Talk:History of the Catholic Church

History of Early Christianity

Xandar, please give your reasons for continually changing the "Main:history of Early Christianity". That article covers, in much greater depth, all the material in the section. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Template: History of the Catholic Church

I finished today the Template: History of the Catholic Church. Friend Carlaude attempted to rename to Roman Catholic, and then redirected the new template to his Template:Christian History

• 15:27, 10 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Template:History of the Catholic Church‎ (Template:Christian History)

No need to comment on this. The history of the Catholic Church is of course much more than the history of Roman Church. We will deal with that later. I would be interested in your comments and improvments on the two hour old template. Thank You. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This was only because of Ambrosius007 constant efforts to add the {{Template:History of the Catholic Church‎}} name everywhere. I have asked him to do so but still no answer. --Carlaude (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The title should match that of the main article. As long as the article is officially titled Roman Catholic Church, then the template should be called Template:History of the Roman Catholic Church. On a quick glance, I noticed that some of the titles don't match the articles and use a form that may not be obvious to nonCatholics. For example, why is Second Vatican Council called Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican? Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The longer names are the "offical" names and also serve to confuse-- as you point out. The only reason seems to be a need to push an RC POV. I have already fixed them. --Carlaude (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and these are my first impressions. I suspect we will need to discuss each set of links separately, either here or on the template talk page. Under General, I'd add Role of the Roman Catholic Church in civilization.

I think there is too much information in much of the rest of it. It seems unnecessary, to me, to include pieces of the Church just because they were founded in that period (such as Swiss Guards). In my opinion, this should be restricted to events or people that had a significant impact on the church at the time.

Among the links I think are most likely to warrant being left off are Battle of Milvian Bridge, Cluny, Cîteaux Abbey, Avignon (why not Avignon Papacy?), Fall of Constantinople, Swiss Guards, Raphael, Michaelangelo, Thomas More, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Battle of Lepanto, Oratory of Saint Philip Neri, Edith Stein, Maximilian Kolbe, Our Lady of Fatima. Where should the discussion take place? Would it be all right with everyone to put up one time period of links at a time to discuss? Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a 2000 year history leaves room for judgement. Official titles are the norm here, but if shorter ones do exist such as Vatican II, much better. Yes, some entries should be deleted or replace, while others are still missing, such as Thomas Aquinas.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with Karen; things that were important for the Church, like the Fall of Constantinople, but where the article hardly mentions the RCC, should not be there. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican is somewhat POV anyway, as it was only "Catholic eucumenical". Art in Roman Catholicism should be there, and more general historical articles - Hiberno-Scottish mission - and fewer biographies. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to move this discussion over to Template talk:History of the Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied over - please continue there. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I hate to be the first person to say this, but there is no proof that the Church that Jesus set up was the Catholic Church. In all reality, the Catholic Church was started in (about) 325 A.D., about 300 years after Jesus died, and about 275 years after the death of the Apostle Peter. How can Peter be the first Pope of a church that hadn't been "invented" yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.102.132 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

All controversies should be listed at the bottom and not the beginning of the articles. Unless we have evidence to the contrary that the church did not start with Apostle Peter, then the article should simply state the truth. No one questions that Islam was founded by Muhammed, why do people question that Christ founded the Catholic church?Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• See the last FAC at Roman Catholic Church. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter and the Keys

I've excised this portion entirely. The picture shows Peter and the Keys, you need to have a discussion about what Apostolic succession is rather then the mass of caveats. You need to express what the church teaches about apostolic succession. Some of this stuff caon come back, but the majority of it has to go.

This is a history article Apostolic Succession has its own article; I have restored the section. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Still need a discussion of Peter and the Keys. You have the wonderful picture, the start of the Catholic church is when Christ himself tells Peter that on this rock, he will build his church. I must say the article is much improved from previous, but you still need to say that Catholic doctrine states that the church began at this point. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

History of the Roman Catholic Church

Various people seem to want these edits broken up. This I am doing. Please do not revert them all at once-- they are done for different but important reasons.--Carlaude (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Origins

This badly written and misleading section needs more facts and less generalities. The focus should be on the origins and events of the Roman Catholic Church and not on the opinions of selected writers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly actual facts are in very short supply for the early period, hence the problems! This section has been intensely discussed at its place of origin in Roman Catholic Church & its FAC & it is worth reading those discussions. Of course it depends whgich of the many different versions seen in recent days you are referring to. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any need for the huge number of tags someone has put on this section of the article? Whoever has put the tags there needs to justify them on this page if they are to remain for long. Most of the stuff tagged is not reallyt hat controversial. All in all, as we know, the article is in a very young state, and needs a lot of work in expansion and solidification. Placing loads of tags everywhere at this stage is not really that helpful. Xandar (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to know, where the specific weaknesses are at this point. Ideally, this section should describe the origins and not opinions of a few writers about the origins. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Vatican II and beyond‎

Vatican II and beyond‎ is a new main article which incorporates all existing texts plus a background introduction. It turned out that almost a third of the history article was dedicated to the years since 1962. The article is now shorter than ever, allowing for badly needed additions, for example for 18th, 19th and 20th century history. There are obvious shortcomings in the new structure, which need to be improved. Some of the headings do not fully reflect the text, but they will in a few days time. Please feel free to improve. Thank you --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins

I've added some new material to this section as a result of new research for the main RCC article. Since the two articles are supposed to syncretise, I've added it here. Xandar (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

a view not shared/ shared by most other Christian denominations

1. Nothing in the Thirty-Nine Articles indicates an agreement of the Anglican Church with the idea that Peter was the first Pope

2. Nothing in the First seven Ecumenical Councils or other Eastern Orthodox documents indicates an agreement of the Eastern Orthodox Church with the idea that Peter was the first Pope

3. Even if these two denominations did agree with the idea, you would be very far from "most other denominations," there are more than hundreads of other Christian denominations. --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What view? Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about. Please specify further.Farsight001 (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reality

Why does this page mention Jesus as if he actually existed instead of saying supposedly or purportedly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.208.194 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Because that is beyond the scope of this article. There are many different articles on historical existence of Jesus, like Historical Jesus, Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, New Testament view on Jesus' life, Historicity of Jesus, Quest for the historical Jesus. This is an article on the Roman Catholic church history. Marauder40 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)