Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Note 1 sandbox

I have copied Sunray's components for creating a note. I invite all of us to put forth some type of note suggestion or voice your support for one alreay suggested here. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 14:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray's suggested note guidelines

• Reference to applicable policies and guidelines on naming.
• A brief overview of how the name "Catholic Church" is used in Church constitution and official documents (e.g., The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Lumen Gentium, the Code of Canon Law)
• A statement about common usage of the name.

One or two secondary sources that support official usage (e.g., Whitehead).

• A brief statement of when and how the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used in official Church communications (e.g., speeches and ecumenical communications by Popes).
• Usage outside of the Catholic Church.
• Secondary sources to support usage.

I would suggest that participants make suggested changes useing strikethrough for text to be removed and a different color for text to be added or some other editing mark-up combination (e.g., strikethrough and italics). Sunray (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy's suggestion

WORDS IN BLUE ADDED BY SOIDI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.217.36 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century. The Church titles itself "Catholic Church" in almost all its most official and self-defining documents. It is the name in which all 16 Vatican Council documents are were signed by the pope, one of the names used to refer to the Church in its dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium and all Vatican II documents, and the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the central compendium of Catholic belief created by the Church in 1992. While some other churches refer to themselves as "catholic" and consider themselves part of the universal "catholic Church" (see Branch theory), or see themselves as the one and only Catholic Church, they are not titled "The Catholic Church" and are not part of the organization headed by the pope. Although the Catholic Church does not subscribe to the branch theory it is sometimes required by mainly Protestant and English speaking governments to adopt the name "Roman Catholic Church" in legal documents. Within the Church, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used to refer to the whole of the Catholic Church, as when the Pope enters into an agreement with another Church in its name and not in the name of the diocese of Rome alone or on behalf only of those dioceses that use the Roman Rite, or, according to one writer, to describe that part which uses the Roman liturgy and distinguishes from the Eastern Catholic Churches and those parts of the Latin Church that use a rite such as the Ambrosian Rite and that also form part of the whole Catholic Church. "Roman Church" may also refer to the Diocese of Rome. In common usage, the name "Catholic Church" refers to the body also known as the Roman Catholic Church and its members.

Nancy's editing of Xandars version +Soidi

The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the undivided Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century. After the East-West Schism, the term "Catholic Church" was used in the West to denote union with the see of Rome, to the exclusion of the Eastern Orthodox Church and, later, of Protestantism. According to the 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia, the Church claimed "Catholic Church" as its title.(though not as its only title) It is the name used by the pope (alone, for none of the other bishops signing used the phrase "Catholic Church", as can be seen in the reproduction given here of some of the signatures) when signing all of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council which include the Church constitution, Lumen Gentium, and is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the central compendium of Catholic belief created by the Church in 1992. The Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic experts such as Whitehead and Madrid, state that this is either the proper or official name for the Church while the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica claims that on the continent of Europe in the early twentieth century the Church is the "only church known officially and in popular parlance" as the Catholic Church. The Church is also known as the Roman Catholic Church, particularly in English-speaking countries. It originated as a derogatory label applied to Catholics by Protestants, beginning in the 16th century "who resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of Catholicity", The phraseology "Ecclesia Catholica Romana," or in French "l'Eglise catholique romaine" was then already common both in Latin and in the Romance languages. Indeed, the term "Roman Catholic Church" dates from at least the early Middle Ages, but the stress on this term became prominent after the Protestant Reformation: the reason was to emphasize the distinctive quality of being not only a Christian, because baptized, but of being a Catholic, because in communion with the Pope. Presently, it is sometimes used by the Church in ecumenical negotiations and agreements such as the ARCIC with churches that subscribe to the Branch theory, even though this theory is rejected by the Church. It is used in Papal Encyclicals addressed to the Catholic faithful, and in Agreements with other Christian Churches and communities signed by the Pope. Some governments have required the Church to adopt the name "Roman Catholic Church" in legal documents. Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" and "Roman Catholic" refers to either the Diocese of Rome or to specify that part of the Church which uses the Roman liturgy, Eastern Catholics do not use the Roman liturgy. "The most authoritative teaching of the Church on this important and yet delicate subject is the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi which Pius XII published in 1943, and in which he simply and unequivocally identifies the Mystical Body on earth with the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church."

Words in magenta added by Soidi (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Xandar's Merged version

Since no-one else has stepped in, I've put the following version together to move things on a bit and respond to objections to Nancy's suggestion. It incorporates sections from Nancy's version and the version put together by Richard from Soidi's and Gimmetrow's contributions. I've not included references for ease of construction.

WORDS IN BLUE (excepting "catholicity") HAVE BEEN ADDED BY SOIDI Soidi (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the undivided Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century.
• The Church titles itself "Catholic Church" (among other names) in almost all its most official and self defining documents. It is one of the name used to refer to the Church in its constitution Lumen Gentium, and in the other documents of the Second Vatican Council, and is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the central compendium of Catholic belief created by the Church in 1992. The Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic experts such as Whitehead and Madrid, state that this is either the proper or official name for the Church.
• The name Roman Catholic Church is also in widespread popular usage, particularly in English-speaking countries. It is sometimes used by the Church itself, particularly in documents involving ecumenical relations with churches also claiming catholicity. At times the Church has also been required by governments to adopt the name "Roman Catholic Church" in legal documents.
• The name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label that was applied to them by Protestants from the 17th century onward. The name is avoided by the Church when its use is susceptible of being interpreted as acceptance of the theory that the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican churches are but branches of a single Catholic Church (see Branch Theory.) Some Eastern Catholics in particular object to being labeled "Roman Catholic", preferring to be called "Eastern Catholic." In this usage "Roman Catholic" describes that part of the Catholic Church which uses the Roman or Latin liturgy.
• Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" is used to refer to the church of the Diocese of Rome.
• The name Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church has also, at times, been used to designate the Church.

Xandar 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Soidi's attempt

(PROBLEMATIC TEXT (IMO) IN GREEN)Xandar 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "catholic church" was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century to mean the universal church as opposed to the particular (local) church, but it later took on the ecclesiastical meaning of "orthodox and apostolic". After the East-West Schism, the term "Catholic Church" was used in the West to denote union with the see of Rome, to the exclusion of the Eastern Church and, later, of Protestantism. The church in communion with the Pope most commonly refers to itself by this term, using it in almost all its official documents, and some writers claim that it is that church's only official name.

Other names that it uses include "Roman Catholic Church". This name, which appears in two encyclicals, is common in official agreements entered into with other Christian churches and has several times been used by the most recent Popes, especially when addressing people who do not belong to the church headed by them.

Outside that church, strong objection is sometimes raised against its use of "Catholic Church" as a self-identifying term, on the grounds that "Catholic Church" properly applies to the Christian Church in general, but the term is commonly used even outside the church. On the other hand, in view of the significance that some others have attached to the term "Roman Catholic Church" as meaning merely a branch of a larger "Catholic Church" (see Branch Theory), strong objection is sometimes raised within that church to any use of the term "Roman Catholic Church", although it is employed by the church's highest authorities without attributing to it that limited meaning. Cardinal Herbert Vaughan explained: "With us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic ... (and) insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter." Soidi (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal Vaughan explained by Catholic Encyclopedia

"In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be "the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England". Even the form "the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church in England" was not approved. On the first occasion no address was presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to the use of the name "Roman Catholics" were complied with, though the cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see Snead-Cox, "Life of Cardinal Vaughan", II, 231-41). Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that "the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept." The repudiated sense was that dear to many Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, "with us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic." The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and "insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter."

From Catholic Encyclopedia [4]

Xandar's version IV (from factual Sources)

• The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the undivided Church as a whole as contrasted with the particular (local) Church, by Ignatius in the early second century. After the East-West Schism, the term "Catholic Church" was used in the West to denote those Christians in union with the see of Rome, to the exclusion of the Eastern Orthodox Church and, later, of Protestantism.

• According to the 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia, the Church claims "Catholic Church" as its title "at the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title over Protestant or Reformed churches". It is the name used by the pope when signing all of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council including the dogmatic constitution, Lumen Gentium, and is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the "authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine" created by the Church in 1992. The Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic writers such as Whitehead and Madrid, state that this is either the proper or official name for the Church
• The name Roman Catholic Church is also used by the Church since at least the early Middle Ages, and stress on it became prominent after the Protestant Reformation, so as to emphasize the distinctive quality of being not only a Christian, because baptized, but of being a Catholic, because in communion with the Pope. It is used by the Popes in personally signed agreements with other religious leaders, and in encyclicals addressed to their own faithful. In addition, this name is in widespread popular usage, particularly in English-speaking countries. It is sometimes used by the Church itself, particularly in documents involving ecumenical relations with churches also claiming catholicity.. The encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi which Pius XII published in 1943 also used the term. .
• The name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label that was applied to them by Protestants from the 16th century onward, and which suggests that theirs is only one of several equally valid Catholic Churches. (see Branch Theory.) Some Eastern Catholics particularly object to this name. However Cardinal Vaughan argued that For Catholics, "Roman" is legitimate when it indicates not a subdivision of Catholicity, but its unity around a central point. as in the profession of faith, "I profess that I believe the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church to be the only and true Church established on earth by Jesus Christ", and Pope Pius XII's declaration that the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same thing.

• Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" is principally used to refer to the church of the Diocese of Rome.
• The name Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church has also, at times, been used to designate the Church.

Additions in magenta by Soidi (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, your additions make the note unreasonably long and unwieldy and are of questionable value to the basic well referenced point that the Church claims Catholic Church as its title, something we now have referenced to five of the most modern and respected scholarly sources [5]. NancyHeise ^talk 18:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

more sources that say the Church claimed as its only title

• 1)From The Oxford English Dictionary, 1978, Oxford University Press, Volume II, C, ISBN 0198611013, page 186 Definition of "Catholic":

  (a)After the separation, assumed by the Western or Latin Church, and so commonly applied historically.(b)After the Reformation in the 16th c. claimed as its exclusive title by that part of the Western Church which remained under Roman obedience.

• 2)From The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997 ISBN 01921165x, Definition of "Catholic" page 305:

  "(3)In historical writers, of the undivided Church before the schism of E. and W., traditionally dated in 1054. Thereafter the W. Church usually referred to itself as 'catholic', the E. preferring to describe itself as 'orthodox'. (4)Since the Reformation RCs have come to use it of themselves exclusively."

