This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 |
Is it against MOS guidelines to refer to the Church as "she"? This is how she refers to herself but I am unsure if it would comply with Wikipedia standards. I reverted a recent edit by Hazhk in this regard, he changed "she" (referring to the Church) to "the papacy" but should it actually read "it" instead? Elizium23 ( talk) 02:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The Universal Catholic Church is made up of 23 autonomous Churches, the Roman Catholic Church ( Latin Catholic) being the largest, with 22 other Eastern Churches in Communion with it (see Eastern Catholic Churches). Therefore the first title of the article "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church" is erroneous. It would be more appropriate to write "Catholic Church is a Communion of 23 Churches, the largest of which being the Roman Catholic Church." Julianhayda ( talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Julianhayda 6:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine, I'll give it to you that most members of the Latin Church are unaware of what that term means, and as such usage varies. But since there is disagreement (possibly due to ignorance), why even have it in the very first line of the article? Wouldn't it be beneficial for most Catholics to know that there are 23 Catholic Churches, and perhaps the usage of that term does not apply to everybody? Are you suggesting that institutions such as the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, the Pontifical Oriental Institute, St. Basil Seminary, and the Ukrainian Catholic University which insist on their non-Romaness, all-the-while recognizing the Pope of Rome as the successor of Peter, have no idea what they're talking about? How about the first line of the Eastern Catholic Code of Canons, which states that the Eastern Churches are separate from the Latin Church? "Canon 1 - The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise." [6] Is not Latin and Roman synonymous? I know there's a consensus on this on the Roman Catholic (term) talk page. Julianhayda ( talk) 22:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Would you be able to provide a link to the archives? Like I said, I have known my entire life, from my studies, articles, books, my father, family friends (among which, bishops and professors), etc., that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonymous, and I have provided at least five links above to demonstrate that and another twenty if you'd like. I will use an example. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was signed into union with the Roman See at the Union of Brest in 1596. The text of the union [7] in the opening line is described as "Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church." That's **Union, not acquisition. Now, when an institution, ecclesial or civil, enters into a union, say, the European Union; simply because France recognizes Belgium as an ally, there exist no borders between the two countries, the countries coexist with different cultures and different governments, yet the union's capital is in Brussels does not mean that every Frenchman is automatically Belgian. I see no difference in this case. Julianhayda ( talk) 00:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just because a custom is common and may be found in some publications doesn't make it correct. Although it is a common custom for Eastern Catholics to refer to the Latin Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" it is still an incorrect use regardless of who does it ~ even eminent Eastern Catholic bishops. Instead of calling them "Roman Catholics" they should correctly either call them Latin Catholics or Latin Rite Catholics or even Western Catholics (although many Anglicans and others also claim this description).
Anglicanus (
talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
When I come home, I will change the signage in front of my church, remove the "Ukrainian-Greek" from its title, and just wait for "Latin" Catholics to walk in and say, "wait a minute, this isn't a ''real Catholic Church," as has happened in the past. Julianhayda ( talk) 04:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Why there is nothing about the Edict of Thessalonica? It was essential for the establishment of the State Chruch of the Roman Empire. This edict of 380 AC made the Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and was the beginning of the Roman State Church.
"We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches." Edict of Thessalonica, by Roman Emperors
--
178.190.181.180 (
talk) 21:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I am a relatively new Wikipedian, I have not seen the need to edit a locked page before, but there was a lot that happened in this missing period. What is the process of editing a locked article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Name Omitted ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Between the inquisitions and crusades innumerable innocent people have lost their lives under the authority of the Catholic Church. Why is Wikipedia so biased in not stating directly numbers of those whom have died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.113.128 ( talk) 06:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this article the first sentence states that RC population is 1.2 billion and there is a citation. The citation states that it is 1.214 MILLION. The word 'million' in the source needs to be changed to 'billion.'
67.168.147.85 ( talk) 19:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under membership statistics article states number of Catholics as 1,214 million. True enough, but it sure is confusing. Using a the term "thousand million" to refer to a billion is weird. Thanks for considering change. 74.192.32.24 ( talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. As I understand it, "thousand million" is still sometimes used to express the figure 1,000,000,000 in
certain English-speaking countries, with the word "billion" reserved for 1,000,000,000,000 (aka a trillion). I think that this usage is now uncommon (see
Long and short scales), but I'd like there to be consensus before making the change. The
manual of style doesn't seem to explicitly deprecate "thousand million", so there should be plenty of wiggle room on this.
Rivertorch (
talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Most material I added was originally removed in June 2011. The original can be found here for reference: Talk:Catholic_Church/Old_history_section_(June_2011). -- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#List of Roman Catholic XXX. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the desire to word the dogma of Mary, Mother of God including the word "divine". This is how it is attested in many WP:RS: http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/mariandogmas.html , http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/ , and even the Wikipedia article Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The wording typically goes "Divine Motherhood" so if we could work that in without being redundant to "Mother of God" it would be great. Please do not delete "divine" from the wording because that was settled in ancient times by the Council of Ephesus. Elizium23 ( talk) 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The term "divine motherhood" is an ambiguous concept. It depends on a person on how to understand it regardless of being a Catholic or not. It can either refer to "being a mother to a divine being" or an "aspect of a divine being as a mother." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.32.219 ( talk) 12:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The current number of Catholics in the article is sourced to http://www.catholicculture.org/, which promotes itself as being "dedicated to providing accurate world news, written from a distinctively Catholic perspective". The particular article in question says the figures are "according to the Vatican’s latest statistics."
Could these sources be any less independent?
Surely we can do better than that. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
To my sensibilities (such as they are) the opening sentence is unecessarily long, complicated and grammatically awkward. Can I suggest a revision into two separate sentences along the lines of:
"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church. With a (current) membership estimated at 1.2 billion this makes it the world's second largest religious body after Sunni Islam."
Any thoughts and comments about this? Anglicanus ( talk) 06:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for people's comments. As there does not appear to be any objections to the principle of revising the opening I would like to propose the following two possibilities:
1. "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church. With a current membership estimated at 1.2 billion, it is also the world's second largest religious body after Sunni Islam."
or
2. "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church. It is also the world's second largest religious body after Sunni Islam, with a current membership estimated at 1.2 billion."
Please indicate whether you prefer either No. 1 or No. 2 and make any suggested wording or punctuation changes.
Thanks, Anglicanus ( talk) 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why the reference to Sunni Islam has been added. As others have said, it is highly debateable that Sunni Islam - as opposed to the more "Catholic" Shia Islam - can be called a "religious body" any more than Protestantism can, and even if it could the comparison is surely undue for the opening paragraph of the lead. Haldraper ( talk) 09:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I take issue with the sentence, "There are a variety of doctrinal and theological emphases within the Catholic Church,[11] including the Eastern Catholic Churches and religious communities such as the Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans." Source: Colin Gunton. "Christianity among the Religions in the Encyclopedia of Religion" I think this sentence is confusing because it might make someone think that "Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans" are doctrinally different. Actually, that is not true. There is a difference in how they respond to the Gospel message, but that is not a difference in "theological emphases" either. Franciscans are somewhat mystics that focus their ministry on the poor; Dominicans are theologians, while Jesuits are more pragmatics. Actually, none of the religious orders have different theology. They are all supposed to be faithful to the Magisterium. Differences may exist among members, but that is not the official position of the order. If they teach something too far out of line, members can be disciplined. For example, the Vatican issued a statement denouncing some of the writings by Tony DeMello, a Jesuit. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980624_demello_en.html I'm not sure how to fix this paragraph. Perhaps that sentence should delete the part about "Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans." They are only three of many Catholic religious orders. See http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/xrel.html. Religious orders are celebate groups of men or women that are not part of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. They are diffences in how to minister to the Body of Christ. I didn't make any changes to the article. BettyG ( talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Bettyg51
regarding the inclusion of "Christian denominational families" Catholicism never concedes to being just one member of a multitude of sects. "Denominationalism" (for lack of a better word) is a Protestant concept purposely embraced and utilized to undermine the one reality of One Lord, one FAITH, one baptism and hence one visible Church. When will Catholicism be recorded in non-Protestant terms via wiki?
Isn't it "the oldest continuously operating institution in the world?" It sounds a bit less ambiguous if worded that way
23haveblue ( talk) 16:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The article says: "which caused Urban to launch the First Crusade aimed at aiding the Byzantine Empire and returning the Holy Land to Christian control" That's not valid. Orthodox people were slaughtered that time. They were considered "schismatical" & "Heretics" and that "they should wash their sins with their blood".
In the history chapter: You also say nothing about the start of the "Catholic" Arianlike heresy, which started from Charlemagne. You hide again your false trinitarian dogmas(Filoque) on the theological chapter. This is part of your history made from Germans, not Romans. You broke your catholicity with "Holy Inquisition", where totalitarianism rose. Thank you for your attention. I hope you'll answer me soon. [user:uknown]
I think you misunderstood me. I don't doubt the sources. I say that these that i've written above are not written but they're an integral part of Catholic Church history. So they should be written. The article doesn't even mention those facts above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.20.157 ( talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that Filoque should be written and in this article, not only in the article of "Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences". Since Catholicism believes in another Trinity than the one believed from the older Christians it needs to be stated in the Trinity content. It's one of the many beliefs of this church that seperate her from the apostolic one. Why would this not considered as important to write? Thank you. [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.20.157 ( talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Because i feel that they hide half of them on purpose. This makes me feel like if someone will read that article, he'll be brainwashed. See for example the Trinity content. It's said all right but it hides the neoteristic Filoque dogma. I guess it's like that in order not to create conflict with other churches or with what Bible says or create doubts for the authenticity of the church. But why to hide one main belief of the theology of the Catholic Church since the purpose is to write about it? This does not make the article objective. That's what i'm trying to say. Do you get me? [user:uknown]
Okay. Maybe i was too steep on the start so i'll take it easier now. The article has dedicated four lines on sex abuse cases. It's far more important to add Filoque. I don't say you to add lines. It'll just need one sentence and Filoque will be on blue, so people could click it if they want to see what it is. Does this proposal sound like too much? [user:uknown]
How could we add it then? [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.144.185 ( talk) 21:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I apologize about that. [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.57.24 ( talk) 23:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
So how will we decide about it? Will we do a poll or something? How are these decisions taken in wikipedia? [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.57.24 ( talk) 15:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's Filioque. I was just doing the mistake continuously during typing. Sorry. Mr. Esoglou, Filioque is not a result of a latin Nicene Creed but a result of the Synod of Toledo. Arians added it that time to support monarchy, ie the authority. Let's say it's not legimitate but tolerant, or even better mixed dogmas which ends up in a chaotic situation. If the Eastern Catholic Churches don't accept the confirmed from their Synods Filioque dogma, they're disobeying their own church and the infallibility of the Pope who decided it. Who told you that it's legimitate? Several Popes have publicly recited the Nicene Creed in Greek without that phrase, because that's the original Nicene Creed. This also creates doubts for the authenticity of that church. The other Popes were infallible and those who introduced another faith is infallible too because he's just a Pope? With these actions it's like he places the previous Popes and apostles and Christians as heretics and fallible and himself only as infallible. Who do they think they are to distort the Creed ie the symbol of faith of the Apostles and all the Christians just to serve the power? West introduced it and you say that i can discourse it in the Eastern Orthodox Church? This seems illogical to me. To Farsight001: You say that " And the Church is 2000 years old. There is a LOT out there about it. In comparison to everything else, I think its too much detail for a general overview." This subject employs the Church for more than 1000 years, ie the half time of the existence of Church. Still not important? Furthermore, the article says: <<The Church teaches that God the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from God the Father and God the Son as a single origin>> This is not a doctrine of the Church. Christianity condemns that. This is the doctrine of the Church: <<When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,>> John 15:26 [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.57.24 ( talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
We've reached to the misrepresentation of the words as Thucydides wrote... I personally don't want only adds but and removes. Mr. Esoglou, Filioque was never in the faith of the Church. It's a cacodoxy. In addition, the title is misleading. In the Nicene Creed we say that we believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The article gives the conclusion that they are this Church. This is the propaganda that it tells in: "the Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" section. Catholic Church is an ecclesiastical construct, not the Church. They exploit the title "Church", in order to gain adherents. In the same way that a sect calls themseleves as the Church of Christ, Catholics claim that too. There is no difference at all. With accepting all these, you're being acquiescent and brainwash people. This is not a veracious spirit that wants to be objective. Catholic Church can't be the apostolic one because it hasn't the same beliefs. Also, except from the apostolic succession, what commons in faith do they have with the Apostles? As we saw in John 15:26, they even ignore the Bible(the one of two sources of the content of faith with the Holy Tradition, which are actually conventional), to support their heretical claims. As you saw on my previous replies, i did not told about others beliefs. -Now, according to your logic i'll answer you similarly: It's not about what i call Christianity but what Christ said. Apostles also, condemn "Catholics" because they say the opposite(for example Filioque). [Διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις μὴ παραφέρεσθε] By manifold and strange doctrines do not be seduced, borne aside from the right path. Hebrews 13:9 -On others' beliefs(this is optional to read): Islam also claims against Old Testament(even though they "accept" it), because they say half the truth too. Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King but they still prefer to "accept anything in the Old Testament that agrees with the Qur'an.". Anyway, i'm not here to criticize the others beliefs. They are free to do so. This is just my opinion which doesn't count anything to them. I'll finish with what Apostles said about it(which is referred to Catholics too), not me: [Αλλά και εάν ημείς ή άγγελος εξ ουρανού ευαγγελίζηται υμίν παρ' ο ευαγγελισάμεθα υμίν, ανάθεμα εστω] As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Galatians 1:9 [user:uknown] 176.58.153.128 ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It is fine to say what they claim but if there is a disagreement, saying another opinion is necessary, right? You've said before "That ALSO means that we cannot simply declare that the Catholic Church is NOT THE Church either.". Is there a proof that Catholic Church is the Church? That's my first main disagreement that needs to change. Catholic Church should not be named with capital letter(as the others like Armenian, Churches of Christ and so on...). As saint Just Popovic said(which i think it fits and to the article Christian Church): "The Church, being an overall and a uniquely God-human organism in all the worlds, cannot possibly be divided. Every division would have spelled her death." and "The Church is one and unique because it is the body of the one and only Christ. The dividing of the Church is ontologically impossible, which is why there has never been a division per se of the Church, but only a departure from the Church. According to the word of the Lord, the vine cannot be divided; only the voluntarily unfruitful vine branches fall off from the ever-living vine and dry up (John 15:1-6). At various times, heretics and schismatics had severed themselves from the one indivisible Church of Christ, who consequently ceased to be members of the Church and embodied in Her Godman body. Such were firstly the Gnostics, then the Arians and the Pneumatomachs (Spirit-opponents), then the Monophysites and Uniates and all the other heretic and schismatic legion." With naming all the other churches with capital letter, you accept that they are part of the Church, even though they've seperated themselves from Her. [user:uknown] 176.58.153.128 ( talk) 13:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
"No, giving another opinion is not necessary.". In the meaning that we have freedom and everyone can express his opinion without being silenced,threatened... The sources aren't necessary now. We haven't decided to change anything yet. The name Catholic belongs the the Eastern Orthodox Church, not to schismatics. "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever." Creed of St Athanasius The name Catholic is a devious title. They tell it although they don't have Catholic faith. What is the Catholic faith? For example the decisions taken in the Ecumenical Synods by the whole Church(which they don't accept them all). Since they don't follow these, they're not Catholics. Therefore, this title has to change or to tell that they have nothing to do with it, even though it has dominanced as term but as we saw it's a propagandic term. Also, their construct comes from 1054, not from Christ. The only thing that you do is telling their claims but you have to write and the objective truth about it. [user:uknown] 176.58.153.128 ( talk) 15:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you heard of literary property, ie copyright? The name doesn't belong to whoever schismatic decides to name itself Catholic but to the one who is Catholic. It is propaganda if they are not Catholics and still claim that they are and you understand from that point that they name themselves like that to obtain believers. One last question: What kind of sources exactly do you need to certify these? [user:uknown] 46.190.44.152 ( talk) 10:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course you can. Example: Someone is Catholic. Then he breaks off the communion and claims that he's Catholic. Isn't this insane? If i write a book does it count as a source? [user:uknown] 46.190.44.152 ( talk) 15:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
