This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 |
[ This edit makes me wonder whether the article gives far more stress than the Catholic Church does to the word "transubstantiation", and in doing so aligns itself with the opponents of the Church. What does the Catholic Church actually teach? "The bread and wine ... become Christ's Body and Blood" (CCC 1333). Anglican (and other non-Catholic) liturgies based on the same sources as the Catholic eucharistic prayers refuse to use the word "become" and instead say "be", for, especially in the combination "be for us", "be" permits a merely symbolic interpretation, implying that the Catholic Church is wrong in teaching that there is a change in the reality of the bread and wine. "It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament ... This word transforms the things offered ... by the blessing nature itself is changed ..." (CCC 1375). Again, the idea of change. This is followed by one of the only two mentions in CCC of the word "transubstantiation" (the other being the summary in CCC 1413 of this same passage, so not, strictly speaking, a different instance of use of the word): "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (CCC 1376). For the Church the fact of change, real change, is what is given prominence as basic and essential; to this it adds that the word "transubstantiation" is fittingly and properly used as terminology to speak of the change. It does not say that this term must be used; it does not forbid the use of other terms – obviously not, since the Church itself uses "change", "alteration", etc. – provided they don't contradict what is implied in the term "transubstantiation".
I think the following would be a much better account of what the Church teaches:
I think I found a solution. I renamed the roundabout subheading "Pre-reformation perspective" at Real Presence to "Catholic and Orthodox" views. I then directed wikilinked "Body and blood" here to that subsection. (The title "Pre-reformation..." further had the issue of containing post-reformation views, including the term "transubstantiation" itself). -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Esoglou:With respect to your last comment, I should say that under each species, Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is present. Under the miracle of transubstantiation, each bread and wine become Christ, whole and entire. The bread becomes body, blood, should and divinity. The wine becomes body, blood, should and divinity. There is no "respectively," at least not only. Here is the quote from Trent (13th session), confirmed by the instructions Eucharisticum Mysterium (1967), Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004).
-- Coquidragon ( talk) 12:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the "Women's ordination" section might be better named "Role of women", or "Women religious". While the section does address the ordination issue, it initially discusses the role women do hold in the church, not solely what they do not. -- Zfish118 ( talk)
In responding to some questions regarding the doctrine of the Church concerning itself, the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated, "Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam..." ("It should be said more clearly that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church ...")
I find it difficult to correct this sentence in paragraph 3 of the "Apostolic" section, and I can only suggest that it be deleted.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not say what is here attributed to it. "Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam ..." was an objection one or more bishops advanced against the draft of what became the document Unitatis redintegratio. The objection was that "it should be said more clearly than in the draft that ..." And the response of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (not of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) to this objection is not given in the article! In other words, the article as it stands cites for what it states an objection against what it states and leaves the objection unanswered!
Much the same happens in the next paragraph. It states that "the Church teaches that the Catholic Church is ... the 'one true Church'". In support, it cites in a footnote an objection that the Church's teaching (in Unitatis redintegratio) does not in fact say this as expressly as it ought – together with the response of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity to the objection. This too should be clarified – or else it should be eliminated. Esoglou ( talk) 16:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Is the other questioned statement ("the Church teaches that the Catholic Church is ... the "one true Church") sufficiently well sourced by the following citation? Expressius dicatur unam solam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi; hanc esse Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam; omnes debere inquirere, ut eam cognoscant et ingrediantur ad salutem obtinendam... R(espondetur): In toto textu sufficienter effertur, quod postulatur. Ex altera parte non est tacendum etiam in aliis communitatibus christianis inveniri veritates revelatas et elementa ecclesialia ("Let it be said more expressly that the true Church of Christ is only one; that it is the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church; that all must endeavour to get to know it and enter it, in order to obtain salvation." Response: "Taking the text as a whole, what is requested is indicated sufficiently. On the other hand, the fact that revealed truths and ecclesial elements are found also in other Christian communities must not be passed over in silence.") I am unsure. Esoglou ( talk) 19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
By the term "procreative" the Church means that each act is open to the possibility of children, in that there are no barriers or artificial means of frustrating the procreation, but a marital act between one or both infertile people can still be procreative as long as the requirements are met. Perhaps we can expand in this way on the article text, but it seems to me that it should be kept as short and un-technical as possible while the main articles are expanded with all the details. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
In the article, we read
What was the criteria for selecting these?
I have no problem with the list. I was just wondering on the criteria. Why these and not others? If there was no criteria, no problem. I don't know if it started with two or three and then editors started adding more.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 14:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently, the Social issues section is separated from Doctrine by the History section. Yet, the Church's stand on social issues is also a matter of doctrine, however debatable this could be to some. Shouldn't Social issues come under Doctrine, or at least, following it. Why is it after History? If this has been discussed before, I apologize. I haven't looked at the archives.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 13:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have made some other adjustments in content order, reflecting previous discussions regarding redundant content as well. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 00:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I added this hatnote:
Which @ Dominus Vobisdu: reverted with the summary "Not according to the Church. Slang usage is not of interest here."
Hatnotes are meant to help readers to find their way to the right article. Not all readers are members of the Catholic Church. It is a fact that many people say "Roman Catholic Church" when they mean "Latin Church". Some of them are Wikipedia editors who will wikilink to Roman Catholic Church when they should be wikilinking to Latin Church. We need to help readers get from the wrong article to the right one. This could be done in a few ways:
Although my edit was #2, I have no objection to #1 or #3 either. Currently it seems like #4 is implemented, and I don't think that's good enough. jnestorius( talk) 02:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I also concur with Dominus Vobisdu. In all this discussion, your are forgetting Roman Rite. The official name of what in English is commonly referred as "Catholic Church" is "Roman Catholic Church," hence, the reason for the redirect. If a person is knowledgeable enough as to want to search for the Latin Church or the Roman-Rite Church, which is only one of the rites in the Latin Church, that person would know that Roman Catholic Church > Latin Church > Roman-Rite Church. The current hatnotes are enough. There is no need to clarify that "Roman Catholic Church" is not the "Latin Church."-- Coquidragon ( talk) 14:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The article Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) should be speedily deleted. It is a poor shadow of the much more firmly based Roman Catholic (term). There is no "Roman Rite Catholic Church", a term not actually used. ... The "consensus" by which the title of this article was changed from "Roman Catholic Church" (as in other English-language encyclopedias) to "Catholic Church" was based in part on the condition that "Roman Catholic Church" would direct to here. Esoglou ( talk) 16:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Protoclete: On the contrary, not only "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" is popularly understood to be the same, but in the Academia, Roman Catholic Church refers to the institution under the Roman Pontiff. "Roman" means under the authority of the Pope, it doesn't mean the "Roman Rite." There is: the Roman Catholic Church (under the authority of the Roman Pontiff), which includes the Latin Church (one of the 23 sui generis Roman Catholic Churches), itself which includes the Roman Rite (one of several rites used by the Latin Church of the Roman Catholic Church). In English, the Roman Catholic Church, also known simply as the Catholic Church, is to be distinguished from the Orthodox Catholic Church, also known in the English language as the Eastern Orthodox Church. To confuse Roman Catholic Church with Latin Church is what, using your own words, is simply not correct. There is also no Roman-rite Catholic Church, hence is also not correct to confuse Roman-rite with Latin Church, since there are other rites still in use in the Latin Church, not only the Roman, although it is the ordinary approved rite. The words church and rite, although related, are themselves to be distinguished. There is the Latin Church, most of which uses the Roman-Rite.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 11:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Some sources that identify "Roman Catholic" with "Latin Church":
Examples of government use in census reports and of scholarly usage of "Roman Catholic" to refer to the Latin Church within the Catholic Church:
Catholic 12,810,705; split into: Roman Catholic 12,728,885; Ukrainian Catholic 51,790; Greek Catholic, n.o.s. 14,255; etc
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Religion: Roman Catholic ( 97 % ) , Orthodox (1.5%) , Greek Catholic (1%) , others (0.5 % )
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Roman Catholic 4.62%, Greek-Catholic 0.80%
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Religions: Roman Catholic 51.9%, Calvinist 15.9%, Lutheran 3%, Greek Catholic 2.6%, other Christian 1%, other or unspecified 11.1%, unaffiliated 14.5%
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Religions: Roman Catholic Church 1 082 463 ; Greek Catholic Church 9 883
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Roman Catholic Church (68.9 %), Greek Catholic Church (4.1 %)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)communities of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church 3,765 ;communities of the Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church 942
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)While this term ["Roman Catholic Church"] has never been part of the official title of the Catholic Church, it can be thought of as synonymous with the more correct Latin Rite Church
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)A Roman Cathodic is a Catholic who uses the Roman rite, just as an Armenian Cathodic is one who uses the Armenian rite.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)It must be accepted that "Roman Catholic and "Roman Church" are not equivalent terms [...] In saying this, I realise I am swimming against the current of popular expression, the practice of many writers [...] and, possibly, some Eastern Catholic Churches.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Greek Catholic priests, like Orthodox but unlike Roman Catholic priests, could marry.
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); External link in |publisher=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)the laymen and clergymen who established programs of parochial education in Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant immigrant congregations
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); External link in |publisher=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)So it's safe to say then that saying "RC Church" when only the Latin church is intended is intended is not just "slang" - it's quite commonplace, even with official published sources. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to a discussion regarding the naming and content of category:Christian denominational families found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_10#Category:Christian_denominational_families. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Could I ask Randykitty why, instead of responding to the reasoned arguments I have made, he/she has repeatedly and consistently ignored them - and now prevented others from editing this page? Is this not a rather blatant abuse of admin privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.113.120 ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Which categories should this article have, along with its two organization subsections: Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Church, and main three categories?
Currently:
My proposal, with some but few changes:
All categories included: Chalcedonianism, Christian denominational families, Western culture, Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Catholicism, Catholic denominations, Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church Organization, Holy See (which is included in Apostolic Sees), Western Christianity, Eastern Christianity, Catholic terms, Eastern Catholicism-- Coquidragon ( talk) 13:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LeftAire ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
13:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Later addition: another editor deleted my addition, without discussion, except noted that a source was needed. So I added a source which I hope will answer all questions.
Dioceses, parishes, and religious orders
Virgin Mary and Devotions Nothing of note as of now. I was thinking about citations for the last section, though I wonder how necessary it really is.
First portion is done. I'll be back hopefully within the next 2 days or so with more information regarding the other sections. Please, feel free to contest and get advice from users/contributors, as I likely will do the same (my second GA review, and the first one of this significance). LeftAire ( talk) 20:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Western Rites
Sacraments
Anointing of the Sick
Social Services
Part two is finished *Sigh of Relief*.(Yay, I get to tackle the History section next!) Hopefully I'll have something up in the following days for the History section. Ask for more questions if you run into anything, I'll try to assist you wherever I can. Mind if I ask you if there are any other significant contributors to the article that can assist you? LeftAire ( talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
For the history section, I have had very little to do with developing this section. My understanding, however, is that it has been pretty stable for several years now after being carefully trimmed to nearly its current length. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm back! Okay, here's all that needs to be done.
Okay. I'm going to give the article another re-read. There are still a few other places where citations are needed, and after I go through and add said citations for those that I can find, you'll see some paragraphs that have the 'citation needed' link, hopefully within a few hours. Hope this process hasn't been too lengthy, but this article is a big one. I'll try to find citations for those that need it for the History section, but don't wait up, since you may beat me to it. LeftAire ( talk) 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
All right, then! It appears that everything has been handled, as I have taken care of the last bit of necessary citations. Congrats, this article has passed! Nice to see an article of this significance be recognized as one of the better articles. I don't know if you're pushing the article for a FA status, but I suggest a peer review beforehand if you decide to do so. LeftAire ( talk) 22:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in mortal sin. Anyone who is conscious of having committed a grave sin must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to Communion. Also important for those receiving Holy Communion are a spirit of recollection and prayer, observance of the fast prescribed by the Church, and an appropriate disposition of the body (gestures and dress) as a sign of respect for Christ.
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
nunsworldwide
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).It's been a few years since I edited anything on Wikipedia. I left quite disgusted over difficulties with this particular article. I see it was recently promoted to Good Article status. I just want to congratulate the editors here for persevering in their efforts to make this a decent Wikipedia page. Nice job! NancyHeise talk 01:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
>Catholic social teaching emphasises support for the sick, the poor and the afflicted through the corporal works of mercy and the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and medical services in the world.
Shouldn't this be "non-governmental" as it's an adjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.224.62 ( talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone summarize the reason for this? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The new "State and Religion" section is a welcome addition. However, it has lacks explicit references to " WP:Reliable sources", and could be improved with added references to secondary sources, as well as line or paragraph numbers for quotes from the primary sources (the Vatican documents). -- Zfish118 ( talk) 02:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I could not find support for this assertion in the source given, which is on Google Books. Elizium23 ( talk) 20:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I just removed the intro section's paragraph on criticism of Catholicism, bringing the article into line with the pages for other faith groups. Correctus2kX ( talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
While very obviously good faith, the organizational template added has several issues. For one, Jesus as founder is far from uncontroversial, and no single source could be adequate for such a bold claim in a template. Two, there is no "official" website for the "Catholic Church" (The Vatican.va is the official website of the Pope/Holy See). There is no single (earthly at least) corporate entity known as the Catholic Church [that could possess its own website]. It would be more accurate to describe it as hundreds/thousands of local entities, all fiducially obedient to the Pope. [There could be thousands of official webpages for entities within the church, but not Catholic Church itself!] -- Zfish118 ( talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Finally, my only conclusion here is that the infobox is not appropriate for this particular article. I believe it was added in very good faith effort to improve the article, but I do not believe that it is needed, nor that sufficient corrections could be made to make it acceptable. Nearly every edit I've made to this page has been edited and usually improved by others. This reversion is not personal in anyway.
Without careful stewardship, this article will become overwhelmed by well meaning but poor quality edits. This has happened several times in the Catholic Church article's history. Look at its 2004 version compared to the 2008, 2010, 2012 versions. It has been built up, torn down, built up again. By being recognized as a "Good Article", it is somewhat expected that the article remain stable. What the article needs is ongoing maintenance and incremental improvements, not further major additions to its structure.
I would encourage you to look deeply through this article's content to find gaps in coverage, poor referencing, and other issues. Such efforts would go a long way towards making this a WP:Feature article! -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Catholic Church | |
---|---|
Orientation | Catholicism |
Governance | Roman Curia |
Leader | Pope Francis |
Region | Worldwide |
Founder | Jesus Christ |
Origin |
1st century Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire |
Members | 1.25 billion [1] |
Official website | http://www.vatican.va/ |
My issue is solely that the material you are adding incorrect material, repeatedly. I am attempting to explain some of the issues, and may not be doing a good job doing so, but it is YOUR duty to add correct, verifiable material. When material is disputed, it is the party adding the content that has the burden of proof. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the scope of my concerns is very narrow, and not actually involving any doctrine. I brought up a few points originally. You attacked them. I tried explaining a little more as a courtesy. You attacked them. I got angry, you got angry, etc.
My concerns are primarily aesthetic. I do not believe the template is of high enough quality right now to warrant inclusion. It could be improved, and I would not likely not object to an improved version. I only oppose it in its current state. I moved it to the talk page (never deleted it), in part, so that anyone interested might improve it. I also happen to think it is unnecessary and redundant, but would be willing to consider a higher quality version.
