Talk:Timeline of the Catholic Church

message: Is this (the opening line, for heaven's sakes) a joke? "As one the oldest branches of Christianity" - what? The commission of Peter is the foundation of the institutional nature of the Church. To say, in an article presenting the history of the Church, that the Church of Peter, the Church of Christ, the Church of the Very Living God, is 'one of the oldest branches...' is remarkable nonsense. It IS the Church. It is prefectly to acceptable to say that "with the Eastern Orthodox" etc but it is patent nonsense to refer to the Church as a 'branch'; only the East and Rome are the Church - they alone and no others. This is not sectarian rhetoric it is simple historical fact. Whatever else that is noble that exists in protestantism the fact remains that the Church is the Church, both scripturally and historical - not a series of thousands of mini-communes and sects but one Body of believers in communion with the apostles through the Succession. The wording of this article's opening passages needs to be changed to reflect the nature of its truth otherwise its just another internet hotchpotch aimed at nobody.Iamlondon (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what about the original Church that Jesus set up? Is that not older than Catholicism by about 300 years? I will admit, Catholicism is "one of the oldest," but it is not THE oldest. Joshua Ingram (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: As one the oldest branches of Christianity

message: No mention of the Spanish Inquisition?  I feel as though that had enough to do with Catholicism to be mentioned, at the very least. Laneb2005 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 15th Century

message: I read somewhere (I forget exactly) that Jesus was not the son of a carpenter, and that this notion is the result of a mistranslation: Joseph, Jesus's (earthly) father was actually a land-surveyor, a minor official in local government and thus something of a middle-class professional. To the extent that his son took up the family trade is, I believe (somone check me on this) among those details absent from the New Testament, but mention of how he impressed the Rabbis early in his youth, and his subsequent career of preaching and ministering, suggests a religious/Rabinnical education.
Anyways, is there someone out there familiar with the Greek or Aramaic enough to say either way?  [Unsigned]
A most uncommon and quite baseless misconception.  Lima 05:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Misconception?

message: I'm very pleased to see the amount of users who are contributing to this article.  This will no doubt evole into quite an ourstanding work. -Husnock 02:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Pleased

message: This is what it says under the picture of Benedict XVI, but this is clearly not true as John Paul didn't die 'til 2005.
:He was the first Pope appointed in the 21st century is what the intent is. -Husnock 14:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First Pope of 21st Century?

message: Survival of the feared millenium? Can we say urban legend?--24.203.61.236 18:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1003 entry 

message: I have created a page on the History of the Papacy - as distinct from that of the Catholic Church as a whole. Contributions welcome.
Jackiespeel 23:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the Papacy

message: I added an entry on the start of Christianity in Asia and on our Lady of Guadalupe, to make this less Eurocentric... --Nino Gonzales 07:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asia and the Americas

message: The early-twentieth-century Adrian Fortescue does say that "Pope Victor I (190-202), an African, seems to have been the first to use Latin at Rome."  But the later Josef Jungmann is much more precise: "The transition did not occur at one go.  The inscriptions of the graves of the Popes are written in Latin from the second half of the third century, beginning with Cornelius (d. 253).  Since even before Constantine there were in Rome more than 40 churches, Greek minorities will have continued to have their Greek liturgy even later than the time of Cornelius, just as Latin communities may already have existed before Cornelius.  Even as late as 360 Marius Victorinus quotes in Greek from a Roman oratio oblationis of his time." (my translation from page 65 of volume I of his Missarum Sollemnia - Eine genetische Erklärung der römischen Messe (Vienna, 1949).  Lima 08:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persistent insertion of unverifiable and false statements

message: From an encyclopedic and historic perspective, can such phrase be sayd here?. Perhaps to say that he "allegedly rose from the death" or "according to gospels, he rose from the death". As it stands its just a minor mistake, as there is really no proofs that he really rose from the death, against mayor evidence that could opose to that (such as: humans dont usually rise from the death for example, thus Ockam Razor tells us that he probably didnt resurect to begin with).
An additional issue is the claim that the Church was founded by Jesus in Jerusalem. These are not facts that can be verified. The Catholic Church claims this is so, but up to Constantine any worship was clandestine and hence apostolic succession may be very hard to objectively ascertain. I could imagine that the local churches would have had autonomy before Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire and the strict hierarchy we know now was put into place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.166.237 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We are taking unsubstantiated religious views at face valueTen of Swords (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Jesus rose from the dead"

message: I have proposed a History task force on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General which would cover this article among others. Please read the proposal, comment on it and consider joining. --Richard 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a task force on the History of Christianity 

message: Currently the first sentence of the articles states:
:"making the Church the oldest continuously existing religious institution in history"
This is false, although the argument could be made that it is the oldest continuously existing Christian denomination. Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and other Dharmic religions and arguably Judaism and Mithraism (the latter of which is still extant believe it or not) are older "continuosly existing" religions. If an academic has made this argument, it probably would be best to directly quote them.- WeniWidiWiki 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not "continuously existing religious institutions".  Most of them have no institutional structure such as an episcopate.  The sentence, as I gather it, is not really talking about religious beliefs, in the vague sense, but religious institutions in the concrete sense (hence: "the Church", not Christianity).  That would seem to exclude the examples you gave except perhaps Rabbinic Judaism, depending on how one interpretes the events of 70 and 120 as formative in the institutional structure of Judaism.  (PS, "denominations" didn't come into existence until a hundred years ago or so).  Lostcaesar 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I was just explaining what I thought the sentence meant.  And it seems you agree insofar as you seem to concede that the other religions don't have the same level of institutional organization continuously existing in their history, but then make an apology for it.  Whatever the case, I'm just sharing what I think the sentence is trying to say - you're free to disagree.  Lostcaesar 07:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: sounds fair; Lostcaesar 09:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading lede

message: What do you mean by "one of the oldest"?  If the Catholic Church is not the oldest Christian church then what is?
:Nestorian maybe?Ten of Swords (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As one of the oldest branches of Christianity..." 

message: Terrible, terrible! The article is not called "Timeline of Roman Catholic history"! It's called "History of the Roman Catholic Church"! If we wanted to make a timeline, great, make a timeline. But this isn't supposed to be a timeline page! It's supposed to be prose. It's a history page, it's supposed to be prose. So, I move we convert all the many, many, many parts of the article that are in timeline form, and convert them either directly to prose, or to proseline and then prose. Agree with me! VolatileChemical (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to rename this to "Timeline of...." & start a proper history article. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. --Carlaude (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: It would be great if we could have a diagramatic representation too. It helps clear things up. There was something like this on many of the Christianity related websites..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.8 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-759/i.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070224035422/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope17sep17,0,5146612.story?coll=la-home-world to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope17sep17,0,5146612.story?coll=la-home-world
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121103182802/http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/ to http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Timeline of the Catholic 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/20050309110855/http://www.newpartisan.com/home/suave-molecules-of-mocha-coffee-chemistry-and-civilization.html to http://www.newpartisan.com/home/suave-molecules-of-mocha-coffee-chemistry-and-civilization.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified