Talk:Dominus Iesus

message: The document "Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the church", issued June 29, 2007, has been getting a fair bit of press, for example Vatican Reaffirms Catholic Primary Washington Post (via Reuters), July 10, 2007.  Per Wikipedia:Recentism, I'm trying not to jump to the conclusion that the Responses are more notable than the Dominus Iesus itself or the other earlier documents.  At least for now, I just added the Responses as an external link without comment. It is far from clear to me how to organize this material, whether in the Dominus Iesus article or very general articles like Sectarianism or something in between ("Catholic attitudes towards non-Catholic Christians" or some such). Kingdon 18:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might consider subsuming the recent statement, including summary and reactions, under the article Catholic Church and ecumenism, New Tensions or Main Documents subsection.  There is a flurry of news about it now, but not as much as there was in response to Dominus Iesus, if I recall. The.helping.people.tick 20:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  I'm not sure I have the knowledge or inclination to do major work on any of these articles, but I have added "see also" sections so that editors and readers can at least know the related articles exist. Kingdon 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the church 

message: The article says
: The lack of this filioque clause may have been due to limit of space, focus of theme, restrictions of time, or even due to merciful disinclusion from subject matter, although it was still universally recognised. Regardless, there is no basis for the idea that a cardinal would stay the Nicene Creed in part or totality, while it is more likely that even a future Pope would kindly refuse mention of existing contention while writing words of peace. Hence, no filioque clause was restated because it was already existent and required no further presence in the document of Dominus Iesus.
Could someone please translate that into English? Jhobson1 (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: The following was in the "Response to Criticisms" section:
Other controversies were unanswered by John Paul II, however the text of declaration "Dominus Iesus" was not withdrawed, though even many catholics consider it to be very archaic and retarding and that it should be interpreted nonverbatim. 
Catholic paper "W drodze" wrote that many catholics will withdraw their support for declaration's teachings or even attack it. Naśladowanie Mistrza, 2001, "W drodze" by Dominican Order
One of catholic Superior General commented the declaration in following words:
To these criticisms it can be answered that faithfuls are obliged to accept the teachings of the Magisterium and it is also defined as a dogmatic truth that doctrinal or moral teachings of popes are 
This strikes me as problematic on a few grounds. The tone is contentious, and seems (to me) to go against [{WP:NPOV]]. In addition, there's only one source, and that's in Polish--I can't really check it, but it seems to me that on an English-language Wikipedia, there needs to be an English language source for us to check it against. (Am I out of line on that?)
There are also weasel-word issues. (e.g "many catholics" consider DI archaic--well, there are a billion Catholics, so "many catholics" believe just about anything, right?) I don't think this material is essential to the article, so I'm removing it. -- Narsil (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic "Response to Criticisms" material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dominus Iesus. 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/20100429174047/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20001206_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20001206_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429174047/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20001206_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20001206_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411015820/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
*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
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) 03:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion