Talk:Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant

message: I have edited the following quote: "In systems of theology which reject the doctrine of Purgatory, such as Lutheranism,[3] and most other Protestant denominations, the Churches Militant and Triumphant are together known as the two states of the Church." I've done this because I'm not aware of any Protestant denomination that holds to the doctrine of Purgatory. Even those claiming that some Protestants do believe it don't give any examples of denominations believing it (or even churches). And others give examples of High Anglicans or High Lutherans. But again, these are not denominations. So anyway, I've changed it. If you know of a Protestant denomination that formally holds to this doctrine, I'm happy to be corrected. Tojasonharris (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do any Protestant denominations believe in purgatory? 

message: This article seems to be just defining a term which in part or in total describes the "Christian Church". Any reason not to just consider this a "dictionary entry" (i.e. inappropriate) and merge it into Christian Church (or some other article)? I agree that there is a significance to the term in Christianity but it's not clear why the term has an article (i.e. it is not clear that the "thing" it describes is different in some important way from the "thing" described elsewhere).
--Mcorazao 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary entry? 

message: Only the more voluminous dictionaries would have entries for these terms and generally not together.  This article discusses the relationship between the two phrases, provides background information and clarifies a concept that would be confusing to the modern observer.  This is precisely what people come to wikipedia for.  If it got merged into the text of a larger article, there runs the risk of it being edited out to improve the quality of the other article.  I'm not swayed by the reasons presented that it should be deleted or merged.  I arrived here looking for precisely the information contained in the article.  It's a pretty good article, IMHO. 70.51.52.159 04:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good article on its own 

message: This article restricts the terms of Church division to the RC church.  However, this language is also used elsewhere.  For example, the 1552 BCP (Church of England) (but not the earlier, more tolerant-of-Catholic 1549) refers to "Church militant" after the poor-offering (to make the distinction between the living members (who are then prayed for) and the rest (who are not, and cannot, be prayed for) ).  Also, there is no discussion of the usage history of these terms (the reason of my searching for this article).  Tobermory (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church militant 

message: The article characterizes Protestants as believing that purification is completed in a "twinkling of an eye", referring to 1 Cor 15:52, but this verse is referring to the resurrection of the body.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.242.120 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the twinkling of an eye 

message: I think this article should be moved to Church Universal.  That is the first bold name used in the article. — Reinyday, 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, that's a redirect to this article, which I think has an awful title, but good content. (I added the link to Reinyday's comment) Huw Powell (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I recommend the order of the three divisions be changed to reflect the natural progression through time:
1. Church Militant
2. Church Suffering
3. Church Triumphant
Atticusfinch80 (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering of Terms 

message: Two of the image links are dead links Kenfree (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Church militant and church triumphant. 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/20070927003601/http://biblia.com/images/purgatory-mass.gif to http://biblia.com/images/purgatory-mass.gif
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 11:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shame on you. You ask for consensus, are rebuffed, and then move the page anyway? Chris Troutman (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The RM wasn't about the target title—notice I didn't move it to "Three states of the church"??  One voting user had made suggestions similar to the target, so I BOLDed it.  Want to revert it?  Go ahead.  Kind of confused why you haven't availed yourself of that yet—it was the point of calling it a bold move.  Sheesh.  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  | talk | contribs) 18:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: you ignore a reasonable request for sources to back up your extraordinary claim that Purgatory is "never addressed", and then you have the gall show up again in time to "shame on you" me?  Really?  That's shameful if I've ever seen it.  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  | talk | contribs) 18:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no onus on me to provide facts to back up my assertions. I can make my !vote however I please. My issue is that the discussion closed with no consensus to move and you moved it anyway, pretty much expressing contempt for both the aggregate and Wikipedia policy. I don't see a point in introducing you to WP:BRD as you've shown that you disregard discussion, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion did not substantially address the target title.  There was "no consensus" on the nominated title.  One editor named something similar to the target as a suggestion; it was never "discussed".  I BOLD-took that suggestion.  "Showing contempt" would have been proceeding with the nominated move even though it clearly failed.  I didn't do that; I moved it to the alternate suggestion and, by citing BOLD in my move edit summary, opened the door wide open to it being reverted in good faith.  If you feel so strongly, just do it already.  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  | talk | contribs) 23:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're right, you can make your vote however you wish.  But since WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:VOTE, no one (including little old me) has to take you seriously unless you back up your vote with a reason, and sources when your claim is as extraordinary as it was.  (Purgatory is never addressed?  Really?  Really??)  And frankly, not responding to a request for some sources, but then coming back to criticize, is just plain rude if nothing else.  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  | talk | contribs) 23:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving against consensus 

message: As I've explained in the section above, I WP:BOLD moved this page to Church Militant, Church Penitent, and Church Triumphant, not against consensus, but without seeking it beforehand.  I'm about to BOLD move it again to a more WP:CONCISE version: "Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant".  Now, since these are BOLD moves, anyone may revert them and begin discussion, all without anyone's feelings getting hurt or bureaucratic machines of punishment being initiated.  If such discussion needs to happen, please do it here.  Should the new title stay, or should it be changed to something else?  Keep in mind that it would be incredibly un-NPOV to omit reference to Church Penitent from the title, since it's both in the article and not, as some have fantastically alleged, unique to the Catholic Church (see the old RM for Three states of the church for my reasoning on that; sources to contradict me have yet to be provided).  Happy editing, everyone.  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  | talk | contribs) 03:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. The new name of the article is fine. It's to the point.  Majoreditor (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Support the current Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant title.  I think it is good, decidedly better than my 12:52, 19 June 2016 suggestion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Oppose This is beginning to annoy me. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you just annoyed that WP:BOLD is a thing, or do you have a substantive complaint about the name?  Jujutsuan (Please notify with  talk | contribs) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant. 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/20140906031754/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_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) 07:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article is completely missing a section on the Orthodox perspective on this teaching. This should be corrected.
130.45.24.168 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox perspective.