• 3)From The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism general editor Richard McBrien and some of the 280 authors are listed here [6] published in 1995 by HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0060653388, Definition of "Catholic" page 240: "

  "However, the use of the word 'Catholic' became divisive after the East-West Schism of the eleventh century and the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth. The West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East, which broke the bonds of unity with Rome, appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. After the Reformation split, those in communion with Rome retained the adjective Catholic, while the churches that broke with the papacy were called Protestant."

NancyHeise ^talk 16:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Failed verification" tags added by Soidi (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the false verification tags, that is vandalism. I have posted the exact quotes including page numbers and ISBN's of the books listed. NancyHeise ^talk 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not one of them says the Church claimed "catholic" as its only title. They only say that the Church claims that the title is exclusive to itself and belongs to no other group. That is not the same thing. The Church can and does claim several titles as exclusive to itself and belonging to no other group. The Church does not claim that it has only one title. Soidi (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please adjust the wording to that which is supportable. We can say that the church uses several names. Assuming a google search supports it, we can also say that the Catholic Church is the most commonly used name (per my comments on the main talk page). Sunray (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy has yet to provide any credible source that supports her repeated opinion that "Catholic Church" is claimed as its "only title". None of the sources she is presenting actually support this opinion. Afterwriting (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

working with Xandar's text

Below is a revision based on Xandar's text (above). My main concern has to make the text simpler and more fluid, but above all to make it more explanatory. I have, for now at least, dispensed with all references. The only information I have added has been a further (important) reason as to why the term "Roman" Catholic is viewed as problematic. Discussion of this issue can easily be found: it's what's at issue on debates about the British monarchy, for instance. I'm sure that the current wording could be improved, however. Indeed, my sense is that the note could be still further simplified and clarified, so I welcome further suggestions from those who represent the various different perspectives in this discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church." For the Church is not the only institution to claim to be catholic; and the Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance.

The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get "Catholic," means "universal." It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century. When the Church split in the twelfth century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic," while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox." Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church has also been distinguished from the various Protestant churches.

The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church also refers to itself simply as "the Church" and sometimes more formally as the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church."

Especially in English-Speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. But the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several Catholic Churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy.

Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome.

This scans well. I think it represents progress. It needs to have explicit sources. As I said to jbmurray in a note on his talk page, the guideline states very clearly that we must use objective criteria and reliable sources in a naming conflict. The note is, thus, a way of documenting what criteria and sources we have used. How best to do this is yet to be determined. If we don't want to use footnotes, we could use one of the other styles for presenting citations. Sunray (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see too many problems with this compromise version, except that it seems to have lost Whitehead, Madrid et al. Xandar 23:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this note is acceptable but I do not see why we don't have the same language that is used by six sources including three encyclopedias and our only scholarly source that the church "claimed as its title Catholic Church". This same sentence is repeated so often in these most reliable sources I don't see how we can let that fact get obliviated. NancyHeise ^talk 00:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We definitely will have to add sources. I would suggest that we figure out a way to do that based on the "presenting citations" link I gave above. jbmurray has objected to "footnotes within footnotes" and also points out that warring over sources will set us back. So lets take it slow and figure out the best source (or objective criterion) for each statement and the best way of displaying the sources. Sunray (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is what we should work on. Or even - though I would like some changes - accept. Soidi (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some strikethrough that might trim the note a little in line with some people's commentsXandar 22:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jbmurray's judgement on which of Xandar's deletion requests to accede to and which not to accept. I think the text is clearer if it keeps the two remaining phrases that Xandar has marked with strikeout. Soidi (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I indicated above that, for the sake of concluding the discussion, I would accept Jbmurray's text as it stood. But since it is being changed, I must ask that at least one misleading statement, "Especially in English-Speaking countries, the Church ... occasionally refers to itself as the 'Roman' Catholic Church", be corrected. The Church's most authoritative references to itself as the "Roman" Catholic Church are made in non-English-speaking Rome. Popes have referred to the Church in this way in countries where the language is Polish, German, Danish, and French and Dutch. Ireland may be the only English-speaking country in which a Pope has done so. Soidi (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the usage. If you look, you will see that it is used in the statement "Especially in English-Speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to, and occasionally refers to itself, as the "Roman" Catholic Church." We aren't talking about occasional usage in Vatican statements, we are talking here about popular usage. It is especially in English-speaking countries that the church is regularly referred to in popular usage as the RCC. As such, the statement is well-referenced, and is necessary to provide accurate information. Xandar 19:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent:) Does my edit just now help clear up any ambiguity? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Soidi (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations within notes

Here's some information from WP:Footnotes. The guideline says: "Explanatory notes are subject to the same verification criteria as main article text, and may need references of their own. These references may be provided within the explanatory note, or in an additional footnote." The format for doing this is shown here. Because most articles now use the footnote system (as does our article), it seems easiest to use this format.

Perhaps we could now edit jbm's version adding sources, as necessary. We should move it back to the main page fairly soon, as some participants may not be aware that a group is working on this page. 20:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested some passages that may need sources by adding "citation needed" tags. Let's pick the most appropriate source for each. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For future reference (Some suggestions for sources on the matters Sunray pointed out; to be considered later.)

The most authoritative source on the meaning of the Greek word καθολικός, down to and including the period of early Christianity, would be Liddell and Scott. If it is felt important to include an account of the later meanings that soon attached to it in Christian usage, the obvious source is what Joseph Barber Lightfoot says of it briefly and clearly in his The Apostolic Fathers.

On the use of the word "Catholic" in contrast to "Orthodox" and "Protestant", would the article Catholicism in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology p. 86 be enough?

For the signing of the 16 (4 constitutions, 3 declarations, 9 decrees) documents of the Second Vatican Council - I was wrong when I thought there were 49 - would it be enough to cite the Latin text of the first of the 16 documents, which shows exactly in what form the first 53 signatories put their names?

On the more formal title of "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", the EWTN translation of the First Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith and EWTN's extract from it might be given, but they insert commas that are lacking in the original. It may therefore be better to give the text in Creeds of Christendom, which in addition to presenting, unaltered, Cardinal Henry Edward Manning's translation, displays the original Latin in a parallel column.

Occasionally refers to itself as the "Roman" Catholic Church. 1977 Agreement with Archbishop Donald Coggan of Canterbury, Divini illius Magistri and whatever number of other examples are thought to be necessary. Soidi (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions on Soidi's comments above,

I think that we should keep to using those sources which adhere to Wikipedia policies: 1)They must be in the English language 2)They meet the requirements of WP:RS and 3)If we cite a primary document, we need to have a secondary scholarly source that interprets the document the same way we are interpreting it in our text to avoid WP:OR. If we don't do this, we will get trashed at the next FAC attempt. NancyHeise ^talk 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy's attempt to trim JB's suggestion

I did not want to mess up JB's original with strikes so since Kraftlos stated that it needed some trim, here's my attempt:

The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get "Catholic," means "universal." It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century. When the Church split in the twelfth century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic Church," while the Eastern Church took the name "Holy Orthodox Church." Although the Church has sometimes used other names to refer to itself, following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Church claimed "Catholic Church" as its title. This name is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and in the title of the central compendium of Catholic belief, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Especially in English-Speaking countries, the Church is also referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. But the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several "catholic" churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy.

Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome.

NancyHeise ^talk 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Personal attack removed) [Not] all you are doing here is trimming. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think we should avoid using words like "dishonest"; but Nancy has certainly slipped in a number of slanted phrases and distorted the meaning of the previous text - as well as deleting some important elements. I don't think her text is at all a good one to work on. 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• I don't really think this does the job; any note needs to explain the term Roman Catholic Church, this note just seems to represent the Catholic POV. When I was talking about a trim earlier, I was referring to the version that has Xandar and Soidi's text (the one with the purple). This version by JB looks a lot more balanced and factual. I just tried to do an edit of it and couldn't find anything to take away from it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• So we return to Jbmurray's text? Soidi (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep focussed on the task, here, folks. Nancy, other participants find that your re-draft raises neutrality concerns. jbmurray's draft is still under discussion. I see a need for further editing of it: The syntax of the opening sentences needs a bit of tuning and the references need to be added. Soidi has provided some suggested citations. Also, I've been wondering about the following sentence:

• But the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several Catholic Churches...

How would we verify this? I think it needs further work. Sunray (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And many do freely choose to use the term "Roman Catholic" when referring to themselves so what real significance does any of this information suggest? In fact after I started writing this comment I heard a Roman Catholic radio presenter refer to himself by the term. Afterwriting (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not know my efforts would create such wrath - none was intended on my part, I was just trying to do what Kraflos has suggested. Sorry my effort was not appreciated, it seems to me that some of JB's note is unreferenceable so I eliminated what I thought went beyond the sources. NancyHeise ^talk 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean I didn't appreciate the effort, because I do; I just thought it was a step in the wrong direction. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jbmurray's text

I make bold to copy Jbmurray's text to here, so as to bring it back to focus: Soidi (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church." For the Church is not the only institution to claim to be catholic; and the Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance.

The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get "Catholic," means "universal." It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century. When the Church split in the twelfth century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic," while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox." Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church has also been distinguished from the various Protestant churches.

The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church also refers to itself simply as "the Church" and sometimes more formally as the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church."

Especially in English-Speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. But the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several Catholic Churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy.

Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome."

Notes re: references:

• The first paragraph needs no reference; it is introductory.
• The second paragraph is historical. It could be challenged and thus should have one or two solid secondary sources.
• For verification purposes, a link to Vatican II documents should suffice for paragraph three.
• The fourth paragraph needs a link to one or two primary sources for ecumenical letters or encyclicals from the Pope to forestall any challenges. In the last sentence of the fourth paragraph, the term "disliked by many Catholics as a label..." is likely to be challenged, as will the rest of this sentence.
• The last sentence needs a reference or should be dropped (per Soidi). Sunray (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Since Sunray's suggestion of what to start seeking a source for has stirred up proposal for an addition, perhaps we should leave that for the moment. Should we now seek a source for something else instead, or should we first discuss whether to remove or keep (or even add) something? JB might have a useful suggestion to make on this, and Sunray could again give us useful guidance. Soidi (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Some observations:

• Sunray, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "the syntax of the opening sentences needs a bit of tuning." Can you explain? As I have repeatedly said, I'm more than open to suggestions.
• Regarding the sentence, "the name 'Roman Catholic Church' is disliked by many Catholics..." this is something I took (as indeed I took just about everything) directly from Xandar's original draft. There had been some discussion about "many" versus "some" Catholics. Personally, I have no real problem with either: there are so many Catholics in the world that even "some" are also going to be "many." It seems an uncontroversial statement.
• I do have some thoughts as to how the sources can be handled. But again, it seems worth getting the text right first. Ideally, we want a text that's sufficiently robust that it doesn't even need much in the way of citation.
• Regarding the phrase that is currently under erasure, ("and the Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance"), I think it's important. What I tried to do with my text was to summarize the main issues in a single sentence at the start. In fact, in a perfect world, I'd suggest that this could be the entire note:

  There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church." For the Church is not the only institution to claim to be catholic; and the Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance.