A name that expresses what? The Catholicity that they don't have? Their church construct which is not Catholic? Why exactly would you want sources for that? This is a way of thinking. [user:uknown] 46.190.44.152 ( talk) 19:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'll try to refer some sources and then answer and to your last message. There is still time left so i'll be late a bit. Is it okay? [user:uknown] 46.190.55.61 ( talk) 18:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to sound aggresive but that's how i write. I'm not admin or even a user. My humble opinion is that you think narrow-minded in this subject. You don't explain in general why they'd think this has lies everywhere. The canon of saint Vicent of Lerins has a lot of meaning and it defines who is Catholic and who isn't: http://www.voskrese.info/spl/lerins2.html Here is a difference in the falsification that "RomanCatholics" interpet of what catholicity is, is told in the beginning of this article: http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/talks/catholicity.shtml Why this huge difference not be included? Everyone claims someone heretic by that. Now, i also refer in Catholicism article, because it hasn't an Orthodox section. It could at least be there because since "Catholics" give another meaning in what is catholic we can hardly say that they don't lie but in my opinion about the Catholic Church article, telling and the second version is necessary because it has use of this word. Someone might be confused. [user:uknown] 46.190.58.15 ( talk) 21:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I've already told you man that the only thing we need is to explain in what meaning the articles says it. It is insufficient in the name section. Full acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils ie the decisions that were taken by the whole Church, is essential to claim yourself Catholic. This is what universal is. If a pope can remove decisions of his predecessors, if authority is above, we can't talk about universality. That's not how the Church acted all these years. The consubstantiality of the faces of Holy Trinity that Holy Fathers declared, constitutes standard for human relations. Εquivalent, sociability, democracy, without authoritarians and subordinates. Filioque is directly related to this because it deteriorates consubstantiality of the faces which reflects equality between human relations and democracy in the decisions of the Church. [user:uknown] 176.58.157.34 ( talk) 18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I really do many errors in this language. I may have bad knowledge of the English language but please, let me explain. We read from here: http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-81111086/is-mission-a-consequence-of-the-catholicity-of-the "If the church does not proclaim her truth (that is, rebukes her missionary task), she loses catholicity." This is what happened with “RomanCatholics”. They distorted the Holy Trinity with the Filioque dogma. It’s proved theologically that Filioque is wrong and it was also condemned by the Church in the Eighth Ecumenical Council ie the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox). The Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879 condemned those who simply "add" or "subtract" from the Creed of 381(and those who do not accept the doctrine of Holy Images of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). This was an Ecumenical Council because: the decisions were published as Roman laws signed by the Emperor after their acts were signed by the five Roman Patriarchs, Metropolitans and bishops . The Emperor convened these Ecumenical Councils in cooperation with the Five Roman Patriarchates a) Old Rome , b ) of Constantinople and New Rome , c ) of Alexandria , d ) of Antioch, which was added in 451 A.D e) of Jerusalem. The Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) doesn’t count as an Ecumenical Synod. We read from here: http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html The condemnation of the Roman Catholic Eighth Council (the anti-Photian Council of Constantinople of 869/70) by Pope John VIII is first given in this Pope's Letter to the Emperors Basil, Leo and Alexander. In this Letter which was read at the second session of the Photian Council of Constantinople of 879/80 and is included in the second Act of the Minutes, Pope John VIII writes: "And first of all receive Photios the most amazing and most reverend High-Priest of God our Brother Patriarch and co-celebrant who is co-sharer, co-participant and inheritor of the communion which is in the Holy Church of the Romans... receive the man unpretentiously. No one should behave pretentiously [following] the unjust councils which were made against him. No one. as it seems right to many who behave like a herd of cows, should use the negative votes of the blessed Hierarchs who preceded us. Nicholas, I mean, and Hadrian as an excuse [to oppose him]; since they did not prove what had been cunningly concocted against him... Everything that was done against him has now ceased and been banished..." (The Latin text is this Ac primum quidem a nobis suscipi Photium praetantissimum ac reverentissimum Dei Pontificem et Patriarcham, in fratrem nostrum et comministrum, eundemque communionis cum sancta Romana ecclesia participem, consortem, et haeredem... Suscipite virum sine aliqua exrusatione. Nemo praetexat eas quae contra ipsum factae sunt innjustas synodos. Nemo, ut plerisque videtur imperitis ac rudibis, decessorum nostrorum beatorum Pontificum, Nicolai inquam, et Hadriani, decreta culpet... Finita sunt enim omnia, repudiata omnia, quae adversus cum gesta sunt, infirma irritaquae reddita... Mansi vol xvii, cls. 400D & 401BC. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 281f). A similar condemnation is found in Pope John VIII's Letter to Photios where he writes: "As for the Synod that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and have completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because of the other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not subscribe to it..." (Latin text: Synodum vero, quae contra tuam reverentiam ibidem est habita, rescidimus, damnavimus omnino, et abjecimus: tum ob alias causas, tum quo decessor noster beatus Papa Hadrianus in ea non subscripsit..." Mansi vol. xvii cl. 416E. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 292). Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods." The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our Most Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was written or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente synodo pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. Sancta Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo nostro Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in hac dicta a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also cls. 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870. Why “RomanCatholics” don’t accept the Synod that condemned Filioque and at last decide to condemn the Filioque dogma? Does this makes them Catholic or since they don’t hold the truth anymore, they lose their Catholicity? If they deny it they auto-condemn theirselves and become schismastics without any serious reason. Only from pride. This removes the whole Catholic name. It’s only a title without any meaning. About Catholicism article: Thank you for adding an Orthodox section. Catholicity in Orthodoxy has another meaning and it’s told here: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/schmemann_unity_2.html I think it’s important to make this addendum. [user:uknown] 46.190.95.144 ( talk) 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I leave a last choice if you want to continue here -> Why you judge the writing as a waste of time before you read it? It has all the suggestions for this and another three articles(the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic), Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) and Catholicism). Especially about the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) and Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox): in the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/880, Popes themselves and the whole Church condemns those who accept Filioque and the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) as an Ecumenical Council. What don't you understand? [user:uknown] 46.190.95.144 ( talk) 09:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any friends. So i'll stop writing. By the way, i believe that you'll find very useful information for wikipedia articles in the last two articles from reocities and myriobiblos. [user:uknown]
46.190.58.5 (
talk) 10:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
"The Church maintains that the doctrine on faith and morals that it presents as definitive is infallible. There are a variety of doctrinal and theological emphases within the Catholic Church, including the Eastern Catholic Churches and religious communities such as the Jesuit, mendicant, and enclosed monastic orders."
The first sentence of this paragraph is fine, but doesn't logically lead into the second sentence. I moved it to the top of the paragraph regarding doctrine. The second sentence is problematic. It seems to draw an unintended equivalency between the Eastern Catholic and the religious communities. It also seems to count "Jesuit" as type of religious order. The phrase "variety of doctrinal and theological emphases" is confusing as used, although directly quoted from the source. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
My edit summary should have ended with "if, that is, 'extraordinary form' does deserve mention in an image caption", but somehow this phrase got deleted just before I saved. For my part, I strongly doubt that it deserves mention. Esoglou ( talk) 19:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
This sentence was not well explained and perhaps unnecessary in the current section (celebration of the Eucharist):
Additionally, these sentences were redundant or did not seem relevant:
I place them here in case there is any crucial information that should be added back, either to the celebration section, or the doctrine section -- Zfish118 ( talk) 01:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The on page 79 of the Pew Study found at http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/12/Christianity-fullreport-web.pdf, the table titled "Christian Traditions by Region and Country" explicitly gives estimates for 2010 for various Christian populations in each country. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
See page 111 of that report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernio48 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I presume that the unspecified book by Schreck repeatedly cited in the article is Alan Schreck's Essential Catholic Catechism, which is not freely available. I wonder how accurate are the statements attributed to it. One in particular is the statement that the New Testament was never compiled before the Codex Vaticanus was written. The article about that manuscript says that, as it now exists, it lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation; that it may never have contained Revelation, and that it probably contained New Testament apocrypha. Did Schreck write what the article attributes to him? It is to be hoped that he did, for otherwise doubt is cast on the accuracy of the other statements attributed to him. Esoglou ( talk) 16:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Schreck, Alan (1999). The Essential Catholic Catechism. Servant Publications. ISBN 1-56955-128-6.
I have thought it best to replace the material on the Catholic canon of Scripture attributed to Schreck with what I think is clearer and surer material. Schreck seems to have attached disproportionate importance to that one manuscript, whether in the nonsense version attributed to him in this article ("the New Testament writings first found" in that manuscript), which says the writings, not just the list of them, were found nowhere until then, or in the transcription of his words given, since 15 May 2008, in the misnamed article " Easter Letter" ("The present list of New Testament writings was first founded [surely a mistyping!] in the Codex Vaticanus from Rome around A.D. 340 ..."). The article is misnamed, because it is about only one of the many circular letters that Athanasius (this was his 39th!) and other Bishops of Alexandria sent annually to inform of the date on which Easter was to be celebrated that year. Surely something less schrecklich than Schreck can be found. Esoglou ( talk) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The social teaching's segment seemed to hover out of place as its own section, and is relevant to several points in the Contemporary Issue section. I am still not certain if it is a good fit there, so a revert would not be taken personally. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The enumeration of these seemed too much for the main article:
The Church enumerates "corporal works of mercy" and "spiritual works of mercy" as follows: [12]
Corporal Works of Mercy | Spiritual Works of Mercy |
---|---|
1. To feed the hungry. | 1. To instruct the ignorant. |
2. To give drink to the thirsty. | 2. To counsel the doubtful |
3. To clothe the naked. | 3. To admonish sinners. |
4. To harbour the harbourless (shelter the homeless). | 4. To bear wrongs patiently. |
5. To visit the sick. | 5. To forgive offences willingly. |
6. To ransom the captive. | 6. To comfort the afflicted. |
7. To bury the dead. | 7. To pray for both the living and the dead. |
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Believing something by faith does not exclude reason and we are exhored not to abandon that very reason by the Catholic Church. The assertion is most definitely not in any cited source, is not in any accurate source, and has no place in the lede section. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The topic is that the church does not teach faith and reason to be mutually exclusive, which was misrepresented in the article. The writings of Saint Thomas are a source for the factual claim that the church teaches their compatibility, not necessarily the accuracy of the church's teaching. Discussing or defending personal beliefs or interpretations is inappropriate for the talk page. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
John Paul II's Encyclical Fides et Ratio is an excellent resource if someone is interested in this topic. HiLo, "religious" people are not here to convince you or anyone else of anything. Should an editor be here it is because they are interested in making the article here. I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask why do you always try to convince us that we are not rational in our beliefs? The shoes easily fits the other foot also. -- Storm Rider 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more clarity and context regarding the acceptance of the New Testament canon east and west is needed. I added a footnote explaining Luther's dispute, but I am uncertain about the only some "place them at three different status levels". There is no discussion as to what these levels are or why it there is any dispute. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I recently reverted a series of edits from the article's lead section that misrepresented the sexual abuse scandal. Firstly, every organization has a small percentage of members with unfortunate pedophilic tendencies; this alone is not notable. What is notable about the church's scandal is that it grossly mishandled a significant number of abuse incidents and accusations. The lead should accurately reflect this. There used to be a neutrally phrased reference to the scandal in the lead developed through consensus. This should be restored. I am editing on my phone and cannot do this right now. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I have twice commented here, and twice Zfish118 has deleted my comment without explanation, discussion or an Edit summary. That is bad faith editing. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I also posted on this user's Talk page. He has deleted my comment there without response or Edit smmary. Clearly this editor does not actually want discussion. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It is my firm belief that I should be able to contribute to an online encyclopedia without having my character impugned. Since your opening response to my post contained a personal attack, hinting ("might") at conclusion with vial cover ups, I considered the entire post to be abusive. I immediately deleted it and privately reported it to several admins to be removed. I then attempted to delete the entire section, since you seemed committed to reposting your attack, and I did not wish to disrupt the page. I had hoped administrative intervention would be quicker.
My entire post was germane to the content I removed. The content was a babbling of statistics, comparing the rate of pedophilia among clergy to rate of the general population. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is the church's failure to appropriately respond to incidents and accusations of abuse. I personally added the section regarding sexual abuse of minors to the Catholic Church article, and every few months find myself reverting edits that try to hide this unfortunate and disgusting chapter in church history. I want the abuse of minors to stop, in the Catholic Church, in the public schools, in private families, everywhere, and to imply that I "might" wish to cover it up is an abusive and spurious accusation.
User:HiLo48, you appear to have a bad tendency to respond without understanding the issue being discussed. In the section above, you expressed frustration at another poster because he was commenting on content that was not in the lead; content that the user had just deleted. Even here, you are feuding with other authors. In my first post in this section, I explicitly stated that I had just removed content, but you still did not check which content was removed before responding. Instead, you choose to post a personal attack, not in the heat of a contentious discussion, but as the first response. Wikipedia generally requires an assumption of good faith, but when your style is consistently provocative, this assumption simply cannot be made. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 00:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please pardon the dozens of minor edits I did today. I attempted to standardize years worth of references, and encountered numerous minor, but difficult errors, due to incompatible templates using similar parameters, etc. Wherever possible, I attempted to perform multiple edits at once, and limit these mass edits to a specific category. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Greetings,
I have developed a template to help quickly cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church (found here: Template:CCC), based on the citation style that has become common here at the Catholic Church article.
The template takes the paragraph number, automatically generates a link to the online English version found at <www.vatican.va>. It also automatically formats the citation using the template:cite web internally, and also can display both a single paragraph or a simple range of paragraphs. It also automatically generates a reference name based on the paragraph or range, and will assign the same footnote to citations with identical paragraphs or ranges.
At this point, I see no need to convert well formatted footnotes, but it might be useful when editing portions of the text with bare paragraph numbers, with no link or access date. I have tested the template, and have worked out most kinks, and documented a few workarounds, but I would appreciate anyone who can find the time to test it out and give me feedback. Thanks! -- Zfish118 ( talk) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. I believe the title of this page is misleading. It should read "Roman Catholic Church" because the Eastern Orthodox Church is also officially called the "Orthodox Catholic Church". And historically, it was Rome which separated itself away from the historically continuous Christian practices of the rest of Christendom. It is important for readers to know that the Roman Church is not the only Church simply referred to as the "Catholic Church" and it has less claim to historical continuity the Orthodoxy. Therefore, the title is both misleading and presumptive. Ri Osraige ( talk) 16:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ri, I understand your position and this was discussed in depth when we were discussing the proper name of the Catholic Church. Although this is not a black and white discussion, there was a great deal of discussion and then a vote where Catholic Church was chosen as the best name for the article. You may want to go back and review the lengthy discussion. Nothing is ever in stone on Wikipedia and if you think you have valid points we did not discuss previously that may sway the majority of the readers then feel free to bring those points here for further discussion. I participated in the discussion and voted that the most correct title for this article is Catholic Church, but I am more than willing to review it again should new information be brought forward. Cheers, -- Storm Rider 13:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to post to this page about the influence of the Catholic church in the area of psychology. This post would resemble a timeline/history point of view of how the Catholic church has affected the study of psychology, theories and philosophers. Do you feel as if this is an appropriate page to post this on or should I create a new page? Hchlebo15 ( talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The intro to the history section presents doctrine (or the Catholic church's view of its history), which is not necessarily the same as the actual history of the church. I have suggested that some counterpoint be included to render the presentation NPOV. I have suggested that at the end of the history intro section, viz. after "It interprets the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church, a doctrine known as apostolic succession" the following be added, "The historicity of these claims is debated. [1] According to many scholars, including prominent historian Bart D. Ehrman, Peter was never a bishop, or leader, in Rome, and the Catholic teaching of apostolic succession of the bishops, popes, of Rome via the unbroken line of popes, claimed as successors to Peter is not historically supported. [2] [3] [4]" Comments? Piledhighandeep ( talk) 22:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
What started as an innocent discussion of how to reduce WP:POV in this article seems to have turned into a bloated, convoluted mess in which nobody knows what the other is saying. I feel a little guilty about this, since I was the one who asked User:Piledhighandeep to bring it up here in the first place. No one person seems to be at fault here (and for the sake of all our sanity don't point fingers); we just all seem to be focusing on different areas of this very large article. Therefore, I have devised a Grand Plan for Getting Stuff Done to help us actually wrap this up and accomplish something.
