Talk:Catholic (term)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

2004

I have tried to improve this page but it still does not read fluently --BozMo 07:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the “fluency” problem with the term “Catholic” in Wikipedia: The reason why it does not read "fluently" is because the subject is never clearly defined. In trying to be completely politically correct(to Protestants) and all inclusive with regard to the word Catholic you have actually lost its definition.

Case in point, from the very 1st paragraph:

By using the term "Roman" Catholic Church, then admitting that it was a term "once" used by early protestants makes the entire point ILLOGICAL. You state "Roman" was "once" used by Protestants "to disparge Catholic claims..", YET you clearly use the SAME "Roman Catholic Church" in your own discussion. Additionally, you continue to give anti-Catholic rhetoric by stating "many identify Roman Catholicism exclusively with the Latin or Western Church", proceeding to give names of numerous other non-Latin rites/Eastern churches ending with the statement "all in communion with the Pope". As if the very fact that they are in communion with the Pope makes them "Roman". Simple, sillyness brought about by uninformed bias. Its the equivalent to saying all Floridians are Marylanders or D.C.'ers since they are in "communion" with the President which resides in the US Capitol in the D.C. No, for just as Floro-Americans are American and are not D.C.-American, Byzantine Catholics ARE Catholic, but NOT Roman Catholic. Thus if you going to be CONSISTENT regarding the "Universal" Church, speak of Catholic in "In one widely used sense", then you should remove the tagged on term which you stated as used "ONCE" or used "particularly in ..." ; removing the word ROMAN from the actual Catholic Church at large from this topic. It is improper to speak of something "in the widely used sense" then use the same term ("Roman") used "once" or in some particular region.


Organizing and discussing the topic from a historical-chronological order would be most useful- and show less personal bias.

You should first discuss how the word Catholic has developed, beginning with regards to the Church fathers as mentioned; then the Catholic Church and so on and so forth, avoiding the term ROMAN Catholic as historically this did not exist (for the Church in general) until many centuries[something you even admit]. Also, aside from being technically incorrect it serves to create more confusion- I will explain further. For example, first discuss the Early Church of Ignatius of Antioch(30-107 AD - a student of John the Apostle and Gospel writer) which first defined the Church of Christ as the CATHOLIC Church http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html and believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, an authoritative church run by Bishops that transferred and protected the oral Word of Christ, and was bound to the Roman church ...all topics he discussed during his lifetime see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html and click "Ignatius"... or any of the other Earliest of the Church Fathers for that matter.

If you want to define "ROMAN" Catholic (you probably should avoid this, leaving as is, just mentioning that it was coined historically by separatist congregations that did not desire communion or respect the hierarchal authority of the Pope. - This is historically correct regardless of who likes it or not-[its a fact,you also mention! The specific times of these schisms are all dated. ]) MY TWO Cents worth regarding the term "ROMAN" Catholic: First one must understand what is the topic discussed. If speaking of the entire Universal Church the use of the word "ROMAN" is improper. When speaking of the churches(small "c"), the Church is made up of various global rites the largest being the western Latin(or Roman) Rite- we in the West completely ignore the Eastern Catholic churchs(thus the informal use- "ROMAN") which have been part of the Church since the beginning and is the 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 <1054 AD,the Eastern Schism> and became what we commonly call the Orthodox Church. [If the Orthodox re-unites 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, I reiterate = Holy See which happens to reside 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- Holy See of the Catholic Church.

Once you define this Catholic view you can look into then later Western schisms as they developed. If someone finds this format as too biased, the problem they truly have is with the course of history. Micael- Feb. 11, 2006. //

Well said, Michael. I wholeheartedly agree. If you're going to include the protestant claim that they're "Catholic" then you must include the (uhh) Catholic claim that protestants are not. A chronology of the term would suit this article best. -- 2nd Piston Honda 03:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not particularly like the "rightly or wrongly" in the last paragraph. It goes without saying the every one who believes something believes it "rightly or wrongly and inclusion for this particular case looks POV --(talk to)BozMo 10:36, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair article (in muddy waters). Good. But I find the last paragraph ("Many Protestant..." -till- "The Orthodox churches of course, agree. ") a little misleading: It seems to imply that Roman Catholics believe that the Pope is the head of the universal Body of Christ; they (we) don't. The Church (in its most profound/mystical sense) is a Body; in that sense, the Head is just Christ. The pope is the head of the bishops, and hence the head of the Church as institution (divine institution, granted). The paragraphs seems to echo some anti-catholic prejudices and attacks eg. http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Scr/hoc.htm which purposedly confounds the two analogical -but different- uses of the term 'head'. The page above indeed links to out of context prases from CV 2; but if one reads the entire page http://www.cin.org/v2church.html one can find 'The Head of this Body is Christ ...He is the head of the Body which is the Church.'--Leonbloy 17:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

However, the quotes, taken from the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II, clearly speak for themselves on the matter:

"… the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church …" Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter III, § 18

"Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant... let him be anathema." Vatican I, First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ, Chapter 1, § 6

"… the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church…." Vatican I, First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ, Chapter 3, § 1

"The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians…." Vatican I, First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ, Chapter 4, § 2

This should be merged w Catholicism. Sam [Spade] 06:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

For future reference, if/when this is ever discussed, note incipient comment on Talk:Catholicism#Organization. I would say that it is basically the case that since "c/Catholic" and "Catholicism" are words with separate entries in dictionaries, and do not entirely overlap in scope, it is worthwhile to have separate entries here as well. In particular, Catholicism is the term for the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church, whereas "catholic" has a couple of other uses. Also, as a matter of etymology and history, the reasons for particular uses of the word "c/Catholic" as a word merit separate coverage to the extent that they are not covered elsewhere. Trc | [msg] 11:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Catholic/Catholicism

Catholic, Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church are separate ideas that can stand alone as separate articles. The problem we find is that these articles have overlapping information. The solution is not to merge them but to rewrite the articles correctly so that pertinent information is found in the article it belongs to. --Gerald Farinas 04:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we're agreed that the articles might need work but a merge is wrong... removing tag... any huge obhection and you can re-add it I'm sure gren 12:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a weak and flawed article. It should IMHO be deleted another and whatever accurate information there is here (and I don't think it is much) transferred to the far superior Catholicism article. FearÉIREANN 21:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is worth keeping. "Catholic" and "Catholicism" are two different concepts with some overlap but not enough to justify merging them into one article. --Colenso 18:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is definitely worth keeping, but there are problems with it the way it is. It keeps rehashing what denominations call themselves so that it is confusing and thus seems somewhat circular or redundant in structure. Perhaps some references are needed and it could be more factual and less contentious? JMK

Protestants who do not consider themselves catholic?

