Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 2

message: The power of appointing nearly all the bishops, even many of the Eastern Catholic Churches, is solely in the hands of the Pope, who also appoints all those (the cardinals) who, in turn, choose which man next exercises the same power. The Pope is also the absolute ruler of the independent state, Vatican City State. There is no provision for deposing a Pope, and it has been many centuries since any Pope has resigned.
There's no criticism here.  All it's stating is Church's structure.  Could someone please write in some criticism about why people dislike this structure?  If no one does, I'm going to remove it from the criticism section, since it says nothing about what critics say to this. Thanks! Stanselmdoc 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say remove it.  KHM03 17:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Um.  Only if said absolute monarchy is being referred to in a Criticism section.  I think you've probably mistaken the context of the above debate. TSP 18:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If the South won the US Civil War, and we were writing an article about the subsequent history of the Union, it would defy reason to entertain complaints by the Confederates that our article made no mention of the Rebellion. Endomion 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if it is deemed important, then just list a link to Protestantism under "see also".  KHM03 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the link with protestantism should come out when talking abouth the history of the Catholic Church, as well as about its relationship with other religious groups.--Nino Gonzales 06:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This needs some kind of criticism attached to it

message: Nowhere in this whole article was the word Protestant or reformation used. Why the mention of Eastern Orthodox but not protestants.  I put a brief mention of Protestants. 
ken 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the South won the US Civil War, and we were writing an article about the subsequent history of the Union, it would defy reason to entertain complaints by the Confederates that our article made no mention of the Rebellion. Endomion 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if it is deemed important, then just list a link to Protestantism under "see also".  KHM03 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the link with protestantism should come out when talking abouth the history of the Catholic Church, as well as about its relationship with other religious groups.--Nino Gonzales 06:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HUGE POV problems

message: The Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian church in the world to administer all seven sacraments. (added 03:07, August 29, 2005 by 209.217.93.197)
I've removed this as POV. We can state that the RCC administers seven sacraments. However, when we say that the RCC is the only church to administer all seven sacraments, we then endorse the following statements as factual:
#There are exactly seven sacraments. This is not universal belief, as many churches recognize fewer sacraments and others do not recognize any sacraments whatsoever. It is POV to suggest that the RCC view of the sacraments is the correct one.
## Corollary: That the RCC is the final arbiter of what are and are not sacraments. Who are we to say that Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. are incorrect in their beliefs about the sacraments? We may state fatually that the RCC believes there are seven sacraments, but we may not state factually that there are exactly seven sacraments. It is a difference of belief, and must be noted as such to maintain NPOV. 
#That no other church in the world administers seven sacraments. Do we have an authoritative and exhaustive listing of every church in the world, without any possible omissions, that can back up the statement that the RCC is the only church in the world to administer seven sacraments? If not, then the statement is not factual.
#Any community calling itself a church that administers seven sacraments, but is not the RCC, is not a church. If the RCC is the only church to administer all seven sacraments, then anyone administering seven sacraments but not a part of the RCC is not a church.
#Any church that does not administer all seven sacraments is wrong. If the RCC is the only one to administer seven sacraments, and there are exactly seven sacraments, then anyone not administering them all is wrong. 
I suspect that other statements could be included in the above list, but I believe these are sufficient to justify removing the statement as POV, and accordingly, I have made the removal. -- Essjay ·   Talk 04:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
In addition, the Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in seven sacraments.Davescj 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacraments 

message: I think that having a section on anti-semitism is pov regardless of what it says in the section. This article is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia article on the Roman Catholic Church, there have been alligations of anti-semitism, and it may be useful to state that in the article. There is already an article on the relationship of Catholics with Judaism, there is no reason why all of the information in this section cannot be moved there. to have a section in a factual aticle called anti-semitism could in itself seem POV and be misleading or suggestive. There should be mention of allegations of anti-semitism in the article but by no means a category. When looking at the article on Islam there was no category on terrorism or anti-westernism, which I see completely apropriate, as it would be misleading. There is no reason why this same practice should not occur in this article. Mac Domhnaill 23:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Islam comparison isn't really valid - the article is about the Roman Catholic Church, the organisation, not about a religion per se.  The Anti-Semitism section certainly isn't in breach of NPOV against the Church - like most of the criticism sections in this article, it contains only the vaguest criticisms and a vast amount of defence of the church; and it is a sub-section of the Criticism section, so I don't think it's necessarily NPOV for it to exist if sufficient things can be said about allegations of anti-semitism against the church.  The length of the section probably is excessive, though; mostly because of the vast length of the pro-Church material contained in it.  As a postscript, incidentally, I don't think it's necessarily valid to say "it's wrong to have a section on (N) when (M) doesn't have a section" - it's either justified for topic N to have a section or it isn't; if topic M should have one too then you can write one. TSP 10:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti semitism (not NPOV) 

message: Cooldoug111, maybe you should talk about this article being NPOV instead of tagging it. Antisemitism is a retty blanket statement. Dominick 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag 

message: I altered the section: Catholics are a significant minority in Britain, where their faith underwent a revival in the 19th and early 20th Century after three centuries of intense persecution and official repression of civil rights. to remove the words  "intense" and "of civil rights", and I just wanted to give a bit more justification.
Firstly, intense; certainly there was persecution during that period, and some of it was intense; but "three centuries of intense persecution" would mean that the persecution was intense for all of those three centuries; and certainly by the end of the 18th century there were some Roman Catholic churches and colleges operating openly in Britain; which seems to indicate that, though there was still persecution, it could not really be characterised at that time as 'intense'.
Second, civil rights.  The Civil rights article seems to indicate that the term refers to rights guaranteed by law or a constitution, or generally held to be innate.  I'm not convinced that it makes sense, or at the least it seems to express a particular point of view, to use the term in a historical context about 'rights' which were at the time explicitly witheld by law (as they also were, in the case of voting for example, to women and non-land-owning men).  This is not to deny the injustice of the treatment; but to refer to things like the right to vote, and to freedom of religion, as rights seems only to express an opinion that the editor believes such things should be rights - the people in question were regarded as having no such rights at the time, nor is there any impartial measure of what rights people should be entitled to.  TSP 15:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable. "Intense" was merely my attempt to be more NPOV than a predecessor's "relentless". As for the latter, your comments seem sound. Thanks for your work on this article --Dpr 01:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To call it "civil rights" might be the best way to make it intelligible to a contemporary reader.  All non-members of the Church of England were under various civil disabilities, generally called the penal laws; these laws excluded both Protestant dissenters and Roman Catholics from voting, the established universities, military service, and other offices of profit or privilege.  These were generally enacted between the Restoration and the first quarter of the eighteenth century.  Only a handful of them targeted Roman Catholics specifically; and some were repealed for non-Anglican Protestants before they were repealed for RCs.  The position of a RC under these laws was not enviable, but there were very few populist risings against them or pogroms against them, except in Ireland, where religious violence went both ways, and tended to grow worse as the laws restricting Roman Catholicism were repealed.  As religious persecutions go, it was there, but in retrospect it seems hard to call this one "intense."  Smerdis of Tlön 19:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Rights 

message: The term "leader of Christendom" refers to the Catholic belief, not a temporal reality. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
:881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
:882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403 
--Dpr 17:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries! Dominick 14:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leader of Christendom

message: This article is very long, dense, technical and "jargon" heavy.  I have to wonder how helpful it would be to a casual reader with limited exposure to Catholicism.  I think it needs to be re-written with a more "sociological" and less theological perspective.  Objectively describe describe what a visitor or observer of Catholic practices would see and hear.  Then, as appropriate, explain the beliefs related to the practice.
For example, the first two paragraphs of the liturgy section describe the liturgy as "the celebration of the mystery of Christ, in particular the Paschal mystery of his death and resurrection. . .[It] is something that 'the whole Christ' Head and Body, celebrates - Christ the one High Priest together with his Body, the Church in heaven and earth." 
Instead of this dense theological language, why not describe the structure of the liturgy?  (Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist).  What would a visitor observe at each stage?  Then, briefly explain the theological significance (anyone interested in reading more theological explanation in the catechism can follow the link).  
There is also very little about parish life or the daily practices that most Catholics identify with their faith.  Any thoughts on this approach to improving the article? TMS63112 20:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds excellent - good luck with it!--shtove 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you added a parish life section that would be nice. It would be hard to make it general and NPoV. I think there are a lot of difficult terms in this article, but it really can't be helped. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 22:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theological and sociological perspectives 

message: Catechism of the Catholic Church numbers refer to the entries, not the years. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CCC references

message: :(The figure in the 2003 Statistical Yearbook of the Church, based on the annual statistical reports sent by Catholic dioceses throughout the world, is 1,085,557,000; because of obstacles to regular contacts, this figure does not include Catholics in mainland China and perhaps in some other places.)
This sentence is indisputably important for clarification/comprehensiveness, but does it have to be the second sentence of the entire article? I think we lose much by introducing this degree of detail in the second sentence of the article. --Dpr 01:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats

message: Catholics are for jews
Someone put this in here don't know who but I edited it out. Whispering 20:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er? 

message: As a Protestant, I have always regarded the Romish 'church' as being a cult, given the fact that its belief system is actually deviating from scripture, especially in terms of equating the Pope of Rome with God. The Ten Commandments is very clear in this - 'Thou shalt not worship false gods & idols'. What do you think? - (Aidan Work 03:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank God, not all Protestants believe such nonsense.  Lima 05:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a member of the ordained Protestant clergy; I in no way feel that the Roman Catholic Church is a cult.  In so many ways, they are far more faithful than Protestants.  We all have much to learn from each other, and we desperately need one another.  KHM03 02:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The false claim that any aspect of Roman Catholic worship involves worshipping false gods/idols is already mentioned at Anti-Catholicism, although traditionally the smear is that Catholics are directly worshipping Mary or other saints.  I've never heard the claim that the "Pope of Rome" is being equated with God -- that being, y'know, something I think I would have been notified of if it was part of my religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aidan Work's question amounts to a restatement of the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Endomion 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't it the case that every one of the Christian denominations is a cult, from an encyclopedic point of view?  Not in the sense of a group of wierdos who kidnap impressionable young people etc - but in the sense that to give one denomination a higher status than any other would not be NPOV.  There is one overall Christian belief system, containing a large number of cults.  No?  JackofOz 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The crucial moment for any new religious movement is the death of its founder. If the movement was centered around one strong figure merely to allow him to exercise power over the men and get sexual favors from the women, then it most likely will shatter upon that leader's death. If there is at least a core of truth in the movement, it will survive the death of its leader, such as the lynching of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, and perhaps rally around another one, such as Brigham Young, who led an LDS remnant from Missouri to Utah. So we can define a cult as any new religious movement whose founder has not died. And by death, we're not talking about those close calls in the operating room where the heart stops for a few moments, we're talking about someone who is whipped to within an inch of His life, nailed to a cross all day, then buried in the ground over the weekend. So right away, Catholicism is not a cult because Christ has died. Endomion 04:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't the Roman Catholic Church a cult?

message: Anybody that truly reads the Bible can realize that YES the catholic church deviates A LOT from scriptures. The book of Hebrews talks about Jesus being the ONLY PRIEST and that no more sacrifice for sins is needed after Jesus's sacrifice. It's not scriptural to believe that a sinful man can represent God on earth. regardless of what the catholic church says. To believe that is completely against the second commandment of making any likeness of God (Exodus 20:4) and it deviates from biblical truth in which case the catholic church is a cult. 
(unsigned USER: 68.8.204.49)
(Added sig! /bow) Dominick (TALK) 13:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it by promoting some links used for the article to references. THis was a silly exercise. Dominick (TALK) 17:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, Lima unsigned user (apologies to Lima), even if the Pope is the likeness of God on Earth, we didn't make him, God did.  Endomion 07:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if the Pope were the likeness of God on Earth, which he isn't, except in being a human being and thus being made in God's image and likeness, we didn't make him: God did. As successor of Saint Peter, he is Christ's Vicar, not God's likeness (cf. papal oath. Lima 13:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced? 

message: Don't let this woman riding a beast fool you, she is the only entity that fullfills endtime prophecy on all accounts to the limit.
Click Here For The Truth About Catholicism
: This isn't entirely relevant to this article; however, if you'd like to provide some prominent exponents of this viewpoint, we can probably add something in 'Criticisms'. TSP 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  roman catholicism is a satanic pagan cult! 

message: It's at 144K as I write this. I haven't been involved in much of the discussion, so I don't want to move any sections that may need to stay. --Elliskev 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea.  It serves almost no purpose as it is, because it's too long for people to properly be aware of what has been and is being discussed.  To give a concrete example, in the 'Terminology' section, I proposed a change to the page; waited several months to see if anyone objected; then made the change, which promptly received objections.  This talk page is useless as it is; let's archive and see if it gets better. TSP 01:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived about 2/3 of the talk. It's still at about 30K, but I tried not to archive any recent discussions. If I did (on accident), please move it back. --Elliskev 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Archive link at top of page. --Elliskev 01:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this talk page be archived? 

message: "I am curious as to the reasons for the changes you made to Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh...", someone who did not sign wrote on my Talk page.
The "Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh", as it was described on the page of that name, was not the Metropolitan Archeparchy, but what is officially called the Ruthenian Rite or particular Church (cf. pages 1138 and 1141 of the 2005 Annuario Pontificio). Page 1141 lists the component local Churches of the Ruthenian Rite as follows:
*U.S.A.: Metropolitan: Pittsburgh of the Byzantines - Eparchies: Parma, Passaic, Van Nuys.
*Ukraine: Eparchy: Mukacheve
*Czech Republic: Apostolic Exarchate: Košice Lima 07:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh 

message: I am afraid to report that there is a currently a campaign underway at the history counterpart of this article, History of the Roman Catholic Church to remove the word "Roman" from the entire article and rename the article to History of the Catholic Church.  The user attempting these changes did not discuss these widespread edits and I think this might even violate a naming convention on the issue.  I also know that numerous attempts on this article, the main Roman Catholic Church article, to remove the word Roman and change the name to simple "Catholic Church" have been reverted.  I invite folks to come look at the History article.  A page protection may very well be needed if these multiple page moves and purge of the word "Roman" continue. -Husnock 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Golly, do you think it is the same vandal who took the word "Roman" off the 1994 Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (CRCC)?  Endomion 07:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign to move [[History of the Roman Catholic Church]] 

message: I've thought about this for a while, but I don't think that I can in all conscience leave this article listed as a Good Article.  I think it misses out on the criteria in the following ways:
* Neutral Point of View.  While attempts have been made to ameliorate it with phrases such as "according to the Church" and "adherents believe", a great deal of the article still seems to me to express a Catholic point of view, rather than to neutrally report on the organisation.  I think the repetition in this article of a great deal of information general to all Christian groups is an example of this.
* Stability.  There still seem to be significant parts of the article which are disputed or still extensively edited.  The creeping replacement by various editors of "Roman Catholic" with "Catholic", though the terminology section states that the two will be used interchangeably, is an example of this.
* Referencing.  Much of the article is unreferenced; where it is referenced, it is almost exclusively from sources internal to the Church, rather than from impartial reporting.
I don't want to malign anyone's work - and a great deal of excellent work has gone into this article; but I think that the label of 'Good Article' might give editors the impression that this article has reached heights which I don't think it yet has.  I think it still needs a lot of work; and, unfortunately, while I have been involved with it it has seen almost as much editing which has moved it away from good article status (particularly regarding the neutral point of view issue) as has moved it towards it. TSP 23:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, maybe we could go to Jack Chick and get an outside point of view on the doctrines of the Church to make this a "good" article again.  Endomion 07:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the whole template for "deleted from Good Article". It seemed that editing make it a bad article, and that goes against what we SHOULD be doing at wikipedia. No hoghprofile or controversial article could be considered good with this arbitrary criteria.  I still dont see a good reason for removal from a "good" status. I think it is silly, so I used WP:BOLD. Dominick (TALK) 17:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Good Article' listing 

message: What on earth does Stijn Calle mean by "Category:33 establishments"?  Lima 12:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's meant to be a category for institutions founded in 33 AD.  In my view, it's ripe for deletion.  KHM03 13:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Lima 17:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed this.  Quite apart from the dubious significance of such categories, it is by no means possible to neutrally say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD.  Even if you do believe that the Roman Catholic Church represents the Christian Church founded by Jesus, and that he did so in the last year of his life, most experts now believe that Jesus died nearer 30 than 33AD (due to miscalculation of his birth date). TSP 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't think you can claim this as an objective fact, as there are no external historical accounts of the founding of the Church.--SarekOfVulcan 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:33 establishments 

message: (This was posted by User:159.134.52.37 talk), who also managed to delete the entire contents of the talk page. I've reverted the change, and am now adding his comment back. Gentgeen 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare with Latin version