Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 5

message: I started on this, all of the inline links have been referenced, they just need to be formatted now.  We should probably come to consensus on how to deal with Bible references... Template:bibleverse seems like it could work, but there are problems when the translation is not specified... maybe Template:bibleref would work better? PaulC/T+ 22:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: Does anyone know if a Vatican Declariation can be freely published anywhere? Please see Quaesitum est for example. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Simonapro 14:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an article from Catholic News regarding the Vatican's enforcement of copyrighted materials:  Delta x 01:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican Documents and Copyrights 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Didache#Didache_Title_Translation_Question
Anyone interested in looking into this one. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 18:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didache 

message: We appear to have a new section that's just been contributed.  Not to be tiresome, but it strikes me as being rather too detailed to be a section of this entry, though I suppose it could be set up as an independant article.  If it is included here, is "Controversial Church History" really the place for it?Brendanhodge 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic teaching regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible

message: My mantra these days is "Wherever possible, don't argue about controversy, document it and provide citations."  Do you feel that the number of Catholics is a misleading number? Document the dispute and the reasons why it is misleading.  Got a better number?  Insert it."
NB: What follows is my understanding of how the Church operates.  I admit that I am less knowledgeable than many other editors so I am happy to hear alternate views.
That said, Diligens may be right about the number of heretics in the pews but, as I understand it, the Catholic Church is not so much interested in stamping out heresy as in stamping out the teaching of it.  This is an important distinction and one that allows more discussion to happen in scholarly theological discussion than in sermons by priests in parish churches.
The Church doesn't ask you when you walk in the door if you have abandoned all heresies.  It could say "If you believe in any heresy, you cannot enter here."  but it doesn't.  That's between you and your confessor.  The Church asks you to confess the Nicene creed and accept the teaching of the Church.  Then it tries to make sure that the teaching of the Church as you receive it from your parish priest is correct.
Look at it this way.  A heretic is redeemable if he comes to church and listens to correct teaching.  That person is a Catholic.  However, a heretic who teaches heresy and calls it the teaching of the Catholic Church is a dangerous person because he spreads the heresy.  In extreme cases, after the person spreading the heresy has been counseled, remonstrated and disciplined numerous times, the teacher of heresy is excommunicated.  At that point, he is no longer a Catholic.
Also, I could name any number of "non-essential" Catholic teachings that people could not believe and still be Catholic.  You could believe that there should be a focus on Jesus and that saints are over-emphasized.  You could believe that the Pope isn't really infallible.  You could have doubts about transubstaniation vs. consubstantion vs. "just a symbol" and still be Catholic.
I suspect that many Catholics in the pews are either unaware or unconcerned about many theological issues and just show up in the pews because "they are Catholic".  If you want to apply Diligens' theological creedal test, many would fail but that doesn't get rid of the inconvenient fact that they are there and they are the trunk of the tree that is the Catholic Church.  Can the head say to the torso, "I have no need of you."?
If they are not Catholic, why do you accept their weekly offerings?  Why do you administer the Sacraments to them?
In their hearts, many American Catholics do not agree with the Church's teaching on ordination of males only.  The Church closing the door on further discussion doesn't change that.  Does this mean that they are not Catholic?
Finally, many American Catholics do not agree with the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control and, to a lesser extent, on abortion.  Does this mean they are not Catholic?
When it comes down to it, all that is essential to being Catholic is that you were baptized and that you wish to remain in communion with the Catholic Church.  To do this, you should believe in the Trinity, that Jesus died to save your sins, and that He created a church on earth of which the Pope is the only legitimate head.  Whether you believe in all the rest is up to you.  The Church teaches that you should believe and act according to its teachings.  If you sin and don't do all that it teaches, well, that's between you, God and your confessor.
--Richard 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A meditation on who is and is not a Catholic 

message: I've expanded the Origins and History section, while trying to keep things as short as possible.  And, of course, I've kept the links to the longer History of the Roman Catholic Church and History of the Papacy articles.  As per Richard's suggestion a while back, I moved the Origins & History section down below the Terminology section.
Comments and suggestions appreciated.Brendanhodge 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, I think.  I like it - concise, NPOV, and plenty of sources.  I've moved the Main article and See also links to the top, as that's how I understand the guidelines say it should work.  Otherwise, looks good to me at least on a first read-through.  TSP 19:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins & History 

