Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 8

message: Hello, I would lik to know something about the revenues in US or in other countries of the Roman Catholic Church. --Calgaco 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Catholic Information Project. Scroll down to the section on "Church Finances".  The numbers are a few years old, but should give you a pretty good idea. Kylef81 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenues 

message: Is there an official site (possibly within the vatican.va site) that states the doctrines of the RCC? Tim Long 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctrine Site

message: The portion of the article describing criticisms of the church seems to suffer from slight POV problems due to its defensive nature. Generally, it describes the criticism, then quotes a Catholic clergyperson's refutation of it. Sometimes the refutation is given through facts that lack detail, or even narrative describing why the charge is inaccurate. The following is one example of a statement  in the article which a nuetral would consider lacking in perspective.
 
The article says that "Throughout the centuries, the Church has had to respond to many criticisms, some of which are now considered outright heresies." Most of the subsequent criticisms are charges which are usually made most strongly by non-catholics, who probably don't consider it relevant whether their criticisms are called heresy. Indeed, many of them belong to groups whose official beliefs would also be called heresy. --Todemo
:I've seen the same thing happen in the Ordination of women article.  What I've tried to do there was to move the refutations to another section where they would be more appropriate. -- Cat Whisperer 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Describing Criticisms

message: I changed this:
While Protestants were the first to use the term Roman Catholic to distinguish this Church from theirs, Catholics themselves employed it as early as the seventeenth century, both in English and in Latin ("Ecclesia catholica romana") and French ("Église catholique romaine"),[8] to profess their faith in the importance of communion with the see of Rome.
To this:
One of the earliest documents in which the terms Roman and catholic were associated with the church at Rome was the Decree of Gelasius in 495. The terms Roman church and Roman catholic appear throughout, while phrases such as catholic Roman church and Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church appear only once.[7] During the reformation, Protestants began using the term Roman Catholic to distinguish this Church from theirs. In the seventeenth century, both in English and in Latin ("Ecclesia catholica romana") and French ("Église catholique romaine"),[8] Catholics again employed this ancient term to profess their faith in the importance of communion with the see of Rome.
My edit was then promply removed by 2nd Piston Honda, who said it was off topic. But in what way? How does documenting the falsity of the statements that  "Protestants were the first to use the term Roman Catholic," and that "Catholics themselves employed it as early as the seventeenth century" qualify as off topic?  Could someone please explain to me what it is I'm missing? Here is the footnote ref. I provided: . And, for what it's worth, her is an interesting letter to the editor of the Nov. 1996 issue of Catholic Answers's  "This Rock" magazine along these same lines. The letter is entitled "A Mere 1,000 Years Off."    Delta x 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is "the first to use the term Roman Catholic to distinguish this Church from theirs". Your additions were about use of "Roman Catholic" apart from the intent to make a distinction between two churches, and that's not what the section is about. 2nd Piston Honda 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point. But something is still not right with this section.  And granting that these statements are perhaps not altogether false, they are in fact, still somewhat misleading. Therefore, I offer the following revised version of my edit, which I believe, not only does not trespass on the of the sense of the original, but indeed, lends an important historical perspective to it. Here is my proposed change:
The Church at Rome, at least as early as the fifth century, was the first to use the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish itself from the various heretical groups existing at that time. During the reformation, the term was adopted by Protestants, who wished to distinguish themselves, and the reformed churches, from that of the Roman church. In the seventeenth century, both in English and in Latin ("Ecclesia catholica romana") and French ("Église catholique romaine"),[8] Catholics once again employed this ancient terminology to profess their faith in the importance of communion with the see of Rome. 
So unless someone objects, I'll add this change to the article (footnoted of course). Delta x 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not just change "seventeenth century" to "fifth century" in the original version (w/ accomodating edits)? 2nd Piston Honda 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope this is of some interest to everyone: It comes from a 28 page booklet entitled The Roman Catholic Church: A Divine Institution or a Human Invention? by Adam S. Miller. And although no longer online  ( hard copy available here ), I did happen to find, as you can see, a cached version of the appendix to Mr. Miller's original (1997) booklet (a copy of which I have) while trying to do some follow-up on several of the quotes he gives. And so I thought would just throw another scrap of information into the mix here for anyone who might be interested.  Delta x 05:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop having this argument in the text of the article.  If this is not an example of "Roman Catholic Church" being used to refer to the entire Church in communion with the Pope, it is not relevant to the article - it should be removed, not left in but surrounded by arguments as to why it isn't relevant.  If it is an early example of this usage, it is relevant; but either case, a reputable source for the opinion on its meaning needs to be cited, not just arguments made by Wikipedians in the text of the artcle. TSP 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decree of Gelasius, 495 A. D.  - early use of the terms "Roman Catholic,"    "Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" ect.  