  That's clear and concise, and says (I think) what needs to be said. However, obviously, to make it more robust we've added the further explication that follows. At present, then, this sentence acts as a "lead" for the note as a whole, much along the lines of the policy on the lead for all Wikipedia articles. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My critical comments will usually be about editing and policy rather rather than the content questions of the debate. With respect to the intro sentences. IMO, the note does not scan well with the struck-through phrase removed. It is choppy and would need further editing. With the struck-through phrase it is fine. In fact, it gives a decent introduction to the subject of the note. Would whoever had a concern with the struck-through phrase be able to elaborate on their reasons for the strikethrough?

With respect to handling of sources: I have gone through relevant policy and guidelines (above) and think that the footnote system will best meet your purposes, given that the article already has separate notes and citations. If someone has a better way, let's hear it. Bear in mind, though, the guidelines say only one system should be used throughout the article.

With respect to the statement "the name 'Roman Catholic Church' is disliked by many Catholics..." My concern is not with its truth, but rather how the deuce we would source it. Any thoughts? Sunray (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On the strikethrough - I just thought that the second part of the first sentence was waffle. I suggested its trimming to help shorten the note a little. It doesn't say much of importance, and seems to my mind to split the first part of the sentence from the further explanation of the word "catholic" in sentence two. However if others are so attached to the fragment I am prepared to live with it. The statement "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics is sourced to Walsh hereXandar 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, thanks for that. Walsh also discusses the other reason why the term "Roman Catholic" is seen as problematic by some... So that's two birds with the one stone!  :)

Again, my hope is that we can write a note that is really uncontroversial. And again, I don't think that's too difficult. Call me Pollyanna! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If we can sort this dispute out now, we certainly can play the "glad game" Xandar 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be approaching agreement on the text. Congratulations to all of us. Or am I a Pollyanna too? Nancy is worried that some parts may be unreferenceable, but I think that can wait until we set about sourcing them. I too have doubts about one phrase, one that does not worry Nancy, but I prefer to say nothing about it until we reach it, when my worry may prove unfounded. Soidi (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Without wanting to seem pushy, I wonder if we might a) finalize references, b) agree on what (if any) text needs to be modified or removed, and, c) move the note to the main talk page. Then, I think we should assemble how we want the final product to appear (i.e., a descriptor of what we have agreed to, the version of the lead sentence and the note). We need to get buy in by the maximum number of participants. I will consult with some advisors on how best to present it to the wider Wikipedia community. As a mediation decision, it will carry considerable weight, but we won't want any misunderstanding that could risk it being blown out of the water. Sunray (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent:) I'd be interested in hearing about the phrase that is problematic in Soldi's eyes. I also think it would be worth dropping a note on the talk pages of other editors who have been involved in this mediation... Gimmetrow, Johnbod (I know Nancy already contacted him), Defteri... Let's try and make the wording as solid as possible. Again, I have some thoughts about references for when we get to that stage. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are at that stage now. By determining what references we want to use, we will also be able to finalize the wording. Would you be willing to start adding references now? Sunray (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To respond to JB's question, my doubt was/is about the sourceability of the last phrase. As I said, I may well find that an acceptable source will in fact be cited for it, proving my fear groundless. But that is the very last phrase, and I suppose we should begin at the start, not the end. Presumably the other editors cast an eye on this page from time to time. They are not objecting to how things are going. So should we now accept Sunray's invitation to begin to attach sources to the various parts? Or should we wait a bit more? Soidi (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to move this along now. I will put a note on the main talk page and then work with participants to add the references and finalize the note. Sunray (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding references to the note

Right, I have started the process, below, but it is incomplete as yet: Xandar 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church." For the Church is not the only institution to claim to be catholic; and the Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance.

The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get "Catholic," means "universal." It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century." When the Church split in the twelfth century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic," while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox." Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church has also been distinguished from the various Protestant churches.

The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church also refers to itself simply as "the Church" and sometimes more formally as the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church."

Especially in English-Speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. But the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several Catholic Churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy.

Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome."

Comments

What really needs to be referenced here? What is likely to be challenged? For instance, having a reference to the fact that the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" has "Catholic Church" in its name seems... well, bizarre at best. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This question comes as a surprise to me, given your background and Wikipedia experience. In fact, I have been scratching my head for a few days now, wondering why you seem resistant to the assumption that we need to back up this note with references. To respond to your first question: Anything that is not a self-evident fact needs to be referenced. But you have worked on FA articles, so you know that. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good example of an important document of the Church with that name in its title—thus a self-evident fact, and, as you say, no need to reference. Your second question takes us to the heart of the matter though, I think. Have you read the article talk pages? If you have, you will understand that there will likely be challenges on several grounds.

You said that you do not think we should have notes within notes. I responded with reference to WP guidelines. You didn't really respond to this, yet you still question the need for references within the note. Perhaps I have not understood your reasons for saying this. Would you be able to explain why you think this?

I believe that there are several statements in the note that need to be referenced. I will place "citation needed" tags on these. Would you be willing to discuss these one by one with the other participants and me and see if we can reach consensus? Sunray (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, I am not "resistant to the assumption that we need to back up this note with references." Please don't make such assumptions! I fully agree with the use of solid sources, as should be obvious from my contributions to this discussion. However, I am against the mechanistic and unthinking application of sources, and I also stick closely to the relevant Wikipedia policy that "sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." My suggestion has consistently been that we write a note that is not likely to be challenged. As such, we should actively seek to write a note that ideally will need the minimum of citations. I fear that your approach is the reverse.

As I have said, I have some thoughts about sources. But I strongly believe that we should get the text right first. I would like to hear why Soidi has problems with the sentence that he has indicated, so that we can find a way of fixing it. Again, I would like us to drop notes on the talk pages of involved parties so that they can look at the current wording. (To be honest, I'm rather surprised that you're resisting that suggestion.) If they challenge it, then we will know what needs to be changed or to be properly sourced. This, I believe, is the right way to go about things.

To take another example, then. Do you really think that the statement that the "Church also refers to itself simply as 'the Church' and sometimes more formally as the 'Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church'" is likely to be challenged? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And to repeat, so that we can be crystal clear about this: I have at no point "question[ed] the need for references within the note." At no point, not once, ever!

When I ask the following questions, they are not rhetorical: What really needs to be referenced here? What is likely to be challenged? Sunray, please explain your reasoning for adding tags in the places you have done so. Thanks. Although as I say, I think it would be best to hear more from the original parties to this mediation on this issue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've indicated where I think we need citations in Jbmurray's text, above. I also think that the references that Xandar has added in the version immediately above are good. We may not need all of them, but let's discuss this further. Sunray (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss this further, rather than rushing to add sources where they are not required, or to treat such sourcing unthinkingly and mechanistically. Let's not miss the wood for the trees! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xandar, for getting things moving. I hope you don't mind me expressing my doubt about the suitability of Whitehead as a source for any statement that will be examined by several new editors. They will surely see that Whitehead also makes some strange statements, including the claim that the Church never uses "Roman Catholic". What can we do to support the statement that the Pope signed the Second Vatican Council documents with the title of "Bishop of the Catholic Church" (a title the Popes now use only for signing documents of an ecumentical council)? All I can think of is to link to one or more of the texts of the documents that do show how he signed it. The Latin text of Dei Verbum is one example. Several more can be found by Googling "Ego Paulus Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus", the phrase with which Paul VI signed the 16 documents. I think it would be unnecessary to link to all of the 16 documents.

Instead of the generic "Vatican 1 documents" as the source for No. 6, I suggest the text in Latin and English of the documents.

As I feared, no source has yet been proposed for the last statement, that "Roman Church" refers "principally" to the Diocese of Rome. Soidi (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC) And indeed is this last statement either necessary or even helpful? Soidi (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Soidi's observation seems valid to me. If there is no reference for this statement, we should drop it. Sunray (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the references aren't yet exhaustive. Responding to jbm, I feel that we have to have the maximum amount of references if this article is going back to FAC. At previous FACs references have been demanded for the most inoccuous of statements. Statements like "the Pope is head of the Church" and stuff like that. So we've genrally erred on the side of over-referencing. Xandar 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to get the clarification from Jbmurray that he agrees with the use of solid sources. I agree that we should not engage in a "mechanistic and unthinking application of sources," which is why I've suggested we discuss each one. I agree that sources should be the minimum necessary. However, given the contentiousness of the article name in the past, I think Xandar makes a good point about erring on the side of referencing wherever there is any doubt. As to sorting out the text: All the editors who have looked at it have either agreed or stood aside. It needs some copyediting IMO, but other than that, it is ready. I have asked that the notes be added to it now. Once that is done, it can be moved to the main talk page and I will notify all participants. If someone prefers to notify participants right away, please go ahead with that. This is an open process. Sunray (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a major problem with this note in that it never states what all the encyclopedias and our only scholalry sources states: that the Church "claimed as its title 'Catholic Church'". This same sentence is found in all of these sources - what good reason do we have for excluding this important fact? NancyHeise ^talk 17:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is strange that someone who objects to Original Research insists on presenting this phrase as somehow supremely significant. Henry V claimed the title King of France. That does not mean he did not also claim the title King of England. Soidi (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that would be a relevant illustration if the encyclopedias and scholarly sources said that the Church also claimed some other title but they all say it claimed only one title making zero mention of the other as a title claimed by the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 20:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that in determining a name, where there are conflicting views, we need to document what the Church calls itself. We are on solid ground if we say "The Church says X is its name," and refer to documents of the Church. The encyclopedias, are tertiary sources and can only be used in restricted ways. I think our task is to look for primary sources and reliable secondary sources to make this claim. Sunray (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, our only scholarly source, The Church by Richard McBrien states "claimed as its title" - see page xvii of of this book here [7]. Three tertiary sources also use this same wording (Academic American Encyclopedia, HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Oxford English Dictionary). We can use the tertiary sources to identify the fact that there is no scholarly opposition to this claim. We don't have to reference these sources, we can just reference the McBrien book and use the others to come to the logical conclusion that the claim is not something disputed or a fringe view but is in fact a widely accepted mainstream view that we would be remiss to exclude in our note. NancyHeise ^talk 16:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Sunray (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My reason for wanting to include the words "claimed as its title" are twofold: 1)We will not be able to defend a page move to Catholic Church unless we have these referenced words and 2)the words reflect vast agreement among modern scholars - an important fact that we should not overlook in our note. I suggest we change the words "took the name" to "claimed as its title" and reference this to McBrien. NancyHeise ^talk 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, if "defense" of a page move to "Catholic Church" depends on this, the proposal to move it is hopeless. Of course, the Church claims "Catholic Church" as its title. But that is by no means the only title that the Church claims. "Catholic Church" is not the title that Pius XII called "this most noble title of the Church" in Mystici Corporis Christi. "Catholic Church" is not even among what another source calls "the three most important titles of the Church". To keep readers from making what seems to be Nancy's misinterpretation, "claimed as its title" would have to be accompanied by a clear indication that this is not the only title that the Church uses and that is contested by others. Thus, changing from "took the name" would be an unnecessary and useless complication. Another one of the titles that the Church claims is the one that Calvin "denied to the papists": "the title of "the church". Soidi (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We are following Wikipedia policy [8] by using what secondary sources say about the Church's claimed title. The source is supported by Tertiary and primary sources. Soidi wants to insert some claim to another title that is not reflected in our secondary scholarly sources and is thus unreferenceable to anything other than a single primary document where the use of a name is being interpreted by a Wikipedia editor - an interpretation that is not mirrored in any scholarly or nonscholarly secondary source. We have every reason to include the words "claimed as its title" especially when this exact sentence is repeated so often in tertiary and scholarly works. Not to do so would be clearly irresponsible. NancyHeise ^talk 17:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And if we insert these sources that speak of one title that the Church claims, "we have every reason to include" other sources also that speak of other titles that the Church claims, especially titles that the Church itself considers more noble or that Catholic writers consider more important. Soidi (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And which sources do you propose to use? Only McBrien is supported by tertiary and primary sources, not to mention all Catholic media and Catholic writers. I think we have established that there is no scholarly debate on the Church name - per the substantial agreement among several tertiarty sources which Wikipedia allows us to use to establish the basic note outline. If tertiary sources do not say RCC is a claimed title, we have no business including such a claim. NancyHeise ^talk 01:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1. By using other titles (even calling them "titles"), the Church itself declares that CC is not the only title that it claims as its own. McBrien and the others do not contradict this. Indeed no reliable source does.

2. Wikipedia says: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment". Soidi (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on references for note

I've added some notes to support the "citation needed" tags I added previously to Jbmurray's text. As I mentioned, I think that we could use several of the references that Xandar has added in the version immediately above. If there is any discussion regarding the "citation needed" tags, lets do that now. As we discuss each, we can add the references one by one, until we are done. As I said on the main talk page. Let's allow a couple of days for this and then move the final version, with notes to the main talk page. Sunray (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph

Looks o.k. as is. Sunray (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that this is clearly an WP:OR statement because no scholar, encyclopedia, Catholic writer or Catholic media says this. We have no secondary source to support this sentence. We can only use primary documents that we interpret ourselves as to what they mean. Past discussions of Wikipedia editors used the Diocese of Hawaii's use of Roman Catholic on their website to support their assertions that the Church uses the name Roman CAtholic to refer to the whole Church. However, when we contacted that Diocese, they stated that they used the term to refer to the fact that they are a Roman Rite Catholic Church as opposed to an Eastern Rite. They were not using the term as Wikipedia editors decided, they used it as it has been interpreted by our secondary sources. Thus I have a difficult time supporting a sentence that has zero secondary or tertiary sources supporting it. NancyHeise ^talk 18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As Sunray says, this is just a lead summing up what follows, and everything in it does correspond to what follows. It is in the corresponding following part that Nancy should make her Whitehead-like claim that the Church never uses "Roman Catholic" to refer to the whole Church. Soidi (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from the discussion for a while; I'm just now catching up. This sentence/paragraph appears to be an introduction, so it just needs to be supported by what follows. I guess that's already been said. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph

What do participants think of Xandar's suggested references: OED and McBrien? Sunray (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think McBrien is a good source for what is attributed to him. The Concise OED (the source Xandar gives, not the OED) would do for the meaning of the word, although citing a "Concise" Dictionary, rather than the full Dictionary, seems a weak choice. The Concise OED does not support the statement about the first recorded application of the word to the Church. The entry for "catholic" in Modern Catholic Dictionary covers both the meaning of the word and the earliest record of its combination with "Church". If it is thought best to have separate sources for a) the meaning of the Greek word, b) its first use in connection with the Church, then the most authoritative source for the meaning of the Greek word is Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, but that may seem rather too complete and complex. For the statement that Ignatius's use of "Catholic Church" is the earliest on record, the best source seems to be "This is the earliest occurrence in Christian literature of the phrase 'the Catholic Church' (ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία)" on page 41 of The Epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch by James Herbert Srawley. The same text is found on page 97 of the same writer's Early Christian Writings. Soidi (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that we should use the OED, not the concise version. Srawley seems like a good historical reference. Sunray (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Third paragraph

Is there agreement that the link to the Vatican II documents will suffice here? Sunray (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No because the link does not give Reader the actual signatures. These are found in a very expensive book. Whitehead is a good source for this fact. I also have a problem with this paragraph in that it never tells Reader what all the encyclopedias, Catholic media and Catholic writers say, that the Church "claimed as its title Catholic Church". This sentence repeats itself almost exactly in the only encyclopedias and scholalry sources that address the name of the Church. I think the note is misleading if it does not tell Reader what these sources say. Perhaps a sentence that goes like "several encyclopedias, scholars, Catholic media and writers state that the Church claimed Catholic Church as its title or that it is the official name of the Church" (reference Academic American Encyclopedia, HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia McBrien's The Church, Oxford English Dictionary, Whitehead, Madrid, ..." ) We will not be able to justify or defend a page move to Catholic Church unless this info is included in the note and referenced.NancyHeise ^talk 18:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We need provide no expensive book whatever: it is enough to give a reference to the texts on the Holy See website, which give at least some of the signatures. All we need to back up the statement is the first signature, that of the Pope; we can do even more. Soidi (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Whitehead, EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor already provide that reference - Whitehead, a source written by a scholar with footnotes and bibliography that is cited by the worlds largest Catholic media outlets, one a member of SIGNIS. NancyHeise ^talk 20:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that there is a problem with the sentence that says the Church sometimes refers to itself as "the Church" or more formally as the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church". This sentence is referenced to a Vatican I document. Has the Church used the term "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" since the rare instances in Vatican I? It looks to me like Reader could be misled into thinking that this term is more formal than Catholic Church when the opposite it true. I can not support this sentence as it stands unless it eliminates the words "more formally" which are totally unsupported by any primary, secondary and tertiary source. NancyHeise ^talk 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to investigate this further? Sunray (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had and do have doubts about the need for this phrase as it stands. I think it would be better if "sometimes more formally as the 'Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church'" were altered to "and has sometimes used more formal expressions such as the 'Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church'". However, to respond to Sunray's request, I find that the expression, which was first used in that exact form in an official Church document in the First Vatican Council's Dei Filius, appears also (as a quotation from that first document) in the Second Vatican Council's Lumen gentium (section 8) and in the encyclical Mystici Corporis (section 91). In addition, it was the phrase used in a profession of faith for converts, who had to declare: "I profess that I believe the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church to be the only and true Church established on earth by Jesus Christ." Those are probably the only cases of use by the Church of the entire phrase, exactly in that form, but they are weighty cases, since they include the two most recent General Councils and a profession of faith. Of course the Church repeatedly refers to itself by each and every one of the four adjectives that are combined together in that long phrase. Soidi (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (I have now added the part in italics, which wasn't there when Sunray said that he couldn't see a reason for retaining this phrase. Perhaps now he can. Soidi (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. I can't see a reason for retaining this phrase. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Then we should strike it per this mutual agreement. NancyHeise ^talk 17:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sunray (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, you struck the wrong sentence. We are agreeing to eliminate this sentence in the third paragraph " The Church also refers to itself simply as "the Church" and sometimes more formally as the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church."[6], not the sentence in the fifth.NancyHeise ^talk 23:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I've corrected it now. Sunray (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Sunray. You are wrong now. There is no agreement to strike out the Church's claim to be the Church, a claim that Calvin contested and so one that was made as far back as then, and indeed for many centuries before. As for the rest of the sentence, I have suggested that it be changed to "and has sometimes used more formal expressions such as the 'Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church'". All of this is clearly sourceable. Soidi (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that the Catholic Church calls itself "the Church," right? If so, I agree. However, many Christian churches refer to themselves that way. Is it really a name of the Catholic Church? Sunray (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say it certainly is. The (R)CC denies this name to all other groups. It agrees that the Eastern Orthodox Church is a Church, but denies that the Eastern Orthodox Church can be called the Church. It does not agree that the Church of England or the United Methodist Church is even a Church. These latter never, I imagine, use "the Church" as an exclusive title of themselves alone, as the (R)CC does. I think you are interpreting use of "the Church" in the sense in which these would employ it, not in the sense in which it is used by the (R)CC. These also employ "Catholic Church" in a sense different from the meaning that the (R)CC attaches to it. Soidi (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We have to be a bit careful here, I think. One of the key criteria in naming is what the entity calls itself. Clearly the Catholic Church calls itself "the Church." However, so do many other churches. This brings us back to the naming conflict. The naming criteria in the guideline are: a) the name in common usage, b) the official name, and/or c) the name used by the subject to describe itself. How could we best use these guidelines to dispel further conflict? Sunray (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The exercise underway is intended, is it not, to prepare a proposal that the title of the article be changed not to "The Church" but to "Catholic Church"? It is better that the proposers of the move should show immediately that they are not unaware of the fact that the Church does use other names. If they were to be silent on that demonstrable fact, they would open themselves to the accusation of making a proposal based on ignorance. It is no good hiding the fact now: it will certainly come to light when the matter is put before a much wider group than the very few who are now discussing it. The names that the Church uses, but that are not being proposed as the name of the article, include some, such as "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" and "Roman Catholic Church", that nobody else claims, but also some, such as "the Church", that are contested. "Catholic Church", which is being proposed, is also contested.

