Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 51

{{aan}}

Typo

Civilization is mistyped "civilisation" on this. I would edit it, but the wiki is locked (I assume because some people may put contradictory things and/or say mean things about the Catholics).

That's the British-English spelling of the word, if I'm not mistaken. So its actually perfectly fine.Farsight001 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS, it's only OK if British-English is used throughout the article. There should not be a mix of American-English and British-English in the same article. Since this article is not about a subject which is uniquely British or American in nature, the rule is that whichever style predominates should be the one that is used universally in the article. Someone should attempt to determine which style of spelling predominates and then regularize the spelling to that style. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a major point, and I agree that consistency is what's most important, but there is a guideline that "the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted". That would require reviewing the article's early history. Or, to make it even more complicated, consider that this article at one time was part of Catholicism, which takes us back about ten years. But like I said, that's not as important as consistency. Cresix (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about the early history, but NancyHeise, who took it GA & to FA multiple times, is American, so I very much suspect it's always been written in American English. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is easy to find the earliest versions on the history. They are from 2004 by User:Phil Sandifer (it was indeed a split-off), and the first sentence after the lead contains "centralised" and "centre". So British English. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, not a major point, but the earliest version actually goes back to the article Catholicism, from which Catholic Church was created to form a separate article. Secondly, a couple of words in the lead may or may not reflect what's in the entire article. And perhaps most importantly, the guideline suggests using the version by "the first major contributor". Phil Sandifer simply did a little clerical work to move information from one article to another. The first version of Catholicism was written by an anon on October 27, 2001 and, although not a bad overview, is completely unsourced. It appears to have a single differentiating word "organized". So the (trivial) question is: At what point was there a major contributor who wrote material in Catholicism that eventually became Catholic Church? Frankly, I think a coin toss (or some other method of random selection) makes as much sense as parsing these details. Or, if someone doesn't mind going through the article as it is currently and determining the most frequent usage, that might be a solution. Cresix (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Organized" is not differentiating: it is accepted British usages, along with "organised". Esoglou (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think we need to go back to "Catholicism" myself. It is interesting to compare the 2004 version with the present one. Completely unreferenced, & only covering parts of the subject, but arguably rather better. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not invested in either American English or British English, but whichever we decide to use, we need to indicate somewhere, somehow, the decision has been made and stick with it. This article needs so much work it's daunting, and little fixes like spelling only add to the job. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuity claim in the lead

I have undone the changes by Anglicanus. The line in the lead "the Church is the oldest continuous Christian institution in the world" doesn't make reference to continuity from the early Christian Church (although the Catholic Church does make that claim as the next sentence explains). The comment refers to institutionalized christianity, in which both Catholics and Orthodox can claim to be the oldest. We could add the clarification that "along with the Eastern Orthodox Church, the RCC is the oldest Christian institution in the world," but the comment should be included, as it doesn't concern belief.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a can of worms has been opened (which, as always, will require a larger can to get them back in). I'm sure that almost every Christian denomination considers itself to be part of the "oldest continuous Christian institution in the world". If we add "along with the Eastern Orthodox Church", then no doubt there will be many more requested additions. I think the only non-disputable fact is as Anglicanus worded it: "it believes itself to be the original Christian church, claims to be the oldest continuous ..." (italics added). I suggest restoring that version. Cresix (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the key to the issue in on the words "continuous Christian institution." It is not the same as continuity with the early Church. I disagree that almost every Christian denomination considers itself to be part of the oldest institution. The Church, not as group of followers of Christ teachings, but organized as an institution, which required hierarchy, started when it became joined with the Roman Empire. Almost all Christian denominations have a founder and a founding date within the last 500 years. None can claim to be oldest CONTINUOUS institution. They may claim to be part of the Church as they are members of Christ Body and they may claim that the Catholic Church separated itself from the early Church and broke continuity with its teachings, but agreeing that the organized Church (RCC, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian) took final shape with Constantine and the Nicaean Council, RCC is the oldest (along with the other three) continuous institutionalized denomination. Besides, the next line in that paragraph states "It believes that it was founded by Jesus Christ,..." where it mentions its claim of continuity with the early Church, being it true or not.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't continue to belabor the point, except to say that many people in Protestant denominations (and I've been both, converted to Catholicism) who would argue that the current RC Church is not the same institution as the one founded by Christ. I think it will be challenged if left as it is. My point is, why not change it to the less disputable wording while retaining the basic RC belief? Cresix (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Cresix. My point is that oldest continuous is not the same as founded by Christ. If the institutionalized Church (RCC and Orthodox) was created by Constantine in the 4th Century as many claim, it would still be the oldest denomination, as all surviving schismatic Churches came after the 4th century and all protestant denominations are no older than 500 years. I recognize the need for better wording, I just don't agree with stating that the RCC "claims to be the oldest;" it may claim continuity with Christ, but is, along with Orthodoxy, the oldest denomination. I do see that without better wording, the can of worms is still open. Still, as it currently states, you have both, RCC being the oldest institution (1st line) and its claim for continuity with Christ (2nd line).--Coquidragon (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your points, but I think how we define "institution" could be a problem. Some would argue that the "institution" has changed so much that it is not the same institution that existed 1500 years ago (some would even argue it's not the same institution since Vatican II). I would suggest using the word "denomination", but I remember a debate a few months back here (or a related article) about the appropriateness of that word. I'm certainly open to opinions, but I still lean toward the less disputable version created by Anglicanus. Cresix (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded this again. It is not acceptable in a secular encyclopaedia to suggest that a contentious claim or belief is a universally recognised fact. Therefore, on the principle of NPOV, must be worded in an acceptable way - which ot wasn't before but now is. Anglicanus (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted, there is not yet consensus for change and the current version is referenced. I see people arguing that it is contentious, but I don't see any references. Wikipedia is not the place for debates as to the authenticity of the current Church to its past or its foundation. Its a referenced fact that it has existed since the 4th C --Snowded ^TALK 09:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And I have reverted again. Your so-called "fact" is a clearly a POV and the claim - regardless of any POV reference you find to support it - cannot remain as it is. Anglicanus (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a track record of aggressive edit waring on articles where you have a strong POV and not using the talk page to reach agreement before making changes. Please read WP:BRD carefully. In this case you are asserting your opinion "it cannot remain as it is" but you are not supplying any reference to support your position, as opposed to the stable version of the page which is referenced. Collins is a reliable source and you can't dismiss it as POV just because you don't like it. --Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the pot is calling the kettle black once again. You are one of the most militant and blatant POV editors that I have had the misfortune of experiencing. You constantly assert some policies while ignoring others in order to promote your personal prejudices. It is a non-negotiable principle that articles must be worded in a NPOV manner. Despite this you continue to reject anyone's edits that attempt to do this when such NPOV edits don't fit with your entrenched prejudices. Your behaviour is - once again - incredibly arrogant. You don't know the meaning of "discuss". Anglicanus (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any disagreement above that the Catholic Church was first Christian Institution. I do see some claims that it has changed but I am not sure if this is a paradox or simply life. What I do know is we need some references rather than expressions of personal points of view. We have one there already (Collins), how about some more? --Snowded ^TALK 10:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As I remember it the rest of us worked out a compromise based on a proposal I made while you edit warred. Its not arrogant to ask for discussion to take place, it is arrogant to impose you view on the article while discussion is taking place. Now please behave in accordance with your claimed vocation and behave in a civilised way. Do you have any references that support your position? --Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So you now obviously think that being patronising is also acceptable behaviour in addition to your laughably hypocritical comments above. How pathetic! Anglicanus (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll find the diff if you want. Now pull back on the invective and stop adding WP:AGF violations to those you have already committed in respect of WP:BRD. Please produce some references to support your position here so we can discuss this properly. --Snowded ^TALK 11:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, Snowded, you have forgotten your initial comments above and your own gratuitously offensive AGF violation and invective regarding my perfectly valid edits. How about trying to treat other editors with some respect for a change instead of your usual style of trying to intimidate them? You also keep going on about alleged incivility by others whilst ignoring your own. Reminds me of something someone once said about specks and beams. Anglicanus (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen (ladies??), I don't have much time to comment right now, but let me encourage you to tone it down a few notches, comment on the issue not on contributors, and stop edit warring lest the page be protected. I think we can work out a reasonable solution, but it will take time (there is no WP:DEADLINE), but that is much more difficult when you personalize this content dispute. Cresix (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That line is certainly, and centrally, debateable.

• Is Roman Catholicism older than the Church of the East, which traces its roots to Peter's alleged Bishopric in Antioch, before he allegedly came to Rome? Is this Church older than the Copts? When was Mark Bishop of Alexandria - and was he? There is no consensus on this - our lead should not make assertions on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

However, that it is one of the oldest institutions in the world should be uncontroversial. In asserting this, I have preserved the link to Christianity. (That there may be older institutions, not necessarily Christian, should be uncontroversial: the Japanese Imperial House, Theravada Buddhism, the Oath of Hippocrates, Judaism...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a reasonable statement and it doesn't carry the pejorative "claim". However we could equally say that it is "with the Church in the East the oldest" or similar. There are various formulations. What we should be doing is reaching an agreement here before making the change. We should also be making a statement based on sources rather than the opinion or knowledge of editors. --Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the line of reasoning which involves the Church of the East would include the Coptic Church and the Orthodox Churches - at a minimum. That is excessively clumsy - and is gratutitously offensive to anybody omitted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I actually like your forumulation. However there are a range of phrases and we should agree which one here before editing the page, we should also base them on reliable sources. I note that Haldraper has now changed it again with some NPOV claim but has not discussed things here. WP:BRD is very clear, if something is controversial the change should be agreed on the talk page, people should not discuss by directly editing the article --Snowded ^TALK 20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is the "gratuitously offensive" wording that I seek to avoid. We must be very cautious, especially those of us who are a part of the RC Church, that we don't assume too much about what non-RC Christians will consider acceptable. Cresix (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Haldraper largely omitted my link to Christianity. We only need one of those in the lead, and may only need one in the article; I would have omitted it myself, if I had seen the one three paragraphs up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Fully agree. However what is contentious about "continuous" just removed by Haldraper? And, why have we got people changing the article rather than agreeing any change here first?--Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I posted the proposed reinstatement a full week, I think, before I actually reinstated the lead. During that period not a single person commented - now this. Anyway, carry on ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of continuous, especially in the lead? Most Christian Churches (including most Protestant Churches) assert continuity; putting in the lead will add nothing for most people (who admit the continuous sequence of Popes since antiquity, and don't recognize the polemical aspect) and despecately offend a minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly PMA I think it was there to set up for the bloody long article to follow - maybe for no other reason. I'm sure these discussions have been had endlessly here and can be found in the archives. I do think a three line lead for this page is insufficient, but otherwise, don't much care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You put it in your edit and it was removed as POV without explanation on the talk page. I asked why and I also asked (but you have not answered) why you are editing the article direct rather than using the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(left) This is two points:

• What reason is there to restore continuous, which was part of the original dispute in this section, without an explanation why we should do so?
• It is bad practice, and nowhere policy, to edit only after consultation. It produces stalemate, and has an unfortunate tendency to make whoever insists on it look like a POV warrior insisting on his text until he admits there is consensus to remove it. Please do not inflict this misunderstanding on yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As you say it is two points. In respect of the first you put it in and it was removed without any reason being given. In respect of the second in normal editing you are of course correct. There is no requirement to consult before editing. However when an edit or change is disputed then discussion moves to the talk page and there are a range of tools such as an RfC to prevent your POV warrior example. We have seen that on this page in the past and it has resolved contentious issues. Editing the article directly when there is a dispute generally frowned on in any ANI discussion I have seen and freezing articles to force discussion is common. --Snowded ^TALK 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, I like the current formation - the problem with "continuous" is not just the objections to whether or not the RC church is still the same institution - it's that many other groups (Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.) hold to Apostolic succession and claim that their institution is the original church and therefore is the oldest continuous institution. The current formation neatly avoids all of these issues. Eldamorie (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who have also recently been removing what should have been seen as the bleeding obvious POV problems with the "continuous" claim (and "claim" is not necessarily a "pejorative" word at all - it is often quite neutral, accurate and appropriate). I appreciate it that some editors are concerned to have NPOV wording instead of making contentious assertions of what they believe is true based on the selective use of references. Anglicanus (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Infallibility

I reverted a change done on the lead as to the infallibility of the Church being something of the past. There could be new dogmas defined, so the future tense in the current wording is accurate.--Coquidragon (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Revised header to reflect reality.

Catholics in general are well aware that Jesus did not start this thing that we call "The Catholic Church" but rather that he very likely considered himself a Jew to the very end, albeit one that fundamentally altered what he saw as their covenant with God. The header now reflects this. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

-- This is simply not true. It is a fundamental Catholic dogma that Jesus Christ founded, directly, the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.200.123 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

-- I agree, Jesus Christ did start the Catholic Church, and he even states about Peter "On this rock I will build my Church"(practically saying that he will build it). There are also many interpretations that say that Christ is the Church, making it somewhat impossible that he didn't.174.68.109.59 (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of Roman-Rite Mass

Cresix has restored an image (inserted for the first time only today) of the Tridentine form of the Roman-Rite Mass in place of an image of the rite's normal present-day form. I would not insist on this question but, since Cresix has invited me to discuss it here on Talk, I just state my opinion that the section on Roman Catholic worship should preferably be illustrated with an image of the normal form of that worship. Besides, the version that Cresix has restored has the text begin with an unexplained citation footnote "CCC, sections 1200–1209", unattached to any text. Esoglou (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree to whatever most people wish. I think the Tridentine image is photographically superior, showing much more detail. I also think it is historically important to depict the Tridentine liturgy. Actually, I see no reason both a Tridentine and present-day image can't be included, but some may consider that too much. There is already an image of Pope Benedict celebrating a modern Mass, if someone wishes to rearrange so the two can be seen together. BTW, the "unexplained citation" is not really relevant; it can be removed if no one sees a reason it should remain. Cresix (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The citation is not irrelevant: in the version that Cresix removed, it supports the not irrelevant statement, "Differing liturgical traditions, or rites, exist throughout the Catholic Church, reflecting historical and cultural diversity rather than differences in beliefs." Esoglou (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added the sentence. Voila! Problem fixed. Now anyone who wishes to discuss the image issue can continue. Cresix (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"communion of Western and Eastern Catholic churches"

Haldraper removed this particular phrase from the lead on the basis that it is "more appropriate for the body than the lead." I respectfully disagree, as this phrase essentially defines the greater Catholic church ("defining the topic" per WP:LEAD). Thoughts?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 12:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't object to including the phrase in the lead, I don't think it is essential, as long as the information is covered elsewhere in the article. Cresix (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming or reorganizing or splitting the article

I suggest to rename this article to Roman Catholic Church, since the structure of the whole Catholic Church is as follows: 1. Roman Catholic Church, 2. Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church, 3. Armenian Catholic Church, 4. Bulgarian Byzantine Catholic Church, 5. Chaldean Catholic Church, 6. Coptic Catholic Church, 7. Ethiopian Catholic Church, 8. Eparchy of Krizevci, 9. Greek Byzantine Catholic Church, 10. Hungarian Byzantine Catholic Church, 11. Italo-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church, 12. Maronite Catholic Church, 13. Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, 14. Romanian Greek-Catholic Church, 15. Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, 16. Slovak Byzantine Catholic Church, 17. Syrian Catholic Church, 18. Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, 19. Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, 21. Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, and other jurisdictions. All of these sui iuris churches together form the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church is only one of them, the remaining are Eastern Catholic Churches. Thus it is incorrect and unjust to the eastern churches to say that Catholic Church = Roman Catholic Church. Some language versions of Wikipedia (eg. Slovak) reflect this structure. 213.151.218.135 (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the way of thinking behind the article in its current form is the majority (in the English-speaking world, at least) perception of the "Catholic Church" is as the RCC (i.e., in the English language, for which this article is written, "Catholic Church" is most commonly used to refer to the Roman Catholic Church). This is in line with the policy governing article naming. That's why the Catholic Church (disambiguation) page was created. I can't really speak to how other language versions of Wikipedia should treat article naming, though I would assume it would be in a fashion consistent with their prevalent culture. Can anybody else help on this one?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 12:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the term "Roman Catholic Church" is used in English to include all churches in communion with the Holy See, of which there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. That's why Wikipedia distinguishes between the Roman Catholic Church and the Western (or Latin) Church (which, as it is the largest church within the Roman Catholic Church, is commonly misnamed often mistakenly thought to be the Roman Catholic Church).  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cjmclark. It is commonly used terminology that "Catholic Church" refers to the RC Church, and includes Eastern churches in communion with Rome. The non-RC Eastern churches are commonly known as "Orthodox". I don't see any need for changes that would confuse most readers who don't have much familiarity with the subject. This issue of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" has been raised in the past, several times I think, never with any consensus to change. Cresix (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not correct. The tem "Roman Catholic Church" is not always or consistently used in english to refer to all churches in communion with the Holy See. In fact, the tendency to use the term RCC to include the Eastern Catholic churches seems to be declining. Majoreditor (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A matter of opinion (whether yours or mine). In the absence of any hard data, this type of issue is decided by consensus. So far the consensus has been to leave it like it is, although consensus can change. Cresix (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, the most recent consensus has been to keep it as it is. Majoreditor (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess a better way of putting it would be that the term "Catholic Church" is commonly used to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, which though popularly misidentified as solely the Latin Church actually also includes the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the See of Rome by definition. The distinction here isn't between the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches, but rather between the Roman Catholic Church (to include the aforementioned churches) and churches utilizing the "Catholic" name without being in full communion with the Holy See (Old Roman Catholic Church, American Catholic Church, Old Catholic Church, et c.). Is that about right?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 14:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to comment, if you would let me, that the official English name of the Catholic Church is, in fact, the "Catholic Church". As such, I believe it should remain as it is.

I am also concerned about the phrase "formally know as the Roman Catholic Church" in the lead paragraph, as this is simply not the formal name. I would not object to an alternative phasing such as "Commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church, among many English speakers". The subtleties could be better discussed in the "Name" section.

Some sources that support this as the English name:

• http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
• http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm --Zfish118 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't revert your change, but I think you traded one problem for another. The Church is "commonly" known as "Catholic", but if you ask most Catholics what is the official name of their Church, you'll quite frequently get the response "Roman Catholic". The sources you cite are Catholic sources. That's fine, but Wikiedia doesn't just use Catholic sources for its information. I suspect there are many sources that support the idea that many Catholics (and non-Catholics) use the term "Catholic", but who use the term "Roman Catholic" if asked for a more precise term. Cresix (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the title of this article and the wording regarding the name of the church have been the subject of a dispute that lasted over a year and was resolved through a formal mediation process. The mediator was User:Shell Kinney. If needed, I'll dig up the result of the mediation or I'll contact Shell to provide it. Unfortunately, the proceedings of the mediation were deleted because someone threatened to use the mediation proceedings as evidence in an ARBCOM proceeding. However, I would counsel the following: (1) leave the name of the article what it is (2) do not attempt to specify the "official" or the "formal" name of the church. If you want just a taste of the issues involved, you may wish to look at this page which provides most of the sources that were presented and considered during the lengthy dispute. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the change to "also known as". Less confusing. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree to keep the "also known as" as the result of the long dispute. So I support Pseudo-Richard. A ntv (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. Majoreditor (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Current phrasing is fine with me. As a philosophical side note, "Catholic" really isn't so much a formal name, but more of an internally chosen description for the Church. The qualifier "Roman" was originally an external qualifier, and can pose some theological problems. Today, the name "Roman Catholic" is certainly not offensive, but many people aren't aware of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and so I think it is more fitting to call it by a possibly more surprising name (with Roman Catholic in parenthesis), to highlight this important structure of the church. Zfish118 (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The way the article is currently presented is fair. I would not support a change to only "Roman Catholic Church" or even suggesting that it was an official name, it's not. As a Catholic, I would feel uncomfortable with a flagship article on the Catholic Church to present itself anything but a universal embodiment of the Church as a whole. "Roman Catholic Church" suggests a suppression of the other Rites and Particular churches of the Catholic Church for an article on the universal Church. "Roman Catholic" is better served for discussion on the Rite itself such as the Latin Church. Keeping the "also known as" is fair since it helps people ignorant of the Catholic Church's complex and expansiveness nature clued in about what church the article is about while also trying maintain a non-dominant statement of the Church to those who are not Latin Rite Catholics (Roman Catholics). Safesler 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that "Roman Catholic Church" is not an "official name" (whatever that precisely means) is highly arguable. Latin variations of "Roman Catholic Church" have a long-established use in official Vatican documents and "Roman Catholic Church" is an English equivalent of these Latin names for the church.

