Talk:Catholic Church

September 2011

I have reverted two edits. This one (by User:153.104.122.1) removed the wikilink for Christianity from the lede with no reason stated, and this one (by User:WikiCatholicIndiana) removed Susan Wise Bauer's "The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade" from the bibliography on the grounds that it is an "unreliable source." I can see no reason for the first edit to stand, but would like an explanation of why the source in question has been deemed unreliable prior to its removal.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:28, 30 September 2011

Dear Mr. Clark, Apologies for my late response. Susan Wise Baur's book is not viewpoint neutral and takes positions that would be difficult to defend. For example, she asserts that Constantine invented the Catholic Church, despite the facts that the writings of Eusibius and others indicate quite the contrary. Baur is not Catholic, and in my opinion, is using this book to present a view of the Catholic Church that is more favorable to her own religion than to Catholicism. --wikiCatholicIndiana

Roman Catholic Church

Cjmclark reverted an anon IP's edit with this edit and justified it in the edit summary by saying that he was restoring text agreed upon by consensus. I know this is a sensitive subject but I must have missed the consensus that agreed upon the use of "Roman Catholic Church" in the text of the article. A couple of years ago, a number of editors were involved in a mediation which reached a consensus that this article would be titled Catholic Church and that the lead sentence would say "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church". I have no recollection of a subsequent consensus to use the name "Roman Catholic Church" in other parts of the article. However, since I don't track everything that has been discussed on this Talk Page, it's possible that there was a discussion about this that I simply missed. If that is the case, please point me to the discussion so I can come up to speed. Otherwise, I would like to have this article use "Catholic Church" throughout with the exception of the lead sentence which should include the phrase "also known as the Roman Catholic Church" according to the consensus reached by a year-long mediation. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is my fault for reverting a couple of things in one go. The "wording achieved by consensus" to which I referred was actually regarding the sentence about the Pope as the successor of St. Peter. The reverts to "Roman Catholic" were just reverting sloppy edits back to the last stable wording. If a consensus is developed here to use "Catholic Church" everywhere but the AKA statement, that's fine by me.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 09:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections from other editors, I will convert all references to "the Roman Catholic Church" to "the Catholic Church" in all sentences except the lead sentence. I believe this reflects a longstanding consensus going back at least 5-6 years ago (i.e. even before the mediation mentioned above). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because I was at amazon 'look inside'- ing on Paul Johnson's 'a histoy of xty' , I searched 'Roman Catholicism' - p.284 for eg. " in some ways luther, as they appreciated, was more Catholic than many of his Roman Catholic opponents.." why is the term RC anathematised at the wp article. i don't understand. Sayerslle (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. It's not "anathematized"; it's just the most common name for the organization. Achowat (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to re-open the discussion but, in brief, the argument is that the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome uses both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to itself. There are sources that assert that "Catholic Church" is the proper name of the church but despite the credentials of those making the assertion, they remain opinions, not official pronouncements from the church. After a long mediation, it was determined that it was not actually possible to determine if the church had a single, official name. However, it was possible to ascertain that the church used both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to itself in official contexts (as well as other names such as "Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church"). It was agreed that this article would be titled "Catholic Church" and that "Catholic Church" would appear first in the lead sentence with the added phrase "also known as Roman Catholic Church". The goal is certainly not to "anathematise" the term "Roman Catholic Church", far from it. However, unless we want to take the time in the article to explain to the reader that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" refer to the same thing, it is far simpler to just maintain consistency by using "Catholic Church" throughout the article. Actually, there was an attempt to propagate this approach to all articles in Wikipedia but there were some hiccups along the way and so there is probably no uniform approach across Wikipedia. I forget the details of the hiccups but I'm sure we could dig them up if you are really interested.

If you really want to delve into this question further, you might wish to start with User:Pseudo-Richard/Names of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the proceedings of the mediation were deleted because someone threatened to use those proceedings as the basis of an ARBCOM case and mediation rules require deletion of the mediation page if any such attempt is made.

Trust me, you'd rather chew your left arm off than get into a debate on this. Every time I look at my left arm, I regret not having chewed it off instead of getting involved in the mediation.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I'll look at the article - so 107ad is first mention of Catholic Church, Ignatius of Antioch, - , I want to find first use of RC Church and such - i'll read further in your article - it's obviously not just used by those seeking to denigrate or demote the Church in some way though, is it , if Paul Johnson uses it without flinching. Next time its in the news I'll listen out for what the BBC uses, RCC or CC Sayerslle (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The mediation was "done in a corner", as someone who was unhappy with the procedure described it. When a small group of Wikipedians decided to impliment the name change to Catholic Church the level of disagreement was such that one of the advocates for the name to be changed to "Catholic Church" took it to Arbcom in order to silence the dissenters.[1] Meanwhile others who were sympathetic to his pov proceeeded to launch an attack on the Wikipedia policy pages in order to make it "Law" that their preferred name change stuck even if it meant opening the door to all sorts of abuses by pov single interest groups. Arbcom was presented with an extensive list of Encyclopedic/Dictionary type reference works that showed conclusively that Roman Catholic Church or variant was by far the preferred named used by them.[2] The person who first put the case to Arbcom subsequently withdrew the case.[3] Yt95 (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Catechism of Pope Pius X published in 1908 also used the term "Roman" to distinguish the Catholic Church from other Christian communities who are not in full communion with Rome." Use of CC is common but use of RCC takes into account that not everyone shares the point of view that the RCC is the one true church. Agree neutrality and limited world view flag should stay until this has been resolved. DrTh0r (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Church includes Eastern Catholic Churches, Maronites, Armenians and even a Coptic church, none of whom are referred to or use the word Roman. The Latin Church is what most people mean when they say Roman. The fact that clerics get the name of their own church wrong does not alter the fact that it's title is, and always has been, The Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateWiddle (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Catholic Church"!?