Step 1: Start with addressing POV issues one section (or in some cases, such as the history section, sub-section) at a time. Step 2: Keep discussions for the one section of the article UNDER THE SAME THREAD, as this is what lead to this discussion being so convoluted in the first place. Step 3: Only discuss the one section that needs to be fixed. Other issues can wait. Step 4: Be kind and courteous of others during the discussion. Don't immediately accuse of POV, sock puppetry, etc. Shouldn't be necessary to say this, but I've seen it happen in discussions of this sort on other pages. Step 5: Do NOT add controversial edits to the section being discussed without asking everybody else first. A section that hasn't been previously discussed is fair game. Step 6: Try to reach a consensus within a reasonable amount of time. (Of course, define reasonable...)
A few of the topics that seem to need addressing during the POV discussion (from my observation of this debate) would include:
I'd like to ask all editors on this page, but particularly @ Piledhighandeep:, @ Farsight001:, @ Zfish118:, @ Elizium23:, @ Alex2006:, @ Achowat:, @ Laurel Lodged:, and @ Esoglou: to provide feedback on this plan and any improvements they would like to make to it, or any other POV related topics we need to discuss. (The people I have "tagged" [for lack of a better term] are those who have actively participated in the POV discussions thus far.)
Following this framework, I propose to begin with the lead section/early history. I reviewed a variety of encyclopedias to see how they addressed the issue. General interest encyclopedias, such as the World Book and abridged Americana, use language substantially similar to the content I initially removed when discussing the early history. They describe Peter as the leader of the Apostles, and Pentecost as what the church teaches to be its establishment. They even use language describing the New Testament as recording the general activities of Jesus' early followers.
A comprehensive encyclopedia, the unabridged Britannica, touches upon the controversies raised by Piledhighandeep, but also discusses the counter arguments of this position. The counter argument it describes are substantially similar to the ones listed in the Tract ( "Was Peter in Rome?") from Catholic Answers I posted above. These included quotes from respected scholars in antiquity that placed Peter exercising his ministry in Rome, whatever the details of his ministry might have been. The Britannica discusses this issue as part of a larger section describing the connection between the early church and the modern Catholic Church/Bishop of Rome, which the more general encyclopedias do no really address.
My conclusions from this are as follows; for sheer cultural literacy, the "traditional" narrative directly linking the early and later churches must be told. Several encyclopedias use this narrative, although duly noted where these are based on Church tradition. Challenges to the traditional narrative should be responsibly documented, with counter arguments. Reliable sources must be used for both sides. The challenges, as far as I can tell, are academically credible, although held by a minority (but not a fringe group).
As for how to address other churches that make similar historical claims, these do not really need to be addressed. Both the Orthodox and Catholics accept that there was one church since antiquity until the eleventh century at the earliest ("two" if you count the early split of the Oriental Orthodox). Doctrinal differences can be addressed as needed throughout the timeline; wherever groups split it can noted whether both claim, exclusive to the other, continuity with the historical church. The splits are historically undeniable, and the claims of succession are undeniable. The discernment of doctrinal truth is beyond Wikipedia's scope; we can only hope to document the most relevant claims and counter claims pertaining to each article's subject. (made from axillary account) -- Zfish118 ( talk) 15:22 16 October 2014 (EDST)
The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived and preached in the 1st century AD in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus.
To recap, the most pressing question that has been raised repeatedly has been how to present the ambiguous date of the establishment or consolidation of the Diocese of Rome, and how to present the conflicting evidence regarding its link to the ministry of Peter. Also of interest are the New Testament activities, currently alluded too in the "Doctrine/Apostolic" section, and the link between the Apostles and bishops. There is also an informal request for comments regarding potentially reducing the entire history section to a summary of the History of the Catholic Church article. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Original text of History section lead |
---|
Catholic tradition and doctrine hold that the Catholic Church is the
one true church
[5] founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD in the province of
Judea of the
Roman Empire.
[6]
[7] The
New Testament records Jesus' activities and teaching, his appointment of the
twelve Apostles and
his instructions to them to continue his work.
[8]
[9]
The Catholic Church teaches that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, in an event known as Pentecost, signalled the beginning of the public ministry of the Catholic Church. [10] Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community. It interprets the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church. It teaches that all Catholic bishops can trace their lineage back to the apostles, according to their ordination, by the doctrine of apostolic succession. |
The intro to the history section presents doctrine (or the Catholic church's view of its history) without counterpoint or historicity comment. Currently the two paragraph intro contains only POV Catholic doctrinal statements, generally beginning with "the Church teaches," suited better for a doctrine section than a history section. I have suggested, at the least, that some counterpoint (three prominent secular history scholars, that I've cited, and a religious authority from another church, also cited) be included to render the presentation NPOV. My suggested text for insertion at the end of the second paragraph (after being corrected by comments from another editor) is only two sentences. It reads,
"The historicity of these claims (one true church, apostolic succession) is debated by other churches as well as historians. [11] [12] According to several historians, including Bart D. Ehrman, Peter was never a bishop, or leader, in Rome, and there were no formal leaders in Rome to succeed to that title, or claim it, for a century." [13] [14]
Thanks for your comments. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"Sacraments of the Catholic Church". Princeton.edu. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
"Church Membership". Orthodoxresearchinstitute.org. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
Most, Fr. William G. (1990). "Basic Catholic Catechism;The Church and Salvation". Eternal Word Network Television. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
Catholic News Service
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).vatican.va
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I support rewriting the section lead from scratch in a neutral, encyclopedic style. I caution against undo weight for counter claims, but would like to see stronger sources overall here. I have stripped most of the disputed doctrinal material, as most of it was poorly sourced anyways. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of the doctrinal content from the History section lead was a repeat from content in the the Apostolic section. I added several critical details, such as Pentecost, to this section. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 13:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is lacking information on the Four Marks of the Church. In other words, the Catholic Church teaches that she is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". As to the "Apostolic" mark, this is being discussed in part on this page. I suggest that any discussion of apostolic succession also include discussion of the One true church claim, the Catholic claim to holiness, and the universality of the Catholic Church. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The present text says; "The Apostles of Jesus are claimed by the Catholic Church as early bishops, notably Peter, who is held to be the first Pope, the Bishop of Rome." Although it is commonly said within the tradition to which Piledhighandeep obviously belongs that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and also of Rome, that Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, etc., Piledhighandeep probably does not believe that, as a Church. the Eastern Orthodox Church actually makes that claim. What the present text says is not in fact claimed by the Catholic Church. The sentence should be changed to something like: "The Catholic Church holds that the Church's bishops, headed by the bishop of Rome, have succeeded as a body to the body of the apostles, headed by the Apostle Peter." That seems to be the teaching of Lumen gentium, 22, which says that the college of apostles is not at all the same thing as the college of bishops, which is its successor. Esoglou ( talk) 20:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This section is to address the status of the claims regarding the historicity of the church's version of events shared by User:Piledhighandeep; whether or not are not these are a "minority" opinion among historians. Piledhighandeep rightly points out that this has not been addressed yet. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
May I once again point out that editing a disputed section of an article while the dispute is ongoing is HIGHLY DISCOURAGED and ask you guys to flipping STOP doing it? This is getting more and more ridiculous and its impossible to offer suggestions and read the discussion on the talk page and make sense of anything. Provide your proposed changes here and discuss them and AFTER the discussion is concluded and a consensus reached, someone make the changes. Farsight001 ( talk) 23:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
These are two sources that might be of use in constructing the history section lead. They are not appropriate for the current content however:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piledhighandeep ( talk • contribs)
Could we please agree to omit the following passage?
We would keep only this:
The passage that I propose for deletion makes far from easy reading, and has many question-raising elements. For instance, it isn't the Confession of Peter that is interpreted as stated, but instead the response of Jesus to Peter, reported only in (the heavily discussed) Matthew 16:17–19. The adjective "temporal" in "the temporal head of his Church" is ambiguous and question-raising. The generic indication "Historians" is misleading (weasel language?) in that it suggests there is scholarly consensus on whatever is meant by the following phrase. If this is about a supposed belief that there is "a direct connection" between the apostles taken jointly and the Church in Rome, rather than for the Church as a whole, it is a straw-man argument - but I suppose that is not what is meant. The citations given do not in fact state that the Apostles of Jesus were led by James the Just.
The second part (from "Historians do not find...") exists only as a response to the first part. I don't think the first part is worth keeping. Why not omit both parts of the text together? If someone agrees with me, please delete the text from the article. It would be best to omit the text permanently, but if there are editors who want it restored, let them discuss and amend it here before restoring it in a revised form. Esoglou ( talk) 11:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources do state "that the Apostles of Jesus were led by James the Just." There were many sources given; I can quote the ones that speak to this, if you can't access the texts. There is "scholarly consensus" among secular historians on these points. The current revised history intro still cites only the Catholic Church and still contains only Catholic doctrine, "Catholic doctrine teaches." This is not the scholarly consensus and by definition not NPOV history. (It is the Catholic POV of the Catholic Church's history.) I think this sentence would have to be deleted or balanced by the consensus of secular and non-Catholic historians to be NPOV history. The lede is a privileged position and the history section lede should, I think, be NPOV history. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
In any case, is, effectively, skipping the first two centuries of the church's history, rather than presenting the differing theories about them, the best way to address this? I think some other solution will need to be found, at least for the History of the Catholic Church article, which suffers from the same exact lede issues and in which, presumably, the first two centuries of the church will have to be addressed. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a few points I feel need to be clarified, in order to propose a framework for discussing the link between Peter and the modern Bishops of Rome.
The first is a matter of language; the word "bishop" refers to two related roles: one who holds the highest order of the priesthood, and one who holds the highest leadership role of a diocese. Peter is most certainly held to be a bishop in the first role, as the historical record shows him ordaining others (a right reserved to bishops in Catholic doctrine). Whether he held the second role is a matter of historical debate.
This leads to my second point, which is the Petrine Ministry, the personal mission given to Peter by Jesus. It is a doctrinal point that the modern Bishops of Rome have inherited the Petrine ministry (see Papal Infallibility, where the church's argument is documented to hinge on succession from Peter). How to present the historical circumstance under which (or even if) the Bishops of Rome inherited the Petrine ministry is the controversy here.
If you will indulge, there are a few relevant observations on this point. In order for there to be a Bishop of Rome, there must be a Diocese of Rome. At the time of Peter's ministry, Rome was extremely hostile territory for Christians; so hostile that the Book of Revelation likely documents the Christian struggle there. Some posters here have presented sources that suggested several local, perhaps missionary churches in Rome, but not necessarily a central structure uniting them. This would fit with the dangers of persecution. Peter is also generally believed to have arrived no more than a few years before his martyrdom, limiting the amount of time he had to minister there.
Based on these premises, I offer three broad categories for theories linking the Bishops of Rome to the Petrine Ministry (whatever its nature). The first two categories potentially align with Catholic doctrine, while the third necessitates the church's doctrine to be wrong. None, however, are strictly religious, as Peter's exact role is left undefined. (1) It is plausible, given Rome's significance in Christian lore, that Peter came specifically to establish the modern Diocese of Rome in his short time there, and was thus targeted by the Roman authorities as its leader. (2) It is also plausible that he came to minister to the various churches in Rome, but did not have time to establish a monoepiscopate before his execution. His successor might then inherit the Petrine Ministry, but not the as of yet non-existent Bishopric of Rome (then, when the various churches were consolidated, the successor to the Petrine ministry, if still practicing in Rome, would have been a logical choice for inaugural diocesan bishop.) (3) It is also plausible that Peter's specific authority died with him (or a successor), and future Bishops of Rome claimed succession by mere coincidence of geography. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose that reliable sources regarding the link between Peter and the Bishop's of Rome be identified according to one of the three categories I identified above (in summary: immediate link, delayed link, no link.). As the sources are identified, the proper weighting for each can be determined, and the early Christianity section then be written according to the balance of sources. Providing a "counter point" is not sufficient for a neutral point of view; the views must be presented reflecting trends among the reliable sources.
Discussion should be limited to what the sources state, to avoid making this personal; if source disagrees with one of the numbered categories, the source's author should be presented as holding that position to better transition into article content. If a source proposes a significantly different link, then that should be shared as well. If a category has few or no sources supporting it, then it may be dropped from consideration. Please include a short quote and/or summary of each source, as well as its citation. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a proposal for an independent new article, not just a modification of the Catholic Church article. Perhaps it would be best to produce a draft in a sandbox, and invite those interested to contribute there. Esoglou ( talk) 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The Church teaches that Peter is the first Bishop of Rome. Elizium23 ( talk) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no standard, rule, policy, or even suggestion on wikipedia that sources be "secular and non-Catholic". Demanding that they be so is actually the real bias problem here.
@Esoglou. 1. Tertullian is indeed a Church Father, and although he later assumed positions contrary to the Church, not so his early writings.
2. I assume you want an official document from the current Church, right? Well, I couldn't find anything in English, so I did a search in Latin. This is the first link I found. One source is enough, isn't?
Pope John XXIII's Apostolic Constitution "Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum" (June 29, 1969). Quote: "... in Vaticana Basilica, apud Petri sepulcrum, Apostolorum principis, primique Romae Episcopi..."
Context of the quote: The Pope is speaking about the closing ceremony of a Synod, which took place in the "Vatican Basilica, besides the tomb of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, First Bishop of Rome." This is my translation, free to use google.
