already resoundingly showed that most editors rejected viewing the two terms synonymously, and a minority of editors are bound and determined to appropriate the term Catholic Church for the Roman Communion. Fishhead64 17:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Misleading" and "offensive"? I don't think so. The proposal clearly acknowledges the existence and usage of other meanings (quote: "For other uses of the term, see Catholic Church (disambiguation)..."). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Leinad, the dab link makes it un-misleading. Most users will type "Catholic Church" to read about the RCC, and most will type "Eastern Orthodox Church" for the ECC. I also support merging Catholic, Catholicism, and perhaps One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as discussed above, but whatever the case, Catholic Church should not redirect straight to the RCC with no dab link as it does now. - Draeco 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not certain how having a link to Roman Catholic Church at the top of Catholic Church would prove a troublesome chore for people who erroneously think the two terms are synonymous. On the contrary, it moves things from the general to the particular. Whereas for people like me who are raised in a tradition where we think of ourselves as members of the "Catholic Church," typing in Catholic Church and winding up at the "Roman Catholic Church" is, by its very nature, POV. I don't know why people can't see that reality. I'm proposing a more inclusive solution, one that would not unduly inconvenience those trying to find the Roman Catholic Church. Fishhead64 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Wikipedia shouldn't be dominated by those who have an axe to grind. The Orthodox Churches designate themselves as such. I do not regard myself as unorthodox because I am not a member and nor do I begrudge them their own name. It may even be intended to imply that I am not orthodox because I am not a member of one of their churches, but what do I care? I know they are wrong about that. Fishhead64, are you fighting the same battle over the Orthodox Church pages and if not, why not? --Tuck42

I have sympathy for Fishhead’s view that not everybody sees the RCC as having ownership of “Catholic Church” or believes that the Wikipedia should promote that position.

The overriding issue here is service to the web surfer. The vast majority of inquires will be for the RCC. It would be unfair to send the majority of searches to a dab. page first on a principle. --WikiCats 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty sad day, when principles are not only not worth fighting for; they are disposable simply as a matter of convenience. Unfortunately that is the battle of our age - even within the Roman Catholic Church. Pollinator 07:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to edit an encyclopedia. This is not the place to battle for moral principles. --Hyphen5 17:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere is the place for moral principles. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the survey about reverting Catholic Church from a redirect to a disambiguation page was “Oppose” by a small majority.

The result of the proposal of calling the article Roman Catholic Church with the disambig. line:

"Catholic Church" redirects here. For other uses of the term, see Catholic Church (disambiguation). was agreed to by majority.

I will include the disambiguation statement in the article. The disambiguation page contains information from a previous text of Catholic Church. --WikiCats 11:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that this solution is completely supported by the second paragraph of the Naming conventions (common names) guideline quoted by WikiCats. A paragraph geared to solve this type of dispute. I, for one, had failed to read the rest of the guideline after having concluded Hypen5 incorrectly invoked its first paragraph. In short, we had a LOT of discussion here only to find out we had been missing the solution presented by the guideline. As far as I am concerned, this does not even need consensus, as it's unequivocally covered under the guideline. People who oppose the solution need to change the guideline. Granted, it's a guideline, not policy, but it is consensus-built and accepted as describing exceptions to the main policy. A point I had missed altogether. Well done, WikiCats. AvB ÷ talk 13:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. --WikiCats 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCats mentions that the overriding principle is service to the web user. I submit the case of Madonna, a name with whom the overwhelming majority of web users would associate with the pop star. The naming conventions do state that article names should not be unreasonably ambiguous. By no stretch of the imagination is "Roman Catholic Church" unreasonably ambiguous. By redirecting "Catholic Church" here, a Catholic Church is being identified as the Catholic Church, with other Catholic communions being accorded secondary status ("acknowledging" other uses of the term, as an editor upthread noted). This is absolutely backwards. As Hyphen5 notes, we're trying to edit an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should, first and foremost, provide accurate information. I am wondering whether other editors think that arbitration may be a useful route in this case? I would be prepared to live by whatever the decision is, but at the moment I feel that this redirect is, in essence, conveying a non-neutral POV. Fishhead64 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the difficulty in using "Roman" in the title of this article is that "Roman Catholic" might be interpreted to mean "Latin Catholic", it would probably be a good idea to straightforwardly clarify in the intro that this articles concerns the entire church, including the uniates. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Latin Catholic doesn't meet any kind of common usage threshold. It's also not a name used by the church. JohnnyBGood 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Latin Catholic is assumed whenever anyone sees "Roman Catholic", so we need not use the phrase "Latin Catholic". What we need to clarify is that we also mean to include the Uniate churches. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article itself already mentions them. If someone wants to include a sentence like that in the intro I think this whole issue should be resolved. JohnnyBGood 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll wait until the active dispute cools off. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea. Frankly though I don't see what the controversy is about here. JohnnyBGood 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Catholic, at least in the United States, is now used to refer to Catholic immigrants from Latin America. patsw 12:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we could use Latin Rite Catholic, which is a more accurate term, anyway. Wtrmute 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line reading:

