![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2007–2012. 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm
The New American Bible
this isnt mentioned anywhere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.72.10 ( talk) 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
As this article covers all churches that claim Catholicity, "we" don't use any one Bible translation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Chapter IV.-Beware of These Heretics.
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact, ] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so m the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him,29 He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.
I've just read this text of Inatious, and could not conciliate it with the catholic ecumenism. Could any catholic friend give some insight? Thanks. []'s Mauro do Carmo 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"I am good, because I am a believer. However, beware of those "whatsoever" because they don't think/act righteously as I do. Thanks God."
Consider that I am a catholic of denomination. Thanks so much for your time.
Mauro do Carmo
22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)The beginning reads like a dictionary. Well, it is one. The beginning is more suited to wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Jake95( talk!) 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Section The term "Catholic Church" carefully avoids to define what is the "Catholic Church", except defining some majority position. How was the term constructed by Ignatius/Antioch, and what was his "rationale" (spiritual ditto – You know what I mean!)? How was the term used afterwards? The punishments, evil spirits' possessions, spiritual chafes, and eternal damnations to all who had another opinion – is sort of secondary and trivia to any reasonable mind. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 06:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
None of this has anything to do with Catholicism or its relation to the Roman Catholic Church. It is nothing but residue from an old battle from another page that need not remain here. I have moved it to the tal kpage:
"Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are held not to be synonymous by those who are not members and who use the term "Roman Catholic Church" to imply that the Church in question is only the "Roman" section of a larger entity that they call "the Catholic Church" and that, in their view, also includes sections not in communion with Rome. And some who are members and who consider that communion with Rome is an essential element of the Church's identity apply the term "the Roman Catholic Church" not to the Church as a whole, but only to its Latin Rite component. [1] This contrasts with the terminology used by the highest authorities of the Church. Popes have treated "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" as synonymous, [2] and official documents concerning dialogue between the Church and groups outside her fold repeatedly use the term of the whole Church, not just of the Latin-Rite part. [3]
The use of the adjective "Roman" in relation to the Church as a whole is explained as acknowledgement of the central role of the see or diocese of Rome for the entirety of the Church.
-- SECisek 18:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It does seem very odd to have the Eastern Catholic Churches under Roman Catholic Church rather than under Eastern Christianity. Shall we reorganise this into Western Christianity (including Latin Catholics, then the assorted Protestant groups) and Eastern Christianity (including Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholics)? InfernoXV 06:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The Catholic character of Anglicanism cannot be ghettoized as "Anglo-Catholic," as noble a tradition within Anglicanism as it is. As the section itself discusses (with citation), the Catholic and Reformed nature of Anglicanism is broadly considered by all Anglicans to be a characteristic of this branch of Christianity. I have also edited the section on sacraments to make it more universally applicable. At present, it reads like a description of Roman Catholic sacraments, with occasional passing references to what is done in other churches in the Catholic heritage. fishhead64 ( talk) 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on Catholicism tries to be inclusive of all groups that are considered or consider themselves Catholic, per the NPOV policy of Wikipedia; I think for the most part it succeeds. However, I've noticed that in the External Links areas, many of the websites that are linked are RCC, but describe themselves with the Catholic moniker normally in the URL. That's not an issue (it's their URL, after all), but sometimes the descriptions tend to follow that, and thus lose NPOV. One of the sites purported to be a "Catholic You-Tube", for example, but it appears that it's a portal to RCC videos and a host of videos for one particular RCC church (as an aside, I'm not sure that it's authoritative or important enough to warrant inclusion in the External Link area to begin with for this issue, since it seems to be single church oriented). Another proclaims to be "All Things Catholic" but even it self identifies as being a RCC Wiki. In this case, I'm conflicted because the URLs and the self identification of these areas says "Catholic", but in reality, most of them are RCC specifically. In an article where the various authors have gone to lengths to make sure that there is a neutral POV in reference to the various definitions of what "Catholicism" means, this seems wrong. Can one of the more authoritarian editors please take a few minutes to look at this? I don't feel totally comfortable saying "This site is RCC only, so it should be identified as such, versus this site is Catholic in the bigger sense, or applicable in the bigger sense, and so can be called just Catholic". But it looks like someone needs to do just that to get back to NPOV on those links. While I'm at it, it seems obvious that over time the same effect is going to bleed into some of the other source material descriptions over time, so this might be a good time to develop a coherent policy on the issue. Bill Ward ( talk) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how almost every edit in the recent past has been a reversion of vandalism, would we be justified in semi-protecting this article, or is the criterion that the article be undergoing active editing? Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed the caption in the Roman Catholic section. It was incorrect. Now, it is worded funny but is correct.
Also, the Eastern Catholics would not call themselves Roman Catholic. They are Catholic. - Pop6 ( talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This article no longer warrants a B class rating, and so I've reassigned it to start class hoping this will prompt someone from the wikiproject to work on improving it. While there is good content, the article needs significant improvement in terms of organization. The biggest problem and the most easily fixed is that the lead section needs to be rewritten according to the Manual of Style guidelines, which can be found at WP:Lead. Once a suitable lead section is written, the article would warrant a return to B class. Dgf32 ( talk) 02:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Richard McBrien's book on Catholicism should not be cited. The USCCB officially disapproved of his book, warning people that though it claims to explain the basic doctrines of Catholicism, it seriously distorts and misrepresents the teaching. He is not a trusted authority on the Church, nor are his views representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.220.210 ( talk) 00:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You need to put some numbers in here. how many catholics are in the world? when was it started? do the adherents live in an paticular region of the world? if so is it rural/suburban/urban? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Alexw6 (
talk •
contribs)
21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how Ignatius of Antioch had a here-say in how Catholicism started or where the name originated. As a Catholic, it all started as Peter(Paul) was the rock(Pope) of the first catholic church. All of the apostles played a big role as to the spread the word of God and Jesus Christ and his teachings. Whether to call a Catholic church, a Catholic church or a Roman Catholic church has no point. They both mean the same thing, the Roman Catholic church tries to have mass the same way as the Vatican. The word Catholic means Universal, there isn't a play on words. That means, that no matter what denomination you are, you will be accepted in a Catholic church. I think that the writer was having a debate in their head when he/she wrote this. I'll add more feedback later when I read more of the article. Please read more about the faith in a whole before writing about it. Us Catholics would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.81.104 ( talk) 20:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Some of the books listed for further reading seem odd choices. For example, the Patrick Madrid and Karl Keating books are good, but are primarily about Protestant-Catholic relations: about doctrinal controversies, 20th-century Protestant proselytism, and individual conversions. I think it's probably better to recommend books that look at the big picture of Catholicism on its own, in a big-picture way, rather than in its relation to American Protestantism. Chonak ( talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The third category listed seems to be unneeded since according to what is written, those in this category have no "institutional descent" and do not call themselves catholic. Does this seem unnecessary to anyone else. There is also no source for this. Is this part of something that was discussed earlier that I did not see? MephYazata ( talk) 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that the "See also" section is being turned practically into a couple of portals, and I see this as inappropriate. However, I will not myself intervene. Lima ( talk) 16:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that contemporary secular writers will sometimes use by-words when refering to Catholicism. One of these terms is clericalism, hence the expression anticlericalism, which is very close to anti-Catholicism. Other by-words such as this include Sacerdotalism, Obscurantism, Reactionism, Dogmatism, Sacramentalism, Medievalism, Fascism, Romanism, Natalism, Patriarchy, Anglo-Catholicism and Cultural Christianity. ADM ( talk) 04:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
also consider themselves part of (the more hardcore ones consider themselves to be) "the holy catholic church," claiming direct descent from the original Christians through their Anglican roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 ( talk) 22:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this article is intellectually dishonest, never mind poorly thought out. It is hard, for example, to sustain the points in the third and fourth sentences on the basis of the footnotes to which the reader is referred. Indeed, the sources, to which we are directed, do not support with proof or evidence what is declared in the above mentioned sentences.
