Talk:Roman Catholic dogma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated B-class)
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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).

Why is the initial D in the article title capital? Would anyone object to moving this to Roman Catholic dogma, with a lower-case initial d? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but the other page exists so you need to request it. History2007 (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, but not a big deal really. History2007 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


There is a clean up tag, but no rationale for what is needed. I do not see a discussion or a need. If reasons are given will add it back. History2007 (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture: Dogma (film)[edit]

I suggest that the example of Dogma be removed: as USCCB's review states, the plot is 'based on a false understanding of an indulgence as effecting the forgiveness of sins' and, rather than delving into the whys of dogma, the film is more a showcase for playing with stereotypes.[1] Nahbios (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)nahbios

confusing citations[edit]

The citations are improperly formatted. I'm especially curious about "Heinrich." Please work to fix them if you can. Sitbunnynow (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I improved the references and some of the quotations but I don't think all the works listed in the Sources section are used. The Commonitory quotes were not correct cited, i.e., wrong numbers and failed Google search for quotation; Dulles, 147 does not seem to cite from a work in the Sources section. I think some content is a translation from another language but not attributed. The article would be greatly improved by adding basic information, for example, from  Coghlan, Daniel (1909). "Dogma". In Herbermann, Charles. Catholic Encyclopedia 5. Robert Appleton Company.  and by changing to {{Sfn}} style citations. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Could someone please add some clear examples of dogmata? A short list would be very illustrating. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Qualifying second sentence[edit]

"The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the basic truth from which salvation and life is derived for Christians." Unless you put an overly generous interpretation on "for Christians", this sentence sounds like it is claiming the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a basic truth. I added "believed" to qualify this, but that is clunky and I welcome a smoother qualification. (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the second sentence is intended to be an example of dogma, but there is no introduction which states this. The second sentence seems like a random fact, with no explicit relationship to the article. (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed my clunky qualification and linked the second sentence to the first: "For example, Christian dogma states that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ...". (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)