"Some Protestant Christian Churches, avoid using the term completely." I can't think of one Protestant denomination that would disavow this label. Does anyone know of one? --Doc Glasgow 00:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Afrikaner Calvinism is one example. --Colenso 19:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
And the Free Presbyterian Church. And most small evangelical groups, etc. Many born again Christian groups believe that they and they alone are the real church of Christ and everyone else isn't. In no way can that view be interpreted as catholic (ie, universal). It is mainstream christian groups, specifically those who believe in the apostolic succession of bishops, who believe that there is a broad catholic/universal church of Christians, subdivided into denominations. Fundamentalist protestantism holds different views. Some accept the 'broad church with divisions' idea. Others believe that they alone are the successors to the original church and that no-one else is really christian at all. Some believe that there were moments before them when isolated others (Luther, Calvin, etc) appeared with true christian beliefs, only for their 'churches' to lose touch with true christianity, with christianity eventually disappearing until they appeared in modern times. FearÉIREANN(talk) 16:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) are two denominations which do not generally uphold apostolic succession (although some UMs do), but without question consider themselves catholic. Probably, most mainline denominations do. KHM03 16:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The Presbyterian and Methodist traditions most certainly do believe themselves to be part of the one catholic church. (Unless things have changed radically since I was ordained in the Presbyterian Church.) I corrected the article to reflect this. - Vandy

The general rule is that all denominations that profess the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed and its variants in their worship services consider themselves catholic. --Gerald Farinas 16:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to keep this article - revised a bit - since, as others have already stated, most Christians do consider themselves catholic in the purest sense of the term (i.e., part of the universal Christian Church; part of Christendom). That's not very surprising, is it? KHM03 15:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I came here to find out what "catholic" in ters of the Nicene Creed meant. This needs to be a separate article from Catholicism.

KHM03 inserts his own definition first

The term can refer to the notion that all Christians are part of one Church, reagrdless of denominational divisions. This "universal" interpretation is mentioned in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed.
  • My first objection is that this has not been discussed here and it is certainly a matter of controversy.
  • Is there a citation for this interpretation as being the first or primary definiton of Catholic?
  • Isn't this equivalent of defining all who profess the Nicean Creed to be Catholic? Is this the intent of what is being asserted here?

My own sense of what small "c" catholic means is redundant to this section already in the article:

Early Christians used the term to describe the whole undivided Church, the word's literal meaning is universal or whole. When divisions arose within the Catholic Church, the Church fathers and the historic creeds used it to distinguish the mainstream body of orthodox Christian believers from those adhering to sects or heretical groups.

Perhaps 'historic creeds' should be modified to read 'historic creeds such as the Nicean Creed'. This is being discussed in contemplation of reverting KMH03's addition. patsw 13:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I certainly meant no offense; I mentioned it first simply because it's the most "general" and "vague" definition, with each definition following increasingly narrow. The attempt was to be as NPOV and "encyclopedic" as possible. Peace, KHM03 13:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, a quick glance at Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/) reveals these definitions:
  • 1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal
    • b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it
    • c capitalized : ROMAN CATHOLIC
  • 2 COMPREHENSIVE, UNIVERSAL; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests

So, it would seem that the definition which I placed first is acceptable given this source. Again, my intent was not to offend...I'm actually surprised that this edit is viewed as controversial (to be honest, I still don't see the controversy present in it). My intent was to be as broad and NPOV as possible, and as ecumenical as possible, from a Christian perspective. Hope this helps! KHM03 14:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response: KMH - All Christians who subscribe to the Nicene Creed are catholic (note the little "c"). This does not mean that they are a part of the Roman Catholic Church; only that they are part of the one universal church. For clarification, just about any catechism which addresses this will say the same thing.

I agree 100%...but the article is "Catholic", not "Roman Catholic Church". KHM03 20:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Part of the universal church. SR - RE

"Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church".

When was this title first used? I believe it was during the Vatican Council of 1870, but I may be mistaken. KarmaKameleon 05:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

At 2:37 today KarmaKameleon wrote here:

It was not until the Vatican Council of 1870, did the Roman church officially called itself "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", laying exclusive claim to the name catholic.

So I presume KarmaKameleon is really asking for proof that the Roman Catholic Church referred to itself simply as the Catholic Church before 1870.

There is an abundance of earlier texts in which it does so. But for KarmaKameleon's purposes it should be enough to refer to the objections that, from the time Protestants came to exist, they raised against that use by the Roman Catholic Church:

In England, since the middle of the sixteenth century, indignant protests have been constantly made against the "exclusive and arrogant usurpation" of the name Catholic by the Church of Rome. The Protestant, Archdeacon Philpot, who was put to death in 1555, was held to be very obstinate on this point (see the edition of his works published by the Parker Society); and among many similar controversies of a later date may be mentioned that between Dr. Bishop, subsequently vicar Apostolic, and Dr. Abbot, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, regarding the "Catholicke Deformed", which raged from 1599 to 1614.[1]

Lima 13:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the term "catholic" when it was first used in the 4th century was to describe what was then one church. I believe churches that formed after that considered themselves part of the "catholic" church. I still want to find out when did the church based in Vatican/Rome officially called itself both Catholic and Roman. KarmaKameleon 14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Long before the fourth century, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, in whose writings is found the earliest surviving use of the phrase "catholic Church", certainly excluded heretics from its meaning, calling them "beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with." Sincerely believing in the orthodoxy of its faith, the Church in Rome has from the beginning called itself both catholic and Roman. KarmaKameleon may also wish to read the link already given above, or the Wikipedia article Catholicism Lima 18:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite the source which indicates that "the Church in Rome has from the beginning called itself both catholic and Roman"? I have looked at the link you pointed out. As for the wikipedia article, I believe it's still a work in progress, as is every wikipedia article. KarmaKameleon 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Which description does KarmaKameleon think the Church in Rome did not apply to itself from the beginning, but began to use only later? Surely not the adjective "Roman". Who could ever doubt that the Church in Rome was Roman. Does KarmaKameleon imagine the Church in Rome did not consider itself catholic? Can KarmaKameleon possibly imagine that when, for instance, Pope St Leo the Great preached to the Church in Rome that "the catholic Faith, which withstands all errors, refutes these blasphemies also at the same time, condemning Nestorius, who divides the Divine from the human, and denouncing Eutyches, who nullifies the human in the Divine" (Sermon 91), he was saying that the Church in Rome was not catholic, but was instead on the side of one or other of the heretics Nestorius or Eutyches? Was he saying the Church in Rome was anything but catholic, when he told his flock: "Refuse to put wicked fables before the clearest truth, and what you may happen to read or hear contrary to the rule of the catholic and Apostolic creed, judge it altogether deadly and diabolical" (Sermon 24)? Lima 21:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I can see you are knowledgeable of many catholic writings, etc. But going back to my question, please cite your source which says that "the Church in Rome has from the beginning called itself both catholic and Roman"? Anything earlier than the Vatican Council of 1870 and similar to "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church"? KarmaKameleon 21:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My immediate reaction to this latest intervention by KarmaKameleon was to throw up my hands and leave it. How can anyone sincerely imagine that the Church in Rome ever considered itself either non-Roman or non-Catholic? But I have now returned, and I will just direct KarmaKameleon to the Council of Trent, which on 4 February 1546 declared "the creed in use in the holy Church of Rome" to be "the creed of the catholic faith"; which on 13 January 1547 decreed: "If anyone affirms that one who after baptism falls into sin cannot by the grace of God rise once more, or that he can recover the lost grace by faith alone without the sacrament of penance (administered) as the holy Roman and universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord and his apostles, has hitherto believed, observed and taught, let him be anathema" ... I regret that my patience does not run to answering any further such questions by KarmaKameleon - unless KarmaKameleon will first respond to this: Please cite any source whatever of any time whatever, either before or after 1870, in support of the absurd notion that the Church in Rome ever, even for one moment, declared itself, or even just considered itself, to be either non-Roman or non-Catholic. Lima 12:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make, both in the contribution I made which you removed and labeled a falsehood, and in this discussion, is that it was only in 1870 at the Vatican Council did the church in Rome officially called itself "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church". And with this, it laid exclusive claim the the name "catholic". So far, you have not provided any source to dispute this claim. To respond to your challenge, I cite the Nicene creed. KarmaKameleon 16:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What absolute nonsense! The Roman Church, whose General Council at Trent, convened and ratified by the Pope, called it "the holy Roman and universal (i.e. catholic) Church", also "cites the Nicene Creed", and yet can apply to itself, to the exclusion of heretics, what the creed says of the catholic Church. [It was Luther's followers who felt the need to change the text of the (Apostles') Creed, putting "Christian" in the place of "catholic".] I have failed in my attempt to help KarmaKameleon see what so many Protestant leaders (mentioned above) of the period of Trent and later easily saw and strongly complained about. I apologize for my failure, and give up. Lima 19:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but a section titled "Present-Day Usage" should be quoting from Vatican II not Vatican I. Firstly, the norms for capitalization in English have changed significantly which changes how "Roman" fits in with the marks of the Church being one, holy, catholic and apostolic. "Roman" is not one of them. --66.254.235.186 21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