The Roman Catholic Church has often been seen to be in conflict with Freemasonry, a fraternity it sees as tending to anticlericalism. The Church forbids Catholics from becoming Freemasons while Freemasonry allows Roman Catholics to become members.

I propose should be removed from this section because it is not a summation and requires further information which is found in the link itself. The link is there for the further reading. This should be removed or replaced with a summation.

[Unsigned comment by anonymous 70.173.64.13]

Acting on the suggestion of the anonymous editor above, I make bold to remove the section. Relations between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry may be an important matter for Freemasonry, but it is certainly a minor matter for the Church. The "See also" link is surely enough on this page, and there is certainly no need to give the link twice under "See also", as at present. Lima 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, try to keep away from that particular bearpit (see Catholicism and Freemasonry and also look through a few of the frequent users' edit count). JASpencer 19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the article lead with how the Catholic Church defines itself?

Defining it as "a Christian Church which is led by the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, currently His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI" is a point of view. Who's point of view is it? And why in this article should that point of view have precedence over self-identification? patsw 02:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Welcome to the Roman Catholic Church article. How does the Catholic Church defines itself? --WikiCats 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. Why doesn't the article lead with how the Catholic Church defines itself? patsw 03:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, most probably, is because the lead section need to be a definition of the topic. --WikiCats 04:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of the Church is now a self-identification. It defines the Church concisely in terms of origin and mission. patsw 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've had many arguments here about what constitutes the Catholic Church. I happen to be a member of the Catholic Church who does not recognise the Bishop of Rome as Primate. By editing the article to make the Christian Church coterminous with the Roman Catholic Church, you are introducing an unhelpful and misleading POV. Fishhead64 02:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Anglican Church of Canada according to the Wikipedia identifies itself as the "Canadian branch of the Anglican Communion." Does that article need to be corrected?
• This page [2] on the identity of the Anglican Church of Canda does not mention a Catholic identity. Does that page need to be corrected? patsw 04:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae see the Solemn Declaration of 1893, which stands at the head of the Book of Common Prayer and is a concise statement of Anglican Christianity. I quote, at length:

WE declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of the Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders; and worship One God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

Is that satisfactory? Or would you prefer the productive route of a revert war? Fishhead64 07:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Lumen Gentium includes the quoted "established". It is cited. patsw 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not cited by Jesus Christ. Insofar as Anglican bishops similarly trace apostolic descent via Peter, I assume we're included? Fishhead64 07:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get into a revert war. These things can be sorted out in Talk. --WikiCats 08:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cite by Jesus Christ in the Gospels to apply to the Church which claims descent and continuity through Saint Peter and the apostles. The definition as given is cited, accurate, and verifiable. It makes no reference to disputed apostolic descent of bishops, and therefore is neutral. In fact, by focusing on origin and mission and not governance, it is less directed to a point of view than before.

While discussing this, please leave the edited version in place. It was a good faith edit made days after I remarked here that the definition was not a self-identification of the Catholic Church. patsw 11:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I feel compelled to revert to what has been the established consensus. I don't doubt your good faith, but the claim that your advocacy here permits this change is exactly backwards. Fishhead64 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. "Why doesn't the article lead with how the Catholic Church defines itself?" Because that is not how Wikipedia's guidelines say an article should start. "If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise, conceptually sound definition that puts the article in context", says the Guide to Writing Better Articles. That - or at least an honest attempt at it - is what was in place previously.

What is now in place is a point of view. Can we say, with certainty, that the church described in this article was established by Jesus Christ? No. We can say that it is a Christian Church, and that it is headed (temporally) by the Pope; these things are well-established and generally agreed by third-party observers. We can say that the church believes itself to have been founded by Jesus Christ; and we did, later on. But that, as a matter of opinion, is not useful for definition (there may be many churches which believe the same thing of themselves), so should not appear in the first sentence.