Alright, how the hell did the article change from Roman Catholic Church, to just Catholic Church? This is terrible POV, an insult to all churches. Catholic Church should be differentiated between all the other churches as it is in disambiguation. We don't have the orthodox church being called the catholic church, even though that is what they claim they are. For this same reason, the roman catholic church should not be called simply the catholic church. There is no reason to have changed this, the only reason I can see is to push a POV that this church is THE catholic church by its adherents which is completely biased and sensible neutrality. The disambiguation at the top of the page is not enough, either change it so "Catholic Church" redirects to the disambiguation, or reclaim Roman Catholic Church.75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It didn't get changed. It got fixed. "Catholic Church" is not only the more popular usage, and thus, per naming conventions, the preference, but it is also the Church's name. You're right, we don't have the Orthodox being called catholic even though they claim to be, but they are called orthodox, and they claim to be THE Orthodox Church, which is something other denominations also claim. The Church of Christ is called so because they believe they are THE Church of Christ, even though many other denominations claim the same thing. No one objects to those denominations' name choices.

IMO, your objection to the Catholic Church's name it gave itself, while not objecting to the same in other denominations is the bias here.Farsight001 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• It was moved improperly without a debate & the issue has been hugely debated before. It will have to go back. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It was moved after months of discussion and a consensus. The talk page archives reveal such quite clearly. Where you got the idea that there was no debate and the move was improper is beyond me. Regardless, naming conventions tell us to use the most popular name, which is just "Catholic Church". That's is also it's actual name. There really is nothing else that matters in this regard.Farsight001 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I misread the history & thought it was just moved. I think I've supported CC in the past, but the arguments, as you probably know, are a little more complicated than that! I'm returning the project ratings to Start, btw, as given the importance of the topic it really doesn't rate more than that. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we just solve all these problems by making it so that when an IP clicks on "New Section" at the top of the page links straight to WP:COMMONNAME? (Not a serious request, but probably a good idea) Achowat (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Catholic Church is not the most common name as per independent Enyclopedic/Dictionery reference sources (see the link in my previous post)[4]. The people who voted for changing the name to Catholic Church were never presented with accurate data on which to base an opinion therefore there is no suggestion that the majority of them acted in anything other than good faith. Wikipedia is way out of line in the naming of this article and it does nothing to dispel the fears of those who think that Imperial Roman Catholicism is normative today. That certainly isn't true, and hasn't been true for many years. As it stands it paints the Church in an aggressive and triumphalist light all too ready if given the chance to trample over anyone who disagrees with her as they believe happened in the past. Yt95 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That list appears to be all tertiary sources, well the first 66. The 10 Secondary Sources listed all list "The Catholic Church". To quote policy "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Achowat (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see how you derived the figures quoted, could you please supply an analysis. Irrespective of Wikipedia legalese it's clear that the overwhelming consensus of sources like Britannica and so on has adopted some variant of Roman Catholicism rather than push an ideologically driven name. Can you take the time to explain why you think the Wikipedia convention is superior ? Yt95 (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) (added. I see you are using the entries I added at the bottom of the page which come from from sources which are making a declaration that "we are the Catholic Church", i.e the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They are of course entitled to their opinion but why should Wikipedia endorse their point of view when the most common name used by independent reference sources do not?)Yt95 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, what I'm saying is that, since you're lobbying for a change in the status quo, the burden of evidence lies on you. Please, go find the reliable, independent, secondary sources that demonstrate RCC is more common than _CC. All I'm saying is that Encyclopediae and Dictionaries (and other Tertiary Sources) don't qualify in that endeavor. I have no horse in this race, but if you're going to claim that RCC is the Common Name, I'm going to ask that you actually demonstrate that. Achowat (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments but the point I'm trying to get across is that with contentious names we have no need to get involved in research which involves trawling around newspaper articles and arguing over the instances of Roman as against Catholic Church. People will argue until the cows come home on this. (e.g If you look at the vast majority of articles printed over the last decade I guess they are mainly on one subject and the writers would be pendants if they used the long form name on every occasion when its clear who the particular Church is.) I repeat why are we so completely out of line with the vast majority of independent reputable Encylopedia's/Dictionaries? If you invoke Wikipedia law then the obvious reply is who wrote it? When the name change came up before they tried to change the policy pages in order to defend the name change they demanded. I haven't kept up with their attempts but something seems far wrong when we are soo completely out of line with an extensive list of mainstream reference sources. I don't believe there is anything to prove, it has already been shown.Yt95 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not accept that the most common name outside of academic usage should necessarily be used (which is more common, "Unification Church" or "Moonies"?) and it is clear that "Catholic Church" is by no means the only name that the Church applies to itself. I agree with Yt95 that a secular encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should be in line with similar encyclopedias in this matter. BUT I also believe that there is no chance, within the Wikipedia system, of getting the title of this article changed now. Esoglou (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless some new spirit comes to the page then I would agree with Esoglou's pragmatic observations. My only posts on this matter have been to correct erroneous assertions relating to how the article name change came about. Basically it stinks, and its not with the odor of sanctity. An enemy of Christianity and peace would no doubt say "keep up the good work boy's, we couldn't have planned it better ourselves" Yt95 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing that "Catholic Church" is POV and "Roman Catholic" is NPOV is backwards. The Catholic Church is easily distinguished from the church catholic. The Roman moniker is enforced from outside, and is only used now either in regard to the Church (diocese) of Rome or to the Latin Church. Just ask the pope - growing up in Nazi Germany he hates the use of Roman, because it was used by the Nazi's to discredit the universal nature of the Catholic Church. Or look to the old Catholic Encyclopedia online, which basically labels it a malicious attack by protestants [sic]. This debate has happened in depth, and it took a long time to get the correct version made official, i absolutely would not want it reverted - clearly there is too much misinformation out there, if people really think that Catholic is a POV issue! 95.227.111.12 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The impossibility of getting a change in Wikipedia is demonstrated by this insult to the Church authorities, including the popes, who have spoken and do speak of the Church as the Roman Catholic Church, who are pictured as spinelessly letting others decide what they themselves are to call the Church; this presenting as fact an imaginative notion that Benedict XVI, who does sometimes use the longer name, actually hates it; this presenting as decisive for a secular publication such as Wikipedia a view expressed by a writer in a century-old non-secular publication ... As I said, a change is impossible. Esoglou (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I.P. -Why have you written 'Nazi's' - its a straight plural the way you use it - should be just 'Nazis' -how can you write for precision on article titles and then write such a stupid thing - and like Esoglou says you then quote an ages old ultramontane? source?? I just went to encylopedia britannica online and searched 'Catholic Church' - and it went to a disambiguation page - it didn't go straight to a specific article - I think wp should get in step here, and stop being mugged off.. Sayerslle (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Throughout this series of interactions the main point made by those who promote the common usage of "Roman Catholic Church" rather than "Catholic Church" without the "Roman" is that the use of the capitalized "Catholic" implies and connotes that this church is the ONLY "universal" (i.e. catholic) church. As pointed out by others, that usage may have been nominally correct pertaining to the Christian church until the schism of 1054. With the split between the two capitals of the Roman Empire and the division of the Christian church into western and eastern the label "Roman Catholic Church" became definitionally appropriate for the western Christian church headquartered in Rome. In the east it became to be known as the Eastern Orthodox Church focused on Constantinople and it continues to hold that it also is catholic - by the definition of the Greek origins of the word. The heading for this article - focused on the Christian church headquartered in Rome - should be reverted to "Roman Catholic Church".Moryak (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that, as has already been explained above, this argument is completely irrelevant. No one gets pissed at "The Church of Christ" for their name, or "The Orthodox Church" for their name. And there's nothing stopping other groups from naming themselves the Catholic Church. Ultimately, this is irrelevant though, as it has no bearing on naming convention policies.Farsight001 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not know why making such problem: Roman Catholic Church has already its article - Latin Church. The lead information as it is now is in fact MISLEADING and abusing NPOV. To call Catholic Church: "The Roman Catholic Church" is a bit like calling all North Americans WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). All others, like Afro Americans, are not mentioned. Are they not North Americans? "The Roman Catholic Church" is a narrower name. It is part of the Catholic Church, which includes also Eastern rite Catholic Churches, which ARE NOT "Roman Catholics", they are "Greek Catholics" etc. In the Ukraine there are several million Greek Catholics. You cannot just ignore them. Their Catholicity is expressed by acknowledging the primacy of the Pope. Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic churches accept the Pope and the teaching of faith and form together the Catholic Church. All these churches' origin goes back to Christ and the Apostles. To summarize, I think these four things are missing in the lead article: 1. explanation that it is wider common name for both Roman and Greek Catholics, 2. primacy of Peter, 3. origin in Christ and Apostles. I think also that detailed information about the statistics and mission should go to separate section.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again! READ THE ARCHIVES! Even if you don't agree with it being so, the most common name for the Roman Catholic Church in English is simply the Catholic Church, period, and within Wikipedia, articles are named after the most common name. Also, "Roman" is not the same as "Latin". "Roman" means under the Roman Pope, it doesn't mean "Roman Rite." All Latin and Greek Catholics are Roman Catholics. Due to particular contexts and histories, some Greek Catholics do not like to be called "Roman." Fine, yet, many others, not only have no problem with it, they even call themselves it. There are plenty of "Byzantine Roman Catholic Churches" going around. So, since there are official sources for both names, sources coming from both official Church documents as well as independent academic sources, we come back to the Common name rule. They many be catholic, but Orthodox don't call themselves colloquially Catholics (you should only look at the Discussion Page on the "Orthodox Catholic Church" article and see how many Orthodox argue for the "Catholic" to be withdrawn from the name). By the same token, Anglicans do not call themselves Catholics, and so forth.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggested "The One True Church of Rome" a few years back, but it didn't go over well.  :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You write "Roman" means under the Roman Pope, it doesn't mean "Roman Rite." Any reliable source? It looks like you created this definition for your own needs.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC):

You got nerves! Yet, I'll play, but won't reinvent the wheel. Why don't you read Roman Catholic (term). There you'll fine plenty of sources as to the different uses of the word "Roman Catholic" and as to the OFFICIAL use of the word. Roman means "under the Roman Bishop" or Pope, although it is also used for Roman Rite and for Western Church (which also include many non-Roman rites), those are different uses of the word, not the principal use.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand how this is controversial. Is there any ambiguity about the term "Catholic Church" as a proper noun? This is in contrast to "Roman Catholic Church," which can be used to refer specifically to the Latin rite. There are many churches which claim to be catholic. There is only one which is named the Catholic Church. I'd add that virtually every denomination uses a name which, strictly speaking, might be seen to impinge on the claims of other churches. Aren't all Christians Disciples of Christ? Aren't there many Evangelical Lutherans in the United States who do not belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? Aren't there many churches in England besides the Church of England? If all these titles are acceptable, what's the problem with Catholic Church? john k (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to find out the reason why you have difficulties with understanding. I think it's the problem of methodology.

FIRST: ACADEMIC. Wikipedia supports referring to the systematic, academic knowledge. You do not cite any theological sources. Do you draw your ideas from your own research? But neither the Church, nor the Wikipedia is a matter of your own ideas.

SECOND: THEOLOGY. In 2 Peter 1,20-21 we read: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation etc. (RSV) The same is with understanding of the church being one. At the Council of Nicea (AD 325) the Church of Christ was described as "one, holy, catholic (=universal), apostolic (=apostolic succession)". Catholic and Orthodox churches stick to what we call Apostolic Tradition (see art. Sacred Tradition). Its basic principle is that consecutive generation of Christians cannot decide anything essentially new about the Church. Accordingly, also Protestant theologians, who profess the Nicean creed, accept the concept of onness of the Church. But because Protestant Christians separated from the Catholic Church, abandoned – on their own demand – the Apostolic succession, they need to explain it "spiritually". Where there is no real unity you may always about "spiritual"one ;-). But the Catholic church teaches that both the spiritual and visible unity needs to come together.

SUMMARY: In this article about the Catholic Church, you cannot speak but using academic and apostolic traditional theology concepts, lest you end up in describing the protestant idea of the church saying it is Catholic. The Catholic and, in deed, Orthodox churches do teach real unity based on communion with the bishop, becouse it is the heritage we received from Christ and Apostles (see e.g. John D, Zizioulas Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon (2001), Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist The Bishop During the First Three Centuries, Brookline, Massachusetts, USA).--Quodvultdeus (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This Is NOT the proper term as otherwise there would be no disambiguation, it is the term in WESTERN discourse (And lets not cite google popularity as this is not a popularity context to parrot what a search enginse says for an encyclopaedia) its supposed to be globalised when thre are "CATHOLIC churches beyon g the scope of the west.

Lets sort this out before we remove the tags.(Lihaas (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)).

Lihaas wrote "it is the term in WESTERN discourse". Right, and this is the English Wikipedia so one might expect that there would be a bias towards English usage as opposed to, say, Russian or Greek usage.

Lihaas wrote "lets not cite google popularity as this is not a popularity context to parrot what a search enginse says for an encyclopaedia". The issue here is that the number of Google hits gives some indication of what name the sources use.

Once again, consult WP:COMMONNAME which says:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google hits do not necessarily indicate which is the prevailing term in academic sources in English. Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait...what?! Why did User:Lihaas remove the sentence "The Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation."? And then say "see talk" when what they posted has nothing to do with removal of this sentence? I am failing to see why this sentence is controversial. Does anyone dispute that the Catholic Church is old? And does anyone dispute that, for good or ill, the Church has played a major role in Western history?

@Esoglou - WP:COMMONNAME specifies "reliable English-language sources," which doesn't necessarily translate to academic sources alone. It in fact states "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms..." I would argue that academic sources tend to be more concerned with technical correctness than common usage. However, if the number of academic sources outnumbers the number of other reliable secondary sources, then I suppose they would meet the COMMONNAME test.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I misled. By "academic sources" I just meant what you would call really reliable sources. I certainly support "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". I think sources should be given the weight that each merits. For instance, that an encyclopedia should be given more weight than a news magazine. I don't think a head count of Google hits regardless of quality is good enough. Am I attributing too much significance to "typically" as opposed to "numerously"? Esoglou (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily simplify it down to g-hits either, and I do agree that some discrimination is required - not everything that pops up on Google can reasonably be considered a reliable source, after all. However, I think the impetus behind WP:COMMONNAME is to ensure that when people search for a term, they get the right article...hence the emphasis on "most typically." In today's media-saturated society, I would postulate that the average person's introduction to any given topic will most likely be on TV or the Internet, with magazines and newspapers as runners-up and encyclopedias and scholarly journals rather far behind, hence the danger in preferentially weighting for academic sources.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We agree partially and, it seems, disagree partially. I leave it at that. Esoglou (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What's important to note when determining what the common name for a topic, is that most tertiary sources (like encyclopedias and dictionaries) often don't rise to the level of "reliable". Achowat (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Serious encyclopedias certainly do. Much more than do TV programmes, Internet sites and magazine articles. Esoglou (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are, by definition, a collection of facts and figures from secondary and primary sources. They apply their own rubrics and policies as to what they name their entries. Wikipedia should be applying our own policies, not simply copying the procedures done by other tertiary sources. Achowat (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So one says, it is incorrect to change it back to Roman Catholic Church as it is an insult. How can this be? The Orthodox Church calls itself the "Catholic Church" as well, the only reason I see this name was changed was to reinforce Roman Catholic view that it is the "true Catholic Church". It should stay Roman Catholic Church as it has been, so it is not biased against the other churches that calls itself "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH". It is extremely aggravating to see this great fight to claim apostolic supremacy over all other churches who also have the same claims. Let it be neutral and call the Orthodox the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church it claims as we do now, but also call the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church as it is claimed now. If not that, then please for the love of God make it so "Catholic Church" redirects to the disambiguation page!75.73.114.111 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the Orthodox Church calls itself the "catholic church"; which is worlds away from "The Catholic Church". But I'm sure if you asked the Pope, himself, he would say that his church is both Orthodox and the premier Church of Christ. On Wikipedia, we don't care, not even a little bit, what is true. Especially when it comes to matters of faith, where 'true' can, by definition, never be proved. What we care about is verifiability. What do the reliable sources say? What do the secondary sources say? What each and every one of them says is that "Catholic Church" is a body run by the Benedict XVI, at least in English. In fact, the vast, vast majority of our readers have no idea what "Catholic" as a word means outside the confines of the Church in Communion with Rome. I think if there really was some massive conspiracy to demonstrate through Wikipedia that the Catholic Church was "right", we'd go about it in a much, much less subtle way. Achowat (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The article title cannot actually make a distinction between "catholic Church" and "Catholic Church", since it needs to begin with an upper-cased letter. Also, the article "Church of Christ" actually refers to a disambiguation page.

And the "Eastern Orthodox Church" claims indeed "Catholic Church" as one of its names. Eastern Orthodox Saint Raphael of Brooklyn stated clearly enough, "The (Orthodox) Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document". :::The following book also claims that "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" (I'm sorry if someone feels offended by this statement). And the following "Roman Catholic" book also claims that "the Greek and Russian Churches, no less than our own, claim and use this title of Catholic".

Also the following English book claims that both "Orthodox Church" and "Catholic Church" can be potentially misleading expressions, since they're both used by more than one Church, "The simple title "Orthodox Church" is potentially misleading, just as the title "Catholic Church" is for the Roman Catholic Church, since the term "Orthodox", like the term "Catholic", is used by other Churches too". (An the article about the "Eastern Orthodox Church" is not titled "Orthodox Church", nor should it be titled that way.)

And WP:COMMONNAME actually states that we are not forced to use the most common name, when there are problems with it. "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". In my opinion, it would be more appropriate for Wikipedia to have this article titled "Roman Catholic Church" (or perhaps something like "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)" or "(Roman) Catholic Church", which were suggested in previous debates), and using "Catholic Church" as a redirect should be enough. I'm sorry that some people dislike the term "Roman Catholic", but there is enough evidence that the Vatican has also used it sometimes in its own documents, and it is clearly not a pejorative term like "Papist" or "Popish". However, I do not really expect an agreement will be reached in this discussion (but, I'm not surprised this issue was mentioned again). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Cody7777777 when it comes to discussion of Catholic-Orthodox topics. In this case, I disagree with him but his comments should be taken with all due consideration and not dismissed lightly.

That said, I would argue that there are problems with both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" but the title "Catholic Church" is sufficiently more common that the condition "all of them fairly common" is not as applicable in this case.

I don't deny for a minute that the Orthodox and Anglican churches consider themselves so Catholic that they might even be "more Catholic than the Pope". Nonetheless, I would be astonished if anybody asked in a conversation, "Wait a minute, when you say 'Catholic Church', do you mean the Anglican or Orthodox church or the one in communion with the bishop of Rome?". I would think that they were disingenuously trying to start a dispute rather than truly confused as to my meaning. In theory, The simple title "Orthodox Church" is potentially misleading, just as the title "Catholic Church" is for the Roman Catholic Church, since the term "Orthodox", like the term "Catholic", is used by other Churches too but, in practice, no one is misled and this discussion is about ecclesiastical and theological controversies, not about ambiguity in naming.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction of phrase "One true Church"

WHAT: I suggest correcting the following phrase: "it teaches that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ".

The phrases should read: "It teaches that Christ founded a single Church, and that it is, together with the Orthodox churches, by virtue of the Apostolic succession, an embodiment of that church. Moreover, it preserves the primacy of the Apostle Peter, believing it to be one of internal constitutive principles of the Christian church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church)"

WHY: The official teaching of the Church, i.e. "Lumen gentium", 8 and the declaration "Dominus Iesus" 17, says that one church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, but also in other Apostolic local churches, i.e. Orthodox ones.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither Lumen gentium nor Dominus Iesus say that the one Church of Christ subsists anywhere else but in the (Roman) Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they do not use the word "subsist", instead "Dominus Iesus" 17 speaks about "presence" and "operation" of the one Church of Christ in those churches: "The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church,"--Quodvultdeus (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"~The ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. [...] The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities. Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You are not very precise, are you? We speak about Orthodox churches. They have Apostolic succession and valid Eucharist. The Church of Christ is present and operative in them ("Dominus Iesus" 17)--Quodvultdeus (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that the RCC does "teach that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ." It is a matter of perspectives. From the Orthodox perspective, the Roman Patriarch split from the Pentarchy, from Orthodoxy, from the "one, true Church." From the Catholic perspective, the Eastern Bishops split from Rome, from under his authority. I'm no saying either view is correct. I agree, as you stated, that the one true Church split in two. Yet technically, as Catholics believe that Christ left Peter as his Vicar, since Orthodoxy doesn't recognize the Pope authority, is it not part of the "one true Church." Besides, your suggestion is too wordy and excluding the first sentence, the same ideas are expressed in the following sentences.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment. My aim is to make the lead information more exact in reference to the teaching of the Church. The accuracy can be checked by, actually, referring to the Magisterial documents, independent authors and third-party publications. It's a pity that you do not refer in your comment to any of them. Your point of reference seems to be your own ideas. Because you do not seem to get my point, I explain the correction once again. It has two sentences:

FIRST SENTENCE speaks about Catholic and Orthodox churches in relation to the Church of Christ.

SECOND SENTENCE refers to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

According to "Dominus Iesus" it is not true that the Catholic Church thinks of herself as of "the one church", i.e. the only one true church. The Orthodox churches are "Sister-churches" to local Catholic churches. They together form "one church". The Church of Christ subsists, is present and operates in them, though they are not in perfect communion. In the whole of the article the primacy of the Pope is not mentioned even once. Instead, you can find the word "paramountcy" - and who knows what it means?--Quodvultdeus (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, this is the second time you accuse me of writing about my own ideas. I am really getting tired of this. I proved you wrong the first time, and here is my answer now. You asked for Magisterial documents, "independent authors and third-party publications". Well, I think (and this is indeed my opinion) that Magisterial documents take precedence over other authors and publications as to the "teachings of the Church" and since you mentioned it first, why don't you read the whole paragraph you are quoting in "Dominus Iesus?" Please pay attention to the following, specially the lines I have in bold:

16. "...The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully ONLY in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative ALSO in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

As you can see, specially in the last sentence, the Church teaches that the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these other Churches (including Orthodoxy), but the Church of Christ continues to exist ONLY in the Catholic Church, governed by the Pope.

