Jump to content

Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue

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

Untitled

[edit]

Futher elaboration is welcome to this article stub. drboisclair 18:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, indeed, in need of updating

[edit]

"Parts of this article (those related to the Hope for Eternal Life and later rounds) are outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information," someone put, in a box, at the very top of the article in 2010. And they were correct to so do, except that they so did in January of 2010, and there wasn't really anything to write about 'til October of that year. Still, the article is clearly dated, and so it's right to call attention to that.

Now, in April of 2012, as I write this, there has not only been something published regarding the "Hope for Eternal Life" 11th session, but they've all since reconvened (in October of 2011) for their 12th session. So, yes, some serious updating is now in order... on the 12th session, now, too.

So I'll jump on all that, and see what I can do; and when it's finally updated, I'll remove, if it's okay with everyone, the January 2010 note at the top about the article being out of date.

That will still leave, though, the April 2008 complaint about citations... which is also valid. I'll see what I can do about that, after I get the updating done...

...and anyone who wants to pitch-in, have at it! The more, the merrier.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 01:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2017

[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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue → Catholic–Protestant ecumenism – Broader, more catch-all spectra. Also, per WP:Consistency in accordance with Category:Catholic–Protestant ecumenism, Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Catholic theology, Catholic ecclesiology, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Music1201 talk 16:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note regarding the usage of Catholic vs Roman Catholic that the term Roman Catholic is typically used in an ecumenical context, even by the Vatican itself (which often omits the word Roman before the word Catholic in other contexts). See, e.g., the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (available here). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 8 August 2017

[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: moved DrStrauss talk 18:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue → Catholic–Lutheran dialogue – Trying a less dramatic change. Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Category:Catholic–Protestant ecumenism, Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Catholic theology, Catholic ecclesiology, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. Order by size, also in according with previously mentioned comparable examples. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 13:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There's consistency between this article and Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. Also, 'Roman Catholic' is more precise when discussing inter-denominational relations within Christianity. In fact, it would make more sense for the articles on Catholic-Eastern Orthodox differences you've used as examples to refer to Roman Catholicism, as the Eastern Orthodox Church also considers itself catholic- its official name is the Orthodox Catholic Church. I see no need for the change. --A.D.Hope (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this removes the unnecessary "Roman" name and brings the article into consistency with the main Catholic Church article and its many sub-articles, as well as widespread consensus. "Roman" is increasingly deprecated on Wikipedia and isn't necessary here for disambiguation (there are no other articles on dialog between Lutherans and any other church that would be called "Catholic". Examples of RMs where similar moves have been made include this, this, this, this, and this.--Cúchullain t/c 16:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Capital-C Catholic on Wikipedia refers to the Catholic Church (though oddly, with the exception of Catholic itself, which redirects to Catholicism. I would suspect this is because our software does not allow for non-capitalized titles and it would be confusing if it did. Outside of this specific case, however, our naming conventions on the term are consistent). This is not a theological or historical statement or judgement, just stating what our status quo consensus is, because it invalidates a lot of the arguments of the first oppose here. If that were to be challenged, a large site-wide RfC would actually be a much better venue than an RM because it would impact a vital article that received over 1.5 million page views last year (and yes, we do have RMs/RfCs on such matters, see the recent one at New York, which was listed at CENT).
    Re: the case at hand, our current practice on Wikipedia is to use Roman in two very limited circumstances: if disambiguation is needed between the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches (Chicbyaccident doesn't like this either, but RMs split about 50/50 on this specific point in general). The other is if a particular diocese refers to itself that way (this also isn't always the case, however.) Any article that refers to the entire institution that is led by the Pope we almost always go through with the move request because Roman can be confusing since it can also be used exclusively to refer to the Latin Church to the exclusion of the Eastern Churches. WP:PRECISION works with WP:CONSISTENCY here to make this an obvious move, since all of the sui iuris particular Churches deal with their relationships with other faiths first and foremost through the Holy See, and this article reflects that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 15 October 2017

[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. Clear consensus against changing the scope of this article. Jenks24 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Catholic–Lutheran dialogue → Catholic–Protestant dialogue – This article Catholic–Lutheran dialogue was created in 2005. There hasn't been any attempt of an article Catholic–Protestant dialogue before, so it is unlikely anyone would start one up from scratch. However, this article Catholic–Lutheran dialogue would make a suitable foundation for such a broadened scope. Thus proposing to broaden the scope of this article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 22 October 2017

[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 per consensus. The final tally was 7 oppose, and 4 support. Ernio48's was considered as oppose, as it was a conditional vote; of which the condition was not met by Ernio48 them-self nor by other editor. WP:FIXIT applies partially. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Catholic–Lutheran dialogue → Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue – This page had been moved based on three votes earlier just last month, two for and one against (See: Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue#Requested move 8 August 2017), citing primarily consistency with other articles, specifically ecumenical articles. Yet many of these page moves were proposed within a short time frame, and also had little participation. Several users have expressed frustration with this process; for instance, a page move from "Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue" to "Anglican-Catholic dialog" was recently reversed. (See Talk:Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue#Requested move 26 September 2017) The original page move the Anglican dialog was approved with only two votes (See: Talk:Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue#Requested move 9 September 2017), similar to the original Lutheran move here. This suggests that among a larger set of editors, there is little consensus for a mass change.

I would argue the ecumenical articles are best served by consistently using the "Roman Catholic" convention. Numerous formal dialogs between the Vatican or regional bishops conferences, and Protestant, Orthodox, or other churches use "Roman Catholic" in the title of the dialogues or joint commissions. Numerous dialogs also exist between the Catholic Church, and other "Catholic Churches" (Polish National Catholic, Old Catholic, Anglo-Catholic). Several examples, with links to formal dialog documents are listed here: WP:Roman Catholic#Ecumenical relations. I believe it offers no clarity to vary between "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" across the ecumenical series of articles. While the Lutherans do not specifically call themselves a "Catholic" church in the dialogue, it creates an inconsistency for some articles to use "Roman Catholic" and others to use "Catholic" as the participating party in union with the Pope.

On a procedural note, an admin specifically stated that a new page move request was the appropriate forum to introduce new evidence that was not considered in the prior page move (see closing note at: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 October). The prior move did not consider the formal dialog titles and consistency across the ecumenical series in light of "Anglican-Roman Catholic dialog" article title being reversed/upheld, which is the new information being introduced for consideration here. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addenda: as the majority of documents produced during Catholic-Lutheran talks use the "Roman Catholic" convention, future expansion of this and related articles will be made easier if the this article's primary naming convention matches that of the documents that would be summarized and discussed in this article. A partial list of can now be found in the article: Catholic–Lutheran dialogue#Documents and Organizations. I have no further comment on this matter. –Zfish118⋉talk 04:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as per the last discussion. The present title is more consistent with the main article Catholic Church and an increasing number of other sub articles. The "Roman" verbiage is unnecessary and is increasingly deprecated in Wikipedia article titles, as shown in RMs such as this, this, this, this, and this. There is no confusion as to what "Catholic" means in this article.--Cúchullain t/c 18:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not convinced by the argument that "Roman Catholic" is being deprecated. Most of the page move requests linked here were made by CrusadeStudent/Jujutsuan or Chicbyaccident within the past year or so, both of whom have expressed a strongly biased opinion against the use of "Roman Catholic" in any context. I believe both have been acting in good faith in making these proposals, but that their priority in pushing this issue does not match the majority of of editors. Many passed with only a handful of participants, including a consistent small group of editors voting in favor. In several proposals where there were opposing voices, the move was rejected, or even reversed. This suggests at best a mixed consensus at this time. Several editors have spoken in favor of continuing to use Roman Catholi in at least certain contexts in a related request for context(see: Wikipedia talk:Proposed naming_conventions (Catholic Church)#RfC: should this page be made a naming convention). There are perhaps fewer contexts where Roman Catholic is the best convention, but I see no evidence that there is strong consensus to eliminate it where it offers value, and I would argue that ecumenism is one such context. –Zfish118⋉talk 19:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I deliberately picked RMs from the last year or so, which explains that part of it. All of them passed with solid, clear consensus (or failed to be overturned despite substantial participation). It is true that there are "several" editors who have voiced disagreement with the decision, and a handful of cases where a move has been overturned, but the pattern is clear: "Roman" has been increasingly removed in article titles since the main article itself was moved. Speaking to this RM, I don't see the value in adding this verbiage; it's perfectly clear from the context what is meant by "Catholic".--Cúchullain t/c 20:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Disregarding all other recurring arguments in these cases, please compare ultimately the coherent "Catholic" terminology (not "Roman Catholic") employed in the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Younan (2016) (link to full text from the Wikipedia article). It was promulgated inside a Lutheran cathedral, in a Lutheran-majority country, and issued by the highest designated representative of the worldwide Lutheran denominations for the occation. However, on another note, I am also sceptical of that inconsistency should exist between Catholic–Lutheran dialogue and Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue. Shouldn't both article names pertain to the same criteria, more precisly the Catholic Church while taking into a account a global perspective on this issue? Why should terminology in a few documents issued by more or less third part individuals hold defining sway here? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't. Wikipedia articles are based on common use, consistency, and the WP:CRITERIA, not what format happens to be used in some documents. Especially, as here, where there is no risk of confusion.--Cúchullain t/c 20:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The links I refer to are primarily official statements hosted on either the Vatican or US Bishop's websites. They refer to the formal names of dialogues and host commissions. These are not a few obscure documents written by "third parties", but issued directly by the member parties to the dialog itself. –Zfish118⋉talk 12:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, even if we are to apply that critera, what document would be more definitive, recent, and authoritative than the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Younan? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be based on prevailing formal use. While the 2017 statement does refer to "Catholic Christians" in a general sense, the document also refers to the progress made in the "Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue" (See ¶7,212, and Chapter 4). While it is certainly not incorrect to say that Lutherans and Catholics dialog, the formal title of the dialogue is rather unambiguously "Lutheran-Roman Catholic". –Zfish118⋉talk 13:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a descriptive title; it's constructed for use on Wikipedia. Those follow common use, more than what random lines from a few documents use.--Cúchullain t/c 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You keep referring to these as "some random documents", but they are the products of formal committees meant to study ecumenical relations between various denominations. These committees give these dialogues a formal title, that majority of which are "Roman Catholic-Denom X dialogue". I do not know what "common use" you refer to, since the vast majority of ecumenical dialogue documents refer to the "Roman Catholic Church" as a party. "Catholic" alone is used, but alongside "Roman Catholic". Both are at least equally common, so it would make sense to defer to the formal titles (which, again, are not some "random lines" in a document). –Zfish118⋉talk 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I said. I said you're picking seemingly random references from some documents that include "Roman" to support your argument that there's a "formal title" for the concept of Lutheran-Catholic dialog. In reality, this topic has no one established name, so we construct a neutral, descriptive title, and that should be based on common use in the main articles. You acknowledge that the same documents refer to "Catholic" without "Roman".--Cúchullain t/c 18:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there is no reason to have the Roman disambiguator in this case. I am sympathetic towards Zfish's opinion that Roman has sometimes been rooted out unnecessarily, but this is not such a case. We use the common name and strive for consistency. In relation to the Catholic Church that means that unless there is some need for a disambiguation, we use Catholic without modifiers. I supported the Anglican move because of Anglo-Catholics, but there is nothing here that would warrant a deviation from the current de facto Wikipedia convention of using Catholic to refer to the organization as a whole and Roman to sub-units or when disambiguation is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that there has not been sufficient participation to create such a new "de facto" convention. All of the examples shown here have passed by a majority of a small number of users, including primarily yourself TonyBallioni, Cúchullain, and Chicbyaccident. In the handful of proposals that attracted opposition, they have often not gone through. While I appreciate that you are advocating for what you believe to be the best convention, it feels quite a bit like it a major change is being snuck through in poorly advertised and attended move proposals. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zfish118, I have consistently said that all pages on the Catholic naming dispute need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and that my preference is to have anything that refers to the organization as a whole match the title of Catholic Church unless there is a compelling reason, and that for sub-articles for issues involving local diocese, particular churches, etc. there is justification for the Roman in many cases. I'm hardly an anti-Roman zealot on this issue. I actually think that keeping it through the RM process is a good thing because it attracts outside users who are not part of the Christianity WikiProjects. Consensus from outside users in my observation of these discussions does almost always follow what I described above, and I think it is a good indicator of where project-wide consensus is on this topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The examples I picked were ones I knew about, primarily because I saw them and weighed in, which explains why I was involved. There are many others where I was not involved dating back years, notably including the main article, which was moved after a lengthy and well attended mediation request, as well as later discussions like this, and this, which had wide participation. The idea that this trend is only the result of a few low-participation moves is not accurate.--Cúchullain t/c 18:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The original move was not publicized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. The original move should not have happened. Is this a discussion with the Armenian Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics and other denominations with that term, or is it with only one group? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has nothing to do with the theology behind the term, but with the common name, which is Wikipedia's standard naming practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Walter Gorlitz is asking whether there are discussions regarding the name of the dialog articles with those churches. –Zfish118⋉talk 15:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unclear, but they would follow the same naming convention as the parent article unless there was a strong reason otherwise. The Anglican case was unique because it did have a strong reason otherwise: namely the existence of Anglo-Catholics, a term commonly used in English. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions and the churches within them are not commonly known as Catholic in English, and so we do not title them as such. That they claim to be catholic is not something Wikipedia considers in its naming conventions. The point of which is not to settle theological disputes but to help the reader quickly understand what is going on by using the most common and consistent name, with the amount of precision necessary to make it unambiguous. We have that with the current title, so there would not be a policy-based reason for a move, but only a theological one. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically related titles would be things like Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965, Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The latter two had RMs that resulted in the current titles.--Cúchullain t/c 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are yet two more examples passed with a small number of users. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, and as I said above, it reflects the consensus (achieved with a much greater participation than this RM will get) that came at Catholic Church here.--Cúchullain t/c 21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic–Lutheran_dialogue&oldid=1200703432"