You can find the document in the archives for the Vatican for 1960. That is ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 52 (1960), p. 553 at the end. Here is a link: "www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2052%20[1960]%20-%20ocr.pdf"-- Coquidragon ( talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Esoglou. "Peter died in Rome," is not an article of faith, it is Church history. "Peter was the first Pope," is not an article of faith, it is Church history. "Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome," is not an article of faith, it is Church history, as it is history that he was also the first bishop of Antioch and Syracuse. "The Pope is Peter's successor," is not an article of Faith. Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome and the 1st Pope. By definition, those that came behind are the successors. This is not doctrine. I really don't get your point. The matter of faith would be what that means in terms of inheriting his primacy. That's another matter.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Read S. W. J. O'Malley's chapter on "Peter: Bishop of Rome?" which I have already cited above. It seems that you and Piledhighandeep and I all accept that presentation. It follows that the three of us have been wasting time and effort on an unnecessary discussion. Esoglou ( talk) 21:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to close this discussion, which is becoming too heated, and no ripostes should be posted. If anyone has a concrete proposal for a text to insert in the article, they can propose it in a new section. The proposal immediately below is, I think, rather too elaborate, but at least it isn't put simply as a continuation of this discussion. Esoglou ( talk) 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Ut Unum Sint, paragraph 88. "88. Among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity" 146 and whom the Spirit sustains in order that he may enable all the others to share in this essential good." Elizium23 ( talk) 20:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
While I am thinking of it, I would like to propose a ground rule for this discussion should it continue. I feel that it would be easier to assume good faith if quoted material included commentary. The commentary would help make the argument feel less blunt, and help other poster understand what is being said to better address legitimate concerns. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that people here say that (the Church teaches that) the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter. I see also that some of the same people say that (the Church teaches that) Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome. Does that mean that Saint Peter, being Bishop of Rome, was the successor of Saint Peter? Something to reflect on. :-) Esoglou ( talk) 21:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
"Succession" is normally accompanied by the preposition "to," although is not always necessary to write. When we say the Pope is the successor of Peter, the Catholic use of "successor" here makes reference, first to a position, Bishop of Rome, and then to what that position carries, Primacy. We don't need to specify this every time we use the word "successor." That's common sense. And those examples... Please! Hollande is the successor of Louis XIV as leader of France. Hollande is no King, Louis XIV is no president. If you want to go into technicalities, then Peter was no pope, since the Bishop of Rome assumed the title "Pope" much later. Now, since in today usage, Pope is the Bishop of Rome and Primate of the Roman Catholic Church, we can say Peter was the first Pope, even thought he never knew that word.
Really, this playing with words doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Is Pope Francis the chief apostle? Well, if by apostle you mean, the 12, of course he is isn't. If by apostle you mean a witness to the world of Christ resurrection, then yes Pope Francis is the chief apostle, as he is chief among the apostle within the Catholic Church. The Bible speaks of a bishop as being a good husband. Today, Catholic Bishops are unmarried. Does this mean they are not real bishops? C'mon! This playing with words can go on and one. Words have definition and context. People have common sense. If there is good will, you don't need much more.
As to what applies to the topic at hand, if you disagree that the Roman church had leadership during that time, fine, you have some sources. Nevertheless, most sources do make reference to the Roman Church having leadership. Was it one person? Did they use the word bishop as a title? That's semantic. Peter was a (if not the) leader in the Roman Church. That's well established in most sources (now, it is clear that some disagree). So, was Peter the Bishop of Rome? By today's usage of the word, he was. Did the apostles use the word bishop to refer to themselves? Did the people called them bishops? Probably not. So, were the apostles bishops or not? As we understand what a Bishop is today, of course they were. That's why we say bishops are the successors to the apostles.
On a different, but similar note, until the 9th century, the Pope wasn't the Vicar of Christ, but was called Vicar of Peter. Since we now say Vicar of Christ, the "Vicar of Peter" was replaced with "Successor of Peter." We can also start playing with words as to what this means.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 03:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of "The church (teaches) Peter to be the first Bishop of Rome" provokes such strong responses, I don't think anybody denies that the church implicitly accepts Peter as the historical first Bishop of Rome; the issue is solely that the church does not explicitly teach this anywhere.
The church consistently uses language speaking of succession in all official documents; the article should simply reflect this language when discussing church teaching. It would, however, be accurate to say "many historian and church apologists" believe Peter to be the first bishop. Clergy, and even Popes, have described Peter, at least informally, as the first Bishop. It would be appropriate, too, to summarize the historical arguments (with a note regarding the opposing view). The problem is simply that Wikipedia cannot state that the church officially teaches this, because it is not explicitly stated. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Could someone possibly write a brief and (ideally) neutral summary of the name debate ("Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church") and post it permanently on this talk page? As a non-RC British expat and a latecomer to Wikipedia I was rather surprised to discover that the article name is "Catholic Church". I know there's the archive, but there's just too much material there for someone like me who doesn't want to reopen the whole can of worms, but would like to know how and when the decision was taken.
Another question: Are there any agreed guidelines on the use of Catholic/Roman Catholic in articles not related to (Roman) Catholicism and/or Christianity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroupCohomologist ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Below is a possible rephrasing that may work as an intermediate while larger issues are worked out. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Original proposal (superseded by the public draft) |
---|
|
Public Draft of Early History Section ( Talk:Catholic Church/Proposed early history) | ||
---|---|---|
The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived and preached in the 1st century AD in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is sole authentic continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus. [1] [2]
The New Testament, in particular the Gospels, records Jesus' activities and teaching, his appointment of the twelve Apostles and his Great Commission of the Apostles, instructing them to continue his work. [3] [4] The book Acts of Apostles, tells of the founding of the Christian church and the spread of its message to the Roman empire, [5] The Catholic Church teaches that its public ministry began on Pentecost, occurring fifty days following the date Christ is believed to have resurrected. [6] At Pentecost, the Apostles are believed to have received the Holy Spirit, preparing them for their mission in leading the church. [7] [8] The church teaches that the college of bishops, led by the Bishop of Rome are the successors to the Apostles. [9] In the account of the
Confession of Peter found in the
Gospel of Matthew, Christ designates Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ's church will be built.
[10]
[11] The Church considers the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, to be the successor to Saint Peter.
[12] Based upon-extra biblical accounts of Peter's ministry and
martyrdom in Rome, some scholars state Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
[13]
[note 1] Other scholars, though, question whether there was formal leadership among early Roman Christians, and thus whether there is a formal link between Peter and the modern Papacy.
[14]
[note 2]
|
My main aim here was to specifically provide citations for each claim, which were woefully lacking in the original. With proper citations, the reader can better judge the reliability and nature of the information shared. I specifically skirted detailing the "link" between Peter and the Bishops of Rome, which is in need of further resolve. I incorporated the "counterpoint" proposed by Piledhighdeep as a footnote (which may need some adjustment to reflect the phrasing in the body). I also added a potential "historical response" where the historicity may be better elaborated in the future. I included a possible elaboration on Peter's role in the Pentecost, but am not certain if it would be needed. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish to draw attention to some recent edits in the last paragraph of the draft:
I wish to expressly invite others to contribute to this public draft. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Esoglou, for your feedback. I have addressed the majority of the issues you have pointed out. I apparently did not read Boring correctly, and removed that entire passage. A brief summary of other apostle's activities may still be appropriate. I have pushed the revised draft into the article. Thank you Elizium, too, for your support. The final "diffs" between the version that was reviewed, and the version pushed can be found [ here]. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 06:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
An IP made some good faith edits to the Homosexuality section, but I'm not sure if they should be kept or not. Specifically I'm not sure whether the changes to the first paragraph accurately reflect the source. (The change to the second paragraph doesn't bug me.) Any thoughts? (version here.) Luthien22 ( talk) 21:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Especially in light of recent additions to the early history section, are there any lingering NPOV concerns? -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Draft of history lead ( Talk:Catholic Church/History lead draft) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived and preached in the 1st century AD in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus. [8] Christianity spread throughout the early Roman Empire, despite persecutions due to conflicts with the pagan state religion. Emperor Constantine legalized the practice of Christianity in AD 313, and it became the state religion in 380. Germanic invaders of Roman territory in the 5th and 6th centuries, many of whom had previously adopted Arian Christianity, eventually adopted Catholicism to ally themselves with the papacy and the monasteries. In the 7th and 8th centuries, continuous Muslim conquests following the advent of Islam led to an Arab domination of the Mediterranean that severed political connections, and weakened cultural connections, between Rome and the Eastern Roman Empire. Conflicts involving authority in the church, particularly the authority of the Bishop of Rome finally culminated in the East West Schism in the 11th century, splitting the Church into the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Earlier splits within the Church occurred after the Council of Ephesus (431) and that of Council of Chalcedon (451). However, a few Eastern Churches remained in communion with Rome, and portions of some others established communion in the 1400s and later, forming the what are called the Eastern Catholic Churches. Early Monasteries throughout Europe helped preserve Greek and Roman classical civilisation. The Church eventually became the dominant influence in Western Civilization unto the modern age. Many Renaissance figures were sponsored by the church. The 16th century, however, began to see challenges to the Church, in particular to its religious authority by figures in the Protestant Reformation, as well as in the 17th century by secular intellectuals in the Enlightenment. Concurrently, Spanish and Portuguese explorers and missionaries spread the Church's influence through Africa, Asia, and the New World. In 1870, the First Vatican Council declared the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Also in 1870, the Kingdom of Italy annexed the City of Rome, the last portion of the Papal States to be incorporated in the new nation. In the 20th century, the church endured a massive backlash at the hands of anti-clerical governments around the world, including Mexico and Spain, where thousands of clerics and laypersons were persecuted or executed. During the Second World War, the Church condemned Nazism, and protected hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Holocaust; its efforts, however, have been criticized as potentially inadequate. After the war, freedom of religion was severely restricted in the newly aligned Communist countries, several of whom had large Catholic populations. In the 1960's, the Second Vatican Council led to several controversial reforms of the church liturgy and practices, an effort descried as "opening the windows" by defenders, but leading to harsh criticism in several conservative circles. In the face of increased criticism from both within and without, the Church has upheld or reaffirmed at various times controversial doctrinal positions regarding sexuality and gender, including limiting clergy to males, and moral exhortations against abortion, contraception, sexual activity outside of marriage, remarriage following divorce without annulment, and against homosexual marriage. |
I have created a draft of a new lead for the history section here. The current lead inadequately summarizes that very complex history section, and provides no summary or guidance as to its content. Nothing in the draft is meant to be controversial or surprising, but to merely summarize the history section. The draft may be freely edited as though it were part of the article; there is no specific target date for its inclusion. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 14:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Recently thanks to requests by User:Piledhighandeep we did a massive rewrite on the beginning of the history section to remove NPOV issues. This article's right now at B-class, so I thought maybe we could build on this momentum and run an edit drive to get this to either GA or FA. Any thoughts? Luthien22 ( talk) 04:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The while this is the particular lead of only a section of the article, Wikipedia:Lead section should probably still be applied, as the history section is approximately the same length of the rest of the article combined (and still a significant summary of the content at History of the Catholic Church). With regard to the "jump" from the 1960's back to the New Testament, this just follows WP:Lead's guidance: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". -- Zfish118 ( talk) 19:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Since there is an edit dispute, we must clarify whether we should in Wikipedia speak of the 1962 variant of the Tridentine Mass as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. There have been many forms of the Roman Rite. At any one time, e.g., in 2014, only one of them is the ordinary form, all the others are extraordinary. Pope Benedict introduced the novelty of authorizing another form apart from the ordinary form. This second authorized form, that of the 1962 Roman Missal, he described as an extraordinary form: "The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration" ( Letter to the bishops ). Because there are now two authorized forms, one of them being the present ordinary form, many have taken to calling the other form the extraordinary form, rather than the authorized extraordinary form. However, other extraordinary forms exist and are in use, even if they are not officially authorized. Some people do not accept the changes made by Pope John XXIII in 1962. Some do not accept even the changes made by Pope Pius XII in 1955. They call both the 1962 and the 1955 changes "trial balloons" for Pope Paul VI's 1969 changes: see this commentary and this article. So there are still in use, even now, more than two forms of the Roman Rite. One of them is the present ordinary form. All the others, not just one of them, are now extraordinary (non-ordinary) forms.
The forms differ in more than rubrics. Pius XII's Holy Week text changes were by no means minor, and John XXIII altered the Canon of the Mass, previously considered untouchable, as well as making other text changes, such as in the Good Friday prayer for the Jews. That, much more than rubrics and precedence of feasts, is why those people prefer the pre-1962 and even the pre-1955 texts, and why they use those non-ordinary forms of the Roman Rite. Esoglou ( talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "expanded" versus "affirmed", I think slight misunderstanding arose; I edited the sentence to say two things: He affirmed the continued use of the 1962 missal (that it was not divisive, etc), and issued new permissive norms. Using "Expanded" in the first clause repeats the second clause, and removes a distinct piece of information. (I do not oppose revision, but wanted to clarify that I had incorporated two distinct pieces of information.) -- Zfish118 ( talk) 05:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Suggested line giving context to the other western rites: "These rites predate the standardization of Tridentine mass in the 1570 and were thus allowed to continue." I wish to make sure it is accurate before it is included. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 15:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Is "Sexuality and gender", which has now been anchored, a suitable heading within this article, in view of the contrast between "gender constructionism" and the idea that "God creates the two sexes the way they are meant to be, and that is their essence, male and female. God intends members of each sex to desire only members of the opposite sex. ( Adrian Thatcher, God, Sex, and Gender, pp. 19–20)? Esoglou ( talk) 10:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 of the History section speaks of "expanding Muslim conquests following the advent of Islam [that] led to an Arab domination of the Mediterranean". It is at present without citation of source. I find it difficult to trace the source that in our discussion was once cited in this regard. It certainly concerned the controversial Pirenne Thesis. (I apologize for the ambiguous expression I used in an edit summary, saying "you [Piledhighandeep] and I may disagree", by which I meant not "disagree with one another", but "disagree (both of us) with the thesis".) Piledhighandeep and I do seem to disagree about what was the effect of that Arab domination of the Mediterranean as a lead-up to the East-West Schism. Piledhighandeep believes that it "severed political connections between the western and eastern Mediterranean". I altered that to "severed political connections between that area and northern Europe" (by "that area", I meant the area dominated by Arabs). Perhaps, if necessary with the help of others, we can both agree, and arrive at a clearer exposition.
The citation that was once part of this paragraph was, I think, to some part of this book. To me, the book (and the Pirenne Thesis too) seems to speak about a break between the Arab-dominated area (mention is made of Egypt and of trade with the Far East), not about a break between western Europe and the Byzantine Empire, which I think continued to interact closely, if hostilely. I take it that what happened was that the break of commercial and other links between what I called "that area" (the Arab area) and northwestern Europe severely cut down and diminished the prosperity of the Mediterranean interface between them, leading to a concentration of activity away from that interface. This doubtless happened on the Arab side too, but the Pirenne Thesis concentrates only on the side of northwestern Europe, which underwent a new urbanization and the growth of trade that ignored the Mediterranean. As I see it, this was like the change brought by the voyages of discovery in later centuries. Before those voyages, and possibly as one result of the Crusades, there was again great Mediterranean trade, involving also passage to the Far East through the Muslim-dominated area, bringing prosperity to Italian cities such as Venice and Genoa. When the focus of trade shifted to the Cape route and the Atlantic, that prosperity diminished. Just think of the work begun in Siena to make their wonderful cathedral just a transept of an immensely bigger cathedral of which they began to build the outer walls, but were unable, on account of the decline of their prosperity, to finish. To return to the point, I think the break was, as I said, at the Mediterranean interface with the Arab area, and its influence on the origin of the East-West Schism was only indirect, by enabling a non-Mediterranean empire to develop that no longer saw itself as a state on the margin of the Byzantine Empire but as its full-blown rival. I mean of course the Frankish Empire. Piledhighandeep will doubtless help clarify the whole matter. Esoglou ( talk) 13:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
There was some talk not long along about shortening the history section. I pointed to an intermediate version from a couple years ago as a potential model. My main concern at the time was that the history section here is relatively trimmed, while the current History of the Catholic Church is a very long and complicated article.
I would like to offer a thought, not quite a proposal, to make the majority of the History Section the "History of the Catholic Church"; and the current one be renamed "Extended History of the Catholic Church". The history lead might be kept in "Catholic Church", perhaps expanded it a bit similar to the linked version found above. In its current form, it appears to be almost two standalone articles on single page. Perhaps a template might be constructed suggesting "Catholic Church" is "part one", and the abbreviated "History..." is "part two".
The version above got mixed acceptance, so for any major revisions, we would likely need buy in from several parties. At this stage, I would only like to see what thoughts others might have. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 03:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Catholic News Service
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 |
Is it against MOS guidelines to refer to the Church as "she"? This is how she refers to herself but I am unsure if it would comply with Wikipedia standards. I reverted a recent edit by Hazhk in this regard, he changed "she" (referring to the Church) to "the papacy" but should it actually read "it" instead? Elizium23 ( talk) 02:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The Universal Catholic Church is made up of 23 autonomous Churches, the Roman Catholic Church ( Latin Catholic) being the largest, with 22 other Eastern Churches in Communion with it (see Eastern Catholic Churches). Therefore the first title of the article "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church" is erroneous. It would be more appropriate to write "Catholic Church is a Communion of 23 Churches, the largest of which being the Roman Catholic Church." Julianhayda ( talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Julianhayda 6:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine, I'll give it to you that most members of the Latin Church are unaware of what that term means, and as such usage varies. But since there is disagreement (possibly due to ignorance), why even have it in the very first line of the article? Wouldn't it be beneficial for most Catholics to know that there are 23 Catholic Churches, and perhaps the usage of that term does not apply to everybody? Are you suggesting that institutions such as the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, the Pontifical Oriental Institute, St. Basil Seminary, and the Ukrainian Catholic University which insist on their non-Romaness, all-the-while recognizing the Pope of Rome as the successor of Peter, have no idea what they're talking about? How about the first line of the Eastern Catholic Code of Canons, which states that the Eastern Churches are separate from the Latin Church? "Canon 1 - The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise." [6] Is not Latin and Roman synonymous? I know there's a consensus on this on the Roman Catholic (term) talk page. Julianhayda ( talk) 22:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Would you be able to provide a link to the archives? Like I said, I have known my entire life, from my studies, articles, books, my father, family friends (among which, bishops and professors), etc., that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonymous, and I have provided at least five links above to demonstrate that and another twenty if you'd like. I will use an example. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was signed into union with the Roman See at the Union of Brest in 1596. The text of the union [7] in the opening line is described as "Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church." That's **Union, not acquisition. Now, when an institution, ecclesial or civil, enters into a union, say, the European Union; simply because France recognizes Belgium as an ally, there exist no borders between the two countries, the countries coexist with different cultures and different governments, yet the union's capital is in Brussels does not mean that every Frenchman is automatically Belgian. I see no difference in this case. Julianhayda ( talk) 00:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just because a custom is common and may be found in some publications doesn't make it correct. Although it is a common custom for Eastern Catholics to refer to the Latin Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" it is still an incorrect use regardless of who does it ~ even eminent Eastern Catholic bishops. Instead of calling them "Roman Catholics" they should correctly either call them Latin Catholics or Latin Rite Catholics or even Western Catholics (although many Anglicans and others also claim this description).
Anglicanus (
talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
When I come home, I will change the signage in front of my church, remove the "Ukrainian-Greek" from its title, and just wait for "Latin" Catholics to walk in and say, "wait a minute, this isn't a ''real Catholic Church," as has happened in the past. Julianhayda ( talk) 04:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Why there is nothing about the Edict of Thessalonica? It was essential for the establishment of the State Chruch of the Roman Empire. This edict of 380 AC made the Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and was the beginning of the Roman State Church.
"We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches." Edict of Thessalonica, by Roman Emperors
--
178.190.181.180 (
talk) 21:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I am a relatively new Wikipedian, I have not seen the need to edit a locked page before, but there was a lot that happened in this missing period. What is the process of editing a locked article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Name Omitted ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Between the inquisitions and crusades innumerable innocent people have lost their lives under the authority of the Catholic Church. Why is Wikipedia so biased in not stating directly numbers of those whom have died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.113.128 ( talk) 06:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this article the first sentence states that RC population is 1.2 billion and there is a citation. The citation states that it is 1.214 MILLION. The word 'million' in the source needs to be changed to 'billion.'
67.168.147.85 ( talk) 19:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under membership statistics article states number of Catholics as 1,214 million. True enough, but it sure is confusing. Using a the term "thousand million" to refer to a billion is weird. Thanks for considering change. 74.192.32.24 ( talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. As I understand it, "thousand million" is still sometimes used to express the figure 1,000,000,000 in
certain English-speaking countries, with the word "billion" reserved for 1,000,000,000,000 (aka a trillion). I think that this usage is now uncommon (see
Long and short scales), but I'd like there to be consensus before making the change. The
manual of style doesn't seem to explicitly deprecate "thousand million", so there should be plenty of wiggle room on this.
Rivertorch (
talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Most material I added was originally removed in June 2011. The original can be found here for reference: Talk:Catholic_Church/Old_history_section_(June_2011). -- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#List of Roman Catholic XXX. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the desire to word the dogma of Mary, Mother of God including the word "divine". This is how it is attested in many WP:RS: http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/mariandogmas.html , http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/ , and even the Wikipedia article Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The wording typically goes "Divine Motherhood" so if we could work that in without being redundant to "Mother of God" it would be great. Please do not delete "divine" from the wording because that was settled in ancient times by the Council of Ephesus. Elizium23 ( talk) 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The term "divine motherhood" is an ambiguous concept. It depends on a person on how to understand it regardless of being a Catholic or not. It can either refer to "being a mother to a divine being" or an "aspect of a divine being as a mother." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.32.219 ( talk) 12:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The current number of Catholics in the article is sourced to http://www.catholicculture.org/, which promotes itself as being "dedicated to providing accurate world news, written from a distinctively Catholic perspective". The particular article in question says the figures are "according to the Vatican’s latest statistics."
Could these sources be any less independent?
Surely we can do better than that. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
To my sensibilities (such as they are) the opening sentence is unecessarily long, complicated and grammatically awkward. Can I suggest a revision into two separate sentences along the lines of:
"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church. With a (current) membership estimated at 1.2 billion this makes it the world's second largest religious body after Sunni Islam."
Any thoughts and comments about this? Anglicanus ( talk) 06:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for people's comments. As there does not appear to be any objections to the principle of revising the opening I would like to propose the following two possibilities:
1. "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church. With a current membership estimated at 1.2 billion, it is also the world's second largest religious body after Sunni Islam."
or
2. "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church. It is also the world's second largest religious body after Sunni Islam, with a current membership estimated at 1.2 billion."
Please indicate whether you prefer either No. 1 or No. 2 and make any suggested wording or punctuation changes.
Thanks, Anglicanus ( talk) 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why the reference to Sunni Islam has been added. As others have said, it is highly debateable that Sunni Islam - as opposed to the more "Catholic" Shia Islam - can be called a "religious body" any more than Protestantism can, and even if it could the comparison is surely undue for the opening paragraph of the lead. Haldraper ( talk) 09:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I take issue with the sentence, "There are a variety of doctrinal and theological emphases within the Catholic Church,[11] including the Eastern Catholic Churches and religious communities such as the Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans." Source: Colin Gunton. "Christianity among the Religions in the Encyclopedia of Religion" I think this sentence is confusing because it might make someone think that "Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans" are doctrinally different. Actually, that is not true. There is a difference in how they respond to the Gospel message, but that is not a difference in "theological emphases" either. Franciscans are somewhat mystics that focus their ministry on the poor; Dominicans are theologians, while Jesuits are more pragmatics. Actually, none of the religious orders have different theology. They are all supposed to be faithful to the Magisterium. Differences may exist among members, but that is not the official position of the order. If they teach something too far out of line, members can be disciplined. For example, the Vatican issued a statement denouncing some of the writings by Tony DeMello, a Jesuit. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980624_demello_en.html I'm not sure how to fix this paragraph. Perhaps that sentence should delete the part about "Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans." They are only three of many Catholic religious orders. See http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/xrel.html. Religious orders are celebate groups of men or women that are not part of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. They are diffences in how to minister to the Body of Christ. I didn't make any changes to the article. BettyG ( talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Bettyg51
regarding the inclusion of "Christian denominational families" Catholicism never concedes to being just one member of a multitude of sects. "Denominationalism" (for lack of a better word) is a Protestant concept purposely embraced and utilized to undermine the one reality of One Lord, one FAITH, one baptism and hence one visible Church. When will Catholicism be recorded in non-Protestant terms via wiki?
Isn't it "the oldest continuously operating institution in the world?" It sounds a bit less ambiguous if worded that way
23haveblue ( talk) 16:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The article says: "which caused Urban to launch the First Crusade aimed at aiding the Byzantine Empire and returning the Holy Land to Christian control" That's not valid. Orthodox people were slaughtered that time. They were considered "schismatical" & "Heretics" and that "they should wash their sins with their blood".
In the history chapter: You also say nothing about the start of the "Catholic" Arianlike heresy, which started from Charlemagne. You hide again your false trinitarian dogmas(Filoque) on the theological chapter. This is part of your history made from Germans, not Romans. You broke your catholicity with "Holy Inquisition", where totalitarianism rose. Thank you for your attention. I hope you'll answer me soon. [user:uknown]
I think you misunderstood me. I don't doubt the sources. I say that these that i've written above are not written but they're an integral part of Catholic Church history. So they should be written. The article doesn't even mention those facts above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.20.157 ( talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that Filoque should be written and in this article, not only in the article of "Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences". Since Catholicism believes in another Trinity than the one believed from the older Christians it needs to be stated in the Trinity content. It's one of the many beliefs of this church that seperate her from the apostolic one. Why would this not considered as important to write? Thank you. [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.20.157 ( talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Because i feel that they hide half of them on purpose. This makes me feel like if someone will read that article, he'll be brainwashed. See for example the Trinity content. It's said all right but it hides the neoteristic Filoque dogma. I guess it's like that in order not to create conflict with other churches or with what Bible says or create doubts for the authenticity of the church. But why to hide one main belief of the theology of the Catholic Church since the purpose is to write about it? This does not make the article objective. That's what i'm trying to say. Do you get me? [user:uknown]
Okay. Maybe i was too steep on the start so i'll take it easier now. The article has dedicated four lines on sex abuse cases. It's far more important to add Filoque. I don't say you to add lines. It'll just need one sentence and Filoque will be on blue, so people could click it if they want to see what it is. Does this proposal sound like too much? [user:uknown]
How could we add it then? [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.144.185 ( talk) 21:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I apologize about that. [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.57.24 ( talk) 23:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
So how will we decide about it? Will we do a poll or something? How are these decisions taken in wikipedia? [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.57.24 ( talk) 15:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's Filioque. I was just doing the mistake continuously during typing. Sorry. Mr. Esoglou, Filioque is not a result of a latin Nicene Creed but a result of the Synod of Toledo. Arians added it that time to support monarchy, ie the authority. Let's say it's not legimitate but tolerant, or even better mixed dogmas which ends up in a chaotic situation. If the Eastern Catholic Churches don't accept the confirmed from their Synods Filioque dogma, they're disobeying their own church and the infallibility of the Pope who decided it. Who told you that it's legimitate? Several Popes have publicly recited the Nicene Creed in Greek without that phrase, because that's the original Nicene Creed. This also creates doubts for the authenticity of that church. The other Popes were infallible and those who introduced another faith is infallible too because he's just a Pope? With these actions it's like he places the previous Popes and apostles and Christians as heretics and fallible and himself only as infallible. Who do they think they are to distort the Creed ie the symbol of faith of the Apostles and all the Christians just to serve the power? West introduced it and you say that i can discourse it in the Eastern Orthodox Church? This seems illogical to me. To Farsight001: You say that " And the Church is 2000 years old. There is a LOT out there about it. In comparison to everything else, I think its too much detail for a general overview." This subject employs the Church for more than 1000 years, ie the half time of the existence of Church. Still not important? Furthermore, the article says: <<The Church teaches that God the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from God the Father and God the Son as a single origin>> This is not a doctrine of the Church. Christianity condemns that. This is the doctrine of the Church: <<When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,>> John 15:26 [user:uknown] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.57.24 ( talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
We've reached to the misrepresentation of the words as Thucydides wrote... I personally don't want only adds but and removes. Mr. Esoglou, Filioque was never in the faith of the Church. It's a cacodoxy. In addition, the title is misleading. In the Nicene Creed we say that we believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The article gives the conclusion that they are this Church. This is the propaganda that it tells in: "the Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" section. Catholic Church is an ecclesiastical construct, not the Church. They exploit the title "Church", in order to gain adherents. In the same way that a sect calls themseleves as the Church of Christ, Catholics claim that too. There is no difference at all. With accepting all these, you're being acquiescent and brainwash people. This is not a veracious spirit that wants to be objective. Catholic Church can't be the apostolic one because it hasn't the same beliefs. Also, except from the apostolic succession, what commons in faith do they have with the Apostles? As we saw in John 15:26, they even ignore the Bible(the one of two sources of the content of faith with the Holy Tradition, which are actually conventional), to support their heretical claims. As you saw on my previous replies, i did not told about others beliefs. -Now, according to your logic i'll answer you similarly: It's not about what i call Christianity but what Christ said. Apostles also, condemn "Catholics" because they say the opposite(for example Filioque). [Διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις μὴ παραφέρεσθε] By manifold and strange doctrines do not be seduced, borne aside from the right path. Hebrews 13:9 -On others' beliefs(this is optional to read): Islam also claims against Old Testament(even though they "accept" it), because they say half the truth too. Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King but they still prefer to "accept anything in the Old Testament that agrees with the Qur'an.". Anyway, i'm not here to criticize the others beliefs. They are free to do so. This is just my opinion which doesn't count anything to them. I'll finish with what Apostles said about it(which is referred to Catholics too), not me: [Αλλά και εάν ημείς ή άγγελος εξ ουρανού ευαγγελίζηται υμίν παρ' ο ευαγγελισάμεθα υμίν, ανάθεμα εστω] As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Galatians 1:9 [user:uknown] 176.58.153.128 ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It is fine to say what they claim but if there is a disagreement, saying another opinion is necessary, right? You've said before "That ALSO means that we cannot simply declare that the Catholic Church is NOT THE Church either.". Is there a proof that Catholic Church is the Church? That's my first main disagreement that needs to change. Catholic Church should not be named with capital letter(as the others like Armenian, Churches of Christ and so on...). As saint Just Popovic said(which i think it fits and to the article Christian Church): "The Church, being an overall and a uniquely God-human organism in all the worlds, cannot possibly be divided. Every division would have spelled her death." and "The Church is one and unique because it is the body of the one and only Christ. The dividing of the Church is ontologically impossible, which is why there has never been a division per se of the Church, but only a departure from the Church. According to the word of the Lord, the vine cannot be divided; only the voluntarily unfruitful vine branches fall off from the ever-living vine and dry up (John 15:1-6). At various times, heretics and schismatics had severed themselves from the one indivisible Church of Christ, who consequently ceased to be members of the Church and embodied in Her Godman body. Such were firstly the Gnostics, then the Arians and the Pneumatomachs (Spirit-opponents), then the Monophysites and Uniates and all the other heretic and schismatic legion." With naming all the other churches with capital letter, you accept that they are part of the Church, even though they've seperated themselves from Her. [user:uknown] 176.58.153.128 ( talk) 13:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
"No, giving another opinion is not necessary.". In the meaning that we have freedom and everyone can express his opinion without being silenced,threatened... The sources aren't necessary now. We haven't decided to change anything yet. The name Catholic belongs the the Eastern Orthodox Church, not to schismatics. "Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever." Creed of St Athanasius The name Catholic is a devious title. They tell it although they don't have Catholic faith. What is the Catholic faith? For example the decisions taken in the Ecumenical Synods by the whole Church(which they don't accept them all). Since they don't follow these, they're not Catholics. Therefore, this title has to change or to tell that they have nothing to do with it, even though it has dominanced as term but as we saw it's a propagandic term. Also, their construct comes from 1054, not from Christ. The only thing that you do is telling their claims but you have to write and the objective truth about it. [user:uknown] 176.58.153.128 ( talk) 15:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you heard of literary property, ie copyright? The name doesn't belong to whoever schismatic decides to name itself Catholic but to the one who is Catholic. It is propaganda if they are not Catholics and still claim that they are and you understand from that point that they name themselves like that to obtain believers. One last question: What kind of sources exactly do you need to certify these? [user:uknown] 46.190.44.152 ( talk) 10:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course you can. Example: Someone is Catholic. Then he breaks off the communion and claims that he's Catholic. Isn't this insane? If i write a book does it count as a source? [user:uknown] 46.190.44.152 ( talk) 15:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