For an official use of "Roman Catholic Church" as a name for the church read the following on the Vatican's website: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2007/documents/ns_lit_doc_20071124_titoli_en.html

Afterwriting (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that the article title and the "also know as" are a keep, I disagree with several of the justifications given. I know this has been debated in the past, but I think I should bring it to the table again to balance and strengthen the "Keep" position. The "Roman" in Roman Catholic Church is NOT about rite; Roman =/= Latin. "Roman" is about hierarchy, as all 23 churches that conform the Roman Catholic Church are under the Roman Pontiff, including all 22 Eastern churches. This is what makes them Roman. There is however a distinct Latin church (not to be confused with Roman) different from the 22 Eastern churches. Roman is not about rite, but about jurisdiction. I've know many Eastern Catholics, some like the Roman adjective and accept it and some dislike it, but any experience you might have had with Eastern Catholics that dislike it is as valid as mine, where Eastern Catholic consider themselves Roman, yet not Latin. The "Roman" distinguishes the Roman Catholic from the Orthodox Catholics (aka Eastern Orthodox), whom BTW also have Latin rite followers, who are definitely not Roman, as they don't accept the Popes authority.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Coquidragon about the specific meaning of "Roman" when used by the Vatican. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church Assets

Hello,

I was wondering if someone has any information on the total value of the Roman Catholic Church world wide? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.24.43.52 (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you intend to use the information to improve the article, this isn't the appropriate place for such discussion. Instead, ask at WP:RD. Cresix (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion here a few months ago. Basicly it depends on whether you count the land value of churches etc etc, and ignore all the divisions of assets between institutions such as dioceses & parishes. Liquid assets are relatively modest - less than $1 per member as I recall. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

While this would be interesting to know, there is absolutely no way to even approximate this. There are simply too many variables, lack of date, and too many unincorporated portions of the Church to arrive at a fair valuation. Don't expect anyone to follow up on this issue. Safesler 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Name

Simple name chnge

the Catholic churches officail name is the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" not the "Roman Catholic Church" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporial (talk • contribs) 05:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd need a good source to back that up, but I don't think you will find it. The Church is referred to in many ways, such as in the creeds. That doesn't make it the Church's "official" name. Please see all of the above discussion and the archives. Cresix (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Churches in lead

It has been removed from the lead the sentence: "The Catholic Church is communion of the Western and Eastern Catholic churches.". Perhaps this sentence can be improved, but I consider absolutly necessary to indicate in the lead the existance of the ECCs. Otherways the reader is introduced to the ECCs only when the article speaks about minors liturgial issues in section "sin and penance". The clear status of these Curches is well explained in the relevant Article Eastern Catholic Churches along with the references. So I stronly suggest a reference to the ECCs in the lead and i dont see any reason not to have it.A ntv (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of notability for the lead, not whether it should be in the article (you could even create a new section for it if you want). We discussed this beforeand didn't reach a consensus as to whether to include it or not but on balance I still think it's too much detail for the lead. Haldraper (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In the section above you pointed out, User:Cjmclark supported the inclusion of the ECCs in the lead, and Cresix did not objected. The point is that nowhereelse in the Article the ECCs are introduced in their status, and the presence of these Churches is something important and structural. Article Eastern Catholic Churches says correctly that these "ECCs are particular churches in full communion with the Pope. Together with the Latin Church, they compose the worldwide Catholic Church". I.e. they are not simply liturgical uses or titular names, but are structural to the composition of the worldwide Catholic Church, and so worth of a mention in the lead. I dont see the need of a subsection, because there is already the Article Eastern Catholic Churches. A ntv (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my comment was that I did not object to using the phrase "communion of Western and Eastern Catholic churches" in the lead, not exactly the same. If the rites (i.e., Latin rite and Eastern rites; or "Western and Eastern Catholic") are not mentioned at all in the lead, I'm OK with that. I would not agree to mentioning Eastern rites in the lead if the Latin rite is not mentioned. Cresix (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry for not having perfectly understtod your position. of cuorse there shall be a reference also to the Latin one. The removed sentence was perfect IMHO.A ntv (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the Name section (immediately following the lede) discusses the issue of communion with Rome and the difference between churches considered Catholic and Orthodox. It just doesn't use the explicit "Western and Eastern" language.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In the "name section" are referred to the Orthodox Churches (not in communion with the pope) which are not the Eastern Catholic Churches (in full communion with the pope@and part of the CC).A ntv (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the difference between the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I'm referring to where it discusses "the churches that remained in communion with the See of Rome," (emphasis added) which is inclusive of Latin rite and Eastern Catholic Churches and are designated "Catholic" and contrasts them with "the Eastern churches that rejected the pope's authority," which it designates "Orthodox." It's not saying that all Eastern churches rejected the Pope's authority, it's saying that the ones that did became known as Orthodox, while all the other churches that did not became collectively known as Catholic. Additionally, the lead-in specifically states, "This article is about the church in communion with the See of Rome," which by definition includes Eastern Catholic and Latin rite Churches.

I think it would be appropriate to either leave it the way it is, or if there's a concern that people don't understand which churches are in communion with Rome, use inclusive wording along the lines of what Coquidragon posted below. The article is about the Catholic Church as a whole and it discusses the differences between the Western and Eastern Churches in the appropriate places, so I don't (contrary to before, I know) really see a need to get specific. If we decide to, however, I agree with Cresix - the Latin rite gets mentioned alongside the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What about simply stating the communion: "It is a communion of 23 churches under the Bishop of Rome -the Pope-, which defines its mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity." On another matter, I do see the need of a section that introduces the Eastern Churches; even if it is just a quick summary with a link to the said article.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If we do this, IMO it should be a brief summary of the composition (sort of a dummie's guide to "who all is in communion with Rome, anyways?") of the Catholic Church and have links to the article in question and to the Latin Church.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I m fine with Coquidragon proposal. We can write a short Section after "name" entlited "Communion of Churches" which introduce the ECCs in comparison to the Latin Rite Chur)h.A ntv (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds worthwhile. A short section with appropriate links will do fine and eliminates the need to explain the communion in the lead.Majoreditor (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

British English

MOS:RETAIN says When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.

afaik the page was first written in British English so I think it's pretty clear we should retain that given the CC obviously has no strong national ties to either Britain or the USA. Haldraper (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had the this conversation earlier but maybe we didn't actually reach a decision. At any rate, yes I agree. I hadn't realized it began with British English, but we should retain the spelling with which it began. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is fine. I don't have any argument over which we should use. As I've said before, when I read through the article earlier, it clearly employed a vast majority of American English, so I edited it accordingly. All I care is that one or the other is used consistently (which had not been occurring) and the previous edits making changes to British English piecemeal were inserting inconsistency. It's all or nothing, so if folks want to go through and make sure that it's all in British English, that's fine by me.

For what it's worth, by the above policy one could easily argue that the article had evolved to employ American English, and so it is unnecessary to go back to the first major contributor. WP:Consensus tells us nothing need be set in stone. But as I said, it really doesn't matter. Just keep it consistent.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 15:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As Truthkeeper commented, this has been discussed in the past, at least once and I believe more than once. I don't believe there was ever an agreement. The article was spun off of Catholicism years ago, so the question has been, do we go by the English version in Catholicism or by the first major edit in Catholic Church. Then there's the question of which is the first major edit. In a discussion in the archives, someone counted the uses of American and British English at that time, and it was almost evenly divided.. As has been said, which version is not nearly as important as consistency. I don't think it's quite fair to choose American English simply because the article recently had more American English because I suspect there are more American editors (I'm American BTW). If we can't decide otherwise, I suggest some sort of online version of a coin toss (i.e., random), then all of us can work on conforming to that. For example, we could ask an uninvolved admin to toss a coin. Cresix (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'd always gotten the impression this was written using American spellings; however there were a few interesting sentence structures that might be indicative of British English. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Communion" or "communion"

The word "communion" (in reference to the sacrament) does not normally need to treated as a proper name or proper noun in sentences. When it is used as the name of the sacrament on a church notice board, for instance, it would be more correct to have "Communion" or "Holy Communion". When, however, writing something such as "the person received communion" this is more correct than "the person received "Communion" in the same way as "Jimmy's baptism was celebrated last Sunday is more correct than "Jimmy's Baptism was celebrated last Sunday". If anyone disagrees please discuss. Afterwriting (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that your latter example is correct (re: baptism). However, Communion is different in that the word itself is a stand-in for another proper noun (the Eucharist). You wouldn't say "the person received the eucharist." The AP Style Guide directs the capitalization of "proper names for rites that commemorate the Last Supper or signify a belief in Christ’s presence: the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, Holy Eucharist." This to me indicates a common usage of "Communion" that is not limited to the faith alone, therefore the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents is not applicable.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't turn up a previous discussion on this in a cursory sweep of the talk page archives. Being as this is a question of style, rather than grammar (and the sources are split on how they apply it) I ask for the other editors here to discuss their opinions so that we may achieve a consensus.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A little digging around turns up what seems to be a general use of "Communion" across articles related to the Catholic Church. I realize that consistency is most important within the article itself rather than across a topic area, but I do think we should strive for some manner of consistency in Catholic-related articles.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 14:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your replies. Where I live, in Australia which generally follows British-English style, it is perfectly acceptable and common to write that "the person received the "eucharist" and to spell things as "eucharist", "mass", "holy communion" etc. There is also a distinction about the name of a "rite" (such as "Communion") and the act of receiving the sacramental species (which in my experience is usually and properly spelled "communion"). In other words, while a church celebrates "Communion" the people receive "communion". Therefore, whether the word is capitalised or not should, in my opinion, depend on whether it is referring to the rite itself ("Communion") or the consecrated elements ("communion"). Afterwriting (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If the usage of the Catholic Church itself in English has weight, "Communion" and "Holy Communion" refer to the Eucharist, "communion" refers to communion. See Order of Mass (new official translation). Esoglou (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've always thought of the phrase "receiving Communion" to be synonymous with taking part in the rite, rather than looking at "receiving communion" as a literal act of reception with the word "communion" as a substitute for the Body and Blood. The only thing I can really point to here are the definitions of "Eucharist" and "Communion," which are acts (thanksgiving and well, communing) rather then objects, so it seems to me to make sense for it to be a reference to the rite itself. Wikipedia is pretty clear that general language usage overrides styles specific to religions, so this appears to be a style/point of view issue with no clear right and wrong. I'll defer to whatever consensus we come up with so long as (just like in Talk:Catholic Church#British English above) it's applied consistently.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization is used even (or especially?) for the sacramental species: "When the distribution of Communion is over ..." (Order of Mass, 137). Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church's clear usage of "Communion" to mean the Eucharist, whether as rite or as consecrated species, and "communion" to mean the bond between (true) Christians appears to be supported by other sources that fail to make any distinction between rite and consecrated species in this regard. "Capitalize Communion when the Sacrament is meant; also Holy Communion, the Sacrament of Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper; Communion hymns, liturgy. Lowercase communion when used as a general term: The fellowship of believers is a sacred communion" (The Official Stylebook and Letter and Grammar Guidelines of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, revised October 2010). "Communion: Capitalize when it refers to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper" (Community of Christ Multimedia Publishing Style Guidelines). "Capitalize ... references to the Eucharistic sacrament" (Calvin Theological Seminary, Guidelines for Manuscripts and Reviews/Notices). "Capitalize 'Communion' when referring to the Lord's Supper" (Cedarville University Style Guide). One source rules that lowercase is generally correct for rites: "1. Capitalize the terms referring to the Lord’s Supper or Communion and its equivalents the Mass and Eucharist. CORRECT: Raised both Lutheran and Catholic, Gerard Duo took awhile to understand that the Lord’s Supper and the Mass were different interpretations of the same sacrament. 2. Lowercase the names of religious services and rites. CORRECT: Seder followed vespers, which followed bar mitzvah, which followed confirmation; it had been a long and ecumenical week " (Editorial Style Guide: Religious Terms). Somewhat less clear is: "communion/Communion: lowercase when used as a general term: 'the communion of saints', 'my first communion'; capitalize when referring to the Christian sacrament of receiving the body and blood of Christ: 'Holy Communion', 'Sacrament of Holy Communion'" (ELCA Style Guide).

Certainly, other usages too are widely followed (even if for them it is perhaps less easy to find stylebooks that sanction them), but it seems clear that the official Catholic Church English usage has support outside that church. Perhaps it should therefore be applied in Wikipedia at least in articles about that church's teaching. Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

History of Eastern Catholic Churches

Because of the new emphasis we are putting on the Eastern Catholic Churches, I think they should be woven into the existing history section, possibly starting with the "East-West Schism" alluded to elsewhere in the article, and continuing through the Councils attempting East-West reconciliation up into the present day.

It could also possibly include some of controversies, such "Unatism", and the problems this causes for Catholic/Orthodox relations, however this might better fit in a "relationship with other christian communities" section, or an "ecumenism/inter-communion" section that discusses in more detail some of fragments found elsewhere.--Zfish118 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Communion of Churches

I've implemented Coquidragon's suggestion and added the relevant new section. Hoping not to have done errors.A ntv (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Great job A ntv(talk)! I think you have done a good and referenced summary of a very complex topic.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I also built upon your section, combining the "Traditions of Worship" as a sub-section, as your work leads well into this sections introduction of the various rites and modes of worship. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, good work, but now it looks like to be confusion between "rite" and "mode of worship", which actually are two very different even if related issues. We should keep these two ideas separated, and I may write some good short introduction to the Eastern Catholic modes of worship. A ntv (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is showing rapid signs of improvement! Thanks A ntv for clarifying the confusions and the Eastern Catholic contribution!--Zfish118 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The new wording was deleted by someone. I have added it back.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Coquidragon: The consensus was to write a new section, not to include the material in the first sentence of the lead. It is very misleading there without abundant explanatory material to explain it. It gives the impression that the Catholic Church is not as monolithic as it is by equivocating on two meanings of the word "church". A "particular church" is a "church" only in a very limited sense. Your wording also does not indicate that the Latin Rite accounts for 99% of adherents, and gives the impression that the Eastern Rites are larger and more autonomous than they actually are (they are "autonomous" only in regard to administrative structure, and even that is highly controlled by the Vatican). The reader will assume that the Catholic Church is a communion in the sense of the better-known Anglican Communion or Orthodox Communion, in which the constituent churches do indeed enjoy very broad autonomy that Eastern Rite Churches dare not even dream about. Eastern Rite particular churches are best introduced in the body of the article, as per consensus, and not in the lead. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Placement of section

Where do we want this section to appear in the article? It initially appeared after the "Name" section, but Resolver-Aphelion moved it down to the "Doctrine" area of the article, on the basis that they felt it was "more appropriate" there. I reverted on the basis that we had an agreed-upon position for the section from our "Eastern Catholic Churches in lead" discussion (A ntv - "We can write a short Section after "name" entlited "Communion of Churches" which introduce the ECCs in comparison to the Latin Rite Chur)h(sic)."), but rather than following WP:BRD Resolver-Aphleion reverted my revert without discussion or consensus, again on the basis that they believed it was "more appropriate." Rather than reverting that revert, I'm asking that we either verify a consensus was previously established (and place the section accordingly) or establish a new one. Thoughts?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes there was most definitely a consensus for the Communion of Church's section up top.--Zfish118 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Another thought is that the "Worship" section does flow nicely into the "Doctrine" section, so it may be apt to keep these together. However, I still think that the communion of Church's section should be near the top. While the Eastern Catholic Churches are small in membership when comparison to the Latin Church, and thus easy to over look, their role in history and is much larger, and greatly affects things such as the relationship between the greater Catholic Church and the Orthodox. So perhaps the solution would be to move the history section below the Communion-Worship-Doctrine. This would be consistent with the organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church article --Zfish118 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be amenable to that. I think hitting the reader up top with the overview of what the Church is about first is more appropriate, then get into the minutiae of history, organization, and so forth.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 23:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Placement as lead

I've heavily edited this section to reflect its placement at the top, so as to give proper emphasis to both the Latin and Eastern Churches.--Zfish118 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging Communion of Church's with Hierarchy sections

Any thoughts about merging the newly made "communion of churches" section with the existing "organization, demographics and hierarchy" section? --Zfish118 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been whittling down the section so that it may be better merged —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish118 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Compilation of previous discussions

Note: Please do not datestamp

Why not? Lycurgus (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Catholic Church/Unresolved issues
• Wikipedia:Catholic Church/Cultural Influence
• Wikipedia:Catholic Church/History - Nazism and Fascism

• Note after the fact: All of the aforementioned pages starting with "Wikipedia:Catholic Church/" were reverted or moved to a page that starts with "Talk:Catholic Church/" since Wikipedia:Catholic Church doesn't exist, making any title that begins with "Wikipedia:Catholic Church/" eligible for speedy deletion per {{db-subpage}} (criterion G8.) The aforementioned pages can be found at the following titles:

• Talk:Catholic Church/Unresolved issues
• Talk:Catholic Church/Cultural Influence
• Talk:Catholic Church/History - Nazism and Fascism

– Steel1943 (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential sources to consult

History

• Norman, Edward (2008). The Roman Catholic Church: An Illustrated History. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520252516. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) User:Truthkeeper88 has analyzed this book

• Esler, Philip Francis (2000), The early Christian world, Volume 1, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 9780415164962 [1]
• Lossl, Josef (2010), The Early Church:History and Memory, T&T Clark International, ISBN 9780567165619
• Lynch, Joseph H. (2009), Early Christianity: A Brief History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195138030
• MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2003). The Reformation. Viking. ISBN 0-670-03296-4.
• Stark, Rodney (1996). The Rise of Christianity. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691027494.
• Brown, Peter Robert Lamont (2003), The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000, Parts 200-1000 (2 ed.), Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 9780631221388

Social Teaching

• Sullins, D. Paul; Blasi, Anthony J. (2008), Catholic social thought: American reflections on the Compendium, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0739123114
• Massaro, Thomas (2008), Living Justice: Catholic Social Teaching in Action, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0742559971 - written by a priest to show the Catholic perspective

Hierarchy/demographics

• Walsh, Michael (2005), Roman Catholicism: the basics, Routledge, ISBN 0415263808

Statistics

• Barrett, David B.; Kurian, George Thomas; Johnson, Todd M., eds. (2001), World Christian encyclopedia: a comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world, Oxford University Press isbn for volume i: 9780195103182

Don't see the value of this anonymous thread which the poster has tried to except from normal page processing, apparently convinced of the great worth of these sources on a topic for which there are undoubtedly many millions of sources. Lycurgus (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cardinals as next highest rank in hierarchy

Would someone with access to the McBrien encyclopedia please check whether the article on cardinals really says, as stated in the article, that cardinals are "the next highest level (after the pope) in the hierarchy". The article Catholic Church hierarchy clearly states: "The cardinalate is not an integral part of the theological structure of the Catholic Church, but largely an honorific distinction". Some would certainly question whether cardinals, in spite of their high honorary position of precedence etc., are part of the hierarchy of the Church. What we understand today by the word "cardinals" simply did not exist for over half the Church's history. Esoglou (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur that "the next highest level (after the pope) in the hierarchy" doesn't quite jive. Possibly the original source conflated the curia and the cardinals? I didn't remove the line myself, but if you want to, go for it. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deemphasized the role of the cardinals within the hierarchy.--Zfish118 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The two subjects of supreme authority are the Pope, as successor of Peter, and the College of Bishops as a whole, as successor of the body of the apostles. The College of Cardinals is not a subject of supreme authority. But I can't remove from the article what appears to be based on a cited reliable source. Esoglou (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the information about the Cardinals, just the confusing statement that they are the second highest rank in the hierarchy. We've also added some information about the curia, and the definition of a cardinal to better elaborate on the role of Cardinals within the church.--Zfish118 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved History

Per the discussion in "Communion of Churches", I moved the history to the end. What I hope this produces will be to introduce the organization of the Catholic Church as it exists today, followed up by styles of worship, then doctrine, then the history of the organization. Within the leading "Organization..." section, I combined the "Communion of Churches" section, with a better description of how these fit within the larger Church, per worries that the previous phrases might overly distort one's impression of the Church.

Comments, Objections, Other ideas? --Zfish118 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation name

The "confirmation name" custom is unknown in many Catholic countries, perhaps most. So does the cited reliable source, Schreck's Essential Catholic Catechism, to which I don't have access, really say that, "to be properly confirmed" (whatever that means), one must have "selected a saint to be their patron and intercessor"? Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If Schreck made that statement, it certainly is a misguided interpretation of the difference between a custom and a canonical requirement. Unless someone can justify this statement with another reliable source, I suggest that the statement should be removed. Cresix (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit adding the statement was made by NancyHeise (talk · contribs) and sourced later, possibly as an afterthought. It makes me wonder if the information actually is in Schreck. Cresix (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Choosing a confirmation name is a custom depending on your country of origin, not a canonical requirement. It's not mentioned in the catechism nor is it in the liturgical book for the rite of Confirmation, so I would say that quote is erroneous.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole line about spiritual preparation is rather spurious, as the very next line says that infants can be confirmed. Preparation is important, but it is merely a custom, not a requirement --Zfish118 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation in infancy only occurs in Eastern Rites, as stated in the article. To my knowledge in the Western Church, there is always some preparation for confirmands. Cresix (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In the West the canonical age for confirmation is the age of discretion (about 7), and the episcopal conference can set a later age as normal. (A much later age in the United States, except in Arizona.) However, if the child is in danger of death, the child is to be confirmed even before reaching the age of discretion. The parish priest/pastor has the faculty of confirming in those cases, without having to call on the bishop. Esoglou (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Latin Rite requires preparation for confirmation except in the case mentioned above (per the Catechism).  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

CCC 1307 (see it in the link you provided) states explicitly: "For centuries, Latin custom has indicated 'the age of discretion' as the reference point for receiving Confirmation. But in danger of death children should be confirmed even if they have not yet attained the age of discretion." The preparation that CCC 1309 refers to can of course be done with children who have reached "the age of discretion", without their having to be 17 years old or thereabouts. The requirements indicated in CCC 1310-1311 of course do not include taking a "confirmation name". Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we have enough to remove the comment in the article about "confirmation name". I'll remove it. If anyone can provide reasonable evidence otherwise feel free to restore it. Cresix (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

I've spent the last month or so working on organizing and better presenting the existing content on this page. In the past, I've worked on several other Catholic related articles.

In this article, I particularly focused on the doctrine section, which seemed more of a long list of ideas, rather than narrative. Mostly I focused on existing content, but did work to fill a few holes, and helped integrate some new sections. I'd like to open it up to the Wikipedia "peer review" process to shed some light on areas of further improvement. Any help with getting the peer review process underway would be greatly appreciated!

Link to the peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review/Catholic_Church/archive1

--Zfish118 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

English

What sort of English should this be written in? British or American? Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick use of the find tool on google chrome revealed seven instances of the word "organization" and 2 of the word "organisation" I will change the words "organisation" to "organization" for continuity until this subject can be discussed further. A check of the Manual of Style reveals that both are acceptable in the UK and Canada. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As a point of reference, this has been discussed recently (and probably more than once): Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_51#British_English. Cresix (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually about to post that link myself. I think it would be a good idea to establish a firm consensus and maintain it somewhere (preferably a non-archiving talk page post) as suggested in Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_51#Typo. That way we don't have this happen every few months.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like no consensus to me. Although I am an American, I don't have a true preference as to which way this is written, but I would like to see a "Use British English" or "Use American English" line at the top of the page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The only consensus we established is that most of us didn't care which we used as long as it was used consistently. Cresix posted it because we had this discussion fairly recently and wanted you to be able to see what we had discussed. The next relevant edit revised the article to include a majority of British English.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the consensus was that no one really cared one way or the other, I've gone ahead and changed most of the article to American spellings. Much of the history section was already written using American spellings, and there were only about 25 words using British spellings in the rest of the article (excluding organisation, which has already been converted to organization). --Zfish118 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand partially corrected, the history had a few British words tucked in, my spell check just didn't catch up! I believe I've corrected all the obvious ones, though a few may have escaped.--Zfish118 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If no one strongly objects, there is an "American English" template available at Template:American_English--Zfish118 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I do strongly object. The article was originally written in British English and unless you can show a valid reason to change from that WP policy is to stick with it. Haldraper (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

While this article may have been written in British English long ago, it seems that it has evolved into an article with mostly American English spelling. And according to MOS:RETAIN,"When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety." I think that if early on the Wikipedia community had chosen British English it should have stayed that way, but now it should follow American English. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, not only was it first written in British English but it has continued using it until very recently. Articles about British or American institutions should conform to British or American English but that is clearly not the case here. I think people who want to change from British English to American English should put forward clear reasons why they think it necessary. Haldraper (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Through an analysis of 17 different words that can be spelled differently using British or American English before I made my first edit on the subject I found these results: 24 individual words containing British English spellings, 21 words containing American English spellings. In addition, 5 words containing American English spellings were contained in references, one word containing American English spelling was contained in the footnotes section. Through this I think we can say that the article is written in British English. I will be tagging to avoid edit warring and I will make the spelling consistent throughout. Discussion can still continue on here, but if the issue is not definitively chosen to be American English, it should be British for now. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be an acceptable compromise to adopt the practice used in United Nations documents? That is, to follow non-American rules, but with the Greek-derived endings -ize, and -ization, rather than the French-derived -ise and -isation. This, the Oxford University practice, is fully accepted in Britain and other countries, though not, I think, in Australia. See en-GB-oed. Personally, I think that this should be the practice throughout an international project such as Wikipedia, but I think any proposal to make it a rule for Wikipedia would arouse too much opposition. However, it can surely be adopted for this article. Esoglou (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed; however, before we make the change I would like more people to comment, specifically Haldraper. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit for the record that was using a bold-revert-discuss tactic ;-). I think it should be in American English mostly because I'm an American, and my spell-check lights up like crazy editing this article, haha. I can accept though that British English is used world-wide and would be more familiar to possibly a majority of the world. I would consider that a good reason to use British English for the Catholic Church article, as it is a worldwide organization. Merely using it because this article was originally written in such a language I don't think is a good enough reason. This article has been edited so heavily, that it barely resembles its original form. New pieces are added in both American and British English and are only intermittently copy edited to British spellings, so I think that the language choice should be based on what is most easily maintained personally. However, I will defer to worldwide readability if that is the consensus. Right now, British English seems to have the most support, but are there enough Brit's out there to correct our American misspellings? :P--Zfish118 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of "reaching a compromise" or what suits an editor's spellchecker but of following WP policy. Even if Zfish thinks that "using it [British English] because this article was originally written in such a language I don't think is a good enough reason", Wikipedia does: MOS:RETAIN states "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic."

This article was originally written in British English and has used it since. There are no national ties to the topic so no basis for any change. Haldraper (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be amenable to the Oxford University practice, as the Catholic Church is an international organization. The question is, can this be maintained successfully? We would need to be very direct in advertising its use and very vigilant in maintaining it, as the natural instinct of most Wikipedians is to edit in their native idiom, and this is neither wholly American nor wholly British.

I think the assertion that the article has used British English (unless you mean intermittently) since its inception is weak. And again, by the logic of that very same section of MOS:RETAIN, one can easily argue that it's not clear which variety of English it employs as at various points it has been British, American, and (the horror) a hybrid of both. Additionally, Wikipedia clearly favors editing via consensus over strict adherence to policy (within reason, we're not going all BLP-crazy here), so I would say it is most definitely a question of "reaching a compromise" at this point.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with Esoglou's proposed compromise - British English with -ize preferred to -ise - is that I think it would be confusing for new editors who would not unreasonably conclude that the page was written in American English and write text accordingly. No one as far as I can see has made a compelling case for switching from British to American English. Haldraper (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The choice of British or American English is such a trivial matter (although consistency is much more important). Therefore, as an American, I will hereafter push for adoption of British English in the hope that at least a small consensus will emerge to settle this once and for all. I would recommend to anyone interested in my opinion to support British English, not because it is a better choice, but just to end this. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Haldraper, which British English? There is more than one. Esoglou (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

American English isn't always consistent either. The reasonably common American use of "theatre" instead of "theater" is one example - and "catalogue" instead of "catalog" is another. Anglicanus (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two distinct authoritative British spellings with regard to -ize/-ise, one backed by Oxford University, and used in particular in the prestigious Oxford English Dictionary, the other by Cambridge University. It isn't just a matter of common usage. The choice is between a British spelling that has the backing of the United Nations, and a British spelling that has the backing of the Commonwealth agencies. Haldraper prefers the latter, so as to mark the choice of spelling as more evidently non-American. In this article, Haldraper's choice is in possession, and not enough opposition to it has emerged to justify making a change. Esoglou (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bold Edit - History section

Due to the huge length of this article, and comments in the Peer Review, I used summary style to dramatically condense the history section (mostly based off of the lead section in the History of the Catholic Church article). I did a quick comparison and found old history section and the history article to be largely equivalent, although the history article appears to still be in development. This may free up space to cover more contemporary issues, or other improvements to the article

I preserved the old history section here: Talk:Catholic Church/Old history section (June 2011)

--Zfish118 (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Final sentence of lede may need a comma.

The final sentence of the lede seems to read awkwardly. "Catholic beliefs concerning Mary include her Immaculate Conception without the stain of original sin and bodily Assumption into heaven at the end of her life." Either a comma after sin or addition of the word 'her' before the word 'bodily' may clean it up. I'm going to be bold, but please revert if my grammar is wrong.I also added the word 'mortal' so that it now reads, ""Catholic beliefs concerning Mary include her Immaculate Conception without the stain of original sin and her bodily Assumption into heaven at the end of her mortal life." Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Catholic Church teaches that Mary still lives spiritually.--Canadiandy talk 05:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church teaches that everyone still lives spiritually, so you are correct. Your edit looks good.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 12:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Where's the bit about the priest sex-abuse scandal?

Just wondering, because searching for "paedophile" in the article, it seemed to be oddly absent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.156.219 (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was considering how to incorporate that unfortunate scandal. I recently heavily edited the history section for length, and have been considering ways to reincorporate that information. Have to present the good with the bad. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thank you for your concern. The history section of this article is currently undergoing redevelopment in an effort to reduce the overall article length. If you are interested in a discussion of Catholic sex abuse cases (to which I assume "the bit about paedo priests" refers), I invite you to peruse History of the Catholic Church, which gives a brief summary of the topic, and Catholic sex abuse cases, which discusses it in detail.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary History

I restored the "Contemporary" history section from the archive, which I think covers some very relevant topics to the modern church. The section needs improvement. Any ideas? --Zfish118 (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to slim it down a bit by giving summaries of Vatican II and John Paul II, rather than the slightly more detailed treatment they currently receive. Couldn't hurt to include links at the top of the sections to the most relevant articles, maybe?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, it looks like one of the references broke when the History section was cut. #116 is kicking back an error message.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else seeing this?

Haldraper removed the word "mortal" from the last sentence of the lede (here) on the basis that it was POV. Oddly, though, I still see "mortal" in that sentence in the current version. Weird.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't know that I'd call it POV...it's describing a Catholic belief, so I would think the word would be appropriate in this case. I don't think it's asking anyone else to acknowledge a distinction between the mortal and spiritual; it's saying that Catholics do. Thoughts?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What does the Assumption dogma say? As I recall it says "at the end of her mortal life" which leaves open the question of a "mortal death". Perhaps the wording can refer to the dogma with a direct quotation from it with a reference. Stating what the dogma itself says isn't POV as longs as it's clear that that's what it's actually refering to. Anglicanus (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The literal wording is "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory," found at the end of paragraph 44 of Munificentissimus Deus.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'm still seeing the word "mortal" in the sentence, even after clearing my browser cache and reloading the page. Does anyone else see it, or am I just losing my wiki-mind?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird...I had to open the editing pane and save (without changing anything) and it went away. Huh.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have this happen to me before. I think it happens during edit conflicts. I think stating "at the end of her life" accurately expresses the dogma in a simple manner. "Mortal" I don't think was necessarily POV, but it was ambiguous as to which definition was used. Catholic doctrine doesn't specify whether her body died before being assumed into heaven, just that the assumption occurred at the end of her "earthly" life. If she didn't die, then's she immortal. If she died, she is mortal. So "mortal" just add confusion! --Zfish118 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think "at the end of her life" inaccurately expresses the dogma, as Catholic doctrine holds that all people are, in effect immortal (through the immortality of the soul). Therefore, dogmatically speaking, "at the end of her life" would equate to "never." The dogma makes the distinction that at the end of her mortal/earthly life, Mary was assumed into Heaven bodily to continue her spiritual life rather than suffering the corruption of decay that everyone else's body experiences when their immortal soul leaves it at the end of their mortal life.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pope said "earthly life", and what is reported is what the Catholic Church holds, not any editor's view. So we should use "earthly life", surely. Esoglou (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm being overly sensitive, and please feel free to WP:TROUT me if so, but I think having "earthly life" in quotes in the article can be seen as contentious. I try to be as NPOV and AGF as possible, but I look at it and it kind of comes off as a bit patronizing (which I know wasn't Zfish's intent, but the casual reader doesn't necessarily know that). It would be different if we quoted the whole section of the dogma, but that's a bit unwieldy here. Can we drop the quotes? I think the footnote gives it enough context for a reader to recognize that the term is used in reference to doctrine.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 04:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

fair enough :) On a related note... --Zfish118 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference question

Should quotes from the original source be placed within the general references/citations section, or within the notes section. Both are used in this page, and I was wondering if being consistent is important, or if it depends on the intent each note/quote? --Zfish118 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. WP talks about quotes in footnotes here, but doesn't say much other than that it's an issue of style for the most part. I do think—as with most other style issues—consistency is key. We have quotes in the "Footnotes" section; we have quotes in the "Citations" section. We have explanatory material in the "Footnotes" section; we have explanatory material in the "Citations" section (and some of it isn't sourced). WP:REFNOTE gives some guidance, and I think it's worthwhile; if a footnote has a quote or an explanation in it, then I think we should have it in the "Footnotes" section and save the "Citations" section for pure reference.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Women "priests"

Zfish, I just gutted some of the stuff you added about RCWP women priests. Let's discuss. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My main problem was the long disclaimer from their website in the Notes section. I figure if people want to learn more about the RCWP then they can click on the link to their wiki article, and from there to their website, etc. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem I was trying to solve was a reference for them not being "formally" affiliated with the Catholic Church. The best I could come up with was their disclaimer, which said that each ministry was an independent from the "Roman Catholic Womenpriest", which I must have misread as the "Roman Catholic Church". They claim to be a movement "within" the "Roman Catholic Church", but their behavior often results in excommunications - which doesn't technically revoke membership, but also doesn't exact endorse them as a group in good standing with the Catholic Church. Basically, it needs more sources. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be the "POV Police" here, lol, but I would like make sure the prose specifically states that it is the Catholic Church, whether bishop or other official representative, that declared these alleged "ordinations" to be invalid. I of course agree that the ordinations are not valid, but want to make sure that the passage holds up to outside scrutiny. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't find a source for my statement, so I removed it. Instead, I mentioned they claim to have been aided by a bishop, which they may have been, and added more information about the excommunications. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're doing good work here, Zfish; the changes you made look good. I made a few tweaks just now, describing RCWP as "defiant" and "dissident". Are those terms too POV ? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I did change "dissident" to "opposition" not so much out of POV, but out of redundancy. The group uses strong enough language on their website to warrant "In defiance...", but using both words might be too strong. In any event, the paragraph concludes with the fact that the participants are considered automatically excommunicated for their efforts, which I hope makes the official position fairly clear. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too, Zfish! --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

factual error

the article says:

Relatively small in terms of adherents compared to the Latin Church, but important to the overall structure of the Church, are the 22 self-governing Eastern Catholic Churches with a membership of 13.865 million as of 2010.

This has to be wrong, because the world population is 6.000 million. If you read the actual source, it adds up to 17 million.190.229.117.168 (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You may want to look at the World population page. The world population is 6.93 billion, not million.Marauder40 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In some countries aren't periods used in place of commas in numbers? That would mean the user was saying that there are 6,000 million which is 6 billion. That would also mean that, to the user, it reads, 13,865 million, or 13.865 billion. I'm not sure that there is an adequate solution though. Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you add up the totals from the source, you get 17,307,427 members of the Eastern Catholic Churches in 2010. Whoever made the initial edit most likely got their math wrong (unless they are excluding some of them for some reason) and most likely depicted it in the fashion dictated by the Manual of Style using a decimal point to indicate fractions of a million, not as a placeholder like the comma. They were saying "13.865 million" as in "13,865,000" or "13.865.000." At any rate, it is wrong, but only because the numbers from the source don't add up to what's in the article.

As such, I will edit this section to read "the 22 self-governing Eastern Catholic Churches with a membership of 17.3 million as of 2010."  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Apostolic succession

In light of the recent edits re: apostolic succession in the lede, I took the liberty of digging around in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states that

"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."

— Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 77

As such, I have restored the previous wording of the sentence in question and added the appropriate footnote and citation.

I don't understand the objection to the wording as it stands. I thought it was pretty clear that the Church teaches that the bishops are the Apostles' successors and the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) is St. Peter's. Is that the general consensus, as supported by the provided sources?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have again reverted an unsourced edit regarding this made by User:Lloydbaltazar and—as this is technically the fourth reversion on their part—left a 3RR warning on their talk page requesting (again) that they come here to discuss their edits rather than disturbing content which is sourced and has existed with consensus for some time.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 05:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This quote comes courtesy of Esoglou...

"The Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles" (et spes, 21); "The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles ..." (Gaudium et spes, 22); "The individual bishops, ... each of them, as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles ..." (Gaudium et spes, 23); "Bishops, as successors of the apostles ..." (Gaudium et spes, 24); "The parallel between Peter and the rest of the Apostles on the one hand, and between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops on the other hand, does not imply the transmission of the Apostles' extraordinary power to their successors" (Gaudium et spes, Appendix).

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mary in the lead

The user mentioned above also made changes to the lead concerning Marian beliefs. Before the changes, it read:

"The Church holds the Blessed Virgin Mary in special regard. Catholic beliefs concerning Mary include her Immaculate Conception without the stain of original sin and her bodily Assumption into heaven at the end of her earthly life."

Now it reads:

The Church holds the Blessed Virgin Mary in special regard. Catholic beliefs concerning Mary include her Immaculate Conception and exemption from the original sin of [[Adam & Eve|Adam & Eve]], her physicaland spiritual state of extraordinary [[grace|grace]], her divine motherhood to [[Jesus Christ|Jesus Christ]], her bodily Assumption and coronation into heaven at the end of her earthly life."

I think we should go back to how it was first stated. If not, leave only the "divine motherhood". This way, only the four defined dogmas are stated and no mention is awarded either to other doctrines and/or traditions that may follow from them or to ones that may or may not be held by all catholics.--Coquidragon (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem with Lloydbaltazar's edits concerning Mary is that they added too much detail to the lead. Would they have been reasonable to add to the subsection titled "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary"? If so, we could achieve Lloydbaltazar's objective in that section without adding too much verbiage to an already dense lead. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Go back. Lloydbaltazar's edit introduced a succession of questionable expressions. Mary's exemption is from original sin, an effect of the sin of Adam (and, if you insist, of Eve - but that is another decidedly questionable matter, since the New Testament and the declarations of the Church councils speak only of Adam in this regard), not the sin of Adam and Eve itself. I see no sense in the expression "her physical ... state of extraordinary grace." "Her divine motherhood to Jesus Christ" is puzzling: "her divine motherhood" means her being mother of one who is God (Council of Ephesus), but the expression "her divine motherhood to Jesus Christ" is surely without precedent in Catholic teaching or any Christian teaching. "Coronation into heaven" is ungrammatical and, if it refers to Mary's coronation in heaven, it concerns a pious (metaphorical?) belief consecrated by its inclusion in the mysteries of the Rosary, but not something that has been infallibly proposed, as have the two beliefs mentioned in the text that we should return to and which thus have a special status because of which they deserve special mention.

Would Lloydbaltazar at least agree to make only a few edits a day, so that each can be discussed calmly? Otherwise, I fear that Lloydbaltazar's over-enthusiastic edits here and elsewhere may have to be systematically reverted until Lloydbaltazar learns, by studying WP:OR and similar pages, to insert only statements that can be backed up by reliable sources and to cease to insert statements that Lloydbaltazar merely "knows" to be correct. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Church's official teachings about Mary are reduced to the four dogmas: Perpetual Virginity, Theotokos (for which "Divine Motherhood" is a bad choice of words, but the idea is nevertheless understood), Immaculate Conception and Assumption into Heaven. That's it. Anything else derives from them or, although part of the tradition, are not necessarily believed by all catholics or supported by sound theology, since many are born out of personal devotions. If there is going to be any additions to the main article, it should be only to expand on these four ideas. There is already an article on Mariology with many other doctrines and devotions on Mary; there is no need to add them here. The "see also" should be enough. Remember that this articles is already very long for Wikipedia standards.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Divine Motherhood"?

What on earth is meant by the claim of "divine motherhood" of Christ by the Virgin Mary in recent eduts? This seems like heresy to me - or is it a misleading translation of theotokis? Anglicanus (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is NOT heresy. The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the SINLESS and PERFECT conception of the Blessed Mother, which makes her a NON-sinner in the eyes of the Church. To be fully human means to be stained with some degree of Sin, which was inherited from Adam and Eve.

The Mother of God did not inherit sin, and does not deserve the title "human motherhood" which is misleading to many readers who might believe that the Church teaches if Mary is a mortal, sinful being. She is NOT.

Might as well remove both human/divine if this will be a contentious point of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloydbaltazar (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To deny that Mary wasn't a human being and to assert or imply that she was a divine being is most definitely a heresy - and an especially serious one. Sinlessness doesn't remove her "humanity" in any way whatsoever. Anglicanus (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Denying the humanity of Mary would be a major heresy, indeed, as it would imply that Jesus was not true man.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your removal of "divine" from the article. But there is nothing, however, uniquely Roman Catholic in believing that Mary was the mother of Christ. Anglicanus (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the concept of "humanity" and "divine" as applied by the Church here. The Church teaches that Mary was conceived without sin, but it was her choice as a human to submit to the will of God and remain sinless throughout her mortal life (CCC, para. 493). Similarly, Jesus, as fully human, also chose not to sin (CCC, para. 470). To deny the humanity of either would be contrary to the teachings of the Church.

That said, the Church does acknowledge Mary's "divine motherhood" (CCC, para. 495) in so much as she is not only the mother of the man Jesus but also of God in his incarnation as Jesus. So I don't think that "divine motherhood" in and of itself necessarily negates the humanity of Mary, but if there's a more elegant and less confusing way to put it, I'm open to suggestions.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the wording has to be carefully chosen so as not to give the uninitiated reader the impression that Mary is a divine entity. That would also be a major heresy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is why this doesn't belong in the lede. That sentence simply gives a small sample of Catholic views on Mary and is not intended to be an in-depth discussion. I would agree with doing a main article link to Roman Catholic Mariology at the top of the section on Mary in the body of the article.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Added such main article links --Zfish118 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Zfish to the rescue!  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Transubstantiation

There have been a number of edits made by Lloydbaltazar which have been reverted by other editors. Some of these reverts seem justified (e.g. the reversion of the assertion that the bishops are not successors of all the apostles). Others seem a bit less clear. One edit that I had questions about was the one which modified the text to read "Church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine at Mass are supernaturally transubstantiated into the actual body and blood of Christ."

I think it is important to communicate to the reader that not all bread and wine is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. The previous text didn't mention consecration at Mass which is, after all, the critical step. And, conversely, it is the Eucharist that is the critical component in the Mass. I'm not sure that we need the word "actual" in the sentence in question but the other part of the edit seems worth considering.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There are several misleading words that were previously placed on the Catholic Church. The Holy See fully acknowledges that the Patriarch of Constantinople is directly descended from Saint Andrew the Apostle. When the Church states that it has Apostolic Succession, it is talking in singular----by Saint Peter's authority. You need to be MORE clear and LESS VAGUE by stating that Bishops in "General" are successors of the Apostles. This is incorrect. The Bishops of Rome (Popes) and their consecrated Bishops and those in communion with him follow in the line of Saint Peter, while those with early Christian background dating back to the first Century have direct lineage such as Saint Andrew and the others.

Secondly, there is NO other sacrament in the Roman Catholic Church where the bread and wine are transubstantiated. ONLY in the Mass alone. It is best for clarity purposes to indicate that the wine and bread undergo "consecration at MASS" because bread and wine alone do not transubstantiate themselves automatically. The word ACTUAL is necessary because to any common reader, transubstantiation may possibly interpret "symbolically" to them, when in fact, it is a full transformation under the species of bread and wine. Putting the word "Actual" there eliminates all misinterpretations and confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloydbaltazar (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Transubstantiation means actual change. As the link from the word "transubstantiation" explains:

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) means the change, in the Eucharist, of the substance (what the thing is in itself - see "Roman Catholic theology of transubstantiation", below) of wheat bread and grape wine into the substance of the Body and Blood (respectively)...