message: It seems that we have come to another turning point in the conversation--a quite predictable but sad one.  The term "Roman" is well established in its origins in the bigotry of 16th Century England and is 450 year-long project of Anglicans to deprive the Catholic Church of its name. As an emblem of anti-Catholicism (an irrational hatred or disdain for Catholicim) it is not at all surprising that Anglicans and other who hold the Anglican  position lose ground in the face of rational arguments, they have become even more desperate in their insistance that the Catholic position on the issue be obliterated from the WP record.  Article after article from "Catholic " to "Catholicism" the Anglican position is smeared all over WP.  However, no reportage of the Catholic Church's position is permitted even on the this page.  This is an intellectual atrocity.  
In practice at the moment the debate is not about the name of this article but whether the Catholic position on the very name of the Catholic Church will be able to find space anywhere on WP!  In March there was a vote on the name of this article argued mostly on theological grounds.  This allowed people to simply vote their own biases.  The vote was something like 17 to 7 in favor of "Roman."  Now that there is a slight majority that favors CC because the issue has been argued on WP policy, the stridency of the anti-Catholics on WP has become all the more shrill.
I am a busy man, but as I get the time, I will redouble my efforts to set the record straight.  
Lima's point that the Catholic Church most often calls itself "the Church" is an example of a clear absurdity.  These references are a linguistic shorthand common in the English language.  "America" is not the name of the nation where I live.  The "proper name" of this country is the United States of America.  However, in common parlance "America" is a shorter reference to the nation.  "America" is by far the more common use in English, but no one honestly confuses this reference with the proper name of the country.  Lima is grabbing at straws and is utterly desperate to hold on to this mental delusion.
This is to be expected when rational argument fails to uphold a position based upon irrational predispositions/prejudices especially those which belong in 16th Century England.  An examination of conscience is in order.  Vaquero100 07:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your current post Vaquero, borders on the abusive. There's nothing shrill or delusional or even anti-Catholic on the part of those who prefer the correct and descriptive name of the church: Roman Catholic. I wish there could be more grace extended, because many of those who call themselves Catholic simply refer to themselves as a part of Christ's Church, and are quite willing and happy to include Roman Catholics, English Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, etc, as fellow members of the Catholic Church. It is the persistent claim of the Roman Catholics to exclusivity - the refusal to accept other Catholics of slightly different doctrinal pursuasions as fellow Christians. To thus label the article "Catholic Church" is to adopt a POV endorsing this claim to exclusivity, which is not acceptable to at least half the Christians in the world. This is the heart and core of the issue, and those who are politicking for the change are simply trying to require the rest of the world to acknowledge the exclusivity claim. Pollinator 06:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Over the years, I've noticed that the persons who hold the visible offices in a hierarchy are not always the one who actually hold the power that supposedly goes with the office. There is frequently an invisible hierarchy that one must know and respect, if one is to survive in that organization. If this is true of human structures, it certainly is more likely to be true of a spiritual structure that depends on graces and activities that are contrary to human nature and the expectations of the world. I doubt that *any* physical structure (including my own denomination) is "the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth, the Church that Jesus built." Whatever the body, I see far too many failings to consider that to be possible. The genuine church can be found within a great variety of denominations, and quite likely also outside them too. Whatever the true Church is, it is primarily God's perogative to establish, uphold, or judge. It's time for us to stop insulting other members of that church with our claims of exclusivity. Pollinator 06:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that running around to find supporters of a position is called internal spamming and is not an acceptable Wikipedia means of editing. Campaigning to influence a vote may change the outcome on one occasion, but won't bring about a more NPOV Wikipedia, nor will it be a permanent change. Pollinator 06:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Vaq: People who voted for RCC are not by default anti-Catholic. Accusing people of bigoty and being party to some Anglican conspiracy is NOT helping your position. Calling a fellow editor's thoughts a "mental delusion" is NOT helping your position. Claiming your position is the only rational position is NOT helping your position. I understand that this is a very close and dear and theologically important issue for you. But I would urge you NOT to redouble your efforts on this topic. Wikipedia has spent years arguing over this debate, and it isn't going to be settled, and no-consensus is the best we have ever got. I hate to say it this way, but we should all just suck it up and accept that both RCC and CC are acceptable on wikipedia, and all vow never ever again to edit pages for the sole purpose of adding or removing the word "Roman". Seriously, I'd suggest not bringing up this topic again until this article has reached FA or at least GA status. It wastes SO MUCH time that could be used to actually focus on improving content, not arguing over a single word that only is a matter of dire importance to POV-warriors. Seriously, think what is more important to everyone personally: correcting the wrong names across wikipedia, or bringing articles up to FA status? If you answered the former, I'd ask you to seriously reconsider your motives for contributing to wikipedia.--Andrew c 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what frustrates alot of people on WP is that liberal or politically correct changes can be made at someone's whim or just after a discussion with no vote (or no 'consensus'), and then reverting it back is treated as out of the question and requires a super-majority vote. It's a double standard and shows the general liberal bias at WP. 2nd Piston Honda 23:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any such double standard.  Perhaps you could give an example?  It is the case that people who act out of process often find it easier than those who follow the rules, which is perhaps a problem, but it cuts both ways (most of Vaquero's RCC->CC changes have been without concensus, and many of them have stuck).  In this case, the article was at this location by clear concensus (over 2:1) 6 months ago; this time there has been no clear concensus.  TSP 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It wasn't especially a criticism; but 2nd Piston Honda seemed to be presenting a world in which one side was persevering with votes and concensus and the other (making "liberal or politically correct changes") acting without discussion.  I just haven't seen that.  TSP 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't noticed that it's harder to change something from liberal-favored to conservative-favored than vice versa on WP? 2nd Piston Honda 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not particularly, but the two terms are so broad as to be almost meaningless.  In a well-written article the 'liberal' and 'conservative' points of view should be presented together, proportional to their support, without endorsing either.  It should be easiest to change something to whatever is best supported by independent sources; but people from all points of view are guilty of trying to bend Wikipedia to their personal opinions rather than to the neutral point of view.  TSP 13:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am Catholic.  My church has a big sign out front indicating it is "Roman Catholic".  I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostoltic church, but also happen to believe we aren't going to get there by taking offense over the difference between being called Roman Catholic or Catholic or disparaging other denomination's interest in sharing that Catholicism - good for those Anglicans in having the interest in being Catholic, now let's talk together about what it means!  Ultimately, those of us with an interest all need to get over denominationalist self-righteousness to build that common Catholic church. I would suggest that we set aside the labeling issue and worry about more fundamental things. Sam 17:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo Sam's comments above.  I would like to state how sad I am, as a Catholic, of being accused of anti-Catholicism, something which shocks me and I deeply resent.  It is easy for me to see now why every Mass includes so many invocations to unity, when members of God's Church are so easily provoked into recrimination and name-calling. Slac speak up! 01:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We should go easy on sweeping attributions of error, which might be found to apply also to the Popes. See Divini illius Magistri ("in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing") and Humani generis ("the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing").  Lima 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Catholic Desperation

message: Hey guys! Why not try Wikipedia:Mediation? It works you know. Check out Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, you'll see how Wiki fixes things. Tis simple. Tis objective. No frills.  Try it. It works. And if not, then to Wikipedia:Arbitration you go! If you are proWiki policy you win. ;) Ndss 11:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall we already went down the DR route, which is how we ended up with the current title. Guy 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the number of votes, "we" now is not the same as "we" then, whenever then was. Chonak`
Show the link to the mediation and I'll check. Do you know JASpencer is with Arbritationcom and he voted for "Catholic Church." This has a chance at arbcom! Ndss 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not try mediation?

message: Now that we've been through the vote with no consensus resulting, would the interested editors be willing to entertain a proposal for one more vote: an up-or-down consideration of some version of Option 2?  E.g., "Catholic Church (organisation)" and "Catholic Church (concept)"  Chonak 07:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Perhaps in the future, when feelings have cooled down.  Not now.  We've (rather, I've?) already wasted too much time on the dispute.  Lima 07:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One more chance for the compromise option?

message: Do Catholics believe that God sends people there? Or does the Bible? Or both? Or neither? TommyBoy76 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholics, like the majority of other Christians, believe that there are at least a few individuals who choose to go to Hell rather than accepting Heaven.  "Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven", to quote Milton.  If I remember correctly, modern theology indicates that upon their deaths these individuals descend into Hell, to be brought back out for the Final Judgement before everybody, receiving their public "final" sentence, and then returning to Hell.  Seemingly, they do all this at least in part on their own.  Their motivation seems to be that something not related to Heaven is so important that they choose Hell if that is the only way of retaining this physical attachment.  The exact nature of the afterlife is somewhat unclear in the Old Testament, although you might look at Sheol for the relevant details on it.  The nature of hell was made a bit clearer in the New Testament.  Gehenna and Hell in Christian beliefs might be useful too.  I'm not an expert theologian, but if you have any other similar questions please feel free to contact me at my user page if you prefer.  I might (emphasis might) be able to help you out a little.  Badbilltucker 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying it can be some peoples' choice? TommyBoy76 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always a choice. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not correct. Christ said that many will go to Hell and wide is its path. Catholics believe that those who die in a state of mortal sin go to Hell. Mortal sin is grievous sin which deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace. The things necessary to make a sin mortal are 1) a grevious matter, 2) sufficient reflection, and 3) full consent of the will. That is, it has to be a serious offense, you have to think about it before you do it (knowing it's a serious offense), and then you have to do it of your own will. Confession is the sacrament by which mortal sin can be forgiven and absolved, along with all venial (lesser) sins. 2nd Piston Honda 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The things necessary to make a sin mortal are ... full consent of the will. Right. Therefore, committing a mortal sin is a choice. Not repenting of it and not confessing it are also choices. Therefore, hell is a choice. Why did you say "that's not correct"? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My post was in response to Badbilltucker. And it's not exactly right to say it's our choice. It's God's choice, based on our deeds. 2nd Piston Honda 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I have to ask it? We've all heard it before. "If God has so much love, then why does He send people to hell?" I personally don't think He does. TommyBoy76 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, everyone. Though I am keeping my opinion, I leave the computer knowing more than I did. Trevor, you didn't insult my intelligence. I have been Catholic all 16 years of my life so I know all the 'mumbo jumbo' and everything after.  Feel free to use any termonology you wish and explain in whatever way you think will get the point across. Only the same thing, with better grammar. :) TommyBoy76 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hell 

message: It's getting unwieldy.  Chonak 05:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to archive this talk page?

message: Sorry if I sound stupid, but shouldn't the bible citation for footnote 21 (The Church is, as scripture states, "the body of Christ") be COLOSSIANS 1:24 or EPHESIANS 5:30 or something other than the current one (Romans 12:4-5)?
Ephesians 5:30
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
Romans 12:4-5
Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswcheng (talk • contribs) 17:51, September 16, 2006 (UTC).
:Agree. Might also suggest:
::Ephesians 1:22-23 And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
:Kylef81 19:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not include Romans as well?  It's pretty clear here that "we who are many" is the Christian ekklesia. Slac speak up! 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Added back Romans 12:4-5 as a cf. The reason I agreed with Jameswcheng was that the Romans verse isn't as "obvious" in its meaning. Kylef81 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote Error? 

message: I am not sure if this is the right place to make this request (I am still relatively new), but the Roman Catholic section at Christian views on contraception#Roman_Catholic_Church needs attention from someone more knowledgable than myself.  Can someone help?  CyberAnth 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help request for related RCC article

message: Nature of God Section:
'born' of the Virgin Mary.  
There needs to be ade the distinction between being 'born' and 'begotten'.  To my knowledge the Church stresses this point, that he was 'Begotten not made'.  'Born' implies being made through conception, not the immaculate conception...
Just my thoughts,
161.253.29.204 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No changes should be made. "Born of the Virgin Mary" comes from both the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. "Begotten not made" refers to the belief that Christ was not created; "born of the Virgin Mary" refers to the belief that in the Incarnation, he was born to a mother like any other human since Adam and Eve. It does not refer to his conception, only his birth. Also, the term Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Jesus, but to his mother's: the Catholic belief is that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology Revision 

message: I was surprised when I could not find a template for citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So I created one: . This version works only for a single paragraph. This is my first template (not counting userboxes), so improvements and comments are welcome. I hope other editors find it useful. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a second template for citing whole articles of the CCC: . This can also be used for paragraph ranges. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New template

message: I propose that the page be moved to Holy Roman Catholic Church. --WikiCats 20:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and I oppose. Let's not make the title more complicated than it has to be. Gentgeen 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I got your message about the RCC disambig page. I think I agree with Gentgeen though. However, would you like to explain yourself further? Why change the name? What are the pro's and con's? What would we do with the RCC disambig page? etc. -Andrew c 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the Church's name is simply "the Church", or "the Christian Church", and in everyday parlance, it is most commonly refered to as the "Catholic Church". 2nd Piston Honda 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We have been over the name thing before.  I see the current name as an inconsistency on wikipedia's part, but one I am willing to live with as a modus vivendi, at least for now, since there doesn't seem to be too much harm from it.  Lostcaesar 07:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Caesar, you are Anglican" - could you elaborate? Lostcaesar 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth? Is this proposal flamebait or what? Slac speak up! 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move page 

message: There have been some changes to the intro recently. I feel they are for the worse. The sentence is not clunky, hard to read, and possibly gramatically incorrect. I felt the previous version (or one of the earlier edits with a much simpler wording) was better. What exactly are we trying to say here? And how is the most elegant way to say it? Perhaps the long reference could be moved to another section? References are generally not supposed to be in intro text. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the article content, so there should be a section describing membership and leaving the church somewhere else in the article. This discussion seems better someplace other than the intro, and I feel that we can find a much more simple yet elegant way to describe what needs to be said. --Andrew c 14:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro and hersay, apostasy,hersay, excommunication and formally renounced membership. 

message: Part of the right column is covering the main article. I don't know how to fix it, so can someone do it?
Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.215.189 (talk • contribs) .
:I don't see this... perhaps your system has a display problem? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is text over the top left corner of the "Christianity series" box.  Changing the size of my browser window changes which word overlaps, but the problem is still there.  I'm not sure how to fix this, though. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   15:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the beginning part of the page. 

message: Salvation for those outside the church is possible through the "baptism of desire"
"Baptism of desire" is a good term, but I wonder if this new paragraph could be integrated into the preceding one, which essentially says the same thing... Freder1ck 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptism of Desire 

message: I'd like it if anyone could make a series for the Roman Catholic Church, don't ya think? Falconleaf 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series on the Roman Catholic Church  

message: I am wondering about the introduction, where it says "the basic administrative unit is the diocese".  Aren't there also archdioceses?  Have never really understood the distinction, but during most of the time I was a Catholic, I lived in an archdiocese.  Perhaps someone could clarify?  Thanks.rich 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: other than the diocese is headed by a bishop while archdiocese is headed by an archbishop?  i dont think theres really any difference other than that, but maybe the more knowledged people on this subject know more subtle differences than that --Blckavnger 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "diocese" is often used to cover more than those jurisdictions that are dioceses in a narrow sense.  Just as "bishop" also covers archbishops - after all, they too are members of a "bishops" (episcopal) conference - and nuncios and ...  In any case, the mention here is of the basic unit: that's all we can talk about in the introduction, where it would be silly to elaborate on variations such as archdiocese, metropolitan archdiocese, apostolic vicariate, territorial prelature, etc. etc. Lima 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diocese / Archdiocese 

