Talk:Four Marks of the Church

message: The text about the holy marks reflects a theology that can't be consider mainstream. For example, the Catholic church has recognized the it has sin, as a Church, as a whole church. The Fathers of the Church use an strong expression "Casta Meretrix" (http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2000/nov2000p17_100.html). 
Even worst, this definition of a Holy Church is a serious threat to Ecumenism.
I would say the the Church is Holy because it is loved by God. It is able to sin, but God really love the Church and tries really hard to help it.
What do you think?
--Hectorpal (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy 

message: The four marks discussed in the article are not cited extensively probably due to there being relatively common knowledge rooted in history. Should the person cite "The Catechism Of The Catholic Church" since these marks are described in detail there? Maybe not. Although these understandings are many centuries older than the idea of Protestantism itself, and have been used by Christians for nearly two millenia, I'm sure the author is simply listing what is an understood historical reality held within the church. What churches that have been created during the last century, or even since the reformation, have to say terms of their validity should be noted later in the article under appropriate headings. 
The reality is that these markers are rooted in the earliest church writings, and clearly defined as doctrine 1300 years before protestantism existed. So they can't be written off as musings because someone may not like them. Protestant re-definition of these long held "four marks of the Church," or denial of them, can be included however.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.98.244 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four marks (markers) not musings 

message: Concerning the unicity of the Church, it is not really sufficient from a doctrinal point of view to say that it comes from belief in one Lord Jesus Christ (monotheism). A more detailed explanation of this belief is found in the doctrine of the body of Christ and the encyclical Mystici Corporis, which describes the Church as the mystical body of Christ. Therefore, the Church taken as a whole is comparable to Jesus himself, who is unique. Concerning the likelihood of schism, and specifically the East-West schism, recent doctrinal statements such as subsistit in have asserted that the Church of Christ remains one and has never really been entirely separated because of an ecclesiology of communion, by which sacraments such as baptism, eucharist and ordination are equally valid for both sides of the historic schism. The recent declaration of Ravenna also reaffirms the belief in an ecclesiastic protos in the person of the bishop of Rome. ADM (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unicity

message: I recently placed a link to a blog that was talking about this exact subject from a Protestant, paleo-orthodox perspective but it was rejected.  Why?  The blog was thorough in citing its Scriptural sources, though it was undeniably biased (as apologetic religious articles are by nature).  Is there a way to put the external link back up, without having it removed?  I guess I really thought it fit the wikipedia guidlines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The.famous.adventurer (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ELNO #11: blogs are generally not appropriate external links, unless they are written by a recognized authority. +Angr 14:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Further Reading' Problem

message: Paragraph 3 of the Section "History" states erroneously that Catholics believe the in profession of these four marks that "catholic" implies a self-referential exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Church.  Indeed, Catholics (not just "Roman" Catholics) will say that the fullness of the expression of the "Church of Christ" is found within its visible communion.  But the Church also teaches that other Christians, while not visibly connected with the Catholic Church, will posess some degree of this attibute professed in the creed. [cf. CCC 836-38ff]  It would seem that, unlike the claim of the article, that the Church would see "Catholic" not as an exclusive title, but as an adjectival attribute.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (pp. 830ff) explains that there are two senses that are understood by the adjective "Catholic" in the creed:  First that the Church is "universal" in the sense of "according to the totality" of the revelation of Christ... scripture, sacraments, apostolic succession, Sacred Tradition and teaching, etc.  Second, that the mission of the Church is to draw the whole human race, across space and time, into Communion with the Lord.
I do not at this moment have access to the McBrien article (check the spelling on his name in the article/references).  This doesn't sound like him... unless he was making a critique of this very point.  I wonder if he is being taken out of context to set up a 'straw man' that confirms dismissive tone against the Catholic Church's supposed-claims in the paragraph.  Fr. McBrien, while widely-written and frequently on TV, is hardly an authoritative source of trusted teaching about the Church... cf, the Wikipedia article on him, re: "controversy".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.8.62 (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholics, and... 

message: When one types Attributes of the Church", they are redirected here.  In Roman Catholicism, there is a separate concept of Attributes, which are indefectibility, infallibility, and authority.  According to the article, some protestants refer to them at attributes.  Perhaps an Attributes (Catholic Church) link to a new article would be best. Ref: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura2a.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.75 (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article for Attributes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Four Marks of the Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813100622/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150407052252/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130802084853/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified