Talk:Catholic Church

Discussion Archives: 1 | 2

Terminology

I dare anyone who is confused on the topic of "Roman Catholic" to go to a Greek Catholic Mass (aka - Byzantine Catholic), walk up to the biggest guy after mass and keep insisting he is a "Roman Catholic". Then bring other Greek Catholics in on the coversation. Tell them they are all Roman Catholics. Get in their face and tell them what you think they are. Expect a trip to the hopsital. :)

--Robertsussell 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

...or try going to a church ministered to by, say, a member of the Federation of Catholic Priests or the Catholic League - both Anglican organisations - and tell them that their faith is not "Catholic". Your comment is pithy, but not actually helpful. TSP 11:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By calling the Catholic Church, "the Catholic Church", how do you conclude that Anglican Catholics and other Christians are not Catholics?

In ecumenical circles, we acknowledge the name of the Catholic Church as that, and not "Roman Catholic Church", whch refers only to either the diocese of Rome, or the Latin Rite Catholic Church. Anglicans et al., are catholic, but not Catholic; they are part of the Church catholic, but not the Catholic Church. It really is that simple. Protoclete 08:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my citations lower down this debate of a number of significant ecumenical interactions in which the church has described itself as the "Roman Catholic Church"; including some, such as this, in which the panels representing the "Roman Catholic Church" seem to have included members of Eastern Catholic churches. I'm afraid that if you want your statement to be taken into account, you will need to provide citations, not merely assert it. TSP 12:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We are going to deal with each Christian Church equally or we are not. "The Church of Christ" is a Protestant denomination, but all Christians belong to the Church of Christ, more specifically a united Church of Christ. Are we to change those Church names in order to not offend anyone? The Catholic Church is an "Orthodox" Church with Eastern Churches within it. If we are to use the same standard, we need to change the article on "Eastern Orthodox Churches" to "National Eastern Orthodox Churches", so as to remain "neutral".

--Robertsussell 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

True, to an extent. The particular problem here is that the term "Catholic Church" is one that is explicitly claimed by other large groups (not necessarily to apply to themselves, but to apply to a different set of people to the one this article is about - try searching for 'catholic church' within the Church of England website) and which the church itself admits is too controversial to use in dialogues with many other groups. This is an issue which has been argued over for centuries; for some people it would be an extremely controversial move for Wikipedia to suddenly grant the title to one 'side'.

Why are we selective with the "Catholic Church"? Do various denominations of Christians believe in baptism or are the "Baptists" the only believers in baptism? Are the Orthodox Churches the only "Orthodox" Churches? Are all Christians members of the Church of Christ, or is this restricted to actual members of the "Church of Christ"?

There are two main political parties in the United States. Americans understand that you can be a believer in republicanism, and at the same time not be a member of the "Republican Party". We understand that you can be a believer in democracy, and at the same time not be a member of the "Democratic Party".

Wikipedia has granted the title to one 'side' when it comes to the above churches and political parties, why can't they do the same for the "Catholic Church". Or is there a double standard? --Robertsussell 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I Have to agree with you. There's a definite push against calling the Church what it officially calls itself. Is it anti-Catholic, I don't think so at least consciously and to be fair many Catholics are now confused by the term, but everyone certainly seems to be very wary of the term in order to appease non-Catholics. Not the stuff of quality in an encyclopedia I think. My .02. Virgil61 23:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is seeming increasingly clear to me, in any case, that this article should be at least three articles - "Latin-Rite Church" or similar (referring to that particular church which is based in Rome and headed by the Pope); "Catholicism" or similar (referring to the doctrinal basis which is shared by all churches in communion with the Pope; and "Catholic Communion" or similar (referring to the way in which the various particular churches relate to each other and are in communion). The article at present suggests (to a varying degree in different sections) a unity between the three concepts, which the arguments put forward on this page suggest is not the case. If the Latin-rite church is merely one - admittedly by far the largest - among a number of particular churches in communion, then it is wrong that it does not have an article whereas all the others do. TSP 15:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you TSP, I think we are getting somewhere. However, there is no need for three separate articles. Two at most. First “Catholic Church”, where you include everything about the Catholic Church including the "Latin-Rite church"-why separate what is not separate-along with the 20+ other rite/churches in communion with the Pope.(Wiki would simply eliminate the "Roman" and its done!) Then you can either or, OR BOTH , include "catholic" churches not in communion with the Pope within "Catholic Church" article and/or as part of another article on "Catholicism" in general.

I think your initial misunderstanding occurred by implicating that by utilizing the term "Catholic Church" it automatically implied that Anglicans were not catholic. It is simply not the case. For if Anglicans or any other “cathlolic”church believed themselves to be catholic so be it. (they are simply not in communion with the Pope and the chronologically original, “Catholic Church” )

Now, if King Henry the VIII would not have presumed that since the Pope resided in Rome he must be some kind of "Roman" political/religious King thus a "Roman __ Church" (not to mention the desperate a need for a divorce) then we more than likely would not even be having this discussion. You might be curious to look up Anglican Use Liturgy within the Roman rite church... here are a couple of sites http://www.cin.org/anguse.html and http://www.atonementonline.com/anglican_use.php . There you have the best of all worlds you describe: Anglican, Roman(rite)Catholic, and all in communion with the chronologically initial Catholic and Apostolic Church, presently lead here on earth by the German national, but universal Catholic-Christian citizen, Pope Benedict XVI. You see, national boundaries do not exist within an unseparated Universal Church of God as is described biblically "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." (Eph 2:19-20) and united in "mind and thought" (1 Cor 1:10). Honestly,IMO, once you separate by national boundaries and divisions it has lost its very "catholic"(universal) nature. Micael 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"headed by the Pope" (TSP, 15:50, 28 February 2006 ). The whole of the Catholic Church (in Micael's sense) is headed by the Pope. "By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care" (canon 333 of the Code of Canon Law). Apart from using the term "eparchies" in place of "particular Churches", canon 45 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says exactly the same. I am sure TSP knows this. I am not so sure certain other contributors know it: they seem almost to reduce the Pope to "Patriarch of the West", a title that is no longer among the Pope's official titles (cf. Annuario Pontificio 2006). Lima 10:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

---

If the writer admits that the term "Roman" Catholic Church is the less proper term, by stating "commonly known as the Catholic Church". Then it seem the writer admits his stubborn bias. The right thing to do is to use the proper name, avoid ingnorant confusion, recognize that there is an entire half of the world that is not "Roman" Catholic, but Eastern Catholic which are in full communion with the Holy See in the Vatican but not of the Roman(Latin) Rite. Thus, the correct term for the entire(general) Church as simply Catholic Church. See my complete commentary 3 PP below. Micael Feb 18, 2006

I agree with the above. All the titles of Catholic documents in the article, and the quotations taken from them, reflect the fact that the Church calls itself simply "Catholic Church", the term used by an overwhelming majority of Catholics worldwide in all their languages. The filing of the article under "Roman Catholic Church", along with the numerous inclusions of that term in the opening paragraphs of the article, seems to be about something other than description: someone's POV is being served. This impression is not alleviated by the fact that some of the people policing what the Catholic Church may or may not call itself seem far from NPOV on the question (not to single anyone out unfairly, but one ardent defender of the term "Roman Catholic" actually cites on his user page that he is the child of a Protestant Bishop). It's not Wikipedia's role to impose on the Catholic Church a name chosen for it by its opponents: it's an encyclopedia, not a tract. (Unsigned comment added by User:24.201.5.234)

I'm largely 'policing' because of the concensus reached here, after major discussion which you can see here. Whatever your opinions, this change does need to be discussed, not merely changed by one editor.

What concensus? Based on my gloss of the page, it looks like you guarding the door against every other opinion: TSP contra mundum. Or do you represent a larger, unseen constituency?

Then you are mis-remembering; please read the page history, and you will find that reverts from "Catholic" back to "Roman Catholic" have also been done, just in the last few weeks, by User:Lima, User:Pollinator and User:WikiCats, and by many others previous to that; at least some of whom are Catholics, and at least one of which came to this article of the opinion that the term used should be 'Catholic' and has been persuaded by the arguments. The majority of regular editors of this page, as far as I can tell, support the article remaining at 'Roman Catholic Church' (see 'Straw Poll', though it wasn't as well-phrased as it might have been so didn't get as many replies as it might have); the issue has been extensively discussed (quite a lot of which discussion, admittedly, is now extremely hard to read because of recent editors inserting their comments into the middle of pre-existing debates) and previous 'rounds of debate' have always ended with the page remaining at 'Roman Catholic Church'. TSP 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As has been said many, many times (which is why it's important to discuss these things and read the previous debates), Roman Catholic is NOT a term chosen for the church by its opponents; it is a compromise term, accepted and used in official documents by the church in ecumenical dealings with churches who do not accept its claim to be the Catholic (i.e. universal) church. TSP 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this article part of an ecumenical exercise?

It is certainly not a publication on behalf of the Church. The task of presenting the Church in a neutral fashion, as required by Wikipedia's policies, is nearer to the task of presenting the Church in an ecumenical context - i.e. in a way that is acceptable to all - than it is to the task of presenting the Church in the Church's chosen fashion. Wikipedia, to remain neutral, must give equal standing to the views of all churches; so yes, effectively it is an ecumenical context. TSP 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Try to avoid personal attacks; if you disagree with me, do so based on my arguments, not who I am.

It's not a personal attack: I cited information you posted yourself. I think it's fair, once arguments have been dispatched, to speculate about what might be behind your continued and spirited defense of the term "Roman Catholic", when both the Church being described and the vast majority of its adherents are, judging by the evidence, disinclined to use the term except in rare and minor circumstances, such as the ecumenical dialogues to which you refer.

If I were the only person reverting, that just might be relevant (though it is still, in truth, an argument ad hominem). I am not, so it is not. TSP 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Two considerations have been brought up: Accuracy and the need to avoid ambiguity. Accuracy dictates using the actual name of the Church when discussing it. Who decides the Church's name, itself, or outside parties? As for avoiding ambiguity, Wikipedia's Naming Convention is to "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." When you use the term "Catholic Church" on the street (or anywhere), is your listener *ever* in any doubt as to which Church you are referring to? So the use of "Catholic Church" to refer to the Church of that name will not lead to any real confusion. This means that the use of the name the Church chooses for itself (fulfilling the demands of accuracy) will not cause any real problems of ambiguity; voiding the argument against its use. -- Jack (24.201.5.234)

Who decides the name? Wikipedia policies are clear: outside parties, not the church itself. The Naming Conventions mention many factors to take into account when choosing a name; none of them, as far as I can see, is "use the name which the person or group prefers". As to ambiguity, I know a good many Anglicans who would assert that they are part of the Catholic Church, and call themselves Catholics; if I was in discussion with another Anglican, and they discussed "membership of the Catholic Church", for example, I would take them to mean the whole universal church. Your quote above missed out the second clause of the sentence: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"; or, elsewhere, "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." "Catholic", "Catholic Church" or "Catholicism" do have two widely-recognised and distinct meanings, as the Catholicism page cites from Webster: "Catholicism has two main ecclesiastical meanings, described in Webster's Dictionary as: a) 'the whole orthodox Christian church, or adherence thereto'; and b) 'the doctrines or faith of the Roman Catholic church, or adherence thereto.'" If Wikipedia were to decide that "Catholic" meant "in communion with the Pope", it would no longer have a term with which to debate the relationship between the church in union with the pope, and the catholic - that is, universal - church; this is, of course, because official Roman Catholic Church doctrine is that they are the same thing. It is not Wikipedia's place to say that either it is or it is not; which is why the term "Roman Catholic" is attractive, for the same reasons it was invented in the early 17th century; it incorporates "Catholic", and thereby the Church's claim to catholicity; but also a distinguisher, to account for the possibility that some may believe there are other Catholic churches. TSP 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please point to the source that claims 'Roman Catholic' is used in official documents during ecumenical dealings to avoid disruption, I'd like to look in this story's validity. Thanks.Virgil61 23:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The effect can be seen in the Church's dealings with the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Churches, the Methodist Church, the Orthodox Church, the Syrian Church and the World Council of Churches, as well as in such documents as jointly-published notes on bible translations. The Oxford English Dictionary asserts (or asserted, in the most recent version I can find a quote from) that the term was first used "for conciliatory reasons" (between the Church's own preferred "Catholic" and the Protestant "Romish") in the early 17th century, after which it "was generally adopted as a non-controversial term". TSP 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. By the way the Catholic Information Network disagrees (http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q072.htm) with the statement "Roman" was used as a conciliatory gesture.

True; but it is clearly not an NPOV source, and provides no justification for its belief, and it makes no distinction between "Romish" and "Roman Catholic". While I accept both fall short of the Church's preferred title, it seems clear that the latter includes reference both to the Church's claim and to the dispute of it, and therefore clearly differs from the former which contains reference only to the church's perceived "Romanity" and not to its claimed Catholicism. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia - also not an NPOV source, but one which is usually useful in that it is written in a scholarly fashion which makes it possible to establish what is provable and what is assertion - does not go nearly as far as that article in its objections to the term. TSP 13:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the links to ecumenical statements prove that "Roman Catholic" is what the church calls itself officially but rather a concession to ecumenicalism within those particular meetings due to the sensitive nature of theological politics, in other words it isn't self-identifying outside of ecumenical communications which account for a fraction of the official documents of the church. Wikipedia's stand on Naming Conflicts: [1]. Under How to make a choice among controversial names"/Article names there is a matrix that assists on how to determine naming; Most common name, undisputed official name of entity and current self-identifying name. One is obviously RC.

My opinion is two and three are "Catholic" rather than "Roman Catholic", of course that's where the disagreements lie.Virgil61 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you; I wasn't aware of that page. To go through the factors one by one:

* Most common name. Google indicates that '"Catholic Church" -"Roman"' is substantially more common than '"Roman Catholic Church"' - which comes close to persuading me to simply accept the term (as commonness is the first among Wikipedia's naming conventions; tempered, though, by ensuring a lack of ambiguity). There are, though, two problems with this particular test; the first is that a large number of hits are from Church-related organisations, which would use the 'preferred' term even if it was not used in ordinary speech. The second is that the bulk of such pages are in the United States; and to take the most populous country's opinion as defining "most common" would not seem to be in line with the Naming Conventions.

* Undisputed official name. I don't think that "Catholic Church" fulfils this; because there are other groups who do dispute the use of the name. I think that this guideline is intended for organisations with a full official name that no-one disputes their right to, even if it is much less commonly-used than other names; for example, the main Mormon church is at Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; because, while "Mormon" is by far the more common term used to refer to this group, it is ambiguous (there are other churches which can be considered Mormon, even though reference to Mormons will almost always mean this church); so the long and relatively rarely-used full name is used. That said, statements made on this page (though relatively short of citations at the moment) seem to be indicating that "Roman Catholic Church" - though also used officially - cannot be considered undisputed either (for opposite reasons).

* Current self-identifying name: Well, I'd have thought that this was "Catholic Church"; but Lima seems to be questioning this, and I have to say I can't really source it. I went to the Vatican Website and clicked around looking for an official use of the term, and the first name I stumbled across (it happened to be on this page, which is admittedly off the beaten track) was actually "Roman Church"! Curiouser and curiouser.... Documents like the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" do seem to indicate, though, that the name is at least officially used, and more widely so (when not in ecumenical discussion) than "Roman Catholic Church".

I am really now at the point where I am as unsure as anyone where this page should be. Though what I am sure of is that it is unhelpful for people to repeatedly change it from its current state until something else has been decided. TSP 13:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

TSP has given sources for his statements. Would any of the contributors who insist that "the Catholic Church" is "the official name" of the Church we are discussing please give a source for this repeated assertion?

I am unaware that the Church has ever chosen an "official name". She has called herself many other things as well as "the Catholic Church". Even so large a book as the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the phrase "Catholic Church" only 24 times. I have made no attempt to count the far greater number of times that the book speaks of the (Roman) (Catholic) Church simply as "the Church", the term she most frequently applies to herself - amid a great variety of other descriptions, such as "the People of God", "the Spouse of Christ", "the Church of Christ", "the Body of Christ" etc.

(The 24 places where I find that the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of "the Catholic Church" are sections 119, 816-820, 830, 831, 833, title of 836, 838, 846, 870, 946, 1161, 1271, 1376, 1378, 1399-1401, 1635, 2066 + the title of the book. The English version adds, presumably by a slip, section 843, where both the original French and the official Latin texts have "the Church". In several instances, "Catholic Church" appears in the book in quotations from documents dating from before the Great East-West Schism: for example, 946 quotes the Apostles' Creed, and 1161 the Second Council of Nicea; and many would argue that these references do not apply specifically to the Church under discussion.)

Lima 20:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've given a statement by a canonical lawyer and priest who advises EWTN, who's identity is available and contact information is easily discovered by a simple google. I think that addresses it to some extent.Virgil61 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect for the canon lawyer and priest, he is not the Church. Perhaps Virgil61 would ask him to indicate a source where the Church adopts "the Catholic Church" as "her official name". There may be such a source, but nobody here has yet quoted it. All we have are instances of actual use by the Church of "the Catholic Church" as a self-description, along with many other self-descriptions, which include "the Roman Catholic Church" (cf. TSP's citations), and the most frequent of which is "the Church". Lima 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you've part of the answer itself in that the church uses "Catholic Church" much of it's self-description but then muddles it up with that flowery terminology it loves so well. I do think cherry-picking a few documents diplomatically using RC in a theologically sensitive area like ecumenical conferences probably isn't the best of foundations with which to base the use of that term either. I'll try and contact him again and get source clarification.Virgil61 06:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Older discussion on terminology

I think the current second paragraph of the Terminology section, and associated quote, are distinctly "Point of View" - at least when placed in the Terminology section, which can be assumed to be expressing the opinion of the encyclopedia, not describing opinions of the body the article is about.

The second paragraph begins "The choice of the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" should not be interpreted as opposition to the use, for this Church, of the simpler term "Catholic Church", which its members prefer". In fact, I think it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to unambiguously grant the title "Catholic" to the churches in communion with the Pope, given that a large proportion of the world's Christians consider themselves to be part of the "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" despite not recognising the Pope as its head. The Catholicism article does a good job of exploring the different meanings of, and claims to the term; whereas this article currently contradicts that, appearing to assert that not only is the Roman Catholic Church the only real claimant to the term "Catholic", but other Christians clearly accept that they are heretics because they accept colloquial use of "Catholic" to mean "Roman Catholic"! This seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I'd tend to think that all that is really appropriate in this section is the current first paragraph: "Since the term "Catholic Church" has multiple meanings (see Catholicism), this article uses the term "Roman Catholic Church", to avoid confusion. The relationship between the Western or Latin and the Eastern Churches in union with the Roman Catholic Church is dealt with below." I just wanted to check here first - does anyone have a reason why it is compatible with the Neutral Point of View policy to leave the remainder of the Terminology section in? TSP 17:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking but would need to see your final edits before granting my own personal "imprimatur". KHM03 19:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Why offended Eastern Catholics twice on wiki? Eastern Catholics are members of "Eastern" and "Orthodox" Churches, but are in union with Rome (the Roman Church). Eastern Catholics are **NOT** Roman Catholics. Eastern Catholics are Catholics. Both articles on the "Eastern Orthodox Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" do not pertain to them.

The "Eastern Orthodox Church" wiki article is about the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome. The article on the "Roman Catholic Church" is about the Roman Catholic Church, which the Eastern Catholics are not apart of. They are apart of the Catholic Church.

To sum it up:

Eastern Catholics are Eastern.

Eastern Catholics are Orthodox.

Eastern Catholics are Catholics.

Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics.

--Robertsussell 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Which seems clear... but what are, for example, Anglo-Catholics (most of whom would identify themselves as 'Catholic)? The problem here is that 'Catholic Church' is not a term on which everyone agrees a meaning. Wikipedia's Naming Convention is to "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". So there are two principles here. The first is that what is important is the commonly-used term, not necessarily the official or technical term. The second, which is most relevant here, is that the term needs to be unambiguous. Putting articles under disputed titles is not normally acceptable.

Now, I'm not deeply wedded to the term 'Roman Catholic'; I can see it has problems. However, I do believe that the term 'Catholic' is unacceptable in this context, for the same reason that the church itself does not use it in much of its ecumenical work; because it is a controversial term, which by no means all people accept. A couple of billion people stand up in church on a Sunday and say they belong to a "holy catholic and apostolic church"; perhaps half of them believe the church described in this article to be that church. If Wikipedia uses the term to mean the church which accepts the Pope as its head, then it appears to be saying, encyclopedically, that it believes the church headed by the Pope constitutes the church entitled to call itself Catholic (i.e. Universal) and all those other Christians are wrong. That doesn't appear to me to be an acceptable thing for an encyclopedia to do.

While we're here, there are some issues I'm not particularly clear on myself, so here's something which an Eastern Catholic can hopefully clarify for me:

- Is the Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) understood to speak for Eastern Catholics, or not? Similarly, the "Joint international commission for the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church"?

- When Pope Pius IX spoke of the "holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church" in the First Vatican Council, was he understood to refer to Eastern Catholics, or only those of the Latin Rite?

I ask because these same questions seem to keep coming up, and answers would help me get the issue straight in my head. TSP 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the term “Roman” Catholic, not only is it a term coined by those which separated from the Church many centuries after its foundation, but is technically and historically incorrect. By being politically correct the writer serves to create more confusion, and ignorance, as well as, simultaneously presents a naturally anti-catholic bias from the onset.(you can't make everyone happy, but in siding with the anti-Catholic term the writer is not only being historically inconsistent but simply conveniently siding with the majority if the English speaking world of non-Catholic Christians even though Catholics comprise over 50% of the world's Christians.) He should present the topic as is written chronologically and historically. If documents that date back to a church that is nearly 2000 years old, claim themselves to be Catholic and proclaim the SAME fundamentals beliefs( Baptism with Holy water, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, an authoritative Church run by Bishops, and is bound the church in Rome- not the Empire, etc.- see Ignatius and other Church Fathers - Polycarp, Clement, and Ireneus of the 1st and 2nd century http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html ) as the present Catholic Church then you must define it as the same CATHOLIC Church.

MY TWO Cents worth regarding the improper/informal term "ROMAN" Catholic: First one must understand what is the topic discussed. If speaking of the entire Universal Church(which is what is discussed here) the use of the word "ROMAN" is improper. 2)The Catholic Church is made up of various global RITES the largest being the western Latin(or Roman) Rite. However, we in the West completely ignore this since the "Western" schism (or Reformation) affected primarily the Latin rite not the eastern churches. Thus in utilizing the term "Roman" for the general Church you are simultaneously ignoring the entire Eastern Catholic Church(also in full communion with the Vatican, ie. Byzantine Catholic, Maronite Catholic and several others-MENTIONED FURTHER DOWN ON YOUR VERY PAGE) which have been part of the Church since the beginning and it's the very branch(the Byzantine Rite*of the Eastern Church, specifically) of the Catholic Church where a large PORTION if its base left almost 1000 years ago (eastern schism) and became what we commonly call the Orthodox Church. [If the Orthodox REuninte with the Catholic Church its obvious they will not be "latinized" as they NEVER belonged to the Latin rite but the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church [whom's Governmental body= Holy See resides in Rome-Vatican] but is not "Roman" Catholic(aka Catholic Latin rite)].

The proper use of this term "ROMAN" is when speaking specifically of the geographic Roman Church in Rome (just as one would speak of the Parisian Church as the church in Paris) which IS both a geographical Archdiocese(district) of the Catholic Church and the geographic capital-though now actually called "The Vatican"- The Holy See of the Catholic Church. - 65.3.196.4 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Micael: rkosuave@yahoo.com - Feb. 11, 2006.//

My proposal at present is simply to remove everything but the first paragraph of this section, leaving that as it is. It would probably be worth adding something about the common usage of "Catholic" to refer to this church; but I think it's probably best to let this be built up from scratch, rather than keep any of the current content. TSP 19:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You might also mention that most/many Roman Catholics prefer to be called simply "Catholics", but that this article will use the "Roman" designation to avoid confusion. KHM03 19:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been asked to express here my thoughts on the terminology question. My thoughts have in fact already been expressed somewhere else on this extremely long page. In short, I think the title should remain "Roman Catholic Church, for otherwise the article will attract all sorts of battling insertions about what is meant by "Catholic Church"; but I see no need for uniformity (between "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church") within the article itself. I would be very happy with a more or less equal mixture of the two terms, with tolerance on the part of those who prefer one expression for the preference of others. Lima 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've realised that my request was unclear - I was actually hoping that you'd comment on the Augustine quote, which, as I've explained above, I think should be removed (from the 'Terminology' section, at least); but which you restored earlier today. I have noticed, though, that the purpose of the Terminology section seems to have changed since June (it was originally an explanation of terminology use within the article; it seems to be starting to become a general discussion on use of the terms 'Catholic' and 'Roman Catholic'), so I admit that my criticisms may have become less relevant. TSP 10:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. Though I did realize almost immediately after writing the above hurried comment, that the request made to me was for an observation on the Saint Augustine quotation, I have not been able to find time until now to come back and address that question.

The quotation is decidedly apposite. Augustine cannot be accused of expressing a non-neutral point of view about the twenty-first century situation. If the cap fits... Concealing the historical fact that Augustine made the remark would be censorship for the sake of a particular point of view.

Lima 11:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, is it appropriate for a Terminology section? Using that particular quote to back up the position of using "Catholic" basically states "we are using the term 'Catholic', because only members of this church are not heretics". Indeed, that quote seems to provide a very good reason why the article should NOT use "Catholic" undisambiguated, if to do so implies, as Augustine says it does, self-professed heresy on the part of all other Christian groups.

I don't propose "censoring" Augustine's views; but it doesn't really seem to be being presented as a historical view at the moment, but as representative of the current situation. Which quotes you select to make a point can express point of view just as much as an original opinion does. TSP 11:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It is the current situation that in informal circumstances people usually understand by the term "Catholic" (unless specified in some way) "Roman Catholic". This is true even of people who are not Roman Catholics, people of today who are no more self-professed heretics than the people Augustine wrote about. In the eyes of the people Augustine wrote about, it was not they, but Catholics like Augustine, who had the wrong beliefs. In what way has the current situation changed from that in Augustine's time? Lima 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, as regards that matter of opinion, not at all. I am sure that in Augustine's eyes, the Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Methodist Church, and so on, would all be heretics; and he would consider their willingness to use the term "Catholic" to refer to the church headed by the pope as evidence of this. But is that an opinion worthy of the prominence it is given? Just because it is true that an opinion has been expressed, does not make that opinion encyclopedically relevant.

Here is another quote:

Since from this it is now clear that the name "Catholic" has a new meaning, namely the Roman papacy with all its atrocities and in no way the universal Christian Church, and thus indicates a sect, obviously no one who recognizes the Word of God as the true rule of the Christian faith can trouble us to use this name. - C.F.W. Walther, 1884

Why is one of these explanations of why the term 'Catholic' is commonly applied to mean the Roman Catholic Church alone worthy of inclusion, but the other not? Is it 'censorship' not to include Walther's views? (I don't mean to imply that I agree with Walther; but if a quote that is biased in one direction can be found for a particular situation, so can one that is biased in the other; so it is better to use neither.) TSP 14:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church manages to set things out in a more neutral point of view. A claim that the Catholic Church = the Roman Catholic Church is a claim of theological point of view. Having found colloquial uses, or agreements between other churches and the RC church (where surely each party would use the name it wishes) is inadequate proof that the Catholic - Roman Catholic conjunction is NPOV if used as anything other than shorthand. Paulleake 16:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The terminology used in the documents was agreed on by both parties. Similar documents on discussions with Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists etc. have "Roman Catholic Church", not "Catholic Church", again as accepted by both sides. They can be found on the same Vatican website. The question is not what terms ought to be used, but what terms are used. The term "Catholic Church" is in fact used in this sense, as is stated also in other Wikipedia articles. Nobody is forcing Paulleake to use it himself in this sense. Nor does he have the authority or power to prevent others from using it in this sense. In this article, both terms are admissible. Lima 17:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity is often termed "Orthodox"; aren't many Western Christians also orthodox? There are many "Church of God" groups out there; arent't Methodists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, etc., also at least part of the "Church of God"? Names can be misleading and tell only part of the story. This article is called "Roman Catholic" in order to distinguish it from other groups which call themselves "Catholic" (as well as "catholic"), and also because many people know it as the Roman Catholic Church and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. I can't believe this name thing is still an issue. Let it go, sisters and brothers! There are more important battles to fight! KHM03 17:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an issue because among Catholics--Roman, Maronite, Ukrianian, Armenian and so on Catholic churches to use "Roman" Catholic is incorrect. This article is more than an article on the Latin rite known as "Roman Catholic" its focus is on the whole church historically and theologically. It's important because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that if it wants to be a credible source should get its p's and q's correct. Allowing Catholic teachings, history and theology under an all-inclusive Roman Catholic umbrella is understandable but very sloppy.Virgil61 13:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

As a Catholic I'd say the "Roman Catholic Church" applies, technically, only to that part of the church under papal guidance that follows the Latin rite. There are Unite (Ukrainian), Armenian, Maronite and a handfull of other rites that are also Catholic, whose bishops follow papal doctrine and are appointed from the Vatican as well. I can live with Roman Catholic being used, it's not that big a deal, but it's (unintentionally) disrespectful and marginalizing to the rest of the Catholic Church, Vatican website and all notwithstanding.Virgil61 11:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine; however, as an encyclopedia, we can't take account of the views of individual editors; only of information we can source. Can anyone provide any source indicating that this is what the Church, or indeed anyone else authoritative, considers the term to mean? I'd take the multiple statements that the church has made under the name "The Roman Catholic Church" as a source that at least suggests that they believe the term to refer to the Church as a whole.

My understanding of the history of the term (I think I've cited the OED elsewhere; I can, if I haven't) is that it was originally a 17th-century English compromise between the term 'Catholic' - which, as it is has a meaning of 'all-encompassing', 17th-century English commentators were unwilling to grant solely to this particular Church; and 'Romish', meaning 'headed by the Bishop of Rome'. I don't think its history suggests that it was meant to refer to only one part of that Church. TSP 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The sources being used for using "Roman" Catholic Church aren't exactly controlling documents. An agreement between Catholics, Methodists and other protestants in the US, UK or Western Europe would contain "Roman Catholic" because that it is the only rite predominately in areas where Catholicism and Protestantism have co-existed historically. Using the OED to describe internal Catholic structure isn't the answer either. The Catholics, at the time of the writing, in strongly anti-Catholic UK were and are predominately of the Latin rite and the intent of the opponents of "Catholic only” were to deny the use of the single word as a description and substitute RC. That’s not a controlling source, it’s a minority religion in a single country having to compromise in the culturally hostile environment vis-à-vis Catholicism in the U.K. of the 17th century.

Because of the predominance of the Roman rite it's easy to "cherry-pick" sources. The Catechism of the Catholic church does not contain the words "Roman Catholic" but refers to the Holy Catholic Church as does the Second Vatican council. RC is colloquially ok I suppose, but for an encyclopedia that wants to be used as a legitimate source it’s intellectually lazy.Virgil61 19:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I realise that the Catholic Church does not, where it has the choice (i.e. in its internal documents, such as its catechism), refer to itself as "Roman Catholic" - it would have no reason to do so, as we know that it is not its preferred term; its preferred term being a word, meaning "all-embracing", which is claimed by the majority of orthodox Christian churches (those which use the Nicene or Apostles' Creed). Nevertheless, "Roman Catholic" is a common term (in my experience the most common term, but this may differ between different areas of the world) used to refer to the Church externally; and a term the Church appears to accept of itself. I do not wish to be "intellectually lazy"; but I find it hard to see how not accepting facts of which you provide no evidence is being so.

Of course, if when signing documents in the name of "The Roman Catholic Church" the Pope does not sign on behalf of all parts of the Catholic Church, then we have a new and interesting issue, which I have been pondering for some time. That would seem to mean that there are different Churches which cannot truly be regarded, from Wikipedia's point of view as the same organisation. They are churches in communion, certainly; the Church of England and Church in Wales are in communion, but they have separate Wikipedia pages. They acknowledge fealty to the same pontiff, certainly; but the United Kingdom and Australia have the same Queen, but are different countries.

The web site of the Eparchy of Passaic is extremely interesting. Among other things, it says: "Many Catholics are not aware that Catholicism is actually a collection of Churches in union with Rome"; and refers to the Metropolitia of Pittsburgh as "America's only self-governing Church in union with Rome." So, one church or several? Theologically, obviously, Catholics regard it as one church; but Wikipedia is not a theological document. If one Church within the Catholic Communion regards itself as "self-governing"; and the Pope makes statements which apply only to the Latin Rite; then perhaps it would make more sense to have pages on the "Catholic Communion" or on "Catholicism"; then another on the "Roman Catholic" (i.e. Latin Rite) church, and on each of the others within the Communion. TSP 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comments. My answer, which I should have fleshed out, that in the Catechism of the Catholic church and the work of the Second Vatican council were valid sources. The first a statement that reflects the doctrine of all the rites and the second a collection of decisions by a meeting of bishops of all the same rites refer to all the churches in communion with the Holy See as the 'Holy Catholic Church' I think that's at least as good if not a darn sight better proof than what is used as rationale for using 'Roman Catholic' to refer to the whole. Anyway, my only concern is to not propogate incorrect usage in what is an encyclopedia rather than refer to the theological. Be that as it may, in English speaking counties it's a losing battle as non-latin rites make up only a small percentage of the Catholic populace and RC has become a shorthand for the whole. I've resigned myself to wincing slightly evertime I see it. Virgil61 01:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It still seems to me that, on the evidence I've seen, both are acceptable names, not just a shorthand. Yes, the Church headed by the Pope calls itself the "Holy Catholic Church"; however, when the other billion Christians in the world say "we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", they are not referring to the church headed by the Pope. Therefore, to say on Wikipedia, "we believe that these people constitute the Holy Catholic Church" would be to affirm a claim of one set of a billion people, over the disagreement with that claim of another billion. So another name must, in my opinion, be sought, for neutrality and lack of ambiguity. At least in the UK, the common term is "Roman Catholic" (because someone here who says "I'm a Catholic" is almost equally likely to be an Anglican of catholic inclinations); and it seems that the Church itself - assuming the Pope IS speaking for the whole Church, not just the Latin Rite - is happy to call itself the "Roman Catholic Church" in official pronouncements, and that this is the title preferred by the church when working with organisations unwilling to call it the "Catholic Church". Many people have asserted that "Roman Catholic Church" means only the part of the church that uses the rite used in Rome, not the entire Church lead by the Bishop of Rome; but I've yet to see anything really constituting evidence of this, and it seems to have profound implications on the interpretation of various statements Popes have made if it is the case. TSP 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting link to "How did the Catholic Church get her name" from the Global Catholic Network; http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm Virgil61 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes - and that article also identifies most of the problems with using the term "Catholic Church" in a general encyclopedia.

'So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.'

In other words, the term "Catholic Church", applied to the Church headed by the Pope, is one which expresses a point of view; it expresses the belief that the church under the Roman Pontiff is the universal church established by Christ, and that other bodies calling themselves churches are not part of that Church. 'The proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church.' Indeed; because "catholic" means "universal", the "Catholic Church" is the Universal Church. But it it is only a point of view, held by about half of the world's Christians, that the Church headed by the Roman Pontiff is that universal church. The other half believe either that they are that universal church, or that no one denomination constitutes that church. As an encyclopedia, we should not identify with either view, but simply report on both. To use the term 'Catholic Church' to mean 'the church headed by the Pope' - rather than, for example, to mean 'the combination of all Christian Churches', which is roughly what most Protestants mean by the phrase when they say it in the Nicene Creed - is to take one position on this issue. I don't think that's an acceptable thing for an encyclopedia to do.

I'm not particularly wedded to the title "Roman Catholic Church"; but as that document says, to use the title "Catholic Church" is to express a disputed opinion. I believe that another title is necessary; and "Roman Catholic Church" seems to be both the one in most common use; and the one which the Church itself uses: not in its governing documents - as the document you linked to says, it was a deliberate decision not to use it there, in order to express the church's own point of view over competing ones - but in circumstances where, to ensure harmony with other churches, it cannot use the disputed term. TSP 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A humble point: I feel that this discussion is an example (admittedly one with little impact) of the deterioration of scholarly precision. The term "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the Latin/Roman Rite clearly predates its use meaning "those in communion with the Bishop of Rome." There is not a single use of the church described in this article calling herself the "Roman Catholic Church." All uses of the term "Holy Roman Church" clearly apply to the see of Rome, proper (e.g. "Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, who were all originally from the diocese of Rome). The term "Roman Catholic Church" was clearly used by an outside group, and still only a small portion of the world at that. All of these factors make it textually inaccurate to call this article "Roman Catholic Church." If the term had not already been assigned a meaning prior to it's use in England, it would be more acceptable to use it. For example, the term Orthodox Church had not existed as a title prior to the Great Schism, and so it was then it became a self-imposed title. As a general rule, it is wholly ahistorical to call a group of people a title contrived by a third party where knowledge of a self-imposed title exists. For a more dramatic example, to call the article titled "Eastern Orthodox Churches" "Schismatics" instead would be abhorent. I admit that feelings might be hurt, but this is inevitable. "Roman Catholic Church" might hurt the feelings of Eastern Particular churches. It also implies that there are two equal Roman and Anglo branches of some entity. The "Catholic Church" seems to portend the legitmacy of universal claims. Both sides just need to suck it up and side with academic precision. And, both sides need to realize that THE TITLE OF AN ARTICLE IS NOT AN ADVOCACY--"Eastern Orthodox Church" does not imply that this church is orthodox and the Catholic Church is novel and baseless. Revert to self-imposed titles as a standard, no matter the claims invovled (If the Anglican church wishes to call herself as a matter of title "Anglo-Catholic" or "Catholic" then that is what her article should be called.) The articles should be some thing like this:

Under the title: "Roman Catholic Church" 1. The territorial jurisdiction and all people therin over which the Roman Pontiff, as Bishop of Rome, exercises authority as LOCAL ordinary. 2. A portion of the Universal Church consisting of Anglicans, Romans, and Orthodox. (If the Anglican Church makes this official claim and if my understanding is correct. I very much apologize regarding my comparative ignorance regarding Anglicanism.) 3. See Roman/Latin Rite Catholicism

Uner the title: "Catholic Church" 1. The notion of a Universal Church, see "Catholicism" 2. The whole universal church consisting of three major branches....(Again if the Anglican Church makes this claim herself. I am sorry once more for the comparative ignorance on my part.) 3. The univsersal Church, over which the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pontiff, subsisting in and consisting of all particular churches with local ordinaries in full communion with the Pope. This article.

Textual truths like those in the above proposition are much more critical to encyclopedic claims in comparison to competing advocacies. The breakdown above inherently makes known all competing claims, and imposes no polemical titles on any of them

This needs some kind of criticism attached to it

The power of appointing nearly all the bishops, even many of the Eastern Catholic Churches, is solely in the hands of the Pope, who also appoints all those (the cardinals) who, in turn, choose which man next exercises the same power. The Pope is also the absolute ruler of the independent state, Vatican City State. There is no provision for deposing a Pope, and it has been many centuries since any Pope has resigned.

There's no criticism here. All it's stating is Church's structure. Could someone please write in some criticism about why people dislike this structure? If no one does, I'm going to remove it from the criticism section, since it says nothing about what critics say to this. Thanks! Stanselmdoc 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I say remove it. KHM03 17:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing it it is then! If people have issues, they can reinstate it WITH some criticism.Stanselmdoc 18:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

ARGHHH! There is nothing wrong with documenting this structure. The presence of the documentation does not mean that Wikipedia endorses the structure; on its own, the documentation is inherently neutral. If I went to create an article on the sky, I should be able to say that the sky is blue (citing my sources, of course) without having to say that a lot of people don't like blue. Many people have favorite colors other than blue. WP:NOT a soapbox. As to the stuff about the pope being an absolute ruler, well, the Vatican City is an absolute monarchy. Should we go back to every article about every absolute monarchy that ever existed and put in something about how some people think absolute monarchies suck? Geez. --Mm35173 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Um. Only if said absolute monarchy is being referred to in a Criticism section. I think you've probably mistaken the context of the above debate. TSP 18:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem canonically with the statement the pope appoints bishops in the Eastern Church. Whoever has a copy of the Code of Canon Law, would you please correct? Strictly speaking, most of them are either elected with confirmation from Rome or they choose a couple of names and the Pope picks one. Dave

It is the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (not the Code of Canon Law) that Dave wants. He can read for himself an English translation at this site. The canons on appointment of bishops are 180-189. The answer to Dave's question is in canon 181. Lima 14:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

HUGE POV problems

Nowhere in this whole article was the word Protestant or reformation used. Why the mention of Eastern Orthodox but not protestants. I put a brief mention of Protestants.

ken 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I'm not sure why this is necessarily considered a problem. The existence of Protestantism is not absolutely relevant to a discussion of the beliefs and structure of the Catholic Church. If one were discussing the constitution and character of the British Isles one wouldn't necessarily talk about the American revolution, unless British history were a significant part of the discussion. MS

If the South won the US Civil War, and we were writing an article about the subsequent history of the Union, it would defy reason to entertain complaints by the Confederates that our article made no mention of the Rebellion. Endomion 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if it is deemed important, then just list a link to Protestantism under "see also". KHM03 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the link with protestantism should come out when talking abouth the history of the Catholic Church, as well as about its relationship with other religious groups.--Nino Gonzales 06:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sacraments

The Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian church in the world to administer all seven sacraments. (added 03:07, August 29, 2005 by 209.217.93.197)

I've removed this as POV. We can state that the RCC administers seven sacraments. However, when we say that the RCC is the only church to administer all seven sacraments, we then endorse the following statements as factual:

1. There are exactly seven sacraments. This is not universal belief, as many churches recognize fewer sacraments and others do not recognize any sacraments whatsoever. It is POV to suggest that the RCC view of the sacraments is the correct one.
   1. Corollary: That the RCC is the final arbiter of what are and are not sacraments. Who are we to say that Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. are incorrect in their beliefs about the sacraments? We may state fatually that the RCC believes there are seven sacraments, but we may not state factually that there are exactly seven sacraments. It is a difference of belief, and must be noted as such to maintain NPOV.
2. That no other church in the world administers seven sacraments. Do we have an authoritative and exhaustive listing of every church in the world, without any possible omissions, that can back up the statement that the RCC is the only church in the world to administer seven sacraments? If not, then the statement is not factual.
3. Any community calling itself a church that administers seven sacraments, but is not the RCC, is not a church. If the RCC is the only church to administer all seven sacraments, then anyone administering seven sacraments but not a part of the RCC is not a church.
4. Any church that does not administer all seven sacraments is wrong. If the RCC is the only one to administer seven sacraments, and there are exactly seven sacraments, then anyone not administering them all is wrong.

I suspect that other statements could be included in the above list, but I believe these are sufficient to justify removing the statement as POV, and accordingly, I have made the removal. -- Essjay · Talk 04:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in seven sacraments.Davescj 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You could've just...removed it without adding this eyesore. :p -Alex 12.220.157.93 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti semitism (not NPOV)

I think that having a section on anti-semitism is pov regardless of what it says in the section. This article is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia article on the Roman Catholic Church, there have been alligations of anti-semitism, and it may be useful to state that in the article. There is already an article on the relationship of Catholics with Judaism, there is no reason why all of the information in this section cannot be moved there. to have a section in a factual aticle called anti-semitism could in itself seem POV and be misleading or suggestive. There should be mention of allegations of anti-semitism in the article but by no means a category. When looking at the article on Islam there was no category on terrorism or anti-westernism, which I see completely apropriate, as it would be misleading. There is no reason why this same practice should not occur in this article. Mac Domhnaill 23:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Though I do not think the Anti-Semitism subsection is POV, I do think it disproportionate and out of place. Why have a special subsection on this question alone, and on no other criticism or controversy? And its length, even if not quite sufficient for forming an article on its own, would certainly make it worthwhile to merge some or all of the text of the subsection into the article to which the reader is referred. Mention of the question and the reference could then remain. Lima 04:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Islam comparison isn't really valid - the article is about the Roman Catholic Church, the organisation, not about a religion per se. The Anti-Semitism section certainly isn't in breach of NPOV against the Church - like most of the criticism sections in this article, it contains only the vaguest criticisms and a vast amount of defence of the church; and it is a sub-section of the Criticism section, so I don't think it's necessarily NPOV for it to exist if sufficient things can be said about allegations of anti-semitism against the church. The length of the section probably is excessive, though; mostly because of the vast length of the pro-Church material contained in it. As a postscript, incidentally, I don't think it's necessarily valid to say "it's wrong to have a section on (N) when (M) doesn't have a section" - it's either justified for topic N to have a section or it isn't; if topic M should have one too then you can write one. TSP 10:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully that it isn't necessarily valid to say: "It's wrong to have a section on (N) when (M) doesn't have a section." I wonder, however, if it's necessarily valid to say: "Though (N) is no more significant than (A), (B), (C), ....(M), (O), (P), ... (Z), still there has to be a section on (N) alone." Are allegations of anti-Semitism so much more important than any other accusation whatever that has ever been made against the Roman Catholic Church? Lima 13:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Cooldoug111, maybe you should talk about this article being NPOV instead of tagging it. Antisemitism is a retty blanket statement. Dominick 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Church needs Change

If the Church wants to boost church attendence, increase the number of preists, and reduce crtisism, than they need to get of the "oh so holy" butts and do somthing about this dang sex abuse crisis!!!!! Let them marry! Change some rules! Anything to help themselves!--The Republican 00:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)The Republican

This is beyond the scope of this article, thanks for your opinion. Dominick 10:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if people can't keep their genitals in their pants, they are always welcome to leave the priesthood. Priesthood is about total and complete service to the world. It's not that different from budhist monks. 209.124.115.101

This is beyond the scope of this artcile. This is about the Church, written to explain it to a reader. If you would like to debate the Church and its role, perhaps the Catholic Answers Forums at catholic.com would be a better venue. I agree though, in any endeavor, if you can't live by the promises you make you should leave. Dominick 23:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think that we are moving toward POV. While like all, I am horrified by the abuse crisis, I would suggest it has nothing to do with celibacy.Davescj 20:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that celibacy is the priest's forgoing the marital union in the hopes of a more complete eventual union with God. Also, celibacy is supposed to remove "distractions" from the love of God in the work of a priest. --Perhaps this could be included in the section that discusses "theories" about the why of celibacy 216.99.65.10 16:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Civil Rights

I altered the section: Catholics are a significant minority in Britain, where their faith underwent a revival in the 19th and early 20th Century after three centuries of intense persecution and official repression of civil rights. to remove the words "intense" and "of civil rights", and I just wanted to give a bit more justification.

Firstly, intense; certainly there was persecution during that period, and some of it was intense; but "three centuries of intense persecution" would mean that the persecution was intense for all of those three centuries; and certainly by the end of the 18th century there were some Roman Catholic churches and colleges operating openly in Britain; which seems to indicate that, though there was still persecution, it could not really be characterised at that time as 'intense'.

Second, civil rights. The Civil rights article seems to indicate that the term refers to rights guaranteed by law or a constitution, or generally held to be innate. I'm not convinced that it makes sense, or at the least it seems to express a particular point of view, to use the term in a historical context about 'rights' which were at the time explicitly witheld by law (as they also were, in the case of voting for example, to women and non-land-owning men). This is not to deny the injustice of the treatment; but to refer to things like the right to vote, and to freedom of religion, as rights seems only to express an opinion that the editor believes such things should be rights - the people in question were regarded as having no such rights at the time, nor is there any impartial measure of what rights people should be entitled to. TSP 15:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Understandable. "Intense" was merely my attempt to be more NPOV than a predecessor's "relentless". As for the latter, your comments seem sound. Thanks for your work on this article --Dpr 01:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

To call it "civil rights" might be the best way to make it intelligible to a contemporary reader. All non-members of the Church of England were under various civil disabilities, generally called the penal laws; these laws excluded both Protestant dissenters and Roman Catholics from voting, the established universities, military service, and other offices of profit or privilege. These were generally enacted between the Restoration and the first quarter of the eighteenth century. Only a handful of them targeted Roman Catholics specifically; and some were repealed for non-Anglican Protestants before they were repealed for RCs. The position of a RC under these laws was not enviable, but there were very few populist risings against them or pogroms against them, except in Ireland, where religious violence went both ways, and tended to grow worse as the laws restricting Roman Catholicism were repealed. As religious persecutions go, it was there, but in retrospect it seems hard to call this one "intense." Smerdis of Tlön 19:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Leader of Christendom

The term "leader of Christendom" refers to the Catholic belief, not a temporal reality. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

--Dpr 17:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Davescj== Liberation theology ==

Is liberation theology a subject which can be included somewhere on the page? Tiksustoo 22:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberation theology has it's own article. Dominick 02:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

i realized to my embarrassment sometiema after my cmments. sorry. Tiksustoo 14:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries! Dominick 14:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure you are wrong. While liberation theology needs its own page, as it is a complex subject, it certainly is one point of view within Catholic Theology. And it certainly is an issue within the Church if you include it among other points of view.~

Theological and sociological perspectives

This article is very long, dense, technical and "jargon" heavy. I have to wonder how helpful it would be to a casual reader with limited exposure to Catholicism. I think it needs to be re-written with a more "sociological" and less theological perspective. Objectively describe describe what a visitor or observer of Catholic practices would see and hear. Then, as appropriate, explain the beliefs related to the practice.

For example, the first two paragraphs of the liturgy section describe the liturgy as "the celebration of the mystery of Christ, in particular the Paschal mystery of his death and resurrection. . .[It] is something that 'the whole Christ' Head and Body, celebrates - Christ the one High Priest together with his Body, the Church in heaven and earth."

Instead of this dense theological language, why not describe the structure of the liturgy? (Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist). What would a visitor observe at each stage? Then, briefly explain the theological significance (anyone interested in reading more theological explanation in the catechism can follow the link).

There is also very little about parish life or the daily practices that most Catholics identify with their faith. Any thoughts on this approach to improving the article? TMS63112 20:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds excellent - good luck with it!--shtove 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you added a parish life section that would be nice. It would be hard to make it general and NPoV. I think there are a lot of difficult terms in this article, but it really can't be helped. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 22:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

CCC references

Catechism of the Catholic Church numbers refer to the entries, not the years. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Stats

(The figure in the 2003 Statistical Yearbook of the Church, based on the annual statistical reports sent by Catholic dioceses throughout the world, is 1,085,557,000; because of obstacles to regular contacts, this figure does not include Catholics in mainland China and perhaps in some other places.)

This sentence is indisputably important for clarification/comprehensiveness, but does it have to be the second sentence of the entire article? I think we lose much by introducing this degree of detail in the second sentence of the article. --Dpr 01:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Er?

Catholics are for jews
Someone put this in here don't know who but I edited it out. Whispering 20:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Concrete realization or "subsists in"?

In the second paragraph of the article, Vatican II's Lumen Gentium is quoted as saying that "the sole Church of Christ" ... has a concrete realization "in the Catholic Church". Lumen Gentium uses the Latin term "subsistit in" which translates as "subsists in." The expression "concrete realization" seems like the best explanation of what this term means, however it also prejudges a theological issue that is still not determined in Catholic theology. Perhaps it would be best to use the original words and have an explanatory paragraph somewhere on the page, or elsewhere in Wikipedia, explaining what the "subsists in" debate consists of. I have read through the Talk page discussion but have not seen this issue addressed. I haven't waded through the 500 or more revisions to the page, so I don't know whether this issue has been debated previously. Forgive me if this has already been dealt with. Njesson 23:20, 22 November 2005

Njesson, you're probably right that it prejudges the issues, besides being confusing for many lay individuals (no pun intended), or even misleading (for those in a non-receptive or non-critical frame of mind)...subsistere or subsit in is probably worthy of further discussion. There are resources on the net (and in print) explaining it. Thanks for your worthwhile contribution! --Dpr 06:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not return to the earlier text: has a concrete realization (the Latin term is "subsistit")? Lima 08:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the official english translation is "subsists in" not "concrete realization"... Protoclete

Further, there is a theological difference between the two terms. Subsits is a theological and phil category, so is always used in official translations. The Church of God is always one, but subsits only fully in the Catholic church according to Lumen gentium.DaveTroy 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the Roman Catholic Church a cult?

As a Protestant, I have always regarded the Romish 'church' as being a cult, given the fact that its belief system is actually deviating from scripture, especially in terms of equating the Pope of Rome with God. The Ten Commandments is very clear in this - 'Thou shalt not worship false gods & idols'. What do you think? - (Aidan Work 03:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

Thank God, not all Protestants believe such nonsense. Lima 05:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a member of the ordained Protestant clergy; I in no way feel that the Roman Catholic Church is a cult. In so many ways, they are far more faithful than Protestants. We all have much to learn from each other, and we desperately need one another. KHM03 02:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The false claim that any aspect of Roman Catholic worship involves worshipping false gods/idols is already mentioned at Anti-Catholicism, although traditionally the smear is that Catholics are directly worshipping Mary or other saints. I've never heard the claim that the "Pope of Rome" is being equated with God -- that being, y'know, something I think I would have been notified of if it was part of my religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely the primary point, in this context, is that any editor's opinion on whether the Church is a cult is irrelevant. It may be possible to encyclopedically note if any notable people or groups have claimed that it is a cult. Anything besides that is outside our remit as an encyclopedia. TSP 15:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a Catholic priest, and I believe neither are we a cult nor do we deviate from Scripture. If you would like to learn further on why I say this, any Catholic bookstore can point you to any number of books which discuss the relationship of Scripture within the church.Davescj 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Aidan Work's question amounts to a restatement of the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Endomion 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that every one of the Christian denominations is a cult, from an encyclopedic point of view? Not in the sense of a group of wierdos who kidnap impressionable young people etc - but in the sense that to give one denomination a higher status than any other would not be NPOV. There is one overall Christian belief system, containing a large number of cults. No? JackofOz 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The crucial moment for any new religious movement is the death of its founder. If the movement was centered around one strong figure merely to allow him to exercise power over the men and get sexual favors from the women, then it most likely will shatter upon that leader's death. If there is at least a core of truth in the movement, it will survive the death of its leader, such as the lynching of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, and perhaps rally around another one, such as Brigham Young, who led an LDS remnant from Missouri to Utah. So we can define a cult as any new religious movement whose founder has not died. And by death, we're not talking about those close calls in the operating room where the heart stops for a few moments, we're talking about someone who is whipped to within an inch of His life, nailed to a cross all day, then buried in the ground over the weekend. So right away, Catholicism is not a cult because Christ has died. Endomion 04:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Anybody that truly reads the Bible can realize that YES the catholic church deviates A LOT from scriptures. The book of Hebrews talks about Jesus being the ONLY PRIEST and that no more sacrifice for sins is needed after Jesus's sacrifice. It's not scriptural to believe that a sinful man can represent God on earth. regardless of what the catholic church says. To believe that is completely against the second commandment of making any likeness of God (Exodus 20:4) and it deviates from biblical truth in which case the catholic church is a cult. (unsigned USER: 68.8.204.49)

(Added sig! /bow) Dominick ^(TALK) 13:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph was inserted, unsigned, some days after I made the following comment (cf. history). It certainly does NOT represent my thinking. Lima 13:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Many sources are quoted throughout the article. The opening section alone quotes a Second Vatican Council document, the Statistical Yearbook of the Church and the Annuario Pontificio. What statements does Brian0918 want sourced? What further information is required for identifying, for instance, a Second Vatican Council document? It is doubtless due to my ignorance that I fail to understand what is wanted. Someone wiser and more experienced can doubtless explain. Lima 16:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it by promoting some links used for the article to references. THis was a silly exercise. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Lima unsigned user (apologies to Lima), even if the Pope is the likeness of God on Earth, we didn't make him, God did. Endomion 07:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if the Pope were the likeness of God on Earth, which he isn't, except in being a human being and thus being made in God's image and likeness, we didn't make him: God did. As successor of Saint Peter, he is Christ's Vicar, not God's likeness (cf. papal oath. Lima 13:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Visible and spiritual head

I notice that the phrasing of the position of the pope vis-a-vis the (earthly) Church has seemed difficult to achieve a consensus on. "Visible and spiritual head" sounds right in orthodox Catholic thought, but it has been reverted or modified various times. Can we do a better job of satifying the secular viewpoint with a more widely understandable term, as well as religious accuracy? --Dpr 04:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that 'visible and spiritual head' sounds distinctly like jargon to me; I don't think it's really appropriate for a general-use encyclopedia. Personally I was happy with just 'head', in that an encyclopedia can only really hope to cover the effable and worldly, and in a worldly sense the organisation is headed by the Pope; but I can see that that probably won't be satisfactory to members of the Church. TSP 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just returned the whole first paragraph to something more like what we had about a month ago. Editors need to be familiar with the Neutral Point of View policy, particularly the 'Neutral Tone' section. This article needs to cover the subject of the church in fashion that is factual, well-sourced, and neutrally-presented; at the moment, a lot of the article is distinctly from a Roman Catholic point of view; whereas a factual and neutrally-written article should be as acceptable to a Muslim or an atheist as to a fervent Catholic believer. The Guide to writing better articles has this to say on the first sentence of an article: "If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise, conceptually sound definition that puts the article in context." Therefore, it needs to be something purely factual and neutrally-presented. Phrases like "united in the profession of the one Christian faith" aren't really appropriate in the first paragraph, even if they are in a quote.

Regarding the issue of this section, I've currently put the church down as "led by" the Pope. I'm not sure what the best way is, if at all, to approach the point that Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the real leader of the Catholic Church (of course, all Christians believe that all their actions are subject to the authority of Christ). TSP 22:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I see TSP's point about "the one", which I interpreted differently. Since Robert Bellarmine wrote in Latin (a language that has neither definite nor indefinite articles), an equally good or - if "the one" is interpreted as TSP does interpret it - a better translation would be "a single": "the society of Christian believers united in the profession of a single Christian faith and the participation in a single sacramental system under the government of the Bishop of Rome." This is what Bellarmine meant. Lima 07:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps; it's mostly just that I don't think that a quote is likely to be the best way to provide a first-sentence definition of an organisation. One of the things that concerns me about this article is that it is almost entirely sourced from the Catechism and other internal church sources; meaning that it presents an almost entirely 'internal' view of the Church (i.e. the Catholic Church as it would wish to be seen) as opposed to a view gained from observation and unbiased reporting.

I also balked a little at "Since the description "head of the Church" is seen as applicable in the strict sense only to Jesus Christ, the Pope is described more precisely as only the visible head of the Church." While I understand the ideas behind it, even with the qualification "seen as", the distinction between "visible head" is the "more precise" term only to Catholic believers; to those outside the church, "head" is the more accurate term for the Pope. Something worth considering is that Catholic faith is a minority position in the world at large; arguably, by Wikipedia's policies, we should present the Catholic Church purely as an organisation, and mention only parenthetically what its members believe it represents. TSP 13:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting to read this stream, especially in light of the proposed 'Britishness' citizenship test. Neither the Archbishop of Canterbury's office nor that of the Queen could provide an answer to the question 'Who is the Head of the Church of England?' (Mark, Birmingham)

roman catholicism is a satanic pagan cult!

Don't let this woman riding a beast fool you, she is the only entity that fullfills endtime prophecy on all accounts to the limit.

Click Here For The Truth About Catholicism

This isn't entirely relevant to this article; however, if you'd like to provide some prominent exponents of this viewpoint, we can probably add something in 'Criticisms'. TSP 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For the real truth you could visit www.catholic.com.

I'm not sure that this particular 'posting' even qualifies as discussion. --Elliskev 00:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can believer in Christ and the Bible say that Catholicism is such a cult, yet accept the half of the bible, the New Tesament which was organized and declared inspired Word of God by a group of Catholic Bishops lead by the great Catholic Theologian-Philosipher St. Augustine during the Synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397A.D. respectively? (Protestants accept the Catholic N.T. but reject the O.T. ,accepting the O.T. devised by Christ rejecting Pharisees in Jamnia, in 90 AD- 57 years after Christ had declared the Church's authority to bind and loosen Mt 16 & 18). See this Protestant site regarding the history of the Bible http://www.literatureclassics.com/ancientpaths/bibhist.html

Historical fact from the 1st and 2nd centuries, shows that the Catholic Church existed, is named and described by the earliest of Church Fathers, Iganatius, Polycarp, Ireneus, and Justin Martyr. Additionally, they all believed they were bound to the Church in Rome, in the authority of bishops, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist all characteristics of the Catholic Church we see today as protected by Christ and is written in Matthew 16:17-19 and is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Read the Early Church Fathers here from this Protestant site and tell me collectively that they do not essentially describe the same Catholic Church we see today. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ See volume 1 for these earliest of Fathers. Contact me at rkosuave@yahoo.com .

Lastly, the idea that the Catholic Church was founded by a pagan Roman Emperor is an absolute fallacy see http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/roman.htm or http://www.ancient-future.net/constantine.html .[Micael- February 2006}

Sounds like POV to me, and not to subtle at that. But, people have a right ot believe as they choose, whether or not it is correct. I did, however, give the courtesy of looking at her site. I didn't find anything, however, that even slightly represented accurate Catholic teaching. They managed to get some of the names in order, but managed to get nothing else correct. Davescj 17:09, 8 December 2005, Feast of the Immaculate Conception (UTC)

I don't expect the anti-Catholics to bother, but if they have an open mind, an excellent resource on this Dave Hunt/Woman/Beast stuff is found at http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp Endomion 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can a cult be satanic and pagan at Can believer in Christ and the Bible say that Catholicism is such a cult, yet accept the half of the bible, the New Tesament which was organized and declared inspired Word of God by a group of Catholic Bishops lead by the great Catholic Theologian-Philosipher St. Augustine during the Synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397A.D. respectively? (Protestants accept the Catholic N.T. but reject the O.T. ,accepting the O.T. devised by Christ rejecting Pharisees in Jamnia, in 90 AD- 57 years after Christ had declared the Church's authority to bind and loosen Mt 16 & 18). See this Protestant site regarding the history of the Bible http://www.literatureclassics.com/ancientpaths/bibhist.html

Historical [[Image:fact from the 1st and 2nd centuries, shows that the Catholic Church existed, is named and described by the earliest of Church Fathers, Iganatius, Polycarp, Ireneus, and Justin Martyr. Additionally, they all believed they were bound to the Church in Rome, the authority of bishops, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist all characteristics of the Catholic Church we see today as protected by Christ and is written in Matthew 16:17-19 and is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Read the Early Church Fathers here from this Protestant site and tell me collectively that it does note essentially describe the same Catholic Church we see today. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ See volume 1 for these earliest of Fathers. Contact me at rkosuave@yahoo.com .

Lastly, the idea that the Catholic Church was the same time? Wouldn't the presence of Satan qualify it as Abrahamic?

Selling advertising space to a Catholic online dating firm on your anti-Catholic polemic website strikes me as odd.

Just a note about paganism. As far as I'm aware 'pagan' comes from a root meaning rural or of the country. The implication being that while Christianity was seen as urbane and urban, the indigenous beliefs were trivial by comparison. Many people today believe that institutional Christianity is compatible with local 'pagan' beliefs.(Mark, Birmingham)

Can this talk page be archived?

It's at 144K as I write this. I haven't been involved in much of the discussion, so I don't want to move any sections that may need to stay. --Elliskev 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. It serves almost no purpose as it is, because it's too long for people to properly be aware of what has been and is being discussed. To give a concrete example, in the 'Terminology' section, I proposed a change to the page; waited several months to see if anyone objected; then made the change, which promptly received objections. This talk page is useless as it is; let's archive and see if it gets better. TSP 01:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I archived about 2/3 of the talk. It's still at about 30K, but I tried not to archive any recent discussions. If I did (on accident), please move it back. --Elliskev 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive link at top of page. --Elliskev 01:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh

"I am curious as to the reasons for the changes you made to Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh...", someone who did not sign wrote on my Talk page.

The "Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh", as it was described on the page of that name, was not the Metropolitan Archeparchy, but what is officially called the Ruthenian Rite or particular Church (cf. pages 1138 and 1141 of the 2005 Annuario Pontificio). Page 1141 lists the component local Churches of the Ruthenian Rite as follows:

• U.S.A.: Metropolitan: Pittsburgh of the Byzantines - Eparchies: Parma, Passaic, Van Nuys.
• Ukraine: Eparchy: Mukacheve
• Czech Republic: Apostolic Exarchate: Košice Lima 07:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Campaign to move History of the Roman Catholic Church

I am afraid to report that there is a currently a campaign underway at the history counterpart of this article, History of the Roman Catholic Church to remove the word "Roman" from the entire article and rename the article to History of the Catholic Church. The user attempting these changes did not discuss these widespread edits and I think this might even violate a naming convention on the issue. I also know that numerous attempts on this article, the main Roman Catholic Church article, to remove the word Roman and change the name to simple "Catholic Church" have been reverted. I invite folks to come look at the History article. A page protection may very well be needed if these multiple page moves and purge of the word "Roman" continue. -Husnock 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Golly, do you think it is the same vandal who took the word "Roman" off the 1994 Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (CRCC)? Endomion 07:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

'Good Article' listing

I've thought about this for a while, but I don't think that I can in all conscience leave this article listed as a Good Article. I think it misses out on the criteria in the following ways:

• Neutral Point of View. While attempts have been made to ameliorate it with phrases such as "according to the Church" and "adherents believe", a great deal of the article still seems to me to express a Catholic point of view, rather than to neutrally report on the organisation. I think the repetition in this article of a great deal of information general to all Christian groups is an example of this.
• Stability. There still seem to be significant parts of the article which are disputed or still extensively edited. The creeping replacement by various editors of "Roman Catholic" with "Catholic", though the terminology section states that the two will be used interchangeably, is an example of this.
• Referencing. Much of the article is unreferenced; where it is referenced, it is almost exclusively from sources internal to the Church, rather than from impartial reporting.

I don't want to malign anyone's work - and a great deal of excellent work has gone into this article; but I think that the label of 'Good Article' might give editors the impression that this article has reached heights which I don't think it yet has. I think it still needs a lot of work; and, unfortunately, while I have been involved with it it has seen almost as much editing which has moved it away from good article status (particularly regarding the neutral point of view issue) as has moved it towards it. TSP 23:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

.............. With respect to the "repeated information" comment, I disagree. Since the Catholic Church is the largest (and arguably the oldest) Christian body, it is necessary that its beliefs are presented as a unitary and easily comprehensible whole. The fact that other smaller Christian groups share many core beliefs should not affect this. A reader needs to know what the largest Religious body on earth believes, not just be told where peiople consider that it differs from some other groups. Xandar

The section "Particular Churches within the single Catholic church" is repeated. I deleted it, but was accused of vandalism and it was replaced. --Davrg

Gosh, maybe we could go to Jack Chick and get an outside point of view on the doctrines of the Church to make this a "good" article again. Endomion 07:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the whole template for "deleted from Good Article". It seemed that editing make it a bad article, and that goes against what we SHOULD be doing at wikipedia. No hoghprofile or controversial article could be considered good with this arbitrary criteria. I still dont see a good reason for removal from a "good" status. I think it is silly, so I used WP:BOLD. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Particular Rites and Churches

Please Note: According to the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, a "Rite" is a corpus of traditions which has arisen among certain people distinct by culture and hisory. There are six principal rites or traditions, each having arisen from a center of culture, education, and worship. A "Church" on the other hand, is a distinct group of the Christian faithful organized into an autonomous (sui juris) ecclesial body. (CCOC 27, 28) Please maintain this distinction throughout the text of the article.

This section should be expanded to include the jurisdictions that are officially listed as belonging to another rite, but in reality were created for different reasons.

The Czech rite was created in 1996 as a new Apostolic Exarchate for Eastern Rite Catholics in the Czech Republic. It included those of Ruthenian (Rusyn) Descent & might officially be listed as being part of the Ruthenian rite, but it was also formed "unofficially" to facilitate the switching rites needed for approximately 100 or so Czech priests who were married. The precedent is there for this being a separate rite, as the Hungarian Rite Church also originated as a separate jurisdiction for Ruthenians in Hungary that was supplemented by those of Hungarian and other origins.

The Georgian Rite previously was acknowledged as a separate rite, including being listed in previous editions of the source listed for this section of the article. While it's survival is definitely in question, it has not declared extinct anywhere by the church that I am aware of. Even if this church was extinct, this rite did at one time exist, & so should remain acknowledged in this article the same way in which some of the defunct Western Rites are noted (and rightfully so I might add). The current political situation in Georgia itself is very volatile, & religious persecution has been reported.

[04:41, 3 January 2006 71.0.228.30, by an anonymous editor who omitted to sign by typing a tilde (~) four times]

Before ranking Czech Byzantine Catholics as a separate particular Church, we should wait for that status to be given to them, just as, when Hungarian Byzantines still formed part of the Ruthenian Church, it would have been wrong to reckon them, prematurely, as a distinct particular Church.

It would be interesting to know in which "previous editions" (plural) "of the source listed for this section of the article" Georgian Byzantine Catholics were acknowledged as a distinct particular Church or Rite. I have failed to find it mentioned in the past editions of the Annuario Pontificio that I have looked up.

The "defunct Western Rites" were liturgical rites, not autonomous (sui iuris) particular Churches.

Lima 05:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this: "As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia may not contain original research. Therefore, even if the revised list is accurate, we must stick to Lima's sourced and verifiable version until you can find a better source which backs up any altered version. TSP 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

To expand on the Georgian Catholic Church, a July 5, 2005 article in Crisis Magazine that covers the different Eastern Rite Churches briefly chronicles the Georgian Catholic Church, including the fate of the Exarch in 1937. Citation: "The Other Catholics: A Short Guide to the Eastern Catholic Churches" Crisis Magazine, July-August 2005, by Kevin R. Yurkus.

My understanding is that the Georgian Church was listed in the Annuario Pontificio up until around 1994, but was removed as of the 1995 edition.

There was also a Georgian Rite Catholic Church in Constantinople, which has I believe since closed.

05:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Anonymous User

I don't know if this helps or not, but according to an EWTN site, there is a Czech and Hungarian Church. http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Of course there is a Czech Church, and a Hungarian Church – and an Irish Church, and a Polish Church, and ...

And there is a Czech Byzantine Church, and a Hungarian Byzantine Church. There are no less than three Canadian Byzantine Churches: the 2005 Annuario Pontificio lists (on page 1111 of its pages 1105-1137 geographical summary) one for Greek-Melkite Canadians, one for Slovak Canadians, and one for Ukrainian Canadians. And the United States Byzantine Churches, according to the same source, are four.

But how many of these are particular Churches in a sense higher than the sense in which each individual eparchy (diocese) and each individual metropolitan Church (ecclesiastical province) is a particular Church? In other words, how many of them have the status of autonomous ("sui iuris") ritual Churches?

No doubt, there are marginal cases, and different people would make different classifications. Some might dispute the correctness of the Annuario Pontificio's classification and might ask why, for instance, if it reckons the Macedonian Church as a separate Byzantine Catholic Church, it does not do the same for this or that other Church. But Wikipedia, as TSP has rightly indicated, cannot set up its own classification; it must limit itself to reporting the most authoritative classification available, which is that of the Annuario Pontificio (pages 1138-1141 of the 2005 edition).

Perhaps the 2006 edition, due out in a month or so, will have a different classification.

I am grateful to the Anonymous user for directing me to the "about 1994" Annuario Pontificio in relation to Georgia. The 1994 edition did in fact inform of a change with regard to Georgia, but not for Byzantine Catholics. The Apostolic Administration of the Caucasus for the Latins was set up at the very end of the previous year, on 30 December 1993, with headquarters in Tbilisi, Georgia. But neither the 1994 Annuario Pontificio nor the editions immediately preceding have any mention of a Byzantine Catholic Church of Georgia. Perhaps Byzantine Catholics in Georgia come under the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church, which I now see comprises an exarchate in China as well as in Russia, a point I must add to Roman Catholic Church.

Lima 15:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The existence of a Georgian Rite Catholic Church in the city of Constantinople (now referred to as Istanbul) is provided in the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (1999), under the entry of Georgia. Another source for Georgian Rite Catholics is the 1974 Oriente Cattolico, which is a survey of Eastern Catholic Churches.

As to the point above about Byzantine Catholics in Georgia coming under the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church, it is possible, but many actually went underground by joining the Armenian Catholic Church. There was less opposition to this church, it was not seen as an encroachment of the Eastern Orthodox, but of the separate, "Oriental Orthodox" Armenian Church. The Byzantine Rite was illegal until 1905, & only officially tolerated after that until 1917. There has been no organized hierarchy of this church at this time. The exarch was murdered in 1937 & many priests were also killed or sent to gulags.

Sites such as the ones referenced above are not indicating that each and every church in each country are a separate rite, but they are noting that there are specific cases where the formation of independent Apostolic Exarchate has occurred, which is not directly subject to the jurisdiction of the existing hierarch for the respective rite. This includes the Czech, Serbian & Montenegrin, and Macedonian Apostolic Exarchates. The latter two were separated from the Eparchy of Krizevci. The Macedonian Exarchate falls under the jurisdiction of the Latin Bishop of Skopje. My understanding is that the Exarch of Serbia and Montenegro of the Byzantine Rite is also not subject to Krizevci.

The Ruthenian case is unique, as both the Czech and United States Churches are officially of the Ruthenian Rite, but each jurisdiction is independent and they do not fall under the Eparchy in Mukaèevo, even though the bishop is listed as the head of the church. This will presumably be addressed at some point in the future and the status of all three will be hopefully be defined.

71.48.105.177 20:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Anonymous User

I don't think it necessary to look up the Blackwell Dictionary: the very phrase that Anonymous User employs, "The existence of a Georgian Rite Catholic Church in the city of Constantinople", points to the meaning: "a Georgian Catholic church" (lower case), i.e. a building, not a Georgian Catholic Church in the sense of an autonomous particular Church.

The source that Anonymous User has helpfully pointed me to, the 1974 publication of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches, Oriente Cattolico, clearly indicates, on page 193, that a Georgian Catholic Byzantine-Rite particular Church never existed. (You cannot have a particular Church without a bishop.) It states that, in 1861, two now defunct religious congregations "of the Immaculate Conception" for Georgians (one male and one female) were founded in Constantinople, which explains the Blackwell reference to a Georgian church in that city. The church, and the congregations, must have been of Latin Rite: Oriente Cattolico states that, until the end of the nineteenth century (when some of them, including some priests, joined the Armenian Rite) all Georgian Catholics were of Latin Rite, and only in 1905 did some, presumably very few, begin to use the Byzantine liturgy.

The Apostolic Exarchate for (all) Byzantine-Rite Catholics resident in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia does not "fall under the jurisdiction of the Latin Bishop of Skopje", any more than the Diocese of Brooklyn "falls under the jurisdiction of" the Archbishop of New York. Each ecclesiastical jurisdiction is either part of an ecclesiastical province (metropolia) or is otherwise associated with some other jurisdiction; but it is not subject to another jurisdiction. The Eparchy of Križevci itself is fully part of the ecclesiastical province of Zagreb. An apostolic exarchate, not being a diocese/eparchy, cannot be part of an ecclesiastical province; but it must link with some other Catholic jurisdiction, though without being subject to it.

In 1904 the Acta Sanctae Sedis, forerunner of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, was declared the only "official" publication of the Holy See (giving the word "official" a more restricted sense), and the description "official publication" ceased to be placed on the title page of the Annuario Pontificio. However, the Annuario Pontificio remains just as "authoritative" as before. It is difficult to think of anything more authoritative on internal matters of the Catholic Church than a publication compiled by a department of the Roman Curia.