For example, in the third sentence, Wikipedia editor states: "More broadly, it [Catholicism] may refer to many churches, including the Roman Cathlic Church and others not in communion with it, that claim continuity with the Catholic Church before separation into Greek or Eastern and Latin or Western." Then as his/her source for this statement, the author cites a single paragraph on "Anglo-Catholicism" from Richard Mc Brien's Encyclopedia of Catholicism (p.52), which states: "Anglo-Catholicism, the name given since the Oxford movement in the nineteenth century to the 'high church' party within the Anglican communion. Anglo-Catholics emphasize the historic continuity with its medieval predecessor...." Mc Brien's paragraph, however, never mentions the Schism between the Western and Eastern churches. Furthermore, the "historic continuity" to which Mc Brien was referring was with Anglo-Catholicism's "medieval predecessor," the Western/Latin Church of the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries, not the church before 1000. The wiki editor of that sentence, however, gives the article a different spin, intellectually dishonest. That is, the source cited does not back up what is stated in the paragraph, sentence 3.
Then the wiki editor states the following (in the fourth sentence): "Churches that make this claim of continuity [as if they did!] include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental churches, the Assyrian Church of the East [really an Oriental church], the Old Catholic churches, and the churches of the Anglican Communion." To back up the content of this sentence, the Wiki editor creatively cites another Roman Catholic scholar, Jeffery Gros, who ironically, in his book, Introduction to Ecumenism, states something completely different and much more nuanced. In regard to claims of continuity, Gros states the following on page 155: "The Eastern Orthodox churches consider the West to have broken away from the "common Tradition." Later, in the same paragraph, he calls it "the Apostolic heritage." However, there in no mention of the "Catholic Church" before 1000 as an ecclesial institution.
Finally, none of the Roman Catholic scholars he/she uses in this paragraph state or even allude to the idea that the Roman Catholic church (or any one of its popes) claims continuity with itself (or with an earlier pope, say, before the 10th century) anymore than an American president would. It is a given, even in regard to those presidents born under a foreign power, the British government before the nation declared its independence in 1776. (I believe Van Buren was the first native born president, born after the American Revolution when the United States was already a free nation, free of the king. But even he never saw a discontinuity between himself and Madison or Adams, both born before 1776.) Anyway, as Gros notes, "the Catholic Church" and the abovementioned churches all claim continuity with the "Apostolic heritage" and with the "common Tradition," not with the Catholic Church before 1000.
If the editors wish to state the contrary, they should not cite Catholic sources (or any scholarly sources, for that matter) that do not support their statements or opinions. They shoudl find other sources to back up thier statements. Prattlement ( talk) 18:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least you are hearing another side (although contradictory evidence seldom puzzles the indifferent mind, considering the many people who go along with indifference today). Prattlement ( talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest you read Lumen Gentium. Prattlement ( talk) 01:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC) If the "Church of Christ" subsists in the "Catholic Church" (i.e., Roman Catholic Church), no Catholic Scholar (such as those cited in the first paragraph) would ever state that the Roman Catholic Church "claims continuity with the Catholic Church before the separation," not if the Church of Christ subsists in their church (and has for all time), according to this document. Interestingly too, the "Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" are used synonymously by these writers in their work. Prattlement ( talk) 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Wiki authors need Anglican scholars to back up the first paragraph! Good luck! Prattlement ( talk) 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I quote the Jeffery Gros paragraphs in full: " In the present day, words 'schismatic' and 'heretic' are seldom used by Western Christians, but the differences of perception between West and East are no less real and profound. The Catholic Church recognizes the sacramental character of these 'sister churches' and insists that any study of the nature of the Church take full account of developments of both East and West. Pope John Paul continually reminds Catholics that the Church must learn to breath again 'with both lungs,' and that the first thousand years of full communion is a common resource for reform and renewal. For the Roman Catholic Church this means taking account of the Eastern synodical tratition, the early relationships among the five patriarchates, and the collegial relationships among the autocephalous Orthodox churches when renewing its own collegial, synodical, papal, and episcopal conference life to better serve the unity of churches.
