Talk:Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Anglicanism (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Top-importance).
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Facts[edit]

Richard McBrien's book on Catholicism should not be cited. The USCCB officially disapproved of his book, warning people that though it claims to explain the basic doctrines of Catholicism, it seriously distorts and misrepresents the teaching. He is not a trusted authority on the Church, nor are his views representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.220.210 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


You need to put some numbers in here. how many catholics are in the world? when was it started? do the adherents live in an paticular region of the world? if so is it rural/suburban/urban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexw6 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Ignatius of Antioch had a here-say in how Catholicism started or where the name originated. As a Catholic, it all started as Peter(Paul) was the rock(Pope) of the first catholic church. All of the apostles played a big role as to the spread the word of God and Jesus Christ and his teachings. Whether to call a Catholic church, a Catholic church or a Roman Catholic church has no point. They both mean the same thing, the Roman Catholic church tries to have mass the same way as the Vatican. The word Catholic means Universal, there isn't a play on words. That means, that no matter what denomination you are, you will be accepted in a Catholic church. I think that the writer was having a debate in their head when he/she wrote this. I'll add more feedback later when I read more of the article. Please read more about the faith in a whole before writing about it. Us Catholics would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.81.104 (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

Some of the books listed for further reading seem odd choices. For example, the Patrick Madrid and Karl Keating books are good, but are primarily about Protestant-Catholic relations: about doctrinal controversies, 20th-century Protestant proselytism, and individual conversions. I think it's probably better to recommend books that look at the big picture of Catholicism on its own, in a big-picture way, rather than in its relation to American Protestantism. Chonak (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Divergent ideas?[edit]

The third category listed seems to be unneeded since according to what is written, those in this category have no "institutional descent" and do not call themselves catholic. Does this seem unnecessary to anyone else. There is also no source for this. Is this part of something that was discussed earlier that I did not see?MephYazata (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The "See also" section[edit]

I think that the "See also" section is being turned practically into a couple of portals, and I see this as inappropriate. However, I will not myself intervene. Lima (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree as well. I'm not sure exactly the right approach. Tb (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. Perhaps something along the lines of what was done for the United States article which has an separate page, Index of United States–related articles. Barkeep Chat | $ 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Any objection if I remove the Roman Catholic Church part of the section, since those links belong rather in the specific article on the Roman Catholic Church? Lima (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think something like the United States case is needed; we have portals and such already. I think that just some pruning would be good. More specific: I think that Christianity, Divine Liturgy, Ecumenism, One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, Religious Orders should be there; and links to specific "branches" (sorry, sounding Anglican there), such as Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Old Catholic Churches and then a few carefully selected movements, perhaps Anglo-Catholicism, Traditionalist Catholic, and perhaps Neo-Lutheranism. Tb (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Since nobody has objected, I am going ahead with removing the RCC part of the section. I do not think that this is sufficient. But I do hope that it may get the editor who is creating the WP:Linkfarm to discuss the matter here. Lima (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
How one can drop something as essential as "Vicar of Christ" and "Marian dogma" in "See Also" yet retain something as insignificant as, say, "Anglo-Catholic" (a very numerically small group within Anglicanism)? And to leave out the visual components of Catholicism (cathedrals, shrines, etc), which give expression to belief, impoverishes the richness of Catholicism! Prattlement (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
So, remove yet more? I await other comments. Lima (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The "see also" section is not for the purpose of linking to all articles that are related to Catholicism, not even all important ones. It's for linking to relevant related articles which are not otherwise linked within the article, of the highest importance. Note that Anglo-Catholicism has been removed, since it's already linked within the article. What remains now are mostly articles which are of so low importance, they are not even linked in the article, and they should probably be removed, but I was going to wait to do that as a second-round thing later. Tb (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As Prattlement has showed us, the number of links that could be added to this section can grow exponentially. If Prattlement and others should feel one link "deserves" to be listed over the other because it's, for instance, "more significant," I would favor removing both such links then get into a debate over which to include. Every link has a case to be made for its significance over the other. I feel a just a very few core topics should be listed in the 'See also' section (I couldn't say which). Barkeep Chat | $ 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

By-words for Catholicism[edit]

I noticed that contemporary secular writers will sometimes use by-words when refering to Catholicism. One of these terms is clericalism, hence the expression anticlericalism, which is very close to anti-Catholicism. Other by-words such as this include Sacerdotalism, Obscurantism, Reactionism, Dogmatism, Sacramentalism, Medievalism, Fascism, Romanism, Natalism, Patriarchy, Anglo-Catholicism and Cultural Christianity. ADM (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Some of these such as Sacerdotalism and Sacramentalism are probably apt descriptions of the Roman Catholic Church although they can be applied in a positive or a negative way. Some such as Natalism are characteristics which, while accurate descriptors of the church, overemphasize one doctrine over the others. Others such as Reactionism and Dogmatism describe aspects of the church which may dominate from time to time but are not necessarily descriptors of the whole church over its entire history. Others such as Clerical fascism represent aberrations and should not be used to malign the Church as a whole. Still others such as Romanism, Obscurantism and Medievalism are just out-and-out hostile attacks with relatively little validity. All of this could be useful in the article on Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. However, with the exception of Anglo-Catholicism, I doubt that discussion of these belong here in this article. --Richard (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Methodists[edit]

also consider themselves part of (the more hardcore ones consider themselves to be) "the holy catholic church," claiming direct descent from the original Christians through their Anglican roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Most mainline christians consider themselves to be part of the holy catholic church, that is reffering to the universal church in the Apostle's Creed.. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

intellectual dishonesty[edit]

The first paragraph of this article is intellectually dishonest, never mind poorly thought out. It is hard, for example, to sustain the points in the third and fourth sentences on the basis of the footnotes to which the reader is referred. Indeed, the sources, to which we are directed, do not support with proof or evidence what is declared in the above mentioned sentences.

For example, in the third sentence, Wikipedia editor states: "More broadly, it [Catholicism] may refer to many churches, including the Roman Cathlic Church and others not in communion with it, that claim continuity with the Catholic Church before separation into Greek or Eastern and Latin or Western." Then as his/her source for this statement, the author cites a single paragraph on "Anglo-Catholicism" from Richard Mc Brien's Encyclopedia of Catholicism (p.52), which states: "Anglo-Catholicism, the name given since the Oxford movement in the nineteenth century to the 'high church' party within the Anglican communion. Anglo-Catholics emphasize the historic continuity with its medieval predecessor...." Mc Brien's paragraph, however, never mentions the Schism between the Western and Eastern churches. Furthermore, the "historic continuity" to which Mc Brien was referring was with Anglo-Catholicism's "medieval predecessor," the Western/Latin Church of the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries, not the church before 1000. The wiki editor of that sentence, however, gives the article a different spin, intellectually dishonest. That is, the source cited does not back up what is stated in the paragraph, sentence 3.

Then the wiki editor states the following (in the fourth sentence): "Churches that make this claim of continuity [as if they did!] include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental churches, the Assyrian Church of the East [really an Oriental church], the Old Catholic churches, and the churches of the Anglican Communion." To back up the content of this sentence, the Wiki editor creatively cites another Roman Catholic scholar, Jeffery Gros, who ironically, in his book, Introduction to Ecumenism, states something completely different and much more nuanced. In regard to claims of continuity, Gros states the following on page 155: "The Eastern Orthodox churches consider the West to have broken away from the "common Tradition." Later, in the same paragraph, he calls it "the Apostolic heritage." However, there in no mention of the "Catholic Church" before 1000 as an ecclesial institution.

Finally, none of the Roman Catholic scholars he/she uses in this paragraph state or even allude to the idea that the Roman Catholic church (or any one of its popes) claims continuity with itself (or with an earlier pope, say, before the 10th century) anymore than an American president would. It is a given, even in regard to those presidents born under a foreign power, the British government before the nation declared its independence in 1776. (I believe Van Buren was the first native born president, born after the American Revolution when the United States was already a free nation, free of the king. But even he never saw a discontinuity between himself and Madison or Adams, both born before 1776.) Anyway, as Gros notes, "the Catholic Church" and the abovementioned churches all claim continuity with the "Apostolic heritage" and with the "common Tradition," not with the Catholic Church before 1000.