"This will presumably be addressed at some point in the future and the status of all three will hopefully be defined." Yes, indeed. But not by Anonymous User nor by me.

Lima 09:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Lima's argument still seems to be holding more water at the moment. Lima has provided a Vatican-published list; this seems to be the most useful thing to report. If you (the anonymous user) can identify, AND PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR EACH ONE, other churches not on this list but which some consider to be Particular Churches, it would be appropriate to note these after the end of the official list; but you're not making any friends by keeping reverting without proper explanation of your sources. TSP 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The "unnecessary" task of looking up the entry in the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity seems relevant to this discussion. I was not referring to the building itself, but the two congregations established in the middle of the 19th century in Constantinople for Georgian Catholics of the Byzantine Rite. I thought that was evident from my post, but I apologize if this was in some way unclear. I was not aware there were two congregations, I only knew of one, but I have since confirmed that there were two.

As to the church never existing, sources provided here state otherwise. An additional source is an entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition entitled "Georgian Byzantine Catholics" and published in 2003. The article confirms the existence of the two congregations in Constantinople, & explicitly states they served Georgians of both the Byzantine & the Latin Rite. It goes on to confirm that a Georgian Byzantine Catholic community entered union with Rome, and numbered about 10,000 members at its peak. It does state that no hierarchy was formed, but it specifically acknowledges its existence. Other sources have spoken of the later extermination of the Georgian Catholics, including the Exarch in the 1930's by the Soviets, which was part of a wider persecution of Eastern Catholics that is well documented during the twentieth century. The statement of "you cannot have a particular church without a bishop" is a bit misleading because the bishop does exist, but need not be a bishop of the rite. There are Eastern Catholic Particular Churches under the care of a Latin Rite Bishops such as the Albanian, Belarusian, and Russian Byzantine Catholic Churches. That does not nullify the existence of those churches.

As to the Annuario Pontificio being an "authoritative" source, I have no issue with using it, but I do not agree that it should be the only source used to the point of dismissing all other sources of information. Regarding the status of the source, it cannot be called official if the Holy See itself does not designate it is such. A balanced article should strive to integrate as many different sources as possible, as in some cases "authoritative" sources of information shy away from "unpleasant" facts and details. Independent confirmation through various sources is vital to maintaining the accuracy of any article. Does the Annuario Pontificio acknowledge the conversion of 100 Czech priests to the Byzantine Rite in order to remove questions of their being "secretly" married? Is it possible that this had no bearing on the decision to create a separate jurisdiction for the Byzantine Rite in the Czech Republic in 1996, of course, but it is a significant development for the church in the Czech Republic and as such should be included if there are legitimate sources.

The defining of the Ruthenian Church will not be made by me, but acknowledgement of the current situation increases the accuracy of this article. Simply listing this as one particular church ignores the development of what has become the three separate jurisdictions. The Church in the U.S. is listed as a 'Sui Juris' Church, while at the same time being officially part of the Ruthenian Rite. To not acknowledge this exception in the listing of the churches is excluding relevant information. Yes, it appears as part of the same church in the Annuario Pontificio listing, but there is an exceptional status given to the church in the United States for historical reasons.

65.41.245.189 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Anonymous User

Anonymous User says that the "Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition ... published in 2003", which is unknown to me, states that no hierarchy was formed for Georgian Byzantine Catholics. In other words, no distinct particular Church was ever set up for Georgian Byzantine Catholics. Accordingly, if a Georgian Catholic Exarch was "exterminated" by the Soviets in the 1930s, he cannot have been of Byzantine Rite. Perhaps he was of Armenian Rite. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Out of from 30,000 to 35,000 Georgian Catholics, about 8000 follow the Armenian Rite, the remainder having adopted the Latin Rite. The only Catholic Georgian organization in existence is at Constantinople."[2] In another part of the same article, the 1917 publication, speaking of Byzantine Catholics, says: "The number of Catholic Georgians is unknown, but it is small."

Anonymous User rightly remarks that there are Eastern-Rite eparchies headed by hierarchs who are, personally, of Latin Rite. There are also Latin-Rite jurisdictions headed by ordinaries who are, personally, of an Eastern Rite. An example is the Latin-Rite Apostolic Vicariate of Meki in Ethiopia, which has been headed since its inception by ordinaries who are themselves of Ethiopian Rite. But there has never been a Georgian Catholic Byzantine-Rite exarchate or eparchy, headed by any bishop of any rite. There have been, and may well still be, individual Byzantine-Rite Georgian Catholics, entrusted to the care of the head of a Latin-Rite jurisdiction, as today all Eastern-Rite Catholics, except Ukrainians and Melkites, living in New Zealand - including any Byzantine Georgians who may be there - are entrusted to the care of the heads of the Latin-Rite dioceses of that country. But there has never yet been a Georgian Catholic Byzantine-Rite particular Church.

The only publication that the Holy See designates as "official" is the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. In that narrow sense, a papal encyclical does not become "official" until it is printed in that "government gazette" a month or more after it has been signed by the Pope and given to the public. An encyclical does not have to wait that long to be "official" in the ordinary sense of the word. Nor does the Annuario Pontificio, which in any case is far more authoritative on questions of the contemporary structure of the Catholic Church than the Catholic Encyclopedia or any similar publication. The Annuario Pontificio may not - indeed, does not - explain the reasons behind the setting up of a particular jurisdiction, but it does indicate how, in the view of the Holy See, that jurisdiction fits into the over-all structure of the Church.

Lima 09:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have corrected the above reference as it was the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition that was published in 2003, that was a "data entry" error on my end. The article name is correct, "Georgian Byzantine Catholics." The information in the article is derived from a book by Ronald G. Roberson that is listed in the bibliography as The Eastern Christian Churches; A Brief Survey, 6th Edition (1999). A brief biography of this particular author is included on the website of the the CNEWA (Catholic Near East Welfare Association), which is on the web at http://www.cnewa.org.

The CNEWA Website also provides a description of the specific particular churches, including four without hierarchies, the Georgian, Russian, Belarusan, & Albanian churches. Returning the the Georgian discussion, this entry notes the existence of the two extinct religious orders mentioned earlier. In addition, it refers to a small Georgian Rite Byzantine Catholic Parish in Constantinople (Istanbul). I had previously believed references to the church and the religious orders that occurred separately in different sources were noting the same institition, & I apologize for letting the misconception carry into this discussion. I presume the Latin Diocese founded in 1848 at Tiraspol covering Georgia and other parts of this region that were absorbed into the Russian Empire would be the hierarchy for all Catholics in the area.

The link that Lima provided to the New Advent site that includes the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia was a wealth of useful information, despite being almost 90 years old. In the article on the Eastern Churches, it provides a opinion (slanted as it may be) on each of the eastern churches not in union with the Holy See. In addition, it provides a similar break-down for the Eastern Catholic Churches. In the section under the different churches of the Byzantine Rite, it lists our "Georgian Congregation in Constantinople" again, & notes it is a remnant of the independent Georgian Orthodox church that was destroyed by Russian when they annexed Georgia. It also indicated it is under the Latin jurisdiction. This article does not differentiate this listing as being different than the other 6 groups, the impression from it is that there is a Georgian Byzantine Catholic Church.

Returning to the CNEWA website, the explanation of the Ruthenian Rite Church also includes the information on the establishment of the Czech jurisdiction that was "officially" classified as Ruthenian while serving to deal with the issue of "married" Latin priests that occurred during the communist regime. The metropolitan "sui juris" American Byzantine church statistics are also provided. The un-defined relationship between these three jurisdictions is contained here. While still technically one church, listing it as such based solely on an "authoritative" source would exclude this information.

Of particular interest to this discussion is a PDF file of Eastern Catholic Church Statistics that is from the 2005 Annuario Pontificio and lists membership data on 19 of the churches. The Belarusan, Russian, & Georgian Churches were not on the list. The entry for The Greek Catholics of the Former Yugoslavia contains the Croatian Eparchy, the Macedonian Apostolic Exarchate, & the Exarchate of Serbia/Montenegro. Since this comes from the same source as the one listed for this article, I'm unsure why the Macedonian Church is reckoned as a separate particular church in the Annuario Pontificio but not here, so if please tell me if I am missing something on this. On the surface, the separation of the Macedonian Church in 2000 and the similar split in 2003 for Serbia/Montenegro look the same. Other sources have listed the Serbian Catholic Church separately as well. The article in the CNEWA website lists a single entry for Byzantine Catholics in Former Yugoslavia, but notes of the new jurisdictions formed in the wake of the break-up of Yugoslavia. The information on the Latin Bishop of Skopje referenced earlier is also here. Obviously, there has been much disruption in the region in the last 15 years, & so there is still much that needs to be assessed and addressed regarding the faithful here. Many parishes were destroyed and populations were moved, and whether the populations will be able to return remains to be seen.

My intent here is not to "win friends" but really to enhance the article in this particular area based on all available information.

69.69.122.67 06:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Anonymous User

Yes, some Eastern Catholic Churches are at present without a hierarch, and indeed without any secure knowledge whatever of their faithful: the Annuario Pontificio gives no statistics about them. This is the case, for instance, of the Exarchate of Harbin, China, founded in 1928, and still listed as a component jurisdiction of the Byzantine Russian Catholic Church. If some day it is ascertained that there are no longer any Catholics belonging to this jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction itself will have to be abolished. But for the present it is still listed, as various other Eastern-Rite jurisdictions, supposedly wiped out in the decades of Communist rule in eastern and central Europe, continued then to be listed. The case of Georgian Byzantine Catholics is completely different: no Georgian-Rite exarchate or other form of particular Church was ever set up. Whatever Byzantine Georgian Catholics there were and are, and whatever form of liturgy they attended, they have always belonged to the Catholic jurisdiction, Byzantine or, if necessary, Latin, of their place of residence, not to a distinct particular Church.

The CNEWA .pdf page is interested only in statistics, not in listing Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches. Accordingly it makes no mention of those Churches for which no statistics are available. Presumably, it places together the three jurisdictions now existing in what was Yugoslavia to avoid giving the impression of a sudden slump in the number of Byzantine Catholics in the statistics, which are retrospective to 1990, when all three were a single jurisdiction. And it seems quite natural to write, as yet, of all three together, because of their common history and very recent division. CNEWA certainly did not intend to distance itself from the Annuario Pontificio listing of Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches: describing is one thing, listing another.

Anonymous User is right abot the relationship of the Bishop of the Latin-Rite diocese of Skopje with the Exarchate of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I apologize for not having checked earlier, and for having therefore previously written beside the point. It is stated on page 1036 of the 2005 Annuario Pontificio that he is Exarch of the Byzantine-Rite jurisdiction, as well as Bishop of the Latin-Rite diocese. But the Byzantine jurisdiction does exist, and has its Exarch. On the contrary, no Georgian-Rite jurisdiction ever existed, under any hierarch whatever.

Lima 09:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re the Annuario Pontificio and the Exarcate of Habrin in China: you keep in mind that pproviding a name and an address for the Exarach will lead to his arrest and detention by the Chinese communist government. Just take a look at the Catholic Sees in China and notice how many f those are vacant with no listings or statistica mentioned.

Criticisms and controversies

Since there exists a Wikipedia article entitled "Criticism of the Catholic Church", should not the whole of the "Criticisms and controversies" section here be merged into that article, and a link to it be placed here? Lima 05:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so; and I don't really think that article should exist. It sounds like it is, or at least is in grave danger of becoming, a 'POV fork' - moving all critical material off into a separate article, so that anyone who attempts to balance the main article by mentioning critical opinion can be pointed to that one and told, "no, criticism belongs there". (In this case, it seems to be the opposite way round from what you might expect - Criticism of the Catholic Church is an entirely unreferenced and largely pro-church examination of a few selected controversies.) Positive and negative points of view should be kept together in the one article. Indeed, now I think about it, the 'Criticism' section here is not ideal; we should be ordering by topic, not by positive and negative views. So mentions of criticism of the church's stance on celibacy should be in a section about celibacy; historical criticism should be in the section about the relevant period of the church's history; and so on. On the other hand, the article is currently quite long, so splitting some parts off by topic might be reasonable; I just don't think that 'criticisms' is particularly helpful subdivision. TSP 12:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that balance (aka impartiality) will require another section entitled "Encomium of the Catholic Church" if you include a section entitled "Criticism of the Catholic Church". Otherwise, the whole enterprise degenerates into mere polemic. Thus, you have both or none.

Papists

I put up a posting on the term "Papists", for which there is a long tradition of use in the English language. It derives from same cultural context that generated the use of the term "Roman Catholic". It was removed in a very fascist manner without any form of explanation, dialogue or discussion. I believe that a discussion of this term should be held. (posted by User:85.43.58.100)

"Fascist"? Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks...KHM03 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may want to review Fascism, as you may not understand its meaning. KHM03 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand it all right and have lived under such a regeime. No need to tell me anything about the suppression of free thought or open debate. Now let us cut the side show and concentrate on the subject. In itself, it is telling that any reference to facists is automatically regarded as "wrong". Now, back to the point. Why use/or not use the term "Papists"?

Opening paragraph

"The Roman Catholic Church, (also known as the Catholic Church), is the ancient Christian Church led by the Bishop of Rome (commonly called the Pope)." -- This seems pretty POV to me. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say something like it claims to be...or something like that, as opposed to "it is..."? Other denominations make similar claims (the Orthodox, for instance). Perhaps we should try and make it a bit more NPOV. Thoughts? KHM03 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel the sentence is making the claim you think it does. It is stating that the "Roman Catholic Church" is an ancient church, defined by those who accecpt the authority of the bishop of Rome. Similarly, the article for the Orthodox churches could start: "The Eastern Orthodox Churches are the ancient Christian Churches led by the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople (commonly called the Ecumenical Patriarch) and the other hierarchs in communion with them," and, "The Oriental Orthodox Church is the ancient Christian Church led by the Patriarch of Alexandria (commonly called the Coptic Pope)." Gentgeen 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand; but the wording "is the" is rather absolute, or at least reads that way to me (a non-Roman Catholic). KHM03 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe changing it to The Roman Catholic Church is an ancient Christian Chruch, led by the Bishop of Rome.. I don't see a problem with that wording. Gentgeen 00:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is that this opening paragraph has undergone several revsions and always reverts to the same text? Can it be that those who have given alternatives (and there have been not a few) are always wrong on every point? This indicates a very remarkable mide-set, indeed one closed to any suggestion or alternative. It is also interesting to note that the most insistent person in the respect says he is not a Catholic and that he does not belong to any mainstream Christian Church. What are we to infer here? An infallible source of truth? - added by anonymous user 85.43.58.100

Opening paragraphs are very important in Wikipedia articles, because they set the tone of what is to come; this means they are subject to several rules and guidelines on what they should contain. It also means that they tend to be the first target for people wanting to change the tone of the article, or push a particular point of view.

If you look back in the history, the opening paragraph has changed a number of times - even a month ago it was different to its current state. However, changes have usually been made after discussion here on the talk page, rather than as a unilateral action; because such a change has a significant effect on the page.

Incidentally, ad hominem arguments are usually regarded as a logical fallacy, and may violate Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. If you wish to argue, please do so based on someone's arguments, not on who they are. TSP 00:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, KHM03, and although the current wording certainly expresses my POV(!), I agree that it's not quite appropriate for a Wikipedia article. However, I recall from one of the NPOV pages (perhaps the tutorial) that "claims" is not ideal either, as it carries a slight insinuation that the claim is false (like "alleges"). I'd be happy with changing "the" to "an", as Gentgeen suggested. I don't think that would actually contradict Catholic teaching (something I'm always looking out for), but it wouldn't assert it either. AnnH ^(talk) 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How about omitting "ancient" (The Roman Catholic Church is the Church led by the Bishop of Rome)? Lima 05:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, how about "The Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church led by the Bishop of Rome."? --Aquarius Rising 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Any of these will work, I think. Whatever the community wants to do is fine with me...I just wanted to point it out. KHM03 11:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the business about " an ancient Church" works. For quite a while, you know, all of the Oriental Patriarchates recognised the Roman Primacy and the existence of but one Church. "An ancient Church", apart from the historical problem, would be anachronistic and clearly an isogesis.

By the way, the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" was never conceded to Constantinople by an Ecumenical Council. It was unilaterally assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and, as such, can, at the very best, be regarded as a "claim" not universally admitted - even among the Oriental Churches. here is nothing "common" about this title at all. And anyway, where is there any mention in the New Testament of "Patriarchates"? (posted by User:85.43.58.100)

Category:33 establishments

What on earth does Stijn Calle mean by "Category:33 establishments"? Lima 12:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's meant to be a category for institutions founded in 33 AD. In my view, it's ripe for deletion. KHM03 13:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Lima 17:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this. Quite apart from the dubious significance of such categories, it is by no means possible to neutrally say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD. Even if you do believe that the Roman Catholic Church represents the Christian Church founded by Jesus, and that he did so in the last year of his life, most experts now believe that Jesus died nearer 30 than 33AD (due to miscalculation of his birth date). TSP 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that the Roman catholic Church was founded in 33 A.D. It has existed since then. Stijn Calle 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you can claim this as an objective fact, as there are no external historical accounts of the founding of the Church.--SarekOfVulcan 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Compare with Latin version

(This was posted by User:159.134.52.37 talk), who also managed to delete the entire contents of the talk page. I've reverted the change, and am now adding his comment back. Gentgeen 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

In relation to this article I enclose the Latin version of Wikipedia which looks as though it is talking about a different institution. There should at least be internal consistency in Wikipedia>

(Latin language version sniped, you can use the interwiki link to read it yourself. Gentgeen)

In view of the way Wikipedia is edited, the language versions are bound to differ. To see a view of the Roman Catholic Church vastly different from that in the Latin version, just read the Sicilian-language page (a basic knowledge of standard Italian is enough for understanding it), which must have been written by a certain man from Palermo who only a few weeks ago has been ordained as a priest of the Orthodox Church of Greece. His version is that the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054. Should we change this article to fit his ideas? Lima 05:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs section

The section on 'Beliefs' seems to be almost entirely redundant with Christianity. This duplication actually makes it inaccurate in places - for example "Catholicism is also a Trinitarian religion. As opposed to other monotheistic religions, it believes that while God is one in nature, essence, and being, this one God exists in three divine persons" implies that no monotheistic religion apart from Catholicism believes in a Trinity; what it actually means is "Christianity is also a Trinitarian religion...".

The Roman Catholic Church does hold some beliefs which differ from those of other Christians (intercession of the saints, for example, and purgatory); but these are not actually mentioned all that prominently in the Beliefs section (the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, for example, is not mentioned at all). I propose that this section be removed, initially leaving just its first section (before 'the nature of God'. I believe this would give about as much information as the entire section currently gives. Distinctive beliefs of the Catholic Church can then be added, in more detail than at present. If people feel that there are aspects of Christianity not currently well-explained in the Christianity article, they can of course improve that article; including putting beliefs held only by Catholics in there, as long as they are clearly marked as such. TSP 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

An account of the beliefs of Catholics that only mentioned matters that some individual thinks differ from those of other Christians (probably meaning his own personal beliefs) would only be a distorted caricature of Catholic beliefs.

And what are those matters on which Catholics stand alone? TSP mentions intercession of the saints: all Eastern Christians, pre-Ephesian, pre-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian alike, would be amazed to be told they do not believe in the intercession of the saints; and do no Anglicans, no Old Catholics, no other Western Christians whatever, believe in the intercession of the saints? Purgatory: surely some of the Westerners who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church believe in a spiritual cleansing after death; the Easterners not in communion think the theological construct sounds too legalistically Latin, but they all pray for the dead and do not think their prayers are in vain. The Assumption of Mary: Easterners out of communion do not consider it a dogma of faith, but they do in fact believe in Mary's preservation from bodily corruption in a tomb ...

In practice, it would be impossible to agree on what, other than the papacy and the binding force of certain solemnly defined dogmas (not the dogmas themselves), is a Roman Catholic belief held by no other Christians. All the more because of the difficulty of deciding what are the beliefs of Christians in general, or even of "Catholics" in the broad sense of the word. We Wikipedians cannot agree even on what is the broad sense of the word "Catholic". As for "Christians", the great variety of conflicting opinions among them would make it extremely difficult to identify beliefs that absolutely all of them hold. Not all of them believe in the Trinity.

Of course, I do not mean by this that the text cannot be improved. It should.

Lima 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Lima 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Papal authority, transubstantiation, and the immaculate conception of Mary are three pretty Roman-specific doctrines that could be fairly highlighted. Just one guy's opinion. KHM03 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If what you say is true, Lima - if there is nothing that we can identify encyclopedically to be a Catholic-specific doctrine - then we should remove the Beliefs section altogether. The entire thing should simply be a redirect to Christianity. It's reasonably clear to me at least that the shared doctrine of mainstream Christianity is much greater than the differences between the branches; therefore it is necessarily wasteful to define in an article on every church, the whole of Christian belief. There are clearly differences between churches; but these would probably be better explained at Christianity rather than an inconsistent list being separately prepared for each church. TSP 17:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A) it is not true that all Christians are trinitarians.

True (well, arguably; different groups vary on whether they include Unitarians in the bracket 'Christian'). I don't see why that's a problem, though; simply say that Roman Catholics are Trinitarian, then refer them to a more general article saying what that means. Actually the Christianity article is currently entirely Trinitarian. TSP 13:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostals are also not Trinitarian. Certianly both American and Transylvanian Unitarians were/are historically speaking Christians.--Samuel J. Howard 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

True. But I note that the articles on all those faiths manage to express themselves in terms of Christianity, without feeling the need to explain monotheism, sin, the crucifixion, salvation, prayer, and so on for themselves. TSP 15:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

B) it is not possible to swap out the beliefs sections of RC and Xtianity w/o taking an anti-NPOV position that either 1) RC is not the sole only true Xtianity or 2) that RC is the only true xtianity.--Samuel J. Howard 12:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Does that mean that the whole of Christian belief has to be repeated in the articles on every church which claims any kind of exclusivity? It is surely possible to note that the Roman Catholic Church holds the general beliefs outlined in the Christianity article, but also some beliefs distinct to that church; one of which is that they alone constitute the one church founded by Jesus Christ? TSP 13:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Before I keep making this change in the future, do we have consensus that the phrasing should be "The Roman Catholic Church, also known as the Catholic Church"?

• Roman Catholic --SarekOfVulcan 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to what? Yes, it is the Roman Catholic Church, otherwise known as "the Catholic Church." Nrgdocadams 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Catholics themselves refer to it as "The Catholic Church" that is why so many people have been changing it to "Catholic Church". But I believe that because of confusion within Wiki, it needs to be called "The Roman Catholic Church". Maybe we should better explain this at the top of the article page. --WikiCats 05:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm Catholic, and I refer to it as the Roman Catholic church often enough. I'm not convinced that "many people" have been changing it, I think it's one person with multiple IPs.--SarekOfVulcan 05:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't a matter of opinion. The official name is simply, "The Catholic Church". period. Roman Catholic CHurch refers only to the Latin Rite church. Period. You can take the word of canonists (like below) and ecclesiolgists (like myself) or the word of people with strong opinions and personal experience but no expertise. As the church is not a democracy i am inclined to agree with the persons who know what they are talking about. [Unsigned by Anonymous, 20:55, 18 February 2006]

The preceding paragraph was inserted, unsigned, by an anonymous editor who believes that s/he, as an ecclesiologist, knows what s/he is talking about, and that everyone should take his/her word about the matter. S/He has quoted no source for the declaration: "The official name is simply, 'The Catholic Church'. period. Roman Catholic CHurch refers only to the Latin Rite church. Period." Am I mistaken in thinking that, in reality, the Church has never adopted an official name? That outsiders need a distinguishing name for her, but the Church herself does not? That she has never taken a name for herself, and has only described herself, using in fact many descriptions? That only a Church newly sprung up needs to adopt an official distinguishing name? Perhaps indeed I am mistaken. Lima 06:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that concerned that is was unsigned, most people aren't wikipedians and understand the correct signing conventions. It's obvious there are some of us who disagree, I think the views of the priest and canonical lawyer below--who's background and present assignment is easily googled--is instructive. I'm confused as to your present statement, you first implied that the Church called itself "Roman Catholic" on the basis of a phrase in a document from the First Vatican council and now you're claiming doubt that it has ever adopted an official name. Again, I'd defer to the canonical authority quoted below. Virgil61 08:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I still wonder whether I am or am not mistaken in thinking that, when the (Roman) Catholic Church calls itself something, such as the Mystical Body of Christ, it is only giving a description of what it is, not assuming a name for itself. (And, of course, I am not at all concerned about someone not signing. I sometimes forget to do so myself.) Lima 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you this, it calls itself by so many descriptive names it'll make your head spin. I think you're on the money in stating that it's only describing itself when it says things like the "Holy Church" rather than giving an official name. A large part of the confusion is the church's fault of course, they love those mystical, flowery phrases to death. With the Roman rite so predominate people have associated it with the whole church and forgotten that long ago fact that "Roman Catholic" was, as I've said earlier, originally started an insult towards English Catholics to associate them with Rome and take away the singular Catholic=Universal connotation.Virgil61 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting answer to a question I posed to a priest trained in canon law: While the latin rite is called the Roman Catholic Church is it technically incorrect to call the church as a whole, including the eastern rites, the Roman Catholic Church?

Here's the answer given by Father Mark J. Gantley, JCL

(received his licentiate in canon law from The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C...):

The Church that I am a member of is the "Catholic Church."

The Catholic Church includes a number of ritual Churches -- e.g., Latin Church, Maronite Church, Armenian Church, Coptic Church, Ukrainian Church. It is also appropriate to include tyhe term "Catholic" in the title of each of these Churches -- e.g., Latin Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church. Related to this, your use of the term "rite" is incorrect. The correct term would be "ritual Church" or "Church sui iuris." Each of these Churches is a "ritual Church" or "Church sui iuris." Together, all of these Churches is the Catholic Church.

Personally, I never use the term "Roman Catholic Church," as it is not a term that the Church uses to apply to herself in official documents. I realize this is common usage, however, for many people in the secular world, and this usage has been taken over frequently by many in the Catholic Church. It is often used by people in the Catholic Church to distinguish "true" Catholics from pretenders. Still, I avoid using it because it does not originate in usage with the Church herself.

When the Church uses the term "Roman Church," it is referring to the Church of the Diocese of Rome. "Roman" is also used in matters related to the liturgy (e.g., the Roman Missal, the Roman RItual, the Roman Pontifical).

...

So let me sum up -- there is the one universal Catholic Church. There are the various ritual Catholic Churches (I believe 22 in all) that together are the one Catholic Church. Each ritual Church has many dioceses that are complete expressions of the Catholic Church. And there are church buildings related to parishes. Like many words, one word has been uses and shades of meaning.

Hopefully this statement from a priest and canonical lawyer will be somewhat helpful if not interesting.Virgil61 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

When the Catholic Church declared: "The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection" (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith),[3] it was clearly not "referring to the Church of the Diocese of Rome" - though in other contexts this could be the meaning. The Catholic Church also regularly signs inter-Church documents in which it is called the Roman Catholic Church, accepting this name for the whole of itself, not just for a single diocese.

The Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Orthodox Church, and most often refers to itself as such; but it accepts the name of "Eastern Orthodox Church", which is the title of the Wikipedia article about that Church. The (Roman) Catholic Church considers itself to be the Catholic Church, and nearly always refers to itself as such; but it accepts the name of "Roman Catholic Church". Why should Wikipedia describe it only as "the Catholic Church"?

Lima 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add here that I've reviewed the First Vatican Council statement you quoted and it isn't obvious that that is what the church 'officially' calls itself. It's buried in the document, not a headline. In fact the term "Catholic Church" is used right up front in the Profession of Faith where the residing Pope, Pius is called the bishop of the "Catholic Church". It also calls itself other names such as the 'Holy Roman Church', 'Holy Mother Church', etc all of which clearly are not the official name. Search the Vatican II documents and you'll not find it referring to itself as the "Roman Catholic Church". I'd also like to know where and how many 'official' documents are signed as the "Roman Catholic Church" and what the source for that is. Thanks. Virgil61 23:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it calls itself the "Catholic Church". You've misinterpreted a self-description with what the church names itself officially, they are two different things. Your logic dictates not the use of "Roman Catholic" but the use of "The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church" or various combinations of "Apostolic Church", "Holy Church", etc. None of the last two examples are acceptable I think you'd agree, so the question is why is "Roman Catholic" acceptable? It's not because that is what the Church calls itself it's for two reasons, "Roman" Catholic--which began as an insult in 17th century England--has become acceptable shorthand for all Catholicism and secondly some Protestants bristle at the thought of "Catholic" being used exclusively by that church. I would use 'Catholic Church' but recognize the opposition against it and would only include a statement to the effect that is what it calls itself. I do sympathize with your opinion below about using RC 'in a context, such as Wikipedia...', that's certainly a stronger argument.

Not to be combatative with you, but I'll go with a priest and canonical lawyer's opinion--whose answer is quoted above (who can be contacted or whose answer is searchable on the EWTN page)--on the matter of what the church calls itself. Virgil61 23:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In a context, such as Wikipedia, involving more than (Roman) Catholics, I agree that "Roman Catholic Church" is the more suitable expression. The phrase in the Terminology section about considering equivalent, within this article, the two terms was intended to reduce, to some extent, the long-standing contest between those who favoured one term or the other. I think "Roman Catholic Church" should predominate, but that allowing some instances of "Catholic Church", even outside quotations from documents, may help pacate those who strongly prefer the shorter phrase. Lima 05:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the word “also” be changed to (commonly known as the Catholic Church). --WikiCats 08:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Lima 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by that; firstly because 'commonly known as' implies to me that 'Roman Catholic Church' is the formal name and 'Catholic Church' the informal name, which isn't really the case (one is the organisation's term for itself, the other is the disambiguated term used to distinguish it from other claimants to that title); and secondly because it suggests, to me at least, that 'Catholic Church' is the more common term; which I'm not sure is true, in British English anyway. TSP 01:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia recognizes that as a common name because it redirects from “Catholic Church” and there is consensus. --WikiCats 04:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there is not concensus - there is a majority, which Wikipedia guidelines are clear is not the same thing. A concensus will be achieved when you have addressed my concerns about the wording in a way I am happy with (or when the majority of editors are convinced that my arguments are unreasonable, which does not yet appear to be the case either).

