Talk:Catholic minister

message: Lectors and acolytes are refered to as "lay ministers" in the motu proprio of Paul VI Ministeria quaedam and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  Altar servers are refered to as "ministers" in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, both the 2000-ish version and the 1970 version.  An altar server administers no sacrament and thus is not a sacramental minister, yet the altar server is still a minister according to the canon law just cited.  Thus, there seem to be two canonical instances of minister: one is a liturgical function (acolyte) and the other is a sacramental function (minister of baptism).  Essentially, both points put forth on this page are correct.  This article, then, should retain both senses of the word. Pmadrid 06:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to ''lay minister'' in [[canon law]] 

message: Should the terms for the individuals categorized as extraordinary ministers in the sacrament of marriage be more properly "husband and wife" or "bride and groom"? --198.59.190.201 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. --liquidGhoul 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. Fishhead64 01:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This is clearly an article on the Catholic Church and not on other churches.  No one who is looking for information on ministries in the Anglican church would come looking for it here.  Please move such material to articles concerning Anglicanism.EastmeetsWest 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholic has several meanings.  Are you saying that the Anglican Church is not a Catholic denomination?  The article on Anglicanism, citing introductory texts on the tradition, suggests otherwise.  We've had this conversation before, elsewhere, ad infinitum, and the usual citation is of naming conventions, which state that self-definition is the key.  If this is about the Roman Catholic Church, then perhaps the title should be changed. Fishhead64 06:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, if people are looking up 'x' here, they will find 'x', and the inclusion of 'y' won't affect that.  And if the article read "Ministry in the Catholic Church," I might be inclined to agree with you.  But, again, for the fullest explication of accuracy when it comes to catholic ministry, which by my definition is ministry of the historic threefold orders with the apostolic succession of the episcopacy, then Old Catholics, Anglicans, and independent Catholics of various varieties should be included, along with the Orthodox, if they choose since they also thus self-define.  Exclusivity as surely determines a definition as inclusivity, and surely no one's ox is being gored by erring on the side of expansiveness, if erring we are. Fishhead64 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, in fact it's not - you may wish to re-read my last response and the alternative title I suggest. "Catholic minister" is a technical term, but is so in communions beyond the Latin and Eastern Rites.  In The Gospel and the Catholic Church, by the Anglican divine and former Archbishop of Canterbury Arthur Michael Ramsey, Catholic ministry is defined in the terms which I have outlined (in the chapter "The Gospel and Episcopacy").  It is not inconceivable that an Anglican or someone else holding to such an understanding would look here for a technical definition.  I would suggest, respectfully, that the onus is on you to demonstrate that they wouldn't since you are proposing the exclusion of material that some may be looking for rather than including information others may simply be uninterested in.  Fishhead64 17:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's the case, a split seems to be in order, which I think would satisfy the concerns of every constiuency. Such is the way of Christendom!  Fishhead64 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So much for assuming good faith!  It isn't as though I took his suggestion and moved the page, which, I assume, could be construed as untoward.  I have never done that with any page unless there has been full discussion and a consensus achieved, although it is something that has been done by others who take an opposite perspective from mine.  And I have never claimed that "Catholic Church" should always be preceded by "Roman."  Did I not say above that "Ministry in the Catholic Church" would be appropriate?  I recognize that there are Eastern Catholics, Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, all types of Catholics.  My method has always been dialogue and voting, but I, too, will not have my tradition pigeonholed into a category of your choosing - which is as much shoving under the carpet as you accuse me of.  I find your comments unfortunate, given the consensus I thought we had achieved elsewhere. Fishhead64 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic Church article