Talk:Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Anglicanism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Philosophy and religion.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

History of the term Catholic[edit]

This section claims the earliest use of the term "catholic" was by Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD. When in fact it was used by St. Clement I in his Epistle to the Corinthians around 96 AD.

"Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions" - St. Clement I [Epistle to the Corinthians] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.212.194 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(New comments should be put at the end.)
There is no such statement in the letter, which mentions neither "Catholic Church" nor "heretical teachers". You can check in the translations given here. Whatever source you took the quotation from is clearly unreliable. How could a first-century writer be seriously imagined to have spoken about "these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then", saying they "are counterfeit and novel inventions"! Esoglou (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

I am failure with the translation as "Universal" or "General" Google translate

However google also offers this:

Google translate: καθ ολικι σ μ ός -- 'along with TOTAL in ordination' [1]

Interesting,

Tim Sheridan

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.233.128 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 

Anglican/Lutheranism history[edit]

This sentence is vague, unsourced, and not particularly accurate:

" or else repudiated papal authority and the teaching office in the Western Church for the authority of a civil ruler in religious matters--> (e.g., in Anglicanism and parts of the Lutheran Church)."

I have commented it out for now; a better sentence might be needed in the history section for these two. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

McBrien Essay[edit]

In the Catholic Church subsection, the material covering McBrien's opinions seems to use Wikipedia's voice to state the source's opinion's regarding the material. This creates an awkward dialog format that reads more like an opinionated essay than an encyclopedic article. I would appreciated it if someone with access to the source could restate the material. --Zfish118talk 18:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think my edit fixed the confusion issue. It was a quote all along, but it was easy to miss. Made it an obvious block quotation. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Zfish118talk 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. (non-admin closure) Music1201 talk 01:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)



CatholicismCatholicity – I know there was an old discussion about making a move like this, but there are a few problems with this title.

  1. The page on the church headed by the pope has been moved to Catholic Church. That makes it very easy to confuse the 2 pages. "Catholicism" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the faith followed by the Catholic Church. The two are practically indistinguishable.
  2. When referring to the "catholic-ness" of a church, the correct term is "catholicity", not "catholicism" or "Catholicism". This term is already used a few times in this article.
  3. The WP:COMMONNAME use of "Catholicism" is to refer to the Catholic Church headed by the pope. Even WikiProject Catholicism is about that specific church.
  4. I realize some parts of the article would probably need to be reworded or even restructured, but that is not an argument against getting the title right. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Well put. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support At least some Protestants will be willing to call themselves "catholic" and to support "catholicity" while seeing "Catholicism" as something distinct which they do not identify with. That means "Catholicism" is overly WP:PRECISE; it narrows the topic to not include some people it intends to include, as there is a section on these Protestants in the article. See for example books like Reformed Catholicity, Towards Baptist Catholicity, The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity, The Catholicity of Protestantism, but no similar examples with "Catholicism". --JFH (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I am not sure why this is being proposed. According to Merrian-Webster's dictionary, Catholicism means the "Roman Catholic Religion", while Catholicity means "the character of being in conformity with a Catholic church"; definition-wise, neither clearly states that the article refers to more than the Roman Catholic Church. Currently, the "Catholicism" article deals with the broader branch of Christianity, including the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, and (by some measures) High Anglican. It is more in line with the "religion" definition, than the "conformity with" definition. The article is peers with Methodism, Lutheranism, Mormonism, etc. "Catholicism" refers to a concrete group of churches possessing certain traits and characteristics; "Catholicity" in contrast, refers to the abstract nature and characteristics directly. "Catholic" redirects to Catholicism, because these traits are difficult to discuss apart from the churches and communities that possess them; "Catholic" was at one time a standalone article that was nearly identical to "Catholicism". I do not see the advantage of using the very uncommon third form "Catholicity" as as an alternative title. Protestants who identify as "catholic" but not part of Catholicism could be covered under "Divergent interpretations"; they are also covered in Catholic (term). --Zfish118talk 03:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: edits made to clarify purpose of article, as Catholicism and Catholic were indeed previously incorrectly described in lead. --Zfish118talk 03:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)}}
Addenda 1: The Common Name issue has been resolved by hatnotes and disambiguation pages. --Zfish118talk 12:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Addenda 2: Oxford Dictionaries recognizes Catholicism to refer to "catholic" independent of "Roman Catholic", but does not even have an "Catholicity", treating it instead as a variant of "Catholic". --Zfish118talk 12:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Upper case Catholic, Catholicism, and Catholicity all refer to the Catholic Church, while the lower case versions of these words refer to the broader concept of universality. Compare the first and second definitions of "catholicity" in Merriam-Webster.[2] Gulangyu (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you please clarify/rephrase what you meant by "definition-wise, offer no clarity that the article refers to more than the Roman Catholic Church"? I think it's just a grammar thing, but I want to make sure I understand you. Thanks. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 03:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I think the definition you cited makes the case for the proposed move, though. If "Catholicism" is "the Roman Catholic religion" or (the long M-W definition) "the faith, practice, or system of Catholic Christianity" (where "Catholic" is hyperlinked and defined as "of or relating to the Roman Catholic Church"), then it does not apply to Old Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, or any flavor of big-O Orthodox, to say nothing of Protestants. The instant "Roman" is introduced, all the other claimants to catholicity are immediately disqualified—that is the rationale of using the "Roman" in the first place. Since that is not the intent of the article, then, per both my own and JFH's arguments, the preferable title would in fact be "Catholicity". Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose: Once again there is a POV attempt to assert that "Catholic" and "Catholicism" should only refer to one particular Christian tradition. This assertion is simply not factual nor historical but based in ignorance and prejudice. Wikipedia needs to present things factually and neutrally, it is not a platform for promoting biased views. Afterwriting (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Afterwriting, this has nothing to do with POV. This proposal was made as a good-faith attempt to clear up confusion, make the title more accurate, and, per JFH's arguments, to make it more inclusive, not less so. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
It has everything to do with POV and it certainly doesn't clear up any "confusion" or make anything more "accurate" (just the opposite in fact). Your comments only reveal just how extremely non-neutral your views actually are. Afterwriting (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
As do yours. How about we raise the level of discussion above "bias! prejudice!" to some substantive debate, shall we? See literally every other thread here for comparison. Definitions, sources, etc. On another note, who are you to decide what my motives are? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: – I see that Catholicity is already a redirect to Catholicism so I do not see how making this change would be a useful improvement to the encyclopedia for the average Wikipedia reader. JoeHebda • (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. According to Merriam-Webster, both upper case "Catholicism"[3] and "Catholicity"[4] refer to the Catholic Church. What we want here is lower case catholicity. (catholicity, definition No. 2.) Update. New Catholic Encyclopedia has an equivalent article titled "catholicity," while Britannica uses lower case "catholic".[5] Gulangyu (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: article titles ending in the productive suffix -ism are the common form in Wikipedia. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia titles should be decided by their appropriateness to the particular subject rather than statistics. The suffix "-ism" often indicates a specific movement or school of thought, while "-ity" suggests an inherent quality, e.g. Velocity and Viscosity. This suggests that in the present case "catholicity" should be the preferred title. — Jpacobb (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the argument made by Zfish118. It is about the Catholic religion. CookieMonster755 📞 17:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the argument made by Zfish118; this is a very recherche term which will puzzle readers and lead to drop in views. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I doubt whether most people have even heard the word "Catholicity"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's the topic that "most people haven't heard of." That's true regardless of what you call it. Upper case "Catholicism" is certainly a more common term, but that generally refers the Roman Catholic Church, which is not the topic of this article. As far as commonness goes, see this ngram. The sources don't necessarily recognize the upper case/lower case distinction, so IMO the reference works that I cited in my !vote are more authoritative. Gulangyu (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Distinguishing beliefs[edit]