I don't think that any of the three criteria that you mention gives anything even approaching a clear answer to the question of what should be the title of the article. Soidi (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray and Soidi, our Wikipedia policies state that we are to use secondary sources to reference our stuff [9] - no secondary source says that the Church's name is "the Church", neither do we have secondary sources that say the name is Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church - that info came directly from a primary source for which we have no interpretive secondary source. My objection to its inclusion was that by stating "more formally" we are giving Reader false and unreferenceable information. NancyHeise ^talk 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Already dealt with, I think. If the Church refers to itself as X in its documents, it refers to itself as X, whether others comment on the fact or not. "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment". Soidi (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The referenced Wikipedia policy states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". My problem with your insistence on using primary sources is that it has happened before in this argument (Diocese of Hawaii) where editors say the Church means one thing but when we actually go ask, we find out that they meant another. I think it is too easy to misinterpret what the Church means unless we have a scholarly source to support our interpretation of a primary document. All I want to do is follow policy, not violate it. NancyHeise ^talk 01:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not go 'round this track again. This is not an article we are talking about, it is a naming conflict. The applicable policy is WP:NAME and in the case of controversial names, the policy refers us to WP:NCON. That guideline sets out objective criteria, such as primary documents and usage. I think that Soidi puts it well when he says we have to look at primary, secondary and tertiary sources and use common sense and good editorial judgment. We have already used the criteria to determine that the name "Catholic Church" is the preferred name based on both general usage and primary documents. There are few authoritative secondary sources, but we have found a couple that we can use. We are almost there, folks. Sunray (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph

Xandar, would you be able to quote the exact text from Walsh that you think supports these statements? We will need to include the page reference if we use that source. Sunray (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The following text from page 19:

A good many Roman Catholics object to the epithet 'Roman'. They do so for a variety of reasons. One is linked to what was said in the first section, that they believe that they are the only true Church, therefore the only Catholic Church, and calling them Roman rather suggests that there are other, equally valid, kinds of Catholic, such as - and in particular - Anglo-Catholic. Another reason why the term is disliked is because it is sometimes used by those hostile to Roman Catholicism to suggest that its adherents do not really belong to the nation in which they live, that they are somehow 'foreign'. Xandar 01:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That does support the statements in the note. However, it does open up the "Anglo Catholic" argument. It would seem we will need to address that in the note. Would anyone be able to comment on Walsh as a reliable source? Sunray (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Nancy should be asked to speak on this question. When User:TSP described Walsh as "an academic and scholar of Catholicism, and his book is published by Routledge, a reputable academic publisher", she was playing him down. Later she cited him for some of her own statements, but later again she called him "an academic ex-Catholic priest whose work is clearly POV anti-Catholic". Xandar seems to find him acceptable as a source for what is here attributed to him. Perhaps Nancy does too for this statement, even if for nothing else. To me, TSP's description sounds convincing. Soidi (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using Walsh for statements of fact, I do have a problem using his personal opinions and representing them to Reader as fact. For instance, he says that the name Catholic is commonly used to mean Roman Catholics but then says something like "it shouldn't be used" like that. We can't include opinions because they are indefensible, we just need the facts. NancyHeise ^talk 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then, no objection to this statement by Walsh. Soidi (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph

We need to include a reference for this or eliminate it from the note. Sunray (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Added. Xandar 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Xandar, but what the Catholic Encyclopedia says is: "In this canonical and diplomatic sense, the term ("Holy See") is synonymous with "Apostolic See", "Holy Apostolic See", "Roman Church", "Roman Curia". We would be shot down for baseless Original Research for claiming that this is the same as saying that "the name 'Roman Church' principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome". Apart from everything else, "Roman Curia" is clearly not synonymous with "Diocese of Rome". And the only reference to "Roman Church" on page 468 of the other source you quote only says that the college of cardinals has a historic tie with it. This seems even less related to the statement the source is supposed to support. Soidi (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic See, Holy See, and Holy Apostolic See are synonymous with the Roman Church, (and therefore the Diocese of Rome). All these terms mean exactly the same thing. The Roman Curia is officially the government of the Holy See, the Diocese of Rome. This is where a lot of the naming confusion arises, since many documents refer to the Roman Church. The Papacy is based on the primacy of the Roman Church (as opposed to, say, the Venetian Church) within the Catholic Church. So a policy of the Roman Church is also a policy of the Catholic Church, but the two are not the same - as some people think. This is borne out by the second reference, the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, which says that Cardinals have a specific tie with the Roman Church by being appointed to titular churches in the city. The Roman Church here specifically refers to the Church of the City of Rome, as further borne out by the rest of the text. The section in the Code of Canon Law to which this refers is specifically titled Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church., where the Roman Church is that of the City of Rome. This usage is clear here and here in Canon 331. Xandar 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If so much interpretation is needed, this is not a good source to quote. The canons of the Code of Canon Law that you quote are better, since they show that the Pope is "Bishop of Rome" ("Roman Pontiff" is another way of saying exactly the same thing) and that the cardinals have a specific tie to the Church (diocese) of Rome. But they do not show that "the name 'Roman Church' principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome". Note that I do not dispute the truth of the statement. I have only expressed doubts about its sourceability - though I accept that it may perhaps after all be sourceable. I have also expressed doubts about the usefulness of its inclusion here: what purpose does it serve?

Almost as an aside, I remark that there are those who strongly hold that "Holy See" is not the same as "Diocese of Rome", that "Holy See", like "Roman Curia", concerns the governing of the universal Church, while the governing of the diocese of Rome is done by what is called the "Vicariate of Rome". While I accept that there are two distinct bodies for governing the local Church in Rome and the Church throughout the world, I myself understand "Holy See" to mean "Diocese of Rome", but I was unable to convince a certain person in authority who held the opposite view and who pointed out that the cardinals, who are called "Cardinals of the Church of Rome", are never called "Cardinals of the Holy See" (or even "Cardinals of the Holy See of Rome", as I had wanted to call them). Others have quoted against me canon 361, which says: "In this Code, the term ... Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, ... and other institutes of the Roman Curia ...", and so only to the Pope and the Roman Curia. I responded by saying that this statement refers to the meaning given to "Holy See" only within the Code, not to its meaning outside the Code. But that, at best, only removed an argument on their side. It did not prove them wrong. Soidi (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia definition of "Roman Catholic" can be used as a reference for the fifth paragraph. It is on page 298 but I am not sure what volume since I forgot to mark it when I made a copy of the page. I can find out which volume if you want to use this source. Also, Whitehead says the same thing and we can use him as a reference too. NancyHeise ^talk 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Would Nancy kindly quote the statement (with context)? Soidi (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• New Catholic Encyclopedia page ?(did not copy) definition of "Catholic": "The word catholic means general or universal (from the Greek ...) Originally applied to the universal care and providence of God (by Tertullian), to the general resurrection (by Theophilus of Antioch), it is still used of those Epistles addressed to the Church at large and not to particular communities."
• New Catholic Encyclopedia page 298 definition of "Roman Catholic": "There is a further aspect of the term Roman Catholic that needs consideration. The Roman Church can be used to refer, not to the Church universal insofar as it possesses a primate who is bishop of Rome, but to the local Church of Rome, which has the privilege of its bishop being also the primate of the whole Church."
• I can get page number, volume and ISBN info if we want to use this as a ref. It is a very expensive encyclopedia volume set that I have to go to the library for the info. It is published by Catholic University of America in 2002. See [10] NancyHeise ^talk 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Nancy. There is no need to specify the source any more than you have done. Saying, "The Roman Church can be used to refer, not to the Church universal insofar as it possesses a primate who is bishop of Rome, but to the local Church of Rome", is not the same as saying, "The Roman Church cannot be used to refer to the Church universal ... but only to the local Church of Rome", or even, "The Roman Church is used principally to refer, not to the Church universal ... but instead to the local Church of Rome". So the page 298 quotation is irrelevant. Only an Original Research interpretation can make it say more than what nobody disputes, namely that "Roman Church" can be and is used of the local Church of Rome. The statement in the proposed note goes further than that. And as regards the quotation from the page whose number is not given: that quotation says nothing whatever about the phrase "Roman Church". Soidi (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the policy on tertiary sources. Accordingly, I cannot see how we could use a tertiary source for this statement without either a primary source or an good secondary source. Sunray (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, the policy states Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. If we have secondary sources that say the same thing as the tertiary sources, we can use the tertiary sources to identify which of our secondary sources are reflective of the mainstream view. Whitehead is a source for the fifth paragraph that is supported by the tertiary source New Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic Encyclopedia. NancyHeise ^talk 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the tertiary source can give an indication of the reliability of a source. My view is that once that is agreed by participants, we can then use the secondary source. As the WP policy makes clear, secondary sources are preferable to tertiary ones (in fact we should generally avoid use of the latter). Our note is very focussed and should not need broad overview statements. Also, as Jbmurray has stressed, we need to be judicious in our use of sources and use no more than we need (which I would suggest would be one reliable source per fact). Sunray (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I just read your comment in the section above and think that we are in agreement on this. Sunray (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no valid source, primary, secondary or tertiary, has been given for the statement that "the name 'Roman Church' principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome", and since nobody has sponsored a proposal to modify the phrase (such as to change it to "the name 'Roman Church' can refer to the specific Diocese of Rome"), should it now be struck out? Soidi (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Sunray (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How about [11] "The Diocese of Rome is known as the "See of Peter", the "Apostolic See", the "Holy Roman Church" the "Holy See"" MyTuppenceWorth (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the sources are quite clear, and this is an important point. We are talking of Catholic usage here, and the primary catholic usage has been amply demonstrated. Xandar 20:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources such as that mentioned by MyTuppenceWorth are quite clear in saying that the Diocese of Rome is known as the Holy Roman Church. No source says that this is the only meaning of "Holy Roman Church" (there are in fact Church documents that use "Roman Church" to refer to something other than the Diocese of Rome), and no source says that this is the "principal" meaning of "Holy Roman Church". So, strike out? Soidi (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that in the absence of good sources saying that the Roman Church means anything else, we have enough attribution for our purpose. Soidi's phrasing: "The name 'Roman Church' can refer to the specific Diocese of Rome" is also factual, but vague. What do others think? Xandar 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And I would say, firstly, that interpreting "The name 'Roman Church' can refer to the specific Diocese of Rome" (which is all that the sources produced say) as meaning: "the name 'Roman Church' principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome" is no more than baseless Original Research; and, secondly, that "Roman Church" is certainly used by the Church to refer to something other than the Diocese of Rome, as in the phrase "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", consecrated by no less than the two most recent General Councils and by a profession of faith for converts: "I profess that I believe the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church to be the only and true Church established on earth by Jesus Christ." Here the term "Roman" plainly applies to the whole Church, and not merely to the local Church of Rome. Nobody thinks that the Diocese of Rome is the only diocese established on earth! Soidi (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is agreement that the statement is true, but vague, at best, or even misleading. To my mind, we don't need anything in the note that does not deal directly with the two names "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church." Would participants be willing to drop the last line? Sunray (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Because of its unsourceability, I would. Soidi (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ROMAN CHURCH, THE HOLY. i. Strictly, the diocese of Rome, eg, in the expression Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, cardinals being the councillors of the Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff. ii By extension, synonymous with Latin rite and Western church (qq.v.), eg, as on the title-page of the "Graduale Romanum," "Gradual of the Most Holy Roman Church. . . .”.iii. By further extension, the whole Catholic Church as having its head at Rome. This sense is often used in a semi-hostile way by non-Catholics (cf., Roman Catholic). The Catholic encyclopaedic dictionary [12]MyTuppenceWorth (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Nancy and Xandar accept this clear statement that among the meanings of "Holy Roman Church" is that of "the whole Catholic Church as having its head at Rome".