message: I included some discussion of the Anglican and Lutheran dialogues and Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry.  I don't know anything about RCC dialogue with other Western traditions, so I haven't included them.  The discussion of Ecumenical Councils is sort of hanging out there, decontextualized.  I assume it has some bearing on the RCC-Orthodox dialogue, but of course it also has bearing on dialogue with other Western rites.  Any comments or concerns? Fishhead64 05:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relations with Christian Churches

message: To get the ball rolling on this, I propose the following wording.  Tell me what you think:
::Roman Catholic Church:  An ongoing discussion of whether this article, and related articles, should be styled "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church."  Arguments and proposals are outlined by the involved editors at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. Fishhead64 05:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roman Catholic Church:  An ongoing discussion of whether this article, and related articles, should merge into one article as Catholicism, and what weight is due for claims made by other Churches to be independent from Rome and yet remain Catholic. Is "Roman Catholic Church" is an acceptable synonym for "Catholic Church". Arguments and proposals are outlined by the involved editors at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. Dominick (TALK) 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roman Catholic Church:  An ongoing discussion of whether this article, and related articles, should be styled "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church."  Part of the argument relates to whether or not the various articles dealing with the Church should be merged into one, and what it should be called.  Underlying the discussion is the claims made by other Churches to be independent from Rome and yet remain Catholic. Arguments and proposals are outlined by the involved editors at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. Fishhead64 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC proposed wording

message: Hey, let's argue less and edit more.  Let's just start writing those articles mentioned by Vaquero100 and Brendanhodge and then we can quibble about naming later.  We had a fledgling agreement that blew up at the last minute.  Let's see what happens if we just write according to Vaquero100's proposal and add Brendanhodge's ideas about "Catholic X" articles where appropriate.  If there are enough such articles with substantive content, we will be better able to assess what these arguments in principle mean when applied in practice.
--Richard 03:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richardshusr, I can't think of anyone who objected to your proposal.  I'd rather go with that, and post the RFC.  Indeed, I will post the RFC myself.  We seem to have beaten the idea to a bloody pulp, but no one has objected to it.  Vaquero may wish to cross-post it to the RCC project talk page in order to elicit interest there.  I will go with the composite wording outlined above (since no one has indicated any objection to it), and tidy up the Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name page a little.  I urge interested editors to post their arguments and proposals there. Fishhead64 05:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we just get started? 

message: I took the bull by the horns and decided to try to get on with this in a constructive manner.  Here is what I posted - hope the wording is acceptable to everyone:
::Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name:  An ongoing discussion (most of which can be found at Talk:Roman Catholic Church) of whether this article, and related articles, should be styled "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church."  Part of the argument relates to whether or not the various articles dealing with the Church should be merged into one, and what it should be called.  Underlying the discussion are the claims made by other Churches to be independent from Rome and yet remain Catholic. The involved editors have been invited to contribute arguments and proposals at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name (few have so far done so).  A similar debate occurred earlier this year, and can be found archived at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive3.
Lets see how this goes. Fishhead64 05:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC finally posted

message: If the church of Rome is christian why will she not embrace the bible and allow its priests to preach from the bible. -- Anonymous editor
Who says she doesn't?  Lima 13:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it kinda useless to point that out nearly two months later? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of Rome 

message: I just thought I'd comment on this, since I ran across this dispute lately. I don't think this should be merged with Roman Catholic Church, since there is a lot of criticism (some valid and some not) of the church that doesn't fall under the irrational diatribes of the proponents of anti-Catholicism. What we should be doing, IMO, is Wikipedia:Summary style. We should leave Criticisms of the Catholic Church for treatment of criticisms in greater detail, and summarise them on this article here. I think the same should be done for anti-Catholicism. I'm not sure about Catholicism, since I'm not familiar with the etymological background. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you CAN summarise an article called 'Criticisms of the Catholic Church', however.  What would it say?  "Sometimes the Church has been criticised." (end of summary)?  "The Church has been criticised on the following list of topics:"?  I think that the existence of this article promotes an approach in which negative viewpoints are moved out of the article, leaving only positive ones in the article - indeed, to be utterly fair, it would need to be matched by a "Praise of the Catholic Church" article, with no points of view at all, including the Church's own, mentioned in the main article.  More practically, I think that criticism, as well as praise, of the Church on a particular issue should be mentioned when that issue is mentioned, not separately.  If an issue needs to be broken out, it should be done as a whole, not with the positive side left in and the negative side sent elsewhere.  TSP 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose all proposed mergers. I currently don't think any of these mergers are needed especially the RCC to Catholicism one as they refer to different topics entirely. Catholic doesn't mean Roman Catholic. JohnnyBGood  t c 00:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose mergers, as neither necessary nor useful.  I agree with JohnnyBGood, except for his over-simplified "Catholic doesn't mean Roman Catholic."  Lima 03:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticism of the Catholic Church]] 

