Talk:Catholicity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed wording for dispute[edit]

@Elizium23 and GPinkerton: Agree. GPinkerton needs to revert his restoration of "Though the faith and practices led by the pope in Rome are known as the Catholic Church ...", which is incorrect and has no support. Sundayclose (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would even drop "led by the pope in Rome" and let the "Catholic" terms nudge right up close to each other. I don't care what the source says. Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with dropping "led by the pope in Rome", but I have a serious problem stating that "faith and practices" are the church. Sundayclose (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think GPinkerton would do well to self-revert, so that we don't have to report him on WP:3RRN. Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging GPinkerton again. Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history you'll see that wording was not added by me, so you can stop blaming me for trying to change it. The pope leads the Roman Catholic Church. Many other churches not lead by the pope are called Catholic. All the sentence needs to say is "Many churches call themselves catholic and the pope only leads the one in Rome and there are others". (If you don't care what the source says, why is it so bad that I have removed it, since it says nothing about any of this, which you'd know if you'd read it?) The words "Although a unique set of disciplines and deposit of faith characterize" are completely unnecessary, add nothing, and read like advertising or worse. The words "and thus" are pointless too. GPinkerton (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: Here you changed the wording from "Though the faith and practices of the Catholic Church are led by the pope in Rome" to "Though the faith and practices led by the pope in Rome are known as the Catholic Church". So yes, it was you who made the original claim that "faith and practices" are the church. And in your most recent edit, you restored that phrase. Two of us here are telling you that you need to revert that edit until this matter is settled. Sundayclose (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or instead of lodging demands like these, why don't you suggest something better? GPinkerton (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. Look at Elizium23's suggest wording above, which I support. Sundayclose (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "community". GPinkerton (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: Thank you for finally getting the point and not denying what you did. Now, please don't make any more changes until this issue is settled here. Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23's wording is opaque and unnecessary. GPinkerton (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23 and GPinkerton: I disagree. Now please wait to see if there are other opinions one way or the other. Sundayclose (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the objection to the wording as is. I have not changed my position on anything; I did not add the clumsy wording you are objecting to and the present article is now improved since I have removed it and its attendant ambiguity. Thanks for your agreement. GPinkerton (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to your wording is that Elizium23's version is better organized and better expressed. When you changed "Though the faith and practices of the Catholic Church are led by the pope in Rome" to "Though the faith and practices led by the pope in Rome are known as the Catholic Church", that was a serious misstatement. Elizium23's version is an improvement on both the original version and your version. Sundayclose (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, your opinion is that it is a misstatement. Nothing about it is wrong. In any case, it is not the present wording and apart from you no-one is arguing it belongs in the article. Anything that uses the words "deposit of faith" in the first clause is not an improvement and the word "unique" is wholly spurious puffery. GPinkerton (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the stick of claiming that "faith and practice ... are known as the Catholic Church" is not a misstatement. It is an incorrect statement. But now the issue is which version is better: yours or Elizium23's? I disagree that Elizium23's version is puffery. Sundayclose (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read the words. I did not mistate. The Pope leads the Roman Catholics. Bears shit in woods. Roman Catholicism is no more or less unique than any other notable thing that has a WIkipedia article. Uniqueness is not something that comes in degrees. No English-speaker is going to agree that "Although a unique set of disciplines and deposit of faith characterize the Catholic Church, led by the pope in Rome, the traits of catholicity, and thus the term catholic, are also ascribed to churches such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East" is better than the more concise, more jargon-free, more grammatically intact, and less POV: "Though the community led by the pope in Rome is known as the Catholic Church, the traits of catholicity, and thus the term catholic, are also ascribed to denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East."GPinkerton (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finished discussing this issue with you. I'll wait and see if others have comments. Sundayclose (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: I have fully-protected the page for 2 days to stop the edit warring while you discuss. Two of you, User:Sundayclose and User:GPinkerton, were already at the WP:3RR limit, and I always prefer not to let good-faith users get themselves blocked for edit warring, if protection will save them from themselves. Keep discussing, see if you can reach WP:consensus by the time the protection expires, and do not change it in either direction until you have consensus here. Remember that consensus does not have to be unanimous. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Thanks that's ideal! GPinkerton (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you need more opinions here, you might post a request (neutrally worded, please) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or indeed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy which is no less relevant (or even more so). GPinkerton (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or both. Just be sure to state clearly and neutrally what the issue is. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Heanor (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Catholic (term) into Catholicity. I think the content in Catholic (term) can easily be explained in the context of Catholicity, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Catholicity. Both article about the universality of the confession in different denominations. Almost all denominations consider themselves Catholic, however the term "Catholic" is commonly associated with the Catholic Church. --Somerby (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should have pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the two are sufficiently distinct to merit their own articles. A merger would lead to a nasty debate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, since those terms are referring to different subjects, that are properly treated in separate articles. Merger would lead to endless debates over the title, not to mention several other issues. Sorabino (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as the term catholic is near-invariably appended to something believed to have catholicity. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, those terms are referring to the same subject, universality of the confession in different denominations which claimed to have catholicity. --Northumber (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as that was the consensus before, and not all of the previous participants were notified of this new proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of the PNCC[edit]

I edited the article earlier to include the Polish National Catholic Church in the article, but that edit was reverted. Rationale given was that it was already covered in the "Independent Catholicism" section. I dispute the claim that the PNC Church is Independent Catholic, for the following reasons:

  • The article on Independent Catholicism states explicitly, that these are micro-churches claiming valid apostolic succession / sacraments "in spite of not being affiliated to the historic Catholic churches such as the Roman Catholic and Utrechter Old Catholic churches." The PNCC is the founding member of the Union of Scranton, which differs from the Union of Utrecht on the sole basis that Utrecht ordains women and blesses same-sex unions, while Scranton does not. The PNCC was part of Utrecht for 95 years (joining within 20 years of the latter's formation), and only separated from it because of fears that the Utrechter ordination of women would invalidate the sacraments. Independent Catholicism does not give even one mention of the PNCC, as it is not part of this category, but is much more accurately described as Old Catholicism.
  • While the PNCC is listed in the Independent Catholicism section, its inclusion in that section contradicts the text at the very end of the section, which states "They are however, by definition, not recognised by the Catholic Church." I'll demonstrate below why this does not apply to the PNC Church.

To compare these two directly,

The Polish National Catholic Church
  • Has established limited intercommunion with the Catholic Church of Rome, something no other Old Catholic or Independent Catholic church has done.
  • Has 6 or 7 sacraments that are recognized as valid by Rome: the Eucharist, Anointing of the Sick, and Penance are sacraments that Rome both recognizes and allows Catholic parishioners to receive under very limited circumstances. Baptism and Holy Matrimony are obviously considered valid as well. By definition, Holy Orders are valid, as Rome has to recognize the PNCC's claims to apostolic succession in order to allow any intercommunion as well as establish dialogue. Finally, the PNCC's Sacrament of Confirmation is also considered valid (although the PNC Church numbers baptism and confirmation as one sacrament).
  • Peter Vere wrote regarding Exception Two of Canon 844, "we see that the intention of the legislator, within the context of the canon, is to permit Catholics under certain circumstance to receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers of Churches in which the sacraments are valid. This is not a permission to receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches the sacraments are valid. The difference being that the sacraments must be valid owing to the denominational Church to which the non-Catholic minister belongs, and not merely from the validity of the minister's ordination. For example, one could not receive the sacraments from a priest validly ordained within the Catholic Church who later defected from the Catholic Faith and now ministers within the Episcopalian ecclesial communion. Nor could one approach a validly-ordained non-Catholic minister who ministers the sacraments independently of the jurisdiction of a Church in which these sacraments are valid." (emphases mine). Later on in the same subsection: "Furthermore," because the SSPX does not claim ecclesiastical jurisdiction, wrote Vere, "the Catholic Church is not certain at the present whether the SSPX constitutes a Church like the Eastern Orthodox or the Polish National Catholic Church, or whether the SSPX is simply a loose federation of acephalous (independent) priests and episcopal vagantes (wandering bishops) like the Old Catholic Movement in North America.
  • As per above, the PNCC is recognized as a valid Church. The very definition of independent Catholicism is that its ministers fall within either one of the two categories for which Vere states that Catholics cannot receive the sacraments from them.
  • While the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and ACOE are Churches that Rome recognizes as valid Eastern Churches not in full communion, the PNCC is the only valid Western Church that is recognized, although the circumstances of licit intercommunion are much more restrictive than for the East. Thus I argue it should be listed separately.
  • See here for a primer on the differences between how Rome views the Union of Utrecht vs. the PNCC.
Independent Catholics
  • Are led by episcopus vagans, who are not recognized by either Rome, Utrecht, Scranton, or any other apostolic body.
  • Are not recognized by Rome.
  • Catholics in communion with Rome are not permitted under any circumstances, even grave circumstances, to receive the sacraments from an independent Catholic minister. The opposite holds true for the PNCC.

Based on the above, I ask that the specific mention in the lede be reinstated, and that a separate section is eventually created for the Old Catholic Churches.

Cordially,

142.122.150.221 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholicity&oldid=1195060980"