The "Jesus" issue, for instance, could be resolved by simply not filling in the founder field. The "region=worldwide" is unnecessary. Adding specific information, such as number of countries it is might be helpful. I discovered there is a separate field for "polity" in addition to "governance"; the polity tag could be set to "Episcopal", and then the governance set to "Holy See". I would also prefer a different image be selected. This image looks pixilated at its current resolution, and the image of Saint Peter's basilica was selected as a kind of internal branding, so that all Catholic related articles would be recognizable. This image was selected long before I was a part of Wikipedia, and would prefer that it stay prominent on the gateway article to all Catholic topics. If more fields could be filled such as perhaps numbers of clergy/religious, number of dioceses, important internal divisions (Latin and Eastern Catholic), the template has potential to become very valuable. However, because this page is so visible, this development should occur in draft space, to avoid frequent changes to the public facing content. I do not have the time to do this anymore, and so moved it to the talkpage so that if the original author or any other interested party could make such improvements if they desired. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 02:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Sundayclose: you claim to have been civil this whole time, but you have been nothing but. Let me explain this in detail. My concerns were always aesthetic. I said so right at the beginning:
My concern is that the infobox template, clearly added to help improve the article, unfortunately over simplifies the rich and complex history of the church, and is redundant to the existing and long standing "Catholic Church series" template that provides links to detailed articles for each topic. The information in the infobox also repeats much of the content within the article lead. The Catholic Church article underwent considerable work in the past year or two to reach "Good Article" status, and I do not believe this infobox template is the best way to keep it there.
Bottom line, I thought the template was of low quality, removed it, and placed a comment on the talkpage explaining my concerns (another editor innocently did not see my note of the removal). This is an ordinary act of editing. You have repeatedly maligned my motives, accused me of "owning the page", edit warring and violating "consensus" over removing a template that had only been there a few days, and few had noticed yet. There were a few miscommunicated reverts, but never edit warring.
From the get-go, you threw accusations, such as "I'm not sure what you mean by "fiducially obedient to the Pope", but if you are suggesting that the Pope does not have "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered", you are wrong." I politely tried to explained a simple line I stated, and you started "rebutting" that, even though it was not my argument, and no longer relevant to discussion of the template. I try explaining some of the complex vocabulary that was misused on the template, and you started rebutting that, making an ass of yourself because you did not realize that you were misunderstanding.
I am not going to reward your incivility. I am going to delete the template, and report you for vandalism if you restore it without considerable modification.
This template may only be restored by an uninvolved editor. This dispute is pointless, and must not continue. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 03:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
My original issue was the unsourced controversial claims introduced in the infobox. It is your singular opinion that they are "adequately sourced" elsewhere. No one else has weighed in on that matter, not even @
Farsight001: who most recently restored the infobox. Per
WP:PROVEIT, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." It is not edit warring to refuse to allow unsourced material to be posted; it is at best
Wikipedia:TEDIOUS tedious your part to continually restore unsourced material. This can be somewhat amicably resolved if the infobox were removed until adequate sources for all disputed content were added. I have aesthetic concerns as well, but my primary concern about the lack of sources has been repeatedly buried by your attempts to disprove my non-arguments. --
Zfish118 (
talk) 15:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
At the very beginning of this discussion, I wrote in part:
While very obviously good faith, the organizational template added has several issues. ... Two, there is no "official" website for the "Catholic Church" (The Vatican.va is the official website of the Pope/Holy See). There is no single (earthly at least) corporate entity known as the Catholic Church [that could possess its own website]. It would be more accurate to describe it as hundreds/thousands of local entities, all fiducially obedient to the Pope. ...
I probably could have written this passage better, so I wish explain what I had meant now. Misinterpretations seem to be the root cause of the long argument above. In Canon Law, the Catholic Church recognizes "Physical Persons" and "Juridic Persons". Physical persons are Human beings, and juridic persons are equivalent to corporations authorized by the church; these include individual diocese, parishes, etc, where groups of people are formally organized. The Church herself is called a "Moral Person", because it is incorporated by God himself in the Catholic view. While individual dioceses and parishes are often incorporated locally under secular law, I am not aware of a secular corporation representing the Church itself. According to both Catholic law and secular laws, these entities have an obligation to faithfully serve the Pope. The word "fiduciary" itself is of Latin origins meaning "faithful duty".
The Holy See is also considered a "Moral Person", distinct, but integral to the Church. All I meant I meant by the sentence in question was that the Holy See is a separate entity from the church itself, under both church and secular law, and that it is misleading to state that the "church" has an official website. This was a relatively minor quibble that I had with the infobox template, and I perhaps should have elaborated more on my concern about the Jesus as founder issue. I feel that due to misunderstandings and confusion over this paragraph, the argument got side tracked and tangled, as we talked past each other. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 05:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Sundayclose: Regarding this edit. There is already lots of information in this article. Why does the above have to be specified as such? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
→It is important to keep in mind that "Roman Catholic Church" is an alternative title for this article that redirects here, and its hatnote should remain at the top so that anyone looking for the Roman Catholic Church article knows that they ended up at the right one. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you give me a proof that the Catholic Church claims herself as a denomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.82.76 ( talk) 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the information in the infobox should be limited to historical claims. The only citation in the article citing Jesus Christ as the founder is a Catholic source in the lead section describing the Catholic Church as the "one true church" founded by Jesus, which is a doctrinal claim subject to dispute by other Christian groups. In the history section, it is only stated that Jesus founded Christianity, and then doctrinal point from the lead section is repeated (using the same source as in the lead). I do not believe there is sufficient sourcing within the article to support the claim in the infobox that Jesus is the direct historical founder of the Catholic Church, and I do not believe that the qualifier "according to Catholic Tradition" is appropriate there. In the discussion regarding Saint Peter ( Archive 53: "History Section" - "GA Drive?"), we eventually agreed that phrasing such as "according to Catholic Tradition" was not appropriate in isolation from other mainstream opinions in the history section. I am also uncertain whether the statement that the modern Catholic Church originated directly in 1st Century Judea is explicitly cited in the article. On these issues, I would like other opinions. I have also expressed concerns about factual errors in the template and other minor issues, but I have corrected most of these, and do not feel they need further discussion. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with you that the polity is episcopal, but the governance clearly is not episcopal. Polity and governance are separate parameters in the infobox. I don't disagree that "the Catholic Church considers its episcopal character (with valid orders) to be an essential trait of the Church", but that is an altogether different issue than governance. Other non-Catholic churches consider their orders valid (and in fact the RC Church acknowledges that in some cases they are valid); their polity is episcopal and their governance is episcopal. But the issue of valid orders is not the same issue as the absolute authority of the Pope, an issue that is distinctly part of the Roman Catholic church. That is the very reason that bishops or churches that do not ackonwledge the authority of the Pope are not considered in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. That is one the main factors that distinguishes Eastern Catholic Churches from Eastern Orthodox Churches. The issues of polity and governance should not be confused in the infobox because they certainly aren't confused by the Catholic Church. The governance of the Catholic Church is the Pope, and that distinguishes it from all other churches that claim episcopal polity. There are some issues on which I am flexible regarding the infobox, but Papal governance is an inflexible doctrine of the Catholic Church and, for me, an inflexible part of the infobox. Otherwise it suggests something that is simply not true. I would insist on reliable sources that confirm otherwise (which do not exist) or an overwhelming consensus on this talk page to agree to "episcopal governance". Sundayclose ( talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the confusion about governance and polity. In looking at the template page, I noticed for the first time that both fields are described as ecclesiastical polity, so the author of the template has provided no help. I couldn't find anything on the talk page that addresses the distinction. Unfortunately this complicates an issue that is already disputed. Of course, there is a difference in the meaning of the terms, but that doesn't help resolve the dispute. My personal preference is to include both fields in the infobox. I suppose we will have to wait and see how others feel. Sundayclose ( talk) 17:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to move the infobox to draft space
The issue still remains whether the infobox contains clear, neutral, and helpful information for the general public. Several experienced Wikipedians have expressed here confusion and disagreement over the usage of terminology in the infobox, so I do not believe that the infobox is serving its intended purpose. This discussion has also revealed an apparent disagreement over what exactly the church teaches about the nature of its leadership, and what the sources say, with the possibility of a RFC being brought up. This is a valid and good discussion that might lead to significant changes to the hierarchy section; I would propose that the narrow discussion regarding the infobox is not place to try to address the issue. There are are also still my concerns regarding the neutrality of presenting Jesus as historical founder, which are also based on poor sourcing in the early history sections. Addressing these issues may also lead to changes in the history section. I wish to suggest that the current infobox be moved to draft-space while these larger article issues are worked out. Building consensus on article content itself, based on high quality sources and research, would make it simple for an interest party to build a high quality infobox. Without these additional sources, or expansion of content directly citable to existing sources, we risk wasting time and effort trying to summarize the current version of the article into the infobox, only to find that things must be changed later when a consensus on the whole article is reached. --
Zfish118 (
talk) 08:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for cooperatively working out differences of opinion and improvement of the infobox. Are there remaining issues that need to be addressed? Sundayclose ( talk) 19:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
How about Islam, is it not a religion? Why are you telling guys that the Catholic Church is the religion, not Christianity?
Poor Buddhism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.82.76 ( talk) 16:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. Have you read Wikipedia's article about religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.82.76 ( talk) 13:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is St. Peter's Basilica featured at the top of the article? If we're trying to demonstrate the organizational aspects, we should be showing St. John Lateran which is the actual "seat" of the Pope. 2602:306:C407:D070:95B0:DCC3:C332:EEA8 ( talk) 14:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
St. Peters fits better I think – more recognizable; Vatican is actual administrative head; it's where the Pope is chosen, lives, works and often dies; etc. – but I changed the photo. Is it an improvement? It is a more different angle than the Catholic template. -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 04:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There had been discussion previously that the history section made more sense at the end of the article, to explain the contemporary organization before diving into a history that is 1/3 the length of the entire article (itself a rather long article). See here for instance. If you believe it should be otherwise, feel free to discuss. -- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 19:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, an alternative Template:Infobox Christian church body exists that is currently used for many Orthodox and Eastern Catholic church articles. Might be easier to use than the current template, which seems to have been written primarily for protestant churches, and needed heavy modification. -- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 18:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
While the governance and polity tags remain ambiguous and difficult to fill, I agree with with Jahaza restoring "hierarchical", simply because the sources provided do [not] state state "Roman Curia" as the means of governance. The two sources describe a twofold hierarchy, based on the sacramental authority of the priesthood, and the religious authority of the bishop over his diocese. The sources currently used do not name a specific body; however, better sources might. (As an aside, the "College of Bishops" is a separate entity than the "Roman Curia".)-- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 20:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
"governance should be episcopal"too, or maybe more clearly an episcopal hierarchy on a universal level, on a regional level, and on a diocesan (local) level. The Roman Curia home page states, from Christus Dominus, that "In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, [...] perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors." In other words, I agree with Zfish118 and Sundayclose. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 01:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC) modified 02:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to a discussion at Template talk:Roman Catholicism of which picture is best to illustrate the Template:Roman Catholicism navigation box. -- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 02:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The "Head" field in the infobox currently reads " Pope Francis as Bishop of Rome" and it looks fine now, but I think we should at least be aware that it will break during interregnums. Because "Francis" is supplied by the {{ Incumbent pope}} template, it will automatically revert to Sede vacante or similar when Francis dies or resigns. Perhaps that is OK with everyone that the field will always need fiddling at these times; personally I would rather see a more robust treatment that did not need changing, in the spirit of {{ Incumbent pope}}. What do you think? Elizium23 ( talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
|leader_name=[[Pope]] {{Incumbent pope}}
is the simple way. No matter what, a person will need to change some variable at the beginning of an interregnum and at the end. What would be your suggestion? –
BoBoMisiu (
talk) 19:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In the infobox, the Governance tag should be "hierarchical". For example, "Governance is hierarchical" (rather than "Governance is hierarchy"); for comparison, "polity is episcopal" (rather than "polity is episcopacy"). The polity and governance fields seem to require adjectives to be consistent. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 23:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Certainly. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Chicbyaccident ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense for the entire phrase "Churches sui iuris" to pipe to the " Particular churches" article. With the line break, it [used to appear] that " churches" refers only to "Latin Church", and " sui iuris" refers only to "Eastern Catholic Churches". The "Particular Churches" article is more relevant too, as it discusses what an autonomous church is, rather than discuss solely the meaning and use of the technical Latin term "sui iuris". -- Zfish118⋉ talk 22:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
fellowships_type1=[[Autonomous particular churches|Churches ''sui iuris'']]
fellowships1=1 Western [[Latin Church]] and 23 Eastern ''[[sui iuris]]'' Churches in one Catholic Church
@ 8bitW: Yes, this note was to document why I had made the change; the goal is so that the Latin and Eastern Catholic churches are shown as peers under the same heading, rather than separate classes under the confusing split heading there previously. (Clarification made to original post.) @ BoBoMisiu:I piped " churches sui juris" to Autonomous particular churches to make this distinction more }clear, although the target still redirects to Particular church. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 20:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would someone revert such a useful edit? Didn't Michael Lawson found the Catholic Church according to tradition? -- Zfish118⋉ talk 17:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
American
British
The "State and religion" section remains unsourced. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 02:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The Catholic teaching in Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom (1965), states that all people are entitled to religious freedom, that constitutional law should recognise such freedom and that no one is to be coerced into belief in the Catholic faith, but the Church also condemns the notion that "the Church ought to be separated from the state", as in the Syllabus of Errors. While recognising an individual's freedom of worship, the Second Vatican Council in Dignitatis Humanae "leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ". This traditional teaching is found in Vehementer Nos, a 1906 encyclical of Pope Pius X, which condemned the laicisation of the French state, but the teaching ultimately was derived from various texts in the Bible, and the magisterial teaching of Pope Gelasius; hence the traditional teaching is known as the Gelasian doctrine.
"various texts in the Bible"that are sourced to a good reference.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 10 external links on
Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I changed "Churches sui iuri" to "Autonomous churches", as phrased in the lead:
The Latin Church, the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches and religious institutes such as the Jesuits, mendicant orders and enclosed monastic orders, reflect a variety of theological emphases in the Church. [1] [2]
The term "sui iuris" is not currently mentioned until several sections into the article, and only then, mentioned as a Latin synonym for "autonomous". -- Zfish118⋉ talk 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
References
The rich variety of … theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches 'unified in a common effort shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church'.(cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 23)
Comments:
Catholic Church | |
---|---|
Classification | Christian |
Polity | Episcopal [1] |
Structure | Catholic hierarchy [2] [3] |
Head |
Pope
Francis as Bishop of Rome |
Organization |
Holy See Episcopal see of the Pope Churches sui iuris (24) Self-governing particular churches • Latin Church • Eastern Catholic Churches (23) Dioceses • Archdioceses (640) • Regular dioceses (2,851) |
Region | Worldwide |
Founder |
Jesus Christ, according to Catholic tradition |
Origin |
1st century Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire |
Members | 1.254 billion [4] |
Clergy | 5,100 bishops 413,000 priests |
Website | Holy See |
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |city=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help)
CCC880
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CEHierarchy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Why is this article named ‘Catholic Church’? It is true that the Roman Catholic Church claims that it is THE Catholic Church, but that is a claim not held by other Churches. The churches of England, Norway or Sweden, for instance, also claim to be part of the Catholic Church. Some claim that ‘Roman’ isn’t ‘good enough,’ as there are non-latin churches in communion with Rome. But ‘Roman’ can also mean ‘in communion with the Roman Pontiff,’ and that is exactly how pope Pius XII used the term. In Humani Generis, he used ‘Roman’ to describe all Catholics in communion with Rome: «The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.» Of course I don’t agree with this, but I recognise that the pope used ‘Roman’ as a term which covered everyone in communion with him, latin or non-latin. We see the same thing, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, which was adressed to «our venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.» In that encyclical, he is even more explicit: «If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.» Here the Pope is using the term Roman for every Catholic Christian in communion with him, including Eastern Catholics.
