Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church

The Sacrifice of The Mass

I have added a sub-section on the Sacrifice of the Mass as this is (was) by far the most common criticism of the Catholic (meaning Western and Eastern Latin and Orthodox rites) Church by Protestants. Dismay at distortions around the sacrifice of the mass was one of the driving forces of the Reformation from the Lutheran, Calvinist and CoE sides and I think it should be included, even though anti-Catholic Evangelicals these days tend to focus much more on the cult of Saints, purgatory & c. Duprie37 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Latin & Hocus Pocus

The statement: "During the Reformation the Protestants almost totally rejected the use of Latin as "hocus pocus", seems little more than hocus pocus itself. I think this statement needs to be totally revised. It was the dogma of transubstantiation that Reformers considered "hocus pocus", that phrase likely being a corruption of the Latin words for consecration of the Host: "Hoc est corpus meum". The Reformers denounced the insistence on Latin in the Mass as being more or less repugnant to the idea of common public worship - seeing as no one could understand any of it and thereby denying the laity the edification of the liturgy, how could anyone benefit from it spiritually or in any other way? There is very little to suggest that the use of Latin in the Mass was seen by Reformers as some kind of "magic". Duprie37 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not deleted the statement (heeding warnings at the top of this page) but have added a citation from the BCP about the use of the vernacular to at least give some substance to the magic ;) Duprie37 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Past comments

Cripes! You'd think that some comments would still be around. Purging all of them into the archives at once seems counterproductive IMO. Student7 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ordination of Women

Of course, no Christian community allowed women to be ordained from the year zero to the mid-nineteenth century. See cf http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804578.html and dozens of others. So the statement "Catholic church has always excluded women from the clergy" is a bit disingenuous IMO, since the same statement can be made of all other churches up until that time. Student7 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So fix it. It seems to me that the more accurate criticism is that, "Like the Orthodox Church and some Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church continues to exclude women from the clergy although the Anglican Communion and many Protestant denominations began ordaining women to the clergy in the 20th century." How does that sound? --Richard S (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For starters, it's pretty much "when did you stop beating your wife?" The onus is on the churches to explain why on earth they are sticking to tradition, when these churches have a history of sticking to tradition. The paragraph should read "Most denominations of Jews, Christians and Muslims did not ordain women until the middle of the 19th century. In the 21st century, the Catholic Church, along with other traditional churches maintains that position while the others have changed. They have been criticized by modernists for not changing."

The "continues to exclude" is intended as a pejorative, suggesting that they are troglodytes for not changing. This is WP:POV. Student7 (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is POV! This is an article entirely about POVs.

I also do not understand what you mean by "the onus is on the churches..." We need not fully justify either side. We can explain their position but we need to do it as an outside observer not as an apologist.

I think we are of the same mind here. Let us work together to come up with the best text. How about something along the lines of

Like most other major religions, the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have traditionally restricted positions of religious leadership to males. Beginning in the middle of the 19th century, some branches of Judaism and some Protestant denominations have ordained women as well. The Catholic Church has been criticized for continuing to reserve the ordained positions of deacon, priest and bishop for men only. Other Christian churches such as the Orthodox, some Anglican churches and some Protestant denominations also maintain this position.

--Richard S (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds good (npov) to me. Thanks for suggesting it. Student7 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there was ordination of women pretty early on in the Church. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deusveritasest, can you expand on this? I know that there were Deaconesses but are there examples of women as priests or bishops? Or even as presbyter/elder? --Richard S (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the deaconesses in that statement. That is sufficient to prove the OP incorrect. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Deaconesses then, assisted in the baptism of women: disrobing, re-robing. Their functions were therefore different from those of men. "Ordaining" per se, may not have been necessary nor occured. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite clear that the deaconesses were ordained. Deusveritasest (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I was wrong.

Having said that, The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says that "the deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfills no function of priest or deacon." Not sure when this quote is from, but the suggested change above should then read, "...ordained to the priesthood." I don't know how to reword this to exclude the top position in an organization that doesn't believe in priesthood. We were trying to use "ministry" here, but it seems to have been conflated (in English. Might not have that problem in Greek or some other language) with all ranks of ministry, from sexton to sacristan to the actual person with the Master of Theology. The Catholic Church today has hundreds of thousands of women "ministers." They are not ordained, but perform many of the duties described in ancient texts. Student7 (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The women today are formally "certified/authorized" by their bishop to perform these duties with probably a lot more ceremony than the ancient church ever had, constricted by travel as it was. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Doctrinal Dispute

Should the fact that many Catholic beliefs are possibly contradicted by doctrine be on this article? Examples include Jesus having siblings, the three separate personages of the God-head, the communion not intended to be a physical manifestation, etc. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loofus5 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll bite. Their beliefs are doctrine by definition, so there can be no contradiction, thus no "fact". I am not sure what your examples are examples of, especially since some of them have nothing to do with the Church or it's beliefs/doctrines. Could you clarify? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should be more specific. Should the fact that many have interpretation-of-doctrine disputes against the Catholic Church be documented in the article? --Loofus5 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea, because you would open up a big can of worms to be covered in a single article. You have many "high order" Protestant churches that agree with most of the Catholic doctrine, but have problems with different doctrine. Then as you move farther and farther from the "high order" churches you have different degrees of what people disagree with. A High Order Anglican will have totally different disagreements from a Southern baptist, which would have totally different views from a LDS person. It would be better to address those issues (beyond what is currently included) in seperate articles. Marauder40 (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I concede. --Loofus5 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)