The Eastern Orthodox churches consider the West to have broken away form the common Tradition. This view has factual support in the events of 1054 and 1204. Likewise, such developments as the addition of the 'filioque,' papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas in Catholicism, and the ordination of women in Protestantism are seen as unilateral develpments moving away from the Apostolic heritage. Sacramental theology has also developed under different patristic emphases, leaving Orthodox less easily able to recognize the sacraments of the Catholic Church than Catholics are able to do in regard the sacraments of the Orthodox Churches." p 155
No mention here of the Catholic Church (to quote Gros) claiming continuity with the Catholic Church before the schism or separation of 1054! Prattlement ( talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Finally (at least in this post), may I suggest you find Anglicans authors (instead of dishonestly misusing/misquoting Roman Catholic sources in citations) who might be able to explore and back up the type of catholic ecclesiology which the Anglican Communion has lived for the past 4 hundred years. You might want to start with Tom Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham. Prattlement ( talk) 17:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the ref (attached to the second sentence of the second paragraph) because it cannot be found, validated in Thomas Rausch's book, CATHOLICISM IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM, the source originally used to validate the statement. The wiki editor needs to find another source to back up the statement. Throughout his book, Rausch also refers to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Catholic Church," because "that Church continues to refer to itself simply as the 'Catholic Church' in its official documents." LIkewise, he refers to the "Catholic Church" and the "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches," not the "Roman Catholic Church, Western and Eastern," etc. Wiki editors need to find another source (for this concept) supported by scholarship.-- Prattlement ( talk) 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Sacraments section, receiving the Eucharist (or First Communion) comes before Confirmation. Also, it is a common practice that Confirmation occurs when the faithful are around the age of 12 or 13, not at the age of 7, as stated in the article. DakotaW ( talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that there should be a section for anti-Catholicism and/or criticism of Catholicism where the objections can be posted along with the Catholic Church's response. -- PaladinWriter ( talk) 17:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There have been many edits to the main article since I posted this. Please address. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 04:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is meant to be about the concept of "Catholicism" in its manifestations in various Christian churches. It is not - despite the efforts of some - meant to be an article about the Roman Catholic Church. Afterwriting ( talk) 07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This article states that the roman catholic church is the single largest single religious body. Is this true? What causes the muslim faith to not be considered the largest single "religious body"? I believe a distinction should be added to notify the reader of the fact that the muslim religion outnumbers the roman catholic religion. ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#People) Psypherium ( talk) 12:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposed merge request was: Not merged. SMasters ( talk) 05:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose a merge of this article with
Christianity. This, as as both are one and the same.
Roman Catholicism is however a division of Catholicism/Christianity, and this should have its own article; for this article I propose the article
Catholic_Church which should be renamed to
Catholic Christianity. See
Major_religious_groups /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prevailing_world_religions_map.png which both use a same disctinction.
91.182.53.128 (
talk)
10:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: Editors may wish to comment at
Talk:Catholic Church#Article renaming also, where there is a proposal to rename "Catholic Church" to "Catholic Christianity".
I believe merging the content from Catholic into Catholicism would benefit both articles. At this point in time, both articles seem awfully redundant, and this article seems to be the more developed of the two. The "Catholic" article speaks mostly about the term itself, where as this article speaks about the term "Catholic", as well as the religious beliefs common to all Catholic Christians. Both articles still have difficulty distinguishing between "catholic" in the generic sense, and "Catholic" as in the Roman Catholic sense.
As an alternative, one article could focus solely on history and usage of term "Catholic" and the other on the religious beliefs. This would involve merging some content from one article into the other and visa-versa.
-- Zfish118 ( talk) 01:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I propose revising or removing this section, as it is very focused on the (Roman) Catholic Church. Could possibly be tweaked to better fit in this more general discussion of "Catholicism", or merged into another more appropriate article. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know if it is still possible to be a roman catholic church faithful without learning and hearing about the Old Testament at all?
I heard the RCC before the 1960s 2nd Vatican Council was an almost purely New Testament church for the layman adherents, who did not seek to be a deacon or anything. They were not required to learn about the Old Testament and it was not read from during any public masses. Is that true? If true, is that still possible after the 2nd V.C.? 87.97.104.92 ( talk) 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This page contains an infobox saying it is "part of a series on Universalism." Not to disparage either Catholicism or Universalism, but it's obvious that they are very distinct. Although the Greek word "katholikos" means "universal" in a sense (very broadly) akin to "ecumenical" or "orthodox" as opposed to "heretical" or "sectarian," the dogma of the Catholic Church differs from the "Universalist" theology of Origen or Hosea Ballou: Universalists hold that all souls will eventually attain Heaven, while the Catholic Church makes no such claim. I suggest that this infobox, along with its link to a frankly rather muddled article on various religious universalisms, be removed from the Catholicism page. As it stands now, it seems rather like having an article on Universal Studios link to the article on Universalist theology: just because something has "universal" in the name, doesn't mean the theology of Origen and Ballou is involved. Barring any complaints here, I'll remove the infobox in a few days. Rinne na dTrosc ( talk) 23:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of any objection, I just removed the Universalism infobox. Here's hoping Catholics, universalists, atheists, and everyone else reading this has a lovely day. Rinne na dTrosc ( talk) 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "For many the term usually refers to Christians" What do you mean by Usually!?!?!?! It REFERS TO Christians... ALWAYS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.112.243 ( talk) 13:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This section claims the earliest use of the term "catholic" was by Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD. When in fact it was used by St. Clement I in his Epistle to the Corinthians around 96 AD.
"Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions" - St. Clement I [Epistle to the Corinthians] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.212.194 ( talk) 02:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I am failure with the translation as "Universal" or "General" Google translate
However google also offers this:
Google translate: καθ ολικι σ μ ός -- 'along with TOTAL in ordination' [2]
Interesting,
Tim Sheridan
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.94.233.128 (
talk)
17:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is vague, unsourced, and not particularly accurate:
I have commented it out for now; a better sentence might be needed in the history section for these two. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 14:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
In the Catholic Church subsection, the material covering McBrien's opinions seems to use Wikipedia's voice to state the source's opinion's regarding the material. This creates an awkward dialog format that reads more like an opinionated essay than an encyclopedic article. I would appreciated it if someone with access to the source could restate the material. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 18:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 01:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Catholicism →
Catholicity – I know there was an old discussion about making a move like this, but there are a few problems with this title.