A name that expresses what? The Catholicity that they don't have? Their church construct which is not Catholic? Why exactly would you want sources for that? This is a way of thinking. [user:uknown] 46.190.44.152 ( talk) 19:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'll try to refer some sources and then answer and to your last message. There is still time left so i'll be late a bit. Is it okay? [user:uknown] 46.190.55.61 ( talk) 18:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to sound aggresive but that's how i write. I'm not admin or even a user. My humble opinion is that you think narrow-minded in this subject. You don't explain in general why they'd think this has lies everywhere. The canon of saint Vicent of Lerins has a lot of meaning and it defines who is Catholic and who isn't: http://www.voskrese.info/spl/lerins2.html Here is a difference in the falsification that "RomanCatholics" interpet of what catholicity is, is told in the beginning of this article: http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/talks/catholicity.shtml Why this huge difference not be included? Everyone claims someone heretic by that. Now, i also refer in Catholicism article, because it hasn't an Orthodox section. It could at least be there because since "Catholics" give another meaning in what is catholic we can hardly say that they don't lie but in my opinion about the Catholic Church article, telling and the second version is necessary because it has use of this word. Someone might be confused. [user:uknown] 46.190.58.15 ( talk) 21:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I've already told you man that the only thing we need is to explain in what meaning the articles says it. It is insufficient in the name section. Full acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils ie the decisions that were taken by the whole Church, is essential to claim yourself Catholic. This is what universal is. If a pope can remove decisions of his predecessors, if authority is above, we can't talk about universality. That's not how the Church acted all these years. The consubstantiality of the faces of Holy Trinity that Holy Fathers declared, constitutes standard for human relations. Εquivalent, sociability, democracy, without authoritarians and subordinates. Filioque is directly related to this because it deteriorates consubstantiality of the faces which reflects equality between human relations and democracy in the decisions of the Church. [user:uknown] 176.58.157.34 ( talk) 18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I really do many errors in this language. I may have bad knowledge of the English language but please, let me explain. We read from here: http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-81111086/is-mission-a-consequence-of-the-catholicity-of-the "If the church does not proclaim her truth (that is, rebukes her missionary task), she loses catholicity." This is what happened with “RomanCatholics”. They distorted the Holy Trinity with the Filioque dogma. It’s proved theologically that Filioque is wrong and it was also condemned by the Church in the Eighth Ecumenical Council ie the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox). The Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879 condemned those who simply "add" or "subtract" from the Creed of 381(and those who do not accept the doctrine of Holy Images of the Seventh Ecumenical Council). This was an Ecumenical Council because: the decisions were published as Roman laws signed by the Emperor after their acts were signed by the five Roman Patriarchs, Metropolitans and bishops . The Emperor convened these Ecumenical Councils in cooperation with the Five Roman Patriarchates a) Old Rome , b ) of Constantinople and New Rome , c ) of Alexandria , d ) of Antioch, which was added in 451 A.D e) of Jerusalem. The Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) doesn’t count as an Ecumenical Synod. We read from here: http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html The condemnation of the Roman Catholic Eighth Council (the anti-Photian Council of Constantinople of 869/70) by Pope John VIII is first given in this Pope's Letter to the Emperors Basil, Leo and Alexander. In this Letter which was read at the second session of the Photian Council of Constantinople of 879/80 and is included in the second Act of the Minutes, Pope John VIII writes: "And first of all receive Photios the most amazing and most reverend High-Priest of God our Brother Patriarch and co-celebrant who is co-sharer, co-participant and inheritor of the communion which is in the Holy Church of the Romans... receive the man unpretentiously. No one should behave pretentiously [following] the unjust councils which were made against him. No one. as it seems right to many who behave like a herd of cows, should use the negative votes of the blessed Hierarchs who preceded us. Nicholas, I mean, and Hadrian as an excuse [to oppose him]; since they did not prove what had been cunningly concocted against him... Everything that was done against him has now ceased and been banished..." (The Latin text is this Ac primum quidem a nobis suscipi Photium praetantissimum ac reverentissimum Dei Pontificem et Patriarcham, in fratrem nostrum et comministrum, eundemque communionis cum sancta Romana ecclesia participem, consortem, et haeredem... Suscipite virum sine aliqua exrusatione. Nemo praetexat eas quae contra ipsum factae sunt innjustas synodos. Nemo, ut plerisque videtur imperitis ac rudibis, decessorum nostrorum beatorum Pontificum, Nicolai inquam, et Hadriani, decreta culpet... Finita sunt enim omnia, repudiata omnia, quae adversus cum gesta sunt, infirma irritaquae reddita... Mansi vol xvii, cls. 400D & 401BC. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 281f). A similar condemnation is found in Pope John VIII's Letter to Photios where he writes: "As for the Synod that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and have completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because of the other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not subscribe to it..." (Latin text: Synodum vero, quae contra tuam reverentiam ibidem est habita, rescidimus, damnavimus omnino, et abjecimus: tum ob alias causas, tum quo decessor noster beatus Papa Hadrianus in ea non subscripsit..." Mansi vol. xvii cl. 416E. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 292). Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods." The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our Most Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was written or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente synodo pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. Sancta Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo nostro Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in hac dicta a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also cls. 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870. Why “RomanCatholics” don’t accept the Synod that condemned Filioque and at last decide to condemn the Filioque dogma? Does this makes them Catholic or since they don’t hold the truth anymore, they lose their Catholicity? If they deny it they auto-condemn theirselves and become schismastics without any serious reason. Only from pride. This removes the whole Catholic name. It’s only a title without any meaning. About Catholicism article: Thank you for adding an Orthodox section. Catholicity in Orthodoxy has another meaning and it’s told here: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/schmemann_unity_2.html I think it’s important to make this addendum. [user:uknown] 46.190.95.144 ( talk) 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I leave a last choice if you want to continue here -> Why you judge the writing as a waste of time before you read it? It has all the suggestions for this and another three articles(the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic), Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) and Catholicism). Especially about the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) and Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox): in the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/880, Popes themselves and the whole Church condemns those who accept Filioque and the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) as an Ecumenical Council. What don't you understand? [user:uknown] 46.190.95.144 ( talk) 09:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any friends. So i'll stop writing. By the way, i believe that you'll find very useful information for wikipedia articles in the last two articles from reocities and myriobiblos. [user:uknown]
46.190.58.5 (
talk) 10:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
"The Church maintains that the doctrine on faith and morals that it presents as definitive is infallible. There are a variety of doctrinal and theological emphases within the Catholic Church, including the Eastern Catholic Churches and religious communities such as the Jesuit, mendicant, and enclosed monastic orders."
The first sentence of this paragraph is fine, but doesn't logically lead into the second sentence. I moved it to the top of the paragraph regarding doctrine. The second sentence is problematic. It seems to draw an unintended equivalency between the Eastern Catholic and the religious communities. It also seems to count "Jesuit" as type of religious order. The phrase "variety of doctrinal and theological emphases" is confusing as used, although directly quoted from the source. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
My edit summary should have ended with "if, that is, 'extraordinary form' does deserve mention in an image caption", but somehow this phrase got deleted just before I saved. For my part, I strongly doubt that it deserves mention. Esoglou ( talk) 19:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
This sentence was not well explained and perhaps unnecessary in the current section (celebration of the Eucharist):
Additionally, these sentences were redundant or did not seem relevant:
I place them here in case there is any crucial information that should be added back, either to the celebration section, or the doctrine section -- Zfish118 ( talk) 01:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The on page 79 of the Pew Study found at http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/12/Christianity-fullreport-web.pdf, the table titled "Christian Traditions by Region and Country" explicitly gives estimates for 2010 for various Christian populations in each country. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
See page 111 of that report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernio48 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I presume that the unspecified book by Schreck repeatedly cited in the article is Alan Schreck's Essential Catholic Catechism, which is not freely available. I wonder how accurate are the statements attributed to it. One in particular is the statement that the New Testament was never compiled before the Codex Vaticanus was written. The article about that manuscript says that, as it now exists, it lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation; that it may never have contained Revelation, and that it probably contained New Testament apocrypha. Did Schreck write what the article attributes to him? It is to be hoped that he did, for otherwise doubt is cast on the accuracy of the other statements attributed to him. Esoglou ( talk) 16:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Schreck, Alan (1999). The Essential Catholic Catechism. Servant Publications. ISBN 1-56955-128-6.
I have thought it best to replace the material on the Catholic canon of Scripture attributed to Schreck with what I think is clearer and surer material. Schreck seems to have attached disproportionate importance to that one manuscript, whether in the nonsense version attributed to him in this article ("the New Testament writings first found" in that manuscript), which says the writings, not just the list of them, were found nowhere until then, or in the transcription of his words given, since 15 May 2008, in the misnamed article " Easter Letter" ("The present list of New Testament writings was first founded [surely a mistyping!] in the Codex Vaticanus from Rome around A.D. 340 ..."). The article is misnamed, because it is about only one of the many circular letters that Athanasius (this was his 39th!) and other Bishops of Alexandria sent annually to inform of the date on which Easter was to be celebrated that year. Surely something less schrecklich than Schreck can be found. Esoglou ( talk) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The social teaching's segment seemed to hover out of place as its own section, and is relevant to several points in the Contemporary Issue section. I am still not certain if it is a good fit there, so a revert would not be taken personally. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The enumeration of these seemed too much for the main article:
The Church enumerates "corporal works of mercy" and "spiritual works of mercy" as follows: [12]
Corporal Works of Mercy | Spiritual Works of Mercy |
---|---|
1. To feed the hungry. | 1. To instruct the ignorant. |
2. To give drink to the thirsty. | 2. To counsel the doubtful |
3. To clothe the naked. | 3. To admonish sinners. |
4. To harbour the harbourless (shelter the homeless). | 4. To bear wrongs patiently. |
5. To visit the sick. | 5. To forgive offences willingly. |
6. To ransom the captive. | 6. To comfort the afflicted. |
7. To bury the dead. | 7. To pray for both the living and the dead. |
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Believing something by faith does not exclude reason and we are exhored not to abandon that very reason by the Catholic Church. The assertion is most definitely not in any cited source, is not in any accurate source, and has no place in the lede section. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The topic is that the church does not teach faith and reason to be mutually exclusive, which was misrepresented in the article. The writings of Saint Thomas are a source for the factual claim that the church teaches their compatibility, not necessarily the accuracy of the church's teaching. Discussing or defending personal beliefs or interpretations is inappropriate for the talk page. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
John Paul II's Encyclical Fides et Ratio is an excellent resource if someone is interested in this topic. HiLo, "religious" people are not here to convince you or anyone else of anything. Should an editor be here it is because they are interested in making the article here. I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask why do you always try to convince us that we are not rational in our beliefs? The shoes easily fits the other foot also. -- Storm Rider 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more clarity and context regarding the acceptance of the New Testament canon east and west is needed. I added a footnote explaining Luther's dispute, but I am uncertain about the only some "place them at three different status levels". There is no discussion as to what these levels are or why it there is any dispute. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I recently reverted a series of edits from the article's lead section that misrepresented the sexual abuse scandal. Firstly, every organization has a small percentage of members with unfortunate pedophilic tendencies; this alone is not notable. What is notable about the church's scandal is that it grossly mishandled a significant number of abuse incidents and accusations. The lead should accurately reflect this. There used to be a neutrally phrased reference to the scandal in the lead developed through consensus. This should be restored. I am editing on my phone and cannot do this right now. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I have twice commented here, and twice Zfish118 has deleted my comment without explanation, discussion or an Edit summary. That is bad faith editing. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I also posted on this user's Talk page. He has deleted my comment there without response or Edit smmary. Clearly this editor does not actually want discussion. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It is my firm belief that I should be able to contribute to an online encyclopedia without having my character impugned. Since your opening response to my post contained a personal attack, hinting ("might") at conclusion with vial cover ups, I considered the entire post to be abusive. I immediately deleted it and privately reported it to several admins to be removed. I then attempted to delete the entire section, since you seemed committed to reposting your attack, and I did not wish to disrupt the page. I had hoped administrative intervention would be quicker.
My entire post was germane to the content I removed. The content was a babbling of statistics, comparing the rate of pedophilia among clergy to rate of the general population. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is the church's failure to appropriately respond to incidents and accusations of abuse. I personally added the section regarding sexual abuse of minors to the Catholic Church article, and every few months find myself reverting edits that try to hide this unfortunate and disgusting chapter in church history. I want the abuse of minors to stop, in the Catholic Church, in the public schools, in private families, everywhere, and to imply that I "might" wish to cover it up is an abusive and spurious accusation.
User:HiLo48, you appear to have a bad tendency to respond without understanding the issue being discussed. In the section above, you expressed frustration at another poster because he was commenting on content that was not in the lead; content that the user had just deleted. Even here, you are feuding with other authors. In my first post in this section, I explicitly stated that I had just removed content, but you still did not check which content was removed before responding. Instead, you choose to post a personal attack, not in the heat of a contentious discussion, but as the first response. Wikipedia generally requires an assumption of good faith, but when your style is consistently provocative, this assumption simply cannot be made. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 00:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please pardon the dozens of minor edits I did today. I attempted to standardize years worth of references, and encountered numerous minor, but difficult errors, due to incompatible templates using similar parameters, etc. Wherever possible, I attempted to perform multiple edits at once, and limit these mass edits to a specific category. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Greetings,
I have developed a template to help quickly cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church (found here: Template:CCC), based on the citation style that has become common here at the Catholic Church article.
The template takes the paragraph number, automatically generates a link to the online English version found at <www.vatican.va>. It also automatically formats the citation using the template:cite web internally, and also can display both a single paragraph or a simple range of paragraphs. It also automatically generates a reference name based on the paragraph or range, and will assign the same footnote to citations with identical paragraphs or ranges.
At this point, I see no need to convert well formatted footnotes, but it might be useful when editing portions of the text with bare paragraph numbers, with no link or access date. I have tested the template, and have worked out most kinks, and documented a few workarounds, but I would appreciate anyone who can find the time to test it out and give me feedback. Thanks! -- Zfish118 ( talk) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. I believe the title of this page is misleading. It should read "Roman Catholic Church" because the Eastern Orthodox Church is also officially called the "Orthodox Catholic Church". And historically, it was Rome which separated itself away from the historically continuous Christian practices of the rest of Christendom. It is important for readers to know that the Roman Church is not the only Church simply referred to as the "Catholic Church" and it has less claim to historical continuity the Orthodoxy. Therefore, the title is both misleading and presumptive. Ri Osraige ( talk) 16:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ri, I understand your position and this was discussed in depth when we were discussing the proper name of the Catholic Church. Although this is not a black and white discussion, there was a great deal of discussion and then a vote where Catholic Church was chosen as the best name for the article. You may want to go back and review the lengthy discussion. Nothing is ever in stone on Wikipedia and if you think you have valid points we did not discuss previously that may sway the majority of the readers then feel free to bring those points here for further discussion. I participated in the discussion and voted that the most correct title for this article is Catholic Church, but I am more than willing to review it again should new information be brought forward. Cheers, -- Storm Rider 13:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to post to this page about the influence of the Catholic church in the area of psychology. This post would resemble a timeline/history point of view of how the Catholic church has affected the study of psychology, theories and philosophers. Do you feel as if this is an appropriate page to post this on or should I create a new page? Hchlebo15 ( talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The intro to the history section presents doctrine (or the Catholic church's view of its history), which is not necessarily the same as the actual history of the church. I have suggested that some counterpoint be included to render the presentation NPOV. I have suggested that at the end of the history intro section, viz. after "It interprets the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church, a doctrine known as apostolic succession" the following be added, "The historicity of these claims is debated. [1] According to many scholars, including prominent historian Bart D. Ehrman, Peter was never a bishop, or leader, in Rome, and the Catholic teaching of apostolic succession of the bishops, popes, of Rome via the unbroken line of popes, claimed as successors to Peter is not historically supported. [2] [3] [4]" Comments? Piledhighandeep ( talk) 22:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
What started as an innocent discussion of how to reduce WP:POV in this article seems to have turned into a bloated, convoluted mess in which nobody knows what the other is saying. I feel a little guilty about this, since I was the one who asked User:Piledhighandeep to bring it up here in the first place. No one person seems to be at fault here (and for the sake of all our sanity don't point fingers); we just all seem to be focusing on different areas of this very large article. Therefore, I have devised a Grand Plan for Getting Stuff Done to help us actually wrap this up and accomplish something.
Step 1: Start with addressing POV issues one section (or in some cases, such as the history section, sub-section) at a time. Step 2: Keep discussions for the one section of the article UNDER THE SAME THREAD, as this is what lead to this discussion being so convoluted in the first place. Step 3: Only discuss the one section that needs to be fixed. Other issues can wait. Step 4: Be kind and courteous of others during the discussion. Don't immediately accuse of POV, sock puppetry, etc. Shouldn't be necessary to say this, but I've seen it happen in discussions of this sort on other pages. Step 5: Do NOT add controversial edits to the section being discussed without asking everybody else first. A section that hasn't been previously discussed is fair game. Step 6: Try to reach a consensus within a reasonable amount of time. (Of course, define reasonable...)
A few of the topics that seem to need addressing during the POV discussion (from my observation of this debate) would include:
I'd like to ask all editors on this page, but particularly @ Piledhighandeep:, @ Farsight001:, @ Zfish118:, @ Elizium23:, @ Alex2006:, @ Achowat:, @ Laurel Lodged:, and @ Esoglou: to provide feedback on this plan and any improvements they would like to make to it, or any other POV related topics we need to discuss. (The people I have "tagged" [for lack of a better term] are those who have actively participated in the POV discussions thus far.)
Following this framework, I propose to begin with the lead section/early history. I reviewed a variety of encyclopedias to see how they addressed the issue. General interest encyclopedias, such as the World Book and abridged Americana, use language substantially similar to the content I initially removed when discussing the early history. They describe Peter as the leader of the Apostles, and Pentecost as what the church teaches to be its establishment. They even use language describing the New Testament as recording the general activities of Jesus' early followers.
A comprehensive encyclopedia, the unabridged Britannica, touches upon the controversies raised by Piledhighandeep, but also discusses the counter arguments of this position. The counter argument it describes are substantially similar to the ones listed in the Tract ( "Was Peter in Rome?") from Catholic Answers I posted above. These included quotes from respected scholars in antiquity that placed Peter exercising his ministry in Rome, whatever the details of his ministry might have been. The Britannica discusses this issue as part of a larger section describing the connection between the early church and the modern Catholic Church/Bishop of Rome, which the more general encyclopedias do no really address.
My conclusions from this are as follows; for sheer cultural literacy, the "traditional" narrative directly linking the early and later churches must be told. Several encyclopedias use this narrative, although duly noted where these are based on Church tradition. Challenges to the traditional narrative should be responsibly documented, with counter arguments. Reliable sources must be used for both sides. The challenges, as far as I can tell, are academically credible, although held by a minority (but not a fringe group).
As for how to address other churches that make similar historical claims, these do not really need to be addressed. Both the Orthodox and Catholics accept that there was one church since antiquity until the eleventh century at the earliest ("two" if you count the early split of the Oriental Orthodox). Doctrinal differences can be addressed as needed throughout the timeline; wherever groups split it can noted whether both claim, exclusive to the other, continuity with the historical church. The splits are historically undeniable, and the claims of succession are undeniable. The discernment of doctrinal truth is beyond Wikipedia's scope; we can only hope to document the most relevant claims and counter claims pertaining to each article's subject. (made from axillary account) -- Zfish118 ( talk) 15:22 16 October 2014 (EDST)
The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived and preached in the 1st century AD in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus.
To recap, the most pressing question that has been raised repeatedly has been how to present the ambiguous date of the establishment or consolidation of the Diocese of Rome, and how to present the conflicting evidence regarding its link to the ministry of Peter. Also of interest are the New Testament activities, currently alluded too in the "Doctrine/Apostolic" section, and the link between the Apostles and bishops. There is also an informal request for comments regarding potentially reducing the entire history section to a summary of the History of the Catholic Church article. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Original text of History section lead |
---|
Catholic tradition and doctrine hold that the Catholic Church is the
one true church
[5] founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD in the province of
Judea of the
Roman Empire.
[6]
[7] The
New Testament records Jesus' activities and teaching, his appointment of the
twelve Apostles and
his instructions to them to continue his work.
[8]
[9]
The Catholic Church teaches that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, in an event known as Pentecost, signalled the beginning of the public ministry of the Catholic Church. [10] Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community. It interprets the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew as Christ's designation of Saint Peter the Apostle and his successors, the Bishops of Rome to be the temporal head of his Church. It teaches that all Catholic bishops can trace their lineage back to the apostles, according to their ordination, by the doctrine of apostolic succession. |
The intro to the history section presents doctrine (or the Catholic church's view of its history) without counterpoint or historicity comment. Currently the two paragraph intro contains only POV Catholic doctrinal statements, generally beginning with "the Church teaches," suited better for a doctrine section than a history section. I have suggested, at the least, that some counterpoint (three prominent secular history scholars, that I've cited, and a religious authority from another church, also cited) be included to render the presentation NPOV. My suggested text for insertion at the end of the second paragraph (after being corrected by comments from another editor) is only two sentences. It reads,
"The historicity of these claims (one true church, apostolic succession) is debated by other churches as well as historians. [11] [12] According to several historians, including Bart D. Ehrman, Peter was never a bishop, or leader, in Rome, and there were no formal leaders in Rome to succeed to that title, or claim it, for a century." [13] [14]
Thanks for your comments. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
"Sacraments of the Catholic Church". Princeton.edu. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
"Church Membership". Orthodoxresearchinstitute.org. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
Most, Fr. William G. (1990). "Basic Catholic Catechism;The Church and Salvation". Eternal Word Network Television. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
Catholic News Service
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).vatican.va
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I support rewriting the section lead from scratch in a neutral, encyclopedic style. I caution against undo weight for counter claims, but would like to see stronger sources overall here. I have stripped most of the disputed doctrinal material, as most of it was poorly sourced anyways. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of the doctrinal content from the History section lead was a repeat from content in the the Apostolic section. I added several critical details, such as Pentecost, to this section. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 13:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is lacking information on the Four Marks of the Church. In other words, the Catholic Church teaches that she is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". As to the "Apostolic" mark, this is being discussed in part on this page. I suggest that any discussion of apostolic succession also include discussion of the One true church claim, the Catholic claim to holiness, and the universality of the Catholic Church. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The present text says; "The Apostles of Jesus are claimed by the Catholic Church as early bishops, notably Peter, who is held to be the first Pope, the Bishop of Rome." Although it is commonly said within the tradition to which Piledhighandeep obviously belongs that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and also of Rome, that Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, etc., Piledhighandeep probably does not believe that, as a Church. the Eastern Orthodox Church actually makes that claim. What the present text says is not in fact claimed by the Catholic Church. The sentence should be changed to something like: "The Catholic Church holds that the Church's bishops, headed by the bishop of Rome, have succeeded as a body to the body of the apostles, headed by the Apostle Peter." That seems to be the teaching of Lumen gentium, 22, which says that the college of apostles is not at all the same thing as the college of bishops, which is its successor. Esoglou ( talk) 20:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This section is to address the status of the claims regarding the historicity of the church's version of events shared by User:Piledhighandeep; whether or not are not these are a "minority" opinion among historians. Piledhighandeep rightly points out that this has not been addressed yet. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
May I once again point out that editing a disputed section of an article while the dispute is ongoing is HIGHLY DISCOURAGED and ask you guys to flipping STOP doing it? This is getting more and more ridiculous and its impossible to offer suggestions and read the discussion on the talk page and make sense of anything. Provide your proposed changes here and discuss them and AFTER the discussion is concluded and a consensus reached, someone make the changes. Farsight001 ( talk) 23:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
These are two sources that might be of use in constructing the history section lead. They are not appropriate for the current content however:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piledhighandeep ( talk • contribs)
Could we please agree to omit the following passage?
We would keep only this:
The passage that I propose for deletion makes far from easy reading, and has many question-raising elements. For instance, it isn't the Confession of Peter that is interpreted as stated, but instead the response of Jesus to Peter, reported only in (the heavily discussed) Matthew 16:17–19. The adjective "temporal" in "the temporal head of his Church" is ambiguous and question-raising. The generic indication "Historians" is misleading (weasel language?) in that it suggests there is scholarly consensus on whatever is meant by the following phrase. If this is about a supposed belief that there is "a direct connection" between the apostles taken jointly and the Church in Rome, rather than for the Church as a whole, it is a straw-man argument - but I suppose that is not what is meant. The citations given do not in fact state that the Apostles of Jesus were led by James the Just.
The second part (from "Historians do not find...") exists only as a response to the first part. I don't think the first part is worth keeping. Why not omit both parts of the text together? If someone agrees with me, please delete the text from the article. It would be best to omit the text permanently, but if there are editors who want it restored, let them discuss and amend it here before restoring it in a revised form. Esoglou ( talk) 11:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources do state "that the Apostles of Jesus were led by James the Just." There were many sources given; I can quote the ones that speak to this, if you can't access the texts. There is "scholarly consensus" among secular historians on these points. The current revised history intro still cites only the Catholic Church and still contains only Catholic doctrine, "Catholic doctrine teaches." This is not the scholarly consensus and by definition not NPOV history. (It is the Catholic POV of the Catholic Church's history.) I think this sentence would have to be deleted or balanced by the consensus of secular and non-Catholic historians to be NPOV history. The lede is a privileged position and the history section lede should, I think, be NPOV history. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
In any case, is, effectively, skipping the first two centuries of the church's history, rather than presenting the differing theories about them, the best way to address this? I think some other solution will need to be found, at least for the History of the Catholic Church article, which suffers from the same exact lede issues and in which, presumably, the first two centuries of the church will have to be addressed. Piledhighandeep ( talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a few points I feel need to be clarified, in order to propose a framework for discussing the link between Peter and the modern Bishops of Rome.
The first is a matter of language; the word "bishop" refers to two related roles: one who holds the highest order of the priesthood, and one who holds the highest leadership role of a diocese. Peter is most certainly held to be a bishop in the first role, as the historical record shows him ordaining others (a right reserved to bishops in Catholic doctrine). Whether he held the second role is a matter of historical debate.
This leads to my second point, which is the Petrine Ministry, the personal mission given to Peter by Jesus. It is a doctrinal point that the modern Bishops of Rome have inherited the Petrine ministry (see Papal Infallibility, where the church's argument is documented to hinge on succession from Peter). How to present the historical circumstance under which (or even if) the Bishops of Rome inherited the Petrine ministry is the controversy here.
If you will indulge, there are a few relevant observations on this point. In order for there to be a Bishop of Rome, there must be a Diocese of Rome. At the time of Peter's ministry, Rome was extremely hostile territory for Christians; so hostile that the Book of Revelation likely documents the Christian struggle there. Some posters here have presented sources that suggested several local, perhaps missionary churches in Rome, but not necessarily a central structure uniting them. This would fit with the dangers of persecution. Peter is also generally believed to have arrived no more than a few years before his martyrdom, limiting the amount of time he had to minister there.
Based on these premises, I offer three broad categories for theories linking the Bishops of Rome to the Petrine Ministry (whatever its nature). The first two categories potentially align with Catholic doctrine, while the third necessitates the church's doctrine to be wrong. None, however, are strictly religious, as Peter's exact role is left undefined. (1) It is plausible, given Rome's significance in Christian lore, that Peter came specifically to establish the modern Diocese of Rome in his short time there, and was thus targeted by the Roman authorities as its leader. (2) It is also plausible that he came to minister to the various churches in Rome, but did not have time to establish a monoepiscopate before his execution. His successor might then inherit the Petrine Ministry, but not the as of yet non-existent Bishopric of Rome (then, when the various churches were consolidated, the successor to the Petrine ministry, if still practicing in Rome, would have been a logical choice for inaugural diocesan bishop.) (3) It is also plausible that Peter's specific authority died with him (or a successor), and future Bishops of Rome claimed succession by mere coincidence of geography. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose that reliable sources regarding the link between Peter and the Bishop's of Rome be identified according to one of the three categories I identified above (in summary: immediate link, delayed link, no link.). As the sources are identified, the proper weighting for each can be determined, and the early Christianity section then be written according to the balance of sources. Providing a "counter point" is not sufficient for a neutral point of view; the views must be presented reflecting trends among the reliable sources.
Discussion should be limited to what the sources state, to avoid making this personal; if source disagrees with one of the numbered categories, the source's author should be presented as holding that position to better transition into article content. If a source proposes a significantly different link, then that should be shared as well. If a category has few or no sources supporting it, then it may be dropped from consideration. Please include a short quote and/or summary of each source, as well as its citation. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a proposal for an independent new article, not just a modification of the Catholic Church article. Perhaps it would be best to produce a draft in a sandbox, and invite those interested to contribute there. Esoglou ( talk) 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The Church teaches that Peter is the first Bishop of Rome. Elizium23 ( talk) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no standard, rule, policy, or even suggestion on wikipedia that sources be "secular and non-Catholic". Demanding that they be so is actually the real bias problem here.
@Esoglou. 1. Tertullian is indeed a Church Father, and although he later assumed positions contrary to the Church, not so his early writings.
2. I assume you want an official document from the current Church, right? Well, I couldn't find anything in English, so I did a search in Latin. This is the first link I found. One source is enough, isn't?
Pope John XXIII's Apostolic Constitution "Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum" (June 29, 1969). Quote: "... in Vaticana Basilica, apud Petri sepulcrum, Apostolorum principis, primique Romae Episcopi..."
Context of the quote: The Pope is speaking about the closing ceremony of a Synod, which took place in the "Vatican Basilica, besides the tomb of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, First Bishop of Rome." This is my translation, free to use google.
