Talk:Great Apostasy

message: FIrst of all, I like the article. Secondly, I think that putting Jehovah's Witnesses under "Adventisits" is not fully correct. Yes, Russell had some significant influence from adventist teachings. Jehovah's Witnesses are not adventists though as neither group associates itself with the other, nor did Russell ever open an adventist church. In fact, never in the history  of the group have they idetified themselves with the adventist church and vice versa. Also Russell himself credited many past religious teachers and groups with influencing his undersatnding of the bible.george m
: Ok, so what's the best way to fix it? Should the Adventists section be split into two separate top-level headings, maybe "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Seventh-Day Adventists"? Wesley 16:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adventists 

message: Casual reader here, and I've never before felt the urge to comment on a Wikipedia article's backpage before, but this article is a debate, with factual information rare. I'd suggest removing it altogether. Are there not pages/sections for each denomination's theology, where what little factual information is here could be recapped (say, a "Great Apostasy" subheading on the page Beliefs_and_practices_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints or on the Counter-Reformation page)? Those pages generally have a better tone than this internecine squabble. It should be scrapped.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.91.54 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion would be a lot more helpful and likely to be taken seriously if you were to speak in specifics rather than generalities. With your comment, it's unclear what exactly you are concerned about in regards to this article. I would suggest itemizing your concerns, then allowing them to be discussed before you recommend the deletion of a page. Also, since you seem to be new to Wikipedia, it would be a great help if you were to set up a user account. Registered users are far more likely to be taken seriously than users with only an IP address. It would also be a great help if you were to sign your own posts rather than having them autosigned by a bot. Just a few things for you to consider. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I have found it pretty common on wikipedia for people to talk about how horrible an article is and request deletion and it pretty rare for people to actually revise an article. Feel free to rewrite the article to your liking or go visit an actual encyclopedia website. You are wasting your breath if you think this comment will inspire someone to rewrite the article for you, so that task is on you. 69.116.158.191 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found it pretty common for people to revise an article. In fact, I just checked and in one sample minute Wikipedia was edited 100 times and 85 of those were article changes. What are the exact issue with this article? Rmhermen (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a wreck 

message: I recently viewed a video on the YouTube Channel Vatican Catholic by MHFM (Most Holy Family Monastery) in which they espouse the view that the Great Apostacy began with the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II).  In the video they state proof of the Great Apostacy is the events at Assisi, Italy.
Many Sedevacantist agree with the assessment made in the video.  How is stating that these Sedevacantist have this interpretation any different than stating the Catholic Church interpretation is “of a future “falling away”?  The editors who are removing my edit claiming I am promoting a religious view are wrong and right.  In truth,  to expose anyone to any religious viewpoint is to promote that religion if you are likeminded.  But it certainly doesn’t change the fact that you are exposing the reader to the truth, that another interpretation exist.  Deleting my edit is removing facts that readers could gain information.
I came to the subject on Wikipedia looking for more information on the Sedevacantist position and found this site didn’t contain the Sedevacantist position.
To all editors:  if you want the information I provided removed?  I suspect your intentions are to censor.
The paragraph above the paragraph I added is exactly the same as the paragraph I added.
 PhillipMH (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing isn't the only issue. The sedevacantist position isn't listed anywhere in the body of the article. Therefore it shouldn't be in the lede. The Catholic Church interpretation is in the lede because it is in the body of the article, where the statements are sourced. Additionally, there's the issue of undue weight - according to Sedevacantism, the number of people who hold to the idea is maybe in the hundred thousands, much less than most other groups discussed in the body of the article. Maybe it could be included in the body of article, though I'm not sure where, but it wouldn't be more than a couple of sentences. Finally, the statement that is being suggested for the lede seems unique to minority of the minority. Again according to the Sedevacantism article, most Sedevacantists place the "falling away" much sooner than the Day of Prayer event. For that reason I'm removing it from the lede, again; perhaps it could be included, with proper sourcing, in the body but at this point I see no consensus for keeping it in the lede. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Great Apostasy did start with Vatican II Robber Council. spSo few espouse this view because.... Well, we're in Great Apostasy. The Greatapostasy would necessarily hit Catholics, members of Church founded by Christ. And hit catholics satan certainly did. 2600:1700:B900:CF10:2CEB:D621:8379:6A04 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Catholics, members of Church founded by Christ" Jesus was long gone by the time of the East–West Schism. The Catholic Church only dates to 1054. Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedevacantist view of Great Apostacy  

