User talk:Lima

For consultation from time to time

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!
Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. -- Cat Whisperer 05:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed your vandalism reversion on Catholicism, and when I traced back to the user, I found the same user had vandalized several more pages which had gone undetected. Using warning tags can help to spot this kind of repeated vandalism. Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 05:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No matter what objections of a theoretical nature anyone may raise, it is a fact that the Holy See is recognized as a subject of international law by other subjects. They hold diplomatic relations not with Vatican City State but with the Holy See. If the other subjects of international law recognize the Holy See as a subject of international law, then it is a subject of international law.

The Holy See's sovereignty has been recognized explicitly in many international agreements and is particularly emphasized in article 2 of the Lateran Treaty of 11 February 1929, in which "Italy recognizes the sovereignty of the Holy See in the international field as an inherent attribute of its nature, in conformity with its tradition and the requirements of its mission in the world."

The Holy See was recognized as a person in international law long before the signing of the Lateran Treaty, which first established the Vatican City State. The very fact that the Holy See (which then had no territorial base) was one of the two parties to the negotiating and signing of the Lateran Treaty was based on its capacity to act relevantly in the international domain.

Even when the Pope was sovereign of the Papal States in central Italy, he had a recognized spiritual sovereignty as well as a territorial sovereignty. It was not on account of the latter that he held precedence over the Emperor and the other rulers of nations, that his envoys were received with the highest honours, that the papal court was considered one of the most coveted diplomatic posts. And after the complete loss of temporal power in the nineteenth century, the Pope continued to exercise the active and passive right of legation, as well as being called upon as arbiter and mediator by states for the settlement of international conflicts.

It is thus false to say that the Holy See "has always had temporal sovereignty over at least some land, even if now it is rather small." You ask: "Should it not simply be regarded as a rather unusual form of state?" Perhaps indeed it (the Holy See or the Catholic Church, which are closely connected but not identical) should. Provided that this expression is not mistakenly understood to imply that its sovereignty and personality are in some way dependent on also possessing a 40-hectare statelet with which nobody would be interested in establishing diplomatic relations or giving it weight in international relations.

This is at least how I see the situation of the Holy See in international affairs.

John Dowling

Let me know if you can't access google books. There's a partial text here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

here - Kendrick7^talk 04:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be pg. 140. Sorry, I wish g.books links were more stable.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'd be interested to know the answer to your question. My latin got past ubi o ubi est me sub ubi but stalled out at Quid, me vexare? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really did pause and wonder if it wasn't vexari. It's been 16 years since high school Latin, but I ain't a complete slouch! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Baptism

Hi. The article was originally in American English. It became mixed. I changed it back. That's what the WP:MOS says we should do. Please focus on improving article quality, not spelling wars. Thanks. P.S. The original quote used the 'z' spelling. --Justice for All 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

—

Hi Lima. Thanks for reformatting the baptism article. It's sounding pretty good now, I think. Thanks. :-) --Woofboy 11:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rite tridentin

Hello, only to tell you that the french fr:rite tridentin has been promoted as a featured article... I am very proud of it. regards Marsouin | speak 18:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

canonical penalties and Lefeb.

Lima,

First thanks so much for your awesome work!! You have much more patience that I do!! To answer an (old) question about Archbp Lefebre (sp?), he would have been expelled ipso facto for creating a bishop w/o madate from the Holy See. Because the consecreation would have been (was) an act of schism, the dimissal is automatic (CIC 1983).DaveTroy 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

some help on another page?

Lima, I know that you write well, and as I said above, I have great respect for your wiki work. I found an article priesthood (catholic church). First, I think it needs to be re directed to Holy Orders, but if not, it almost completely needs to be re written, as the writer has many errors of doctrine, validty, law, and on and on and on. I think someone was trying in good faith, but simply is in error. Thoughts?DaveTroy 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Papal oath

You are right, I think, that this article is being used to push a POV. I liked the categorisation change, if we could state in the lead that it is an urban legend, the whole thing would be less problematic - do you have a source saying that? Guy (Help!) 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lima, discussion on this article become sidetracked. I suspect trads won't appreciate their story being called a legend without some reference. Has it merited a mention from anyone else, outside the websites repeating the story? What would you like to do about the AfD? Gimmetrow 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out what "does not provide enough to determine consensus" refers to. It sometimes happens in deletion discussions, if only 3 or 4 people have an opinion (usually when it is 2-1 or 2-2), that it gets relisted for "further discussion". In this case, would have been better to stop right then. Article has a lot of good material about a minor conspiracy theory, and it's not just the category calling it that. (In case it's not clear, I wouldn't want the article deleted, but rather better cited.) Gimmetrow 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we ,perhaps, agree to stop all Nazi references?

I feel that ersaltz Nazi comparisons are not only in extremely bad taste, they automatically peg you as an intellectual lightweight.

whatever happened to the love of Christ in these religious discussions?> or tempore! oh Mores! SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBB! 70.72.1.203 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, that was me...

Opuscalgary 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Annuario Pontificio

Thank you for the clarification. I don't have the book myself, and I could definitely be wrong about the year (especially the printing year) of the book. The homepage of the diocese of Helsinki says (roughly translated): "The papal yearbook "Annuario Pontificio" of this year was published on February 12th. [...] The most interesting parts of the book are naturally the numbers concerning the growth of the church. The book contains statistics of changes from the end of 2004 to the end of 2005. During that time, the number of Catholics grew from 1098 million to 1115 million, or 1,5 per cent. Global population grew approximately 1,2% during the same time. Catholics comprise 17,2% of global population." --Martin C. 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that is necessary, let's wait then. (http://www.catholic.fi/ does explicitly mention the numbers, though it's in Finnish and it doesn't mention total global population (though neither does the Wikipedia article).) --Martin C. 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your precision is admirable - I hadn't even thought that the numbers might be from dates six months apart from each other. Iirc when the number of Catholics of 31 December 2004 was published, it was said to be 17,1 percent of global population. As you said, that means the global population of 30th June 2004 - but being rounded to one in six (16,666... per cent), the expression is accurate enough in the article now. Fine, let's just wait for the new yearbook to be published. Thank you very much. --Martin C. 06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian mysticism article

Your review of, and comments concerning, the "Experiencing God" section of the Christian mysticism article talk page would be much appreciated. --Midnite Critic 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Moses a saint?

I wonder if you could find the time to look at Moses#Moses in Christian thought. As far as I knew, Catholics didn't venerate Moses as a saint, but I found him listed in an older edition of the Roman Martyrology so now I'm confused. If Catholicism should be listed in the infobox there, please let me know. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Latin help

Hey, can you double check my translation of the map at the top of Palestine. I kinda winged it a while back.... -- Kendrick7^talk 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it's time to archive your user page. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

all set. Ox wasn't far from how I rendered it, just unsure of one word. I'll write you up a transcription tomorrow. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, frankly. And what do you think Aug. Vindel. at the bottom means? Some guy's name?HarvardOxon 15:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. That's why I translated it as "Augsburg, Germany," and you made some snide remark about how "Germany" had been appended on the end of the translation, implying it to be a ridiculous error. I know very well what I'm doing. I don't need you cutting and pasting encyclopedia articles explaining to me how right I am after you've thrown off sarcastic remarks about online translation programs knowing more than I do.HarvardOxon 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

RCC page

Why are you objecting to the inclusion of the Latin names? Lostcaesar 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that the names have been something that people have thought to change from time to time as per personal taste. I gathered that adding footnotes by them was a means of averting this. I thought that adding the Latin names might help also. They have a different weight to them, if you know what I mean, and having them there tends to satisfy different tastes. So it was an attempt to help. The order of the sacraments was something I did not have in mind when adding the footnote; rather, I just thought it might be useful, since the CCC gave those sources. As for the Latin, I still like the idea of having the Latin there, and I don't see why it would be such a bother, but I never meant it to be a matter of dispute or trouble.Lostcaesar 10:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if its important to you then we'll just leave it out. Lostcaesar 10:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Ware text excerpt.

Here's an online copy of the book, which I use as a source indirectly... as it seems the text which I had transferred (which we have disputed over) was sourced to this text on the Eastern Orthodox Church page, as well.

The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the reality of the change, it has never attempted to explain the manner of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the neutral term metaballo, to ‘turn about,’ ‘change,’ or ‘alter.’ It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox Councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term ‘transubstantiation’ (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between Substance and Accidents (In medieval philosophy a distinction is drawn between the substance or essence (i.e. that which constitutes a thing, which makes it what it is), and the accidents or qualities that belong to a substance (i.e. everything that can be perceived by the senses — size, weight, shape, color, taste, smell, and so on). A substance is something existing by itself (ens per se), an accident can only exist by inhering in something else (ens in alio). Applying this distinction to the Eucharist, we arrive at the doctrine of Transubstantiation. According to this doctrine, at the moment of consecration in the Mass there is a change of substance, but the accidents continue to exist as before: the substances of bread and wine are changed into those of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the accidents of bread and wine — i.e. the qualities of color, taste, smell, and so forth — continue miraculously to exist and to be perceptible to the senses). But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible (Doubtless many Roman Catholics would say the same). Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms Substance and Accidents were not employed (This is an interesting example of the way in which the Church is ‘selective’ in its acceptance of the decrees of Local Councils (see above, p. 211)).