It has come to my attention that there are very few, if any, citations to secondary sources in the "Distinguishing beliefs" section. There are a handful of citations to scripture, which border on original research. Secondary sources are critical to the credibility of the article, as the definition used here appears to be non-standard. Most general purpose dictionaries define "Catholicism" as affiliated with the "Roman Catholic Church". Only in more advanced, scholarly dictionaries is a use similar to this article hinted at. --Zfish118talk 02:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There should be some good sources in documents and other publications associated with Christian traditions other than Roman Catholicism. I'll try to find some. Afterwriting (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

When was the founding date of the Roman Catholic Church?[edit]

When more or less was the founding date of the Roman Catholic Church? I know RCC has got their own narrative on this, but this lacks credibility in the light of the evidence. The emerging of the RCC seems to be an evolutionary process around the time Christianity was legalized in the Roman empire. Does someone have more knowledge about this and can this be integrated in the article? --41.146.63.51 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus in the 1st century at the Great Commission and his apostles began their mission after Pentecost. The First Epistle of Clement (c. 100) and The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140) show that the Catholic Church already existed in Rome when those works were written. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency between the article and the category[edit]

We had some serious discussions on this page, but still we are faced with awkward inconsistency between the article Catholicism and the corresponding category Category:Catholicism. Article treats the term "Catholicism" in its broader meaning as Catholicity, including the relevant positions and views of all main branches of Christianity, while on the other hand category is exclusively dedicated to the Catholic Church of Vatican and its various branches. So, something should be done about that. In light of previous inconclusive discussions and persisting terminological problems, maybe we should consider the possibility of making some complex changes. First, we should note that similar problem with term "Catholic" was resolved by naming the relevant article as Catholic (term). That article deals with the term "Catholic" in its broader meaning and since the page presently named just Catholicism also deals generally with the term "Catholicism" maybe it should be moved to Catholicism (term). That would allow us to use the title Catholicism for a new disambiguation page that would point (1) to this page, renamed to Catholicism (term), and also (2) to the present page Catholic Church. There might be some other solutions for this problem, along those lines, so lets talk about that. Sorabino (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The first stage would be to merge this article with Catholic (term). There are no remaining points of difference to justify their separate existances. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not see any inconsistency. Categories have dynamic content based on how the articles are tagged. The title Catholicism (term) is not needed since the article title Catholicism already exists. Why add (term)? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It is true that content of of this article, in its present form, overlaps in many segments with content of the article Catholic (term) and that question should also be addressed. There is a fine line between terms Catholic, Catholicity and Catholicism, and that distinction should be reflected in relevant articles and disambiguation pages. That is why proper use of titles is so important. This article deals with Catholicity in general, but it is named "Catholicism" and that term is used in category system exclusively as designation for one denomination: the Catholic Church of Vatican. So, we have a clear inconsistency: here we are using title "Catholicism" for an article on Catholicity in general, and in category system we are using the same term as designation for only one denomination. Sorabino (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)