The number and nature of the external links in this article is not in accordance with my reading of WP:EL. In particular, There seems to me to be a consensus that internal links are preferred to external.

I removed a bundle as having nothing obvious to add to what is, by my reckoning, an admirably complete and well-written article. I left in the Holy See website and the catholic encyclopaedia, both of which are obviously relevant. Different strands of catholicism are linked from the article and discussed in (e.g.) Traditionalist Catholic, which is good. If I've removed any which are [[[WP:RS|sources]] for this article, please do add the pages back in under == Sources ==

We're not Google, we're not a collection of links, we're not a vehicle for promoting websites.

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Stormh2o's changes

Would even one non-Catholic (non-Roman Catholic) think Stormh2o's changes take a neutral point of view? If so would he/she say so here, in support of Patsw's challenge. I think that most (Roman) Catholics would also admit that the change are not neutral in their point of view. Any comments? (Sorry that the revert escaped my notice when I made an edit to the first short paragraph. When, as I expect, we revert from Patsw's revert, I can easily reinsert that edited first paragraph. Lima 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Stormh2o's changes were way POV, and inaccurate in places as well. Lima's revert was justifiable, correct, and appreciated (and saved me the trouble). KHM03 20:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Treat this like any other Wikipedia article: What specifically was added that was inaccurate or POV? Let's discuss. And whatever happened to Welcome, Newcomers? patsw 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. "Some Protestant Christians use the term...In the more commonly & widely used sense..." - - source? In my church, we use catholic in the first sense...wisely and commonly. No source...either POV or WP:NOR.
  2. "...based primarily upon their private readings of certain particular Scriptural passages..." - - Along with millions of others...not very "private". Very POV, and highly inaccurate. Gotta go.
  3. "The Catholic Church, on the other hand, considers all Anglican (e.g., American Episcopal) orders to be "null and void," as the formulary for ordination to the Catholic priesthood was, in the view of the Popes, too radically altered during the Elizabethean Protestant era (16th century England) to validly confer a sacramental priesthood. Thus, in an emergency when no Catholic priest is available, a Catholic may receive the "Holy Eucharist" and receive absolution from an Orthodox priest, but not from an Anglican. This also means that when Episcopal or Anglican clerics convert to the Catholic Church, they must be ordained again according to Catholic rites." Relevance? Balance? Should we add a section how some Christians don't believe the Roman Church to be a part of the true Catholic church? Of course not; this isn't the place to follow every little view. This section is very POV (and somewhat pointless)...gotta go.
This is just a quick reading. The edits were by no means an improvement...we've got a POV problem now. We can either add a tag or revert, I guess...unless someone wants to go line by line to make it accurate and NPOV. KHM03 23:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing inaccurate was added. The sections about the various groups that choose to use the term "catholic" to describe themselves (usually in a secondary way) I thought warranted a discussion on the view of the Catholic Church towards such sects. There was a great deal of misinformation on Catholicism and the relationship to Orthodoxy. The orginal entry (that I first came upon last night) was constructed such that one would get the impression that many are calling themselves catholic, when in fact in common everyday usage (here in the US), only one church ("the Catholic Church") uses this title. -- Unsigned comment byUser:Stormh2o 04:20, 12 January 2006

Restructure the article

Perhaps the way out of the POVness is to have sections called: Catholic usage, Orthodox usage, and Protestant usage.

I'm not advocating this but only opening it up for discussion. patsw 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


KHM03 has given clear examples of POV in Stormh2o's edits. On Stormh2o's part there has been another series of changes. I formally propose that KHM03 should revert all Stormh2o's edits, and that Stormh2o should then have the courtesy to make one or two edits at a time and wait to see whether they "stick" before adding more.

I think the "Restructure" proposal would not work, but would rather add to the problem.

Lima 07:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't care if patsw restructures the article that way, with a brief intro at the top saying it's a term used in Christian theology and polity, found in the creeds, yada yada yada. The problem with a simple revert at this point is that others have made edits since then and I'd hate to lose their work. KHM03 11:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I see that both patsw and I have invited Storm2o to join this discussion; let's wait and get his input. KHM03 11:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Reverting is by far the least complicated solution, and really involves no loss of anyone else's work. Whose edits, apart from Stormh2o's, would be lost by reverting all of Stormh2o's edits? My one, but I give full permission to revert. AllanBz's correction of a spelling in one of Stormh2o's insertions does not count. The only other loss would be Mecandes's change of the order of two paragraphs in text, a change that Mecandes might not have felt suitable in the original text. Stormh2o must learn to be patient with other contributors. My proposal was and is a matter up for discussion, to be acted upon only if nobody brought valid arguments against it. Stormh2o deserves patience as much as anyone else; so I fully agree that he should join in the discussion, putting his contribution at the end and signing by typing a tilde (~) four times, instead of inserting his comment ahead of mine, so that to some it seemed part of mine, and escaped the notice of KHM03. (I had already moved Stormh2o's comment to after mine; I have now moved it into chronological order.) Lima 13:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that for lack of support, I must just let this article continue its, to my mind, downward course. Lima 05:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling protestants Catholic

Why are protestant denominations ever being called Catholic? Just because they haven't removed the word "catholic" from their creed? They don't call themselves Catholic, so why should we call them that? I can see the purpose of this article to distinguish certain types of Catholics, but never should protestants be mentioned other than talking about their split from the Church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2nd Piston Honda (talk • contribs) .

Your wrong, many protestants consider themselves catholic. Sam Spade 16:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
No, they consider themselves protestant, which is why you just used that name for them. What you're essentially saying is that since Tangerines consider themselves orange in color, that we should now call them Oranges. This article is nothing but misleading.2nd Piston Honda 12:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Especially the high Anglo-Catholic churches :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am United Methodist; I'm also Catholic (though I'm not Roman Catholic). KHM03 17:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
One could just as well argue that those Roman Christians shouldn't call themselves Catholic either, since they, ahem, left (or cut off) the Catholic Church in the eleventh century. Now they've gone and caused so much confusion about the name we Catholics wind up calling ourselves Eastern Orthodox more often just to differentiate the names. (broad wink) Wesley 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The head of the Church was/is in Rome. If a group decides to form that isn't in full communion with Rome, then THEY are the splitoff, not rome. There can be no case made that those who have always been in communion with the same line since the apostles have ever split from anything.2nd Piston Honda 11:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
At the very most, the Bishop of Rome is "the Vicar of Christ" and the jurisdictional/doctrinal leader of the Church. Most Romans I know worth a dime recognize that Christ is the head of the Church, not the BoR.
And where do you get off on asserting that Rome is jurisdictionally the supreme leader of the Church as if this is an undisputed fact? And where do you get the idea that the Roman see is inherently the center of full communion for any Christian, such that any not in communion from it are inherently the schismatic party? And finally to suggest that only Roman Catholics have "been in communion with the same line since the Apostles" is rather naive seeing as how many Apostolic sees there are in the East. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal Newman before his conversion: "The ghost had come a second time [in 1841]. In the Arian History I found the very same phenomenon, in a far bolder shape, which I had found in the Monophysite. I had not observed it in 1832. Wonderful that this should come upon me!... I saw clearly, that in the history of Arianism, the pure Arians were the Protestants, the semi-Arians were the Anglicans, and that Rome now was what it was then." Chapter 3: History of my Religious Opinions from 1839 to 1841 Stormh2o

Gentlemen...settle down. User:Wesley, an Orthodox Christian, was joking around (note the "wink" at the end of his statement). Besides, everyone knows that Methodism is the true Church (very broad wink). KHM03 12:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This disambiguation page is a mess.

Gee, I agree that a disambiguation page exists for the word Catholic or catholic or whatever, but, people, this is the least professional article I've ever seen in wikipedia (yeah, even less professional than such landmarks of encyclopedic knowledge like warlock and Jack Thompson).

I think this really needs to be written by an authority on the subject, maybe the article should be closed for edits and just allow a group of editors who really know what they are talking about to edit it. I love Wikipedia, but sometimes people are too biased to be professional. Yeah, lets just have a priest, a rabbi and a preacher write this. O.K.? 209.124.118.31

Y'know, it's not a bad idea to make it a disambiguation page. Give links to Catholicism, Roman Catholic Church, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and maybe a few others. That would work for me. KHM03 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but the idea of a priest, a rabbi and a preacher walking into a bar to discuss wikipedia was somehow very appealing to me.209.124.118.31
Any other opinions on making this a diambiguation page? KHM03 13:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this page IMO is to address concerns such as we had in the thread above by listing all those who are considered by someone to be Catholic. Sam Spade 13:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't a disambiguation page do that...by linking to those suggested above (and whomever else we may wish to include)? The truth is that, yes, I am absolutely a Catholic...not because I believe or disbelieve in the authority of Rome (not that there's anything wrong with Rome), but because I (as a Methodist) am a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is how most Protestants define "Catholic". So...if we have a well framed disambiguation page, which links to that, Roman Catholicism, etc., then we may have just accomplished our purpose and eliminated a possibly unnecessary article. KHM03 14:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There will still be Catholicism, a page which seems rather similar in scope in my estimation. Sam Spade 16:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the normal case, we let Republicans define Republicans, we let tailors define tailors, etc. In the case of Catholic the consensus here is not to defer the Catholic Church and let it define itself, but to have all the competing claims to "Catholic" presented. But that's not enough to present the definitions of Catholic according to the Protestants, Orthodox, and the non-Catholic, non-Protestant, non-Orthodox but-Christian denominations. No -- this article includes several refutations of the definition that the Catholic Church applies to Catholic from each of the above listed bodies. That does make for a mess.
Unlike 209.124.118.31's hit and run comment, I offer a solution: structure the article around (1) the common meaning: Catholic refers to the Catholic Church, and (2) each Christian body's affirmative definition of Catholic without refuting the other definitions presented. patsw 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It should have those two major sections. -- 2nd Piston Honda 05:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Pat Sweeney's first section will be very brief, for we can say almost nothing in it without getting into the question on which divergence of views here exists, namely, What precisely is "the Catholic Church"? I regret therefore that I do not see it as a practical suggestion. Lima 10:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty simple, Lima. The first section talks about the Roman Catholic Church's definition of "Catholic", and then the second section talks about the broader meaning that protestants use when/if they refer to themselves as Catholic. Each side's views should be represented fairly and seperately. -- 2nd Piston Honda 18:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If, as I suppose, 2nd Piston Honda correctly interprets Pat Sweeney [1. "the common meaning" = the (Roman) Catholic understanding; 2. "each Christian body" = each non-(Roman)Catholic Christian body], and if non-(Roman)Catholics accept the arrangement thus proposed - fine. Do they? Lima 20:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How about we all gather on a street corner in NYC near a Roman Catholic church and an Episcopal (choose the denomination) church and then ask 100 locals passing by "Where is the Catholic church?" Will we even get 1 out of 100 to point to the Episcopal church? To make it interesting, let's add some monetary prize to this exercise!68.158.173.237 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)StormH2o