Self-definition is not generally a good way to define a subject. Should the Prince Michael of Albany article begin "Michael of Albany is the King of Scotland"? No, because the world at large does not accept that, even if he claims it. If the right way to begin this article was, as it is now, "The Roman Catholic Church, or Catholic Church was "established" by Jesus Christ", then at least half a dozen other articles would begin the same way, and there would be no way for the reader to tell if they had found the right one. We need to stick to verifiable fact; which, of course, means that opinions can be mentioned; but, for the purposes of definition (which is what the first sentence should be doing) this is best done in terms of facts generally accepted, rather than opinions held by the body in question.

"The Roman Catholic Church, or Catholic Church was "established" by Jesus Christ" presents opinion as fact, and really should not be in the article, let alone as the first sentence. TSP 14:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a disparagment of the Catholic Church and an insult to my faith to draw a comparison to a spurious claim to the throne of Scotland and the historical claim made by the Catholic Church to be founded by Christ.

To the argument you've made, it is beyond a mere matter of opinion that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ but a conclusion drawn by the vast majority of historians.

This is not the article on Jesus Christ but on the Catholic Church and it's self-identification is the definition that should be used, and not a minority view which casts doubts upon its claims to have founded by Jesus Christ.

To give some context to this dispute: Is it argued that Christ did not found a Church, or that he did, but that Church had a name in use in the first century other than the Catholic Church? patsw 14:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is at dispute is what institution (if any) Christ founded, which contrary to your claim is a matter of fervid historical debate. The oft-quoted reference to Peter in Mt. 16:18 is not an uncontested saying of Jesus, but indeed the attribution is highly dubious (see e.g., Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 38ff., Scribners:1951). Moreover, the word "ekklesia," meaning "community," in no way describes the institutional Roman Catholic Church, but a messianic community based in Jerusalem - which is what it was until Paul's mission to the Gentiles began some dozen or so years after Christ's death.

The claim, indeed, is that if Christ had intended to found an institutional community, that community was not described as "Christianity" until well into the first century CE (the "followers of Chrestus" mentioned by Tacitus). The term "catholic" started coming into vogue in response to the rise of various schools of thought labelled by opponents as heresies in contradistinction to the "catholic" faith received. It was only codified as an identifying mark in the three ecumenical creeds, the earliest of which (the Apostles' Creed) is dated no earlier than the middle of the second century CE.

Given that the "Catholic Church," as creedally defined, includes many more communions than the Roman one, the foundation by Jesus Christ - even if it weren't a matter of historical dispute - would be no more a distinguishing mark of the Latin Rite churches than the Eastern Rite and Anglican ones (and others, too, according to some). What you seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Roman communion has some superior claim on the attribution "Catholic" and is the paradigmatical Christian institution. If so, that seems to be a pretty clear-cut POV. Fishhead64 16:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact which you do not like, Fishhead, is that for the vast majority of people in the world (even the majority in your own Anglican Church,) the terms CATHOLIC and ROMAN CATHOLIC are synonymous. For argumentative reasons, you may call yourself a catholic here, but we all know that the mass of Anglicans, asked to define themselves, do not say "We are Catholics." If you ask them where the Catholic Church is, they will point you to the Roman Catholic Church, not their own.

99% of people typing "Catholic Church" into their search engines will be looking for information on the body often known as the Roman Catholic Church. They will be confused if directed to some article agonising over the claims of breakaway bodies to also have some proprietorial interest in the word Catholic. Xandar 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Anglicans, who recite the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds at both offices and masses, would be surprised to hear that their claim is "argumentitive." I never argued with the assertion that many people treat the designations "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" as synonyms — I merely argued that such a treatment is erroneous. Indeed, if you review the extensive discussions here and in the archive, you will find cited plenty of evidence that there are several denominations with solid claims to the designation.

My claim is not based on a proprietory interest — it is based on an interest in accurate information. I believe that one responsibility of an encyclopedia is to inform. It serves to provide information, but to do so in a pedagogical way. By reinforcing the misconception that "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are synonymous, it fails in this regard. The naming conventions of Wikipedia allow for "reasonable ambiguity" in the title of articles, and a separate Catholic Church page describing the various uses of the title is not unreasonable since it is more accurate. I think that even the most ungifted user should be able to find his or her way to the Roman Catholic Church page from there. Fishhead64 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning of the article, it states that the head of the Catholic Church is "His Holiness Pope Benedict". Is it appropriate to give his title as "His Holiness" without putting it in quotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.174.117 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 11 April 11 2006 (UTC)

• Was there a consensus not to present the definition that the Church has given itself? (i.e. self-identification)

• Was there a consensus not to have the origin of the Church in the first paragraph?