Today Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts. The general position of Orthodoxy in the whole matter is clearly summed up in the Longer Catechism, written by Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow (1782-1867), and authorized by the Russian Church in 1839:

Question: How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?

Answer: …The word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord (English translation in R. W. Blackmore, The Doctrine of the Russian Church, London, 1845, p. 92).

And the Catechism continues with a quotation from john of Damascus: ‘If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit ... we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable (On the Orthodox Faith, 4, 13 (P.G. 94, 1145A)).

That seems to be all that is in regard to the the Presence. Here's the text. --C.Logan 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rv of NAB in ((bibleverse))

Hi. Noticed you reverted my "imposition" of the NAB in the bibleverse searches. For the record, I'm not a US Catholic either; I'd've preferred the New Jerusalem, actually. As it stood, many of the links went to the NRSV, NIV, and others, and I wondered about the use of Protestant bibles to define Catholic doctrine. NAB was the only Catholic translation I saw in Bibleverse at the time (I just looked again and saw Douay-Rheims 1899, tho'). Is there no policy or guideline on which edition of the Bible is used in quoting? Or is each note to link instead to that massive list of editions?

Note that the last sentence is not said in a negative way: if that is the consensus of usage, then fine. But is there any such consensus? And if there is no guideline to use any particular edition, why is it even a factor in the template?

Thanks in advance for your attention. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no real objection to the buffet of bibles; your rationale is sound. Maybe I will address it later and ask for some comments, but it's OK for now. Again, I only selected the NAB because there seems to be a lack of online Catholic bibles, or even print ones, for that matter; my own family bible, bought in Canada, is an NAB. I bought myself a Jerusalem later on. Douays seem to be hard to find, altho' I haven't really looked since I got to the big city.

If you don't mind my asking, which version do you prefer, if not the NAB?

And thanks for the prompt reply. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just nosy curious. I've used NAB since my First Communion (big white Family Bible thing with gilt edges, colour pics of the Vatican, genealogical pages, glossary, order of the Mass, etc), and a big softcover used-bookstore New Jerusalem sometime in my thirties. I also have my Canadian Forces Good News New Testament with Psalms (complete with the CF "cornflake" badge on the front); that one I carried in my right breast pocket of my combat uniform. I haven't looked at the RSV (I have read there's actually a specific RSV for Catholics!), but I avoid the KJV due to its arcane language and accuracy issues -- I have read some of it, tho', and after 1 Kings 16:11, I make it a point to never pee on walls.

Here's a silly question. What I've read about certain versions is that some are liberal (Good News), some are too conservative (Douay, KJV), yadda yadda, in that the translations are guided/influenced by the religious ideology of the translators. Are there any NPOV Bibles out there? You know, translated by translators with no axe to grind except in linguistics? Besides the New World Translation? --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to save me some trouble

Just so I know whether I should save myself the time and stop contributing to Wikipedia: are you going to follow me to every single article I ever assist in editing, remove all of the information I added, replace it with sentences that read like the most boring footnotes in the driest canon law text ever written so as to put off any lay reader, and which leave out a lot of the information previously there? I mean, is the goal simply to make it absolutely futile for me to contribute to any article, are you that passionately offended that I'm trying to add one person's professional expertise? Or is it just to drive a contributor away so they won't want anything to do with the project? Just let me know, to save me all the work of typing what you clearly hold as offensive attempts to contribute.HarvardOxon 03:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your attention may be helpful on a CfD

This appeared at CFD, and its three articles (Papal Gentlemen, Prince Assistants to the Papal Throne and Prince of Civitella-Cesi) were recategorized. What exactly is awarded by the Vatican as opposed to the Holy See? And are "Papal Gentleman" et alia more titles, awards, or occupations? Gimmetrow 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I edited the "dab" page at papal oath to fit WP:DAB, but really I would like all the content merged into one article, maybe at a title like "Papal oath and infallibility" or "Papal oath controversy"? The citations referring to the Diurnus text make quite a deal about it condemning Honorious. The citations in that article now are to non-Catholic sources which are arguing against infallibility,[1] This idea exists in certain Orthodox groups,[2] and contrary apologetics exists.[3] What do you think? Gimmetrow 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Intinction -- good work!

Thnaks for the editing help on Intinction. The article is in much better shape now. Majoreditor 11:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

L'Osservatore Romano

Can you please explain further about the quote in L'Osservatore Romano that you have written about on your talk page? What does it really say? Thank you. --WannabeRubrician 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishhead64 has submitted a Request for Adminship

Just wondering what your thoughts on this were. You might wish to comment on his RFA at this page.

--Richard 22:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mary (mother of Jesus)

Lima, some recent edits to this page are equating Roman Catholic Church with the Latin Rite, as against the Eastern Catholic Churches. I've had a bit of a go at clarifying things, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to sort out whether the Eastern Catholic Churches really do not view the Immacualte Conception in the same way that the Latin rite does. You seem to have some expertise in this area - any chance you could try to straighten things out a little? David Underdown 12:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lima, however, InfernoXV (who originally made the changes which prompted me to contact you) is now querying some of your changes on the talk page. David Underdown 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

I would just like to thank you for your contributions to the purgatory article, and look forward to further improvements. Lostcaesar 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BCP Lord's Prayer

It is not true to say that the doxology is not part of the BCp text. In fact the orders for Mattins and Evensong include the Lord's prayer twice, once with and once without. The first time the prayer occurs (following the General Confession and Absolution, often omitted except on Sundays) it is with the doxology, the second time it appears in following the Kyries in the Responses after the Creed, it is without. I don't think the additional external link was helpful, but if we must have one, linking to Wikisource texts for Morning or Evening Prater would be better, or a link to the Church of England website or www.justus.anglican.org would eb more definitive I think. David Underdown 08:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Original sin article

I am glad that you inserted tags into the opening paragraph. The inchoate condition of this paragraph was not the way it was two months ago. It needs some serious editing. I share your concern about the Roman Catholic Church being misrepresented at times on this website, BTW. The opening paragraph should be a general ecumenical statement followed by the manner in which this doctrine is viewed in the various faiths and traditions.--Drboisclair 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with the text now is not only that it has unsubstantiated statements, but it is filled with stylistic and grammatical errors.--Drboisclair 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the discussion page of Original Sin: Is this sentence (Those who deny the existence of original sin thus profess belief in the immaculate conception not only of Mary but of every human being) verifiable or is it simply a "original research" surmise of someone? I think that it should be removed if it does not have support. I think that it is a veiled polemic against the Roman Catholic faith.--Drboisclair 06:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that you should rethink the argument that if there were no original sin, then all people would be immaculately conceived. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception presupposes the existence of original sin, and the state of the blessed Virgin by the singular act of the grace of God is something qualitatively different than the states of, say Adam and Eve before the fall. Even Pelagius might not be wont to say that all people are immaculately conceived even though he virtually denied the existence of original sin.--Drboisclair 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Original Sin

Hello Lima, You may want to respond to this. I have made a statement in that I think that the theology of St. Augustine is not properly understood by some.[4]--Drboisclair 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Twt"?

Can I ask why you refer to me as "Twt"? That's a strange way to abbreviate my last name, and I've never seen it before. It's like the old Hebrew version of my name (no vowels). Jonathan Tweet 13:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Any chance I could prevail upon your Christian charity and ask you to stop referring to me as "Twt"? Jonathan Tweet 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious how you would translate...

"fabri aut quaestuariae filius"?

Discussion is here. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your expertise. I should probably bookmark Persueus. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

A request for informal mediation has been filed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28 Purgatory. I have reviewed the general history of the article and talk page. Please indicate on the case page if you will accept my assistance as an informal mediator. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Vassyana 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please join us on the case talk page so we can define the scope and issues involved. I have posted a few questions to be answered to help us towards that end. Vassyana 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandilism

I was sorry to hear that you accused me of vanderlism. I was just trying to revert vandilism and I am very sory if you thought it was vandilism. Happy editing Foxtrotman 00:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) I forgive you. Foxtrotman 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

too much credit

I think you're giving me too much credit. I was trying to make a usename akin to Richard I, but every possible name was taken. I had to get creative. I then needed to make a user page, so I typed something quickly, substituting eum for id (a slip, since I was thinking of a person) and forgetting that Gaudeo does not normally take an accusative. But thanks for thinking so highly of me =). Sanctum Cor Leonis 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See also