As to the whole idea you are trying to point out, since this is an article about the Roman Catholic Church, no about Ecumenism, there is no point in explicitly using the word "Primacy" (Primus inter pares) or mentioning the Orthodox Church in the LEAD of the article. It should be mentioned somewhere else in the article, I agree, but not in the lead. Moreover, within the Catholic Church, there is no "Primus inter Pares." Lumen Gentium 22 states: "The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the Universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff." The Pope is the Head of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff. Also, the lead does mentions that "the Pope is the sole successor to Saint Peter," which implicitly talks about Primacy. Yet, I do agree with you. There is need for Primacy to be at least mentioned and explained somewhere in the article, as it is indeed paramountcy.

In case you question my comment form Orthodoxy's perspective, they do assert that "if a person carefully examines the history of Christianity, he or she will soon discover that the Orthodox Church ALONE is in complete sacramental, doctrinal, and canonical continuity with the ancient UNDIVIDED Church as it authoritatively expressed itself in the great Ecumenical Councils." For them, the Catholic Church is schismatic.

--Coquidragon (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Coquidragon is right. As for Dominus Iesus, according to this document Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and similar local churches are "sister churches" of local Catholic churches, but are in schism from the (Roman) Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is present and operates in them, as and even more than it does in ecclesial communities that do not qualify as sister churches, but it does not subsist in them. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. You started referring to the documents, that's an improvement. We may now discuss where we differ in understanding what that document "Dominus Iesus" affirms. There is one phrase that, according to me, you misinterpret. You seem to neglect one small word that is a key word for this issue. You quote the document capitalizing the word ONLY: continues to exist fully ONLY in the Catholic Church

You understand this phrase in the following way. These are your own words: "the Church of Christ continues to exist ONLY in the Catholic Church, governed by the Pope".

Let's write the same phrase from "Dominus Iesus" capitalizing another word, which is a key word, and which you dropped: continues to exist FULLY only in the Catholic Church. This FULLY adds important thing to the understanding of ONLY. The document later explains:"Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these (Eastern Orthodox) Churches, even though they lack FULL communion with the Catholic Church". They are not in full communion, but as "Dominus Iesus" puts it – and indeed the same said earlier the Vaticanum II document on ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio in the chapter entitled The special position of the eastern churches (n.14ff): they remain united to her (Roman Church) by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, (and so they) are true particular Churches (Dominus Iesus 17). So if the document says that Eastern Orthodox churches are true particular churches of the one Church of Christ, which is present and operative in them, why do you dare to say that outside the Roman Church there is no Church of Christ? Do you not agree with the document that it is present and operative there? Orthodox churches are part of the one Church of Christ and that's what Catholic doctrine teaches. Yes, they are in communion with her that is weakened by human sins. ( i.e. the glass is half full :-).

Regarding primacy of Peter. It's one of distinctive features of the Catholic church, because on the pastoral ministry of Peter Christ has built his church (cf. Mt 16,18; J 21:17; Mt 28:18; Lumen Gentium 8). To the point that both Tridentine Profession of Faith (Denzinger-Shönmetzer n.1862 and 1868) and The First Vatican Council's De fide catholica (DS 3001) call the Church of Christ Sancta Romana Ecclesia and they do not mean just Latin Church, but this name also includes Greek Catholic Churches. Why then do you say it is an unimportant "ecumenical" issue in the description of the Catholic Church?--Quodvultdeus (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"True particular churches of the one Church of Christ" is not found in Dominus Iesus, which says that "the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities". Surely we have now, on all sides, indulged in quite enough original research on the relationship between the Church of Christ and Christian communities, churches or not, that lack full communion with the (Roman) Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Esoglou, I do not know how you have read "Dominus Iesus". I paste the passage from this document, which explicitly speaks about true particular churches. It is literally the second sentence of n. 17: "The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches." The document refers (footnote 59) to: "Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14 and 15; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17: AAS 85 (1993), 848"--Quodvultdeus (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking your original research says that, since the document speaks of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, the Church of the East, the Polish National and other churches as linked with the Catholic Church by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, they are part of the Church of Christ, and my original research says that it can be held that the ecclesial communities which only have other elements of the Church of Christ can on similar grounds be considered part of the Church of Christ? Is it not time for both of us to abandon what in Wikipedia is purposeless and to recognize that only what is explicitly stated in reliable sources can be inserted into Wikipedia articles? Esoglou (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you let's stick to "what is explicitly stated in reliable sources". Those sources, e.g. Dominus Iesus 17, speak explicitly about the eastern churches, saying that the Church of Christ is "present and operative" in them, while about the Protestant communities it explicitly says that they are not proper churches: "On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense"("DOminus Iesus 17 Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.). So I see that we have come to common conclusion: in the lead information we shall put what is explicitly stated in reliable source, i.e. Dominus Iesus--Quodvultdeus (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the purpose of mentioning the Orthodox Church and how they relate to the Catholic Church in the lead of the Catholic Church article. Are you going to do the same with the lead of the Orthodox Church which says: "It is seen by followers to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles almost 2,000 years ago." Like I said, if you want to speak about Ecumenism and the relationship with the Orthodox Church, do it in the article, not in the lead.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole thing seems a little WP:UNDUE. eldamorie (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Quodvultdeus, you began this as an objection to the statement that the Catholic Church "teaches that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ". That statement is supported by a source that states that "the Vatican's doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true church". That should be enough. Instead you have been arguing on the basis of Dominus Iesus that the Catholic Church teaches that the Eastern Orthodox Church is part of the one true church. That is, at best, synthesis on your part. Dominus Iesus does not make that statement. In fact, Dominus Iesus contains neither the word "eastern" nor the word "orthodox"! (As for the Oriental Orthodox, who may have been included in your earlier statements about the "Orthodox" Church, the Catholic Church classifies monophysitism, with which they are associated, as heresy; so that you could have been understood to say that heretical churches are part of the one true church of Christ.) Esoglou (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why in the lead is it all 'the Church etc', or 'the Catholic Church etc', except for 'Roman Catholic doctine ,etc ..infallibility' ...That is a bit jarring. Why isn't it 'Catholic doctine..etc ' to chime with the rest of the lead. Sayerslle (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@Coquidragon - "Like I said, if you want to speak about Ecumenism and the relationship with the Orthodox Church, do it in the article, not in the lead". I wonder if you do not confuse ecumenism with the inter-religious dialogue. The latter has nothing to do with "the one church", while the former is an attempt to restore the primordial unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I hope this answer suffices. It is a matter of the following question: whether outside of the holy Roman church there is a void, or there are particular churches that are not in full communion with her but they are part of the one catholic and apostolic church established by Christ. The lead suggests now that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church there is void, while the documents say there isn't – outside of the holy Roman church there are local Orthodox sister-churches.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer line by line.

"I wonder if you do not confuse ecumenism with the inter-religious dialogue. The latter has nothing to do with "the one church", while the former is an attempt to restore the primordial unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." The only one confusing terms is you. I have not spoken about any other religion: Buddhism, Islam, Judaism... The relationship between the RCC and the Orthodox Church is ecumenical, seeking that same unity you speak about.

"I hope this answer suffices." Not really, but I wasn't expecting for it to do.

"It is a matter of the following question: whether outside of the holy Roman church there is a void, or there are particular churches that are not in full communion with her but they are part of the one catholic and apostolic church established by Christ." Second Vatican Council solved the question with the introduction of the word "subsistit in". I don't have anything to add. If you don't understand the term, that's your problem.

"The lead suggests now that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church there is void, while the documents say there isn't – outside of the holy Roman church there are local Orthodox sister-churches." That's your interpretation. Other editors in this Discussion Page and in its 53 archived pages seem to disagree with you. "There is a void." That's quite a stretch and, again, a misinterpretation of what the lead says. Stop over thinking and read what the lead actually says.

Thanks.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Coquidragon, I hope you will still have a bit of patience to explain to me what this sentence taken from "Dominus Iesus" 17 says: "Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack FULL communion with the Catholic Church". And what does the following lead phrase says regarding these churches that lack full communion with the Catholic Church: "It teaches that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ"?--Quodvultdeus (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that you, who have many times in the past have requested for me to leave my original research aside and provide secondary sources, are using original research that consists in misinterpreting the sources provided. Here is a link to an article written by Fernando Ocáriz, consultor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and member of the Pontifical Theological Academy, who happens to be one of the primary authors of Dominus Iesus[5]. He clarifies both phrases "subsists" and "present and operative." I hope your confusion gets clarified with it. Just in case, here are two additional sources. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, #8, states "this Church, constituted and organized as a society in this present, world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although (licet) many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity". From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (BTW, the actual Catechism is CCC not CRCC, having dropped the "Roman" from its title): 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." [LG 15] Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." [UR 3] With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." [Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18].

I really hope these sources make my point, yet, to put it in my own words: The CC is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, of which traces can be found outside of it, specially in your particular churches.--Coquidragon (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Esoglou - "Dominus Iesus contains neither the word "eastern" nor the word "orthodox"!" If you read attentively the document you will notice, that Dominus Iesus reffers to ch. 1 (nn.14 and 15) of the Vatican II document "Unitatis redintegratio", whose title is: "The Special Consideration of the Eastern Churches". And it says:it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves. Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches. I think, when you try to say "Dominus Iesus" doesn't speak about those churches you have started playing on words to annul the content of the document. But that doesn't help to find the truth.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The article cites an authoritative source that expressly says "the Vatican's doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true church, even if elements of truth can be found in separated churches and communities". Only if you can find a reliable source that actually says what you want the article to say can you insert what (at least so far) is merely a personal idea of yours for which you are presenting arguments of your own personal devising. Until then, the Wikipedia article must accept what is stated by a reliable source that requires no interpretation or arguing. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope you have had good time celebrating the Easter and you have noticed that I am not that heretic as you tend to think of me. You agree that, compared to the authority of the document itself, the authority of your source is less important. That is why I want to quote the document – not to interpret it. The passage in the lead would read like this: "It teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ, that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles and that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches (Dominus Iesus 17)." If you do not agree to quote Dominus Iesus – instead you will prefer to quote someone from the Congregation, I wonder if you place that person above the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and, eventually, of the Pope.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems then that we agree that by Wikipedia rules the article can continue to state that the Catholic Church teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

If you want something added about the Catholic Church's teaching on the relation of other groups of Christians (not only those, such as the Old Catholics, who have a valid Eucharist) to the one true Church, how about this statement by the Congregation from the Doctrine of the Faith: "It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word 'subsists' can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the 'one' Church); and this 'one' Church subsists in the Catholic Church"? Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

List of some Catholic religious institutes

Achowat, please explain why you think that Catholic religious order (which is only about a minority class of Catholic religious institutes) is a better wikilink for "List of Catholic religious institutes" than List of some religious institutes (Catholic). Esoglou (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed a linked page with real information that may help the reader to understand the topic at hand and replaced it with a poorly-sourced and poorly formatted list with no real information whatsoever. If there is a consensus to change, by all means, but I simply don't think that List of some religious institutes (Catholic) is a beneficial link to the reader from such an over-arching survey article as this. Achowat (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of List of some religious institutes (Catholic). It would be impossible to give, within reasonable length, a complete list of Catholic religious institutes, even limited to those that have reached the stage of being classified as "of pontifical right"; and in my opinion this arbitrary list of some Catholic religious institutes should be deleted. However, do you really think it better to give as the "List of Catholic religious institutes" a list limited to institutes that a) can be called "orders"; b) are for males only, excluding women; c) are of Latin Rite only, excluding institutes of the Eastern Catholic Churches? That is surely an even worse solution. The current (2012) Annuario Pontificio devotes 259 pages to its list of pontifical-right Catholic religious institutes, but your solution presents as the only Catholic religious institutes that exist those that fit into a mere 19 of those 259 pages of the Annuario Pontificio, in spite of occupying individually much more space than is given to each individual institute for women.

Omit the reference completely? Esoglou (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the obvious solution would just be to list both. Catholic religious order is a useful page for those looking for information in regards to that, and it would seem that (if sufficiently useful) so could a page listing some, most, or all Religious Institutes (I'm to understand that that term means something explicit in Catholicism). Why not See Also: [[Catholic religious order]] & [[List of Catholic religious institutes|List of some religious institutes (Catholic)]]? Achowat (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

May I take this as acceptance of List of some Catholic religious institutes?

As for adding Catholic religious order, I think there is at least as much justification for including Catholic religious congregation (more numerous) or, better, Catholic religious institute, which comprises both religious orders and religious congregations. Any addition of this kind would raise the question of whether to add also the less numerous Catholic societies of apostolic life and Catholic secular institutes. Esoglou (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You speak of these things as though they are part of a larger grouping, in that Religious Institutes and Societies and Secular Institutes are all under one overall umbrella. I'm pleading ignorance here, is that true? Is there an all-encompassing term for all of these bodies? Achowat (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholic religious orders and Catholic religious congregation are subgroups of Catholic religious institute, as the three articles on them show. In turn, Catholic religious institutes are, together with Catholic secular institutes, subgroups of Catholic institutes of consecrated life, as likewise indicated. Catholic societies of apostolic life, which are sometimes colloquially, though falsely, referred to as orders, are similar, but the members do not take religious vows; they include long-established groups such the Vincentian Fathers and some well-known missionary societies such as Maryknoll. While "institute of consecrated life" is a widely-embracing term (comprising religious institutes, whether orders or congregations, and secular institutes) there is no all-embracing term that also includes societies of apostolic life (and no more): this is shown by the title of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Esoglou (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems you have a much, much stronger understanding of these things than I, so I'm going to default to you (absent anyone else engaging in this conversation). Achowat (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I will restore the wikilink to the page that, in spite of my dislike of it, is more appropriate than the wikilink that I changed from. Another solution, to which I would have no objection whatever, would be to remove "See also: List of Catholic religious institutes". Esoglou (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

See Also

Hi!

I edited the lists of Catholic scientists and artists to add in the word "some", because, such lists are incomplete.

Oct13 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Order of Sacraments

So, there seems to be some dispute as to whether the Sacraments should be listed Baptism-Eucharist-Confirmation (as it stood) or Baptism-Confirmation-Eucharist. I am lobbying for the former since that is the order that most Catholics are given the sacraments, as well as the (cited) line from the Eucharist blurb "For Catholics, the Eucharist is the sacrament which completes Christian initiation". Another user (who I will inform of this discussion) has suggested the latter is more accurate as it is the order that Adult Converts are given the sacraments and it is (I'm told) the order the Catechism lists them (I apologize, I don't have my catechism handy). What do other editors think is the better option for order, B-E-C or B-C-E? Achowat (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the line that "For Catholics, the Eucharist is the sacrament which completes Christian initiation" supports the listing (and administering) of the Rite of Confirmation first. The relatively recent practice of performing Confirmation later than Eucharist (generally during junior high or high school) has led to a misunderstanding of Confirmation as some sort of "rite of passage" or "adult initiation". In fact, Confirmation was once traditionally administered as soon as individuals reached the age of reason (7 or 8) with Eucharist soon after, thereby "complet[ing] Christian initiation". The Pope recently praised the Bishop of Fargo for reordering the Sacraments in this fashion. I personally would be inclined to list them in the order in which they appear in the CCC, rather than in the order in which we're pretty sure a lot of people have gone through them, especially as there seems to be a strong movement towards reordering them here in the West.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

BCE is the official order, with Eucharist, as you said, as "the sacrament which completes Christian initiation", not a stepping stone towards later completion in another sacrament. BCE was the normal order even for Latin Catholics (and remember that not all Catholic are Latin) until Pius X encouraged earlier reception of Communion. The custom of giving Communion while maintaining an older age for Confirmation was not sanctioned by him but became general among Latin Catholics. So it is a recent anomaly, limited to Latin countries, one that in some countries is being gradually abandoned. See the explanation given for the change in one United States diocese, restoring the correct order of the three sacraments of initiation. Most dioceses in the United States have not yet changed back, but in New Zealand the restoration is complete. Esoglou (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

CCC 1212 The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life.

CCC 1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation.

See also CCC 1233 for the difference between Eastern and Western practices.

Oct13 (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church Issue Again

The correct terminology is The Roman Catholic Church. Other ecclesiastical bodies--Including the Anglican Communion and the various Orthodox churches--also correctly claim Catholic traditions.

MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)