• Was there a consensus not to have the mission of the Church in the first paragraph?

• Why is so much weight given to disputes and critics of the Church? patsw 01:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, not only is there an editing cabal that will revert a Catholic's attempt to have the Catholic Church's own identification of its origin and mission included in the article, you won't even deign to discuss it. patsw 02:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed. It has been discussed ad nauseum. This Catholic suggests that you review the archives to see the protracted discussions and hard-brokered compromises which - believe me - left many people of various predispositions unhappy. But such is compromise, a concept with which you may or may not be cognizant. Fishhead64 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cognizant this article is in the clutches of a cabal which will not permit the Catholic Church to self-identify by merely appealing to a past discussion. The origin and misssion of the Church are defined by the Church, and definition it gives for its origin and mission should appear in the article. The current mention of origin is biased and there is no discussion of the mission of the Church at all.

So. I pray, that the number of people increase who believe as I do and thereby create a new consensus for the article. patsw 18:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and that this is probably his most commonly used and known titles. But, you would find that out if you followed the Pope link. In the Pope article, we are told:

According to the 2006 Annuario Pontificio, the formal title of the pope is "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God. This full title is rarely used.

I would take out "Bishop of Rome" and leave it as just "Pope".

Richard 08:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it was added, but "Bishop of Rome" is a far more ancient, important, and unique title than "Pope", which has more the character of an affectionate nickname. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Vicar of Christ or Vicar of Peter is more ancient and important.

Richard 00:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is because it is an unambiguous term, whereas 'Pope', while this is by far the most common usage, is also used by some other groups (e.g. the Coptic Orthodox Church to refer to their head; so for some readers, 'Pope' may naturally refer to some other person. The first sentence is primarily for the purpose of definition - so we can say "The Roman Catholic Church is the Christian Church headed by the Bishop of Rome" and, I believe, that is a unique description applying to no other church; whereas "The Roman Catholic Church is the Christian Church headed by the Pope" could refer to other bodies who also call their head Pope. TSP 09:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, it's not that the Pope becomes the Bishop of Rome, but the reverse. The person is elected Bishop of Rome, which then entitles him to be called Pope. JackofOz 11:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why mention "Bishop of Rome" as a title of the Pope? Because that is what is really essential. It is because he is Bishop of Rome that he is the successor of Saint Peter, and thus holds within the college of the Bishops a position analogous to that of Peter within the group of the Apostles, to which the college of the Bishops has succeeded. In short, it is because he is Bishop of Rome that he is Pope and that has whatever special duties and authority he has. All the other titles mentioned above are merely consequences of being Bishop of Rome. Lima 13:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree vehemently. There is nothing special about being Bishop of Rome other than tradition. By tradition, the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Catholic Church. But, that's just a tradition.

Imagine that Rome was wiped out by a terrorist nuclear bomb while the Pope was out of town. Would the Roman Catholic Church continue to exist? Of course. Yes, we would probably call the Pope the Bishop of Rome long after Rome ceased to exist but my point here is... the Pope could be the Bishop of Moscow or New York or Rio de Janeiro as long as there was a proper line of succession reaching all the way back to Peter. The College of Cardinals could convene anywhere and choose anybody and make him Bishop of Timbuktu and then call him Pope.

This is, of course, a very fanciful hypothetical but something could happen in the next millenium to cause the Pope to reside somewhere other than in Vatican City. (cf. the Avalon Popes)

If anyone wants to propose a way to capture the point I'm making (that being Bishop of Rome is a traditional title rather than an indispensable title), I'd appreciate it very much.

I'm not going to spend a lot of effort on this debate since it is a relatively minor point. If someone can provide a source that shows that "the Bishop of Rome" is an indispensable title rather than just another of the many titles, I'll shut up. Otherwise, I'll probably shut up anyway because it's not that important.