I am writing here because you said you would not be responding on the talk page at Holy See. I regularly remove "See also" sections from any and all articles were I feel they are aribtrary and/or redundant, often after incorporating the links into the article. See Ranulf II of Aquitaine for an article where the links are valuable and hard to incorporate, so I have left the section. If I have not removed such sections from the most-viewed articles, it is because I rarely edit those, though Holy See hardly seems obscure. Srnec 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Protestant POV pushing at Template:Books of the Old Testament

Just thought you might be interested in User:Alastair Haines attempts to push a Protestant POV at Template:Books of the Old Testament, see for example [5]. 75.14.208.224 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy See vs Holy See of Saint Peter

Lima, can you please offer an opinion on the Talk Page for Holy See? An anon user has renamed the article. Thanks. Majoreditor 01:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Early Christianity

I did the revert/expand-by-sources thing again at early Christianity. Please check out the recent edits and talk page comments and let me know your thoughts, so I can adjust anything if there's need. Be well! Vassyana 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to engage in an edit war with an IP user. Could you look over this diff and tell me if my changes were appropriate?[6] Of course, if some things still needed to be worked out, we could do that as we've been. Thanks! Vassyana 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent behaviour

Please stop engaging in original research. Please stop making uncivil and snarky comments, especially as editor notes in article space. Also, please do not make edits to prove a point. I implore you to deal with me politely and to work productively towards article improvement. If there's a content conflict we cannot resolve, we can take it to dispute resolution. However, the disruptive and rude attitude you've taken is not acceptable. Vassyana 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [Best not to respond to this objection to counter-arguments being inserted in "editor notes in article space" (<!-- ... -->) to balance the arguments inserted in the same editor notes by the objector. On alleged Original Research, see below.]

Subsistit in Lumen Gentium subheading Traditionalist Reaction

I just wanted to ask you what specifically you object to, since most of the content of my edit was already mentioned. The remaining components are just logical deductions from the rest. If there is no room for divergence on the issue of traditionalist reaction, what is purpose of it existing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunchoming (talk • contribs) (to whom I have responded)

Bishop of Rome

It has nothing to do with the title "pope". In most of the cases in the catholicism article, "Bishop of Rome" needs to "bishop of Rome", as well - assuming "archbishop of Canterbury" is correct. That is the usage I was encouraged to employ throughout the Thomas Cranmer article for FAC. What standard have you based you capitalization on? -- SECisek 09:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly I should put this elsewhere, but Secisek, unless I'm missing something, it was only suggested that you be consistent with your capitalisation, not that bishop of Wherever whould always be lower cased. To my mind, Bishop of Wherever is a proper noun as a tile, but I'd write "the bishop said", or whatever, where the word bishop is being used in isolation. See for example, this from The Guardian's style guide

“ archbishop

the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at first mention, thereafter Dr Williams or the archbishop (he is the Most Rev but not normally necessary to say so); the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, on first mention, subsequently Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor or the archbishop

bishops

the Right Rev Clifford Richard, Bishop of Wimbledon, at first mention; thereafter the bishop or Bishop Richard

”

David Underdown 10:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me, this is then the rule for all titles, king, duke? -- SECisek 12:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth at this point, the League of Copy Editors informed me that unless it precedes a proper name, pope, bishop, king, et al are to be lower case. -- SECisek 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't make this stuff up. Yes, they want ' archbishop of Canterbury' and 'the pope ruled': <!-- COPYEDITOR'S NOTE: "pope" and "king" are only capitalized when used in conjunction with a name. In this case, you may want to change this reference to [[Pope X]] and name the pope in question, as you have not yet done so. -->[7]

I am not saying you are wrong, but that is the style they want inforced for an FAC support. Best, -- SECisek 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They seeem to have missed the fact that in this case (arch)bishop is being used as part of a title. Which of the copyeditors was it that suggested this? I think it's just plain wrong. David Underdown 15:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask. Bare in mind I do not have a position on this, really. I just want to know what is correct. If you search the revision cited above for the word "pope" you will see the original comment. -- SECisek 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Original research is prohibited. You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible, to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Please take the time to read and understand our content policies. Vassyana 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC) [This seems to have been settled with this response]

Baronius Press spam

Thanks for removing a couple of instances of Baronius Press spam from User:Johnhumphrey1947. I removed the other spam from this account, but most of these articles are outside my normal interests, so I appreciate your vigilance if you should see any more of it! As it is now, baroniuspress.com is only linked from the article on the press, which is how it should be. Wareh 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

English langugage

Hello Lima, I was certainly not attempting to start any type of dispute over what spelling is most appropriate, but I do make an assumption that use of both styles in the same article is not ideal. When I am on a spelling "kick", I look for the most prevalent style and correct to that preference. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Please read the talk page of the article. All I'm asking is if these were the only nations Christianized back then. Wouldn't it be important to mention all peoples/nations involved or rephrase the sentence like 'Catholicism spread all over Europe these times'?
And also please don't write this kind of edit summary, I did no wrong to the article, I'd like to improve it. Squash Racket 15:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to use Slavic peoples instead of mentioning them one by one, but I don't know if that is exact enough. Although having Germanic people in general and then all little nations mentioned is a bit strange, don't you think? For example as far as I know you can't use the term Slovak for these times, see the history of the nation and the name. Perhaps that's why it would be more simple to concentrate on geographical terms. Squash Racket 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And I understand your reaction now. I see the page is vandalised constantly. Squash Racket 16:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Infant baptism

In Infant baptism your bot has merely capitalized the word "fact" where the date was already given. "fact" works just as well as "Fact". An alteration merely from "f" to "F" wastes the time of anyone checking what change has been made. (At least, that is my opinion.) Lima 03:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right. It should have dated a tag on the page. Note that you can suppress both bot edits and minor edits from both recent changes and watchlist. Rich Farmbrough, 10:43 30 September 2007 (GMT).

Baltic peoples

I also thought that based on common sense, but I could not find Estonians among Baltic peoples. Look yourself. Squash Racket 11:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OR

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Policy shortcut: WP:SYN Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoir (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

eucharistia vs. The Eucharistia

There must be some meaningful way to distinguish the Koine usage of eucharistia in the NT from The Eucharistia (rite). I imagine Latin writers would just quote the Greek, but is there a way to express the difference the defininte article makes in English, but in Greek? Otherwise November 22 becomes American Eucharist.

It has become interesting to me that the thanksgiving aspect of Thannksgiving withered so early in comparison with the dominance of the rememberance aspect.Eschoir 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Polytonic Greek

My well-learned, fellow scholar Lima! I think that the Explorer 7 is the cause of your being better able to decipher the Greek. I imagine that my backward software is my problem for still seeing all of those boxes (default symbols for indecipherable characters). Do you think that posting that Greek text of the Apostolicum is helpful? Perhaps now it can be read with the requisite software. I await your reply.--Drboisclair 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I happen to have this page in my watchlist and noticed the subject.

Polytonic Greek text is supported on older versions of Internet Explorer via the {{polytonic}} template. When transcluded, the text containing polytonic diacritics should be the parameter. So first try adding this template where you're seeing improperly rendered Greek.

If that template is in use and you're still seeing the boxes, then you lack an appropriate Unicode font. There may be updates available through Windows Update that can help you. (In the "Optional" section.) The fonts the template causes your browser to look for in order are: Athena, Gentium, Palatino Linotype, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, and Code2000. So try downloading and installing Athena. This a new version, which I am not altogether confident is recognized as the same font family, so you can also try Gentium. As a last resort, Code2000 supports a very wide selection of Unicode ranges. But I'd suggest this only as a last resort; many of the glyphs are unattractive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lima: I might be able to track down the answer to your question if I knew when polytonic text stopped working for you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see two changes to the site that might possibly have caused a problem. One, around April of this year, is when they changed the implementation of how fonts are selected in order to standardize the treatment of languages with poor IE6 support. The other, in late December of last year, is when they fixed what was actually a bug in how the font selection list was laid out.

There's no reason why the April change should have broken this for you, but the December change may well have. I have to guess because I don't know what IE6 does with this kind of syntax error, but if it was formerly selecting the first font it could understand -- and this font happened to have the Unicode range for polytonic glyphs defined -- then it would display correctly. Then, once the bug was corrected and it could now properly understand all the fonts in the list, it selected a font from earlier in the list, but one where you happened to have an old version installed without that Unicode range defined, and you got the squares.

If that's the case, for Drboisclair installing Gentium should take care of the problem. Athena Unicode is a more attractive font, but the list currently calls out an old version no longer supported by its maker. I've asked for it to be changed to request the currently available version -- you have to be an admin to do it, and I'm not -- and once they do then Athena Unicode will be the preferred font for rendering polytonic Greek text on IE6.

Because IE7 correctly supports Unicode, these shenanigans aren't necessary for it, and it will render the text correctly with or without the template. Actually, the template is totally ignored for IE7 and CSS 2 compliant browsers. The font list is set according to a scheme supported even in IE6 -- but then it's reset back to the way it was using syntax only supported by later browsers.

(advertisement) Had everyone been using Firefox, none of this would be necessary. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Eucharist

I like your revision of the "received of the Lord" section. It seems an honest middle ground. I would prefer it not in a footnote, but it is an imperfect world.

I have a primary problem with the article, besides obvious Catholic bias. It is organizational. I really don't know what the article is supposed to be about, is it limited to those things calling themselves eucharist, and therefore strictly parochial, or does it claim that all final meal rituals are actually eucharist, and deserving of analysis. Also, isit about the PHRASE, or the WORD (a noun that is used sometimes adjectivally)? The article is way too long, and after reading it, I still have no idea of the antecedant for "this" in "do this in remembrance of me."

Forgive me if I seem fundamentalist on accurate quotes, but if you use the quote marks, it MUST exactly reflect the source.

I don't see the problems refered to in the matrix table, and can't find the objections.Eschoir 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Found it.Eschoir 02:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. I find it hopelessly confusing as to goals. However, if you can get language to stick in the first paragraph stating that this article is not a critical or scholarly examination of the history or origins of the liturgy or liturgies, but merely about what is normally understood by "the Eucharist" in snapshot form across the denominations, I wiill fold my tent and steal silently away. That is a useless article, and one not deserving of my time.Eschoir 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the Eucharist is not ritualistic cannibalism.--67.133.194.125 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Papal emblem

On your request I have created a Papal emblem with the keys on the correct side. I'm sorry, it took some time. It's used by Portal Catholicism now. I hope, you like it. Thanks for telling about the mistake.--Thw1309 10:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Fact

Something you might be interested in. Have a look at the edit history page for 75.14.218.110 and for Leadwind. Both edit the same exact set of articles, during the same time periods, yet not overlapping. More interesting, the anonymous IP address has recently begun to edit articles which both you and I were first contributing to. My conclusion is that Leadwind has looked at our edit histories and sought to alter our work on other pages (related to Christianity), as so has done so anonymously. I bring this up because I would like the difficulties on the purgatory page to end quickly so I can go back to editing articles mostly of Frankish interest, but I am troubled over this. It looks like this editor has quirky views and seeks to spread those views on a free encyclopedia, which means I will be bogged down on these articles of Christian interest and I'll never get back to the Franks. Ritterschaft 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought maybe it was me. Sometimes I don't notice when I've logged out. But I checked, and it's not me. I've never been to the "Cafeteria Christianity" page. Obviously it's someone who's interested in the same sort of articles as I am. Leadwind 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Church Membership Stats in Infant Baptism Article

Thank you for tightening the wording of the disclaimer on church membership statistics in the Infant Baptism article. I added a line to the footnote that mentioned that some European churches include large numbers of people in their membership rolls who do not actively attend church; in fact, comparatively few people in Western Europe attend church, but most are officially counted as Christians. It is undetermined whether the larger number of practicing Christians are paedobaptist or credobaptist, and I thought that the reader should be aware that this uncertainty exists. It also encourages the reader to think for themselves about whether individuals who have no real involvement with a Christian church should be counted as "Christians." --ManicBrit 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

203.57.68.13 and vandalism

I recently got this IP unblocked. Thought it was now exclusively assigned to me. But apparently not. (Who checks their own contribs when they haven't contrib'ed?) I've asked admin Stephen, who did the original block, to block it again. Assuming that doesn't screw up this login, we'll see how that turns out.--PaulxSA 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I'm unfamiliar with the activities of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All -- if he was active in these articles it was at some point when I wasn't paying adequate attention to them. (One disadvantage of having a wide range of interests is that I can't watch everything with equal attentiveness all the time.) So I'm in no position to form a judgment here.

If you have good reason to suspect it in this case, the thing to do is to bring the issue up at suspected sockpuppets. If no consensus is reached there, then you can proceed to request a checkuser, where a user with privileges to compare IP addresses might be able to confirm his identity one way or another. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything else?

Let's just cut this off so no one wastes any more time. Eschoir contributed to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic, and I'm sure that he was closely scrutinized at that time as a possible sockpuppet of FaAfA. So we can all assume that he's not FaAfA, unless some very strong and compelling evidence can be supplied to tie him to FaAfA. This case lacks such evidence, so I'm closing it. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All"

Eschoir 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

All that talk

about consensus, working changes out in talk, pffft! You have certainly ceded any claim to the moral high ground in your latest unilateral Eucharist edits. But I won't just revert. Eschoir 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So you really don't like tables, or is there a problem with this table you'd like to share? Eschoir 16:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

Lima, could you possibly pop over to Edmund the Martyr, take a look over the article and talk page, and see what you reckon to the claim being pushed by one user that he still ranks as a patron of England. So far as I can see he certainly not regarded as such by the Church of England, and neither is he listed (at all) in the National Calendar for England and Wales of the Catholic Church. David Underdown 12:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Lima, I only wish I had thought of bringing this to your notice previously, and just maybe we would have avoided some of the fruitless wrangling of the past few months. Such is life. David Underdown 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I came to thank for your comments and I see David Underdown tipped you off to the dispute. Well done to both of you. --SECisek 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr is again under the attck of an single purpose account. Will you weigh in one more time with a Roman Catholic POV. He says the article is biased by an Anglican POV of Edmund (?!?), what ever that is. -- SECisek 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your oppinion. I will leave it alone for a day per your wise request. Believe me, I would LOVE to never comment on that article again. -- SECisek 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

about catholicism

Dear friend, I will be honest with you. I know that Jesus will prevail one day, same as justice will. This means that sooner or later Catholic church together with a pope of Rome, anti-christ described in Bible will end up burning in hell forever. Thats the truth, you can hide, you can delete sections or the whole articles. But you cant hide the truth. The truth is that Jesus is Lord, and that Satan is looser. All who follow Satan, including pope of Rome will end up in hell. That is truth. I hope that sooner or later, you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. As well as that you quit this false worship system. May Lord Jesus bless you, and give you salvation.

User ipernar— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.130.158 (talk • contribs)

How nice and friendly. Pastordavid (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Saint Otteran

Hi there! I would like to expand your article on Saint Otteran of Iona based on two sources I found. One of them, however, gives his year of death as c. 563 instead of 548. Could you please tell me your source? Maybe we can get out which one seems more likely. Thanks. Daranios (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What a minor edit is

Please do not mark an edit such as this one as minor. This single edit involves several examples of rewriting beyond the "minor" level. Sorry to bother you if this was just a case of mistakenly checking the box. Wareh (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just a friendly reminder! Wareh (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyberstalker

There are some requests for you on Talk:Eucharist . . Eschoir (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Eucharist, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please refer to the AIAV logs for clarification. Your revert got vandalism back in, please be more carefull

I am keeping the above reprimand (which was much stronger until Excirial softened it) - and the previous one - as an open admission of the well-known fact that I make mistakes: I reverted Excirial, thinking I was reverting what he had succeeded in fixing before I got to it. Should I stop reverting vandalism for fear of repeating the same mistake? Perhaps indeed I should. Lima (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, keep at it. It happens. -- SECisek (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For some people the whole editing thing just doesn't work out. No biggie. Try something else. Eschoir (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Bacchae Back-off

I may havve a solution. I tracked down the original source of the Harris and bacchae quotoes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucharist&diff=69929861&oldid=68499885 back in August 06. It is from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.58.71.152

I left him a message to defend his edits, which you can see by going to his talk page. If he doesn't defend the quote, I surely won't. Give it a couple of days, then maybe it can be deleted entirely. Eschoir (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

cease fire

I have copied the areas of contentnion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eschoir/Sandbox

What say we work there for a couple of weeks on what is contested content and leave off public bickering?Eschoir (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What hope is there that private discussion would produce anything other than bickering? It is better to work towards an agreement where we know others are observing our attitudes and words. I continue to hope that, in that public forum, others will intervene and express their views on the questions we are discussing. Lima (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Lima, I've logged a Wikiquette alert regarding your altering my cited information on Baptism without comment. The alert also refers to other issues we've had between us as context. Wikiquette alerts are for getting outside opinions on difficulties between editors. I look forward to settling this with you cordially. Leadwind 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What is Cogden's thesis? Finding it is too difficult to consider intervening. Lima (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical critical Christian apologist

I have placed an article in my sandbox for a few days that I invite you to read - I think that you will not only like it, but mayagree that it is a starting place for an ending to the history of eucharist article.

It's "six eucharists" is at least good for another table.

Look quickly, it has copyright issues, and I will take it down soon.

Eschoir (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus eating with women

Thanks for the congratulations. I'm doing the "eating with women" thing from memory. I'll check my sources. In the mean time, please feel free to delete the reference to women. While you're at it, I'm afraid that this whole section doesn't give proper respect to the important place of food in Jesus' ministry. If you could add some more to give a non-NT-literate reader some context, that would be helpful. Leadwind (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the hostile-act scene. I'll delete the reference. If you could feed me any good information on the importance of meals and food in Jesus' ministry, I'd appreciate it. Leadwind (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)