![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
In addition to the very short statement on Holy Matrimony given in the article, it is important to add the following: Marriage, as seen in the Church, as a Sacrament, is indeed a consecration of the unity of two persons in human love and in faith, for the purpose of building up the Body of Christ, the Church. It also represents or symbolizes the very unity of the Church itself. In the Sacrament two people become one body; they are therefore no longer two but share one body in Christ. This intimate unity with one another as ONE in Christ, symbolizes the effect of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist. The individual person in Baptism is "incorporated" into the Body of Christ. In Confirmation the Holy Spirit dwelling within them is further strengthened and conferred to enable them to proclaim by their lives what they have become. The Eucharist is a sacrificial banquet of unity in Christ, wherein the individual person receives the Body and Blood of Christ as a sign of what he or sehe has become and is intimately linked to Christ Himself in the sacrifice of His Body and Blood to the Father wherein all are lifted up in salvation and the expiation of their sins. Thus in a greater sense the faithful all represent Christ Himself as His living body in the world. This incorporation into Christ is the source, from Christ's redemptive act, of the salvation of the individual. Having been "born" into the life of Christ, all the faithful share the one life of the redeemer, and are therefore "an acceptable sacrifice" as members of the kingdom of God both here and in eternity.
Marriage is a Symbol of that unity, sort of a "cameo" of the greater unity of the Church. Thus marriage, as a Sacrament, is not seen just as the private union of two people, but as a public sign of the unifying power of God's love and redemption. The two become two in one flesh, the flesh of Christ, and their physical union is seen as a "Holy Sign" (Sacrament) of the unity of the whole Church as the mystical Body of Christ.
Dogface, your edits of September 21, 2004 seem to be aimed at promoting POV, not removing it. "Rome claimed an authority" captures the fact that Rome said it, and that it is not necessarily true just because Rome said it; is there any actual reason to change it to the less neutral "Rome alleged special authority"? Did you realize that your edits put the same information twice into the sentence that follows? The sentence already said that the church of Antioch was older than the church of Rome; why was it necessary to add that information a second time after an mdash?
In short, I question the necessity and wisdom of these edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article says:
I would normally understand the statement that a church is "exclusively Catholic" to mean that it is Catholic and excludes all tendencies that conflict with Catholicism. That means the same thing, as far as I can see at this moment, as "completely Catholic", but whoever wrote the above obviously thinks "completely" and "exclusively" mean different things. The words after the phrase "exclusively Catholic" make me suspect that what is meant is that each of those groups claims that only it is Catholic and the others are not. If that is what is meant, it need to be rephrased to make it clear. Michael Hardy 20:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article says "While Rome claimed special authority descending from St. Peter and St. Paul, who died in Rome and were buried there, Constantinople had become the residence of the Emperor and the Senate." I think that sentence should read "...St. Peter and St. Paul, who are alleged to have died in Rome and were buried there..." Or better still: "...St. Peter and St. Paul, who according to tradition, died in Rome and were buried there..." To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Peter and Paul died in Rome.
I've removed the following material, from the "Additional reading" section:
1 Brief organizational history of the Christian Church : http://www.freivald.org/~jake/church-history/index.html http://catholicity.elcore.net/MacCaffrey/HCCRFR_TOC.html 2 Evolution of the term "Catholicism" : http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/whycath.htm http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/What_Catholic_Means.html http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/cath.htm 3 "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic" http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/chmark.htm 4 The Roman Catholic Church http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/roman.htm 5 Other Catholic groups [Jesus established only One Church]: http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_46.htm
and from the "External links" section:
http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/saintsonthedogma.html http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/thechurchofchrist_2.html
So far there has been no discussion of the content of these links and no word on whether they reflect a consensus viewpoint or a disputed POV (with the note of "Jesus established only One Church", the latter seems more likely.) They should be added back in only if and when regular contributors can check their content and see which they are; if they contain information we would not accept as NPOV in the article itself, we should mark the link accordingly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And add to that the following links:
6 Distinctive beliefs and practices (i.e., Catholicism) 6.1 Beliefs 6.2 Sacraments http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/index.html
-- Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just removed it again -- Chris 73 Talk 03:54, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
-- Seems the external links are getting too long. Perhaps web sites with double and sometimes even triple entries should be edited to one only?
What triggered this gritch? [1]
The merge notices must come down. Catholic, Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church are separate ideas that can stand alone as separate articles. The problem we find is that these articles have overlapping information. The solution is not to merge them but to rewrite the articles correctly so that pertinent information is found in the article it belongs to. Further discussion on Roman Catholic Church. -- Gerald Farinas 04:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the following phrase:
"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share certain essential distinctive beliefs and practices. The Anglicans differ among themselves on these matters."
"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share" is wrong. It is all of the Roman Catholic Churches" or most "catholic Churches".
It must be decided whether the beliefs section is supposed to be give the Roman Catholic beliefs (as the title parantheses suggest) or on a broader scale (as the inclusion of Anglicans suggests).
Str1977 08:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed "Roman" from "most of the Roman Catholic Churches share", for the reasons given above. Str1977 22:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed "as the worlds' largest Christian denomination" from "Catholicism as the worlds' largest Christian denomination, has two main ecclesiastical meanings, ...". This phrase assumes the second definition, i.e. that the term is really referring to the Roman Catholic Church. -- Chris 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted Chanting Fox's revertion of an anonymous editor's definition of the Eucharist. The version added in by the anonymous editor does reflect general Catholic beliefs on the topic. The version put in by Chanting Fox does not. It isn't a matter of POV but an accurate representation of Catholic belief. In so much as it is POV at all, it is the POV of the organisation being described, not the person who did the edit. The only inaccuracy was in the distinction over adoration and worship, which is something strongly associated with Roman Catholicism and less strongly with general Catholicism. I have changed the wording of that line to reflect that. FearÉIREANN
(talk) 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We are having trouble editing traditionalist Catholic. We need more eyes to look and check, and please comment on Talk:Traditionalist Catholic. The issues are clear there. I would like a definition that includes anyone who thinks about restoring elements of Catholic practice, and another view is a person who thinks it should only be those who attend Tridentine Mass exclusivly. Please read and comment. Dominick 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I have set up the pages History of the Papacy - for a general overview, rather than the individual popes, Interreligious relations - the equivalent of International relations, and Women as theological figures to all of which contributions are welcome.
Jackiespeel 17:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade 12:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
See the Summa http://www.newadvent.org/summa/500803.htm Malachias111 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Malachias, I have read the link and agree that you are technically right. However, the substance of what Thomas says is already included in the article and the insertion of such a specific term may be misleading. Str1977 18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, no big deal either way. I reverted it with a "see Talk" thing but wouldn't be offended if the reference were removed. Thanks. Malachias111 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted back to Str1977's revert. I agree also that you're correct, Malachias, but feel that it might introduce confusion, unless further information is included (which could bloat the article a bit). For example, if you added extra bits to make it even more clear that what counts (apart from the contrition, of course) is the absolution, and that if there's no absolution, there's no sacrament. Adding that would make the article over long, in my view, at least for something that's not absolutely central to the subject. How about adding it to the article on Confession, if it's not there already? Or perhaps adding that link as a reference just after "doing such is actually encouraged within the Church"? (Maybe I should have done that myself instead of a straight revert.) AnnH (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The list of links on this article appeared greatly excessive, so I removed a bunch:
As per WP:EL, links should be included to:
Many of these links appear to my untutored eye to duplicate what would more properly be an internal "see also" link (e.g. Catholic Answers (catholic.com) which should simply be a Wikilink to Apologetics; this is not to prejudge whether this link would be worthy of inclusion in Apologetics).
Input appreciated. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are saying, Just zis Guy, but I would argue that Catholics around the world would find vatican.va acceptable but newadvent.org not since it is a dated (1917, pre-Vatican II) directory that is often incorrect about the Catholic faith. One would have to agree that there are varying view points on what the term "catholic" means, thus reflected in a least some of these links? (unsigned 65.27.141.161)
Dominick, again I do appreciate your defending the taking down many of these links, but there are many and various public sources, like the Catholic Encyclopedia, that one could argue describes what Catholicism is just like the CCC. In fact, perhaps one should consider a link to the CCC. I am just arguing that the actual information found in many, if not most, of the Catholic Encyclopedia found online, are not current since it was published in 1907. And, I should also point out, that the copyright does exist by Kevin Knight for its online edition:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
It is a fine resource for what it is, a dated encyclopedia of Catholicism. But much more has been done since 1907. Thanks! (now signed, 65.27.141.161 - sorry I did not in my earlier post - my bad...)
"There no plurality of viewpoints there, as far as the official Catholic opinion" -- which Dominick knows inside and out 'cause he has a personal pipeline to it and is so golldarned smart! Whatever that "offficial Catholic opinion is," you can bet it matches what Dominick thinks, no matter what the Church had taught for two thousand years! I wish all Catholics could be more like the sainted Dominick! [18:58, 3 January 2006 152.163.101.13 unsigned comment by the same anonymous editor who added a similar comment under "Catholic vs. Roman Catholic"]
Shouldn't there be a section in here discussing the Pope, his origins and what beliefs surround the office of the Pope?
Careful, the Anglican Communion also believes in "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" :-)
So do traditional Catholics. But I guess Anglicans are more Catholic than the Pope, while poor little traditional Catholics who worship like their grandparents did are just a bunch of wannabe Catholics who don't deserve mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.13 ( talk • contribs)
If the Pope says black is white, then black is white. That is legal positivism and is condemned.
Pope St. Piux X condemned the following statements in Lamentabili Sane Exitu:
53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places
From Sacrorum Antistitum, the oath taken by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries from 1910 until Vatican II: "Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely."
Ever read Pascendi Dominici Gregis? Whatever happened to those "partistans of error" who "are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open"?
If the anonymous non-signing contributor at 152.163.101.13, who at 22:50, 4 January 2006 wrote the above, would kindly join up, that person and Dominick could then continue their discussion on their personal Talk pages, without clogging up this page. As things stand, Dominick would do best, I think, by not responding at all.
Lima
05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrote about this article that "holy mystery" is not in keeping with the Latin Rite. First, this article is about catholicism in general, not specifically about the Roman Catholic Church, and not about the Latin Rite of that Church. Second, "holy mysteries" and "sacred myseries" are indeed used to describe the sacraments by the Roman Church's "Catechism of the Catholic Church," and in the text of the Roman Rite Mass itself. Nrgdocadams 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams
Doc Adams's argument seems faulty. In Western theology, the word "mysteries" is much broader than "sacrament". The sacraments are only seven, the mysteries, in all senses, intellectual, historic, and maybe even ritual, are many. So, though I earlier left Doc Adams's editing untouched, his awakening of the question makes me realize that the more precise word "sacrament" should be used, not the ambiguous word "mystery". Even theologians of Eastern tradition understand precisely what is meant in English by "sacrament", and they know that, again in English, the meaning of "mystery" is dependent on the context and therefore vague. Lima 12:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia believes in the principle of "least astonishment". In English, like it or not, the term that astonishes least is sacrament, not holy mystery. Sacrament should be the normal term here, with an observation that the Eastern Churches use the term holy mystery.
For the Eastern Churches, the "Divine Liturgy" (what Latin Catholics call the "Mass") is of course one of the seven "holy mysteries" (what Latin Catholics call the seven "sacraments"): it is the "holy mystery" or "sacrament" that is known also as the "Eucharist".
If I were writing, even about Western theology, in Greek, I would have to use the term holy mystery, since the Greek language has no other term than that to express the meaning of the Latin term sacramentum. ("Holy mystery" and "Divine Liturgy" are more specific than "mystery" and "liturgy".) The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 774 remarks that the Greek word μυστήριον has been translated into Latin by two terms: mysterium and sacramentum, and then explains that each of these Latin terms has taken on a more specific meaning. English has derived the two words mystery and sacrament from Latin, in neither case directly from Greek.
Lima 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Which causes least astonishment in English?
Lima
05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it true, as stated for some time in this article, that "among Anglicans and Lutherans (confirmation) is administered immediately after baptism"and that the administration is "done ordinarily in ... Anglican, and Lutheran Churches" by a priest, not a bishop? I notice that the Anglican Book of Common Prayer has a section headed: A Catechism, that is to say, an Instruction to be Learned of Every Person before he be Brought to be Confirmed by the Bishop. This is followed by The Order of Confirmation, or Laying on of Hands upon those that are Baptized and come to Years of Discretion, which envisages only a bishop as minister. Each of these Book of Common Prayer texts seems to contradict both statements in the article. Lima 14:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I accept Ngrdocadam's authority, though I would like another word from an Anglican, since I still cannot help wondering if it is just possible that there is confusion between the conferring of the second sacrament of Christian initiation, whatever you call it, and the anointing with chrism that Anglicans may perhaps practise in harmony with practice in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church: when a child or even, if for some special reason the celebration of confirmation is separated from baptism, an adult is baptized, the minister anoints the newly baptized person "with sacred chrism" on the crown of the head, after praying (I quote the official English text): "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin, given you a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and welcomed you into his holy people. He now anoints you with the chrism of salvation. As Christ was anointed Priest, Prophet, and King, so may you live always as a member of his body, sharing everlasting life." This rite is omitted if confirmation is administered immediately after baptism. Lima 10:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Catholicism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Catholicism's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. -- speet 04:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Catholicism → Catholicity – "Catholicity" is a more appropriate and accurate title for the ecclesiological issues that "Catholicism" currently addresses. — Hyphen5 14:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
common usage. -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Most Common Name rule means we should use Catholic, which means universal.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is scarcely any more about catholicity (i.e. universality) than about unity, sanctity, or apostolicity. What it treats of is Catholicism. Lima 14:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Current compromise is a good working system. While the first part of the move may be workable (Catholicism to Catholicity) the second part isn't. And Catholic Church already redirect to Roman Catholic Church so that isn't really a problem. Rmhermen 14:35, 20 March 2006 (
TSP, about your vote: I offered a compromise whereby another article (i.e., Roman Catholic Church was vying for this space, and you even voted against that. So I don't understand why you've changed your mind suddenly.
Please see my comments below in the discussion section. But one last point: the naming conventions direct that we should "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". As I have said, I think it's reasonable to believe that a majority of English speakers think "Catholic Church" when they hear the word "Catholicism". That is because the -ism suffix suggests that it refers to a system of beliefs, a religion. Furthermore, the common names convention specifies: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" To the majority of people (and Google hits), Catholicism refers to that Church of which the Pope is head. I am open to disambiguation via a page or link at the top. -- Hyphen5 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
My objection is only provisional. I do not understand what it is about. If no one else objects in a reasonable time, please consider this objection withdrawn. Lima 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. I have, of course, no objection to the speedy deletion. I am sorry I was not able to revisit this page before now. Lima 04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
In addition to the very short statement on Holy Matrimony given in the article, it is important to add the following: Marriage, as seen in the Church, as a Sacrament, is indeed a consecration of the unity of two persons in human love and in faith, for the purpose of building up the Body of Christ, the Church. It also represents or symbolizes the very unity of the Church itself. In the Sacrament two people become one body; they are therefore no longer two but share one body in Christ. This intimate unity with one another as ONE in Christ, symbolizes the effect of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist. The individual person in Baptism is "incorporated" into the Body of Christ. In Confirmation the Holy Spirit dwelling within them is further strengthened and conferred to enable them to proclaim by their lives what they have become. The Eucharist is a sacrificial banquet of unity in Christ, wherein the individual person receives the Body and Blood of Christ as a sign of what he or sehe has become and is intimately linked to Christ Himself in the sacrifice of His Body and Blood to the Father wherein all are lifted up in salvation and the expiation of their sins. Thus in a greater sense the faithful all represent Christ Himself as His living body in the world. This incorporation into Christ is the source, from Christ's redemptive act, of the salvation of the individual. Having been "born" into the life of Christ, all the faithful share the one life of the redeemer, and are therefore "an acceptable sacrifice" as members of the kingdom of God both here and in eternity.
Marriage is a Symbol of that unity, sort of a "cameo" of the greater unity of the Church. Thus marriage, as a Sacrament, is not seen just as the private union of two people, but as a public sign of the unifying power of God's love and redemption. The two become two in one flesh, the flesh of Christ, and their physical union is seen as a "Holy Sign" (Sacrament) of the unity of the whole Church as the mystical Body of Christ.
Dogface, your edits of September 21, 2004 seem to be aimed at promoting POV, not removing it. "Rome claimed an authority" captures the fact that Rome said it, and that it is not necessarily true just because Rome said it; is there any actual reason to change it to the less neutral "Rome alleged special authority"? Did you realize that your edits put the same information twice into the sentence that follows? The sentence already said that the church of Antioch was older than the church of Rome; why was it necessary to add that information a second time after an mdash?
In short, I question the necessity and wisdom of these edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article says:
I would normally understand the statement that a church is "exclusively Catholic" to mean that it is Catholic and excludes all tendencies that conflict with Catholicism. That means the same thing, as far as I can see at this moment, as "completely Catholic", but whoever wrote the above obviously thinks "completely" and "exclusively" mean different things. The words after the phrase "exclusively Catholic" make me suspect that what is meant is that each of those groups claims that only it is Catholic and the others are not. If that is what is meant, it need to be rephrased to make it clear. Michael Hardy 20:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article says "While Rome claimed special authority descending from St. Peter and St. Paul, who died in Rome and were buried there, Constantinople had become the residence of the Emperor and the Senate." I think that sentence should read "...St. Peter and St. Paul, who are alleged to have died in Rome and were buried there..." Or better still: "...St. Peter and St. Paul, who according to tradition, died in Rome and were buried there..." To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Peter and Paul died in Rome.
I've removed the following material, from the "Additional reading" section:
1 Brief organizational history of the Christian Church : http://www.freivald.org/~jake/church-history/index.html http://catholicity.elcore.net/MacCaffrey/HCCRFR_TOC.html 2 Evolution of the term "Catholicism" : http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/whycath.htm http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/What_Catholic_Means.html http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/cath.htm 3 "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic" http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/chmark.htm 4 The Roman Catholic Church http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/roman.htm 5 Other Catholic groups [Jesus established only One Church]: http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_46.htm
and from the "External links" section:
http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/saintsonthedogma.html http://www.traditionalromancatholicism.com/thechurchofchrist_2.html
So far there has been no discussion of the content of these links and no word on whether they reflect a consensus viewpoint or a disputed POV (with the note of "Jesus established only One Church", the latter seems more likely.) They should be added back in only if and when regular contributors can check their content and see which they are; if they contain information we would not accept as NPOV in the article itself, we should mark the link accordingly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And add to that the following links:
6 Distinctive beliefs and practices (i.e., Catholicism) 6.1 Beliefs 6.2 Sacraments http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/index.html
-- Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just removed it again -- Chris 73 Talk 03:54, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
-- Seems the external links are getting too long. Perhaps web sites with double and sometimes even triple entries should be edited to one only?
What triggered this gritch? [1]
The merge notices must come down. Catholic, Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church are separate ideas that can stand alone as separate articles. The problem we find is that these articles have overlapping information. The solution is not to merge them but to rewrite the articles correctly so that pertinent information is found in the article it belongs to. Further discussion on Roman Catholic Church. -- Gerald Farinas 04:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the following phrase:
"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share certain essential distinctive beliefs and practices. The Anglicans differ among themselves on these matters."
"Most of the Roman Catholic Churches share" is wrong. It is all of the Roman Catholic Churches" or most "catholic Churches".
It must be decided whether the beliefs section is supposed to be give the Roman Catholic beliefs (as the title parantheses suggest) or on a broader scale (as the inclusion of Anglicans suggests).
Str1977 08:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed "Roman" from "most of the Roman Catholic Churches share", for the reasons given above. Str1977 22:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed "as the worlds' largest Christian denomination" from "Catholicism as the worlds' largest Christian denomination, has two main ecclesiastical meanings, ...". This phrase assumes the second definition, i.e. that the term is really referring to the Roman Catholic Church. -- Chris 02:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted Chanting Fox's revertion of an anonymous editor's definition of the Eucharist. The version added in by the anonymous editor does reflect general Catholic beliefs on the topic. The version put in by Chanting Fox does not. It isn't a matter of POV but an accurate representation of Catholic belief. In so much as it is POV at all, it is the POV of the organisation being described, not the person who did the edit. The only inaccuracy was in the distinction over adoration and worship, which is something strongly associated with Roman Catholicism and less strongly with general Catholicism. I have changed the wording of that line to reflect that. FearÉIREANN
(talk) 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We are having trouble editing traditionalist Catholic. We need more eyes to look and check, and please comment on Talk:Traditionalist Catholic. The issues are clear there. I would like a definition that includes anyone who thinks about restoring elements of Catholic practice, and another view is a person who thinks it should only be those who attend Tridentine Mass exclusivly. Please read and comment. Dominick 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I have set up the pages History of the Papacy - for a general overview, rather than the individual popes, Interreligious relations - the equivalent of International relations, and Women as theological figures to all of which contributions are welcome.