It has come to my attention that there are very few, if any, citations to secondary sources in the "Distinguishing beliefs" section. There are a handful of citations to scripture, which border on original research. Secondary sources are critical to the credibility of the article, as the definition used here appears to be non-standard. Most general purpose dictionaries define "Catholicism" as affiliated with the "Roman Catholic Church". Only in more advanced, scholarly dictionaries is a use similar to this article hinted at. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 02:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
When more or less was the founding date of the Roman Catholic Church? I know RCC has got their own narrative on this, but this lacks credibility in the light of the evidence. The emerging of the RCC seems to be an evolutionary process around the time Christianity was legalized in the Roman empire. Does someone have more knowledge about this and can this be integrated in the article? -- 41.146.63.51 ( talk) 17:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
We had some serious discussions on this page, but still we are faced with awkward inconsistency between the article Catholicism and the corresponding category Category:Catholicism. Article treats the term "Catholicism" in its broader meaning as Catholicity, including the relevant positions and views of all main branches of Christianity, while on the other hand category is exclusively dedicated to the Catholic Church of Vatican and its various branches. So, something should be done about that. In light of previous inconclusive discussions and persisting terminological problems, maybe we should consider the possibility of making some complex changes. First, we should note that similar problem with term "Catholic" was resolved by naming the relevant article as Catholic (term). That article deals with the term "Catholic" in its broader meaning and since the page presently named just Catholicism also deals generally with the term "Catholicism" maybe it should be moved to Catholicism (term). That would allow us to use the title Catholicism for a new disambiguation page that would point (1) to this page, renamed to Catholicism (term), and also (2) to the present page Catholic Church. There might be some other solutions for this problem, along those lines, so lets talk about that. Sorabino ( talk) 09:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Good comments. I have opened a widened discussion related to this one on Talk:Catholic_Church#Related_terms_as_well_as_their_disambiguation_pages. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST: re}} ( Talk) 16:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Catholicism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Letter on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion needs a link that works. Overall, the information is from catholic sources, but there should be different sources to accurately represent the other sects of the catholic faith as described in the article. There should be more information under Oriental Orthodoxy since the few sentences appear as if there is barely information on the topic. Rcelenta ( talk) 23:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There were several redirects to this article before the move, and now there are none. What happened to those redirects? Some of them were used as links in many articles, and now they are pointing to some other articles, or what? How did this mess happened? Sorabino ( talk) 09:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was on holiday for the entire requested move period so missed it.
Is this article really about a term? Catholic (term) still has in its hatnote "This article is about the term. For the church in full communion with the Pope, see Catholic Church. For the beliefs and practices other denominations that use this term, see Catholicism." (Which now go to the same article, but the latter is clearly meant to go here.) Catholic Church until yesterday had "This article is about the church headed by the Pope. For associated tenets, see Catholicism."
So it looks to me like this article was always meant to be about beliefs, not about the term (which is covered better at Catholic (term); even if it didn't do that job very well. Not sure what the best solution is but I don't think this is it. I'm inclined to think the previous situation was better, with clear hatnotes to take people to Catholic Church if that's what they meant.
If this article actually is meant to be about the term, then (a) it should be merged with Catholic (term) as proposed; and (b) I think we need an article on the broader concept of Catholicism. TSP ( talk) 10:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 19:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Catholicism →
Catholicism (term) – This article states clearly already in the first paragraph that it is about the term, and this focus is further emphasised down the headings. The most important reason for this proposal, however, is that in most articles the term and link
Catholicism refer simply to the
Catholic Church, as you will find if you investigate a little. This state creates unnecessary confusion, violating
WP:Primarytopic, and
WP:Commonname. Therefore I would suggest that this article is moved in order for
Catholicism to be redirected to
Catholic Church - per
WP:Consistency just as
Roman Catholicism is (in addition, compare also
WP:Catholicism content consensus). What exact title this article then ought to have after the move I would consider secondary, but the proposed new name is in analogy with the article
Catholic (term). On a further note, such a solution would arguably mean that a little bit of information could be extracted from
Catholicism (term) and moved to
Catholic Church, while making
Catholicism (term) a little bit more consistent in its content, focus, and perspective, which isn't fully the case yet, per
WP:Notfinished.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
08:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I've determined the consensus to be in support of the move but I cannot execute it because it is sysop-protected. DrStrauss talk 19:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously heavily overlapping content. In regression, the article Catholicism (term) strictly refers to the Nicene Creed i.e. the term " Catholic (term)", as clearly indicated in its lead section. Neither original nor later included source(es) in that article deal with anything but the adjective term of said Nicene Creed and its percussions. Thus, nothing motivates two mirroring locations for essentially identical content/reflection of discussion. Compare also Roman Catholic (term) which lacks equivalent Roman Catholicism (term) for analogous reasons. Furthermore, Catholicism (disambiguation) redirects to Catholic (disambiguation). Chicbyaccident ( talk) 14:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*Comment When was the article "Catholicism (term)" written? I have never stumbled on it before. It appears to overlap considerably with
Catholicism, and should probably be merged there. –
Zfish118⋉
talk
12:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen any clear objections with arguments against my content improvements proposals neither by you, nor by any other user. Any content pertaining to your suggestion of "catholicity" could be added later if so, rather than maintaining the content as it is now, needing improvement. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catholicism (term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Catholicity — JFG talk 23:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Catholicism (term) → Catholicism (concept) – As the proposal to merge/split this article has been rejected in favor of keeping this as a stand alone article, and because many inbound "Catholicism" links are meant more correctly for the Catholic Church article, I would propose this article be renamed to address the concept of Catholicism, to more clearly differentiate it from the article "Catholic (term)". – Zfish118⋉ talk 16:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid none of the arguments presented above makes the case stronger for a separate article, no matter what suffix disambiguator, as opposed to a merge with Catholic (term), or a transformation to a disambiguation page. The more we discuss it, the more the content overlap seems clear. In fact, given Catholic (term), I wonder what more legitimacy a Catholicism (term) or a Catholicism (concept) would give than the for good reasons inexisting Catholic Church (concept) or Catholic Church (term)? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 11:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be both [[Orthodoxy|orthodox]] and [[Catholicity|catholic]]...
John Henry Newman was a [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] cardinal...
Following the move Chicbyaccident made these changes after the move. TSP reverted most of them here. I've restored the original changes with this edit, mainly focusing on the intro sentence, but I also concur with the other changes throughout the article. The RM closed with a move of this title to Catholicity as a natural disambiguation, and as a term that is used in academic reliable sources, and changing terms, especially in the first sentence, to comply with the new consensus title is standard practice after a move. This term also has the advantage of maintaining an neutral point of view because of the different groups who lay claim to the term catholicism. Not using terminology within the article that is consistent with the consensus title does nothing to benefit the reader, and has the possibility of causing confusion. I'm open to discussing tweaks in specific instances, but as a whole, keeping this article consistent is important so as to not confuse the reader. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It redirects here now? Not that I disagree, but I was under the impression that there was consensus to redirect Catholicism to Catholic Church. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Edit in question. AdA&D 04:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I notice that the article Catholicity was tagged for merger with Catholic (term) but no discussion was started.
I believe that this merger would be a bad idea, and would not be in line with the move discussion above. I suggest keeping an article for the theological concept ( Catholicity), and a separate article for the Catholic term, which specifically discusses the use of the term is relation both to the theological concept (briefly, linking to the previous article) and to the Catholic Church. Duplicated content should be moved to one or the other article. Place Clichy ( talk) 18:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Would this article merit its own main Category:Catholicity for convenience? PPEMES ( talk) 19:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2007–2012. 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm
The New American Bible
this isnt mentioned anywhere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.72.10 ( talk) 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
As this article covers all churches that claim Catholicity, "we" don't use any one Bible translation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Chapter IV.-Beware of These Heretics.
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact, ] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so m the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him,29 He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.
I've just read this text of Inatious, and could not conciliate it with the catholic ecumenism. Could any catholic friend give some insight? Thanks. []'s Mauro do Carmo 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"I am good, because I am a believer. However, beware of those "whatsoever" because they don't think/act righteously as I do. Thanks God."
Consider that I am a catholic of denomination. Thanks so much for your time.
Mauro do Carmo
22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)The beginning reads like a dictionary. Well, it is one. The beginning is more suited to wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Jake95( talk!) 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Section The term "Catholic Church" carefully avoids to define what is the "Catholic Church", except defining some majority position. How was the term constructed by Ignatius/Antioch, and what was his "rationale" (spiritual ditto – You know what I mean!)? How was the term used afterwards? The punishments, evil spirits' possessions, spiritual chafes, and eternal damnations to all who had another opinion – is sort of secondary and trivia to any reasonable mind. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 06:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
None of this has anything to do with Catholicism or its relation to the Roman Catholic Church. It is nothing but residue from an old battle from another page that need not remain here. I have moved it to the tal kpage:
"Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are held not to be synonymous by those who are not members and who use the term "Roman Catholic Church" to imply that the Church in question is only the "Roman" section of a larger entity that they call "the Catholic Church" and that, in their view, also includes sections not in communion with Rome. And some who are members and who consider that communion with Rome is an essential element of the Church's identity apply the term "the Roman Catholic Church" not to the Church as a whole, but only to its Latin Rite component. [1] This contrasts with the terminology used by the highest authorities of the Church. Popes have treated "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" as synonymous, [2] and official documents concerning dialogue between the Church and groups outside her fold repeatedly use the term of the whole Church, not just of the Latin-Rite part. [3]
The use of the adjective "Roman" in relation to the Church as a whole is explained as acknowledgement of the central role of the see or diocese of Rome for the entirety of the Church.
-- SECisek 18:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It does seem very odd to have the Eastern Catholic Churches under Roman Catholic Church rather than under Eastern Christianity. Shall we reorganise this into Western Christianity (including Latin Catholics, then the assorted Protestant groups) and Eastern Christianity (including Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholics)? InfernoXV 06:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The Catholic character of Anglicanism cannot be ghettoized as "Anglo-Catholic," as noble a tradition within Anglicanism as it is. As the section itself discusses (with citation), the Catholic and Reformed nature of Anglicanism is broadly considered by all Anglicans to be a characteristic of this branch of Christianity. I have also edited the section on sacraments to make it more universally applicable. At present, it reads like a description of Roman Catholic sacraments, with occasional passing references to what is done in other churches in the Catholic heritage. fishhead64 ( talk) 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on Catholicism tries to be inclusive of all groups that are considered or consider themselves Catholic, per the NPOV policy of Wikipedia; I think for the most part it succeeds. However, I've noticed that in the External Links areas, many of the websites that are linked are RCC, but describe themselves with the Catholic moniker normally in the URL. That's not an issue (it's their URL, after all), but sometimes the descriptions tend to follow that, and thus lose NPOV. One of the sites purported to be a "Catholic You-Tube", for example, but it appears that it's a portal to RCC videos and a host of videos for one particular RCC church (as an aside, I'm not sure that it's authoritative or important enough to warrant inclusion in the External Link area to begin with for this issue, since it seems to be single church oriented). Another proclaims to be "All Things Catholic" but even it self identifies as being a RCC Wiki. In this case, I'm conflicted because the URLs and the self identification of these areas says "Catholic", but in reality, most of them are RCC specifically. In an article where the various authors have gone to lengths to make sure that there is a neutral POV in reference to the various definitions of what "Catholicism" means, this seems wrong. Can one of the more authoritarian editors please take a few minutes to look at this? I don't feel totally comfortable saying "This site is RCC only, so it should be identified as such, versus this site is Catholic in the bigger sense, or applicable in the bigger sense, and so can be called just Catholic". But it looks like someone needs to do just that to get back to NPOV on those links. While I'm at it, it seems obvious that over time the same effect is going to bleed into some of the other source material descriptions over time, so this might be a good time to develop a coherent policy on the issue. Bill Ward ( talk) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how almost every edit in the recent past has been a reversion of vandalism, would we be justified in semi-protecting this article, or is the criterion that the article be undergoing active editing? Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed the caption in the Roman Catholic section. It was incorrect. Now, it is worded funny but is correct.
Also, the Eastern Catholics would not call themselves Roman Catholic. They are Catholic. - Pop6 ( talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This article no longer warrants a B class rating, and so I've reassigned it to start class hoping this will prompt someone from the wikiproject to work on improving it. While there is good content, the article needs significant improvement in terms of organization. The biggest problem and the most easily fixed is that the lead section needs to be rewritten according to the Manual of Style guidelines, which can be found at WP:Lead. Once a suitable lead section is written, the article would warrant a return to B class. Dgf32 ( talk) 02:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Richard McBrien's book on Catholicism should not be cited. The USCCB officially disapproved of his book, warning people that though it claims to explain the basic doctrines of Catholicism, it seriously distorts and misrepresents the teaching. He is not a trusted authority on the Church, nor are his views representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.220.210 ( talk) 00:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You need to put some numbers in here. how many catholics are in the world? when was it started? do the adherents live in an paticular region of the world? if so is it rural/suburban/urban? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Alexw6 (
talk •
contribs)
21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how Ignatius of Antioch had a here-say in how Catholicism started or where the name originated. As a Catholic, it all started as Peter(Paul) was the rock(Pope) of the first catholic church. All of the apostles played a big role as to the spread the word of God and Jesus Christ and his teachings. Whether to call a Catholic church, a Catholic church or a Roman Catholic church has no point. They both mean the same thing, the Roman Catholic church tries to have mass the same way as the Vatican. The word Catholic means Universal, there isn't a play on words. That means, that no matter what denomination you are, you will be accepted in a Catholic church. I think that the writer was having a debate in their head when he/she wrote this. I'll add more feedback later when I read more of the article. Please read more about the faith in a whole before writing about it. Us Catholics would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.81.104 ( talk) 20:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Some of the books listed for further reading seem odd choices. For example, the Patrick Madrid and Karl Keating books are good, but are primarily about Protestant-Catholic relations: about doctrinal controversies, 20th-century Protestant proselytism, and individual conversions. I think it's probably better to recommend books that look at the big picture of Catholicism on its own, in a big-picture way, rather than in its relation to American Protestantism. Chonak ( talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The third category listed seems to be unneeded since according to what is written, those in this category have no "institutional descent" and do not call themselves catholic. Does this seem unnecessary to anyone else. There is also no source for this. Is this part of something that was discussed earlier that I did not see? MephYazata ( talk) 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that the "See also" section is being turned practically into a couple of portals, and I see this as inappropriate. However, I will not myself intervene. Lima ( talk) 16:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that contemporary secular writers will sometimes use by-words when refering to Catholicism. One of these terms is clericalism, hence the expression anticlericalism, which is very close to anti-Catholicism. Other by-words such as this include Sacerdotalism, Obscurantism, Reactionism, Dogmatism, Sacramentalism, Medievalism, Fascism, Romanism, Natalism, Patriarchy, Anglo-Catholicism and Cultural Christianity. ADM ( talk) 04:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
also consider themselves part of (the more hardcore ones consider themselves to be) "the holy catholic church," claiming direct descent from the original Christians through their Anglican roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 ( talk) 22:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this article is intellectually dishonest, never mind poorly thought out. It is hard, for example, to sustain the points in the third and fourth sentences on the basis of the footnotes to which the reader is referred. Indeed, the sources, to which we are directed, do not support with proof or evidence what is declared in the above mentioned sentences.