The existence of a redirect states that Wikipedia believes that "Catholic Church", when used, most commonly refers to the Roman Catholic Church; whereas "commonly known as" - I believe - states that Wikipedia believes that "Catholic Church" is the term commonly used when referring to the Roman Catholic Church. The two are quite different. TSP 13:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "commonly known as" is a small concession to those people who have been changing “Roman Catholic Church” to “Catholic Church”. --WikiCats 13:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It just seems less accurate to me. "Catholic Church" is not a 'common' name; it's the official name, whereas "Roman Catholic Church" is the neutral and unambiguous name. TSP 13:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. You're right it should read-- 'the Catholic Church (commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church)'. Roman Catholic being the better known popular connotation, "Catholic Church" being the official name. Virgil61 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

small change to membership

I made one small change to the membership section. CIC only allows for entrance to the Church. Technically, even those who are lapsed or excommunicated are members. This flows from understanding Baptism as a one time, non repeatable event. What is included in Canon Law, is the provision for not being held to Canonical Form of marriage for those who have Defected from the Church by Formal Act (whether schismatic, heretic, or apostate). However, as a person can always freely return WITHOUT "converting", it makes no logical sense to speak of "leaving" in the ordinary sense.DaveTroy 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But is that the meaning as reflected in the membership figures? That being the context in which the statement on membership is made. If so, I think that most impartial observers would consider those membership figures to be a somewhat skewed estimate of the 'number of Roman Catholics' (given that it could include in it large parts of the membership of other churches and religions, let alone those who profess no faith). Even the method of counting which allows for formally leaving the church - but does not allow for informal 'lapsing' - is a pretty generous measure.

Does the Roman Catholic Church rebaptise people coming from other Christian churches? If so, does that apply to all churches not under the authority of the Pope?

What is the formal meaning of "converting" here (i.e. what is it that differentiates the process that, say, a baptised Anglican must go through to enter the Catholic Church, from that which someone who was baptised a Catholic, then became an Anglican, and now wishes to return)? TSP 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My wife was not re-baptized when she became Catholic a couple of years ago.--SarekOfVulcan 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe church doctrine holds that as a rule converts who have been baptised outside the Catholic church do not have to undergo another baptism. There may be some exceptions to this.Virgil61 16:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no exception. The Catholic Church holds that there is "one baptism for the remission of sins"; if baptism has been validly conferred, it cannot be repeated. Baptism is conferred for the first and only time on converts who have not been baptized; it may be conferred, but only conditionally ("If you are not already baptized, I baptize you ..."), in doubtful cases. Lima 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

For a baptism outside the church to be valid, it must be performed properly. If the other jurisdiction doesn't use the correct procedure (baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while getting water dumped on you), then the convert would be "rebaptized". Regardless of whether a baptism is required or not, adult converts go through classes, called RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) in the US, and usually formally join the church during the Easter Vigil Mass. For an adult who left the church and then decided to return, if they haven't received the sacrament of confirmation, they would have to go through the RCIA program. If they have, I'm not sure what the process is. It might be a simple as talking to the parish pastor. Gentgeen 07:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gentgeen rightly puts quotation marks around "rebaptized". A convert not validly baptized will be baptized, for the first and only time, not rebaptized, which is impossible. In Catholic teaching, anyone can baptize validly, if intending to do what the Church does; but administration of confirmation requires valid orders. Accordingly, a member of an Eastern Church who becomes a Catholic, being already confirmed, is not "re-confirmed"; but converts from Protestantism are confirmed, for the first and only time. A Catholic who becomes an apostate, heretic or schismatic incurs automatic excommunication (canon 1364), provided, of course, that the various general conditions for such a censure are met, e.g. being at least fully sixteen years old. On returning to the Church, such a person must have the excommunication lifted. "The apostate, heretic, or schismatic who has not incurred the censure of excommunications does not need to be absolved from this censure in order to be admitted to full communion with the Catholic Church. If baptized in heresy or schism in good faith, only the profession of faith is necessary. If the person is guilty of apostatizing, that person will be required to forswear the error" [commentary on canon 751 in Code of Canon Law Annotated (Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, Montréal, 1993)]. Lima 15:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"traces its origins"

An anonymous user clearly finds the phrase "The Roman Catholic Church traces its origins to the Apostles Peter and Paul" controversial, and has repeatedly replaced "traces" with "claims to trace". My reading of that sentence is not to imply that there is a provable historical link, but that that is the source to which the church attributes its roots - just as you might say "American football traces its origins to the British sport of rugby", without implying that the game is officially supported by William Webb Ellis. That being the case, "claims to trace" seems to have no meaning, except to introduce a POV sense of dubiousness. Do other people feel differently? Would the anonymous user like to explain their concerns? And can anyone suggest an alternative wording that might please everyone? TSP 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the anon user, but, as a Methodist, I don't have a problem with "traces its origins". The Mormons trace their origins to the early Church; that doesn't make them any more or less accurate or legitimate, but they are free to trace their origins however they want to do so. Same with the RCC. Saying they "trace their origins" isn't a claim of veracity. KHM03 11:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "traces its origins" states simply that the RCC says that it goes back as far as the Apostles. It makes no implication as to whether or not the Church is correct in saying that. To use "claims to trace" suggests that the Church knows quite well that it doesn't go back that far, but continues dishonestly to make the claim anyway. The NPOV policy discourages words like "claims", "alleges", etc. AnnH ^(talk) 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A BIG SUGGESTION

This page seems completely unwieldy and wierdly including absolute trivia and major issues.

Perhaps, it should be agreed that the whole page be reworked to create separate entries for sub-issues.

Just as one of a multitude of examples: state that the Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments, briefly describe what a sacrament is, and briefly note how this differs from Protestant Christians but not from Orthodox Christians. All of the above should take about five sentences. Then just link to each of the sacraments as a separate article, as "Eucharist (Catholic)" or "Holy Orders (Catholic)" where each could be described in detail and without confusing Catholic Practice with, say Lutheran or Anglican.

Including a list of all of the non-Roman Western Rites seems trivial -- the rites aren't trivial, but some person just trying to find out basic info about the Catholic Church and so searching for this article will be confused by this information which is really only even known to graduate students in Catholic theology. A mere mention that the vast majority of Catholic parishes and dioceses in the Americas and Western Europe follow the Roman Rite (with link to same), while in Eastern Europe and the Middle and Near East they follow the Eastern Rites (with link), is sufficient. Then, a sentence, "There are also other rites used by a small number of Catholics," with a link at "other" to an appropriate article would be best, I suggest.

In other words, the Catholic Church article should be far shorter, mention each relevant topic, and then have linked articles to explore each issue. The famous "traces" vs. "claims" could be handled by a link: say, "traces its origins" and link it to an article explaining the Catholic explanation of this aspect of Church History, and with a subtopic of "criticisms" that BRIEFLY describes some Protestant alternative views.

How about this idea?Amherst5282 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Even better, link simply to 'Eucharist'; then add text to that article, if necessary, explaining the specifically Catholic beliefs on it. What should be avoided, in my opinion, is having duplicated text all over Wikipedia explaining exactly the same things slightly differently. TSP 10:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I fear that a fractured presentation of the (Roman) Catholic Church would be only a caricature of its reality. Lima 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, at the moment, the style in which this article is written makes it almost impossible to genuinely learn anything from for anyone who has any knowledge of non-Catholic Christianity. For me, an Anglican, this page is a vast collection of information, the vast majority of which I know to be general to Christianity. I have to read through the entire thing to find the tiny snippets of information which are actually about the Roman Catholic Church - ostensibly the subject of the article - not about Christianity in general. Even when I do find them, I have no way of knowing whether these are genuine differences from what I am used to or merely different presentations; because Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church are intermingled throughout the article. Large parts of this article are written in a style which assumes that the only thing people will ever be interested about in Christianity is the Roman Catholic Church. Articles should not be written such that they only make sense to people coming from one particular viewpoint; they should be written such that they present the information about the topic they concern, in a way that is accessible to people coming from all perspectives. That means not repeating information which properly belongs to another more general topic. If people do not know about Christianity or about the Roman Catholic Church, they can read Christianity first. If they know about Christianity but not about the Roman Catholic Church, this article is currently almost useless to them. TSP 23:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Presenting the (Roman) Catholic Church or, for that matter, the (Eastern) Orthodox Church as identified only by differences from a common-denominator Christianity (if such can be defined), would, I repeat, be nothing but a caricature, giving prominence to minutiae and omitting essentials. Someone who wants to know what the Catholic Church is about should not have to work through a series of links to articles that give more space to non-Catholic and even non-Christian ideas than to Catholic (e.g. Eucharist), and on the basis of information gleaned in all those articles to construct an accurate(?) picture of the Catholic Church. If it was hard for TSP to find genuine differences between Catholic teaching, as set forth in the article, and "what he was used to", that may indicate that an organic presentation of the Catholic Church serves to clear away the idea some non-Catholics have that the (Roman) Catholic Church is incompatible with Christianity - not that TSP had that idea. This does not mean that the article "assumes that the only thing people will ever be interested about in Christianity is the Roman Catholic Church". It only means that the article is about faithfully presenting the Roman Catholic Church, not about presenting other forms of Christianity. Lima 15:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do not have that idea; but to me, to feel the need to set out Roman Catholic beliefs from first principles, rather than referring to the fact of it being a Christian church, seems to suggest, rather than do away with, such a concept. Even if this 'organic presentation' did serve that aim, to specifically set out to do so would be to push a point of view.

Surely it is possible to discuss the distinctive beliefs of a group, without marginalising the non-distinctive? It is possible to talk about the teachings of, say, St Augustine without beginning with "he believed in a trinitarian God"; and about the activities of my local church without saying "St Nicholas' Church believes in Jesus Christ as saviour". The fact remains that the vast majority of the text in the Beliefs section is general to all Christianity and is explained better in the Christianity article; which contributes to making this article excessively long, requires that less detail is given on some Catholic subjects than should be, and makes it extremely hard to find any information. Mentioning which concepts are given particular significance in Catholic thought would be fine; but explaining them from first principles is confusing and unnecessary. TSP 15:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do think that St Augustine's ideas on the Trinity would be an important part of an account of his teachings. I also think that, if St Nicholas' Church were giving an account of its beliefs (not its activities), it would include in the account something about its belief in Jesus Christ as saviour. Lima 11:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important that the article carries the complete and structured beliefs of the Catholic Church, not just what some people think are the differences between that and their own "Christian" or other viewpoint. The article needs to be a one-stop resource to tell people succinctly and as a unit, what Catholicism is about and what it teaches, not just a list of "differences" from smaller churches - that as a description of the catholic Church would seriously distort what catholicism is about.

If someone wants to write a differences between churches article, that is another matter. Xandar 14:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about differences between churches; I am talking primarily about that which is common to all Christian churches - Christianity; though also about other topics which have extensive articles yet are also described again in this article. This article currently does not rely significantly on, or substantially reference, Wikipedia's many other articles on the Christian faith and aspects of it (many of which explain better, and more encyclopedically, what this article attempts to explain).

There is an article sitting there at Christianity (it was once a Featured Article, incidentally, though that is not to say that it does not need work), which Wikipedia claims is an NPOV exposition of the beliefs common to Christians. If you believe that all it represents is 'some people['s] ... own "Christian" or other viewpoint' then there are larger problems, and probably your best move would be to go and edit it. If, on the other hand, it is indeed an NPOV exposition of the beliefs common to Christians, then it is wasteful, confusing and silly to include another explanation of the same beliefs here in this article - just as it would be if we explained the whole of Christianity in the Augustine of Hippo article because he was a Christian theologian.

Would it really be beneficial if the description of every individual denomination - and, from what Lima seems to be saying, every individual church congregation and every Christian - included a complete exposition of the whole of Christian belief? Consider the articles of, for example, Augustine of Hippo, or Pope John Paul II; their teachings and beliefs are discussed, without needing to establish in that article the whole of Christian teaching; and it does not seem to me that what results is a 'caricature'.

If this was a Catholic manual, or an introduction to the Church, you might have a point; it might be better to explain the subject all at once. But it simply isn't. It is an encyclopedia, here to report encyclopedic facts. Such facts should be divisible into two categories: those which are already described in another article on the specific topic, and those which are not. It is only necessary, in most cases, to include in this article those in the latter category, while referring to the extensive network of existing articles to convey the facts on the issues they concern. This does not, of course, mean omitting all mention of certain subjects; but it should be sufficient to say, for example, "The Roman Catholic Church is a Trinitarian Christian church", in the knowledge that there are - or should be - articles at the other ends of those links explaining what is meant by that, and the terms do not need to be exposited here.

If, on the other hand, it is not possible to break a body of writing into such identifiable, cited, and verifiable facts - as I would have difficulty doing with the current 'Beliefs' section of this article - it would tend to suggest to me that it is not written sufficiently encyclopedically. TSP 18:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As I started this section, let me say: the problem is volume. Lima is bent on the overwhelmingly complete all in one place comprehensive discussion of everything Catholic. Well, start with the Summa Theologiae, which explains all this in detail -- that's three full library volumes -- you want to reproduce the text of that? Somebody using an encyclopedia wants a brief, accurate discussion of a thing -- somebody who wants excruciating detail would be looking for a book or books (hence a Bibliography at the end of an encyclopedia article). The Catholic Church has 2,000 years of history -- are we to reproduce the biographies of every individual Pope, every decree of every Council, in the history section? The Eucharist is mentioned, so why not the minutiate of the decrees from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments on the percentage alcohol necessary in mustum to be considered valid matter? The point is that to me -- and I teach these subjects -- the artricle has been a bizarre mishmash of the most broad stuff (redefining all of the terms of basic Christianity, instead of just saying the Catholic Church is a Christian denomination), with the most obscure trivialities (the non-Roman yet still Western, Latin rites used for Mass are, as I pointed out, of interest only to post-graduate students in liturgical history). To use an example brought up by others: an article on Augustine's biography need not mention he believed in the TRinity -- just saying he was a Catholic bishop assumes that this is true; a separate article on his Trinitarian theology need not rehash the development of the Apostle's Creed, but only highlight what Augustine added to pre-existing Christian notions, or challenged in the ideas of those of his day on the subject; an article on the Augustinian Friars may make reference to the fact that they were inspired by St. Augustine's example and adopted his rule of life, without rehashing the place of Plotinus in Augustine's metaphysics of the sacraments. See what I mean? Amherst5282 01:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic series

There should be a whole series for Roman Catholic Church alone. It should be seperate from Christianity. 69.218.181.192 20:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There is one, and they can be found at Category:Roman Catholic Church. Gentgeen 09:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be a box named Roman Catholic series with various related Roman Catholic topics instead of just as "Christianity" series box. --Caponer 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea...see here for examples:

Template:Methodism, Template:Calvinism, Template:Anglicanism, Template:Christian theology.

A Roman Catholic template, like these, could work with Template:Christianity, not instead of. KHM03 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Weekly Collaboration

Would anyone be interested in beginning a Roman Catholic Collaboration of the Week? There exists such a wide array of topics dealing with the Roman Catholic Church that I feel there should be a weekly collaboration dedicated to it. If there is an expressed interest, I would love to assist in starting such a collabortaion. --Caponer 19:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)