If the editors wish to state the contrary, they should not cite Catholic sources (or any scholarly sources, for that matter) that do not support their statements or opinions. They shoudl find other sources to back up thier statements. Prattlement (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear how removing the references addresses these concerns, so I've restored them. Tom Harrison Talk 18:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
One shouldn't attribute things to scholars (in this case, Catholic scholars; but it could be Muslim or Jewish or Lutheran scholars) that they never said. In any number of ways, they (the cited sources) are in the wrong place.

Well, at least you are hearing another side (although contradictory evidence seldom puzzles the indifferent mind, considering the many people who go along with indifference today). Prattlement (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you read Lumen Gentium. Prattlement (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC) If the "Church of Christ" subsists in the "Catholic Church" (i.e., Roman Catholic Church), no Catholic Scholar (such as those cited in the first paragraph) would ever state that the Roman Catholic Church "claims continuity with the Catholic Church before the separation," not if the Church of Christ subsists in their church (and has for all time), according to this document. Interestingly too, the "Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" are used synonymously by these writers in their work.Prattlement (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiki authors need Anglican scholars to back up the first paragraph! Good luck!Prattlement (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I quote the Jeffery Gros paragraphs in full: " In the present day, words 'schismatic' and 'heretic' are seldom used by Western Christians, but the differences of perception between West and East are no less real and profound. The Catholic Church recognizes the sacramental character of these 'sister churches' and insists that any study of the nature of the Church take full account of developments of both East and West. Pope John Paul continually reminds Catholics that the Church must learn to breath again 'with both lungs,' and that the first thousand years of full communion is a common resource for reform and renewal. For the Roman Catholic Church this means taking account of the Eastern synodical tratition, the early relationships among the five patriarchates, and the collegial relationships among the autocephalous Orthodox churches when renewing its own collegial, synodical, papal, and episcopal conference life to better serve the unity of churches.

The Eastern Orthodox churches consider the West to have broken away form the common Tradition. This view has factual support in the events of 1054 and 1204. Likewise, such developments as the addition of the 'filioque,' papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas in Catholicism, and the ordination of women in Protestantism are seen as unilateral develpments moving away from the Apostolic heritage. Sacramental theology has also developed under different patristic emphases, leaving Orthodox less easily able to recognize the sacraments of the Catholic Church than Catholics are able to do in regard the sacraments of the Orthodox Churches." p 155

No mention here of the Catholic Church (to quote Gros) claiming continuity with the Catholic Church before the schism or separation of 1054!Prattlement (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally (at least in this post), may I suggest you find Anglicans authors (instead of dishonestly misusing/misquoting Roman Catholic sources in citations) who might be able to explore and back up the type of catholic ecclesiology which the Anglican Communion has lived for the past 4 hundred years. You might want to start with Tom Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham. Prattlement (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the ref (attached to the second sentence of the second paragraph) because it cannot be found, validated in Thomas Rausch's book, CATHOLICISM IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM, the source originally used to validate the statement. The wiki editor needs to find another source to back up the statement. Throughout his book, Rausch also refers to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Catholic Church," because "that Church continues to refer to itself simply as the 'Catholic Church' in its official documents." LIkewise, he refers to the "Catholic Church" and the "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches," not the "Roman Catholic Church, Western and Eastern," etc. Wiki editors need to find another source (for this concept) supported by scholarship.--Prattlement (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sacraments[edit]

Regarding the Sacraments section, receiving the Eucharist (or First Communion) comes before Confirmation. Also, it is a common practice that Confirmation occurs when the faithful are around the age of 12 or 13, not at the age of 7, as stated in the article. DakotaW (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a practice introduced in the Latin Rite the twentieth century and no longer universal even in the Latin Rite. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


There needs to be a section for anti-Catholicism and/or criticism of Catholicism[edit]

I think that there should be a section for anti-Catholicism and/or criticism of Catholicism where the objections can be posted along with the Catholic Church's response. --PaladinWriter (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Such sections are disfavored in Wikipedia. "Criticism of..." is a bad idea because it tends to become a debating platform rather than actual encyclopedic information. Tb (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Any criticisms should be incorporated into the article itself.LedRush (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay well this is a big downer. I really thought wiki had a chance but money must be back in the game. Back to dredging like the old research methods always require. I guess things just peak in truthfulness and then are invaded by "interested parties" as is always the case. In my life, I have never met a catholic who didn't spit bile about their church, and yet here I am reading some sort of propaganda piece vomited up by the fear riddled middle managers of religion. Grow up people... God's real people f it up and stick a label on the process. Controlling people is the only thing you're not allowed to do, and it creates exactly what you fear... fing fearful people are the devils hatchetmen. Change is here, fear only what you do with your own hands... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.158.150 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
In the context of the whole article, does it fit? "Anti-Catholicism" generally means opposing the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, but the article is about the concept of catholicism generally, and many anti-papists would consider their own Protestant church to be part of the "holy, catholic and apostolic Church". Thus the Church of Scotland's Confession of Faith declares the Pope to be "antichrist" but it considers itself to be "catholic"; is it catholic or anticatholic then? Howard Alexander (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This article says nothing about the age old sexual abuse charges filed against the Catholic church, even though that topic is widely discussed on the world scene and within the ranks of its members. Other articles about religions have criticism sections. It hardly seems fair to determine what is an acceptable level of criticism based on how many members an organization has. This article's absence of criticism seems to be directly due to the number of Catholic contributors involved here. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That is because that is mentioned in the article for the Roman Catholic Church. "Catholicism" in this article does NOT only reffer to the Church of Rome. It reffers to the branch of Christianity that accepts an orthodox, catholic, and apostolic teaching. This includes the Roman Catholic Church, Old Catholic Churches, Independent Catholic Churches, Liberal Catholic Church, Anglican Communion, Continuing Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church.. and to some extent even protestants that are Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian... NOT only about Rome. The Church of Sweden (Lutheran), Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), etc. are protestant but reffer to themselves as Catholic as well. There are also Anglo-Catholics (Anglicans [which are already considered "reformed catholic"] that accept teachings of the RCC). Then there are also Protestants (like I said earlier) that follow Evangelical Catholic traditions, such as most Lutherans, United Methodists, etc.. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been many edits to the main article since I posted this. Please address. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

See my post above. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not asking anyone to add a criticism page. If anything, I'm asking that we remove such pages from other religions. Say one way or the other. Would you like to make a criticism section for this article, or remove criticism sections from other religion articles? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
See my post above. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Personal opinions aside about religions or religious practices, I find there to be no problem with sections detailing criticism thereof and/or a controversy section. Criticism of given religions have easily proven to be notable enough for wikipedia, and I have no reason to believe that one religion can have a criticism information area, while another shouldn't. A criticism section, if not directly criticizing the religion itself, is in harmony with the guidelines of wikipedia. A paragraph or group thereof would be perfectly acceptable, along with a link to the main article, if there is one. That's my input on the situation. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing some research on the topic. I'd like to expand the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#Criticism_and_Religion_Articles to apply to more than Catholicism as this "problem" is found in many other articles. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is meant to be about the concept of "Catholicism" in its manifestations in various Christian churches. It is not - despite the efforts of some - meant to be an article about the Roman Catholic Church. Afterwriting (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

largest single religious body?[edit]

This article states that the roman catholic church is the single largest single religious body. Is this true? What causes the muslim faith to not be considered the largest single "religious body"? I believe a distinction should be added to notify the reader of the fact that the muslim religion outnumbers the roman catholic religion. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#People) Psypherium (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Because you are comparing apples to oranges. The distinction is the same as saying Christianity vs. Catholic and Muslim vs. Suni. The Catholic church is the largest single religious body. The Muslim faith is made up of various sects, each answering to a different authority.Marauder40 (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Article reorganisation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a proposed merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposed merge request was: Not merged. SMasters (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose a merge of this article with Christianity. This, as as both are one and the same. Roman Catholicism is however a division of Catholicism/Christianity, and this should have its own article; for this article I propose the article Catholic_Church which should be renamed to Catholic Christianity. See Major_religious_groups / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prevailing_world_religions_map.png which both use a same disctinction. 91.182.53.128 (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: Editors may wish to comment at Talk:Catholic Church#Article renaming also, where there is a proposal to rename "Catholic Church" to "Catholic Christianity".

  • Oppose - Grossly inadequate explanation. Although Catholicism is a part of Christianity, the two are not one and the same. I think the Catholic Church is sufficiently large enough with enough sourced information that it needs its own article. Cresix (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Catholicism is the largest sect of Christianity. It should not be merged unless Protestantism, Mormonism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Unitarianism are merged, as well as Trinitarianism, Nontrinitarianism, etc. It is a crucial article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Suffice it to say that the commonly used terms are Catholic Church, Catholicism, Anglican Catholicsm, etc - not Catholic Christianity. I'm not sure that the term "Catholic Christianity" is often used. Majoreditor (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose They are two separate things. Catholicism is an important and large topic that should stand alone. – SMasters (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if there's enough in "Catholicism" that's separate from the "Catholic Church" to maintain two articles. How _did_ we end up with two, anyway? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Because "Catholicism" and "Catholic Church" are two very different things. Catholicism reffers to much more than just the church of Rome, while "Catholic Church" refers to Rome. "Catholic Church" is an organization, Catholicism is a beleif system. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To provide a more verbose explanation, the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics and Anglicans all claim to be "catholic". And, if you look at their theology, there is, in fact, a commonality that runs across their beliefs that distinguishes them from the Protestants and the Restorationists. It is arguable that the only major difference between the aforementioned groups is ecclesiastical in nature (i.e. how is the polity of the church formed, are bishops more collegial in nature or more hierarchical in nature viz. what is the nature of the respect and submission due to the See of Rome). In other words, the theology is the same, the practices are different but not unacceptably so and there are some major issues around ecclesiology (e.g. can priests marry, how much power should the Bishop of Rome have, etc. etc.)
There have been long, contentious discussions about the POV stance taken by naming the article about the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the Catholic Church instead of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England is arguably the "Anglican Catholic Church" and the Eastern Orthodox Church is arguably the "Orthodox Catholic Church". There is even some question as to whether the Eastern Catholic Churches would accept being called "Roman Catholic". They are catholic churches that worship using Eastern rites (i.e. liturgies other than the Latin liturgy) but are nonetheless in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
The Catholic Church article could be named Roman Catholic Church. Either way it would describe the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The title of the Catholicism article is potentially problematic. Many readers would assume that it was intended to describe the Roman Catholic faith. The article does go to quite some effort to explain to the reader why this is not the only interpretation of the word "Catholicism". (But please don't propose renaming the Catholic Church article to Roman Catholic Church. That's a can of worms that we've already eaten more than a few times and by now many of us are sick of eating the same worms over and over.
Alles klar? --Richard S (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for a good explanation, Richard. I think an even smaller can with even more worms is the proposal here to merge Catholicism with Christianity. I think that would find broad disagreement, including many non-RC denominations. Cresix (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the terms you are trying to equate are not one and the same. The Catholic Church is distinct from other forms of Christianity and should remain as is. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposed merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge Catholic into Catholicism[edit]

I believe merging the content from Catholic into Catholicism would benefit both articles. At this point in time, both articles seem awfully redundant, and this article seems to be the more developed of the two. The "Catholic" article speaks mostly about the term itself, where as this article speaks about the term "Catholic", as well as the religious beliefs common to all Catholic Christians. Both articles still have difficulty distinguishing between "catholic" in the generic sense, and "Catholic" as in the Roman Catholic sense.