For example, in the third sentence, Wikipedia editor states: "More broadly, it [Catholicism] may refer to many churches, including the Roman Cathlic Church and others not in communion with it, that claim continuity with the Catholic Church before separation into Greek or Eastern and Latin or Western." Then as his/her source for this statement, the author cites a single paragraph on "Anglo-Catholicism" from Richard Mc Brien's Encyclopedia of Catholicism (p.52), which states: "Anglo-Catholicism, the name given since the Oxford movement in the nineteenth century to the 'high church' party within the Anglican communion. Anglo-Catholics emphasize the historic continuity with its medieval predecessor...." Mc Brien's paragraph, however, never mentions the Schism between the Western and Eastern churches. Furthermore, the "historic continuity" to which Mc Brien was referring was with Anglo-Catholicism's "medieval predecessor," the Western/Latin Church of the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries, not the church before 1000. The wiki editor of that sentence, however, gives the article a different spin, intellectually dishonest. That is, the source cited does not back up what is stated in the paragraph, sentence 3.
Then the wiki editor states the following (in the fourth sentence): "Churches that make this claim of continuity [as if they did!] include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental churches, the Assyrian Church of the East [really an Oriental church], the Old Catholic churches, and the churches of the Anglican Communion." To back up the content of this sentence, the Wiki editor creatively cites another Roman Catholic scholar, Jeffery Gros, who ironically, in his book, Introduction to Ecumenism, states something completely different and much more nuanced. In regard to claims of continuity, Gros states the following on page 155: "The Eastern Orthodox churches consider the West to have broken away from the "common Tradition." Later, in the same paragraph, he calls it "the Apostolic heritage." However, there in no mention of the "Catholic Church" before 1000 as an ecclesial institution.
Finally, none of the Roman Catholic scholars he/she uses in this paragraph state or even allude to the idea that the Roman Catholic church (or any one of its popes) claims continuity with itself (or with an earlier pope, say, before the 10th century) anymore than an American president would. It is a given, even in regard to those presidents born under a foreign power, the British government before the nation declared its independence in 1776. (I believe Van Buren was the first native born president, born after the American Revolution when the United States was already a free nation, free of the king. But even he never saw a discontinuity between himself and Madison or Adams, both born before 1776.) Anyway, as Gros notes, "the Catholic Church" and the abovementioned churches all claim continuity with the "Apostolic heritage" and with the "common Tradition," not with the Catholic Church before 1000.
If the editors wish to state the contrary, they should not cite Catholic sources (or any scholarly sources, for that matter) that do not support their statements or opinions. They shoudl find other sources to back up thier statements. Prattlement ( talk) 18:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least you are hearing another side (although contradictory evidence seldom puzzles the indifferent mind, considering the many people who go along with indifference today). Prattlement ( talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest you read Lumen Gentium. Prattlement ( talk) 01:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC) If the "Church of Christ" subsists in the "Catholic Church" (i.e., Roman Catholic Church), no Catholic Scholar (such as those cited in the first paragraph) would ever state that the Roman Catholic Church "claims continuity with the Catholic Church before the separation," not if the Church of Christ subsists in their church (and has for all time), according to this document. Interestingly too, the "Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" are used synonymously by these writers in their work. Prattlement ( talk) 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Wiki authors need Anglican scholars to back up the first paragraph! Good luck! Prattlement ( talk) 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I quote the Jeffery Gros paragraphs in full: " In the present day, words 'schismatic' and 'heretic' are seldom used by Western Christians, but the differences of perception between West and East are no less real and profound. The Catholic Church recognizes the sacramental character of these 'sister churches' and insists that any study of the nature of the Church take full account of developments of both East and West. Pope John Paul continually reminds Catholics that the Church must learn to breath again 'with both lungs,' and that the first thousand years of full communion is a common resource for reform and renewal. For the Roman Catholic Church this means taking account of the Eastern synodical tratition, the early relationships among the five patriarchates, and the collegial relationships among the autocephalous Orthodox churches when renewing its own collegial, synodical, papal, and episcopal conference life to better serve the unity of churches.
The Eastern Orthodox churches consider the West to have broken away form the common Tradition. This view has factual support in the events of 1054 and 1204. Likewise, such developments as the addition of the 'filioque,' papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas in Catholicism, and the ordination of women in Protestantism are seen as unilateral develpments moving away from the Apostolic heritage. Sacramental theology has also developed under different patristic emphases, leaving Orthodox less easily able to recognize the sacraments of the Catholic Church than Catholics are able to do in regard the sacraments of the Orthodox Churches." p 155
No mention here of the Catholic Church (to quote Gros) claiming continuity with the Catholic Church before the schism or separation of 1054! Prattlement ( talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Finally (at least in this post), may I suggest you find Anglicans authors (instead of dishonestly misusing/misquoting Roman Catholic sources in citations) who might be able to explore and back up the type of catholic ecclesiology which the Anglican Communion has lived for the past 4 hundred years. You might want to start with Tom Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham. Prattlement ( talk) 17:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the ref (attached to the second sentence of the second paragraph) because it cannot be found, validated in Thomas Rausch's book, CATHOLICISM IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM, the source originally used to validate the statement. The wiki editor needs to find another source to back up the statement. Throughout his book, Rausch also refers to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Catholic Church," because "that Church continues to refer to itself simply as the 'Catholic Church' in its official documents." LIkewise, he refers to the "Catholic Church" and the "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches," not the "Roman Catholic Church, Western and Eastern," etc. Wiki editors need to find another source (for this concept) supported by scholarship.-- Prattlement ( talk) 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Sacraments section, receiving the Eucharist (or First Communion) comes before Confirmation. Also, it is a common practice that Confirmation occurs when the faithful are around the age of 12 or 13, not at the age of 7, as stated in the article. DakotaW ( talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that there should be a section for anti-Catholicism and/or criticism of Catholicism where the objections can be posted along with the Catholic Church's response. -- PaladinWriter ( talk) 17:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There have been many edits to the main article since I posted this. Please address. -- IronMaidenRocks ( talk) 04:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is meant to be about the concept of "Catholicism" in its manifestations in various Christian churches. It is not - despite the efforts of some - meant to be an article about the Roman Catholic Church. Afterwriting ( talk) 07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This article states that the roman catholic church is the single largest single religious body. Is this true? What causes the muslim faith to not be considered the largest single "religious body"? I believe a distinction should be added to notify the reader of the fact that the muslim religion outnumbers the roman catholic religion. ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#People) Psypherium ( talk) 12:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposed merge request was: Not merged. SMasters ( talk) 05:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose a merge of this article with
Christianity. This, as as both are one and the same.
Roman Catholicism is however a division of Catholicism/Christianity, and this should have its own article; for this article I propose the article
Catholic_Church which should be renamed to
Catholic Christianity. See
Major_religious_groups /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prevailing_world_religions_map.png which both use a same disctinction.
91.182.53.128 (
talk)
10:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: Editors may wish to comment at
Talk:Catholic Church#Article renaming also, where there is a proposal to rename "Catholic Church" to "Catholic Christianity".
I believe merging the content from Catholic into Catholicism would benefit both articles. At this point in time, both articles seem awfully redundant, and this article seems to be the more developed of the two. The "Catholic" article speaks mostly about the term itself, where as this article speaks about the term "Catholic", as well as the religious beliefs common to all Catholic Christians. Both articles still have difficulty distinguishing between "catholic" in the generic sense, and "Catholic" as in the Roman Catholic sense.
As an alternative, one article could focus solely on history and usage of term "Catholic" and the other on the religious beliefs. This would involve merging some content from one article into the other and visa-versa.
-- Zfish118 ( talk) 01:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I propose revising or removing this section, as it is very focused on the (Roman) Catholic Church. Could possibly be tweaked to better fit in this more general discussion of "Catholicism", or merged into another more appropriate article. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know if it is still possible to be a roman catholic church faithful without learning and hearing about the Old Testament at all?
I heard the RCC before the 1960s 2nd Vatican Council was an almost purely New Testament church for the layman adherents, who did not seek to be a deacon or anything. They were not required to learn about the Old Testament and it was not read from during any public masses. Is that true? If true, is that still possible after the 2nd V.C.? 87.97.104.92 ( talk) 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This page contains an infobox saying it is "part of a series on Universalism." Not to disparage either Catholicism or Universalism, but it's obvious that they are very distinct. Although the Greek word "katholikos" means "universal" in a sense (very broadly) akin to "ecumenical" or "orthodox" as opposed to "heretical" or "sectarian," the dogma of the Catholic Church differs from the "Universalist" theology of Origen or Hosea Ballou: Universalists hold that all souls will eventually attain Heaven, while the Catholic Church makes no such claim. I suggest that this infobox, along with its link to a frankly rather muddled article on various religious universalisms, be removed from the Catholicism page. As it stands now, it seems rather like having an article on Universal Studios link to the article on Universalist theology: just because something has "universal" in the name, doesn't mean the theology of Origen and Ballou is involved. Barring any complaints here, I'll remove the infobox in a few days. Rinne na dTrosc ( talk) 23:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of any objection, I just removed the Universalism infobox. Here's hoping Catholics, universalists, atheists, and everyone else reading this has a lovely day. Rinne na dTrosc ( talk) 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "For many the term usually refers to Christians" What do you mean by Usually!?!?!?! It REFERS TO Christians... ALWAYS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.112.243 ( talk) 13:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This section claims the earliest use of the term "catholic" was by Ignatius of Antioch in 107 AD. When in fact it was used by St. Clement I in his Epistle to the Corinthians around 96 AD.
"Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions" - St. Clement I [Epistle to the Corinthians] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.212.194 ( talk) 02:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I am failure with the translation as "Universal" or "General" Google translate
However google also offers this:
Google translate: καθ ολικι σ μ ός -- 'along with TOTAL in ordination' [2]
Interesting,
Tim Sheridan
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.94.233.128 (
talk)
17:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is vague, unsourced, and not particularly accurate:
I have commented it out for now; a better sentence might be needed in the history section for these two. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 14:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
In the Catholic Church subsection, the material covering McBrien's opinions seems to use Wikipedia's voice to state the source's opinion's regarding the material. This creates an awkward dialog format that reads more like an opinionated essay than an encyclopedic article. I would appreciated it if someone with access to the source could restate the material. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 18:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 01:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Catholicism →
Catholicity – I know there was an old discussion about making a move like this, but there are a few problems with this title.