Jackiespeel 17:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade 12:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
See the Summa http://www.newadvent.org/summa/500803.htm Malachias111 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Malachias, I have read the link and agree that you are technically right. However, the substance of what Thomas says is already included in the article and the insertion of such a specific term may be misleading. Str1977 18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, no big deal either way. I reverted it with a "see Talk" thing but wouldn't be offended if the reference were removed. Thanks. Malachias111 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted back to Str1977's revert. I agree also that you're correct, Malachias, but feel that it might introduce confusion, unless further information is included (which could bloat the article a bit). For example, if you added extra bits to make it even more clear that what counts (apart from the contrition, of course) is the absolution, and that if there's no absolution, there's no sacrament. Adding that would make the article over long, in my view, at least for something that's not absolutely central to the subject. How about adding it to the article on Confession, if it's not there already? Or perhaps adding that link as a reference just after "doing such is actually encouraged within the Church"? (Maybe I should have done that myself instead of a straight revert.) AnnH (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The list of links on this article appeared greatly excessive, so I removed a bunch:
As per WP:EL, links should be included to:
Many of these links appear to my untutored eye to duplicate what would more properly be an internal "see also" link (e.g. Catholic Answers (catholic.com) which should simply be a Wikilink to Apologetics; this is not to prejudge whether this link would be worthy of inclusion in Apologetics).
Input appreciated. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 20:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are saying, Just zis Guy, but I would argue that Catholics around the world would find vatican.va acceptable but newadvent.org not since it is a dated (1917, pre-Vatican II) directory that is often incorrect about the Catholic faith. One would have to agree that there are varying view points on what the term "catholic" means, thus reflected in a least some of these links? (unsigned 65.27.141.161)
Dominick, again I do appreciate your defending the taking down many of these links, but there are many and various public sources, like the Catholic Encyclopedia, that one could argue describes what Catholicism is just like the CCC. In fact, perhaps one should consider a link to the CCC. I am just arguing that the actual information found in many, if not most, of the Catholic Encyclopedia found online, are not current since it was published in 1907. And, I should also point out, that the copyright does exist by Kevin Knight for its online edition:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
It is a fine resource for what it is, a dated encyclopedia of Catholicism. But much more has been done since 1907. Thanks! (now signed, 65.27.141.161 - sorry I did not in my earlier post - my bad...)
"There no plurality of viewpoints there, as far as the official Catholic opinion" -- which Dominick knows inside and out 'cause he has a personal pipeline to it and is so golldarned smart! Whatever that "offficial Catholic opinion is," you can bet it matches what Dominick thinks, no matter what the Church had taught for two thousand years! I wish all Catholics could be more like the sainted Dominick! [18:58, 3 January 2006 152.163.101.13 unsigned comment by the same anonymous editor who added a similar comment under "Catholic vs. Roman Catholic"]
Shouldn't there be a section in here discussing the Pope, his origins and what beliefs surround the office of the Pope?
Careful, the Anglican Communion also believes in "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" :-)
So do traditional Catholics. But I guess Anglicans are more Catholic than the Pope, while poor little traditional Catholics who worship like their grandparents did are just a bunch of wannabe Catholics who don't deserve mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.13 ( talk • contribs)
If the Pope says black is white, then black is white. That is legal positivism and is condemned.
Pope St. Piux X condemned the following statements in Lamentabili Sane Exitu:
53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places
From Sacrorum Antistitum, the oath taken by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries from 1910 until Vatican II: "Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely."
Ever read Pascendi Dominici Gregis? Whatever happened to those "partistans of error" who "are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open"?
If the anonymous non-signing contributor at 152.163.101.13, who at 22:50, 4 January 2006 wrote the above, would kindly join up, that person and Dominick could then continue their discussion on their personal Talk pages, without clogging up this page. As things stand, Dominick would do best, I think, by not responding at all.