A big problem here

The article states "where the attachment 'Roman' was once used by early Protestants to disparage Catholic claims to be the sole historical Christian Church". Why then does this article (and throughout Wikipedia, really) constantly refer to the Church headed by the Pope as "Roman Catholic"? Isn't this obvious favoritism shown by wikipedia for the protestants' side of the argument? -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem an article like this has to confront is the need to be descriptive of the usage of Catholic and catholic, and not be a place to present arguments favoring or disfavoring a particular usage. Catholic in most contexts in the Wikipedia does refer to the Church in communion with the Pope. However, that doesn't prevent editors from relentless Roman insertion before Catholic in other articles. patsw 01:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that if i started removing the "roman" whereever i saw it, the wikipedia liberal establishment would revert it and then try to ban me if i kept changing it back. But if someone adds "roman" it's all fine, because after all, the notion that protestants are heretics of the Christian Church is totally ridiculous and only for extremist wackos, don't ya know. :/ So anyway, how would we go about doing this in a totally unbiased way? -- 2nd Piston Honda 08:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As a Protestant, I understand that most people use "Catholic" in reference to the specific denominational family headed by the Pope. But, from a technical standpoint, the term also has a specific theological meaning. How do we balance the two? Let me ask (as a Protestant): is it offensive to be referred to as Roman Catholic? Is it entirely inaccurate? KHM03 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, when the Church uses the term "Catholic", it's for that same theological meaning, so there's no dichotomy there. And yes, "Roman Catholic" does slightly offend me, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that there is bias shown in the current labeling and we need to come up with a NPOV alternative. -- 2nd Piston Honda 14:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to ideas. KHM03 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see any bias. Ultimately the issue here is not theological distinctions. Catholicism and Roman Catholicism are used on WP in thousands of contexts that are not theological, but cultural, historical, political, social, etc. The only issue in the broader usage is purely a matter of disambigulation. The worldwide usage in that area is simple: Catholic can be used if there is no need for disambigulation. But if there is any need for disambigulation, then Roman Catholic is used to indicate the section of Catholicism in communion with the Pope. Roman Catholic is not an invention of Wikipedia. It is not a product of a Protestant bias. It is used worldwide within Catholicism too. Many millions of people outside the Roman Catholic Church also regard themselves as Catholic too. Wikipedia cannot simply accept any one church's ownership of a term. It can explain the theological arguments, but when using terms in general it has to reflect pluralism, not claims, under NPOV rules. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholics who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome self-identify the Catholic Church without a qualifer. That's not disputed or ambiguous.
Who, other than Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome, will identify their Church with the name Catholic Church without a qualifier? patsw 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Wrong on the first point. Many Catholics in communion with Rome say Roman Catholic. The Archbishop of Dublin, who is expected to become a cardinal in a consistory under the current pope, and who is openly spoken of in Rome as a potential future pope given his success with taking over a diocese which experts internationally described as having the world's worst example of cover ups of clerical abuse (winning the plaudits of victims, priests, the media, conservatives and liberals alike) and his brilliant diplomatic career before that, spoke of "we Roman Catholics" only a few weeks ago at a function I attended. A current cardinal delivered a speech about "the loss of a communal sense of religion in the Roman Catholic world" a year ago.
As to who identifies their church as the "Catholic Church" without a qualifier? You are joking, surely! Millions of Anglo-Catholics (High Church Anglicans) call themselves "Catholic", celebrate Mass and the sacraments, call their clergy "father" (and generally are opposed to women's ordination and gay ordinations, using the argument that "one branch of the Catholic Church cannot on its own change the rules and get out of step with the rest of Catholicism). The only difference between Anglican Catholics and Roman Catholics is the belief in the latter about the leadership role of the pope and the existence of infallibility. The Church of Ireland, which traditionally is High Anglican, unambiguously describes itself the "Catholic Church" and even describes itself as "part of the Catholic Communion", or "the Catholic Church" in notice boards outside its main cathedrals. It regularly complains about the use of "Catholic" to mean "Roman Catholic" in the media, pointing out over and over "we are Catholics too". So too does various High Anglican churches the world over. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not joking. Since I am not in Ireland, these indications of an ambiguity there over the meaning of "Catholic" are helpful. Although I have never seen nor heard a member of the Anglican Communion self-identify as "Catholic" without a qualifier, I accept what you write in good faith.
As you describe it, it doesn't seem to be a question of those Anglo-Catholics self-identification as "Catholic", they are free to do so and, at least in Ireland, desire to do so.
Rather the problem is that they insist that Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome be prohibited from self-identifying as "Catholic" -- which I consider intolerant on their part.
Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin was not selected to be a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in the consistory of March 24 2006 in which he selected 14 bishops and 1 priest for elevation, even though the Archbishop of Dublin or the Archbishop of Armagh is usually chosen in the first consistory where Ireland finds itself without an eligible cardinal for a vote in the conclave. So speculation over the passed-over Archbishop Martin as a papabili is an interesting topic for another place and time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patsw (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 March 2006.

It's not that they deny another faith the right to call themselves "Catholic". It is that they correctly point out, as do High Anglicans worldwide, that they too are Catholic. If the media mean one branch of the Catholic Church they should specify which branch with a qualifier. Roman Catholics would not be too happy if, were High Church members of the Anglican Communion to endorse gay clergy, the media carried a headline French Catholics back gay clergy even though the headline would be technically correct.

As to Diarmuid, he couldn't be appointed for two reasons. Firstly, Ireland uniquely already has two cardinals, albeit ones with no votes in conclaves. The Vatican understandably takes the view that it can't give a state as small as Ireland three cardinals. Given his poor health and age, Cahal Daly is likely to die during this pontificate. Secondly, there is the problem of Archbishop Seán Brady. Brady is one of the all-too-typical John Paul II appointees. JPII was famed for preferring orthodoxy over ability. Seán, a nice man, simply isn't up to the job he has. But it is normal if naming a cardinal to name the Primate of All Ireland (the Archbishop of Armagh) rather than the lower-status Archbishop of Dublin, who is Number 2 in the Church pecking order. Appointing Des Connell was seen as a Vatican snub to Seán. To for a second time snub him in favour of the far more able Diamuid would be seen as humiliating the guy. So before Diarmuid gets the red hat, they have to either give one to Seán in Armagh, or move Sean, possibly to a sinecure appointment in Rome, a non-job with a good image. Then they can find a better Archbishop of Armagh, say he'd too new in the post and give the red hat to Diarmuid.

Another option would be to hold off on the red hat until Diarmuid is moved back to Rome. That was always the longterm plan — bring him back to Rome with a senior curial position. (A number of senior Vatican officials say that they believe he is destined to be Secretary of State, where as the next or as the next but one.) The only problem with Martin is that he has been so good in Dublin that he will be extremely difficult to replace there, and many people in Ireland would be agast at losing him. Again there the problem with John Paul II's appointments is that most Irish bishops are second rate at best. (It is one of the strangest aspects of Pope John Paul's tenure. How the hell did he manage to choose so many dud bishops? From Austria to Belgium, the US to Africa, he was famed for picking absolutely awful incompetents. Or where he appointed someone with ability (as with Des Connell) they were handicapped in some other way, in his case by chronic inexperience &mash; those of us who knew him cringed when he was selected. The only practical experience he had outside a largely ignored minor UCD department that was abolished as soon as he left it, was ministering to a convent of nuns. He never worked one hour in a parish, yet was expected to take over one of the world's largest dioceses in financial trouble, and, as it later turned out, one of the world's level of clerical sex abuse cases. Martin's success in Dublin means that he is head and shoulders above his fellow, largely mediocre, bishops in Ireland. He is the single most influential churchman in Ireland since the days of John Charles McQuaid (1940s-1972). So moving him is a problem. Giving him a red hat while two former cardinals a living is a problem. Giving it to him by the inarticulate, lightweight Seán Brady is still in Armagh (he is undoubtedly the weakest Archbishop of Armagh in two centuries. He really should have never gone more up the ladder than parish priest, certainly not to the top job. Martin is seen as too big in terms of ability for Dublin, but there aren't enough good alternatives left in the Irish hierarchy to fill the vacuum his move to Rome could create. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How the Catholic Church got the name Roman Catholic Church in the Wikipedia