message: I take it Lima objects to my caption for the St Peter statue.  I believe the caption I came up follows Wikipedia:Captions more closely, since it attempts to "draw readers in" to the article.  I know the photo depicts a statue, but I believe it the primary purpose of the caption is to impart something about Catholicism.  I believe my suggested caption does this. The reasons I didn't include "Statue of St Peter" at the beginning are (1) I believe it's obvious enough, just as an oil painting caption would be, and (2) I believe it's better to use complete sentences in the caption.  Lima, do you maybe want to work with me on a compromise wording for it? Slac speak up! 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption of St Peter statue image

message: as of 5:20 Eastern North American Time, there is a vandalism on the part of Christianity Series Box
:Quelle horreur! Fishhead64 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: How is there a section about "14.2 Social justice, care-giving, and the hospital system" in "14 Controversial Church history"? It's like anti-anti-propaganda...
I will remove it unless someone moves it to a proper place or explain it. --euyyn 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's out of place. I propose moving the section to The Church's role in civilization, where it would be more appropriate. --Ginkgo100 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole section out of place? 

message: First, I must say this is a well written section.  I did make two changes, however.  One:  The offices of Chirst (munera) are prophetic, teaching, and ruling.  I know many people prefer "royal."  It is also true this world is found in Scripture (cf I Peter).  However, royal is a description of a person, not an office fullfilled.  You don't "royal."  That is why the Church refers to teh office as "ruling" or "kingship,"  the implication is that you are DOING something, not only being something.
Second, I think an edit was made to priesthood that simply wasn't completed.  Ministerial priesthood is related to heirarchy, note the priesthood of the faithful has it roots in baptism, not the Sacrament of Holy Orders.  I think the intent at sometime was to highlight the reality of the priesthood of the faithful in the faithful section -- which makes perfect sense.  I hope I was faithful to the intent of the editor who correctly recognized only a part of the faithful are memers of the heirarchy.DaveTroy 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WRT "royal" -- those words, although lacking quote marks, were taken directly from the cited section of the CCC. See  which is itself quoting Canon 204 of the Code of Canon Law. Since the sources say "royal" that's the adjective that's best to use here. The word does, after all, have implications that "ruling" does not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 small changes under the faithful 

message: Alas some good news to be glad about... The reorganization of the RCC article (per "Alternate proposal" section above) is well under way. Excessive material has been moved and incorporated into other articles which are referenced as "Main articles" for the various sections.  
An objective sign of progress is this article's length (32 KB is the ideal):  
* June 10 -- 105 KB
* June 17 -- 75 KB
Anyone interested in assisting with this project, please let me know.--Vaquero100 21:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good News 

message: The project of re-organizing the Catholic Church page is well underway. It will be organized through the WP Project Catholicism 101 page.  If you would like to contribute, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism.  Thanks and God Bless your summer.--Vaquero100 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church Page Project 

message: Will someone who knows how please fix the proportions of the Mona Lisa image?  Lima 15:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  distorted Mona Lisa 

message: I have created a new page: May crowning because I couldn't find an article on it in Wikipedia. I hope some of the editors here can help expand and change the article while adding appropriate links to it. --ScienceApologist 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New page