Richard 00:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the period when the Papacy was based in Avignon. During that time, the Popes called themselves Bishops of Rome and was not Bishops of Avignon (even when there were several Popes at the same time, they all called themselves Bishop of Rome. By definition, the Bishop of Rome is the Pope, and the Pope is Bishop of Rome... they are one in the same. Blueboar 18:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I understand that the RCC, for various reasons, continues to appoint bishops to titular sees, formally appointed to become the bishops of places where there are either no one still living, or not enough Roman Catholics to bother with. If Rome were to become uninviting as a residence of the Pope for whatever reason, a Pope could still bear the title "bishop of Rome" even if the city itself were a smoldering hole in the ground. Smerdis of Tlön 18:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, tell me I'm wrong but a link to software strikes me as out of place in Wikipedia. It's bordering on violating [WP:NOT] (not a "how to"). I'd be fine with a section describing why saying the rosary is considered important but it should encyclopedic in nature not a "how to" manual.

(P.S. Personally, I think Wikipedia should include "how to" material but the current policy excludes such material.)

Richard 00:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following text should be expanded upon.

"However, some Christian denominations have developed a different understanding of many central issues concerning Christ's role in the Church and of the salvation of believers that vary greatly from the Church's historic teachings."

Maybe not at the specific point in the article and maybe not even in this article but there should be a place in Wikipedia where this bold assertion is expounded upon.

I'm not an expert on the beliefs of all the Christian denominations so I am not really aware of which denominations the above-quoted text is referring to. In particular, I'm really not clear what is meant by "central issues concerning Christ's role in the Church". Is there any Christian denomination that doesn't see Christ as the central focus of the church? As the triumphant lord and ruler of God's people on earth and in heaven?

I do understand that there are divergent teachings about whether salvation is universal or just of the elect. I also understand that there are divergent teachings about whether salvation can be lost after a believer accepts Christ as his/her Savior. This should be expounded on somewhere in Wikipedia.

I'm just not sure where. What's clear, though, is that the current text is way too terse to impart adequate knowledge to the reader.

Richard 05:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording allows people to know that there are differences between churches on these matters without going into them in detail - which is not really appropriate for this article.

"central issues concerning Christ's role in the Church" references the Catholic belief that Jesus's role in the Church includes an ongoing active role in maintaining the Church free from doctrinal error, and in using the sacraments of the Church as a fount of Grace for humanity. These are issues which are fundamental for Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) but which are denied by many protestants. Xandar 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that level of detail should be in the article followed by a reference to a more detailed discussion in the Christianity article. I'm going to do it now.

--Richard 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wholly satisfied with my replacement section title "Assessment of Church doctrine" but I am convinced that it is a better title than "Church and people". I am more than receptive to suggestions for a better title.

I also added subsection titles which I think helps the reader to know what the topic is.

One problem with this section is that it is a "laundry list" of criticisms of church teaching. There should be an intro paragraph at the beginning of the section that says something along the lines of "Through the years, the Catholic Church has maintained an adherence to orthodox doctrine that has been criticized from within and without the Church. Although the Church has recognized and apologized for past errors, it remains firm in teaching the true doctrine of Christianity as it understands it."

I propose the above two sentences for the intro for this section. Comments and sugggestions for improvement are welcomed and solicited.

Richard 06:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Should not Wikipedia follow the practice of the liturgical books of the Catholic Church and the Bible translations quoted here, which do not capitalize pronouns referring to God?

2. Should we not go from the general to the particular, and keep Liturgy before Sacraments, since the former includes the latter? Liturgy is much broader than Eucharistic Liturgy.

Lima 13:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humph. As for (1), I will gladly go with the consensus. I was always under the impression that the pronouns referring to God should be capitalized. But, if there is a convention that can be cited and agreed upon, I will conform to it.

As for (2), Liturgy is broader than Eucharistic Liturgy but the Sacraments are broader than the Liturgy of the Mass whose major focus is the Eucharistic Liturgy. I can see arguments in either direction and it's easy to flip this change back so let's see what the consensus is and then go with it.

Richard 17:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the information in the "Constitutional hierarchy of the Church" section should be merged into Catholic Church hierarchy, with just a brief overview left here. This would help reduce the size of the article, and reduce some redundancy in some of the overlap between this article and the more specific sub-article. Any other opinions? Gentgeen 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am inserting this response to someone who wrote me insisting that Catholic always be joined by the qualifyer, "Roman." Catholics do not speak of themselves generally as "Roman Catholics" and never have relatively recently and for particular uses only. If "Roman" has to be interjected at every possible use of "Catholic," I will be very strenuously opposed. Here is my response:

Thank you for you note on my talk page. I appreciate that you and many others do not agree with the usage of the term, Catholic, for the the Church based in Rome. I respect you freedom to disagree; however, I do not believe you have the right to tell people how to name themselves. The Catholic Church could claim the rights to all the names of the various Christian Churches saying that their use of their name is "parochial." Of course this would be rude and condescending, and we do not. For instance, we could say that "Baptist" really should only be used to refer to all Christians, since we all practice baptism. Presbyterian--well, Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans would all have a much fairer claim to that title than Presbyterians do, since that term is understood to mean "priest," which they do not actually have. Methodists hardly have a method, but many other churches claim to. Everyone claims to be "orthodox", many churches are "episcopal" in their governance. Oh, and precisely which church is not evangelical in some fashion? ...etc., etc. (Not to mention LDS!) So, the first argument is that it is a matter of respect to call churches by how they call themselves. That is a minimum decency that civil people afford eachother.

Also, it drives me crazy that Spanish speakers insist that the Americas are one continent and every on it is an "American," so, US citizens should really be "Unitedstatians," or some such other un-English formulation because it better suites their sensibilities. Let's just say that's not going to happen. In a likewise manner, it is very awkward English to use "Roman" in every reference to Catholicism. No one I know really talks like that. It is just poor sounding English.

Also, there are many Catholic Churches is the original sense of the term that do not call themselves "Roman," such as the Greek Catholic Church, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, etc. By original sense of the term I mean that "catholic" in the early church meant those in communion with the Church of Rome. Ignatius, if you read his discussion on the Church, literally says this! "Roman" Catholic within the Catholic Church means the "Latin Rite" almost always, though sometimes sometimes the term is used for the entire Catholic Church to ''emphasize'' the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Primate of the West, Vicar of Christ, etc.

Now for the historical/institutional matter: No one in the 16th Century argued that the Catholic Church of Trent was a different institution from the one that Luther and the rest protested against and had sought to reform. Also, there was no Western Christian prior to the Reformation(s) that did not understand the Western Church as the Catholic Church. It is very clear that the Catholic Church after the reformation is the same institution that existed before and had alway called itself since Ignatius of Antioch the Catholic Church. The theology of sacraments, ecclesiology, etc. had not changed with the Reformation. So, the burden of proof is on someone who wants to claim that the Catholic Church ceased to be itself such that it needed to change its name.

Now this is where it gets interesting. The term "Roman Catholic" only came into vogue in the 19th Century for a number of reasons. It was a way for Catholics to distinguish themselves from others who broke away but kept the name, such as the "Old Catholics." It was a way to distinguish Latin Catholics from Eastern Rite Catholics within the Catholic Church. And, most interestingly for this discussion, Anglicans which had never had much use for any claims to being "Catholic" suddenly became interested in the term when the intense study of the previously lost patristic texts showed how ancient the term was and how "Catholic" the early church was in its theology and ecclesiology. Such patristic studies gave rise to the Oxford Movement and eventually the claim to Anglo-Catholicism. Of course, that the Anglican church was clearly protestant historically is demonstrated by such names as "The Protestant Episcopal Church of American," which is the original name of the ECUSA.

The term "Catholic Church" is never used in capitalized form for the "universal Christian church," because that would be confused with the Catholic Church. Except in the creeds, this term is never used without qualification for that purpose. Besides, we are talking about corporate entities, concrete churches. The abstranct sense is not a practical term but a theological conception (which does not make it any less real, but does put it in another distinct specific conversation in which the speakers would know the difference).

While Catholics do occasionally call themselves Roman Catholics (only in the West) we have at no time in history ever ceased to call ourselves simply Catholics. This the name for our Church and ourselves in continuous use from the time of Igantius of Antioch ~107 A.D. Use of "the Catholic Church" is not "parochial," which seems to be an intentionally demeaning term, but is rather historical. Ignatius, by the way, was an Eastern Patriarch (of Antioch) and still claimed communion with the Bishops and especially the Bishop of Rome as the essential way to distinguish orthodox Christianity from false revelations, prophets, philosophies, etc. This explains the strangeness of WP aticles on publications such as the "National Catholic Reporter" with the word Roman interjected at every instance of the word "Catholic" except in the title of the "NCR" and the WP article title on the subject. It is just awkward, forced and ultimately a POV ideological imposition.

Lastly, the use by others of the term "Catholic Church" need not presume that they agree with the Church's historical or theological claims. When I call a Baptist a Baptist, I do not imply that I agree with the Baptist theology of baptism which by definition excludes me, a Catholic, from salvation. If "Catholic Church" is not acceptible, then in justice we should insist on some other qualifier for all the churches (perhaps, "Protestant Baptist," or the even more precise, "Protestant Anglo-Catholics," since all English Catholics are "Anglo-Catholics)."

Thanks for reading. --Vaquero100 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing; and there's a lot of validity in what you say. However, this matter has been extensively discussed and voted on within the last few months (see Archive 2). You can, if you wish, choose to build a new concensus; but I feel that it's unlikely to go a different way soon after a convincing majority in favour of the term "Roman Catholic".

I would question a few of your assertions; I won't cite full sources for them here, because it's late at night and I've already argued most of these points last month, but references for them should be found in the recent name change debates, mostly now in Archive 2:

- Writers within the Church of England have emphasised its right to call itself Catholic, unmodified, since its formation in the 16th century, not only since the 19th century (hence the coining of the term 'Roman Catholic' - an early 17th century coining, not a 19th century one). "I am, master doctor, of the unfeigned Catholic Church and will live and die therein, and if you can prove your Church to be the True Catholic Church, I will be one of the same" - John Philpot (an Anglican burned by Queen Mary in 1555).

- As far as I'm can see, all official uses of the term 'Roman Catholic' in the Church in question refer to the entire church, never to the Latin Rite church alone; though you're welcome to quote counter-examples. An extensive list of the Church's use of the term can be found in Archive 2 (search for 'Syrian').

- I'm not sure what your point is when you say "No one in the 16th Century argued that the Catholic Church of Trent was a different institution from the one that Luther and the rest protested against and had sought to reform" - as the Council of Trent was around the same time as Luther, this seems to be comparing a thing to itself. Luther DID at least claim, I think, that communion with the Bishop of Rome was not a necessary condition to be the successor of the original Church; and, of course, it was also in the 16th century that the Church of England stated that it was not under the authority of the Pope, but remained Catholic.

I do see your point on how most churches use terms which others might equally claim. However, 'baptist' merely means that the church baptises; which others would not deny; 'episcopal' means that the church has bishops, which others would not deny. Whereas 'catholic' means universal, all-embracing. ECUSA can be Episcopal without implying that any other church is not; the Baptist Church can be Baptist without implying that any other church is not; but, by the literal meaning of the term, if one church is the Catholic Church, then no other church is. If it was a mere label (as I think it is for, say, the Old Catholic Church - they consider themselves to be a church that is Catholic, but not to be the Catholic Church), the argument would hold; but I think that the reason that many editors voted against using the term unreservedly to refer to the Church in communion with the Pope is that, by the very statements which were used to support its use, the church did seem to consider that, in using the term, it was explicitly placing a claim to be the one true catholic church.

The question to me seems to be whether 'Catholic Church' has two different meanings, or only one meaning. If it has two distinct meanings - "the true and universal church" or "the church in communion with the Pope", then to use it to mean "the church in communion with the Pope" is merely to use the idiomatic term chosen by and commonly used to refer to that church, just like "baptist church". However, if it has only one meaning, then to use it as such is to imply that the church in communion with the Pope IS the true and universal church, which is a controversial thesis which, under Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to either state agreement or disagreement with.

There may be no answer to which of the above is the case; but the majority at the most recent vote was in favour of maintaining use of the term 'Roman Catholic Church'. TSP 04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. But it begs the question: Why does Catholic Church still redirect here instead of to a dab page? Fishhead64 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCP, thank you for your continued correspondence. Alas, I have read through most of Archive 2. It is depressing to say the least. There is still so much anti-Catholicism out there!

Regarding the 39 Articles, my point is about incivility not theological differences. Theological differences we must all learn to live with. However, fundamental human dignity demands civility. The 39 Articles continue to be published inside ECUSA hymnals and the BCP, without qualification or apology. I am aware of this because I came across them during a service. It was the singularly most offensive thing to hear a sermon on Love while being called "popish" in writing! My point is that such incivility should not be socially acceptable. It is patently uncivil to foist the term "Roman" on Catholics who only rarely use the term to describe themselves and do so only to make a distinction between Eastern and Western Catholics or between Catholics and others who use the word in the name of their church such as Anglo-Catholics or Old Catholics. Other than that, we really don't use the term.