I agree with 2nd Piston Honda, that the label "Roman" to describe the Catholic Church in the Wikipedia is wrong for many reasons. Mentioned elsewhere is that Roman refers within the Catholic Church to a liturgical rite, eccelsial tradition or jurisdiction, and to the literal Diocese of Rome (in the same sense that I am a Brooklyn Catholic and not a Roman Catholic). The label Roman should be added only to make such a distinction in rite, tradition, jurisdiction, or diocese from the Catholic but non-Roman rite, tradition, jurisdiction, or diocese. In other contexts, Catholic is the correct name for the Church.

The counter-argument to my position is generally stated with condescension and hostitility so let me state it neutrally here:

  • The Wikipedia is dominated by non-Catholic Americans who have grown up seeing and hearing the Catholic Church referred to as the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic, for them, is the common term.
  • Catholic parishes and dioceses in the United States can be either Roman and Byzantine rite. Each is truly Catholic since their bishop is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. While there is a a Roman rite, there are several Byzantine rites and even naming them or describing the relationships among them is out of the scope of this article. The labeling of such Roman rite parishes and diocese is conflated to make a distinction between Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church. Wikipedians even point to some Yellow Pages or other directories which refer to Roman Catholic Churches and not merely Catholic Churches as the proof of this particular claim.
  • Other Churches make similar or same claims to universality (i.e. the catholic character) that the Roman Catholic Church makes. Reference to this Church as the Catholic Church is considered a disparagement of those claims.

The best source of information on the disputed name of the Catholic Church I have seen is Kenneth D. Whitehead How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name? [2] and in Whitehead, Kenneth D. (2000). One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church. Ignatius Press. ISBN 0898708028.

There's an editing consensus in many articles that Roman Catholic and Catholic are in context identical in meaning. In other articles the editing consensus is that Roman Catholic and Catholic have different meanings. I've found evidence of methodical insertion of Roman before Catholic across articles, but haven't seen the methodical redaction of Roman before Catholic across articles. patsw 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis; I have typically referred to myself as a Catholic (by which I mean a part of the Church Universal), but not a Roman Catholic (by which I mean a specific denomination headed by the Pope)...I am a Methodist Catholic, I suppose. What solutions could you suggest? We'll need to get a broad consensus, as this affects many articles as well as a specific theological doctrine, shared by most Christians (though defined a bit differently). KHM03 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm making a pragmatic distinction between what's correct as I see it (for the record, and for 2nd piston Honda), and what's feasible given the status quo. I oppose a methodical addition or redaction of Roman before Catholic across Wikipedia articles.
Until a reconciliation of all Christians to the Catholic Church, we will have people like me who believe Roman applies to a distinct law, tradition, rite, jurisdiction, and/or diocese which is Roman and contained in the Catholic Church, and people such as KMH03 who make the distinction between a Church with universal (or catholic) mission (and hence a "Catholic Church") and the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ on earth. patsw 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Understand that while I hold the doctrine of the catholicity of the Church to be crucial, I don't have a problem with the Pope's particular body being called the Catholic Church. The Eastern Church is called "Orthodox"...but there are many who consider themselves orthodox (Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.). In the town in which I currently minister, we have a "Church of Christ" and a "Church of God". Aren't Catholics also the Church of Christ...and the Church of God? Methodists? Presbyterians? Names can be tricky things, they may say something about the body or denomination, but don't tell the whole story. I, for one, don't have a problem with "Catholic" referring to what is now listed as "Roman Catholic" (as long as we make a distinction somewhere...maybe a separate article or a section on another...whatever). You may want to bring this up at Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church to get a broad consensus. KHM03 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the Church of which Pope Benedict is the head always refers to herself in official documents as the "Catholic Church". For example, our teaching is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, and the encyclical Casti Connubii uses the phrase "Catholic Church" three times, and "Roman Catholic Church" not at all. All official Vatican documents use the word "Catholic" without the "Roman", AFAIK. I don't see that that can be cancelled by a speech given at a function by an Archbishop, one of whose first speeches as Archbishop of Dublin was to say that he disagreed with a particular Vatican policy. The problem with the term Roman Catholic Church is that it excludes Eastern Catholics who are in union with the Pope. It doesn't bother me if Protestants call me "Roman Catholic", but it's not what I call myself. Jtdirl is right, however, in saying that many Catholics do call themselves Roman Catholic. They possibly do it because they're more likely to be filling in forms with boxes to tick for religion, etc., where "Roman Catholic" is already given than they are to be reading a copy of the Pope's latest encyclical. So they just do it automatically, without thinking, just as my sister, who was "joined in Holy Matrimony" to my brother-in-law, said on the phone to the midwife that her "partner" would be present at the birth. That was the word used at pre-birth classes and in magazines, etc., and she just reproduced it without thinking.

I prefer Catholic. I don't mind an occasional use of Roman Catholic, particularly at the beginning, for the sake of clarity. I do mind a systematic changing of every instance of "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" for the sake of making a point. AnnH ♫ 21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Eastern Rites that are united under the Pope are part of the Catholic Church. The Roman Rite may need to be distinguished from the other Rites to avoid confusion, however. I will see if I can fix it, and maybe some of the other parts in this article. Let me know on my talk page if I did anything incorrect. JBogdan 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for revision

I have edited the article a few times now, because in its original form, it is written from a rather biased Roman Catholic perspective, ignoring the reality that many Christians while experiencing themselves as Catholics are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Roman Catholics might not like this fact, but the truth of the matter is that Old Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and many other protestant Christians do consider themselves to be either the exclusive expression of the Catholic Church or a part thereof. Just study the constitutions/canons of these churches. Furthermore, every Sunday any of these denominations will confess "On Catholic Church" as they gather for worship reciting the creeds, even though they are not in communion with Rome. To argue that "most" Christians are Roman Catholics and therefore the Roman Catholic view is the more precise one, is rather unscientific and dishonest, if not even outright rude. In fact, the position taken by the authors of the article basically contents that nobody is really Catholic other than Roman Catholics, and I strongly object to that. By the way, in my native tongue, German, I would argue equally strongly that the Roman Catholic Church is "evangelisch", i.e. of the Gospel, even though many people use this term to describe Lutherans and Reformed Churches exclusively. A mistake remains a mistake even if many people make it. As the article stands right now, it is NOT NEUTRAL. Homoousian.