Lima
05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrote about this article that "holy mystery" is not in keeping with the Latin Rite. First, this article is about catholicism in general, not specifically about the Roman Catholic Church, and not about the Latin Rite of that Church. Second, "holy mysteries" and "sacred myseries" are indeed used to describe the sacraments by the Roman Church's "Catechism of the Catholic Church," and in the text of the Roman Rite Mass itself. Nrgdocadams 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams
Doc Adams's argument seems faulty. In Western theology, the word "mysteries" is much broader than "sacrament". The sacraments are only seven, the mysteries, in all senses, intellectual, historic, and maybe even ritual, are many. So, though I earlier left Doc Adams's editing untouched, his awakening of the question makes me realize that the more precise word "sacrament" should be used, not the ambiguous word "mystery". Even theologians of Eastern tradition understand precisely what is meant in English by "sacrament", and they know that, again in English, the meaning of "mystery" is dependent on the context and therefore vague. Lima 12:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia believes in the principle of "least astonishment". In English, like it or not, the term that astonishes least is sacrament, not holy mystery. Sacrament should be the normal term here, with an observation that the Eastern Churches use the term holy mystery.
For the Eastern Churches, the "Divine Liturgy" (what Latin Catholics call the "Mass") is of course one of the seven "holy mysteries" (what Latin Catholics call the seven "sacraments"): it is the "holy mystery" or "sacrament" that is known also as the "Eucharist".
If I were writing, even about Western theology, in Greek, I would have to use the term holy mystery, since the Greek language has no other term than that to express the meaning of the Latin term sacramentum. ("Holy mystery" and "Divine Liturgy" are more specific than "mystery" and "liturgy".) The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 774 remarks that the Greek word μυστήριον has been translated into Latin by two terms: mysterium and sacramentum, and then explains that each of these Latin terms has taken on a more specific meaning. English has derived the two words mystery and sacrament from Latin, in neither case directly from Greek.
Lima 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Which causes least astonishment in English?
Lima
05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it true, as stated for some time in this article, that "among Anglicans and Lutherans (confirmation) is administered immediately after baptism"and that the administration is "done ordinarily in ... Anglican, and Lutheran Churches" by a priest, not a bishop? I notice that the Anglican Book of Common Prayer has a section headed: A Catechism, that is to say, an Instruction to be Learned of Every Person before he be Brought to be Confirmed by the Bishop. This is followed by The Order of Confirmation, or Laying on of Hands upon those that are Baptized and come to Years of Discretion, which envisages only a bishop as minister. Each of these Book of Common Prayer texts seems to contradict both statements in the article. Lima 14:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I accept Ngrdocadam's authority, though I would like another word from an Anglican, since I still cannot help wondering if it is just possible that there is confusion between the conferring of the second sacrament of Christian initiation, whatever you call it, and the anointing with chrism that Anglicans may perhaps practise in harmony with practice in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church: when a child or even, if for some special reason the celebration of confirmation is separated from baptism, an adult is baptized, the minister anoints the newly baptized person "with sacred chrism" on the crown of the head, after praying (I quote the official English text): "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin, given you a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and welcomed you into his holy people. He now anoints you with the chrism of salvation. As Christ was anointed Priest, Prophet, and King, so may you live always as a member of his body, sharing everlasting life." This rite is omitted if confirmation is administered immediately after baptism. Lima 10:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Catholicism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Catholicism's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. -- speet 04:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Catholicism → Catholicity – "Catholicity" is a more appropriate and accurate title for the ecclesiological issues that "Catholicism" currently addresses. — Hyphen5 14:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
common usage. -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Most Common Name rule means we should use Catholic, which means universal.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is scarcely any more about catholicity (i.e. universality) than about unity, sanctity, or apostolicity. What it treats of is Catholicism. Lima 14:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Current compromise is a good working system. While the first part of the move may be workable (Catholicism to Catholicity) the second part isn't. And Catholic Church already redirect to Roman Catholic Church so that isn't really a problem. Rmhermen 14:35, 20 March 2006 (
TSP, about your vote: I offered a compromise whereby another article (i.e., Roman Catholic Church was vying for this space, and you even voted against that. So I don't understand why you've changed your mind suddenly.
Please see my comments below in the discussion section. But one last point: the naming conventions direct that we should "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". As I have said, I think it's reasonable to believe that a majority of English speakers think "Catholic Church" when they hear the word "Catholicism". That is because the -ism suffix suggests that it refers to a system of beliefs, a religion. Furthermore, the common names convention specifies: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" To the majority of people (and Google hits), Catholicism refers to that Church of which the Pope is head. I am open to disambiguation via a page or link at the top. -- Hyphen5 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
My objection is only provisional. I do not understand what it is about. If no one else objects in a reasonable time, please consider this objection withdrawn. Lima 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. I have, of course, no objection to the speedy deletion. I am sorry I was not able to revisit this page before now. Lima 04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)