message: I've been away for at least 3 months.  I needed a break.  And, I can see that the same old bitter anti-Catholic hounds still have their teeth sunk into this article.  It's wicked, really.  It is clear that the Catholic Church prefers to call itself the "Catholic Church" yet, one would hardly know that from the evidence presented in the terminology section.  Of course the battle over the terminology section is really a battle over the name of this article, so the anti-Catholics have no concern for facts or for representing the full weight of all sides of the argument.  Their interest is only in cementing their bias against a Church they despise.  I would encourage Catholics involved in WP to pull themselves together and settle this thing once and for all.  WP really should not be the playground of bigotry.  Unfortunately, it is.  
Why is it that all reference to the preference for CC in the most authoritative documents of the Church has been forbidden?  Council Documents and over 50 years of papal encyclicals which are the highest authorities among Church documents is uttlerly ignored, which several exceptions over 50 years old are notably highlighted.  There is something at work here that is utterly committed against the TRUTH.  Vaquero100 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vaquero, if you insist on referring to people such as Lima and me as "anti-Catholic", which I find personally offensive, I will be prompted to seek community sanction. Slac speak up! 23:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vaquero, one day the world will pass away, and these matters with it.  Until then, there are graver things that trouble us than this.  Zeal is a virtue only when well-placed.  I agree with the essence of your point, but the problem is small, and overshadowed by much greater woes.  Lose the battle; win the war.  Lostcaesar 23:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How dare you blast your way onto this talk-page, ranting wild-eyed about "hate and untruth," viciously denouncing "wicked" people who "despise" the Church, and then tell me and others to "deal with it".  The bilious name-calling is emanating only from one partisan in this debate.  Wholly unbecoming behaviour from a man of the cloth. Slac speak up! 03:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me say that I think Vaquero, despite swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, is right.  Let me briefly articulate an argument.  The Church far more frequently, and historically, calls itself the Catholic Church.  The only reason not to use that name is that some other groups think that they are the real Catholic Church, or at the least that the RCC isn't the real CC (this argument is subtly applied whenever the word "denomination" is used).  But look these wikipedia pages: Churches of Christ, United Church of Christ, and Church of God.  Obviously, other Christian communities consider themselves the Church of God, and the RCC likewise calls itself the Church of Christ, i.e. the Church that Christ founded.  But those pages are not changed to a disembogues page.  Yes, some Christian groups do not think the Catholic Church is really the Catholic Church, and they likewise don't think that the Church of Christ is the Church of Christ; but if one types in the latter it directs to that page (even at the expense of the "United" Church of Christ), and one must follow a dab header there to get to the theological concept of "Church of Christ".  Now, all that said, I think this is a point not worth throwing things over, and I don't think someone can object to the title Roman Catholic — indeed I'm rather proud of that adj. myself (there is something universal about the word "roman" as well).  But, if we just look at the argument, I think Vaquero has a reason to be in angst.  Lostcaesar 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Catholics Still In Charge Here

message: ...so will all the ecclesioloigically ill-informed malcontents please stop contributing. Particularly whoever keeps inserting the usage of Roman Catholic as a reference to the whole Catholic Church, and claiming that the Holy See never uses Catholic CHurch for reference to the whole. In fact, the opposite is true. So please, simply wanting it to be and voting that way does not change the facts.  
The only time you will find "Roman Catholic" used to refer to the whole Catholic Church is in informal context, or in ecumenical dialogues where the non-Catholic partner is either dialoguing directly with the Latin Rite church, or prefers use of "Roman Catholic". This isn't advanced ecclesiology either, its the pre-reading to 101. I have two degrees in this field, including one from a pontifical institute, so i feel confident i know this better than someone who gets their formation from EWTN's Q&A page or some blog somewhere. The name of the Church is Catholic; Roman refers generally and exclusively to the Latin Rite. But if you want to get real technical, "Roman Catholic" can refer only to the diocese or province of Rome... It is not used officially for the universal church, certainly not since Vatican II. 
Protoclete 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Church is not a democracy...

message: I have seen them in pictures of the cruxifiction of Jesus and I am wondering what they stand for and what language.
:Perhaps you're thinking of INRI? TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.S.R.I. What do these letters stand for? 

message: Just reverted a bit from the page due to grammatical issues (claims is an Intransitive verb and so cannot take a direct object (its institution). The verb traces communicates that this is a claim of the Catholic Church, but also conveys the idea that this claim is more or less documented (not necessarily definitive). 
Reverted bit follows: 
The Catholic Church claims its institution to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, in particular Saint Peter, the leader of the Apostles, who is regarded as the first Pope. (called the Petrine Theory) Freder1ck 03:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traces