This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catholic (disambiguation) page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
The four following sections all have to do with long settled matters. In most cases, the concern is prosey content not admissible under the navigational function of Dab pages (in the first case, language since removed); the remaining case was one user objecting to use of "Othodox", which has been removed without apparent objection. Those sections could be archived from most talk pages; i trust there will be no objection to my rendering them easier to skip over via the following box markup.
--
Jerzy•
t
01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"distinguishing it from the beliefs of other Christian denominations." doesn't add anything to the meaning of the sentence ending "that church".
For example, Catholicism can refer to the beliefs of the
Roman Catholic Church in distinction to
Judaism. As a theological term it is not limited its distinction to other
Christian
demoninations as the current wording of the sentence states.
--
patsw 02:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Some restrict the meaning to the traditions and theology of the Latin rite component of that Church or communion." is vague. I don't know of any who make this restriction, and I think the author of such a statement is obligated to identify them.
I'd also don't know what "component" is doing there. The Church itself defines a " Latin rite" but not a "Latin rite component". Also, the Latin rite doesn't define a theology distinct to that rite.
The former text is superior in being specific and its accuracy was not disputed.
--
patsw 02:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If the early Christian Church described itself as the Orthodox Church before identifying itself as the the Catholic Church, I think that would should be cited and included here. I'd be surprised but it would be significant to mention.
--[User:Patsw|patsw]] 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Now what is the meaning of this? Should we define things as reported by history or disproved them by history.
If the history is admittedly dominant *yet, not specified, suspiciously?* then why is this even mentioned.
Clearly, the answer is simply undeniable, if you look at it purely historically. If the earliest of Church Fathers state from the 1st century "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC Church." (Ignatius of Antioch[30-107AD], letter to Smyraeans Chapter VIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html ) and ALL those Church Fathers had the same basic beliefs which included baptism by holy water, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a hierarchal church run by bishops, and bound by the church in Rome all exclusive characteristics of the present day Catholic Church then it MUST be the SAME Catholic Church we see today!(not the otherwise extrinsically named "Roman" Catholic Church).
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.3.74.108 (
talk) 11:36 & 12:09(3 spelling corrections), 22 February 2006 and by
Micael (
talk) 12:43, 22 February 2006 (Consult page history for details.)
Most, perhaps all, of the preceding discussion seems aimed at overcoming others' perceived claims of priority or inclusion of a particular Christian doctrine. The solution to such conflicts is not settling those claims, but rather what
MoSDab requires: just enuf information to guide each user to the article that they came looking for. (The relevant article is the place for the various PoVs to be not only mentioned, but discussed at length.)
AFAI can see, the only reasonable addition (to any existing entry) that should be considered would to clarify the breadth of the churches claiming Western-Christian apostolic succession as including e.g. (and solely to indicate the breadth)
Lutheran churches, and the
Autonomous particular churches of (eastern rites?).
--
Jerzy•
t
01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catholic (disambiguation) page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
The four following sections all have to do with long settled matters. In most cases, the concern is prosey content not admissible under the navigational function of Dab pages (in the first case, language since removed); the remaining case was one user objecting to use of "Othodox", which has been removed without apparent objection. Those sections could be archived from most talk pages; i trust there will be no objection to my rendering them easier to skip over via the following box markup.
--
Jerzy•
t
01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"distinguishing it from the beliefs of other Christian denominations." doesn't add anything to the meaning of the sentence ending "that church".
For example, Catholicism can refer to the beliefs of the
Roman Catholic Church in distinction to
Judaism. As a theological term it is not limited its distinction to other
Christian
demoninations as the current wording of the sentence states.
--
patsw 02:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Some restrict the meaning to the traditions and theology of the Latin rite component of that Church or communion." is vague. I don't know of any who make this restriction, and I think the author of such a statement is obligated to identify them.
I'd also don't know what "component" is doing there. The Church itself defines a " Latin rite" but not a "Latin rite component". Also, the Latin rite doesn't define a theology distinct to that rite.
The former text is superior in being specific and its accuracy was not disputed.
--
patsw 02:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If the early Christian Church described itself as the Orthodox Church before identifying itself as the the Catholic Church, I think that would should be cited and included here. I'd be surprised but it would be significant to mention.
--[User:Patsw|patsw]] 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Now what is the meaning of this? Should we define things as reported by history or disproved them by history.
If the history is admittedly dominant *yet, not specified, suspiciously?* then why is this even mentioned.
Clearly, the answer is simply undeniable, if you look at it purely historically. If the earliest of Church Fathers state from the 1st century "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC Church." (Ignatius of Antioch[30-107AD], letter to Smyraeans Chapter VIII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html ) and ALL those Church Fathers had the same basic beliefs which included baptism by holy water, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a hierarchal church run by bishops, and bound by the church in Rome all exclusive characteristics of the present day Catholic Church then it MUST be the SAME Catholic Church we see today!(not the otherwise extrinsically named "Roman" Catholic Church).
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.3.74.108 (
talk) 11:36 & 12:09(3 spelling corrections), 22 February 2006 and by
Micael (
talk) 12:43, 22 February 2006 (Consult page history for details.)
Most, perhaps all, of the preceding discussion seems aimed at overcoming others' perceived claims of priority or inclusion of a particular Christian doctrine. The solution to such conflicts is not settling those claims, but rather what
MoSDab requires: just enuf information to guide each user to the article that they came looking for. (The relevant article is the place for the various PoVs to be not only mentioned, but discussed at length.)
AFAI can see, the only reasonable addition (to any existing entry) that should be considered would to clarify the breadth of the churches claiming Western-Christian apostolic succession as including e.g. (and solely to indicate the breadth)
Lutheran churches, and the
Autonomous particular churches of (eastern rites?).
--
Jerzy•
t
01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)