So adding the word "actual" is unnecessary. Sunray (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the word "actual" may be necessary because any layman reading the text (particularly those protestants that believe so) may take the passage to be symbolic, which is not the case; this false assumption could easily be prevented by merely adding the word "actual" to the sentence. At the very least, adding in the one word would save a non-familiar reader from breaking mid-read to look up the word "transubstantiation". Buddenru (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Apostolic Succession by Saint Peter's authority?" Do you have any sources to back such a statement? It was very late in the Church History when the Bishop started to be appointed from Rome. For many years, the Bishops were locally elected and Rome was notified. "Apostolic succession" needs no interpretations or addendums. Bishops were successors from the Apostles's in their respective churches. Rome from Peter, Constantinople from Andrew, Alexandria from Marcus, Jerusalem from James, Kerala from Tomas, and so on. Bishops ARE successors of the Apostles. Churches not in communion with Rome also have valid Apostolic successions: Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonians, Assyrian (from the East), old Catholics, SSPX, many Anglicans, (from the West). As to the clarifications about the Eucharistic celebration, they are not needed. The wording is just right IMHO.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The other issue here is with your first paragraph, Lloydbaltazar. You are stating a dogmatic interpretation as fact without any verifiable source to back it up. Just because you state it as though it should be obvious to the rest of us and the world doesn't make it so, and it's not how Wikipedia operates. You seem to be generating a fusion of knowledge involving Apostolic succession and the Petrine supremacy. Multiple editors have provided sources stating that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles. You need to provide a source that supports your assertion rather than just expecting us to accept it as obvious fact.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Current Page Stats

For everyone's reference, the current page statistics (as of August 2, 2011), using (prosesize.js) are:

   File size: 332 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 56 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 8163 B
   Wiki text: 88 kB
   Prose size (text only): 29 kB (4792 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 574 B
--Zfish118 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I find it very bad that people say roman catholicism when they in fact mean catholicism. roman catholicism is just the chuch who follows the latin rites. the other catholics belog to other catholic churches so saying "roman catholicism in...(name of a country)) would be wong it should be "catholicism in...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.118.190 (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on renaming the article in the talk page archive (here). Suffice it to say, this has been heavily discussed in the past. "Roman Catholic" is not a reference to the Latin rite; it is a reference to all churches in communion with the Holy See, which includes the Eastern Catholic Churches. Use of the term to refer to the Eastern Catholic Churches is declining; however, it is still technically correct.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Although not a Catholic, I am Orthodox, I will agree with your statement, Cjmclark. When it comes down to it, Eastern Catholics (Ukrainians, Maronites, Melkites, and the like) are really Roman Catholics who use the outward liturgical forms of the Byzantine, Armenian, Coptic, or East/West Syriac Rites. The term "Roman Catholic" should be applied to anyone who accepts communion with the Roman Pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.162.129 (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

They are Roman Catholics, but also, not merely outwardly, Byzantine Catholics, Armenian Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Syriac Catholics etc. What they are not is Latin Catholics. Esoglou (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@.190, I agree that "Roman Catholic" is problematic, but its a common enough term in English, and by consensus we've decided to use it in the lead as an alternative name. @.129, Its important to realize, that at least from a Roman Catholic point of view, Eastern Catholics consider themselves to be simply Orthodox Christians who are in communion with the Pope. This is particularly true after Vatican II, which strongly promoted Eastern and Oriental Christian spirituality among Eastern Catholics. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Article assessment: C-class or B-class

Last year this article was rated as "C" class on the Quality scale. Do we still feel that the article is C-class, or has it improved to B-class? Majoreditor (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the article has improved significantly, and a B-rating is appropriate. The prose still needs some work, and a few minor areas might be expanded on, but overall I think it meets the B-criteria. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

C to Start in my view, certainly not B. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Using this Quality scale, with this example for Start-class, this example for C-class and this example for B-class, I think I can only in good conscience call it B-class. It does still need some work (it's not GA-ready by any means yet), but it's definitely not Start or C.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 15:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The examples in the Quality Scale point toward a B-class rating for this article. Majoreditor (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. This was once a GA, so let's work to get it there again. – SMasters (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It was totally different when it was a GA, and also an FA candidate on more than one try. An article this long would be a B on most subjects, but not one as large as this. The lead is far too short, and the history section ridiculously inadequate, petering out around 850! Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The history section as you see it now is a result of the last peer review, where it was noted that the history section was "much too long" and needed to be summarized better per WP:SUMMARY. We need a consensus on what a good ballpark length for an article of this scope should be, as there are clearly varying opinions.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 23:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole article as it now is the result of drastic shortenings, and the failure to rebuild adequately. Please don't blame the peer review for the total absence of any account of the last 1100 years, which have not exactly been uneventful for the church. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, true, it's not the peer review's fault. The large number of editors who reminisce about how much better the article used to be and then don't edit it aren't helping, though.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

They've all given up, realizing that since everything they wrote got reverted eventually it was a waste of time. I actually never did much text editing, mostly images & captions & the talk page. But it did used to be much better, though somewhat POV. The view that the history section was too long, expressed by one editor at the peer review (immediately opposed by another) was always very controversial. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The last time I looked at this page it looked something like this. Karanacs and I were working on improving the page, beginning with the history sections, but now those are gone. There was entirely too much controversy on the talk page and impossible to get anything done. At any rate, given the current state of the page, I wouldn't rate it beyond a C. I've twice reinstated older and better versions of the lead, only to have them reverted. At that point, I gave up. I haven't read the peer review, but I suppose I should. A lot of reading and work has been reverted. Also, looking at the bibliography, it looks as though sources no longer being used have not been removed, which should be done. Furthermore, I'm confused about the mass template format being used here, the formatting needs to be fixed somehow. I see a lot of work in terms of formatting, MoS, citing, and sourcing, just to begin. A quick scan of the sources is not showing many secondary scholarly sources, which is what we need to be using. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The history section was forked to History of the Catholic Church several months ago (I'm not sure when, but it was before I joined Wikipedia). --Zfish118 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That has been around for years (since July 2008 in fact), but a decent summary still needs to be here. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The history is forked, as you call it, here. Dumping in another page isn't always a good solution. Until this page has focus, writing a lead will be difficult. Also, why is the text formatted in templates? I read extensively about the history and verified all the sources used in preparation for rewriting in summary style, per the sources. Although the section is gone, the sources are still there. Might be a good idea to remove all the sources not currently used, and then see where you are regarding sourcing. As I said, a quick scan is not showing a lot secondary scholarly material. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand editors getting frustrated and leaving. The unhelpful part is the frustrated editors who "left" making appearances at peer reviews and on the talk page to drop their two cents without being willing to edit the article themselves. I realize what anyone does and does not edit is their prerogative, but it definitely becomes grating after a bit.

Anyhow, we have less experienced editors here who have been trying to fill the vacuum that was left when everyone else up and quit earlier this year. I know Zfish (among others) in particular has put a lot of work into the article lately, and while I would love for some of the more experienced editors who have worked on the article previously to come back and help get the article to where it should be, it would be nice if they'd work with folks like him instead of doing wholesale reverts. That's not to say that stuff that's been taken out of the article shouldn't go back in; it's saying that we should at least consider the work that has been done on the article in the interim (in terms of structure and organization, if nothing else; the "Doctrine" section in the one version Truthkeeper linked was a TLDR mess). I think there's a reasonable fusion of content from earlier versions and organizational structure from more recent versions that can be achieved.

I agree that the lead needs a lot of work. And I'm not sure about the template thing. Things have quieted down around here for the nonce, so I ask those of you more experienced folks who are interested to please lend a hand.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are, most unusually, 23 editors who have made more than 100 edits to the article, & probably over 50 who have made 50 or more. Trust me, the last thing you want is for them all to come back, and you are probably lucky having essentially a whole new team. There is much good stuff in earlier versions, as you probably know, but ultimately the page will never regain its former status without well-informed editors using impeccable and balanced references and prepared to argue their case against critics with several different points of view. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The question was whether this is now at B-class. The answer is no. I dropped out because of months of talk regarding the sex abuse scandal, and then more months regarding more issues, none of which resulted in any work and made the sofixit statement impossible. It's essentially impossible to work on this page when talk page debate is raging, and looking at the archives that continued through last winter. Edits such as these, that minimize sources read and consulted and kept for reference are not helpful either. At any rate, I've made many MoS fixes here, and despite assertions on the Peer Review (was on vacation in May so missed that entirely) that MoS isn't important, it is. The formatting needs to be fixed, the history needs to be replaced at the beginning of the page, and the lead, of which we had a number of good versions (all found here in the archives because I posted whenever I replaced it) needs to be looked at. I'm very busy on an another article at the moment, but will probably come in and fix when I have more time. In the meantime, I agree with Johnbod - this is not a B class page. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

History Section Revisited

Regarding the old history section (archived here: Talk:Catholic Church/Old history section (June 2011)), I'd thought it had been well developed and that it was established consensus to let it stay. During the aforementioned peer review, it was suggested numerous times that the history section be further trimmed, so I arranged a temporary smaller history section as a place holder. I hoped that the section could be rebuilt using much of the original content from the ground up. The contemporary sub-section for instance, was quickly added back when an anonymous user noted that certain content previously covered in that section was lacking. I'd be happy if the much of the rest were reinserted into the article, especially if others find it valuable. Lets discuss.--Zfish118 (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia said it needs to be rewritten in summary style. It does, but we're talking about 2000 years of history. Reading and evaluating sources is extremely time consuming, and in fact I have an entire sandbox devoted to them. I'm happy to have others take over the page and trim and trim and trim, but saying the history can rebuilt from the ground up is akin to saying the Rome can rebuilt in a day. It can be done. It might even be done someday if the page is stable. Until it's done, the page is incomplete. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd hoped that there would be more interest in the history section, but after I drastically trimmed it, all I got was vague feedback out it being OK. A more detailed section is definitely desirable such as what it was before. I do have a bit of an issue with the history section being at the beginning of the article, especially at it old length that I felt dominated the article. On the one hand, the Church is an extremely old institution, and one needs to know the history of it to understand its modern influence. On the other hand, the Catholic Church as it exists today would be a notable subject in its own right, even if it had no history before the 20th century. I think putting towards the end of the article helps the reader focus on the perhaps more pressing information on what the Catholic Church is today, rather than what it was in the past. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Despite the comment above that it grates to have editors pop back in after a long absence (and yes, I admit, I haven't been watching the page as well as I should have and probably unwatched it some point) I do have some comments after looking over it. These mostly in response to the page having been taken to peer review, and the question about whether it's now at a B class page. Here are some issues I think need to be addressed:

• Nav templates - I gave up counting, but there is a lengthy template with the infobox, two or three or more embedded in the text, and another two or three at the bottom of the page. That's quite a few too many in my opinion.
• Sourcing: of the 154 footnotes, approx. 90ish (sorry didn't count exactly) are from Vatican or church sources. Those are considered primary sources - sources from an organization about an organization, and that type of sourcing is problematic in terms of keeping a neutral point of view. What's necessary on this page are scholarly secondary sources.
• Lack of sourcing - entire sections are unsourced or have very few sources.
• The history section, at the least should be moved up per WP:LAYOUT or whichever policy dictates that background and history sections come first.
• The history section, in my view, is now too short. The two thousand year history is given about the same weight as the recent sex abuse scandal and social justice issue which is also problematic.
• I'm not sure if it's easier to build up the current very short history section, or to revert to the longer one and slash. Am leaning toward building up the short one, but many important pieces are missing.
• I'm finding what I consider to be problematic sentences such as this: Finally, those who persist in living in a state of mortal sin and do not repent before death subject themselves to hell, an everlasting separation from God. The problem here is that it's presented as though fact - not as a teaching of the church. We have to be careful in the wording on this page.
• Entire sections have been formatted as a table, or in some sort of a template - those need to be reformatted.
• MoS errors - I've removed a few and will check for WP:OVERLINKING which is always a problem on this page. But with all the nav templates and the in-text linking, there is much too much blue.
• I've combined the lead to a single para since it's been pared to nothing. No reason to have several single sentence paragraphs.

This from a quick look - will add as I look more carefully. I'm starting to have less time for Wikipedia, but will try to help, if possible. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only grating if people aren't willing to help out (and their comments run to "OMGWTFBBQ this page sucks so much more then it used to but here's no helpful guidance at all"), but you clearly have been very helpful.

My only comment to really expound upon what you've written here is that I think there's a tightrope to be walked when it comes to wording. Clearly we need to maintain NPOV, but we also can't have the article degenerate into a mishmash of "according to the Church/the Church teaches/the Church says/it is a principle of the Church/the Church proclaims" every other sentence (which I think is what a lot of people think of when they think of NPOV wording). I agree that the sentence you selected appears problematic on its own, but I think we need to remember that it's within the context of the section, which says: According to the Catechism, "The Last Judgement will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life." Depending on the judgement rendered, a soul may enter one of three states of afterlife: (judgments listed here) So it is in the context of the teachings of the Church.

I don't know...again, I understand the need to make sure that we're balancing the article properly. I just want to make sure we don't go too far in the opposite direction and turn the entire doctrine section into a disclaimer.

Thank you for your analysis and the work you've been doing. I'm sure everyone here appreciates the help.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 02:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper surely agrees that, to indicate the church's teaching, which is a highly important element, church sources are far the best. Esoglou (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing here has always been a problem. To use church sources is one thing, but to have them dominate to the point they do now isn't optimal. I hope citing some of the unsourced sections will help. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to add reference to Apostolic / Patristic foundation

The opening line should read something like "it is the largest Christian church and, along with the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches, one of the oldest, maintaining a continuity from the Apostolic era through the Patristic era."

Whatever history has to say about the historicity of Jesus, there has been a Bishop in Rome for a very, very long time, and the record attests to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit POV and undue to me. Haldraper (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not a matter of point of view. It's either true or it's not. I would argue that it is, as the historical record attests to the Church of Rome being present in Rome since the first century, much like the Eastern Churches (Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian). So, I would argue that it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Roman or Catholic

I expect this has been debated a trillion times and I am not that much bothered, but it's just the first time I have looked at this page - it should be at Roman Catholic Church - most Christian churches are Catholic, this is why the creed of the Church of England - recited by its members every Sunday (or those few who attend) say "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church etc etc etc" I doubt those poor, misguided heretics are meaning "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Roman catholic Church." Anyway, as I said - I am not that bothered, and I'm not a theologian, but it is nice if Wikipedia is correct. I expect the Protestants have a very good reason for saying that, but I would like to know what it is. Giacomo Returned 19:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It has not quite been debated a trillion times, but for several previous debates, check out the archives of this talk page. At any rate, the issue here is one of capitalization. The Church of England uses the Apostles' Creed, which states "the holy catholic Church", not "the holy Catholic Church". In the case of the former, they are declaring their belief in one universal (the literal translation of the Greek term katholikos) Church; if they used the latter (which they do not) they would in fact be declaring their belief in the Church in communion with the Holy See. I hope this clears this up for you.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. This phrase in the creed as currently used in the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church is capitalised in exactly the same way. And in the original Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England it is "Catholick Church". Everything you have claimed here is completely false. Afterwriting (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Afterwriting, a little civility goes a long way, especially on an article that can be as controversial as this one. I'll go ahead and do what I should have done in the first place (and what I invite you to do the next time you accuse someone of falsehood, here or elsewhere) - provide reliable sources. The Vatican and the Church of England do use identical versions of the Apostles' Creed in terms of capitalization of the term "catholic" (as do several Protestant denominations) because they each consider themself to be the one true universal Church. The Book of Common Prayer did in fact use the term "Catholick", but recall that it was introduced at a time when the English Reformation was still relatively new and Thomas Cranmer and others were forced to maintain many of the trappings of Roman Catholicism to make the Reformation more palatable to the portion of the English populace that still considered itself Roman Catholic (such as Henry VIII).

I do my best to add accurate information to Wikipedia regardless of my personal beliefs. Please do your research a bit more thoroughly and try to assume a little bit of good faith before you accuse me of lying. Cheers.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, from Webster's dictionary -

cath·o·lic adj \ˈkath-lik, ˈka-thə-\
1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it
c capitalized : ROMAN CATHOLIC
2 : COMPREHENSIVE, UNIVERSAL; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests <a catholic taste in music>

From the capitalized version -

Cath·o·lic noun \ˈkath-lik, ˈka-thə-\
1 : a person who belongs to the universal Christian church
2 : a member of a Catholic church; especially : ROMAN CATHOLIC

As you can see (at least per Webster), the Anglican Church does use the term "Catholic" (though not in the Apostles' Creed) to denote its lineage from the original Christian church, so I was inaccurate in my original statement that their use as such would indicate a belief in the Church in communion with Rome. However, my point still stands that the creed for both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church (which was the focus of the original question) utilizes the small "c" catholic as a pledge of belief in a universal Christian church. I would ask that, in the future, if you think I or anyone else has posted something incorrect here, you give us a chance to explain rather than bandying about terms such as "utter nonsense" and "Everything you have claimed here is completely false."

Giacomo Returned, the reason why this article is titled "Catholic Church" is that consensus (as developed through many painstaking discussions that can be found in the talk page archives) currently holds that the entity most commonly associated with that name in the English language is in fact the Church in communion with Rome. One of the reasons why the article is not titled "Roman Catholic Church" is because the Vatican does not consistently use the term to refer to the Church. I think the editors here have done a pretty good job providing disambiguation links for individuals looking for other meanings of the term "Catholic Church". Thank you for your civility and patience.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 04:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling it utter nonsense is simply being factual. If you think that being blunt is also being uncivil then that is your problem. We can play dictionary definitions off each other until the cows come home. It is you who needs to do your research instead of making grand and false assumptions about the history of Anglicanism and how it understands itself to be part of the Catholic Church (not just the "catholic" church). You and other editors (see further such nonsense below) have a mistaken POV that "Catholic Church" equals "Roman Catholic Church". It doesn't now and never has and is plainly ignorant of history. Afterwriting (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to support what you've said with sourcing. It's easy to say that something is nonsense and is "ignorant of history," so go ahead and convince me. Prove it. Give me sources I can work with to understand your point of view. If you find the article title so absolutely wrong, go ahead and be bold and test the waters of consensus. Just be sure to actually bring some kind of reliable sources to back your POV up. If you re-read what's been posted here, you'd see that no one's arguing that this article should be called "Catholic Church" just because we think it should; we use that article name because that's what the majority of English language sources use, because in most Anglophone countries the term "Catholic Church" is most readily identified with the Church in Rome and because the term "Catholic Church" is colloquially inclusive of the Eastern Churches, many members of which do not consider themselves "Roman Catholic" (as "Roman Catholic" is popularly misidentified with "Latin Rite"). If you have verifiable facts that can be used to improve this article, please bring them forth so that we can move forward and make it better.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 07:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There is ignorance and there is also invincible ignorance. You seem to think that terms should mean what people want them to mean regardless of their origins and historical use. Whether many Roman Catholics (including Eastern Catholics) like being called as such or not is completely irrelevant to the historical facts. I was closely involved in the naming consensus process for this article and supported renaming it "Catholic Church" (as the more common name) as long as the "also known as the Roman Catholic Church" clause was included. If you want "verifiable facts" then just go to the Vatican's website. The Vatican should know a bit about how such terms are meant to used. I really cannot believe that some editors such as you are still making these erroneous arguments. Afterwriting (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you continue to ascribe some sort of agenda to my statements here. Let me put this plainly - I don't support the use of the term "Catholic Church" as the article title because I think that's what the Church should be called; I do so because WP:COMMONNAME tells us that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." I think the statement in the first sentence of the lede (which you supported) is just fine the way it is. It recognizes that the Roman Catholic Church is most popularly referred to as the "Catholic Church" and as such, when individuals search Wikipedia using the term "Catholic Church," they are most likely doing so in an attempt to locate information on the Roman Catholic Church. How the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of England, or the Methodist/Lutheran/Baptist et c. Churches view themselves as "Catholic" is irrelevant to that fact. I too have been involved in previous discussions regarding the article's name and was part of the current consensus - that the article is named "Catholic Church" in recognition of the COMMONNAME policy but is given the "Roman Catholic Church" modifier in the interests of accuracy. I have already admitted that my original interpretation of how the term "Catholic" is used by other churches ("if they used the latter (which they do not) they would in fact be declaring their belief in the Church in communion with the Holy See") was inaccurate.

So why the continued issue? You bring up invincible ignorance, which is refusal to accept an argument in the face of evidence. I've asked you to provide evidence since you clearly believe that I'm wrong about something and need convincing, but thus far all you've given me is a bunch of rhetoric and a hand wave in the direction of the Vatican's website. I am not hidebound...if someone shows me valid evidence in support of an argument, I'm more than happy to consider it. All I ask is that you give me something to work with other than "erroneous", "ignorance", "nonsense" and "falsehood". If you feel like that's a waste of your time, well, that's your prerogative, and I suppose I'm done with what I'm not 100% sure has been an actual discussion.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not been debating the article's name - and don't understand why you think I was. I was taking issue with claims based on what seems to be nothing more than personal speculation. I appreciate that you now realise that your assertion that "if they used ("Catholic Church") (which they do not) they would in fact be declaring their belief in the Church in communion with the Holy See" is factually incorrect. Afterwriting (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church is the name of the denomination. The distinction is in capitalization. Lowercase catholic means universal. Uppercase refers to the denomination with the pope. Regardless, we cannot simply change the name of an article because other people feel that they are part of the "catholic church" too. Then we'd have to change Church of Christ because others consider themselves the church of Christ, etc.Farsight001 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again this so-called "distinction" is simply factually incorrect. The term "Catholic Church" (NOT just "catholic church") is also used by other churches and does NOT just refer to "the denomination with the pope". Why such well-documented facts are so difficult for some people to understanding is completely baffling. Afterwriting (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that Catholic without the pre-fix Roman is correct, but I don't feel strongly enough to worry too much about it. Thanks for the explanation of the reasoning though. Giacomo Returned 10:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That isn't really the reason; most anglophone Catholics feel (often very strongly, and in defiance of some of the evidence) that "Roman Catholic" is a semi-pejorative term as used by non-Catholics. There are also arguments that Roman Catholic distinguishes Western rite from Eastern Catholics, who are also part of the Catholic Church. There's plenty more where that came from in the archives. At least CC cannot plausibly be claimed to be ambiguous. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course the term "Catholic Church" is "ambiguous" as the historical use of it clearly shows. And anyone who believes that "Roman Catholic Church" is "pejorative" ("semi" or otherwise) is ignorant both of its orgins (as an English version of various similar Latin terms) and its historical use by the Roman Catholic Church itself (both in English and Latin) - which does *not* use it as a distinction for the Latin Rite from the Eastern Rites. The following from the Vatican's website clearly indicates this: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2007/documents/ns_lit_doc_20071124_titoli_en.html Afterwriting (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with Afterwriting, Farsight001, and Johnbod. However, Afterwriting is wrong about the ignorance of those who believe that "Roman Catholic Church" is pejorative. A term is pejorative if it is used in a pejorative way. "Capitalist" is not necessarily pejorative but it can be and has been used as a pejorative term. The fact is that many Catholics of the Latin Rite are proud to be called Roman Catholics while others of the Latin Rite react negatively to the term because it has been used as a pejorative term by others. My understanding is that few Catholics object to the term in and of itself but some react negatively because of the connotations that the term carries when used by some opponents of the church to malign the members of the church as "Romish".

The result of the last major discussion on the topic agreed that the "most common name" in English is "the Catholic Church" and that this was also an official name of the church in communion with the Holy See. However, it was sort of conceded by some that it could not be definitively stated that "Catholic Church" was the only official name used by the Church although there are some darn reliable sources who assert that it is the "proper name" of the Church. Thus, it was conceded (grudgingly by some editors) that "Roman Catholic Church" was perhaps one of the official names of the Church. For more details than you are likely to want, see this page. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a very unconvincing argument. As you already indicated, just because a term can be used pejoratively - or is peceived to be - doesn't mean that it essentially is so. All sorts of perfectly good words can be used pejoratively by those inclined to do so - "Christian", "America" and "Catholic Church" ("Roman" or not) for example. Anyone who associates "Roman Catholic Church" with "Romish" or "Papist" is actually being ignorant due to the simple fact that the church itself often chooses to use the term for its name - and there are plenty of "darn reliable sources" for this as well. Afterwriting (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I find Pseudo-Richard's and Cjmclark's arguments persuasive.

Perhaps we can all agree that mentioning both "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" in the lead - per the current version - is an acceptable solution. Majoreditor (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I voted for the consensus form of the lead for the reason that the church uses both names - and both names refer to the whole of the "church in communion with the Bishop of Rome" both in the Latin and Eastern rites.

Catholic Catholic Church by Definition The CATHOLIC CHURCH by definition IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH no more than the Eastern Orthodox Church is defined as being solely the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople. There are numerous autocephalous churches within Eastern Orthodox hierarchy held in full communion with another, and THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is fact that there are numerous self-governing Catholic Churches, mainly situated in the near east, autonomous of the Roman Catholic Church. They are all held in full communion with one another, and along with the Roman Church, constitute the Catholic Church as a whole.

These comments are another example of opinions which aren't based on the actual facts. The term / name "Roman Catholic Church", as traditionally and most correctly used, is inclusive of both the Latin and Eastern rites. For further information on this see Roman Catholic (term). But of course you are correct that "Catholic Church" isn't synonymous with "Roman Catholic Church" as being the true "Catholic Church" is also claimed by the Eastern Orthodox Church - and being part of the Catholic Church is claimed by other churches which aren't in communion with the Pope. Afterwriting (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Eastern Catholic Churches don't tend to refer to themselves as Roman Catholics anymore, with some exceptions (see Faulk, etc.) While they are in communion with Rome, most of them and their 13 million members don't refer to themselves as Roman. Similarly, it's quite common to see them mentioned as "Catholic" but not as "Roman Catholic".

It's always possible to find exceptions, and intelligent editors can and will disagree. The article's current naming convention and lead are a balanced approach, acknowledging that both terms are used to refer to the Church. Majoreditor (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Usage among Eastern Catholics varies: "exceptions" (in the eyes of those who posit a "rule" about it) do occur. What is uniform (and authoritative) is the usage of the Holy See, according to which the "Roman Catholic Church" is never the Latin Church but is instead the same as the "Catholic Church". The lead reflects this. Esoglou (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! When used in official documents etc issued by the Holy See the term / name "Roman Catholic Church" always refers to the WHOLE church under papal authority - and not just the Latin Rite church. It is getting very tiresome having to keep repeating this fact ad nauseum. Documents of the Holy See are the most authoritive on this matter - not the idiosyncratic preferences of some Eastern Catholics who mistakenly refer to Latin Rite Catholics as "Roman Catholics" as if they are not also. Afterwriting (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that if you ask someone on the streets of New York, London, or Sydney where is the nearest Catholic Church they will not direct you to an Anglican Church. Like orthodox, evangelical, and many other ecclesiastical terms, catholic has many meanings in the theology of the various Christian denominations (including the Catholic Church which often uses the term in its theology to include all baptized Christians). But in the conventional colloquial English language, Catholic Church means the church under the pope. Wikipedia is written in conventional English not theological lingo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Btw: I just checked the article Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) no whining: "hey we're disciples of Christ too" over there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make - or what "issue" you are addressing - as no one is debating the article name at present or whether the usual name of the "church under the pope" is "Catholic Church". The issues that are being discussed are whether "Roman Catholic" is the same as "Latin Rite Catholic" (it isn't) and whether "Catholic Church" always refers to the "church under the pope" (it doesn't). Afterwriting (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Me again, I see a couple of ways my comment lacked clarity. First if the only debate is as you say: The issues that are being discussed are whether "Roman Catholic" is the same as "Latin Rite Catholic" (it isn't) and whether "Catholic Church" always refers to the "church under the pope" (it doesn't). My point was and is that if you ask people (not theology buffs, not clergy, not the Vatican) what do you call the church described in this article, most would say, oh you mean "the Catholic Church". That's what the article, should be called. Does it ALWAYS mean that? No, but hardly anything ALWAYS means anything. Hence: numbered lists of definitions in dictionaries, and disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. Nor does the Roman Catholic Church never exclude Eastern Catholic, in Fact the Roman Catholic Church, is the only way I know of to refer to the "Latin Rite Catholic"(s) you refer to. The Roman Catholic Church as apposed to Eastern Catholics, generally Follow the Latin Rite, but have others (ie Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Dominican, and furthermore is a church, not a rite. It practices these Rites, like the Maronite Catholic Church practices the Antiochean Rite. Now you mention the Vatican itself, in some documents uses the expression Roman Catholic Church. I believe it is only in ecumenical joint statements, that it does so. Why? Now I don't read minds my first guess is diplomacy, but it could very well be to distinguish The Roman Catholic Church from Eastern Catholics, There could be two reasons for that. First most of these statements come form the Sacred Congregation for Christian Unity. Like all of these Vatican Bureaucracies (except that for Eastern churches)it neither governs nor represents the Eastern Catholic Churches. Second it allows them to say speak of the R.C.s believe in purgatory and Lutherans don't and blah blah blah, while not going into the fact that Eastern Catholics don't believe in Purgatory. For whatever worth anecdotal evidence has, I was once party to a conversation involving a Catholic priest from Jersey City, and some lay people including one from California and one form Chicago. Those two noted the sign in front of his church said, St Paul R.C. Church, after some comment about RC Cola they said Catholic Churches where they were from never used that. His explanation was that on the east coast there were many Ukrainian and Maronite Catholic churches to distinguish Roman Catholic Churches from. He speaks only for himself of course, but if you say the Catholic Church doesn’t ALWAYS mean the church under papal authority, neither does Roman Catholic ALWAYS mean that. WOW that was a lot more verbose then I meant to be. Anyway I do understand where you’re coming from, but colloquial speech should prevail. Frankly either way is arguably POV, and in fact many of us Catholics (the Vatican not withstanding) find Roman Catholic offensive because it ahs a history of being used by anti-catholic bigots. A disambiguation page should satisfy your needs, and the current mention in the first paragraph of (Roman Catholic Church) goes even further than I personally would support, but there it is. Okay I've said all I'll say on the matter. Pax Tibi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that it should be renamed to "Roman Catholic Church" to create a NPOV to all other churches claiming to be Catholic. Sorry for not being logged in presently, my account is Gunnar123abc. Anyway, as it is, having the article simply named "Catholic Church" is severely biased into the view of the Roman Catholic Church, who claim to be the Catholic Church (while other churches ALSO claim to be the Catholic Church and should deserve a neutral pov along with the name of this article). Simply, this should be named "The Roman Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church", not "Catholic Church", "Latin Church", "Roman Church","Western Catholic Church"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above view. Having this article named "Catholic Church" is severely biased in favour of the RCC's view that they are the catholic (as in, universal) church. Article titles are supposed to be colloquial, yes, but if you asked someone in Greece where the nearest καθολικός church was, or someone in Russia where the nearest католический church was, in both cases they would most likely point you in the direction of an Eastern Orthodox Church. It is a western viewpoint which assumes that "Catholic" refers to "Roman Catholic". I think that this article should be renamed "Roman Catholic Church" for the following reasons:

1. It removes bias, as at present Wikipedia is inadvertantly supporting the church's claim to be The Catholic Church over the identical claims of others such as the Eastern Orthodox Church.
2. If, in the US, you asked someone to point you to a Catholic church, they'd point you to a RCC. But in the same way, if you asked them to point you to an Orthodox church, they'd point you to an Eastern Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church's article is titled "Eastern Orthodox Church", and so the Catholic Church's article should be titled "Roman Catholic Church".
3. Naming this article "Roman Catholic Church" would not exclude the Eastern Catholics. They can still be considered Roman, as they are in communion with the Pope in Rome. As long as the article makes it clear that the Roman Catholic Church is comprised of both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Catholics, I don't think that there should be a problem. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE... someone put a notice somewhere explaining this issue has been debated at length. Otherwise, we'll have every newcomer spout their arguments which we've never heard of.2.80.241.95 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories

User:Roscelese recently re-added the category Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage with the edit summary "tried to discuss this w/user who removed, no response in some time; only criterion is active opposition to SSM, which certainly fits given the amount of money the RCC expends on it". I have reverted this edit and ask that we develop a consensus here on the inclusion of this article in categories such as this one. I briefly considered being WP:POINTy and adding several categories along the lines of Category:International charities and such, but decided it would be more productive (and appropriate) to hash this out here. I don't believe that it's appropriate or useful to add this article to categories that are subcategories of "Political organization" categories. Thoughts?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 02:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose a better way to put this is that we could spam the category section with all sorts of categories based on what the Church supports, opposes, does or doesn't do (all thoroughly sourced, of course), but that doesn't mean that we should, in my opinion.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 02:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that we don't have a more specific article to which the category could apply, such as "Catholic Church and politics." (We have "CC and politics in the United States," and I considered it, but the CC is active against same-sex marriage elsewhere too.) I think the CC is far too important in the debate for a reader wanting to find out about orgs opposing same-sex marriage not to be able to access it from that category. Is there any section you can think of in a larger article (this or another) to which a redirect could be created, and the category placed on that redirect? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we do have Catholic teachings on sexual morality, which links to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. The latter discusses the Church's stance on homosexuality in far more detail than the main article.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But even there, you get into the nebulous area of what defines the Church's "organization". Is it solely the Church hierarchy, or should it include the entire membership, many of whom do not agree with the Vatican's stance on the matter? That's why I'd be loath to use what is really a broad brush category here.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the category could apply to the article Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Like Cjmclark, I am opposed to over-categorizing the main article. Majoreditor (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's the political aspect of the CC's opposition which is important for Wikipedia purposes (the category criteria are currently "active opposition to legal recognition"), and Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism not only doesn't discuss that, it doesn't say anything whatsoever about CC opposition to same-sex marriage. (Catholic support for SSM, just a bit; opposition, nothing.) I felt that in the absence of a location on Wikipedia that specifically discussed the intersection, it was better to apply it to a more general article. (And Cjmclark: IIRC, back when I first added the category I put it in Cat:RCC rather than on this article, and then immediately thought "no wait, that category contains a whole lot of pro-marriage people and organizations, let's put it on the page instead.") But I guess that might suggest that someone should write about it if it cannot be found elsewhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cjmclark and Majoreditor. This is not the place for such a catagory. This article defines the Church's organization, etc. The category would be better applied to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism Malke 2010 (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you (voi) like to help draft a section on the RCC's political action against gay rights/same-sex marriage which could go in that article? It's not a necessary condition of having that be the article in the category, but it's presumably what readers would be looking for who get to the one via the other. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer, Roscelese. Unfortunately, I've become quite the wiki-sloth so I'll pass on writing anything. However, I'm happy to look over any material and make suggestions. Maybe someone else would like to work with Roscelese on this?Majoreditor (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested but it would have to be truly reliable sources and not blogs and opinion pieces from biased sources, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Foundation date

I would question the 1054 date of origin given in the box. It is common to speak of Catholics vs Arians already in the fourth century. I would date the foundation from the Council of Nicaea in 325. "One holy catholic apostolic church" was adopted as creed in 381, so certainly the church was officially "catholic" by that time. Kauffner (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The rationale behind the 1054 date is that, before that date, there was "Christianity". Not as homogenous as we would like to believe, but pretty much Christians felt they were Christians. The Great Schism of 1054 created the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Saying either one of these churches or the other was 'the' church established in 325 would be implying that the other church 'broke away' from 'True Christianity^TM and would violate WP:NPOV. The same example can be seen in the pages for West Germany and East Germany. Both of them claim to have come into existence in 1949, as neither of them can lay claim to being the successor of the German Empire established in 1871. Neither Catholics nor Orthodox Christians can rightfully claim full lineage from the First Council of Nicaea. Achowat (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't identified "the box" in question; but surely the claim that the Church this article is about did not begin to exist until 1054, when it solemnly affirms the contrary, is not admissible in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm just a little confused by your wording. Is your argument that because the Church claims Apostolic succession then Wikipedia needs to "accurately" report that? Achowat (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Using 1054 is completely absurd - when was this changed? The Schism was a schism or split (as both sides recognise), and saying one side was founded earlier does not mean the other was not. The date made little or no difference to anything, as relations between East and Wert had broken down some centuries before. We used to have a date in the 1st century I think, though I'm not sure when. On a broader perspective, this just demonstrates for the thousandth time, the foolishness of attempting to cover anything at all complex in an infobox. I will remove the parameter until (if and when) a better solution can be found. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a much better solution. The Catholic Church didn't have article of incorporation, there was no meeting or event that we can point to as a definite 'founding date'. Absent a real one, it makes more sense to remove the parameter completely. Achowat (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the whole infobox has already gone! Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Catholicity

Many Churches claim to be the Catholic Church. I believe the title should be changed to "Roman Catholic Church" for the sake of neutrality. "Orthodox Church" was changed to "Eastern Orthodox Church" in spite of the fact that there were Orthodox Christians of the Western Rite within the bounds of the Orthodox Church. Thus, the existence of Eastern-rite Roman Catholics does not prevent the title of the page from being changed to "Roman Catholic Church." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.178.35.173 (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia's policy WP:POVTITLE is to use the title commonly used in English media sources, even where that title is not strictly NPOV as you point out. IMO the issue you raise is sufficiently covered by the "aka" line in the introduction. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC))

Care to comment?

Catholicism: The belief that homosexual intercourse is a disgusting and immoral act once a person has reached puberty.

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.5.15 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources in the 'Doctrine' section

I apologise if I am raising a topic already WP:DEADHORSEd (I took a quick skim through the archives, and couldn't find anything relevant), but the 'Doctrine' section appears rather heavily based upon primary sources (most notably the church's own catechism), with much of the remainder not being particularly independent (most notably Schreck, who is employed by the Franciscan University of Steubenville, and whose forward is by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn. This does not appear in keeping with WP:PSTS, which suggests that WP:SECONDARY sources should predominate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about the sources but am not sure what can be done about it: people who write in detail about Catholic theology tend to be Catholics as you say. Haldraper (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely some people in the comparative religion or religious studies crowds write about it. I'd like to think that Catholic theology is sufficiently interesting that at least a few third-parties write about (if not, then we'll have to think about AfDing that article). But even a few more Schrecks is better than the catechism itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see WP:PSTS as at all relevant. It speaks about "primary sources" as sources that are "very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved (in the event), offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." Doctrine is not an event. As a reliable source of knowledge about what is Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching on some topic, an in-context quotation from The Watchtower is surely in no way inferior to statements by non-Jehovah's Witnesses about what the Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching is. Esoglou (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A catechism is surely a primary source on church doctrine. You can't get any closer to the "event" of indoctrination than a priest teaching the catechism to the youth of his parish. It is every bit as much a primary source as a press release, or a policy statement by a political campaign. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Hrafn, I have to disagree with you here. The current catechism is a teriary source. It's a compendium of church scholarship on the primary sources, which in this case are scripture, writings of the early fathers and doctors of the church, documents from ecclesiastical councils and synods, and papal bulls. It's not a third party tertiary source, that's true, but it is the most authorative and reliable source we have of what the church actually teaches.

Based on your comment about "a priest teaching the catechism to the youth of his parish", I think you're confusing the current Catechism of the Catholic Church with earlier works such as the Baltimore Catechism. They're two completely different beasts. The former is a well-researched, carefully written official and authoratative compendium of Catholic dogma, doctrine, canon law and tradition, whereas the latter is highly simplified and meant for a less educated audience, particularly children.

The doctrine section of the article appears to me to be an even-handed and accurate summary of the main points of Catholic doctrine as set forth in the CCC. It's mostly free of commentary and (potentially controversial) interpretation, and terse to the point of being lapidarian. I can't see anything controversial here.

As a SPS, the CCC is reliable as a source about the church's own teachings and rules. As a matter of fact, it's the definitive source. There are some sections of the CCC that are self-serving and should be treated with caution, but they are not used to support any of the material presented here.

Also, it's important to point out that this section is about what the Church officially teaches, not on what Catholics believe, which may or may not be consistent with official doctrine. When the term "Catholics believe" is used in the section, it refers to dogma, not doctrine. Catholics have no choice but to agree 100% with dogma if they are to be considered Catholic. With doctrine, canon law and tradition, there is a little more leeway for interpretation, and traditional Catholic scholars will often have a very different take than progressive Catholic scholars. In a top level article such as this, I think it's best to just summarize the official line without commentary, and leave scholarly interpretation to more specific articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

By the same argument wouldn't legislation also be a tertiary source? My point was that a catechism (whether detailed or simplified) is a statement of doctrine, and therefore like any other statement (be it catechism, legislation, press release of policy statement) is a primary source expression of the viewpoint of the stating party. Is Wikipedia's place here simply to repeat the high-points of the church doctrine enshrined in the catechism, or to provide WP:SECONDARY source analysis of Catholic doctrine? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The equivalent of legislation would be canon law. The equivalent of the catechism would be a legal compendium or encyclopedia. And yes, I do think that it is appropriate in a top level article to simply and briefly summarize the key points of official doctrine, and to leave the analysis and interpretation to more specialized articles. A top level article is meant to be a superficial but comprehensive overview of the topic. There simply isn't enough room in the article to go into depth. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the equivalent of "a legal compendium or encyclopedia" would be the Catholic Encyclopedia. There can only be one official catechism (although, as you mention, there may be summaries or simplifications of it), just as there can be only one body of legislation for a jurisdiction -- hence my analogy. Anybody can write a legal compendium or encyclopedia, only the Vatican hierarchy can establish a catechism -- and it is their seal of approval that gives this catechism its status, not its basis in church scholarship (which presumably, like any other scholarship, has its competing views and interpretations). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a LEGAL encyclopedia, but a general puropose encyclopedia. The scope of topics is a lot broader than the CCC, just as the scope of topics in WP or EB is a lot broader and less specialized than a legal compendium or legal encyclopedia.

I'll point out again that there isn't anything controversial in this section. It's just a list of the main things that the Churtch officially teaches. The weight assigned to each sub-topic seems appropriate, and readers are made aware at the beggining of the section that the source is the CCC. What little commentary there is is also non-controversial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(i) Your point is irrelevant -- it is not the topic of the encyclopaedia that makes it a bad analogy, it is the fact that you can have more than one encyclopedia on a topic (be the topic law or whatever). You cannot have more than one catechism. (ii) My point was not 'controversy' or truth ("merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia") but rather emphasis -- whether it should be on the Vatican's articulation of its doctrine, or secondary source analysis of this doctrine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can, theoretically, have more than one catechism. And that was indeed the situation until the CCC came along. There were many other catechisms in use besides the Baltimore Catechism. There is nothing stopping a national bishops' conference or even a group of independent non-Catholic scholars from compiling one, and there is nothing to stop the Vatican from approvong it for use, as long as it accurately relected church dogma, doctrine, canon law and tradition. You're equating the CCC with codified law, when it is just a summary of Catholic (and sometimes even non-Catholic) scholarship on the actual primary sources. Canon lawyers do not go into ecclesiastical court armed with the CCC, but with the Code of Canon Law and other primary documents.

Your distiction between the Vatican's articulation of its doctrine, or secondary source analysis of this doctrine is off the mark. Like I said, there is simply no room for analysis in a article of this scope. The question is whether the Vatican's articulation of its doctrine or secondary source articulation should be used. It would, of course, be best to use the latter, if such a thing existed. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the third-party literature that even comes close to the CCC in terms of comprehensiveness and authority.

The fact that the CCC is a SPS does not exclude it as a reliable source for it's own teachings here on WP. It meets all of the guidelines of WP:SPS, at least as far as the material in this article is concerned. Now, there are parts of the CCC that are self-serving and/or apologetic, and should not be used without independent scholarly analysis (the sections dealing with discrimination against homosexuals, for example). The topics discussed in this article, though, are pretty much universally agreed upon as being key church teachings, including by scholars of all stripes.

If you know of other sources that can be used, by all means feel free to introduce them, especially if you perceive there is a bias or innacuracy. Or at least point out any biases or inncuracies that you see. I, for my part, consider the section pretty much even-handed, and, though an ex-Catholic, do not harbor any particular sympathy for the Church, to put it mildly. And I think even a traditional Catholic like Pat Buchanan would agree. I'm curious about what you think is wrong with the article, rather than with the sources. You really haven't said so yet. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a "viewpoint" (Hrafn) about the Church's teaching. It is what the Church teaches at the highest level. When published, it was explicitly presented as "a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms", and acceptance of it is the condition for admission into corporate union with the Catholic Church of Anglican bodies. So, as I said, it is what the Church teaches, not a viewpoint about the Church's teaching. For viewpoints or analysis of the Church's teaching, you must go elsewhere. But you can no more omit an account of what the Church does teach than you can, when speaking about what Homer and Virgil said of the gates of horn and ivory, omit what they said, while of course citing other sources for an analysis or evaluation of the Homeric and Virgilian passages. Is it perhaps possible that really we all agree on that? Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Actually the primary sources are the Creed, church council canons, encyclicals etc etc. The catechism is a secondary or tertiary source par excellence, within the meaning of the act, as I now see has been ably pointed out above. It is prepared as a compendium and summary for popular use, and is exactly the sort of source we should use. When simply outlining bare doctrine, the fact that it is not independent does not matter. On the question of its own (current) beliefs, the church itself is the best authority. At the same time, ideally some general references to more independent summaries miight be added as secondary references. But does anyone actually think the catechism is going to be wrong on this? How would that work? Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely convinced by these arguments, but it is clear that my own argument is getting nowhere. I am therefore declaring WP:DEADHORSE against myself and withdrawing (unlike a surprisingly large minority of editors, I am no big fan of lost causes, and feel that windmills are a silly thing to tilt at). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "A god who conceives children with a mortal woman, a wise man who calls upon us to work no more, to judge no more, but to heed the signs of the imminent apocalypse, a justice that accepts the innocent man as a proxy sacrifice; someone who has his disciples drink his blood; sins against a god, atoned for by a god - are we to believe that such things are still believed?" Nietzsche. The doctrine that only writers who accept Catholic doctrine are suitable to use in the section on doctrine, that on the section on beliefs the church itself is the best authority is pretty flawed imo - the article remains in the hands of those who think anyone who clicks on the article to find out about the church is doing something alike to walking into a church and asking the priest to explain the church to him - but i dont think thats right Sayerslle (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome to add other sources (as well), but it is likely they will give a different result? How would that work? The catechism includes or excludes valid doctrine, or just mis-states it? Let us know what you find! Johnbod (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Virgin Birth of Mary as general Christian belief vs. Catholic Belief.

I find it quite disturbing that editors from this article would cite specific Catholic beliefs such as Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Virgin Mary yet will not include the virgin birth concerning Mary. Hello? Aren't Catholics Christians?

The Roman Catholic Church, having had primacy of these beliefs since the early councils have erected, defined and proclaimed the divine motherhood and virginal birth of Jesus Christ since the Apostolic Age, yet the article will not include it because it is also shared by other Christian denominations-----who came in the picture in MUCH LATER years. Get it?

Catholics are Christians too, as stated by the article and they have had held these beliefs longer, which makes the Mary's virginal birth of Jesus inclusive in the "Catholic beliefs concerning Mary"...

In contrast, the distinction SHOULD be made in Protestant Articles, where they reject the other dogmas yet share in the belief of Mary's virgin birth of Jesus, not the other way around because Catholics are Christians who also share in the belief that the Mary gave virgin birth to Jesus SINCE the Apostolic Age.

I wish someone in the future would take this into consideration and make that correct distinction for purposes of total clarity, neutrality and transparency for Catholic-Christian readers. LoveforMary (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

Umm...second sentence of the section re: Mary - "The Church holds Mary, as Perpetual Virgin and Mother of God, in special regard." Pretty sure the virgin birth is quite heavily implied by "Perpetual Virgin and Mother of God."  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 15:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ECC

The lead needs to include the Eastern Catholic Churches: the title of the article isn't "Roman Catholic Church", and all Catholics (for the purpose of the following discussion, defined as, "in communion and regular standing with the Bishop of Rome") aren't Roman Catholic. The Eastern Catholic Churches are equally a part of the "Catholic Church" as is the Latin Church/Roman Catholics: calling all by the name, "Roman Catholic" is a common error that shouldn't be perpetuated by Wikipedia: my suggestion is, "The Catholic Church, containing the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches", with the relevant information (Latin rite, Byzantine and Syrian rites, sui iuris Churches) in a note. Since I can't improve the deficient first sentence without consensus, I come here to seek it. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been quite heavily discussed in the past, as a search of the talk page archives (as recently as Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 51) will reveal. The "common error" that is perpetuated (outside of Wikipedia, at least) is that Latin Rite = Roman Catholic, which is incorrect. "Roman Catholic" is, by definition, a reference to all Catholic Churches in communion with Rome. The Latin Rite is a subset of this group, as are the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not again?! ;-) Please read Roman Catholic (term). The term "Roman Catholic" correctly used includes both Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Catholics. It does NOT only refer to the Latin Rite. Anglicanus (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Cjmclark and Anglicanus. The Eastern Churches are part of the Roman Catholic Church, as they are in communion with the bishop of Rome. I have never seen the term "Roman Catholic Church" used by the church heirarchy in reference to only the Latin Rite. The Eastern Rites are always included. Eastern Rite Catholics are Roman Catholics in exactly the same way that Latin Rite Catholics are. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II is at peer review

Pope John Paul II is at peer review -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Requirements for selection to papacy?

I undid this edit that had changed the "Papacy and Roman Curia" section to indicate that one of the requirements to become Pope was to be unmarried. To my knowledge, there are no explicit prohibitions preventing a married Catholic male from being selected as Pope. There are married Catholic priests (former Episcopals, Melkites, Maronites) who could be ordained Bishops and selected as Cardinals (thereby making their selection a great deal more probable than that of your everyday Catholic layman). WikiCatholicIndiana has since reverted my edit. Please provide a reliable source to support the assertion that there is a requirement for a Catholic male to be unmarried to assume the office of Pope.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the section back to its original (pre-edit) wording pending outcome of discussion here.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 06:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is factually true that there is no explicit prohibition against a lay male Roman Catholic being elected as Pope (who would obviously need to be ordained as a bishop). Theoretically a married man, lay or ordained, could probably also be elected Pope with a dispensation from the current celibacy rules which apply to bishops. But who would have authority to grant such a dispensation? Afterwriting (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering the current trend of only electing Cardinals to the office, I suspect the only realistic chance would be to have a married priest who received a dispensation from the sitting Pope to be ordained a bishop, then named a Cardinal prior to that Pope's death. There is precedent for a married Pope – eleven of the early Popes were married prior to their election and remained so while in office. The practice of celibacy for the clergy is also not considered infallible dogma (hence, the allowance for priests who converted after marriage). I agree that it is an extremely remote possibility and very unlikely to happen, but I have not yet been able to locate any explicit prohibition in Canon Law or in the Apostolic Constitutions. The requirements for selection are fairly vague and mostly entail being in good standing with the Church.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 07:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bishop of Rome is a Latin-rite bishop. For suitability, canon law now requires that the person chosen to become a Latin-rite bishop be:

1. outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence, and human virtues, and endowed with other qualities which make him suitable to fulfill the office in question;
2. of good reputation;
3. at least 35 years old;
4. ordained to the presbyterate for at least 5 years;
5. in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.

If one were to ignore canon law, the person elected would not even have to be a Christian (Ambrose was not a Christian when elected Bishop of Milan). There are even some who claim that the person elected would not have to be male, in spite of the Holy See's declaration that this is not a mere matter of canon law.

The Latin conditions are also required by Eastern Catholic canon law, which adds an explicit exclusion from the episcopate of married men, whom it admits to the presbyterate (see canon 180). Esoglou (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

While I don't believe that the specific requirements for Papal election directly reference the above (as the ordination as Bishop of Rome is incidental to the election), it makes sense that the Conclave would attempt to follow these requirements as closely as possible. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 09:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, what they are electing is the Bishop of Rome, someone who thereupon is called Pope, Supreme Pontiff etc. etc. because he is Bishop of Rome. It is these titles that are incidental. And that one of the conditions for becoming a bishop in the Catholic Church, East or West, is to be unmarried is shown also by the rules about the personal ordinariates for former Anglicans, whose ordinary can be a bishop only if unmarried: "Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches" (Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.) There seems to be a misunderstanding here that the person elected must be a cardinal: the procedure for the conclave to follow if they elect someone else is expressly indicated in the rules. And the connection of cardinalate and episcopate is not even half a century old; indeed if you went back a full century, cardinals did not even have to be priests: there were so-called lay cardinals, who not only could be married men but could even marry. Esoglou (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. Canon 332 specifically states, "The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately." This to me seems to indicate that the election of the pontiff is separate and distinct from the ordinary selection of bishops, as he is either already a bishop or is immediately ordained a bishop due to his election as the pontiff, not declared the Pope due to his election as bishop.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And the issue re: cardinals is not a misunderstanding regarding the requirements; it is simply a reflection of the recent trend of selecting cardinals.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course the selection of a bishop occurs not after but before his consecration. For most, but not all, Latin-rite bishops the appointment is done by the reigning pope, but the Bishop of Rome is not the only bishop who is elected by a group such as the college of cardinals or a cathedral chapter. Canon 332 says quite clearly that the Roman Pontiff - in ecclesiastical terminology "pontiff" means "bishop", and "Roman Pontiff" means "Bishop of Rome" - obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. If he is already a bishop, he becomes Bishop of Rome immediately; but if he is not already a bishop, he obtains full and supreme power in the Church only on being consecrated bishop, Bishop of Rome. The declaration "Habemus Papam" can be made only after he has become Bishop of Rome. That is why the consecration, if necessary, must be done first, within the conclave. Only after this is the announcement made: "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum ..."

Of course rules can be changed, but it is enough to indicate what the present rules are, without delving into details of past rules and, most certainly, without speculating about possible, probable or improbable future changes. Esoglou (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

This article wouldn't be complete without a section on criticism because it's a part of Catholic Church history. Almost all the organizations, any religious or spiritual movement has had to face criticism. This is not due to the organization itself but due to members more or less misguided by their own "good" intentions. So we have to insert this section (and please don't remove it). To have a link to another article (the "Criticism of Christianity" page) it's not sufficent to grant the NPOV: the visibility of a "small link" is not the same of a section quoted on an index (we have to consider that we are speaking abouth the Catholic Church and not of the Christian religion in general so the existing ling seems inapropriate).--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Contemporary Issues section I think serves as a fairly suitable introduction to the Church's controversial matters. The scope and breadth of the criticism of the Roman Catholic Church is quite extensive and it would be rather cumbersome to attempt to fit the entirety of it into this article. Doing so would no doubt lead to undue weight given the plethora of material to discuss. But more to the point, I don't believe this change is necessary given that the article adheres to Wikipedia's policy on criticism-related material: while integrating criticism into a primary article itself is the most desirable option, for certain topics (namely religion, politics and such), it would best serve the reader to have a separate article addressing the controversial points. Sixteen85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

The article is already far too long and there is already a Criticism of the Catholic Church article which is linked from the contemporary issues section. This is adequate in my opinion. Anglicanus (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not in any way disparaging you, but I DO NOT understand why hateful people like yourself insist on putting the criticism of the Roman Catholic Church on the intro page. Our edits and peer review always come under academic scrutiny and so should yours.

Wikipedia has already granted an article on the Criticism of the Catholic Church and as said by another editor, Anglicanus, this is MORE than Enough to adequately sustain your disdain and criticism for the Pope and the Church. You are most welcome to bring any of your issues there----and not add any more to this article, which is already too long by regular Wikipedia standard. Give your anger to God. WOW. LoveforMary (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

Preceding "hateful people like yourself" with "This is not in any way disparaging you" doesn't make it any less a personal attack. Please keep it civil. This discussion was invective-free until you posted, and that sort of rhetoric does no favors to the article, to the editors who work on it, or to Catholicism. Cheers.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

I have twice reverted (here and here) the addition of a WP:CLARIFY tag by User:Sayerslle to the third sentence in the lede ("The Roman Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation.") due to their belief that a more scholarly source for the statement is required. My reasoning is that the WP:CLARIFY tag is used when clarification of the sentence content is requested, not a citation. Is there a contention that the Church did not, in fact, play a prominent role in the history of Western civilization? And if not, does this sentence require a citation per WP:CITELEAD?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 09:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Every ref in the lead is to what I would call croyant/CC sources btw. Simone Weil wrote this : 'the Church in the thirteenth century had Christ; but it also had the Inquisition.' imo the sentence in the lead is slanted, and is supported by a crappy ref. from a publisher with an agenda. if as you assert the sentence is simply a statement of what is universally acknowledged, finding a better ref should be easy enough. Sayerslle (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things. First of all, the lede is way overcited, despite the guidance of WP:CITELEAD, but we've seemingly accepted that as a price of the "controversial" nature of the topic.

That said, let's take a look at the sentence in question. The first part — "The Roman Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world" — is, I believe, uncontested as a matter of pure chronology and should not require citation. The second portion — "and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation (now "powers" as of your last edit)." — is also fairly innocuous ("prominent" does not mean good; it applies equally to fame or notoriety). The Inquisition, while now popularly viewed as a "bad" act, was a prominent one nonetheless. Hence, I don't think the sentence is particularly contentious, nor do I think it requires elaboration or citation. But, as I said, we've defaulted to trying to cite everything where possible on the off chance that someone might contest it.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 10:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The crappy POV source from Thomas Woods has been johnbodded back. This is a crappy reference imo. surely better academic historian refs are available - if this is all you've got fom a right wing ideologue its symptomatic of the editors who control the article. Sayerslle (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have left it if your phrasing of "...has played a prominent role in the history of Western powers" was not so maladroit and, er, crappy. I'm pretty certain the change in phrasing owed nothing to what you found in Paul Johnson! Is he the "right wing ideologue" you mean? Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the right wing ideologue is Woods - I just looked inside at amazon at the paul johnson book and searched the term 'Western civilization' and it returned a few mentions; i think it did mention power too, - any old thing is better ref than the tea party-ish bloke imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone actually contending with the factual accuracy of the statement "The Catholic Church is really old and had a major effect on shaping the Western World"? WP:V says we need an inline citation for "Anything challenged or likely to be challenged". I mean this ernestly, is there anyone who actually challenges the veracity of the two points of the sentence? Absent that, I think that any citation is inappropriate. Elizabeth II provides no source for her being the Queen of the United Kingdom, because no one would even conceive doubting that. I think we're in that territory now. Achowat (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely the point that I was trying to make. The actions taken by the Church over the last 2000 years, both good and ill, helped shape Western civilization. I don't think this is (or should be) in dispute.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

List of some Catholic religious institutes

Achowat, please explain why you think that Catholic religious order (which is only about a minority class of Catholic religious institutes) is a better wikilink for "List of Catholic religious institutes" than List of some religious institutes (Catholic). Esoglou (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed a linked page with real information that may help the reader to understand the topic at hand and replaced it with a poorly-sourced and poorly formatted list with no real information whatsoever. If there is a consensus to change, by all means, but I simply don't think that List of some religious institutes (Catholic) is a beneficial link to the reader from such an over-arching survey article as this. Achowat (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of List of some religious institutes (Catholic). It would be impossible to give, within reasonable length, a complete list of Catholic religious institutes, even limited to those that have reached the stage of being classified as "of pontifical right"; and in my opinion this arbitrary list of some Catholic religious institutes should be deleted. However, do you really think it better to give as the "List of Catholic religious institutes" a list limited to institutes that a) can be called "orders"; b) are for males only, excluding women; c) are of Latin Rite only, excluding institutes of the Eastern Catholic Churches? That is surely an even worse solution. The current (2012) Annuario Pontificio devotes 259 pages to its list of pontifical-right Catholic religious institutes, but your solution presents as the only Catholic religious institutes that exist those that fit into a mere 19 of those 259 pages of the Annuario Pontificio, in spite of occupying individually much more space than is given to each individual institute for women.

Omit the reference completely? Esoglou (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the obvious solution would just be to list both. Catholic religious order is a useful page for those looking for information in regards to that, and it would seem that (if sufficiently useful) so could a page listing some, most, or all Religious Institutes (I'm to understand that that term means something explicit in Catholicism). Why not See Also: [[Catholic religious order]] & [[List of Catholic religious institutes|List of some religious institutes (Catholic)]]? Achowat (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

May I take this as acceptance of List of some Catholic religious institutes?

As for adding Catholic religious order, I think there is at least as much justification for including Catholic religious congregation (more numerous) or, better, Catholic religious institute, which comprises both religious orders and religious congregations. Any addition of this kind would raise the question of whether to add also the less numerous Catholic societies of apostolic life and Catholic secular institutes. Esoglou (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You speak of these things as though they are part of a larger grouping, in that Religious Institutes and Societies and Secular Institutes are all under one overall umbrella. I'm pleading ignorance here, is that true? Is there an all-encompassing term for all of these bodies? Achowat (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholic religious orders and Catholic religious congregation are subgroups of Catholic religious institute, as the three articles on them show. In turn, Catholic religious institutes are, together with Catholic secular institutes, subgroups of Catholic institutes of consecrated life, as likewise indicated. Catholic societies of apostolic life, which are sometimes colloquially, though falsely, referred to as orders, are similar, but the members do not take religious vows; they include long-established groups such the Vincentian Fathers and some well-known missionary societies such as Maryknoll. While "institute of consecrated life" is a widely-embracing term (comprising religious institutes, whether orders or congregations, and secular institutes) there is no all-embracing term that also includes societies of apostolic life (and no more): this is shown by the title of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Esoglou (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems you have a much, much stronger understanding of these things than I, so I'm going to default to you (absent anyone else engaging in this conversation). Achowat (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I will restore the wikilink to the page that, in spite of my dislike of it, is more appropriate than the wikilink that I changed from. Another solution, to which I would have no objection whatever, would be to remove "See also: List of Catholic religious institutes". Esoglou (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

See Also

Hi!

I edited the lists of Catholic scientists and artists to add in the word "some", because, such lists are incomplete.

Oct13 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Cjmclark reverted an anon IP's edit with this edit and justified it in the edit summary by saying that he was restoring text agreed upon by consensus. I know this is a sensitive subject but I must have missed the consensus that agreed upon the use of "Roman Catholic Church" in the text of the article. A couple of years ago, a number of editors were involved in a mediation which reached a consensus that this article would be titled Catholic Church and that the lead sentence would say "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church". I have no recollection of a subsequent consensus to use the name "Roman Catholic Church" in other parts of the article. However, since I don't track everything that has been discussed on this Talk Page, it's possible that there was a discussion about this that I simply missed. If that is the case, please point me to the discussion so I can come up to speed. Otherwise, I would like to have this article use "Catholic Church" throughout with the exception of the lead sentence which should include the phrase "also known as the Roman Catholic Church" according to the consensus reached by a year-long mediation. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is my fault for reverting a couple of things in one go. The "wording achieved by consensus" to which I referred was actually regarding the sentence about the Pope as the successor of St. Peter. The reverts to "Roman Catholic" were just reverting sloppy edits back to the last stable wording. If a consensus is developed here to use "Catholic Church" everywhere but the AKA statement, that's fine by me.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 09:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections from other editors, I will convert all references to "the Roman Catholic Church" to "the Catholic Church" in all sentences except the lead sentence. I believe this reflects a longstanding consensus going back at least 5-6 years ago (i.e. even before the mediation mentioned above). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because I was at amazon 'look inside'- ing on Paul Johnson's 'a histoy of xty' , I searched 'Roman Catholicism' - p.284 for eg. " in some ways luther, as they appreciated, was more Catholic than many of his Roman Catholic opponents.." why is the term RC anathematised at the wp article. i don't understand. Sayerslle (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. It's not "anathematized"; it's just the most common name for the organization. Achowat (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to re-open the discussion but, in brief, the argument is that the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome uses both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to itself. There are sources that assert that "Catholic Church" is the proper name of the church but despite the credentials of those making the assertion, they remain opinions, not official pronouncements from the church. After a long mediation, it was determined that it was not actually possible to determine if the church had a single, official name. However, it was possible to ascertain that the church used both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to itself in official contexts (as well as other names such as "Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church"). It was agreed that this article would be titled "Catholic Church" and that "Catholic Church" would appear first in the lead sentence with the added phrase "also known as Roman Catholic Church". The goal is certainly not to "anathematise" the term "Roman Catholic Church", far from it. However, unless we want to take the time in the article to explain to the reader that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" refer to the same thing, it is far simpler to just maintain consistency by using "Catholic Church" throughout the article. Actually, there was an attempt to propagate this approach to all articles in Wikipedia but there were some hiccups along the way and so there is probably no uniform approach across Wikipedia. I forget the details of the hiccups but I'm sure we could dig them up if you are really interested.

If you really want to delve into this question further, you might wish to start with User:Pseudo-Richard/Names of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the proceedings of the mediation were deleted because someone threatened to use those proceedings as the basis of an ARBCOM case and mediation rules require deletion of the mediation page if any such attempt is made.

Trust me, you'd rather chew your left arm off than get into a debate on this. Every time I look at my left arm, I regret not having chewed it off instead of getting involved in the mediation.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I'll look at the article - so 107ad is first mention of Catholic Church, Ignatius of Antioch, - , I want to find first use of RC Church and such - i'll read further in your article - it's obviously not just used by those seeking to denigrate or demote the Church in some way though, is it , if Paul Johnson uses it without flinching. Next time its in the news I'll listen out for what the BBC uses, RCC or CC Sayerslle (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The mediation was "done in a corner", as someone who was unhappy with the procedure described it. When a small group of Wikipedians decided to impliment the name change to Catholic Church the level of disagreement was such that one of the advocates for the name to be changed to "Catholic Church" took it to Arbcom in order to silence the dissenters.[2] Meanwhile others who were sympathetic to his pov proceeeded to launch an attack on the Wikipedia policy pages in order to make it "Law" that their preferred name change stuck even if it meant opening the door to all sorts of abuses by pov single interest groups. Arbcom was presented with an extensive list of Encyclopedic/Dictionary type reference works that showed conclusively that Roman Catholic Church or variant was by far the preferred named used by them.[3] The person who first put the case to Arbcom subsequently withdrew the case.[4] Yt95 (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Catechism of Pope Pius X published in 1908 also used the term "Roman" to distinguish the Catholic Church from other Christian communities who are not in full communion with Rome." Use of CC is common but use of RCC takes into account that not everyone shares the point of view that the RCC is the one true church. Agree neutrality and limited world view flag should stay until this has been resolved. DrTh0r (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Church includes Eastern Catholic Churches, Maronites, Armenians and even a Coptic church, none of whom are referred to or use the word Roman. The Latin Church is what most people mean when they say Roman. The fact that clerics get the name of their own church wrong does not alter the fact that it's title is, and always has been, The Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateWiddle (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Order of Sacraments

So, there seems to be some dispute as to whether the Sacraments should be listed Baptism-Eucharist-Confirmation (as it stood) or Baptism-Confirmation-Eucharist. I am lobbying for the former since that is the order that most Catholics are given the sacraments, as well as the (cited) line from the Eucharist blurb "For Catholics, the Eucharist is the sacrament which completes Christian initiation". Another user (who I will inform of this discussion) has suggested the latter is more accurate as it is the order that Adult Converts are given the sacraments and it is (I'm told) the order the Catechism lists them (I apologize, I don't have my catechism handy). What do other editors think is the better option for order, B-E-C or B-C-E? Achowat (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the line that "For Catholics, the Eucharist is the sacrament which completes Christian initiation" supports the listing (and administering) of the Rite of Confirmation first. The relatively recent practice of performing Confirmation later than Eucharist (generally during junior high or high school) has led to a misunderstanding of Confirmation as some sort of "rite of passage" or "adult initiation". In fact, Confirmation was once traditionally administered as soon as individuals reached the age of reason (7 or 8) with Eucharist soon after, thereby "complet[ing] Christian initiation". The Pope recently praised the Bishop of Fargo for reordering the Sacraments in this fashion. I personally would be inclined to list them in the order in which they appear in the CCC, rather than in the order in which we're pretty sure a lot of people have gone through them, especially as there seems to be a strong movement towards reordering them here in the West.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

BCE is the official order, with Eucharist, as you said, as "the sacrament which completes Christian initiation", not a stepping stone towards later completion in another sacrament. BCE was the normal order even for Latin Catholics (and remember that not all Catholic are Latin) until Pius X encouraged earlier reception of Communion. The custom of giving Communion while maintaining an older age for Confirmation was not sanctioned by him but became general among Latin Catholics. So it is a recent anomaly, limited to Latin countries, one that in some countries is being gradually abandoned. See the explanation given for the change in one United States diocese, restoring the correct order of the three sacraments of initiation. Most dioceses in the United States have not yet changed back, but in New Zealand the restoration is complete. Esoglou (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

CCC 1212 The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life.

CCC 1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation.

See also CCC 1233 for the difference between Eastern and Western practices.

Oct13 (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Catholic Church"!?

Alright, how the hell did the article change from Roman Catholic Church, to just Catholic Church? This is terrible POV, an insult to all churches. Catholic Church should be differentiated between all the other churches as it is in disambiguation. We don't have the orthodox church being called the catholic church, even though that is what they claim they are. For this same reason, the roman catholic church should not be called simply the catholic church. There is no reason to have changed this, the only reason I can see is to push a POV that this church is THE catholic church by its adherents which is completely biased and sensible neutrality. The disambiguation at the top of the page is not enough, either change it so "Catholic Church" redirects to the disambiguation, or reclaim Roman Catholic Church.75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It didn't get changed. It got fixed. "Catholic Church" is not only the more popular usage, and thus, per naming conventions, the preference, but it is also the Church's name. You're right, we don't have the Orthodox being called catholic even though they claim to be, but they are called orthodox, and they claim to be THE Orthodox Church, which is something other denominations also claim. The Church of Christ is called so because they believe they are THE Church of Christ, even though many other denominations claim the same thing. No one objects to those denominations' name choices.

IMO, your objection to the Catholic Church's name it gave itself, while not objecting to the same in other denominations is the bias here.Farsight001 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• It was moved improperly without a debate & the issue has been hugely debated before. It will have to go back. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It was moved after months of discussion and a consensus. The talk page archives reveal such quite clearly. Where you got the idea that there was no debate and the move was improper is beyond me. Regardless, naming conventions tell us to use the most popular name, which is just "Catholic Church". That's is also it's actual name. There really is nothing else that matters in this regard.Farsight001 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I misread the history & thought it was just moved. I think I've supported CC in the past, but the arguments, as you probably know, are a little more complicated than that! I'm returning the project ratings to Start, btw, as given the importance of the topic it really doesn't rate more than that. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we just solve all these problems by making it so that when an IP clicks on "New Section" at the top of the page links straight to WP:COMMONNAME? (Not a serious request, but probably a good idea) Achowat (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Catholic Church is not the most common name as per independent Enyclopedic/Dictionery reference sources (see the link in my previous post)[5]. The people who voted for changing the name to Catholic Church were never presented with accurate data on which to base an opinion therefore there is no suggestion that the majority of them acted in anything other than good faith. Wikipedia is way out of line in the naming of this article and it does nothing to dispel the fears of those who think that Imperial Roman Catholicism is normative today. That certainly isn't true, and hasn't been true for many years. As it stands it paints the Church in an aggressive and triumphalist light all too ready if given the chance to trample over anyone who disagrees with her as they believe happened in the past. Yt95 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That list appears to be all tertiary sources, well the first 66. The 10 Secondary Sources listed all list "The Catholic Church". To quote policy "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Achowat (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see how you derived the figures quoted, could you please supply an analysis. Irrespective of Wikipedia legalese it's clear that the overwhelming consensus of sources like Britannica and so on has adopted some variant of Roman Catholicism rather than push an ideologically driven name. Can you take the time to explain why you think the Wikipedia convention is superior ? Yt95 (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) (added. I see you are using the entries I added at the bottom of the page which come from from sources which are making a declaration that "we are the Catholic Church", i.e the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They are of course entitled to their opinion but why should Wikipedia endorse their point of view when the most common name used by independent reference sources do not?)Yt95 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, what I'm saying is that, since you're lobbying for a change in the status quo, the burden of evidence lies on you. Please, go find the reliable, independent, secondary sources that demonstrate RCC is more common than _CC. All I'm saying is that Encyclopediae and Dictionaries (and other Tertiary Sources) don't qualify in that endeavor. I have no horse in this race, but if you're going to claim that RCC is the Common Name, I'm going to ask that you actually demonstrate that. Achowat (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments but the point I'm trying to get across is that with contentious names we have no need to get involved in research which involves trawling around newspaper articles and arguing over the instances of Roman as against Catholic Church. People will argue until the cows come home on this. (e.g If you look at the vast majority of articles printed over the last decade I guess they are mainly on one subject and the writers would be pendants if they used the long form name on every occasion when its clear who the particular Church is.) I repeat why are we so completely out of line with the vast majority of independent reputable Encylopedia's/Dictionaries? If you invoke Wikipedia law then the obvious reply is who wrote it? When the name change came up before they tried to change the policy pages in order to defend the name change they demanded. I haven't kept up with their attempts but something seems far wrong when we are soo completely out of line with an extensive list of mainstream reference sources. I don't believe there is anything to prove, it has already been shown.Yt95 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not accept that the most common name outside of academic usage should necessarily be used (which is more common, "Unification Church" or "Moonies"?) and it is clear that "Catholic Church" is by no means the only name that the Church applies to itself. I agree with Yt95 that a secular encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should be in line with similar encyclopedias in this matter. BUT I also believe that there is no chance, within the Wikipedia system, of getting the title of this article changed now. Esoglou (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless some new spirit comes to the page then I would agree with Esoglou's pragmatic observations. My only posts on this matter have been to correct erroneous assertions relating to how the article name change came about. Basically it stinks, and its not with the odor of sanctity. An enemy of Christianity and peace would no doubt say "keep up the good work boy's, we couldn't have planned it better ourselves" Yt95 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing that "Catholic Church" is POV and "Roman Catholic" is NPOV is backwards. The Catholic Church is easily distinguished from the church catholic. The Roman moniker is enforced from outside, and is only used now either in regard to the Church (diocese) of Rome or to the Latin Church. Just ask the pope - growing up in Nazi Germany he hates the use of Roman, because it was used by the Nazi's to discredit the universal nature of the Catholic Church. Or look to the old Catholic Encyclopedia online, which basically labels it a malicious attack by protestants [sic]. This debate has happened in depth, and it took a long time to get the correct version made official, i absolutely would not want it reverted - clearly there is too much misinformation out there, if people really think that Catholic is a POV issue! 95.227.111.12 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The impossibility of getting a change in Wikipedia is demonstrated by this insult to the Church authorities, including the popes, who have spoken and do speak of the Church as the Roman Catholic Church, who are pictured as spinelessly letting others decide what they themselves are to call the Church; this presenting as fact an imaginative notion that Benedict XVI, who does sometimes use the longer name, actually hates it; this presenting as decisive for a secular publication such as Wikipedia a view expressed by a writer in a century-old non-secular publication ... As I said, a change is impossible. Esoglou (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I.P. -Why have you written 'Nazi's' - its a straight plural the way you use it - should be just 'Nazis' -how can you write for precision on article titles and then write such a stupid thing - and like Esoglou says you then quote an ages old ultramontane? source?? I just went to encylopedia britannica online and searched 'Catholic Church' - and it went to a disambiguation page - it didn't go straight to a specific article - I think wp should get in step here, and stop being mugged off.. Sayerslle (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Throughout this series of interactions the main point made by those who promote the common usage of "Roman Catholic Church" rather than "Catholic Church" without the "Roman" is that the use of the capitalized "Catholic" implies and connotes that this church is the ONLY "universal" (i.e. catholic) church. As pointed out by others, that usage may have been nominally correct pertaining to the Christian church until the schism of 1054. With the split between the two capitals of the Roman Empire and the division of the Christian church into western and eastern the label "Roman Catholic Church" became definitionally appropriate for the western Christian church headquartered in Rome. In the east it became to be known as the Eastern Orthodox Church focused on Constantinople and it continues to hold that it also is catholic - by the definition of the Greek origins of the word. The heading for this article - focused on the Christian church headquartered in Rome - should be reverted to "Roman Catholic Church".Moryak (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that, as has already been explained above, this argument is completely irrelevant. No one gets pissed at "The Church of Christ" for their name, or "The Orthodox Church" for their name. And there's nothing stopping other groups from naming themselves the Catholic Church. Ultimately, this is irrelevant though, as it has no bearing on naming convention policies.Farsight001 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not know why making such problem: Roman Catholic Church has already its article - Latin Church. The lead information as it is now is in fact MISLEADING and abusing NPOV. To call Catholic Church: "The Roman Catholic Church" is a bit like calling all North Americans WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). All others, like Afro Americans, are not mentioned. Are they not North Americans? "The Roman Catholic Church" is a narrower name. It is part of the Catholic Church, which includes also Eastern rite Catholic Churches, which ARE NOT "Roman Catholics", they are "Greek Catholics" etc. In the Ukraine there are several million Greek Catholics. You cannot just ignore them. Their Catholicity is expressed by acknowledging the primacy of the Pope. Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic churches accept the Pope and the teaching of faith and form together the Catholic Church. All these churches' origin goes back to Christ and the Apostles. To summarize, I think these four things are missing in the lead article: 1. explanation that it is wider common name for both Roman and Greek Catholics, 2. primacy of Peter, 3. origin in Christ and Apostles. I think also that detailed information about the statistics and mission should go to separate section.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again! READ THE ARCHIVES! Even if you don't agree with it being so, the most common name for the Roman Catholic Church in English is simply the Catholic Church, period, and within Wikipedia, articles are named after the most common name. Also, "Roman" is not the same as "Latin". "Roman" means under the Roman Pope, it doesn't mean "Roman Rite." All Latin and Greek Catholics are Roman Catholics. Due to particular contexts and histories, some Greek Catholics do not like to be called "Roman." Fine, yet, many others, not only have no problem with it, they even call themselves it. There are plenty of "Byzantine Roman Catholic Churches" going around. So, since there are official sources for both names, sources coming from both official Church documents as well as independent academic sources, we come back to the Common name rule. They many be catholic, but Orthodox don't call themselves colloquially Catholics (you should only look at the Discussion Page on the "Orthodox Catholic Church" article and see how many Orthodox argue for the "Catholic" to be withdrawn from the name). By the same token, Anglicans do not call themselves Catholics, and so forth.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggested "The One True Church of Rome" a few years back, but it didn't go over well.  :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You write "Roman" means under the Roman Pope, it doesn't mean "Roman Rite." Any reliable source? It looks like you created this definition for your own needs.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC):

You got nerves! Yet, I'll play, but won't reinvent the wheel. Why don't you read Roman Catholic (term). There you'll fine plenty of sources as to the different uses of the word "Roman Catholic" and as to the OFFICIAL use of the word. Roman means "under the Roman Bishop" or Pope, although it is also used for Roman Rite and for Western Church (which also include many non-Roman rites), those are different uses of the word, not the principal use.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand how this is controversial. Is there any ambiguity about the term "Catholic Church" as a proper noun? This is in contrast to "Roman Catholic Church," which can be used to refer specifically to the Latin rite. There are many churches which claim to be catholic. There is only one which is named the Catholic Church. I'd add that virtually every denomination uses a name which, strictly speaking, might be seen to impinge on the claims of other churches. Aren't all Christians Disciples of Christ? Aren't there many Evangelical Lutherans in the United States who do not belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? Aren't there many churches in England besides the Church of England? If all these titles are acceptable, what's the problem with Catholic Church? john k (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to find out the reason why you have difficulties with understanding. I think it's the problem of methodology.

FIRST: ACADEMIC. Wikipedia supports referring to the systematic, academic knowledge. You do not cite any theological sources. Do you draw your ideas from your own research? But neither the Church, nor the Wikipedia is a matter of your own ideas.

SECOND: THEOLOGY. In 2 Peter 1,20-21 we read: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation etc. (RSV) The same is with understanding of the church being one. At the Council of Nicea (AD 325) the Church of Christ was described as "one, holy, catholic (=universal), apostolic (=apostolic succession)". Catholic and Orthodox churches stick to what we call Apostolic Tradition (see art. Sacred Tradition). Its basic principle is that consecutive generation of Christians cannot decide anything essentially new about the Church. Accordingly, also Protestant theologians, who profess the Nicean creed, accept the concept of onness of the Church. But because Protestant Christians separated from the Catholic Church, abandoned – on their own demand – the Apostolic succession, they need to explain it "spiritually". Where there is no real unity you may always about "spiritual"one ;-). But the Catholic church teaches that both the spiritual and visible unity needs to come together.

SUMMARY: In this article about the Catholic Church, you cannot speak but using academic and apostolic traditional theology concepts, lest you end up in describing the protestant idea of the church saying it is Catholic. The Catholic and, in deed, Orthodox churches do teach real unity based on communion with the bishop, becouse it is the heritage we received from Christ and Apostles (see e.g. John D, Zizioulas Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon (2001), Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist The Bishop During the First Three Centuries, Brookline, Massachusetts, USA).--Quodvultdeus (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This Is NOT the proper term as otherwise there would be no disambiguation, it is the term in WESTERN discourse (And lets not cite google popularity as this is not a popularity context to parrot what a search enginse says for an encyclopaedia) its supposed to be globalised when thre are "CATHOLIC churches beyon g the scope of the west.

Lets sort this out before we remove the tags.(Lihaas (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)).

Lihaas wrote "it is the term in WESTERN discourse". Right, and this is the English Wikipedia so one might expect that there would be a bias towards English usage as opposed to, say, Russian or Greek usage.

Lihaas wrote "lets not cite google popularity as this is not a popularity context to parrot what a search enginse says for an encyclopaedia". The issue here is that the number of Google hits gives some indication of what name the sources use.

Once again, consult WP:COMMONNAME which says:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google hits do not necessarily indicate which is the prevailing term in academic sources in English. Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait...what?! Why did User:Lihaas remove the sentence "The Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation."? And then say "see talk" when what they posted has nothing to do with removal of this sentence? I am failing to see why this sentence is controversial. Does anyone dispute that the Catholic Church is old? And does anyone dispute that, for good or ill, the Church has played a major role in Western history?

@Esoglou - WP:COMMONNAME specifies "reliable English-language sources," which doesn't necessarily translate to academic sources alone. It in fact states "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms..." I would argue that academic sources tend to be more concerned with technical correctness than common usage. However, if the number of academic sources outnumbers the number of other reliable secondary sources, then I suppose they would meet the COMMONNAME test.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I misled. By "academic sources" I just meant what you would call really reliable sources. I certainly support "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". I think sources should be given the weight that each merits. For instance, that an encyclopedia should be given more weight than a news magazine. I don't think a head count of Google hits regardless of quality is good enough. Am I attributing too much significance to "typically" as opposed to "numerously"? Esoglou (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily simplify it down to g-hits either, and I do agree that some discrimination is required - not everything that pops up on Google can reasonably be considered a reliable source, after all. However, I think the impetus behind WP:COMMONNAME is to ensure that when people search for a term, they get the right article...hence the emphasis on "most typically." In today's media-saturated society, I would postulate that the average person's introduction to any given topic will most likely be on TV or the Internet, with magazines and newspapers as runners-up and encyclopedias and scholarly journals rather far behind, hence the danger in preferentially weighting for academic sources.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We agree partially and, it seems, disagree partially. I leave it at that. Esoglou (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What's important to note when determining what the common name for a topic, is that most tertiary sources (like encyclopedias and dictionaries) often don't rise to the level of "reliable". Achowat (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Serious encyclopedias certainly do. Much more than do TV programmes, Internet sites and magazine articles. Esoglou (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are, by definition, a collection of facts and figures from secondary and primary sources. They apply their own rubrics and policies as to what they name their entries. Wikipedia should be applying our own policies, not simply copying the procedures done by other tertiary sources. Achowat (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So one says, it is incorrect to change it back to Roman Catholic Church as it is an insult. How can this be? The Orthodox Church calls itself the "Catholic Church" as well, the only reason I see this name was changed was to reinforce Roman Catholic view that it is the "true Catholic Church". It should stay Roman Catholic Church as it has been, so it is not biased against the other churches that calls itself "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH". It is extremely aggravating to see this great fight to claim apostolic supremacy over all other churches who also have the same claims. Let it be neutral and call the Orthodox the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church it claims as we do now, but also call the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church as it is claimed now. If not that, then please for the love of God make it so "Catholic Church" redirects to the disambiguation page!75.73.114.111 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the Orthodox Church calls itself the "catholic church"; which is worlds away from "The Catholic Church". But I'm sure if you asked the Pope, himself, he would say that his church is both Orthodox and the premier Church of Christ. On Wikipedia, we don't care, not even a little bit, what is true. Especially when it comes to matters of faith, where 'true' can, by definition, never be proved. What we care about is verifiability. What do the reliable sources say? What do the secondary sources say? What each and every one of them says is that "Catholic Church" is a body run by the Benedict XVI, at least in English. In fact, the vast, vast majority of our readers have no idea what "Catholic" as a word means outside the confines of the Church in Communion with Rome. I think if there really was some massive conspiracy to demonstrate through Wikipedia that the Catholic Church was "right", we'd go about it in a much, much less subtle way. Achowat (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The article title cannot actually make a distinction between "catholic Church" and "Catholic Church", since it needs to begin with an upper-cased letter. Also, the article "Church of Christ" actually refers to a disambiguation page.

And the "Eastern Orthodox Church" claims indeed "Catholic Church" as one of its names. Eastern Orthodox Saint Raphael of Brooklyn stated clearly enough, "The (Orthodox) Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document". :::The following book also claims that "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" (I'm sorry if someone feels offended by this statement). And the following "Roman Catholic" book also claims that "the Greek and Russian Churches, no less than our own, claim and use this title of Catholic".

Also the following English book claims that both "Orthodox Church" and "Catholic Church" can be potentially misleading expressions, since they're both used by more than one Church, "The simple title "Orthodox Church" is potentially misleading, just as the title "Catholic Church" is for the Roman Catholic Church, since the term "Orthodox", like the term "Catholic", is used by other Churches too". (An the article about the "Eastern Orthodox Church" is not titled "Orthodox Church", nor should it be titled that way.)

And WP:COMMONNAME actually states that we are not forced to use the most common name, when there are problems with it. "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". In my opinion, it would be more appropriate for Wikipedia to have this article titled "Roman Catholic Church" (or perhaps something like "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)" or "(Roman) Catholic Church", which were suggested in previous debates), and using "Catholic Church" as a redirect should be enough. I'm sorry that some people dislike the term "Roman Catholic", but there is enough evidence that the Vatican has also used it sometimes in its own documents, and it is clearly not a pejorative term like "Papist" or "Popish". However, I do not really expect an agreement will be reached in this discussion (but, I'm not surprised this issue was mentioned again). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Cody7777777 when it comes to discussion of Catholic-Orthodox topics. In this case, I disagree with him but his comments should be taken with all due consideration and not dismissed lightly.

That said, I would argue that there are problems with both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" but the title "Catholic Church" is sufficiently more common that the condition "all of them fairly common" is not as applicable in this case.

I don't deny for a minute that the Orthodox and Anglican churches consider themselves so Catholic that they might even be "more Catholic than the Pope". Nonetheless, I would be astonished if anybody asked in a conversation, "Wait a minute, when you say 'Catholic Church', do you mean the Anglican or Orthodox church or the one in communion with the bishop of Rome?". I would think that they were disingenuously trying to start a dispute rather than truly confused as to my meaning. In theory, The simple title "Orthodox Church" is potentially misleading, just as the title "Catholic Church" is for the Roman Catholic Church, since the term "Orthodox", like the term "Catholic", is used by other Churches too but, in practice, no one is misled and this discussion is about ecclesiastical and theological controversies, not about ambiguity in naming.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation

I have followed the discussion on this page with interest, as I have many Roman Catholic friends and relatives; I shall continue to read the page whenever possible. In the meantime, talkers, please refresh your knowledge of punctuation! The word spelled boys is a plural, not a possessive: The possessive forms are boy's gun or boys' guns. Similarly, the word it's means it is. The word its has a different meaning entirely. Examples: It's too bad that there is so much rain in England.//After studying a passage in an encyclopedia article, I found its meaning ambiguous.

MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

September 2011

I have reverted two edits. This one (by User:153.104.122.1) removed the wikilink for Christianity from the lede with no reason stated, and this one (by User:WikiCatholicIndiana) removed Susan Wise Bauer's "The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade" from the bibliography on the grounds that it is an "unreliable source." I can see no reason for the first edit to stand, but would like an explanation of why the source in question has been deemed unreliable prior to its removal.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Clark, Apologies for my late response. Susan Wise Baur's book is not viewpoint neutral and takes positions that would be difficult to defend. For example, she asserts that Constantine invented the Catholic Church, despite the facts that the writings of Eusibius and others indicate quite the contrary. Baur is not Catholic, and in my opinion, is using this book to present a view of the Catholic Church that is more favorable to her own religion than to Catholicism. --wikiCatholicIndiana 23:20, 12 January 2012‎ (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church Issue Again

The correct terminology is The Roman Catholic Church. Other ecclesiastical bodies--Including the Anglican Communion and the various Orthodox churches--also correctly claim Catholic traditions.

MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that matters. The official name is "The Catholic Church," and a group has the right to its own name. You don't see Catholics complaining about the name "The Episcopal Church" on the grounds that Episcs aren't the only church with bishops, do you? Carlo (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Statistical Yearbook unreliable.

The figures for the number of Catholics from the Statistical Yearbook are unreliable. Nobody knows how these figures were arrived at, and what they mean, as the compilers have never published the methodology used, or even the definition that they sue for "Catholic". A lot of the numbers reported for individual countries are grossly inflated, for example, Poland. This does not by any means qualify as or even resemble a real scholarly survey. It is probably reliable for numbers of bishops, and to some degree, for priests (although there is no indication that it excludes double-counting priests). The "more-than-a-billion" mantra is basically meaningless unless one expands one's definition of "Catholic" to the point that it is useless. Except in a handful of countries where Catholics must register for tax purposes, like Germany, none of the reports on which the Yearbook is based are based on usable information. It just has no scholarly value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We need more than your personal claim to condemn the Statistical Yearbook as unreliable. The publication itself explains "how these figures were arrived at", namely, by sending a questionnaire to the individual dioceses and adding up the figures reported by the dioceses. The only possible advantage that any diocese would gain by inflating the figure for its own Catholics would be mere self-satisfaction. In some countries there is a financial advantage in reporting fewer rather than more Catholics, since the contribution of each diocese to the national expenses (in particular, the episcopal conference and its agencies) is based on the reported Catholic population of the diocese. (The same reason certainly led parishes in England and Wales to report a smaller number of Catholics, since the contribution of each parish to the common diocesan fund for Catholic schools was calculated according to the number of its Catholics - this I can report from personal knowledge of years ago, not from any citable reliable source.) The Statistical Yearbook actually says that the figures it gives are a little lower than the reality, since communication is not possible with some dioceses - presumably a reference in particular to mainland China. The office does take precautions against double-counting priests, since the questionnaire asks for detailed information on the number of diocesan priests incardinated in the diocese and resident in it, those incardinated in the diocese but resident elsewhere in the same country, those incardinated in the diocese and resident in other countries, non-incardinated diocesan priests of the same country resident in the diocese, non-incardinated diocesan priests of other countries resident in the diocese, religious priests resident in the diocese; number of newly-ordained, number of deceased, number of defections; and where the figures reported show contradictions or unexplained discrepancies from the previous year's figures, the Central Statistics Office does request an explanation or correction. Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually copy and paste this complaint from an archive post? It looks extremely familiar.Farsight001 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC) And since this comment was so rudely deleted for supposedly itself being rude, I thought I'd explain. I have, in fact, seen this exact query before. I thought you might have made it before yourself, and could thus reference us to the past discussion, or, someone else who also finds it familiar and remembers what the conclusion of the discussion was the last time. Perhaps it was under another subject, but I know I saw it.Farsight001 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I may have commented on this source before, but there is no copy-and-paste involved. Maybe a year or two ago. And it's quite possible that I used some of the same arguments. If I remember correctly, the source was deleted at that time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@Esgolou: Sorry, but that would get an F in any undergraduate course in survey methodology. That only shifts responsibility for the methodology from the Vatican to the bishops, and there is absolutely no way to discover how they arrived at their figures. In a lot of cases, the figures are blatantly fabricated (for Poland, for example). You've made my point for me because individual bishops often have a very strong vested interested in falsifying these figures (either up or down), if only out of laziness or lack of funds to do a proper survey. And, like you mentioned, they have done so in the past, and certainly still do. :::The biggest methodological problem with the "survey" is that the term "Catholic" is never defined. One often hears that it reflects the number of persons who have been baptized Catholic in a parish/dioscese/country, but 1) there is no evidence for that; 2) there is no conceivable way of arriving at a meaningful number since deaths and defections are not accurately recorded; 3) that particular definition of Catholic would be useless anyway; and 4) it's patently not the case that this is the definition used by bishops in some countries, such as Germany.

As for pressure to inflate numbers, it's very strong because of political clout. Polish bishops claim a lot of political influence when they state that 85% percent of the population is Catholic, ignoring the fact that at least a half of that number are not Catholic in any meaningful sensee of the word. The situation is similar in the US and many other western countries.

As it is, we do not know (and probably can never know) how these figures were arrived at and what they mean. We can, however, conclude that it is highly unlikely that it reflects the number of regularly practicing Catholics, which is really the only number that our readers are interested in. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the burden is not on me to prove that the source is unreliable, but on you to prove that it is. So far, you haven't done so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "Catholic" is defined in the questionnaire sent to the dioceses: the number they are asked to give is that of "baptized Catholics". (In mission countries, a supplementary page added to the questionnaire by a different department of the Roman Curia asks also for the number of catechumens, but this information does not make its way into the Statistical Yearbook of the Church.) A much more accurate reply can be given to the question on the number of "baptized Catholics" than could be given to a hypothetical question on the number of "practising Catholics", a term of very difficult definition. In countries where the state census provides statistics on the number of people who self-define as Catholics, the dioceses use that figure in responding to the questionnaire. That happens, for instance, in New Zealand, where the number they give for Catholics varies every five years, in connection with publication of the latest census returns. I once had easy access to the complete series of the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, but at present I have access to no issue of the annual publication. I cannot therefore check your statement that the figure it gives for Catholics in Poland is only 85%. Other sources put the Catholic proportion of the population of Poland higher. Take this source, which gives the 2002 proportion of Roman Catholics in Poland as 89.8% (about 75% practising). If you are correct, I wonder whether in Poland diocesan contributions to national Church funds are based on the number of Catholics, resulting in a diminution by the dioceses of the figures they give for the number of baptized Catholics in their jurisdictions. The Polish state census seems not to ask about religion: at least, the Demographic Yearbook of Poland 2010 gives information on the number of religious weddings with civil effects but not on the religion of the inhabitants. Esoglou (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, self-definition is arguably the most equitable way of deciding how many people ought to be classified as Catholics. Unfortunately, not every country (almost certainly, only those that represent a minority of the world's population) asks about religion in its census questionnaire. Even in those countries that do ask, the resulting figure for those who self-define as Catholics does not mean that the same proportion attends Mass every Sunday or even once a month or perhaps even once a year. But they do consider themselves Catholics. "Lapsed Catholics", but Catholics. I think no other source can even remotely rival the Statistical Yearbook of the Church's information on the number of baptized Catholics for statistics on that matter in countries that do not have a census question on religion. Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You've just proven that the source is being abused in this article. "Baptized Catholics" cannot be equated with "members" by any stretch of the imagination. That is EXTREMELY dishonest. It is also OR and Synth. The number of "Baptized Catholics" is a trivial factoid of no use to our readers, or to anyone else, for that matter. Especially considering that Catholics are generally baptized at birth, and many of them now practice other religions or none at all. I, for one, was baptized as a baby, but am certainly not a "member" of the Church in any sense whatsoever except in its own masturbatory fantasies. And there are hundreds of millions like me.

Also, there is no credible methodology by which parishes or dioceses can accurately determine the number of living baptized Catholics within their boundaries because there is no coordinated accounting system for baptisms versus deaths.

Self-reporting has its own problems, associated mostly with non-Catholics designating themselves as Catholics for purely cultural, ethnic, nationalistic or historic reasons. Very often, the questioner and the questionee are employing vastly divergent definitions of the word, and any information gathered is therefore highly compromised. This is particularly true for civil census information. Furthermore, people very often don't tell the truth when asked about religious matters, especially attendance.

As usual in statistics, the figure we are interested in, the number of practicing Catholics, is difficult both to define and to measure. So far, this has not been done on a dioscesan scale, never mind a national or global scale.

The source is patently being abused in this article, and the figure it contains is of zero encyclopedic value. It has no place in a WP article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I must confess my inability to discuss this question further with someone who insists on applying some personally devised imprecise definition in place both of the views of individuals who identify or do not identify as Catholics and of the Church's own definition of what is a Catholic. Especially since on the basis of your personally devised definition you present Catholics in Poland as at most 42% of the population, while a seemingly reliable source puts the proportion of "practising Catholics" in that country at 75% and the proportion of "Catholics" at almost exactly 90%, higher therefore than the more modest figure of 85% that, you tell me, is given for "baptized Catholics" in the Statistical Yearbook of the Church. Esoglou (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Polish episcopate itself reports that the number of Mass attendents ("Domincantes") hovers between 40 and 45%. This agrees well with an independent survey by the Polish Central Bureau of Statistics that puts it at about 40%. See the Chart and the table in this article from Polish WP (you don't have to understand Polish): [[6]]. As far as any of the figures reported for religious particpation that I have seen, these seem the most credible. Whether "dominicantes" can be equated with "members" is another matter, and is probably irresolvable. Equating the "baptized Catholics" claimed by the source with "Catholics" or "members" in any encyclopedically meaningful sense of the word is fundamentally dishonest and indefensible. You would be counting many protestants, buddhists, atheists, Moonies, agnostics and other non-Catholics as Catholics, when they are clearly not so in any meaningful sense of the word. As for the Church's definition of who is a Catholic, there really isn't one. "Person baptized in the Catholic Church who may, or may not, still be alive and who may, or may not, maintain any meaningful connection with the Church" is not a useful definition by any stretch of the imagination. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the article "Catholicism by country", which is derived from the CIA World Fact Book, there are approximately 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide. Barring a reliable source that spells out the arguments that Dominus Vobisdu is making, I don't see there being any major flaw in the Church's methodology, if whatever methodology used by the an agency of the US government produces a similar end result. I know of no source that contests 1.1 billion as a ballpark estimate. Such a source should be presented if the number 1.1 billion is to be removed from the lead. Ignoring the invectives, such a source has not be introduced to the discussion. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The CIA worldbook has the same figure because it is simply reporting the figure given by the Vatican. The US govenment did not conduct its own study. The source is being still being used dishonestly to support the statement that the Church has more than a million members, when the number reported by the Vatican cannot be equated with members. NOBODY has made an attempt to justify this. Therefore, the statement is unsupported, and unsupportable, and must go. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, the CIA World Factbook, as well as the Vatican, both qualify as WP:RS. Unless you have an RS that is even better than both of these that says otherwise, there is nothing wikipedia can do.Farsight001 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Catechism of the Catholic Church copyright

I see that this article contains many citations to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Documentation regarding permission to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in Wikipedia articles (generally) has been submitted via OTRS. Administrators: One of the assigned ticket numbers is 2010090610005976. Bwrs (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction of phrase "One true Church"

WHAT: I suggest correcting the following phrase: "it teaches that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ".

The phrases should read: "It teaches that Christ founded a single Church, and that it is, together with the Orthodox churches, by virtue of the Apostolic succession, an embodiment of that church. Moreover, it preserves the primacy of the Apostle Peter, believing it to be one of internal constitutive principles of the Christian church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church)"

WHY: The official teaching of the Church, i.e. "Lumen gentium", 8 and the declaration "Dominus Iesus" 17, says that one church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, but also in other Apostolic local churches, i.e. Orthodox ones.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither Lumen gentium nor Dominus Iesus say that the one Church of Christ subsists anywhere else but in the (Roman) Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they do not use the word "subsist", instead "Dominus Iesus" 17 speaks about "presence" and "operation" of the one Church of Christ in those churches: "The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church,"--Quodvultdeus (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"~The ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. [...] The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities. Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You are not very precise, are you? We speak about Orthodox churches. They have Apostolic succession and valid Eucharist. The Church of Christ is present and operative in them ("Dominus Iesus" 17)--Quodvultdeus (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that the RCC does "teach that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ." It is a matter of perspectives. From the Orthodox perspective, the Roman Patriarch split from the Pentarchy, from Orthodoxy, from the "one, true Church." From the Catholic perspective, the Eastern Bishops split from Rome, from under his authority. I'm no saying either view is correct. I agree, as you stated, that the one true Church split in two. Yet technically, as Catholics believe that Christ left Peter as his Vicar, since Orthodoxy doesn't recognize the Pope authority, is it not part of the "one true Church." Besides, your suggestion is too wordy and excluding the first sentence, the same ideas are expressed in the following sentences.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. My aim is to make the lead information more exact in reference to the teaching of the Church. The accuracy can be checked by, actually, referring to the Magisterial documents, independent authors and third-party publications. It's a pity that you do not refer in your comment to any of them. Your point of reference seems to be your own ideas. Because you do not seem to get my point, I explain the correction once again. It has two sentences:

FIRST SENTENCE speaks about Catholic and Orthodox churches in relation to the Church of Christ.

SECOND SENTENCE refers to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

According to "Dominus Iesus" it is not true that the Catholic Church thinks of herself as of "the one church", i.e. the only one true church. The Orthodox churches are "Sister-churches" to local Catholic churches. They together form "one church". The Church of Christ subsists, is present and operates in them, though they are not in perfect communion. In the whole of the article the primacy of the Pope is not mentioned even once. Instead, you can find the word "paramountcy" - and who knows what it means?--Quodvultdeus (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, this is the second time you accuse me of writing about my own ideas. I am really getting tired of this. I proved you wrong the first time, and here is my answer now. You asked for Magisterial documents, "independent authors and third-party publications". Well, I think (and this is indeed my opinion) that Magisterial documents take precedence over other authors and publications as to the "teachings of the Church" and since you mentioned it first, why don't you read the whole paragraph you are quoting in "Dominus Iesus?" Please pay attention to the following, specially the lines I have in bold:

16. "...The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully ONLY in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative ALSO in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

As you can see, specially in the last sentence, the Church teaches that the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these other Churches (including Orthodoxy), but the Church of Christ continues to exist ONLY in the Catholic Church, governed by the Pope.

As to the whole idea you are trying to point out, since this is an article about the Roman Catholic Church, no about Ecumenism, there is no point in explicitly using the word "Primacy" (Primus inter pares) or mentioning the Orthodox Church in the LEAD of the article. It should be mentioned somewhere else in the article, I agree, but not in the lead. Moreover, within the Catholic Church, there is no "Primus inter Pares." Lumen Gentium 22 states: "The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the Universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff." The Pope is the Head of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff. Also, the lead does mentions that "the Pope is the sole successor to Saint Peter," which implicitly talks about Primacy. Yet, I do agree with you. There is need for Primacy to be at least mentioned and explained somewhere in the article, as it is indeed paramountcy.

In case you question my comment form Orthodoxy's perspective, they do assert that "if a person carefully examines the history of Christianity, he or she will soon discover that the Orthodox Church ALONE is in complete sacramental, doctrinal, and canonical continuity with the ancient UNDIVIDED Church as it authoritatively expressed itself in the great Ecumenical Councils." For them, the Catholic Church is schismatic.

--Coquidragon (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Coquidragon is right. As for Dominus Iesus, according to this document Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and similar local churches are "sister churches" of local Catholic churches, but are in schism from the (Roman) Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is present and operates in them, as and even more than it does in ecclesial communities that do not qualify as sister churches, but it does not subsist in them. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. You started referring to the documents, that's an improvement. We may now discuss where we differ in understanding what that document "Dominus Iesus" affirms. There is one phrase that, according to me, you misinterpret. You seem to neglect one small word that is a key word for this issue. You quote the document capitalizing the word ONLY: continues to exist fully ONLY in the Catholic Church

You understand this phrase in the following way. These are your own words: "the Church of Christ continues to exist ONLY in the Catholic Church, governed by the Pope".

Let's write the same phrase from "Dominus Iesus" capitalizing another word, which is a key word, and which you dropped: continues to exist FULLY only in the Catholic Church. This FULLY adds important thing to the understanding of ONLY. The document later explains:"Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these (Eastern Orthodox) Churches, even though they lack FULL communion with the Catholic Church". They are not in full communion, but as "Dominus Iesus" puts it – and indeed the same said earlier the Vaticanum II document on ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio in the chapter entitled The special position of the eastern churches (n.14ff): they remain united to her (Roman Church) by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, (and so they) are true particular Churches (Dominus Iesus 17). So if the document says that Eastern Orthodox churches are true particular churches of the one Church of Christ, which is present and operative in them, why do you dare to say that outside the Roman Church there is no Church of Christ? Do you not agree with the document that it is present and operative there? Orthodox churches are part of the one Church of Christ and that's what Catholic doctrine teaches. Yes, they are in communion with her that is weakened by human sins. ( i.e. the glass is half full :-).

Regarding primacy of Peter. It's one of distinctive features of the Catholic church, because on the pastoral ministry of Peter Christ has built his church (cf. Mt 16,18; J 21:17; Mt 28:18; Lumen Gentium 8). To the point that both Tridentine Profession of Faith (Denzinger-Shönmetzer n.1862 and 1868) and The First Vatican Council's De fide catholica (DS 3001) call the Church of Christ Sancta Romana Ecclesia and they do not mean just Latin Church, but this name also includes Greek Catholic Churches. Why then do you say it is an unimportant "ecumenical" issue in the description of the Catholic Church?--Quodvultdeus (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"True particular churches of the one Church of Christ" is not found in Dominus Iesus, which says that "the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities". Surely we have now, on all sides, indulged in quite enough original research on the relationship between the Church of Christ and Christian communities, churches or not, that lack full communion with the (Roman) Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Esoglou, I do not know how you have read "Dominus Iesus". I paste the passage from this document, which explicitly speaks about true particular churches. It is literally the second sentence of n. 17: "The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches." The document refers (footnote 59) to: "Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14 and 15; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17: AAS 85 (1993), 848"--Quodvultdeus (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking your original research says that, since the document speaks of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, the Church of the East, the Polish National and other churches as linked with the Catholic Church by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, they are part of the Church of Christ, and my original research says that it can be held that the ecclesial communities which only have other elements of the Church of Christ can on similar grounds be considered part of the Church of Christ? Is it not time for both of us to abandon what in Wikipedia is purposeless and to recognize that only what is explicitly stated in reliable sources can be inserted into Wikipedia articles? Esoglou (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you let's stick to "what is explicitly stated in reliable sources". Those sources, e.g. Dominus Iesus 17, speak explicitly about the eastern churches, saying that the Church of Christ is "present and operative" in them, while about the Protestant communities it explicitly says that they are not proper churches: "On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense"("DOminus Iesus 17 Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.). So I see that we have come to common conclusion: in the lead information we shall put what is explicitly stated in reliable source, i.e. Dominus Iesus--Quodvultdeus (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the purpose of mentioning the Orthodox Church and how they relate to the Catholic Church in the lead of the Catholic Church article. Are you going to do the same with the lead of the Orthodox Church which says: "It is seen by followers to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles almost 2,000 years ago." Like I said, if you want to speak about Ecumenism and the relationship with the Orthodox Church, do it in the article, not in the lead.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole thing seems a little WP:UNDUE. eldamorie (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Quodvultdeus, you began this as an objection to the statement that the Catholic Church "teaches that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ". That statement is supported by a source that states that "the Vatican's doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true church". That should be enough. Instead you have been arguing on the basis of Dominus Iesus that the Catholic Church teaches that the Eastern Orthodox Church is part of the one true church. That is, at best, synthesis on your part. Dominus Iesus does not make that statement. In fact, Dominus Iesus contains neither the word "eastern" nor the word "orthodox"! (As for the Oriental Orthodox, who may have been included in your earlier statements about the "Orthodox" Church, the Catholic Church classifies monophysitism, with which they are associated, as heresy; so that you could have been understood to say that heretical churches are part of the one true church of Christ.) Esoglou (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why in the lead is it all 'the Church etc', or 'the Catholic Church etc', except for 'Roman Catholic doctine ,etc ..infallibility' ...That is a bit jarring. Why isn't it 'Catholic doctine..etc ' to chime with the rest of the lead. Sayerslle (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@Coquidragon - "Like I said, if you want to speak about Ecumenism and the relationship with the Orthodox Church, do it in the article, not in the lead". I wonder if you do not confuse ecumenism with the inter-religious dialogue. The latter has nothing to do with "the one church", while the former is an attempt to restore the primordial unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I hope this answer suffices. It is a matter of the following question: whether outside of the holy Roman church there is a void, or there are particular churches that are not in full communion with her but they are part of the one catholic and apostolic church established by Christ. The lead suggests now that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church there is void, while the documents say there isn't – outside of the holy Roman church there are local Orthodox sister-churches.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer line by line.

"I wonder if you do not confuse ecumenism with the inter-religious dialogue. The latter has nothing to do with "the one church", while the former is an attempt to restore the primordial unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." The only one confusing terms is you. I have not spoken about any other religion: Buddhism, Islam, Judaism... The relationship between the RCC and the Orthodox Church is ecumenical, seeking that same unity you speak about.

"I hope this answer suffices." Not really, but I wasn't expecting for it to do.

"It is a matter of the following question: whether outside of the holy Roman church there is a void, or there are particular churches that are not in full communion with her but they are part of the one catholic and apostolic church established by Christ." Second Vatican Council solved the question with the introduction of the word "subsistit in". I don't have anything to add. If you don't understand the term, that's your problem.

"The lead suggests now that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church there is void, while the documents say there isn't – outside of the holy Roman church there are local Orthodox sister-churches." That's your interpretation. Other editors in this Discussion Page and in its 53 archived pages seem to disagree with you. "There is a void." That's quite a stretch and, again, a misinterpretation of what the lead says. Stop over thinking and read what the lead actually says.

Thanks.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Coquidragon, I hope you will still have a bit of patience to explain to me what this sentence taken from "Dominus Iesus" 17 says: "Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack FULL communion with the Catholic Church". And what does the following lead phrase says regarding these churches that lack full communion with the Catholic Church: "It teaches that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ"?--Quodvultdeus (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that you, who have many times in the past have requested for me to leave my original research aside and provide secondary sources, are using original research that consists in misinterpreting the sources provided. Here is a link to an article written by Fernando Ocáriz, consultor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and member of the Pontifical Theological Academy, who happens to be one of the primary authors of Dominus Iesus[7]. He clarifies both phrases "subsists" and "present and operative." I hope your confusion gets clarified with it. Just in case, here are two additional sources. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, #8, states "this Church, constituted and organized as a society in this present, world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although (licet) many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity". From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (BTW, the actual Catechism is CCC not CRCC, having dropped the "Roman" from its title): 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." [LG 15] Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." [UR 3] With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." [Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18].

I really hope these sources make my point, yet, to put it in my own words: The CC is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, of which traces can be found outside of it, specially in your particular churches.--Coquidragon (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Esoglou - "Dominus Iesus contains neither the word "eastern" nor the word "orthodox"!" If you read attentively the document you will notice, that Dominus Iesus reffers to ch. 1 (nn.14 and 15) of the Vatican II document "Unitatis redintegratio", whose title is: "The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches". And it says:it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves. Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches. I think, when you try to say "Dominus Iesus" doesn't speak about those churches you have started playing on words to annul the content of the document. But that doesn't help to find the truth.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The article cites an authoritative source that expressly says "the Vatican's doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true church, even if elements of truth can be found in separated churches and communities". Only if you can find a reliable source that actually says what you want the article to say can you insert what (at least so far) is merely a personal idea of yours for which you are presenting arguments of your own personal devising. Until then, the Wikipedia article must accept what is stated by a reliable source that requires no interpretation or arguing. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope you have had good time celebrating the Easter and you have noticed that I am not that heretic as you tend to think of me. You agree that, compared to the authority of the document itself, the authority of your source is less important. That is why I want to quote the document – not to interpret it. The passage in the lead would read like this: "It teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ, that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles and that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches (Dominus Iesus 17)." If you do not agree to quote Dominus Iesus – instead you will prefer to quote someone from the Congregation, I wonder if you place that person above the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and, eventually, of the Pope.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems then that we agree that by Wikipedia rules the article can continue to state that the Catholic Church teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

If you want something added about the Catholic Church's teaching on the relation of other groups of Christians (not only those, such as the Old Catholics, who have a valid Eucharist) to the one true Church, how about this statement by the Congregation from the Doctrine of the Faith: "It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word 'subsists' can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the 'one' Church); and this 'one' Church subsists in the Catholic Church"? Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You are abusing Wikipedia rules. This correction has nothing to do with the word 'subsists'. By removing the quotation from "Dominus Iesus" which doesn't suite you you will break the NPOV. That's it.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Iesus says: "The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative in these Churches". So it teaches that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Church, which deny the dogma of papal infallibility, in the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which deny the two natures of Christ, in the Church of the East, which rejects the description of Mary as Mother of God, and in sundry other Churches, such as the Polish National Church, all of which are united to the Catholic Church by the bonds of apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. And the Catholic Church teaches that even in the ecclesial Communities that lack apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist the Church of Christ is present and operative on account of "the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them". Let us leave aside the question whether the Church of Christ is present and operative also in members of other religions, and just accept that the citations given show that it is Catholic teaching that the Church of Christ is present and operative at least in Christian groups, whether they qualify as "Churches" or not, but that none of those groups is part of the Church that has the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith ("I believe in the one Church", not "in the several Churches"); they are not part of the one true Church. As Dominus Iesus says, the Christian faithful are not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection ”divided, yet in some way one” of Churches and ecclesial communities. Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you do not agree with the teaching authority of the Church it is your right. Here, in this article we write about the teaching of the Catholic Church. Dominus Iesus is an authoritative explanation of her teachings. Peace of the risen Christ be with you.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but it is you, not I, who seem to be selective with regard to the teaching of the Catholic Church that it is the one true Church; that the Church of Christ is present and operative in other Christian communities, whether they have or do not have apostolic succession and valid Eucharist; but that Catholics are not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection of Churches and ecclesial Communities. All of these are doctrines of the Catholic Church. Inclusion of some of them in the article in a way that seems to exclude others would be a falsification of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The long quotation has been twice removed because it simply does NOT belong in the introduction. I do not object to its inclusion in the article somewhere but it has to be in another section of the article where it is included in an appropriate context. Afterwriting (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)