The point I’m making is that ‘being in communion with the Roman Pontiff’ is NOT art of the definition of the word ‘catholic.’ So why, again, is this article named ‘Catholic Church’? Carissimi ( talk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Catholic Church has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first line of the page says "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with more than 1.25 billion members worldwide". The Roman Catholic Church is a large portion of the Catholic Church, but they are not the same. The Catholic Church is made up of smaller churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Russian Orthodox Church, or the Armenian Catholic Church. Also, the third sentence states "Headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope, its doctrines are summarised in the Nicene Creed"(referring to the Catholic Church). The Catholic Church is not headed by the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church is headed by the Pope. The invisible head of the Catholic Church is Jesus, and the visible heads of the various Churches are the bishops, who are direct apostolic successors to the original twelve apostles. The Eastern Churches accept the papacy of the Bishop of Rome(making them in full communion with the other Eastern Churches, and the RCC), but they also have their own distinct heads of their churches, such as the Armenian Catholicos(Karekin II), or the Patriarch of the Russian Church(Kirill). LegendOfDello ( talk) 17:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 18:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)This
edit request to
Catholic Church has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the basic info section, that the "Founder" be changed from "Jesus Christ, according to Catholic tradition" to simply "Jesus Christ", because it is objective, verifiable, and historical fact that He did founder the Catholic Church. 2601:2C3:201:C049:753D:79F1:E08F:7FEF ( talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
A very immature part of me is giddy that I'm the original cause of this flame war. ;) Crusadestudent ( talk) 02:36, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
{{{separations|
East-West Schism
Protestant Reformation}}}
{{{merger|Post-
Schism reunions of the "
Uniate" Churches with the
Latin Church}}}
{{{founded_date|AD 33}}}
is subjective and{{{founded_date|1st century}}}
is better.{{{parent|
Second Temple Judaism}}}
What about having Holy See as Governance rather than Administration, leaving Roman Curia there alone? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not looking to start an edit war, but the Oxford comma / no Oxford comma divide isn't really a British/American divide. The use of the Oxford comma could still be British English (cf. the page on the Oxford comma). Deus vult! Crusadestudent ( talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the reliable sources and find "Roman Catholic" is used without any problems as a standard term. I browsed the titles in some self-identified Catholic scholarly journals to demonstrate this: 1) "Faith and Leadership: The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church" in Catholic Historical Review. (Autumn 2015); 2) "The Feast Of Corpus Christi In Mikulov, Moravia: Strategies Of Roman Catholic Counter-Reform (1579-86)" in Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2010); 3) "Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States." in U.S. Catholic Historian (Fall 2013); 4) "The church and the seer: Veronica Lueken, the Bayside movement, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy" in American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 5) "Incompatible with God's Design: A History of the Women's Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church." Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2013); 6) "The Rise and Fall of Triumph: The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976." Catholic Historical Review (Spring 2015); 7) "Mary, star of hope: Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the United States from 1854 to 2010, as seen through the lens of Roman Catholic Marian congregational song." American Catholic Studies (Spring 2013); 8) "Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics In English North America, 1610-58: A Comparative Assessment" CCHA Study Sessions (Canadian Catholic Historical Association). (1999) ; 9) "Gender, Catholicism, and Spirituality: Women and the Roman Catholic Church in Britain and Europe, 1200-1900." American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 10) "Master'S Theses And Doctoral Dissertations On Roman Catholic History In The United States: A Selected Bibliography" U.S. Catholic Historian (Jan 1987). Rjensen ( talk) 10:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
"usage of Catholic Church vs Roman Catholic Church can change over time".
"Quaker" and "Methodist"are good examples too. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 02:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
“ | Roman Catholic A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church....It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. [2] | ” |
Gulangyu ( talk) 08:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"conception among Anglicans". Papist and Romanist are still used by fundamentalist Christians, e.g. Jack Chick tracts. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
History aside, the term " Roman Catholic" continues to be used today without irony by thousands of individual Catholics, Catholic parishes, and Dioceses to describe the church they are affiliated with that is led by the Pope. There is nothing wrong or improper about using the term today, especially to avoid ambiguity when discussing different churches. For instance, the private legislation in the US state of Connecticut giving religious groups certain rights and privileges, disambiguates between the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" and "Protestant Episcopal Church" respectively. Both local churches covered by the law equally claim being both "catholic" and "episcopal" as adjectives, so the law uses the additional adjectives "Roman" and "Protestant" to disambiguate between them. This Wikipedia article is called "Catholic Church", because that name is the most common and most official name for an international organization, that is locally organized under hundreds of different laws. "Roman Catholic" is an acceptable secondary name to avoid ambiguity; both are commonly used contemporarily with little concern for any historical baggage. If fact, most concordats signed by the Holy See and the respective host state within the past few hundred years tend to use a long string of adjectives to legally designate which church is involved, has as "Holy", "Roman", "Catholic" and/or "Apostolic" (example: Guatemala 1854). The church has no specific official universally recognized name, so we default in Wikipedia to the simplest name that is sufficiently distinct for most purposes "Catholic Church", extending to "Roman Catholic Church" when helpful and appropriate. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 18:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"It is never used to only mean the Latin Church". Afterwriting reminded that there is a Roman Catholic (term) article. I think this discussion should be closed or moved to Talk:Roman Catholic (term) – Catholic Church should continue to be used in this article and many others. There are many articles where Roman Catholic Church is better to use. Gulangyu pointed out that there is a difference between Catholic and Protestant usage. There is no style manual for Catholic articles like MOS:LDS or naming conventions like WP:NCLDS. Maybe there should be a few sentence long guide about Catholic Church article naming conventions that condenses Talk:Catholic Church archived discussions about Catholic (term) and Roman Catholic (term). – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 12:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe the title Theotokos should be added to the sentence "The Catholic Church venerates Mary as Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and practises numerous Marian devotions" in the intro, after the phrase "Mother of God", so it would read: "The Catholic Church venerates Mary as Mother of God, Theotokos, and Queen of Heaven and practises numerous Marian devotions".
My edit to add this was reverted for not being "specific to Catholic teaching". I have no clue what the other editor means by this; it is very much a Catholic title for Mary, as much as Mater Dei or Regina Coeli. Nothing in the sentence indicates that it is intended to show only aspects of Catholicism that differ drastically from other Christian traditions, so I see no reason not to include this nontrivial title. (It's not like I'm asking to add "Our Lady, Undoer of Knots" to the intro.) Crusadestudent ( talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone actually opposed to having the lang-la template in the lead sentence, or can we all recognize that the note there was intended to deal with the "Roman" issue? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 04:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
... is there any particular part of this article that shouldn't be edited (constructively), besides the lead? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 19:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The article is currently inconsistent regarding capitalising the word "pope". Although the MoS treats the position as a generic one, there seems to be a strong case for, at least sometimes, treating it as a proper one and capitalising it as "Pope" even when not followed by a name, at least when referring to "the Pope" and not just "a pope" or "popes". The Pope article already generally follows this practice. Those of us who want to base arguments on what the main article on a subject does might want to take note of this. What do others think? Afterwriting ( talk) 05:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you all think this or some improved version of it might be appropriate for the lead? I was thinking of placing it after "... emphases in the Church."
Deus vult (aliquid)!