As an alternative, one article could focus solely on history and usage of term "Catholic" and the other on the religious beliefs. This would involve merging some content from one article into the other and visa-versa.

--Zfish118 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the histories of the term "Catholic" into Catholic (Christian terminology). The content was nearly identical, with only slightly different lengths of passages selected, and different levels of commentary provided. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm closing the discussion for now, leaving the former "Catholic" page (now Catholic (Christian terminology)) as a sub-page of "Catholicism" --Zfish118 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches[edit]

I propose revising or removing this section, as it is very focused on the (Roman) Catholic Church. Could possibly be tweaked to better fit in this more general discussion of "Catholicism", or merged into another more appropriate article. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Purely new testament catholicism?[edit]

I would like to know if it is still possible to be a roman catholic church faithful without learning and hearing about the Old Testament at all?

I heard the RCC before the 1960s 2nd Vatican Council was an almost purely New Testament church for the layman adherents, who did not seek to be a deacon or anything. They were not required to learn about the Old Testament and it was not read from during any public masses. Is that true? If true, is that still possible after the 2nd V.C.?87.97.104.92 (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

While ignorance is a drawback that one should try to overcome, it is certainly possible to be a faithful member of the Roman Catholic Church while being ignorant of many things. Ignorance of the Old Testament is one such drawback. What you heard is essentially nonsense, though based on the fact that, before 1970, passages from the Old Testament were used more rarely than now in the Roman Rite Mass, but were never totally excluded. In some Eastern Catholic Churches, the Old Testament is never read at the Eucharistic celebration: a bishop of one such Church remarked that to him it seemed out of place to read from the Old Testament when celebrating the sacrifice of the New Testament. Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! It is not ignorance, but I wish to refrain from hearing stories of (k)haram and never-ending violance by jews. Allegedly the violent God of the Old Testament is the same as the Heavenly Father of Jesus and one cannot be christian without professing that explicitly, but I cannot support present day haram in Palestine by listening to OT every weekend. 91.82.35.23 (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Universalism?[edit]

This page contains an infobox saying it is "part of a series on Universalism." Not to disparage either Catholicism or Universalism, but it's obvious that they are very distinct. Although the Greek word "katholikos" means "universal" in a sense (very broadly) akin to "ecumenical" or "orthodox" as opposed to "heretical" or "sectarian," the dogma of the Catholic Church differs from the "Universalist" theology of Origen or Hosea Ballou: Universalists hold that all souls will eventually attain Heaven, while the Catholic Church makes no such claim. I suggest that this infobox, along with its link to a frankly rather muddled article on various religious universalisms, be removed from the Catholicism page. As it stands now, it seems rather like having an article on Universal Studios link to the article on Universalist theology: just because something has "universal" in the name, doesn't mean the theology of Origen and Ballou is involved. Barring any complaints here, I'll remove the infobox in a few days. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection, I just removed the Universalism infobox. Here's hoping Catholics, universalists, atheists, and everyone else reading this has a lovely day. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What the?[edit]

What do you mean by "For many the term usually refers to Christians" What do you mean by Usually!?!?!?! It REFERS TO Christians... ALWAYS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.112.243 (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You should have read a little further and completed the phrase: "... usually refers to Christians and churches, western and eastern, in full communion with the Holy See". Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

History of the term Catholic[edit]

This section claims the earliest use of the term "catholic" was by Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD. When in fact it was used by St. Clement I in his Epistle to the Corinthians around 96 AD.

"Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions" - St. Clement I [Epistle to the Corinthians] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.212.194 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(New comments should be put at the end.)
There is no such statement in the letter, which mentions neither "Catholic Church" nor "heretical teachers". You can check in the translations given here. Whatever source you took the quotation from is clearly unreliable. How could a first-century writer be seriously imagined to have spoken about "these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then", saying they "are counterfeit and novel inventions"! Esoglou (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

I am failure with the translation as "Universal" or "General" Google translate

However google also offers this:

Google translate: καθ ολικι σ μ ός -- 'along with TOTAL in ordination' [1]

Interesting,

Tim Sheridan

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.233.128 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)