This statement by Attwater is correct. But he seems, by the way, to have made a mistake in interpreting "Gradual of the Most Holy Roman Church" as meaning "of the Latin Rite". Like "Roman Missal", "Roman Ritual" etc., "Gradual of the Most Holy Roman Church" refers to the liturgical rite of the diocese of Rome, the Roman Rite, as distinct from other Latin liturgical rites used within the "Latin rite and Western church". For instance, the Roman Gradual is not for use in the area within the Latin particular Church where the Ambrosian Gradual is the official one. Soidi (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I dislike losing the last semtence because it adds a useful piece of information in this context. In view of the opinions above, we can certainly agree on "The term "Roman Church" is also used to refer to the specific Diocese of Rome." Xandar 20:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't we need to specify what "also" means? That is: "The term 'Roman Church' is used to refer to the specific Diocese of Rome, as well as to the whole Church that has its head at Rome". Would that really be worth having in the note? Soidi (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My concern would be with these references. The first, New Commentary on the Code of Cannon Law, while apparently a reliable source, doesn't seem to support the statement. The second, The Catholic Encyclopedia, as a tertiary source, is not sufficient.

I propose the following course of action: If those who have been working on this page agree, we can move the note to the main talk page and I will alert all participants to take a final look at it, along with our proposal for renaming the article. We can leave the last sentence in for now, but point out that some concerns have been expressed about it. We should also prepare a proposal for the name change, summarizing the decision on the talk page. Agreed? Sunray (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Soidi (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Last look at note before moving to main talk page

There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church." For the The Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity to be catholic. ; and The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance.

The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get "Catholic," means "universal." It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century." When the Church split in the twelfth century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic," while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox." Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church has also been distinguished from the various Protestant churches.

The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Especially in English-Speaking English-speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity use the term "Catholic" in their names. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. But However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic Churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy.

Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome."

Comments

I would like to ask that we provide quotes in the references from the sources used to support each sentence. For instance, the sentence that uses the words "took the name" actually comes from a scholarly source which uses the words "claimed as its title". I think this is an important point that needs to be included in the article text somewhere to defend the change of the page name to Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 19:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are suggesting that every sentence be sourced. I don't believe that is usual practice in footnoting. Since both those sentences are from the same source, there isn't a requirement to repeat the reference — it is understood that they both come from the same source. However, if participants prefer to source every sentence, we can do that. Sunray (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Nancy is talking about sourcing every sentence, but adding a brief quotation directly from some of the cited sources within the relevant citation footnote - as has been done for some of the citation footnotes in the main article. Xandar 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, I think we need to include the quote that uses the words "claimed as its title" if we are not going to have these exact words in the note. I would be more inclined to support the note if they were. Right now, I oppose the note because it does not have these vital words that so many tertiary sources and our only scholarly source repeat exactly. Thus I suggest as a compromise, putting the exact quote from McBrien in the reference supporting the sentence that uses the words "took the name". NancyHeise ^talk 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, I agree that it makes sense, generally, to include an exact quote from a secondary source. Sunray (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote will not be brief (unless someone wants to take a phrase out of context): "The use of the adjective "Catholic" as a modifier of "Church" became divisive only after the East-West Schism ... and the Protestant Reformation ... In the former case, the West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. In the latter case, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome retained the adjective "Catholic", while the churches that broke with the Papacy were called Protestant." Such a quotation from just one of the cited sources will seem strange (and perhaps pointless), but I raise no objection. I raise no objection here to giving Whitehead as a source, but if he is kept, I will later point out that he makes some clearly false statements. I still think that the best source for showing how Paul VI signed the documents is to cite one of them directly, instead of quoting anybody else, even someone more believable than Whitehead. As for the last statement, I or someone else will add a "Failed verification" tag to it. But that too can wait until later.

Is it too late to suggest that "it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council" be clarified? The name used by the Pope was "Paul" (in Latin, "Paulus"), instead of the name by which he usually signed: "Paul VI"; the title used by the Pope in signing those few documents was "Bishop of the Catholic Church", instead of the title with which he signed all other documents: "Pope". On this matter too, if others want to keep the present unclear text, I raise no objection to moving ahead. Soidi (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It does need to be brief. I think that your proposed alternative is a good one. In the case of a naming conflict, it seems far better to cite the primary documents rather than a secondary source. Let's try it with the change. If others have reservations with this alternative, we could present both versions to the larger group of participants and see if we could get consensus on one. We do need a strong note to make this work. Sunray (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to use Whitehead as a source and Soidi is welcome to complain all he wants. Whitehead is a reliable source that supports the statement that Paul VI signed those documents in the name of the Catholic Church, he is a source who meets WP:RS - he is cited by two different Catholic media outlets both of which have editorial staff who are scholarly experts on the subject. I know that Soidi has zero references that say otherwise. I oppose using a link to the Vatican site for the actual documents because the only Vatican source that shows the actual documents signed is a very expensive book that scholars like Whitehead and EWTN editorial staff have access to, not Wikipedia editors like Soidi. NancyHeise ^talk 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It just isn't true that "the only Vatican source that shows the actual documents signed is (an unspecified) very expensive book". Anyone with Internet access can consult the original documents on the Vatican site for free. But if others think Nancy should have her way, I will not object to moving ahead on this matter while citing a statement by someone who in the same breath says that the Church does not (ever) use "Roman Catholic Church", and while declaring that the Pope who signed the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council used a name other than Paul when doing so. Soidi (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the Vatican website does not show the signature of the pope on the documents of the Second Vatican Council and because I don't feel that I should spend money on a point that should not even be disputed here, I contacted the librarian at Saint Vincent De Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach who said he had the actual documents with the signatures. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church". The reference we can use for this is a document entitled Declaration on Christian Formation published in Washington DC by the National Catholic Welfare Conference in 1965, page 13. There is no ISBN number per the librarian and no Library of Congress number. NancyHeise ^talk 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard's proposals

Forgive me for not following the debate on the note much in the past few weeks. I have only read the version of the note in this section so forgive me if I go back over ground that has been covered already. In such cases, feel free to point me at the section of this talk page that addresses my concern and I will go read it.

I have made some proposed changes to the note that are mostly stylistic in nature. I do want to raise one question of substance in the first sentence. The proposed note read (sort of) "The Church is not the only institution to claim to be catholic." This is awkward because all post-Nicene churches claim to be catholic and these constitute practically all of Christianity (with the exception of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and a few others).

A better locution IMO would be "Most Christian churches claim catholicity and several use the term 'Catholic' in their name".

Also, the proposed text reads "Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church has also been distinguished from the various Protestant churches." I don't understand what this means when written this way. Of course, the Catholic Church has been distinguished (in the sense of being "distinct") from the various Protestant churches. What I think we mean to say is that the term "Catholic" has been used to distinguish the Catholic Church from the various Protestant churches.

Thus, I would propose

Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the terms "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" have been used to distinguish the Catholic Church from the various Protestant churches. Despite the omission of "Catholic" from the names of Protestant denominations, such churches nonetheless continue to assert their claim to catholicity.

I think this imparts the true situation and what we are trying to communicate.

--Richard (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While the stylistic changes are largely beneficial, Richard's proposed changes to the "Following the Reformation.." sentence directly above, are not. The paragraph deals with the name "Catholic Church", so inclusion of the term "Roman Catholic Church" here disrupts the logic of the note. It also confuses the meaning of the passage. More accurate would be: "Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the name "Catholic" was used to distinguish the Catholic Church from the various Protestant churches." The entirely new proposed sentence "Despite the omission of "Catholic" from the names of Protestant denominations, such churches nonetheless continue to assert their claim to catholicity." is unnecessary and inaccurate. The Lutherans and many other protestants have never claimed to be the Catholic Church, and we aren't really discussing protestant claims here. Xandar 00:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to drop mention of "Roman Catholic Church" in the "Following the Reformation" sentence.