It has come to my attention that there are very few, if any, citations to secondary sources in the "Distinguishing beliefs" section. There are a handful of citations to scripture, which border on original research. Secondary sources are critical to the credibility of the article, as the definition used here appears to be non-standard. Most general purpose dictionaries define "Catholicism" as affiliated with the "Roman Catholic Church". Only in more advanced, scholarly dictionaries is a use similar to this article hinted at. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 02:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
When more or less was the founding date of the Roman Catholic Church? I know RCC has got their own narrative on this, but this lacks credibility in the light of the evidence. The emerging of the RCC seems to be an evolutionary process around the time Christianity was legalized in the Roman empire. Does someone have more knowledge about this and can this be integrated in the article? -- 41.146.63.51 ( talk) 17:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
We had some serious discussions on this page, but still we are faced with awkward inconsistency between the article Catholicism and the corresponding category Category:Catholicism. Article treats the term "Catholicism" in its broader meaning as Catholicity, including the relevant positions and views of all main branches of Christianity, while on the other hand category is exclusively dedicated to the Catholic Church of Vatican and its various branches. So, something should be done about that. In light of previous inconclusive discussions and persisting terminological problems, maybe we should consider the possibility of making some complex changes. First, we should note that similar problem with term "Catholic" was resolved by naming the relevant article as Catholic (term). That article deals with the term "Catholic" in its broader meaning and since the page presently named just Catholicism also deals generally with the term "Catholicism" maybe it should be moved to Catholicism (term). That would allow us to use the title Catholicism for a new disambiguation page that would point (1) to this page, renamed to Catholicism (term), and also (2) to the present page Catholic Church. There might be some other solutions for this problem, along those lines, so lets talk about that. Sorabino ( talk) 09:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Good comments. I have opened a widened discussion related to this one on Talk:Catholic_Church#Related_terms_as_well_as_their_disambiguation_pages. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST: re}} ( Talk) 16:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Catholicism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Letter on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion needs a link that works. Overall, the information is from catholic sources, but there should be different sources to accurately represent the other sects of the catholic faith as described in the article. There should be more information under Oriental Orthodoxy since the few sentences appear as if there is barely information on the topic. Rcelenta ( talk) 23:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There were several redirects to this article before the move, and now there are none. What happened to those redirects? Some of them were used as links in many articles, and now they are pointing to some other articles, or what? How did this mess happened? Sorabino ( talk) 09:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was on holiday for the entire requested move period so missed it.
Is this article really about a term? Catholic (term) still has in its hatnote "This article is about the term. For the church in full communion with the Pope, see Catholic Church. For the beliefs and practices other denominations that use this term, see Catholicism." (Which now go to the same article, but the latter is clearly meant to go here.) Catholic Church until yesterday had "This article is about the church headed by the Pope. For associated tenets, see Catholicism."
So it looks to me like this article was always meant to be about beliefs, not about the term (which is covered better at Catholic (term); even if it didn't do that job very well. Not sure what the best solution is but I don't think this is it. I'm inclined to think the previous situation was better, with clear hatnotes to take people to Catholic Church if that's what they meant.
If this article actually is meant to be about the term, then (a) it should be merged with Catholic (term) as proposed; and (b) I think we need an article on the broader concept of Catholicism. TSP ( talk) 10:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 19:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Catholicism →
Catholicism (term) – This article states clearly already in the first paragraph that it is about the term, and this focus is further emphasised down the headings. The most important reason for this proposal, however, is that in most articles the term and link
Catholicism refer simply to the
Catholic Church, as you will find if you investigate a little. This state creates unnecessary confusion, violating
WP:Primarytopic, and
WP:Commonname. Therefore I would suggest that this article is moved in order for
Catholicism to be redirected to
Catholic Church - per
WP:Consistency just as
Roman Catholicism is (in addition, compare also
WP:Catholicism content consensus). What exact title this article then ought to have after the move I would consider secondary, but the proposed new name is in analogy with the article
Catholic (term). On a further note, such a solution would arguably mean that a little bit of information could be extracted from
Catholicism (term) and moved to
Catholic Church, while making
Catholicism (term) a little bit more consistent in its content, focus, and perspective, which isn't fully the case yet, per
WP:Notfinished.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
08:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I've determined the consensus to be in support of the move but I cannot execute it because it is sysop-protected. DrStrauss talk 19:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously heavily overlapping content. In regression, the article Catholicism (term) strictly refers to the Nicene Creed i.e. the term " Catholic (term)", as clearly indicated in its lead section. Neither original nor later included source(es) in that article deal with anything but the adjective term of said Nicene Creed and its percussions. Thus, nothing motivates two mirroring locations for essentially identical content/reflection of discussion. Compare also Roman Catholic (term) which lacks equivalent Roman Catholicism (term) for analogous reasons. Furthermore, Catholicism (disambiguation) redirects to Catholic (disambiguation). Chicbyaccident ( talk) 14:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
*Comment When was the article "Catholicism (term)" written? I have never stumbled on it before. It appears to overlap considerably with
Catholicism, and should probably be merged there. –
Zfish118⋉
talk
12:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen any clear objections with arguments against my content improvements proposals neither by you, nor by any other user. Any content pertaining to your suggestion of "catholicity" could be added later if so, rather than maintaining the content as it is now, needing improvement. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catholicism (term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Catholicity — JFG talk 23:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Catholicism (term) → Catholicism (concept) – As the proposal to merge/split this article has been rejected in favor of keeping this as a stand alone article, and because many inbound "Catholicism" links are meant more correctly for the Catholic Church article, I would propose this article be renamed to address the concept of Catholicism, to more clearly differentiate it from the article "Catholic (term)". – Zfish118⋉ talk 16:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid none of the arguments presented above makes the case stronger for a separate article, no matter what suffix disambiguator, as opposed to a merge with Catholic (term), or a transformation to a disambiguation page. The more we discuss it, the more the content overlap seems clear. In fact, given Catholic (term), I wonder what more legitimacy a Catholicism (term) or a Catholicism (concept) would give than the for good reasons inexisting Catholic Church (concept) or Catholic Church (term)? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 11:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be both [[Orthodoxy|orthodox]] and [[Catholicity|catholic]]...
John Henry Newman was a [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] cardinal...
Following the move Chicbyaccident made these changes after the move. TSP reverted most of them here. I've restored the original changes with this edit, mainly focusing on the intro sentence, but I also concur with the other changes throughout the article. The RM closed with a move of this title to Catholicity as a natural disambiguation, and as a term that is used in academic reliable sources, and changing terms, especially in the first sentence, to comply with the new consensus title is standard practice after a move. This term also has the advantage of maintaining an neutral point of view because of the different groups who lay claim to the term catholicism. Not using terminology within the article that is consistent with the consensus title does nothing to benefit the reader, and has the possibility of causing confusion. I'm open to discussing tweaks in specific instances, but as a whole, keeping this article consistent is important so as to not confuse the reader. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It redirects here now? Not that I disagree, but I was under the impression that there was consensus to redirect Catholicism to Catholic Church. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Edit in question. AdA&D 04:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I notice that the article Catholicity was tagged for merger with Catholic (term) but no discussion was started.
I believe that this merger would be a bad idea, and would not be in line with the move discussion above. I suggest keeping an article for the theological concept ( Catholicity), and a separate article for the Catholic term, which specifically discusses the use of the term is relation both to the theological concept (briefly, linking to the previous article) and to the Catholic Church. Duplicated content should be moved to one or the other article. Place Clichy ( talk) 18:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Would this article merit its own main Category:Catholicity for convenience? PPEMES ( talk) 19:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)