message: At the moment there are four images of displaying liturgical events, but three of them (all added here by Smith2006) depict practices that are either historical or currently rare in the Catholic Church. The three images in question are:
* the 1950s B/W in the "Catholic Life" section
* the Fontgombault ordination in the "Mandatory clerical celibacy" section
* the 1962 papal Mass in the "Reforms of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council" section
This seems to me as inappropriate as three pictures from the Eastern Churches.  One would be fine, to represent the diversity of Catholic practices, but this strikes me as a form of undue weight. I've moved the papal mass and Fontgombault pictures to (I think) better places, and changed the Fontgombault caption to identify it in some way as an indult community.  Personally I think the 1950s B/W should be removed - it has a problematic caption, and doesn't seem to relate well to its section. Gimmetrow 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: WHY IS THIS RE-DIRECTED FROM RANKS ?- IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHURCH RANKS    saif ali
: Tracked down and fixed, Church rank (Catholic) now points to Roman Catholic Church hierarchy  Gimmetrow 21:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranks problem

message: *"Confirmation is given by a bishop in the Latin rite, not by the local Vicar" - This is not an Anglican church, but an Irish Catholic church, in the charge of a "Parish Priest".
*"No priests are kneeling, those are confessors ..." - In Smith2006's Church, perhaps others than priests can be confessors.  Not in the Catholic Church.  Besides, by a tradition that was contrary to the strict rules, Irish priests heard confessions wearing a stole over the soutane (what in many other English-speaking countries is called a cassock) without surplice (cotta).
*"... or older acolythes." - In 1950s Ireland there were no "older acolythes", only altar boys.  In any case, what would acolythes be doing outside the altar rails?
*"They don't wear stoles." - Of course not.  The 1950s were before the Second Vatican Council, and concelebration had not yet been restored.  Like all the rest, bishop included, they were assisting at Mass said by a single priest.
*"There is no bishop." - There is someone wearing episcopal choir dress, presumably a bishop, inside the sanctuary, to the left.
*"This must be solemn Communion (renewal of bapt vows)" - This ceremony, in use nowadays in French-speaking countries (communion solennelle or profession de foi), was, I think, introduced in those countries only after the Second Vatican Council.  It is unknown in Ireland even now.
This is in regard to my change of 11:53, when I unfortunately forgot to give an edit summary.  Lima 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohermeen image 

message: Why is this a separate section? These topics should be covered in the history section like the rest of the history. Dividing the history between "noncontroversial" and "controversial" topics seems kind of arbitrary. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial church history? 

message: I hesitate to suggest this in the context of past and current debates about the name of this article.  Nonetheless, it has come to my attention that, while most of the pages listed in :Category:Roman Catholic Church by country are of the form Roman Catholicism in X, there are two exceptions that I have found which are Catholic Church in Canada and Catholic Church in Sweden.  
My proposal, then, is to move Catholic Church in Canada to Roman Catholicism in Canada and  Catholic Church in Sweden to Roman Catholicism in Sweden.  Yes, I know this goes against the above change in name proposed by Vaquero100.  
If and when the name of this article and all the other articles are changed to Catholic Church and Catholic Church in X, I am happy to change the names of the above articles back.  However, until that time, it seems to make sense to maintain a consistent naming convention for all Catholic churches in all countries around the world.
NB: These will have to be Requested Moves because each of the articles that I want to move has a redirect from Catholic Church in X and thus the move cannot be done without a delete first.
If there is a consensus to do this, I will post a Requested Move template on the articles in question.  
The other way to get this done would be to propose AfD for each of the redirects and then do the move.  I figured I'd start the process here, though, since this is where one can find the most people with strong opinions about this issue.
--Richard 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Moves 

message: While I am not sure I would have thought to add the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion to this talk page, it does seem fitting to some degree.  The Catholic Church is the world's largest and in many ways most vocal opponent of legalized abortion. Those who wish "to improve" the quality of WP's presentation on this topic should include the Catholic Church's position in some thorough way.  As there are many topics that could fit under the title of this article and the editors of this article have agreed to introduce briefly and give main article links to full articles related to this one, I would propose that an comprehensive article on the Church's position be written and linked here.  I will be glad to look over what is out there already and work on this. Thanks,  --Vaquero100 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion]] 

message: The picture of a Mass in the Armenian Rite has got to be improved to be retained in this article. It is quite unclear, and lacks definite lines as well as technical quality. I have re-inserted the Tridentine Mass picture, which is very representative, even if it only were for the "pre-Vatican II" liturgy.Smith2006 15:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better Eastern picture would be preferable, but none has been provided. As for "pre-Vatican II" liturgy there are 2 pictures without the Bohermeen one you reinserted, and I fail to see what this particular picture adds to the article. Gimmetrow 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Rite Picture 

