Talk:Catholic Church/Name

message: ===Fishhead64===
I endorse the proposal made by Richardshusr that articles specifically dealing with aspects of the Roman Catholic Church be titled “Roman Catholic Church and x," with term “Roman Catholic Church” appearing at the first mention in the article, and acceptance of the use of the term “Catholic Church” subsequently.  My rationale for this position is as follows:
#Ambiguity:I accept that the institution headed by the Bishop of Rome refers to itself as the “Catholic Church,” and that it is popularly known as such.  However, as the articles Catholicism, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and Catholic Church (disambiguation) demonstrate, this term is by no means unambiguous.  The ambiguity has its origin in sectarian differences over the definition. No one claims that the denomination recognising papal supremacy isn't Catholic - all the modifier "Roman" does is identify the institution as consisting of Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Self-definition does not exhaust all available definitions, and if allowed to prevail it will exert a POV that denies the claims of other denominations to be constituent parts of the Catholic Church, as they understand the term to mean.
#Self-identity:  The term “Roman Catholic Church” is, in fact, one used by the institution itself, especially in dialogue with other Catholic denominations (e.g., the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission).  It therefore cannot be legitimately claimed that the term is repugnant to the institution, or somehow does not constitute an element of its self-identity.
#Historicity:  The claim is made that the institution has “always” referred to itself as the Catholic Church, and hence competing claims should not compel the institution to alter its self-identity.  This argument would have greater force if the institution itself didn’t use the modifier Roman Catholic under certain circumstances, as noted above.  In any event, exclusive claims to the title “Catholic” were already negated in the Great Schism – the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox denominations have always referred to themselves as the Catholic Church.  In the English-speaking world, the Reformation likewise introduced a new reality.  Some denominations claimed to be constituents of the Catholic Church, while not recognising the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.  This is not the place to debate what constitutes a definition of “Catholic.”  Suffice to say, if there wasn’t a disagreement about the marks of Catholicism, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
#Minority views:  The claim is made that the designation “Catholic Church” refers to a minority of denominations, whose claims are so fringe that they should not prevail over the claims of the 2-billion strong Roman Communion.  To this, two points must be made:
##Counting the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Anglicans, Old Catholics, Ecumenical Catholics, etc., I would reckon that there are at least half a billion Christians who could lay claim to being members of the Catholic Church.
##And even if there weren’t these numbers, even if one simply wanted to restrict the designation “Catholic Church” to those denominations which explicitly use the term in their title (which, by discounting self-designation, is in itself a pretty blatant POV), those minority claims should not be negated, especially when there is a perfectly acceptable, non-derogatory, unambiguous, widely-known alternative.
#Naming policy:  Although I acknowledge that, in popular parlance, “Catholic Church” is likely used more frequently than “Roman Catholic Church,” for reasons of ambiguity I think the more precise name should pertain.  In accordance with WP naming conventions, the term “Roman Catholic Church” is not “unreasonably ambiguous” – everyone knows what it means, and it can only mean one thing.  I do not object to redirecting “CC and x” to “RCC and x,” provided that a dab heading be placed on articles when appropriate.
Conclusion:  I completely respect the desire of some editors to affirm the unbroken claims of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome.  Nobody wants to undermine the Roman Communion's claim to being a Catholic Church, merely to challenge its exclusive proprietary claim to being the Catholic Church, bar others - as though their self-definitions were of no consequence, or were false, or were mistaken or misleading in some way.
The reality is that pluralism exists and therefore creates ambiguity.  The reality is that there is more than one group that self-identifies as the Catholic Church, a fact recognised even by the Roman Communion by concessions made in its self-designation.
Likewise, WP also needs to establish a reasonable way of acknowledging diverse claims and ambiguous definitions, regardless of what individual editors may think of their legitimacy. The title "Roman Catholic Church" represents a compromise position, one that admittedly may not make everyone happy, but one that acknowledges a real, post-Reformation-world situation - namely that there exists a Catholic Church in communion with Rome, and Catholic Churches (as they identify themselves) who are not.
There is a problem, but it is easily soluble. The term Roman Catholic Church is unambiguous, it is one understood by everyone, it recognises the existence of other traditions' claims to being Catholic, and it is part of the Roman Communion's own self-identity.  As such, it addresses all possible problems and objections, and is a solution which is truly neutral. Fishhead64 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, but I am opposed to the term CC being changed to RCC in the rest of the article. Why is the opposition exclusive to “the Catholic Church”, and not the use of “the Churh”?  The same arguments apply as catholic churches are a subset of the larger churches set. Highlighting in the initial paragraph the controversy surrounding the term "catholic" and how its use responds to "simplicity and clarity" is sufficient. We may also want to mention the COMMON USE of the term "catholics", along with terms like, orthodox, evangelical, or anglican. This common use is alien to the arguments mentioned in the controversy and reflects the general wisdom and practicality in spoken language.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 19:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals and arguments by involved editors

message: I endorse the proposal made by Richardshusr that articles specifically dealing with aspects of the Roman Catholic Church be titled “Roman Catholic Church and x," with term “Roman Catholic Church” appearing at the first mention in the article, and acceptance of the use of the term “Catholic Church” subsequently.  My rationale for this position is as follows:
#Ambiguity:I accept that the institution headed by the Bishop of Rome refers to itself as the “Catholic Church,” and that it is popularly known as such.  However, as the articles Catholicism, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and Catholic Church (disambiguation) demonstrate, this term is by no means unambiguous.  The ambiguity has its origin in sectarian differences over the definition. No one claims that the denomination recognising papal supremacy isn't Catholic - all the modifier "Roman" does is identify the institution as consisting of Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Self-definition does not exhaust all available definitions, and if allowed to prevail it will exert a POV that denies the claims of other denominations to be constituent parts of the Catholic Church, as they understand the term to mean.
#Self-identity:  The term “Roman Catholic Church” is, in fact, one used by the institution itself, especially in dialogue with other Catholic denominations (e.g., the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission).  It therefore cannot be legitimately claimed that the term is repugnant to the institution, or somehow does not constitute an element of its self-identity.
#Historicity:  The claim is made that the institution has “always” referred to itself as the Catholic Church, and hence competing claims should not compel the institution to alter its self-identity.  This argument would have greater force if the institution itself didn’t use the modifier Roman Catholic under certain circumstances, as noted above.  In any event, exclusive claims to the title “Catholic” were already negated in the Great Schism – the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox denominations have always referred to themselves as the Catholic Church.  In the English-speaking world, the Reformation likewise introduced a new reality.  Some denominations claimed to be constituents of the Catholic Church, while not recognising the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.  This is not the place to debate what constitutes a definition of “Catholic.”  Suffice to say, if there wasn’t a disagreement about the marks of Catholicism, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
#Minority views:  The claim is made that the designation “Catholic Church” refers to a minority of denominations, whose claims are so fringe that they should not prevail over the claims of the 2-billion strong Roman Communion.  To this, two points must be made:
##Counting the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Anglicans, Old Catholics, Ecumenical Catholics, etc., I would reckon that there are at least half a billion Christians who could lay claim to being members of the Catholic Church.
##And even if there weren’t these numbers, even if one simply wanted to restrict the designation “Catholic Church” to those denominations which explicitly use the term in their title (which, by discounting self-designation, is in itself a pretty blatant POV), those minority claims should not be negated, especially when there is a perfectly acceptable, non-derogatory, unambiguous, widely-known alternative.
#Naming policy:  Although I acknowledge that, in popular parlance, “Catholic Church” is likely used more frequently than “Roman Catholic Church,” for reasons of ambiguity I think the more precise name should pertain.  In accordance with WP naming conventions, the term “Roman Catholic Church” is not “unreasonably ambiguous” – everyone knows what it means, and it can only mean one thing.  I do not object to redirecting “CC and x” to “RCC and x,” provided that a dab heading be placed on articles when appropriate.
Conclusion:  I completely respect the desire of some editors to affirm the unbroken claims of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome.  Nobody wants to undermine the Roman Communion's claim to being a Catholic Church, merely to challenge its exclusive proprietary claim to being the Catholic Church, bar others - as though their self-definitions were of no consequence, or were false, or were mistaken or misleading in some way.
The reality is that pluralism exists and therefore creates ambiguity.  The reality is that there is more than one group that self-identifies as the Catholic Church, a fact recognised even by the Roman Communion by concessions made in its self-designation.
Likewise, WP also needs to establish a reasonable way of acknowledging diverse claims and ambiguous definitions, regardless of what individual editors may think of their legitimacy. The title "Roman Catholic Church" represents a compromise position, one that admittedly may not make everyone happy, but one that acknowledges a real, post-Reformation-world situation - namely that there exists a Catholic Church in communion with Rome, and Catholic Churches (as they identify themselves) who are not.
There is a problem, but it is easily soluble. The term Roman Catholic Church is unambiguous, it is one understood by everyone, it recognises the existence of other traditions' claims to being Catholic, and it is part of the Roman Communion's own self-identity.  As such, it addresses all possible problems and objections, and is a solution which is truly neutral. Fishhead64 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, but I am opposed to the term CC being changed to RCC in the rest of the article. Why is the opposition exclusive to “the Catholic Church”, and not the use of “the Churh”?  The same arguments apply as catholic churches are a subset of the larger churches set. Highlighting in the initial paragraph the controversy surrounding the term "catholic" and how its use responds to "simplicity and clarity" is sufficient. We may also want to mention the COMMON USE of the term "catholics", along with terms like, orthodox, evangelical, or anglican. This common use is alien to the arguments mentioned in the controversy and reflects the general wisdom and practicality in spoken language.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 19:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Fishhead64|Fishhead64]]

message: It seems to me that in most contexts, the term "Catholic Church" can only refer to one entity or group of people, so it's not really ambiguous.  Just to name a few possibilities:  "CC canon law", "CC liturgy", "CC theology", "CC hierarchy", "CC lay apostolate" all seem clear to me.  The only one that might be ambiguous to me is "CC liturgy."  However, if some things like "CC liturgy" is ambiguous, how about creating a dab template to go at the top of all CC articles stating that some view the "Catholic Church" in a wider sense, and pointing to article(s) about that?
Also, if "Catholic Church" is ambiguous and considered POV, why are there not similar arguments over at "Unity Church" and "Apostolic Church"?  Or at "Orthodox Church"?  Those names also seem to make a theological claim that others dispute.  But most people accept them as names that have evolved to a identify a theo-ecological niche.  The exclusivist claims are disputed, not the identifying name. Gimmetrow 16:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, the more people who agree with a POV the more accurate that POV is.  This is fallacious. Fishhead64 18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should not be an argument about which POV is more correct.  The Wikipedia naming convention ("When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use") favors the POV of the group being named without consideration as to whether they are right or wrong. SynKobiety 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity? 

message: This should have a simple, logical resolution.  There is apparently only one entity that uses "Catholic Church" as its name.  The title of the article describing that entity should match its name.  Any other entities having similar names should be listed on a disambiguation page.  The entry for "Church of Christ" demonstrates this approach.  The "Church of Christ" disambiguation page lists other groups that have or have had similar names, and it also links to "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" when defining the theological concept.  I don't see why the treatment of the Catholic Church should be inconsistent with that of the Church of Christ.
SynKobiety 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unambiguous name 

message: Howdy.  Sorry I haven't been around for a while.  After a few weeks on the road, am getting back to the routines...
It seems that a common sense approach to the CC/RCC issue is forming.  It is hard to find new things to say on the topic, but the obvious observations here are 1)that there is only one entity which uses CC as its proper name; 2)Most people understand the term, CC, to refer to that entity; 3)There are ways to accommodate the more ambiguous uses of the term, "cc" by reference to a dab page.
CC really should be the name of the current RCC page and there should be no problem with the ancillary pages titled "CC and X."  
Good to be back.  --Vaquero100 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common sense 

message: :::::It is interesting that Fishhead 64 brings "context" into the discussion.  The claim is made that context invalidates examples showing Anglican use of "Catholic Church" to refer to the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome."  From http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5823&title=Cardinal%20addresses%20bishops :
:::::: "Cardinal Kasper had been invited by the Archbishop (of Canterbury) to share his insights from the Catholic Church at the annual meeting of all serving Church of England bishops..."
:::::This is an Anglican newspaper using the term "Catholic Church" to differentiate the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome" from the Church of England.  In the same article, the Cardinal is quoted:
::::::“Our friends’ problems are our problems too,” arguing that any decision made by the Church of England would affect Anglican-Catholic relations." 
:::::This is a Cardinal of the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome" using the term "Catholic" to distinguish his institution from an Anglican one.  There is no confusion for either party.  This article is precisely the context in which Fishhead64 claims "Catholic" would be ambiguous, and yet it is not.
:::::Fishhead64 identifies examples of the Anglican Church using "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" regarding itself.  These uses only occur in specific contexts, like the examples, which are clearly identifiable as relating to Anglican understanding (and that of bodies derived thereof) of the theological concept of one holy catholic and apostolic church. Outside of that specific context, there really is no ambiguity as to the meaning of "Catholic" or "Catholic Church."  To put this in the context of Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are summarized as, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature".  It goes on to say, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."  And, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists". To assess what readers would recognize "Catholic" to mean, we can see the ways it is used.  Applying 'catholic -"roman catholic" -"orthodox catholic" -"old catholic" -"anglican catholic" -wikipedia' as the search term in Yahoo will return uses of the word "Catholic" without common qualifiers.  When reviewing these unqualified uses of "Catholic", you would have to drill down into the list past the 970th place to find the first use of "Catholic" to refer to anything other than "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome."  Even there the entry refers to a group calling itself "United Catholic," which is not an unqualified use of the word "Catholic".  This certainly appears to be a minimum of ambiguity! In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conflict, the article should be named "Catholic Church", as it would be a purely objective description of what the Catholics call themselves. This is not to say that the Anglican POV is to be ignored.  It must also be noted that it is also referred to as "Roman Catholic Church."  The existing disambiguation page should continue to describe the Anglican and any other understanding of "Catholic Church", just as Fishhead64 noted above.  
Fishhead64, this is a good faith effort to have published Wikipedia naming conventions applied to this article.  Your primary objection has been that "Catholic Church" is ambiguous.  The conventions don't specify that titles be 100% free of ambiguity (if anything truly could be), but specify that article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize and that when naming an article about specific groups we should always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use.  "Catholic Church" best meets this standard as the title for the article describing the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome."  SynKobiety 18:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof that "Catholic Church" is not really ambiguous 

message: This article and a lot of the Catholic content of the Wikipedia is being controlled by editors critical of the Catholic Church and in particular committed to the principles that the Catholic Church cannot be permitted to self-identify, and that critics of the Catholic Church get to determine what is written to identify, define, and describe the Catholic Church.  No other religion, or for that matter, organization, has it own self-identification suppressed in the Wikipedia. patsw 02:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you accuse me of being anti-Catholic! Methinks your views of the Anglican Communion are not unclouded by bias. Fishhead64 05:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If I had ever made an anti-Roman Catholic remark the same way you casually denigrate churches of the Anglican Communion, I wonder what you'd say...and feel inside. Fishhead64 17:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't Vanquero100's biased definition or Fishhead64's biased definition of the Catholic Church that should be in the article, but the Catholic Church's own definition, the self-definition, which should be in the article. patsw 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Identification: prohibited 

message: I'd urge all editors to please wait for a conclusion to be made before editing articles regarding this naming controversy. This is specifically addressing  who has sidestepped this process to purge the word "Roman" from wikilinks and article titles. If the consensus is reached that RCC is the name wikipedia should use, then we need to use that across the board. The the consensus is reached that CC is the name to be used, then we use that across the board. If we reach some compromise then we use both under the provisions we set forth. But until we reach a decision, it seems to me to be rogue editing to avoid this discussion and change articles to whatever naming convesion we personally favor. Maybe I was too bold in doing this, but I urge everyone to revert any edits of this nature that are going on while an open discussion is still underway. Everyone, please respect the current policy, and this process (which has yet to reach a consensus).--Andrew c 18:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing behavior 

message: Since Fishhead64's ambiquity objection was addressed almost three weeks ago, there has been no discussion.  Can we assume assent? SynKobiety 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally that would be the proper choice, but from discussions on other pages (for example the discussion on WP:AN/I), it is clear that no one assents -- to anything proposed here. I suggest all parties refrain from renaming articles until a consensus on this issue is found. -- llywrch 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, don't rewrite history:  The Catholic Church identifies itself as the Catholic Church and not the Roman Catholic Church.  A cabal has locked in "Roman Catholic" in the Wikipedia and blocks self-identification of the Catholic Church. That's my opinion, submitted to some future consensus.   It also is certainly offensive and pejorative to this Catholic to define the Catholic Church as the entity under the primacy etc. ...  It is analogous to having the state of Israel defined as the entity which is under Zionism. patsw 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to itself using both terms - I'm not going to again cite the instances for you, which you have in the past failed to acknowledge.  It is certainly offensive and pejorative to this Catholic to have members of one Communion appropriate for themselves exclusive use of a name which is equally my baptismal birthright. Fishhead64 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is This Issue Settled? 

message: I give you the following quote by the Holy Father. 
:This meeting calls to mind that day in 1982 when I journeyed to Canterbury at the invitation of Archbishop Runcie. It was then that this Commission was constituted with a mandate to examine all those things which stand in the way of fuller communion between Roman Catholics and Anglicans.
If the pope can refer to "Roman Catholics" for clarity, so can we.--SarekOfVulcan 06:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly diplomatic language. If you will look at this link, CC vs. RCC this objection is clearly answered.  There is no evidence of the of an authoritative document of the Catholic Church which ever uses "Roman Catholic Church" as the name of the institution.  Such occurances as you mention above are a matter of diplomatic currency and bear no weight.  The Catholic Church has a very precise ranking of its communications by authority such communications as you refer to do not even make the list.  Please use authoritative Catholic Church documents if you are going to make arguments about the Catholic Church.   Vaquero100 01:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that the Pope isn't an authoritative source?--SarekOfVulcan 02:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pope is allowed to be 'diplomatic', but wikipedia can't bother with any of that PC nonsense, because self-identity trumps. Wait... if the pope self-identifies his Church as being "Roman" when addressing non-catholics, shouldn't we also use the term he used when address non-Catholics here at wikipedia? Now I'm all confused. (with my tongue in my cheek, no less)--Andrew c 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we can agree that Pope John Paul II ranks any of the editors here, right? 

message: Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. "Dominus Jesus" On the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church
* If the true, proper, and official name of the Catholic Church which it uses to identify itself were  Roman Catholic Church wouldn't it appear here?
* If the true, proper, and official name of the Catholic Church which it uses to identify itself were  Roman Catholic Church what accounts for its omission here? patsw 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to disambiguity in this example. Look at any of the links above where the intended audience isn't Catholic, such as the Anglo-Roman relations stuff. Why on earth do they use the term "Roman" in all those documents, if it doesn't help disambiguity? In fact, if the true, proper, and official name of the church in question is in fact the "Catholic Church" why use "Roman" at all on any document? This is my biggest hurdle right now. If the church in question feels the need to qualify their name with "Roman" when addressing a non-Catholic audience, we should keep in mind that wikipedia is not specifically addressing a Catholic audience. As for the Google, UN, NATO, IMF, and other enyclopedia tests, we find both in use, but CC seems to be a bit more dominant than RCC so we'd need a pretty compelling case to go with the minority reading.--Andrew c 16:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have elsewhere maintained that English-speaking people would recognise "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" pretty much equally, but that "Roman Catholic" is to be preferred since it clearly refers to one specific entity - the communion under the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.  In this sense, "Roman Catholic" seems to qualify as fulfilling the principal rule you cite of "common recognisability, lack of ambiguity, and ease of linking" to a greater degree than "Catholic Church," In other words, "Roman Catholic" is as recognisable, less ambiguous, and more easy to link (since it refers to just one thing) than "Catholic." Fishhead64 16:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, "Roman Catholic" itself has at least 3 meanings. In relation specifically to organization and hierarchy, I find "Catholic Church" to be at least equally recognizeable, less ambiguous, shorter and easier to link. Gimmetrow 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As has been pointed out before, other churches also call themselves the Catholic Church, and the tem is used by other Christian denominations as well.  Roman Catholic Church is unambiguous and inoffensive (with the possible exception of a very small number of people who are absolutely determined to take offence).  No RC I have ever known has ever had any problem at all with being identified as a Roman Catholic.  On the other hand, asserting that Catholic Church means Roman Catholic Church would be offensive to many, and cause needless ambiguity.  I know your user page says you came to Wikipedia with the express aim of "righting" this "wrong", but Wikipedia is not the place to fight what is essentially an outside battle.  Disputes over who is and is not the true "holy Catholic and Apsotolic Church" have probably been going on since AD34 and I comfortably predict they will still be going on long after you and I are six feet under. Just zis Guy you know? 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, what other churches call themselves The Catholic Church? I hear this claim over and over, and I was seriously buying into it, but I am now questioning that claim. I know there are a number of churches that have "Catholic" in their name, but it is always modified with something like "Old" or "Polish National" etc. I know the nicene creed mentions the "catholic church", therefore, almost every Christian denomination considers themselves included in that group, but on the other hand not a single church that I can think of calls themselves "The Catholic Church" (well, besides the RCC). I know in my community, if you say you went to a catholic school, you are talking about the RCC. Likewise, it is always understood that if someone is "Catholic" they are part of the RCC. However, I was giving these other claims the benefit of the doubt that perhaps in other parts of the world the term "Catholic" is more ambiguous. So, if I am still to fight for a more diverse world view, and fight my personal ethnocentrism, I would like to know specifically what other churches identify as The Catholic Church. (and just curious, would Vaquero100, SynKobiety, or Patsw be opposed to an article named The Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church. To me, the added capitalization makes it clear that it isn't a lowercase catholic Church as discussed in the creeds, or some more ambiguous use of the term.) On the other hand, I am not convinced that "Roman" is entirely inappropriate either. It adds to disambiguity. It is a very common term. It is used by the church "diplomatically" when addressing non-Catholic audiences (which wikipedia is). --Andrew c 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to know this also.  Here in England, if I walk into an Anglican church and ask if this is a "Catholic Church", I will surely be told "no, Saint Mary's is down the street".  And I think calling the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church causes confusion over Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (which are Catholic, i.e. Roman Catholic - in communion with the Bishop of Rome).  Shall we call these "Roman Catholic Eastern Rite Catholic Churches"? I mean - huh!? Lostcaesar 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Catholic Church names itself the Catholic Church

message: TSP, I hate to tell you this but you did not read far enough down the page. Please look at this section:  WP:NCON#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms.   WP is very, very clear that the preferred name is to be used for self-identifying entities.  It is also clear that the NPOV policy is contextualized in these cases.  WP conventions indicate that it is not POV to "report" self identifying entities by their preferred name regardless of how others feel about that name. 
TSP, you have been away for a long time. It is good to see you back.  I've done a lot of research on this question from the point of view of WP policy and conventions.  It is all written up here:  CC vs. RCC.  You might want to look it over.
Andrew c, for those familiar with Vatican documents several points are clear in regard to your message above.  "Why on earth do they use the term "Roman" in all those documents." I'll forgive the "they" in your comments. First, compared to the enormous volumes of documents published by the Holy See, these several mentions are infinitessimally few.  Furthermore, all of these instances are examples of diplomatic messages and communiqués which employ a very defferential language in reference to the adressees.  The Holy See has a very elaborate hierarchy of communications with explicit levels of authority.  Diplomatic messages are of the lowest level of authority and are considered virtually worthless for determining doctrine or teaching or anything official.  On the contrary, those documents of the highest authority are  Ecumenical Council, Motu Proprio, Encyclical and Apostolic Constitution documents.  As you will see if you look over CC vs. RCC, there have been only five references to "Roman Catholic Church" in all the Church's most authoritative documents of the last 250 years.  That is longer than the US has been a nation!  The last occurance was 56 years ago.  Looking at Consiliar documents alone, which are the highest form of teaching in the Catholic Church, there is not one instance of such wording in 2000 years of history and 21 ecumenical councils.  That to me is very convincing.  I have asked you many times before to look over that page of arguments and you continue to come up with arguments and questions which are clearly addressed there. Would you please take a couple of minutes and look it over?  Compared to all the time you have put into this issue already, it would not take long to read it.  This might save us all a lot of ink.
And, Fishhead, yikes.  The Anglican idea of "Catholic Church" has no teaching, no canon law, no visible head, no systematic theology.  It has a mish-mash of conficting ideas, claims, teachings and organizations, but it is not a real entity.  It is an idea without a content.  That is why no one except a few Anglican ministers in Britain and an Archbishop of Canterbury ever reference it.  If it shows up on Google, it is so far down the list that its obscurity warrents it little more than a mention on WP.  WP is intended for the common reader, not the specialist.  The common reader would never look up "Catholic Church" to find information on anything but the ancient Catholic Church centered on Rome.  You also should take a moment to look over this page:  CC vs. RCC because you really dont have an argument. Opinion on WP is beginning to change because the evidence in favor of the Catholic Church's name is utterly and completely overwhelming.  Furthermore, it is a serious injustice to single out the Catholic Church as the one entity which WP excepts from its very clear naming policy.  To single out one institution in such a way is to reveal a bias which WP cannot afford to harbor.  The scant evidence you provide for another use is so isolated and confined in actual use that it is really laughable that anyone would find Catholic Church confusing.  Your Church has been working hard for 450 years to force the Catholic Church to change its name.  It hasn't happened and it wont happen.  And WP policy is to recognize an institution by its own preferred name.   Vaquero100 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother.  The argument is dead long since, this is the compromise solution, learn to live with it.  Less angst, in the end. Just zis Guy you know? 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answering objections

message: There are other (small, schismatic) Catholic groups, such as Old Catholics and the Polish National Catholic Church, as well asConclavists such as the true Catholic Church and the Palmarian Catholic Church, that are out of communion with Rome. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonroman Catholic Churches