If in Germany Homoousian asked the way to die evangelische Kirche, would he be directed to the Catholic church? If anywhere Homoousian asked to the Catholic church, he would be directed to a (Roman) Catholic church. That is "common parlance". Lima 05:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if someone says they are 'American', 'common parlance' would take that to mean that they came from the USA. So, should our article America be about the USA, whith a footnote to aknowledge that this title 'may also refer to the continent as a whole, and is sometimes also claimed by Canadians, Mexicans and Columbians'? No, because 'common parlance' is not how encyclopedias organise material - encyclopedias use neutral descriptions and aknowledge differing points of view. Refering to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the 'Catholic Church' is clearly a point of view - and one disputed by many Christians, not in communion with the Pope, who also consider themselves to be 'Catholics', 'part of the Catholic Church', or even in some cases to be the Catholic Church themselves. Wikipedia must not decide which of these claims is right, it must not even say that the Roman claim is wrong, it must recored all the main views and favour none. Whilst we need to aknowledge that the Roman communion self-describes as 'the Catholic Church' we must not imply that this claim is correct - or others of less status.--Aoratos 13:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The name of the Catholic Church IS the name of the institution. You and other Anglicans are on an anti-Catholic campaign. WP criteria demand that most common use prevail. --Vaquero100 02:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks - you have already been warned and if you persist it will become impossible for others to work with you on this collaberative project. I'm not an Anglican (as I've already told you) - I'm a Catholic, just one that does not recongise Papal authority. This isn't just about the name of the Church - to say that the Romman communion is the 'Catholic Church' is an ideological statement. Many other Christians claim that they also are part of the Catholic Church, or indeed are the the Catholic Church. Wikipedia must neither reject nor accept any of these claims. The Republic of China (aka Taiwan) claims to be 'China'. FYR Macedonia calls itself 'Macedonia' - but that article is a disambiguation page recording the contested claims to the name. The fact is that 'Catholic Church' is a contested title - wikipedia should reflect that, and be neither pro- nor anti- (Roman) Catholic. --Aoratos 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good if the Cowboy were less ready to draw his gun on people, but also if the Invisible One would materialize the reasons for his apparent belief that Homoousian's text, with the phrase, "In common, but imprecise, use, it (the term Catholic) can refer to the members, beliefs, and practices of the Roman Catholic Church", is more neutral-point-of-view than one that lists interpretations without presenting any of them as either correct or incorrect, while mentioning first the most common usage. As he himself has said, "Wikipedia must neither reject nor accept any of these claims" or interpretations, including that of the (Roman) Catholic Church. Lima 11:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my use of "In common, but imprecise," is not presice itself, and I should not have phrased it such. But I maintain it is both true: It is common usage (even though the local RC parish advertises itself as "Roman Catholic", not as "Catholic") and it is imprecise, because of all the reasons listed above. So, maybe we could come up with some suggestions for something better. Obviously, there are many of us here who are quite uncomfortable with the way the articel stands now, because we read it as an RC POV. Homoousian.

Greek and Hebrew terms

All of you who are arguing over precise translations of Greek and Hebrew terms are engaging in original research. Please cite a reputable and reliable source for any translations you provide. TSP 23:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are making an argument under false pretenses, as literal translation using dictionary references is hardly original research. If I refer to a translation...any translation...rest assured that it is backed up either in the source document itself (i.e., transliteration and/or concordance), or a (language 'x')-English dictionary. No one is putting forth new theories here, we're discussing linguistics and meaning using actual source documents...hardly the stuff of original (new) research. In other words, we're interpreting already-written text...not history itself.
But while we're on the topic: one source for original Aramaic text of the Bible is from the Peshitta, the Koine Greek version of the Bible that I reference is Westcott-Hort text from 1881, combined with the NA26/27 variants (also known as 'WHNU'), and both Hebrew and Aramaic that I quote from is sourced by Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Cheers, --66.69.219.9 01:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree fully with TSP. I included previously, merely for interest, detailed etymological information taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and identical with that given in other sources. But since this has been misinterpreted as arguing for a particular interpretation of the Greek word καθολικός, it is obviously best merely to give the meaning of the Greek word as given in Liddell and Scott. Lima 04:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that your arguments are "backed up either in the source document itself (i.e., transliteration and/or concordance), or a (language 'x')-English dictionary", 66.69.219.9, but I won't "rest assured" that this is the case, because that isn't Wikipedia's policy; if you wish us to be assured that you have taken something from a reputable source, you need to include a citation. TSP 09:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Catholic in to Catholicism

I would support a merge of Catholic in to Catholicism. They are about the same subject, so there should not be two articles. --WikiCats 12:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably most sensible if we keep all debate on this over at Talk:Catholicism. TSP 13:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. --WikiCats 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

present-day usage

"Those who apply the term "Catholic Church" to all Christians indiscriminately find it objectionable that a term that they see as designating the whole Church should be used to refer to what they view as only one denomination within that Church."

Why would these 'indiscriminating' people, whoever they are, use the term for all Christians when they believe that the Roman Catholic Church is "only one denomination within that Church?" Not only is this sentence unverifiable ("those" and "they"...who??? sources???) and hopelessly complicated, it is self-contradictory, if not intentionally misleading.

Perhaps this sentence is simply poorly written: my best guess is that it intends to say that "they" object to the use of the term "Catholic Church" for just the "Roman Catholic Church" and not the entire Church, because they view it as the *only* denomination within the Church (and not only one denomination).

Talk about convoluted. Erlaforest 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's saying that protestants who think themselves a part of the Catholic Church find it objectionable that the "Roman Catholic Church" would call itself the Catholic Church, because protestants see Catholics as only being one denomination within the Church. I can see where one could misread it, but i think the most common reading of it will carry the meaning i intended for it. If someone wants to reword it but keep its meaning, i'm all for it. 2nd Piston Honda 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

203.32.87.174 14:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC) I had to edit this page because it grouped Eastern Orthodoxy as "Churches that regard themselves as part of a broad Catholic Church are distinguished primarily by their use of the Nicene Creed". This is wrong. Eastern Orthodoxy claims to be the Catholic Church in the same way that the Roman Catholic church claims to be the Catholic Church. And on the grounds of the similarity with the Roman claims, as well as the importance of the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy is the 2nd largest Christian group claiming to be the Catholic Church, I've moved it up to 2nd place in the article. I've also had to emphasise that the Orthodox Church sees itself as the One Church, not a number of churches (Greek, Russian, etc).

I seriously doubt that the Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East see themselves as part of some vague Nicean communion either, so I've broken them out into another section, but not being expert on these churches, I don't know what further to say.

Avoidance of usage

This section contains a number of vague and/or incomplete sentences. Editing the last three paragraphs seems to be impossible as their text does not appear in the edit window.