However, with respect to the proposed new sentence, I do think that many Protestant denominations do assert that they are "catholic" at least within the meaning of the Nicene Creed as they interpret it. This is the concept of the church of all believers, Catholic or otherwise, being one body in Christ. If we are to mention "catholic", we must explain the difference between "Catholic" and "catholic". Some Anglicans claim that they are Catholic (branch theory) with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox and not Protestant. Protestants claim that they are catholic (meaning "members of the universal church"). These are crucial points. You cannot say that the Roman Catholics are "catholic" and the Protestants are not. That is highly POV. I'm not even sure that it is the POV of the Catholic Church. I believe the Catholic Church's official position is that there is only one holy, catholic and apostolic church and that all Christians are members of that church. It is unfortunate that some brothers in Christ have separated themselves from others and all Christians are called to heal those fissures in the Body of Christ. --Richard (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard has identified some of the sensibilities of other Christian churches to the word "Catholic." It seems to me we would do well to recognize these. His suggested additional paragraph (omitting reference to "Roman Catholic") does touch on these points. Is there agreement to add it? Sunray (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, this sentence "Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the name "Catholic" was used to distinguish the Catholic Church from the various Protestant churches." is a better wording and I think that captures what was trying to be said there. I also think Richard raises a valid point in the use of the word catholic vs Catholic. I'm not sure how we'd go about addressing that aspect of the word, however it seems to make sense to include that idea here (as long as we can get sources). --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there is a distinction between "Catholic" and "catholic". The discussion of Protestantism and "catholic" is only necessitated if we talk about "catholicity" and "catholicism". The use of upper and lower case is part of the critical distinction here. No Protestant church claims to be Catholic but they all claim to be catholic because they profess the Nicene Creed. --Richard (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I support Richard's proposal to change the "Following the Reformation" sentence. I also support Kraftlos's proposal for a modification. And I would suggest a further modification: to avoid tautology, change from "Catholic Church" to "church in communion with the Bishop of Rome" in the phrase "the name 'Catholic' was used to distinguish the Catholic Church from the various Protestant churches".

I hope nobody minds my indicating in magenta the stylistic improvements that Richard proposed: I added this indication when, because of a misunderstanding, I was looking in vain for some more substantial change there.

However, I must add a negative note. I do not agree that "this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also use the term 'Catholic' in their names" is an improvement on "... that also claim catholicity". Apart from the multitude of "independent Catholic Churches", some of them consisting just of an individual with or even without a few followers, how many Churches do have the term "Catholic" in their names? Distinguishing the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome from whatever Churches use the term "Catholic" in their names certainly isn't the reason that "Roman Catholic" has been the title used in "some documents involving ecumenical relations", as suggested by the word "Hence" in the following sentence. Have I perhaps misunderstood Richard's proposed change, which was meant to be stylistic? Soidi (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that the proposed sentence "Despite the omission of "Catholic" from the names of Protestant denominations, such churches nonetheless continue to assert their claim to catholicity." is extremely problematic. This is for two reasons. 1) It opens up a whole new and very complex subject area, which is far better gone into in the Catholicism article. We already say that other churches claim catholicity. I think that's enough here. If we start talking about protestant views, we would then need to add the orthodox position as well. 2) And leading on from this, the statement, as written, is not accurate or referenced. Richard discussed elements of the Catholic view of The Church - but that is not what is being talked about in the sentence. In fact many protestant denominations are not concerned with Catholicity and others reject the concept. Some churches replace "catholic" with "christian" in the creed. Others do not use the Nicene Creed in a recognisable form at all. Hardly any protestant churches use "catholic" in their names. As I said, all we really need to do here is state that other churches claim catholicity. Xandar 22:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to write simply: "Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches." There would then be no need for the "Despite the omission ..." sentence, whose main purpose, I think, is to avoid giving the impression that the Protestant churches pacifically accepted the appropriation of the name "Catholic" for the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Besides, the active-voice form avoids the danger of some editor adding the "who" tag to "was used" in the first sentence as it was before. And, by the way, the Catholic/catholic distinction, which now exists in English, did not exist at the time of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, and still does not exist in other languages today. Soidi (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am OK with Soidi's proposed text above. My only point was that we should not suggest that only those churches who include "Catholic" in their name lay claim to being "catholic". I confess that I don't know the position of each and every Protestant denomination with respect to "catholic" and the Nicene Creed. I do know that many "mainline" Protestant denominations such as the Presbyterian Church recite the Nicene Creed using the word "catholic". Thus, my main concern is that we avoid suggesting that churches without "Catholic" in their name are not part of the "catholic" (i.e. universal) church. --Richard (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. Now what about my suggestion that, instead of your proposal, "At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that use the term 'Catholic' in their names" - i.e. the Old Catholic Church, the Polish National Catholic Church and some other groups that come under the heading "Independent Catholic Churches"; the Eastern Orthodox Church uses "Catholic" in some of the names (plural) it uses for itself, but you can't say it uses "Catholic" in its name (singular) - we return to "At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity"? Soidi (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Soidi and Richard, the New Catholic Encyclopedia is a tertiary source that uses the wording of the sentence that uses the words "that also claim catholicity". I think it is safe to use that sentence because if you go the other way, you make the note unnecessarily long without making the meaning more clear. You violate the "brilliant prose" criteria and "undue" policy. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So long as we link Catholicity properly, I see no problems with Soidi's suggestions regarding Richard's proposals. Xandar 09:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with Soidi's suggestions also. --Richard (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

I've changed the link to the Catechism to link directly to the document itself. It looks like we are almost done here. Great work, all. Soidi, are all the changes incorporated now? Would you be able to take a last look and make any changes before we move it? Sunray (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes that we have been discussing above and on which I think agreement has been reached have not yet been incorporated:

1. Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches.

in place of

Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church has also been distinguished from the various Protestant churches.

2. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity.

in place of Richard's proposed amendment:

At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also use the term "Catholic" in their names.

A third change may be advisable. Nancy suggests "Declaration on Christian Formation published in Washington DC by the National Catholic Welfare Conference in 1965, page 13" as a reference for the statement, "For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council". I have no objection to moving ahead with this, nor to moving ahead with the Whitehead citation, as is now in the text. However, I still think that, rather than refer to an obscure printing of an obscure English translation of what I presume is more generally called the Declaration on Christian Education, we would do much better to cite the Holy See website text, in the original Latin, of the same document or of any of the other documents given on the same site in the original language. Admittedly, they don't give the signatures of all the bishops who participated; but they do give the signature of the Pope, the cardinals, the patriarchs and the primates. I don't see why Nancy continues to say that "the Vatican website does not show the signature of the pope on the documents of the Second Vatican Council". It does, and in the precise form in which they signed, which was in Latin and according to a fixed model: not just the name but also a title, which for the Pope (alone) was "Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus". Would she please look up the link for the original text of the Gravissimum Educationis document (not the English translation), and see the end of the document, just before the footnotes. Soidi (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for an excellent summary of where we are at. I think that your suggestion to include the Vatican link along with the Whitehead reference would make the note even stronger. If there are no objections, I would suggest proceeding with those changes. Sunray (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To be exact, it is/was not my suggestion to include the Whitehead reference at all, and perhaps Nancy too was thinking of replacing it with a reference to the early English translation of the Council document, although that translation is no longer easily available. On the other hand, as I already said, I will not be an obstacle to moving ahead with a reference to either that old translation of the document, or to the certain-to-be-questioned Whitehead article, or to both. I just think that the original document on the Holy See website text, which anyone can check, is, on its own, a much better reference than either of these or both of them together, and that adding either of them only weakens the effect. But again, acceptance of that opinion of mine is not a condition for giving my agreement to moving ahead. Soidi (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also repeat that I intend, but only at a later stage, to add a "failed verification" tag to the last statement in the text. Sunray commented above: "We can leave the last sentence in for now, but point out that some concerns have been expressed about it." I agree. Soidi (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest adding Richard's suggested change and also the link to the Vatican II documents online. Sunray (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We do need the brief quote from McBrien that Nancy wanted, however. And I have already said that the wording of the last sentence can be amended rather than having a tag. Xandar 01:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How would Xandar suggest that the last sentence be amended? To "Within the Church, the term 'Roman Church' is used to refer to the specific Diocese of Rome (with a reference for this statement), as well as to the whole Church that has its head at Rome (with a reference for this statement too)"?

It would be good if Nancy would indicate her present thinking on the reference or references to give for Pope Paul VI's signature in the form "Ego Paulus Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus". Soidi (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to win my support for the note:

• we have to have the quote from McBrien in the reference that supports the sentence that says "took the name".
• We also need to keep Whitehead. His statement regarding Pope Pius signature on Vatican II documents is also verified by the original English translation of the Vatican II documents by the National Catholic Welfare Conference (the name of the original Catholic Bishops Conference before they changed their name). This is a primary document - just as much primary as the Vatican II website that uses Latin!
• Wikipeida asks us to use English language sources and if we have one then we should use it before we resort to documents in other languages.
• Wikipedia wants us to use secondary sources first and Whitehead satisfies Wikipedia policy on that. The primary documents are backup for the secondary source. Thus we can not do without Whitehead.
• Regarding "Within the Church, the term 'Roman Church'..."; this statement is an important fact to include, it is also part of the New Catholic Encyclopedia and Old Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the term "Roman Catholic". Why is there even discussion about removing it? NancyHeise ^talk 14:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Further note, the reference for the last sentence would be better if it were cited to the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states: "There is a further aspect of the term Roman Catholic...can be used to refer ...to the local Church of Rome." NancyHeise ^talk 14:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What Nancy calls "the original" English translation is only one of the translations (the American one) produced while the Second Vatican Council was still in session. Some consider the Flannery translation better, but perhaps it is the American translation (as later revised) that has been placed on the Holy See website, shorn of the indication of the signatures. Nancy's document, being a translation (thus a secondary rather than a primary source) is a weaker source than the original text, and in the printing that she cites it is now rather inaccessible; but I do not object to using it, if that is what she wants. If she thinks that the statement that the term "Roman Catholic" can be used to refer to the local Church of Rome is equivalent to stating that the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome, no wonder she cannot see why there is even discussion about removing the latter phrase. While this statement, like others in the text, seems in reality quite unsupported, I will not stand in Nancy's way, if it is what she wants. I will now give here the revised text of the note, incorporating the quotations that Nancy wishes included.

Text with Nancy's quotations

There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church". The Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity. The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance. The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get "Catholic", means "universal". It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century. When the Church split in the eleventh century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox". Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches.

The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Especially in English-speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic Churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy. Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome.