Crusadestudent (
talk) 02:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Do the two paragraphs on Marian devotions really belong in a section on doctrine? Seems more like a practice than a doctrine. (I'm not referring to the summary of Mariology that immediately precedes these; that is unambiguously appropriate.) On the other hand, I don't see any other sections that might be more appropriate for it. Should we expand to include a general section on "Other practices" (i.e. those not included in "Sacraments" or "Liturgy")? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 04:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The MOS very clearly states both here and here that "Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to specific incidents or periods".
A certain someone seems to think that this doesn't apply to the Assumption of Mary—clearly an incident, clearly a specific one, and clearly [s]piritual or religious. Yet he/she (?) keeps reverting this and other analogous edits.
My edits to capitalize this and other analogous instances have always been "with reference to the Manual of Style instead of merely personal preference", per this user's personal page.
Please discuss.
Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 06:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
To any interested and knowledgeable editors, help is needed at Christian perfection. As of now, the section on Catholic teaching is not very informative. Thanks. Ltwin ( talk) 07:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
An editor is introducing a modifier to the lead ("by some"). "From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised [by some] for its doctrines on sexuality, its refusal to ordain women and its handling of sexual abuse cases." I believe this modifier adds no clarity and should be removed, per WP:Weasel. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 02:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
If this is not the appropriate place to post this, feel free to take it down. I'm putting it here so the relevant editors see it.
As a gesture of good will, I'm going to take the advice of @ Zfish118: and take some time away from this article for a couple of weeks. In the meantime I'll only come back if I notice blatant typos or blatant vandalism. Please take this as a sign that despite my habit of getting myself into arguments with other editors, I really do want this article and others to be the best they can be. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 20:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
"The Latin Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as institutes such as mendicant orders and enclosed monastic orders, reflect a variety of theological and spiritual emphases in the Church."
This makes it sound as if the orders are divorced from the Latin and Eastern particular churches (e.g. that Franciscans cannot be Maronites, or that no Ukranian Greek Catholic is a Carmelite), which is not the case if I'm not mistaken. juju ( hajime! | waza) 05:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I never really got a straight answer before... does anyone oppose the addition of the Latin name (i.e. Ecclesia catholica) to the first sentence? Latin is the official language of the Church, and the articles on Church documents generally list both their Latin and English names. It would look like this:
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 16:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
However, is it valid to have the font size of "Catholic Church" enlarged in the infobox, and if so why, please? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead section currently states: "From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised for its doctrines on sexuality, its refusal to ordain women and its handling of sexual abuse cases." However, this arguable says little in a global, broadly historical perspective. It is arguably too Western-centered and 20th century related a sentence. What about expanding it or at least changing it to something encompassing more of the Anti-Catholicism met by the church during its history around the world, including in these days - being the majority of a religion considered the most persecuted in the world as we speak? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This would violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:
A single-paragraph introduction could not accomplish this. Also you fail to summarize the section "Social and cultural issues" which does cover most of the modern controversies. Also the negative role this Church has played in the development of Western civilisation is downplayed. There is nothing on the Investiture Controversy, the Crusades, the Western schism, the Counter-Reformation, the Roman Question. Nothing about Papal claims to power, or anything about the Church's history of religious intolerance. Dimadick ( talk) 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm for instance thinking about Christianity being the most persecuted religion currently, and the Catholic Church being the largest Christian church. This could perhaps be included in the bottom paragraph mentioned, if not also the a few words about the historical conditions in the same fashion. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST: re}} ( Talk) 14:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've started an RfC about the title of this article and the name of the article on the Orthodox church. The RfC is found here; I suggest keeping the discussion in one place. Jeppiz ( talk) 19:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
We've been over this before and my own viewpoint that "pope" can be capitalised as the proper name of a particular ministry was not supported by many others. The MoS treats the word as generic and says it shouldn't be capitalised by itself. The Catholic Church article consistently uses "pope" except in quotations so the disambiguation information at the top should do so as well (even though the Pope article is inconsistent as are many church publications). Afterwriting ( talk) 12:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, the section explaining the main Marian dogmas was changed. Instead of saying "her status as the Mother of God," it was changed to "her status, as the mother of Jesus, as Mother of God." I am not sure which editor added this content. This section has been the same for years, and this addition was not only unnecessary and a blatant misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine, but can be easily inferred by anyone who has a basic understanding of Christianity or Catholicism. I can explain clearly why the article should be left as I have just made it. Mary was prepared to be the vessel for the Word of God from her moment of conception, when she was preserved from all concupiscence, in what is known to us as the Immaculate Conception. Then, the Archangel Gabriel visited the Virgin Mary and asked for her consent to take part in the Incarnation, to give birth to the Word of God, soon to be known as Jesus Christ. The Second Person of the Trinity, as God, existed from all eternity, but came into our world through the womb of Mary. Jesus is God, and God is Jesus. There are NOT two persons in one Jesus, but one divine person with two natures: one divine and one human. What I have just described is a very basic Catholic doctrine, which this article is supposed to summarize. Despite the ignorant beliefs of Arius and Nestorius, Jesus was, is, and always will be God Himself. He did not become God at His Baptism, nor was He just a very holy psychopath claiming to be God, as those heretics would tell you. I will not allow Jesus to be slandered on this page dedicated to His Church, and I am confident that I am not breaking any rules in restoring this article to the way it was. In the meantime, I will investigate who made the improper change, though I suspect it was the editor who misused a warning template against me, User:Sundayclose. Thank you, and God bless! ~Lord Laitinen~ ( talk) 06:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 23 external links on Catholic Church. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Dioceses do indeed count as particular churches. However, I'm wondering whether the current presentation is really convenient? That is why I propose this modification:
Churches |
Latin Church
sui iuris: |
Eastern Catholic churches: 23
Dioceses: |
Archdioceses: X
Regular
dioceses: X
The advantage of such a modification would be a little less space needed, while sparing the information that both of the variables apply to particular churches, somethimg that could well be pointed out in the content of the articles, perhaps. Thanks! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Attempt to an overview of the existing few pages related to the Catholic Church and the Glossary of the Catholic Church.
I think that's all, although feel free to add or edit. All of these are contained or could be said to be contained under . Most if not all of the above have equivalent articles on Wiktionary. Also, most if not all have more or less overlapping content. That is completely natural in the case of Wikitionary. However, my question is to what agree that separation and overlapping is motivated in the Wikipedia realm, please? Are every single on of these articles motivated standing alone rather than as merged into another article as a section? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST: re}} ( Talk) 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 29 external links on Catholic Church. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
What applies to links to this article in terms of its name? I'm referring, for instance, to this edit. Thanks! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 |
[ This edit makes me wonder whether the article gives far more stress than the Catholic Church does to the word "transubstantiation", and in doing so aligns itself with the opponents of the Church. What does the Catholic Church actually teach? "The bread and wine ... become Christ's Body and Blood" (CCC 1333). Anglican (and other non-Catholic) liturgies based on the same sources as the Catholic eucharistic prayers refuse to use the word "become" and instead say "be", for, especially in the combination "be for us", "be" permits a merely symbolic interpretation, implying that the Catholic Church is wrong in teaching that there is a change in the reality of the bread and wine. "It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament ... This word transforms the things offered ... by the blessing nature itself is changed ..." (CCC 1375). Again, the idea of change. This is followed by one of the only two mentions in CCC of the word "transubstantiation" (the other being the summary in CCC 1413 of this same passage, so not, strictly speaking, a different instance of use of the word): "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (CCC 1376). For the Church the fact of change, real change, is what is given prominence as basic and essential; to this it adds that the word "transubstantiation" is fittingly and properly used as terminology to speak of the change. It does not say that this term must be used; it does not forbid the use of other terms – obviously not, since the Church itself uses "change", "alteration", etc. – provided they don't contradict what is implied in the term "transubstantiation".
I think the following would be a much better account of what the Church teaches:
I think I found a solution. I renamed the roundabout subheading "Pre-reformation perspective" at Real Presence to "Catholic and Orthodox" views. I then directed wikilinked "Body and blood" here to that subsection. (The title "Pre-reformation..." further had the issue of containing post-reformation views, including the term "transubstantiation" itself). -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Esoglou:With respect to your last comment, I should say that under each species, Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is present. Under the miracle of transubstantiation, each bread and wine become Christ, whole and entire. The bread becomes body, blood, should and divinity. The wine becomes body, blood, should and divinity. There is no "respectively," at least not only. Here is the quote from Trent (13th session), confirmed by the instructions Eucharisticum Mysterium (1967), Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004).
-- Coquidragon ( talk) 12:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the "Women's ordination" section might be better named "Role of women", or "Women religious". While the section does address the ordination issue, it initially discusses the role women do hold in the church, not solely what they do not. -- Zfish118 ( talk)
In responding to some questions regarding the doctrine of the Church concerning itself, the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated, "Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam..." ("It should be said more clearly that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church ...")
I find it difficult to correct this sentence in paragraph 3 of the "Apostolic" section, and I can only suggest that it be deleted.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not say what is here attributed to it. "Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam ..." was an objection one or more bishops advanced against the draft of what became the document Unitatis redintegratio. The objection was that "it should be said more clearly than in the draft that ..." And the response of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (not of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) to this objection is not given in the article! In other words, the article as it stands cites for what it states an objection against what it states and leaves the objection unanswered!
Much the same happens in the next paragraph. It states that "the Church teaches that the Catholic Church is ... the 'one true Church'". In support, it cites in a footnote an objection that the Church's teaching (in Unitatis redintegratio) does not in fact say this as expressly as it ought – together with the response of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity to the objection. This too should be clarified – or else it should be eliminated. Esoglou ( talk) 16:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Is the other questioned statement ("the Church teaches that the Catholic Church is ... the "one true Church") sufficiently well sourced by the following citation? Expressius dicatur unam solam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi; hanc esse Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam; omnes debere inquirere, ut eam cognoscant et ingrediantur ad salutem obtinendam... R(espondetur): In toto textu sufficienter effertur, quod postulatur. Ex altera parte non est tacendum etiam in aliis communitatibus christianis inveniri veritates revelatas et elementa ecclesialia ("Let it be said more expressly that the true Church of Christ is only one; that it is the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church; that all must endeavour to get to know it and enter it, in order to obtain salvation." Response: "Taking the text as a whole, what is requested is indicated sufficiently. On the other hand, the fact that revealed truths and ecclesial elements are found also in other Christian communities must not be passed over in silence.") I am unsure. Esoglou ( talk) 19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
By the term "procreative" the Church means that each act is open to the possibility of children, in that there are no barriers or artificial means of frustrating the procreation, but a marital act between one or both infertile people can still be procreative as long as the requirements are met. Perhaps we can expand in this way on the article text, but it seems to me that it should be kept as short and un-technical as possible while the main articles are expanded with all the details. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
In the article, we read
What was the criteria for selecting these?
I have no problem with the list. I was just wondering on the criteria. Why these and not others? If there was no criteria, no problem. I don't know if it started with two or three and then editors started adding more.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 14:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently, the Social issues section is separated from Doctrine by the History section. Yet, the Church's stand on social issues is also a matter of doctrine, however debatable this could be to some. Shouldn't Social issues come under Doctrine, or at least, following it. Why is it after History? If this has been discussed before, I apologize. I haven't looked at the archives.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 13:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have made some other adjustments in content order, reflecting previous discussions regarding redundant content as well. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 00:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I added this hatnote:
Which @ Dominus Vobisdu: reverted with the summary "Not according to the Church. Slang usage is not of interest here."
Hatnotes are meant to help readers to find their way to the right article. Not all readers are members of the Catholic Church. It is a fact that many people say "Roman Catholic Church" when they mean "Latin Church". Some of them are Wikipedia editors who will wikilink to Roman Catholic Church when they should be wikilinking to Latin Church. We need to help readers get from the wrong article to the right one. This could be done in a few ways:
Although my edit was #2, I have no objection to #1 or #3 either. Currently it seems like #4 is implemented, and I don't think that's good enough. jnestorius( talk) 02:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I also concur with Dominus Vobisdu. In all this discussion, your are forgetting Roman Rite. The official name of what in English is commonly referred as "Catholic Church" is "Roman Catholic Church," hence, the reason for the redirect. If a person is knowledgeable enough as to want to search for the Latin Church or the Roman-Rite Church, which is only one of the rites in the Latin Church, that person would know that Roman Catholic Church > Latin Church > Roman-Rite Church. The current hatnotes are enough. There is no need to clarify that "Roman Catholic Church" is not the "Latin Church."-- Coquidragon ( talk) 14:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The article Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) should be speedily deleted. It is a poor shadow of the much more firmly based Roman Catholic (term). There is no "Roman Rite Catholic Church", a term not actually used. ... The "consensus" by which the title of this article was changed from "Roman Catholic Church" (as in other English-language encyclopedias) to "Catholic Church" was based in part on the condition that "Roman Catholic Church" would direct to here. Esoglou ( talk) 16:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Protoclete: On the contrary, not only "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" is popularly understood to be the same, but in the Academia, Roman Catholic Church refers to the institution under the Roman Pontiff. "Roman" means under the authority of the Pope, it doesn't mean the "Roman Rite." There is: the Roman Catholic Church (under the authority of the Roman Pontiff), which includes the Latin Church (one of the 23 sui generis Roman Catholic Churches), itself which includes the Roman Rite (one of several rites used by the Latin Church of the Roman Catholic Church). In English, the Roman Catholic Church, also known simply as the Catholic Church, is to be distinguished from the Orthodox Catholic Church, also known in the English language as the Eastern Orthodox Church. To confuse Roman Catholic Church with Latin Church is what, using your own words, is simply not correct. There is also no Roman-rite Catholic Church, hence is also not correct to confuse Roman-rite with Latin Church, since there are other rites still in use in the Latin Church, not only the Roman, although it is the ordinary approved rite. The words church and rite, although related, are themselves to be distinguished. There is the Latin Church, most of which uses the Roman-Rite.-- Coquidragon ( talk) 11:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Some sources that identify "Roman Catholic" with "Latin Church":
Examples of government use in census reports and of scholarly usage of "Roman Catholic" to refer to the Latin Church within the Catholic Church:
Catholic 12,810,705; split into: Roman Catholic 12,728,885; Ukrainian Catholic 51,790; Greek Catholic, n.o.s. 14,255; etc
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Religion: Roman Catholic ( 97 % ) , Orthodox (1.5%) , Greek Catholic (1%) , others (0.5 % )
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Roman Catholic 4.62%, Greek-Catholic 0.80%
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Religions: Roman Catholic 51.9%, Calvinist 15.9%, Lutheran 3%, Greek Catholic 2.6%, other Christian 1%, other or unspecified 11.1%, unaffiliated 14.5%
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Religions: Roman Catholic Church 1 082 463 ; Greek Catholic Church 9 883
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Roman Catholic Church (68.9 %), Greek Catholic Church (4.1 %)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)communities of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church 3,765 ;communities of the Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church 942
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)While this term ["Roman Catholic Church"] has never been part of the official title of the Catholic Church, it can be thought of as synonymous with the more correct Latin Rite Church
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)A Roman Cathodic is a Catholic who uses the Roman rite, just as an Armenian Cathodic is one who uses the Armenian rite.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)It must be accepted that "Roman Catholic and "Roman Church" are not equivalent terms [...] In saying this, I realise I am swimming against the current of popular expression, the practice of many writers [...] and, possibly, some Eastern Catholic Churches.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)Greek Catholic priests, like Orthodox but unlike Roman Catholic priests, could marry.