Divergence of Usage: Wandering from the Topic

The material on Roman Catholic views toward Anglican and Orthodox ordinations is all very interesting, but does it not concern the question of Apostolic Succession rather than the definition of the Catholicity of the Church? In other words, is it not completely out of place in this article? Does it not totally confuse and mislead the reader toward Roman Catholic views of the catholicity or universality of the Church, by dragging in a red herring about what duly constitutes correct and valid ordinations? Perhaps the material should be deleted, or at the very least put into the proper framework of the question of Apostolic Succession. This is a pretty basic objection, since even the Nicene Creed makes the distinction in the focus on a church that is Catholic and Apostolic (whatever any particular church today choses to make of either of these terms). Eschew obfuscation 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I came here in search of etymological information about the origin of the word "catholic". What is it's stem and where does it come from?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.202.67.252 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 January 2007. Never mind; I found it under "catholicism" - 'Catholic - from the Greek adjective καθολικός, meaning "general" or "universal"'. Maybe an idea adding this info to the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.202.67.252 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 January 2007.

how many catholics are there in the world

I would like to know how many catholics are there in the world —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.241.167 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

For Catholics in the sense of Roman Catholics, which some hold to be the only true sense, see Roman Catholic Church, paragraph 2. For any other sense of "catholic", no answer is possible, unless you first indicate what meaning you give to the word. Lima 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
There were 1.166 billion baptized Roman Catholics worldwide in 2008. ( http://www.zenit.org/article-28425?l=english ) That should giive you an estimation of how many there are today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBGeorge77 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

one (singular) Church

I think this section is problematic: The term can refer to the one (singular number) Church that, according to Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus told the Apostle Peter he would build: ... In Roman Catholic theology, this is understood to mean the Church governed by the Pope, as successor of Peter, and by the bishops who are in communion with him. We already mention in the first bulleted point the RCC, why bring them up again here? Isn't it true that basically every Christian denomination believes that they represent their interpretation of Jesus' words at Matthew 16:18-19? Is it a unique feature of the RCC alone and thus requires mentioning them, but no other denomination? Or should we also list every other church that has ever quoted Mt. 16 to support their existence? I think it's best to just delete the last sentence, and leave the point simply about the biblical reference.-Andrew c [talk] 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to complete deletion of the paragraph in question: when it first appeared, I thought it would be only a matter of hours before someone removed it. Only because an anonymous editor altered it last night, to bring it, that editor said, "more in line with the actual language in the Roman Catholic Cateschism" (sic), but actually made it contradict the CCC, did I revise it this morning.
However, it may be best to wait at least a day, to see if others hold that the paragraph should be preserved, perhaps in revised form. I think it most likely that nobody will defend it. Lima 06:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed In Roman Catholic theology, this is understood to mean the Church governed by the Pope, as successor of Peter, and by the bishops who are in communion with him (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 869-870, [http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p4.htm 881). Anyone, of course, is welcome to still discuss this matter, but since it has been a couple days since my proposal to remove it, I went ahead and removed it for now. Thanks for your imput, Lima.-Andrew c [talk] 13:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange Poem

I have removed a "poem" from the head of the article. It it needs to go into the article, please discuss and place it where appropriate.

Just to let you know some truth.

Catholic, Christianity and other religions are just religions, they aint real idiots. know the damn difference, what's your problem. Stupid Popes and priest are rather Money-seekers than to be a God's Messenger. We are just humans that cannot be predicted but always being corrupted. Just dont bug people about if the Bible is True or God exist. none of them have been proved to be true. Seriously, there is no fact, if anyone prove it then people will believe. God wouldnt be stupid to let us believe in him or not. If you, any of you want to erase this go ahead. I won't stop. Science are discovering all the facts about this "Bible" About hundreds of years ago, we believed we were the center of the universe. Not a lot of time ago, we used to believe that Sun was the whole center. Today we know all the fact that we are not alone.

I am afriad what will be discovered tomorrow. -GrayTemplar-

--BpEps - t@lk 05:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Catholicism (Note the capital) buried

I'm not a Catholic, was born into a Catholic family but hey ho! I Still don't understand why there is a genuine need for a disambiguation page on Catholic and for Roman Catholicism to be buried. 01:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Western and Eastern Catholics"?

Seeing as how the article provides a broader definition for "Catholic" than simply the Roman Communion, it is entirely inconsistent for us to refer to the churches in the Roman Communion in that section as simply "Catholic", especially seeing as how the issue of Western and Eastern rites extend beyond the Roman Communion. On top of this, the fact that the wikipedia article "Roman Catholic Church" is about not only the Latin rite church but all 23 churches of the Roman Communion, I think this is evidence that it is appropriate on Wikipedia to refer to the Eastern rite(s) member churches in the Roman Communion as Roman Catholic. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the Roman Communion. The Roman Catholic Church is just one of the 23 sui iuris churches that make up the Catholic Communion, offically known as the Catholic Church. In ecumenical dialogue, there is no confusion between the Catholic Church (which this article erroneously equastes with the Roman Catholic Church) and the Church catholic. This is why wiser heads have prevailed and the primary article on the Catholic Church was renamed from Roman Catholic Church. 95.227.111.12 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuousness of- "History of ecclesiastical use of 'catholic'" section

Amazingly, the article uses a secondary source (Lightfoot, Joseph Barber..etc) to justify such an erroneous editorial by the biased Lightfoot : "By catholic church Ignatius designated the Christian Church in its universal aspect, as "catholic" still meant no more than "universal", since it was only later that the word "catholic" took on the ecclesiastical meaning of "orthodox and apostolic" "

When the prime source Ignatius himself makes it quite clear he is speaking of a specific church which he describes as Catholic:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

This is but in the very same chapter where the word "Catholic Church" is mentioned.

For in the immediate previous chapter (7) this is how Ignatius describes a heretic, with regards to how the Eucharist is defined:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

Look it up yourselves in the very English source provided as a link, Letter to the Smyrnaeans [3] in the Ignatius section of this very article!!! Micael (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be an unsourced Original Research comment. Lima (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Seems to be..Unsourced", "Original Research(of Mr. Lightfoot, perhaps) "?? Then what does that little "5" at the end of the sentence mean? "...since it was only later that the word "catholic" took on the ecclesiastical meaning of "orthodox and apostolic".[5] "

Which when clicked sends you to this source at the bottom of the page, "5.^ Lightfoot, Joseph Barber (1973). "The Apostolic Fathers". Georg Olms Verlag. (with its link) Retrieved on 21 Nov 2008. , p. 415"

Evidently there is a problem with the primary source's (Ignatius of Antioch) POV , which is clear from his very letter to the Smyrnaeans . Hence, the requirement here to find an editorializing yet unreliable secondary source (The usual circumstance is when primary sources are available there is no need to reference other sources to describe an author's work) which complies with a more generic non-offensive ambiguous Wikipedian POV , though it represents an obvious LIE !! This is a clear example of sacrificing truth in the name of the more politically correct and nebulous POV. Micael (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be good to read Wikipedia:Truth. Lima (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_(term)/Archive_1&oldid=1124401856"