message: "For example, Easter has been described as a pagan substitute for the Jewish Passover, although neither Jesus nor his Apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival."
I think this sentence needs additional clarification. Is this claiming that Jesus and the apostles never celebrated the Jewish passover? This claim is contentious: in Mt. 26:18, Christ directly states he is going to celebrate passover. This sentence is also equivocating if it is making the claim Jesus and his apostles never celebrated Easter. Easter is the celebration of Christ's resurrection, so it's rather absurd to state that Christ never celebrated his own resurrection after he was resurrected. NousEssayons (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Claim in Intro 

message: Hello, I am not trying to push any anti-Protestant or anti-Catholic agenda, but seriously, the "worldly ambitions" branch is gibberish, with all due respect to its author. This is how the article is now, as of 2022/03/14, GMT+1 22:35:
There have certainly been times when the Catholic Church has seemingly benefited from its affiliation with ruling governments, and vice versa. The church further used other means, such as the Donation of Constantine () where it forged a Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. There is also much evidence that the church sought to subvert or undermine ruling governments to bring them under its influence, in accordance with the dogma of the temporal power of the papacy. It used its agents or allowed the methods to be adopted for the acquisition of greater power and influence for the Roman Catholic Church. The Jesuits were seen as the church's soldiers, and, in the view of some, given free rein to use whatever methods as outlined in the forged anti-Catholic document Monita Secreta, also known as the "Secret Instructions of the Jesuits" published (1612 and 1614) in Kraków and were also accused of using casuistry to obtain justifications for the unjustifiable in their work (see: formulary controversy; Blaise Pascals' Lettres Provinciales).
Examples of the exercise of this subversive influence include regicides and attacks on Protestant-majority nations such as The Gunpowder Plot in England in 1605, and the church's blame in the 1865 assassination of Abraham Lincoln, resulting in the hanging of four Roman Catholics, and a ban by the U.S. Congress on diplomatic relations with the Holy See from 1867 to 1984.
Wikipedia cannot just have an article with claims that the Catholic Church wants to take over the world, as much as criticism of the Church is welcome. 
How is Gunpowder Plot or Lincoln's Assassination evidence of the Church's abuses? Where is any shred of proof that it was the Vatican that was behind these two?
And again, the first part only has sources that confirm the existence of Monita Secreta. There is no source or proof produces for the claim that "the church sought to subvert or undermine ruling governments to bring them under its influence". 
This seems like an attack on Wikipedia's impartiality, because this reads like a conspiracy theory that lacks evidence. I will continue to delete this branch and I want to request that it's not restored until more people comment on it and proof for the currently outlandish claims is produced. Again, I am not trying to be anti-protestant here, but it's just absurd.
:Just because you deem something to be absurd or outlandish does not make it untrue, or unworthy of inclusion in this or any other article.  You have wrongfully deleted a great deal of well-supported historical content.  You cannot claim lack of evidence or proof for this section after you have deleted corroborating sources and references, further supported by very relevant related wikilinks. 
:All of your above objections are explained by the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Temporal power of the papacy, which purports that the Pope as the vicar of Christ rules the world by Divine right in the place of Christ. Therefore they have for centuries taken actions to assert this dominance, with the Jesuit order as their primary tool.  Historically the popes have ruled over European monarchs as "king of kings," a term otherwise applied only to Jesus Christ.  The official reactions of the U.S. and Britain to the Gunpowder Plot and Lincoln's Assassination provide ample evidence as to how these events were viewed at the time, regardless of how much they may be downplayed, glossed over or outright denied today.  The history of expulsion of the Jesuits from many nations, and the reasons for their expulsion, provide rich and ample evidence of many such crimes, with full blame being placed upon the Vatican and the papacy. 
:Wikipedia can (and should) absolutely repeat what the Roman Catholic institution claims for itself, be it "worldly ambitions" or otherwise, as well as recounting its fully documented centuries of history, while remaining fully objective. Also, you need to sign your comment, please. - JGabbard (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "king of kings," King of Kings, as in the title of Middle Eastern emperors? I was not aware it had correlations to Catholicism. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Worldly Ambitions" of the Church