You can find the document in the archives for the Vatican for 1960. That is ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 52 (1960), p. 553 at the end. Here is a link: "www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2052%20[1960]%20-%20ocr.pdf"-- Coquidragon ( talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Esoglou. "Peter died in Rome," is not an article of faith, it is Church history. "Peter was the first Pope," is not an article of faith, it is Church history. "Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome," is not an article of faith, it is Church history, as it is history that he was also the first bishop of Antioch and Syracuse. "The Pope is Peter's successor," is not an article of Faith. Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome and the 1st Pope. By definition, those that came behind are the successors. This is not doctrine. I really don't get your point. The matter of faith would be what that means in terms of inheriting his primacy. That's another matter.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Read S. W. J. O'Malley's chapter on "Peter: Bishop of Rome?" which I have already cited above. It seems that you and Piledhighandeep and I all accept that presentation. It follows that the three of us have been wasting time and effort on an unnecessary discussion. Esoglou ( talk) 21:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to close this discussion, which is becoming too heated, and no ripostes should be posted. If anyone has a concrete proposal for a text to insert in the article, they can propose it in a new section. The proposal immediately below is, I think, rather too elaborate, but at least it isn't put simply as a continuation of this discussion. Esoglou ( talk) 10:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Ut Unum Sint, paragraph 88. "88. Among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity" 146 and whom the Spirit sustains in order that he may enable all the others to share in this essential good." Elizium23 ( talk) 20:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
While I am thinking of it, I would like to propose a ground rule for this discussion should it continue. I feel that it would be easier to assume good faith if quoted material included commentary. The commentary would help make the argument feel less blunt, and help other poster understand what is being said to better address legitimate concerns. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that people here say that (the Church teaches that) the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter. I see also that some of the same people say that (the Church teaches that) Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome. Does that mean that Saint Peter, being Bishop of Rome, was the successor of Saint Peter? Something to reflect on. :-) Esoglou ( talk) 21:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
"Succession" is normally accompanied by the preposition "to," although is not always necessary to write. When we say the Pope is the successor of Peter, the Catholic use of "successor" here makes reference, first to a position, Bishop of Rome, and then to what that position carries, Primacy. We don't need to specify this every time we use the word "successor." That's common sense. And those examples... Please! Hollande is the successor of Louis XIV as leader of France. Hollande is no King, Louis XIV is no president. If you want to go into technicalities, then Peter was no pope, since the Bishop of Rome assumed the title "Pope" much later. Now, since in today usage, Pope is the Bishop of Rome and Primate of the Roman Catholic Church, we can say Peter was the first Pope, even thought he never knew that word.
Really, this playing with words doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Is Pope Francis the chief apostle? Well, if by apostle you mean, the 12, of course he is isn't. If by apostle you mean a witness to the world of Christ resurrection, then yes Pope Francis is the chief apostle, as he is chief among the apostle within the Catholic Church. The Bible speaks of a bishop as being a good husband. Today, Catholic Bishops are unmarried. Does this mean they are not real bishops? C'mon! This playing with words can go on and one. Words have definition and context. People have common sense. If there is good will, you don't need much more.
As to what applies to the topic at hand, if you disagree that the Roman church had leadership during that time, fine, you have some sources. Nevertheless, most sources do make reference to the Roman Church having leadership. Was it one person? Did they use the word bishop as a title? That's semantic. Peter was a (if not the) leader in the Roman Church. That's well established in most sources (now, it is clear that some disagree). So, was Peter the Bishop of Rome? By today's usage of the word, he was. Did the apostles use the word bishop to refer to themselves? Did the people called them bishops? Probably not. So, were the apostles bishops or not? As we understand what a Bishop is today, of course they were. That's why we say bishops are the successors to the apostles.
On a different, but similar note, until the 9th century, the Pope wasn't the Vicar of Christ, but was called Vicar of Peter. Since we now say Vicar of Christ, the "Vicar of Peter" was replaced with "Successor of Peter." We can also start playing with words as to what this means.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 03:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of "The church (teaches) Peter to be the first Bishop of Rome" provokes such strong responses, I don't think anybody denies that the church implicitly accepts Peter as the historical first Bishop of Rome; the issue is solely that the church does not explicitly teach this anywhere.
The church consistently uses language speaking of succession in all official documents; the article should simply reflect this language when discussing church teaching. It would, however, be accurate to say "many historian and church apologists" believe Peter to be the first bishop. Clergy, and even Popes, have described Peter, at least informally, as the first Bishop. It would be appropriate, too, to summarize the historical arguments (with a note regarding the opposing view). The problem is simply that Wikipedia cannot state that the church officially teaches this, because it is not explicitly stated. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Could someone possibly write a brief and (ideally) neutral summary of the name debate ("Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church") and post it permanently on this talk page? As a non-RC British expat and a latecomer to Wikipedia I was rather surprised to discover that the article name is "Catholic Church". I know there's the archive, but there's just too much material there for someone like me who doesn't want to reopen the whole can of worms, but would like to know how and when the decision was taken.
Another question: Are there any agreed guidelines on the use of Catholic/Roman Catholic in articles not related to (Roman) Catholicism and/or Christianity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroupCohomologist ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Below is a possible rephrasing that may work as an intermediate while larger issues are worked out. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Original proposal (superseded by the public draft) |
---|
|
Public Draft of Early History Section ( Talk:Catholic Church/Proposed early history) | ||
---|---|---|
The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived and preached in the 1st century AD in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is sole authentic continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus. [1] [2]
The New Testament, in particular the Gospels, records Jesus' activities and teaching, his appointment of the twelve Apostles and his Great Commission of the Apostles, instructing them to continue his work. [3] [4] The book Acts of Apostles, tells of the founding of the Christian church and the spread of its message to the Roman empire, [5] The Catholic Church teaches that its public ministry began on Pentecost, occurring fifty days following the date Christ is believed to have resurrected. [6] At Pentecost, the Apostles are believed to have received the Holy Spirit, preparing them for their mission in leading the church. [7] [8] The church teaches that the college of bishops, led by the Bishop of Rome are the successors to the Apostles. [9] In the account of the
Confession of Peter found in the
Gospel of Matthew, Christ designates Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ's church will be built.
[10]
[11] The Church considers the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, to be the successor to Saint Peter.
[12] Based upon-extra biblical accounts of Peter's ministry and
martyrdom in Rome, some scholars state Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
[13]
[note 1] Other scholars, though, question whether there was formal leadership among early Roman Christians, and thus whether there is a formal link between Peter and the modern Papacy.
[14]
[note 2]
|
My main aim here was to specifically provide citations for each claim, which were woefully lacking in the original. With proper citations, the reader can better judge the reliability and nature of the information shared. I specifically skirted detailing the "link" between Peter and the Bishops of Rome, which is in need of further resolve. I incorporated the "counterpoint" proposed by Piledhighdeep as a footnote (which may need some adjustment to reflect the phrasing in the body). I also added a potential "historical response" where the historicity may be better elaborated in the future. I included a possible elaboration on Peter's role in the Pentecost, but am not certain if it would be needed. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish to draw attention to some recent edits in the last paragraph of the draft:
I wish to expressly invite others to contribute to this public draft. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 07:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Esoglou, for your feedback. I have addressed the majority of the issues you have pointed out. I apparently did not read Boring correctly, and removed that entire passage. A brief summary of other apostle's activities may still be appropriate. I have pushed the revised draft into the article. Thank you Elizium, too, for your support. The final "diffs" between the version that was reviewed, and the version pushed can be found [ here]. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 06:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
An IP made some good faith edits to the Homosexuality section, but I'm not sure if they should be kept or not. Specifically I'm not sure whether the changes to the first paragraph accurately reflect the source. (The change to the second paragraph doesn't bug me.) Any thoughts? (version here.) Luthien22 ( talk) 21:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Especially in light of recent additions to the early history section, are there any lingering NPOV concerns? -- Zfish118 ( talk) 21:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Draft of history lead ( Talk:Catholic Church/History lead draft) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The Christian religion is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived and preached in the 1st century AD in the province of Judea of the Roman Empire. Catholic doctrine teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus. [8] Christianity spread throughout the early Roman Empire, despite persecutions due to conflicts with the pagan state religion. Emperor Constantine legalized the practice of Christianity in AD 313, and it became the state religion in 380. Germanic invaders of Roman territory in the 5th and 6th centuries, many of whom had previously adopted Arian Christianity, eventually adopted Catholicism to ally themselves with the papacy and the monasteries. In the 7th and 8th centuries, continuous Muslim conquests following the advent of Islam led to an Arab domination of the Mediterranean that severed political connections, and weakened cultural connections, between Rome and the Eastern Roman Empire. Conflicts involving authority in the church, particularly the authority of the Bishop of Rome finally culminated in the East West Schism in the 11th century, splitting the Church into the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Earlier splits within the Church occurred after the Council of Ephesus (431) and that of Council of Chalcedon (451). However, a few Eastern Churches remained in communion with Rome, and portions of some others established communion in the 1400s and later, forming the what are called the Eastern Catholic Churches. Early Monasteries throughout Europe helped preserve Greek and Roman classical civilisation. The Church eventually became the dominant influence in Western Civilization unto the modern age. Many Renaissance figures were sponsored by the church. The 16th century, however, began to see challenges to the Church, in particular to its religious authority by figures in the Protestant Reformation, as well as in the 17th century by secular intellectuals in the Enlightenment. Concurrently, Spanish and Portuguese explorers and missionaries spread the Church's influence through Africa, Asia, and the New World. In 1870, the First Vatican Council declared the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Also in 1870, the Kingdom of Italy annexed the City of Rome, the last portion of the Papal States to be incorporated in the new nation. In the 20th century, the church endured a massive backlash at the hands of anti-clerical governments around the world, including Mexico and Spain, where thousands of clerics and laypersons were persecuted or executed. During the Second World War, the Church condemned Nazism, and protected hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Holocaust; its efforts, however, have been criticized as potentially inadequate. After the war, freedom of religion was severely restricted in the newly aligned Communist countries, several of whom had large Catholic populations. In the 1960's, the Second Vatican Council led to several controversial reforms of the church liturgy and practices, an effort descried as "opening the windows" by defenders, but leading to harsh criticism in several conservative circles. In the face of increased criticism from both within and without, the Church has upheld or reaffirmed at various times controversial doctrinal positions regarding sexuality and gender, including limiting clergy to males, and moral exhortations against abortion, contraception, sexual activity outside of marriage, remarriage following divorce without annulment, and against homosexual marriage. |
I have created a draft of a new lead for the history section here. The current lead inadequately summarizes that very complex history section, and provides no summary or guidance as to its content. Nothing in the draft is meant to be controversial or surprising, but to merely summarize the history section. The draft may be freely edited as though it were part of the article; there is no specific target date for its inclusion. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 14:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Recently thanks to requests by User:Piledhighandeep we did a massive rewrite on the beginning of the history section to remove NPOV issues. This article's right now at B-class, so I thought maybe we could build on this momentum and run an edit drive to get this to either GA or FA. Any thoughts? Luthien22 ( talk) 04:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The while this is the particular lead of only a section of the article, Wikipedia:Lead section should probably still be applied, as the history section is approximately the same length of the rest of the article combined (and still a significant summary of the content at History of the Catholic Church). With regard to the "jump" from the 1960's back to the New Testament, this just follows WP:Lead's guidance: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". -- Zfish118 ( talk) 19:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Since there is an edit dispute, we must clarify whether we should in Wikipedia speak of the 1962 variant of the Tridentine Mass as the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. There have been many forms of the Roman Rite. At any one time, e.g., in 2014, only one of them is the ordinary form, all the others are extraordinary. Pope Benedict introduced the novelty of authorizing another form apart from the ordinary form. This second authorized form, that of the 1962 Roman Missal, he described as an extraordinary form: "The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration" ( Letter to the bishops ). Because there are now two authorized forms, one of them being the present ordinary form, many have taken to calling the other form the extraordinary form, rather than the authorized extraordinary form. However, other extraordinary forms exist and are in use, even if they are not officially authorized. Some people do not accept the changes made by Pope John XXIII in 1962. Some do not accept even the changes made by Pope Pius XII in 1955. They call both the 1962 and the 1955 changes "trial balloons" for Pope Paul VI's 1969 changes: see this commentary and this article. So there are still in use, even now, more than two forms of the Roman Rite. One of them is the present ordinary form. All the others, not just one of them, are now extraordinary (non-ordinary) forms.
The forms differ in more than rubrics. Pius XII's Holy Week text changes were by no means minor, and John XXIII altered the Canon of the Mass, previously considered untouchable, as well as making other text changes, such as in the Good Friday prayer for the Jews. That, much more than rubrics and precedence of feasts, is why those people prefer the pre-1962 and even the pre-1955 texts, and why they use those non-ordinary forms of the Roman Rite. Esoglou ( talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "expanded" versus "affirmed", I think slight misunderstanding arose; I edited the sentence to say two things: He affirmed the continued use of the 1962 missal (that it was not divisive, etc), and issued new permissive norms. Using "Expanded" in the first clause repeats the second clause, and removes a distinct piece of information. (I do not oppose revision, but wanted to clarify that I had incorporated two distinct pieces of information.) -- Zfish118 ( talk) 05:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Suggested line giving context to the other western rites: "These rites predate the standardization of Tridentine mass in the 1570 and were thus allowed to continue." I wish to make sure it is accurate before it is included. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 15:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Is "Sexuality and gender", which has now been anchored, a suitable heading within this article, in view of the contrast between "gender constructionism" and the idea that "God creates the two sexes the way they are meant to be, and that is their essence, male and female. God intends members of each sex to desire only members of the opposite sex. ( Adrian Thatcher, God, Sex, and Gender, pp. 19–20)? Esoglou ( talk) 10:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 of the History section speaks of "expanding Muslim conquests following the advent of Islam [that] led to an Arab domination of the Mediterranean". It is at present without citation of source. I find it difficult to trace the source that in our discussion was once cited in this regard. It certainly concerned the controversial Pirenne Thesis. (I apologize for the ambiguous expression I used in an edit summary, saying "you [Piledhighandeep] and I may disagree", by which I meant not "disagree with one another", but "disagree (both of us) with the thesis".) Piledhighandeep and I do seem to disagree about what was the effect of that Arab domination of the Mediterranean as a lead-up to the East-West Schism. Piledhighandeep believes that it "severed political connections between the western and eastern Mediterranean". I altered that to "severed political connections between that area and northern Europe" (by "that area", I meant the area dominated by Arabs). Perhaps, if necessary with the help of others, we can both agree, and arrive at a clearer exposition.
The citation that was once part of this paragraph was, I think, to some part of this book. To me, the book (and the Pirenne Thesis too) seems to speak about a break between the Arab-dominated area (mention is made of Egypt and of trade with the Far East), not about a break between western Europe and the Byzantine Empire, which I think continued to interact closely, if hostilely. I take it that what happened was that the break of commercial and other links between what I called "that area" (the Arab area) and northwestern Europe severely cut down and diminished the prosperity of the Mediterranean interface between them, leading to a concentration of activity away from that interface. This doubtless happened on the Arab side too, but the Pirenne Thesis concentrates only on the side of northwestern Europe, which underwent a new urbanization and the growth of trade that ignored the Mediterranean. As I see it, this was like the change brought by the voyages of discovery in later centuries. Before those voyages, and possibly as one result of the Crusades, there was again great Mediterranean trade, involving also passage to the Far East through the Muslim-dominated area, bringing prosperity to Italian cities such as Venice and Genoa. When the focus of trade shifted to the Cape route and the Atlantic, that prosperity diminished. Just think of the work begun in Siena to make their wonderful cathedral just a transept of an immensely bigger cathedral of which they began to build the outer walls, but were unable, on account of the decline of their prosperity, to finish. To return to the point, I think the break was, as I said, at the Mediterranean interface with the Arab area, and its influence on the origin of the East-West Schism was only indirect, by enabling a non-Mediterranean empire to develop that no longer saw itself as a state on the margin of the Byzantine Empire but as its full-blown rival. I mean of course the Frankish Empire. Piledhighandeep will doubtless help clarify the whole matter. Esoglou ( talk) 13:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
There was some talk not long along about shortening the history section. I pointed to an intermediate version from a couple years ago as a potential model. My main concern at the time was that the history section here is relatively trimmed, while the current History of the Catholic Church is a very long and complicated article.
I would like to offer a thought, not quite a proposal, to make the majority of the History Section the "History of the Catholic Church"; and the current one be renamed "Extended History of the Catholic Church". The history lead might be kept in "Catholic Church", perhaps expanded it a bit similar to the linked version found above. In its current form, it appears to be almost two standalone articles on single page. Perhaps a template might be constructed suggesting "Catholic Church" is "part one", and the abbreviated "History..." is "part two".
The version above got mixed acceptance, so for any major revisions, we would likely need buy in from several parties. At this stage, I would only like to see what thoughts others might have. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 03:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Catholic News Service
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).