message: 213.103.157.21 has re-entered text in the intro stating that church membership is lower than the stated figure, and that "attendance and ordainments" are declining. The intro is usually a summary of the rest of the article. These statements are neither mentioned nor sourced anywhere else in the article I know of. I think  templates look poor in the intro, but this does need a citation. Likewise the statement added to the inquisition section. Finally, the statement that the 4th crusade was "directed" at Constantinople and "otherwise peaceful Christians" seems a rather poor summary of Crusades, let alone of Fourth Crusade. Gimmetrow 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership statements in intro 

message: In the first paragraphs of the main article, it says that the Roman Catholic Church is led by the Pope. I think it might be better to mention that the Pope is only the visible head, and that Christ is the actual leader.
: I agree.  That is, after all, what is meant when the Pope is called the "Vicar of Christ"
: --Richard 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between headship and practical leadership. The RCC is very much led by the Pope, much as a local church is led by its bishop. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the main article 

message: An anonymous user cut out a reference to the Incarnation (Catholics believe that Jesus Christ became incarnate), but did not give a reason.  This left the sentence broken (no verb), so I assume it was a mistake and I have restored the previous version.  If this was an intended change, please write about it here.  Chonak 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature of God

message: I do not think that Honda's change was an improvement on the previous version of the Inquisition section. Bringing Protestants into the argument adds very little to the neutrality of the point of view. In fact, I feel that it intensifies the bias, because it presumes that contemporary Catholics excuse the Inquisition and that contemporary Protestants condemn it en masse. Why make such a generalization when the previous language was fairly neutral, especially considering how controversial this topic is. I suggest that we revert back to an earlier version without any mention of other Christian denominations. Erlaforest 00:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the previous version? You call "Despite the claims of many ("even non-Catholic") apologists, the Inquisition was a gross abuse of the powers held by the Church at the time" nuetral? And the rest wasn't much better. 2nd Piston Honda 00:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. We need to actually explain what the Inquisition was instead of going straight to the opinions part. Same goes with the Crusades. 2nd Piston Honda 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquisition (2) 

message: Honda~ If you look at the history of the article, you will see that I did not write about the 'gross abuse.' I did allow it, however, out of respect of the previous user's contribution. You are correct about the strong opinions in the Protestant community about the Inquisition. I disagree with its inclusion in this article, though. It does not need to be featured here; elsewhere, perhaps. I also disagreed with your deletion of all that others had written on the subject; that was unnecessary. I will stop editing this section of this article once someone else comes in to rewrite it, someone who does not have any intention of including the Protestants' opinions of a Catholic controversy. Erlaforest 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view we already have several main articles on Inquisitions which could serve as templates for this brief summary.  I’ll have a look in a bit and see what can be done about this. Lostcaesar 09:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Edited inquisition section, borrowing from the other sites on the matter.  Also, corrected some things (the inquisition was not just "medieval", for example, or that there was no "separation between Church and State in the middle ages", which is false – for example, secular and clerical courts existed side by side).  If I could have my way, I would cut out the entire part about Edward Peters and what follows, simply because I think that is best handled in the main article and it invites controversy to a page that, frankly, doesn’t have room for it.  But I left it for now – opinions? Lostcaesar 11:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquisition (2) 

message: The intro has been significantly condensed from a few months back. Some for the better, and some for the worse. One thing I really don't like is the first sentence. According to the styleguide, the first sentence is supposed to be a concise description, a la a dictionary definition. I believe we would all agree that the single most defining thing about the Catholic Church is not it's size (however, that is important information that could be good 2nd sentence material). I urge editors to look at how other denominations are defined and reconsider previous versions of this article, or perhaps writing a new intro. Secondly, the information included in the sentence on this article  at Catholic Church (disambiguation) isn't even mentioned here (seach the document for the number 23). Maybe we could use the sentence there as the opening? Just a suggestion. What do others think? --Andrew c 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do I think?  I am dismayed at the recent editing conflict, and I have hopes that something reasonable can be worked out.  The intro as it stands isn't all that great.  We should be clear and informative, and the intro doesn't really get it done.  That aside, its not that bad - maybe I'll try something and see what people think. Lostcaesar 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more intro issues