Comments

I thought that we were going to link to the actual Vatican II documents. If we are going to keep the Whitehead quote, I think that it would be much stronger to have the actual documents cited. If the Latin version is the only one that shows the Pope's signature, I think we would be justified in using that reference. Sunray (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the citation to the English link to the Vatican II docs, which includes versions in various languages. The Latin version bears the signature Ego PAULUS Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a concern about the citations for the last sentence. It seems unnecessary to have three, especially when two are tertiary sources. I think Soidi raises a valid point about the ambiguity of the quotation from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. The statement seems arguable to me, and since it is a tertiary source, would participants be willing to omit it? Sunray (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to omit reference 11 cited to the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Xandar 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize to Nancy for forgetting to include the reference she wanted to the 1965 printing of the US translation of Gravissimum Educationis. I have now fixed what she would see as a problem. I agree with Sunray that the citations and quotations are excessive. Xandar is willing to omit one; but in the face of Nancy's insistence I do not know how to fix that problem. Soidi (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the three citations for the last sentence, none of them except New Catholic Encyclopedia supports the sentence. We also could use Whitehead who is not a tertiary source and is a very good source that supports that sentence. Any problems using Whitehead for that citation? Also, I would like to keep the citation to National Catholic Welfare Conference in case we get harrassed about using the Latin transaltion of the Vatican II documents. As long as we also have the English version we can evade that argument and eliminate it at FAC if it is still a concern. I am unwilling to omit the quote from McBrien which I see as vital in defending the page name change to Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 22:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I think that the problem that we have is the way it is stated in the NCE. The quotation is: There is a further aspect of the term Roman Catholic...can be used to refer ...to the local Church of Rome. Saying that the term "Roman Catholic" refers to the Church of Rome, as has been pointed out, is arguable. I'm concerned that we not open ourselves to unnecessary argument. For example, someone may ask for proof (i.e., primary source documents). We already have two citations for the statement that "Roman Church principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome." Would you be willing to just leave it at that? Sunray (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nancy that the other two citations do not in fact support the last statement. Neither does her rather ungrammatical quotation from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It only says "Roman Church" can be used to refer to the diocese. It does not say that this is the principal use. If she has her way about this - and I will not block her - she will diminish further the chances of getting her opinion accepted more widely.

I think we can at least eliminate the second of the three citations: Xandar is willing, and Nancy says it does not support the sentence. Nobody defends it. I think Sunray should just go ahead and remove it. Soidi (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. I've made the change suggested by Soidi. I've also included the full wording of the New Catholic Encyclopedia quote as it brings us closer to the wording in our note (bearing in mind that we will ask the other participants to take a look at that phrase). I will also remove the Declaration on Christian Formation citation re: the Pope's signature. With the documents from the website showing the signature, we have more than enough citations for that, I think. I assume that we are now ready to move the note to the main talk page for a last look. Sunray (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to move the note to the talk page now. NancyHeise ^talk 15:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Further proposal by Richard

Sorry, a couple last points: Can we look at the sentence: [When the Church split in the twelfth century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic," while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox."]? I see several potential issues here:

First of all, while the beginning of the East-West Schism is typically dated to the mutual excommunications of 1054, so "twelfth century" is somewhat inaccurate although the split did sort of take a couple of centuries to become permanent and twelfth century is the time when the split became more or less permanent. I would prefer a sentence that either uses 1054 (following the common over-simplification) or one that captures the true nature of the split (e.g. "As the Church (began to) split apart following the mutual excommunications of 1054" - yes, I know that's a mouthful).

Second, I'm concerned about the word "took" in this sentence...

1. "Took" suggests to me that the "taking" began at a specific point in time (in the case of the current revision, in the twelfth century)
2. "Took" also suggests to me that a specific decision was made to "take" the name; I believe that there was no such explicit formal decision

One key issue here is that I believe both "catholic" and "orthodox" were used prior to 1054 to designate the whole church. I'm assuming that at least one of our sources documents use of "Catholic Church" to designate the whole church prior to 1054. I don't know if there is a source that documents use of "Orthodox Church" to designate the whole church prior to 1054 (I rather doubt it). However, I believe that "orthodox" was used to describe the whole church prior to 1054.

1. Thus, one might argue that the Western Church "continued" to use the name "Catholic" rather than "took" the name
2. Does anybody have information regarding the history of the name "Orthodox Church"? Was it used prior to the 1054?

We might get around this by saying something like "When the Church began to split apart following the mutual excommunications of 1054, the the name "Catholic Church" began to be used to designate solely the Western Church(es) as opposed to the Eastern Churches which were identified as "Orthodox Churches".

--Richard (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Twelfth' was a mistake, which I have corrected. I don't see what's wrong with "took". The source speaks of when the use of the words "catholic" and "orthodox" became what he calls "divisive". More exact perhaps would be "when they began to be used in a way that indicated the existence of a division". "Orthodox" was of course, like "catholic", used of the undivided Church long before 1054: it's in the Roman Canon, "et pro omnibus orthodoxis et catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus". The word is somewhat disguised in perhaps all vernacular translations of the prayer, but worst of all in the present English translation, which practically omits it altogether. One journalist covering the inauguration Mass of Benedict XVI actually wrote that the Pope had introduced a novelty, by praying for the Orthodox bishops! Soidi (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In short, I do not think that Richard's proposed alteration would be an improvement. To say that "the Western Church 'continued' to use the name 'Catholic'" suggests that the Western Church already existed as an entity distinct from the Eastern even before the split. Before the split, the Western part of the one Church did not apply "catholic" to itself alone, nor did the Eastern part of the one Church apply "orthodox" to itself alone. They all applied both adjectives to the Church as a whole. Only after the split did they begin to deny that the other was either orthodox or catholic. The Eastern part continued to regard itself as "catholic" as well as "orthodox", and the Western part continued to see itself as "orthodox" as well as "catholic". But one side stressed its claim to be the worldwide ("catholic") Church, and the other stressed its claim to be the one that kept the true correct ("orthodox") faith. This stressing is, as I see it, what is behind the word "took". It did not mean that either side abandoned its claim, its exclusive claim, to both titles. Soidi (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, I don't think just changing "twelfth century" to "eleventh century" accurately describes the process of the schism but I'll leave discussion of that to a later time.

I agree pretty much with what you wrote describing the uses of the word "orthodox" and "catholic". As for whether my proposed alteration would be an improvement, I disagree somewhat but I think we agree that what I proposed may not be the best solution to the issues that I raised. What we need to ask ourselves is whether the current text captures what you wrote. I think it does not and so I think some alteration is needed, perhaps my proposed text is not the best solution, but I think something needs to be done to address the problem(s) that I raised. I think we should wrestle with these issues as much as possible now so as to avoid getting hit with them after we go "prime time" with the proposed Note.

(NB: My major concern here is that it is often hard to change things that have been "decided by consensus". If there is general agreement that these issues should be deferred to a later time and that the consensus-building process will exclude this text from the sacrosanct nature of text agreed-upon by consensus, I am willing to defer this to a later time. Otherwise, I feel that we should grapple with this now so as to avoid enshrining text that is inaccurate.)

Perhaps a better replacement text would be

As the church split up beginning in the eleventh century, both the Western church and the Eastern churches laid claim to being "orthodox" and "catholic" while asserting that the other was neither "orthodox" nor "catholic". Nonetheless, the term "Catholic Church" came to be used to designate the Western Church in communion with the bishop of Rome while the term "Orthodox Church" came to be used to designate the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

--Richard (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the note I'd prefer something less complicated, without the "both the Western ... nor 'catholic'" phrase, which would require citing at least one more source. "Came to be used" is vague: used by whom? only self-applied or more widely used? "The Western Church took the name 'Catholic', while the Eastern Church took the name 'Orthodox'" is far simpler and clearer, and corresponds much better to the cited source. "Took" can apply to a process over time, not just to an act that occurred on a particular date. Soidi (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep the note as is without making the changes suggested by Richard. I too think they are too complicated and do not reflect the sources which actually use the term "claimed as its title Catholic Church" - that is a lot different than saying it "continued to use the name Catholic Church", in this instance, "took the name" is a more accurate reflection of the sources. NancyHeise ^talk 15:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard, how do you respond to Soidi and Nancy's comments? Sunray (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I ran the flag up the flagpole and no one saluted so I guess it's time for me to stand down. I continue to disagree with Soidi and Nancy but I think this is a second-order issue and we can revisit it if anyone else sees a similar problem as we present this text to a wider audience. I am willing to table the issue for now in the interest of making progress on the topic of the mediation. --Richard (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to prepare a brief note on your concerns to present to the other participants? Sunray (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Sunray.

I have two concerns with the sentence in question.

First, the church did not split apart on a single date, within a single year or even within a single century. The schism is generally dated as starting in April 1054 but that is a gross oversimplification.

Second, I'm concerned about the word "took" in this sentence...

Took" suggests to me that the "taking" began at a specific point in time (in the case of the current revision, in the twelfth century)

Took" also suggests to me that a specific decision was made to "take" the name; I believe that there was no such explicit formal decision

Perhaps a better replacement text would be

As the church split up beginning in the eleventh century, both the Western church and the Eastern churches laid claim to being "orthodox" and "catholic" while asserting that the other was neither "orthodox" nor "catholic". Nonetheless, the term "Catholic Church" came to be used to designate the Western Church in communion with the bishop of Rome while the term "Orthodox Church" came to be used to designate the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

--Richard (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are replacing these 23 words

When the Church split in the eleventh century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox".

With 70 words which don't add a great deal of extra information. In addition to other considerations we are under a lot of pressure to keep the article size down. Also if we're describing the split as a gradual process, many would say the split began as far back as the 9th century. Perhaps we could state:

When the Church split was formalized in the eleventh century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox".

Xandar 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just stick with what we have. It is certain that a split occurred in the eleventh century between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, and I think Richard ought to accept this. But "formalized" raises the same questions of which Richard speaks. At first only some named individuals were excommunicated, and it was expected that they would patch up their differences within a matter of years, as had happened on previous occasions; the idea that the successors of these individuals were also out of communion and that this was something more lasting arose later. Soidi (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize that my request to Richard may not have been clear. I meant to suggest that he put forward his suggested version of the portion of text dealing with the Catholic/Orthodox split (which he has done) and we then present it, along with the version in the latest draft of the note, on the main talk page for all participants to comment on. I would suggest holding comments until then. To clarify: I am suggesting that we move the current draft of the note to the talk page, along with two additions: Richard's proposal, and also a query about the last sentence. AOK? Sunray (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Xandar 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK by me. --Richard (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection. Soidi (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Presenting the proposed text to a wider audience

Can we move this to the RCC talk page now? Am I supposed to do this or is Sunray. I am not sure why it has not been done already. NancyHeise ^talk 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunray has moved the text here. The logic seems to be that the sandbox has been discussed by a smaller group of editors than the group that is involved in the mediation. The first step, therefore, is to get buy-in from the group that is involved in the mediation. Once a consensus has been reached among that group, we would take the next step of moving the text to Talk:Roman Catholic Church. --Richard (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)