And, yest, there are two meanings of the term "catholic." The credal formulae as well as the Ignatius of Antioch use the term as a theological claim. In this sense it is not capitalized. "Catholic Church" is a proper noun and therefore is distinct from the technical term. My name is "John" but no one goes around thinking about the etymology of the name. It is just my name and it means me, not "beloved of God," or whatever. This is how proper names work. They come to mean what they refer to and are not limited to etymology.

That the "Roman" qualifier originates in an era of hostility (which aparently is not yet behind us) is clear. The OED, as authoritative as it may be, also conveys the anti-Catholic bias of English society, past and present, and so is not an appropriate source. Forcing the "Roman" qualifier in other words is POV in the most blatant sense.

Regard the matter of the intention behind the term, "Catholic Church," this was answered in Lumen Gentium #8, where the SVC says that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church. It did not say "is" the Catholic Church. This is sacramental language dealing with a mystery beyond human understanding, so the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Holy Church of Christ is intentionally left unclear. This statement is followed by the observation that the means of salvation are present in other churches. So, the Chatholic Church as such does not apply the term "Catholic" in an exclusivist sense as you have claimed. However, Baptists do intend an exclusivist interpretation of their name. That is, by virtue of the Baptist theology of Baptism, their name should be more controversial than "Catholic Church" is.

Catholics have always used the term Catholic Church, well for about 1900 years. It is the identical institution as the one which first called itself "Catholic." There has been no theological or institutional break. This cannot be said of the Anglo-Catholic Church which broke with Rome. Such a break is actually a material change from the faith of Catholics before the Reformation. It is certainly a break from the intention of Ignatius of Antioch who was the first to use the term "catholic" and the first to to report the primacy of Rome, which as he said "presides over" the other churches.

My point is not to say that others should not use the term "Catholic" to describe themselves, though I personally think that is misleading. My point is that people fundamentally have the right to name themselves. If we do not go with this principle then would should begin the long work of scrutinizing the theological claims behind the name of every church to see if using such a name is POV or not. This kind of policing would be intollerable. And so should it be with the "Catholic Church." The claim made by the Catholic Church by using this name as such is a historical and therefore verifiable one, not a theological one (at least not in an exclusivist way). To force the qualifier "Roman," is to claim that this is somehow a different institution than the earlier Church. That burden rests on you, my friend.

Also, that an Anglican martyr called himself "Catholic" is not a proof of much. Modern English is much more modest in the use of capitalization, which is now reserved for proper nouns, unlike in earlier times. While some claims were made for Anglicanism being Catholic before the Oxford Movement, there were just as many or more for its being Protestant. Anglican comprehensiveness requires such contradictions, even as it has the hubris to tell its parent church, 1500 years its senior what her "real" name is.--Vaquero100 05:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the intent

Sorry, I am going to reply to this, and to your points over at Talk:Catholic Evangelical. More urgently, though, I wondered if you could provide a verifiable source for the content you have just added to the article: to wit, that 'subsists in' is intentionally vague; and that the church no longer claims to be the sole source of salvation - i.e. that it no longer affirms that "Outside the church there is no salvation". The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) seems to say otherwise:

" Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"

You may think that's not what it means, but unless you can find a positive source for that (in which case the Feeneyites would very much like to know) it's just your opinion and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. TSP 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After considering it for a while, I've removed this text. Again, I mean no offence by this; but we need to bear in mind how many people look at Wikipedia; text we cannot verify should be left in the article for as short a period as possible. TSP 11:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Catholic sacraments article would qualify as a "Main article:" under Sacraments. --WikiCats 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too hasty in my judgement. In the "Catholic sacraments" article, the very summary treatment of, for instance, the Eucharist, made me think the qualification of "main article on the Catholic sacraments" was decidedly excessive, and that "See also" was quite enough for it. The treatment in the "Roman Catholic Church" is at some points fuller, giving it greater right to be considered, at those points, the main article. However, if others agree with WikiCats's view, I will raise no objection whatever. (By the way, why does the "Catholic sacraments" article have an "Anglican Communion" section, when it begins by stating: "This article is about the sacramental doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. ... For those of the Anglican Communion, see Anglican sacraments"?) Lima 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is the article on Catholic sacraments then that makes it the main article. I agree it could do with some work. --WikiCats 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It SHOULD be more extensive than the section in this article. It might be worth noting that this article is currently about 3 times the recommended maximum article length for Wikipedia (and is indeed extremely long if you set out to read the whole thing); so if some of the text on sacraments could be moved to that article, leaving a shorter summary here, that might well be a benefit all round. TSP 10:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --WikiCats 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]