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); External link in |publisher=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)the laymen and clergymen who established programs of parochial education in Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant immigrant congregations
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); External link in |publisher=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)So it's safe to say then that saying "RC Church" when only the Latin church is intended is intended is not just "slang" - it's quite commonplace, even with official published sources. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to a discussion regarding the naming and content of category:Christian denominational families found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_10#Category:Christian_denominational_families. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Could I ask Randykitty why, instead of responding to the reasoned arguments I have made, he/she has repeatedly and consistently ignored them - and now prevented others from editing this page? Is this not a rather blatant abuse of admin privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.113.120 ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Which categories should this article have, along with its two organization subsections: Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Church, and main three categories?
Currently:
My proposal, with some but few changes:
All categories included: Chalcedonianism, Christian denominational families, Western culture, Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Catholicism, Catholic denominations, Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church Organization, Holy See (which is included in Apostolic Sees), Western Christianity, Eastern Christianity, Catholic terms, Eastern Catholicism-- Coquidragon ( talk) 13:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LeftAire ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
13:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Later addition: another editor deleted my addition, without discussion, except noted that a source was needed. So I added a source which I hope will answer all questions.
Dioceses, parishes, and religious orders
Virgin Mary and Devotions Nothing of note as of now. I was thinking about citations for the last section, though I wonder how necessary it really is.
First portion is done. I'll be back hopefully within the next 2 days or so with more information regarding the other sections. Please, feel free to contest and get advice from users/contributors, as I likely will do the same (my second GA review, and the first one of this significance). LeftAire ( talk) 20:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Western Rites
Sacraments
Anointing of the Sick
Social Services
Part two is finished *Sigh of Relief*.(Yay, I get to tackle the History section next!) Hopefully I'll have something up in the following days for the History section. Ask for more questions if you run into anything, I'll try to assist you wherever I can. Mind if I ask you if there are any other significant contributors to the article that can assist you? LeftAire ( talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
For the history section, I have had very little to do with developing this section. My understanding, however, is that it has been pretty stable for several years now after being carefully trimmed to nearly its current length. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 23:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm back! Okay, here's all that needs to be done.
Okay. I'm going to give the article another re-read. There are still a few other places where citations are needed, and after I go through and add said citations for those that I can find, you'll see some paragraphs that have the 'citation needed' link, hopefully within a few hours. Hope this process hasn't been too lengthy, but this article is a big one. I'll try to find citations for those that need it for the History section, but don't wait up, since you may beat me to it. LeftAire ( talk) 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
All right, then! It appears that everything has been handled, as I have taken care of the last bit of necessary citations. Congrats, this article has passed! Nice to see an article of this significance be recognized as one of the better articles. I don't know if you're pushing the article for a FA status, but I suggest a peer review beforehand if you decide to do so. LeftAire ( talk) 22:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in mortal sin. Anyone who is conscious of having committed a grave sin must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to Communion. Also important for those receiving Holy Communion are a spirit of recollection and prayer, observance of the fast prescribed by the Church, and an appropriate disposition of the body (gestures and dress) as a sign of respect for Christ.
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
nunsworldwide
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).It's been a few years since I edited anything on Wikipedia. I left quite disgusted over difficulties with this particular article. I see it was recently promoted to Good Article status. I just want to congratulate the editors here for persevering in their efforts to make this a decent Wikipedia page. Nice job! NancyHeise talk 01:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
>Catholic social teaching emphasises support for the sick, the poor and the afflicted through the corporal works of mercy and the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and medical services in the world.
Shouldn't this be "non-governmental" as it's an adjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.224.62 ( talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone summarize the reason for this? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The new "State and Religion" section is a welcome addition. However, it has lacks explicit references to " WP:Reliable sources", and could be improved with added references to secondary sources, as well as line or paragraph numbers for quotes from the primary sources (the Vatican documents). -- Zfish118 ( talk) 02:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I could not find support for this assertion in the source given, which is on Google Books. Elizium23 ( talk) 20:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I just removed the intro section's paragraph on criticism of Catholicism, bringing the article into line with the pages for other faith groups. Correctus2kX ( talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
While very obviously good faith, the organizational template added has several issues. For one, Jesus as founder is far from uncontroversial, and no single source could be adequate for such a bold claim in a template. Two, there is no "official" website for the "Catholic Church" (The Vatican.va is the official website of the Pope/Holy See). There is no single (earthly at least) corporate entity known as the Catholic Church [that could possess its own website]. It would be more accurate to describe it as hundreds/thousands of local entities, all fiducially obedient to the Pope. [There could be thousands of official webpages for entities within the church, but not Catholic Church itself!] -- Zfish118 ( talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Finally, my only conclusion here is that the infobox is not appropriate for this particular article. I believe it was added in very good faith effort to improve the article, but I do not believe that it is needed, nor that sufficient corrections could be made to make it acceptable. Nearly every edit I've made to this page has been edited and usually improved by others. This reversion is not personal in anyway.
Without careful stewardship, this article will become overwhelmed by well meaning but poor quality edits. This has happened several times in the Catholic Church article's history. Look at its 2004 version compared to the 2008, 2010, 2012 versions. It has been built up, torn down, built up again. By being recognized as a "Good Article", it is somewhat expected that the article remain stable. What the article needs is ongoing maintenance and incremental improvements, not further major additions to its structure.
I would encourage you to look deeply through this article's content to find gaps in coverage, poor referencing, and other issues. Such efforts would go a long way towards making this a WP:Feature article! -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Catholic Church | |
---|---|
Orientation | Catholicism |
Governance | Roman Curia |
Leader | Pope Francis |
Region | Worldwide |
Founder | Jesus Christ |
Origin |
1st century Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire |
Members | 1.25 billion [1] |
Official website | http://www.vatican.va/ |
My issue is solely that the material you are adding incorrect material, repeatedly. I am attempting to explain some of the issues, and may not be doing a good job doing so, but it is YOUR duty to add correct, verifiable material. When material is disputed, it is the party adding the content that has the burden of proof. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the scope of my concerns is very narrow, and not actually involving any doctrine. I brought up a few points originally. You attacked them. I tried explaining a little more as a courtesy. You attacked them. I got angry, you got angry, etc.
My concerns are primarily aesthetic. I do not believe the template is of high enough quality right now to warrant inclusion. It could be improved, and I would not likely not object to an improved version. I only oppose it in its current state. I moved it to the talk page (never deleted it), in part, so that anyone interested might improve it. I also happen to think it is unnecessary and redundant, but would be willing to consider a higher quality version.
The "Jesus" issue, for instance, could be resolved by simply not filling in the founder field. The "region=worldwide" is unnecessary. Adding specific information, such as number of countries it is might be helpful. I discovered there is a separate field for "polity" in addition to "governance"; the polity tag could be set to "Episcopal", and then the governance set to "Holy See". I would also prefer a different image be selected. This image looks pixilated at its current resolution, and the image of Saint Peter's basilica was selected as a kind of internal branding, so that all Catholic related articles would be recognizable. This image was selected long before I was a part of Wikipedia, and would prefer that it stay prominent on the gateway article to all Catholic topics. If more fields could be filled such as perhaps numbers of clergy/religious, number of dioceses, important internal divisions (Latin and Eastern Catholic), the template has potential to become very valuable. However, because this page is so visible, this development should occur in draft space, to avoid frequent changes to the public facing content. I do not have the time to do this anymore, and so moved it to the talkpage so that if the original author or any other interested party could make such improvements if they desired. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 02:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Sundayclose: you claim to have been civil this whole time, but you have been nothing but. Let me explain this in detail. My concerns were always aesthetic. I said so right at the beginning:
My concern is that the infobox template, clearly added to help improve the article, unfortunately over simplifies the rich and complex history of the church, and is redundant to the existing and long standing "Catholic Church series" template that provides links to detailed articles for each topic. The information in the infobox also repeats much of the content within the article lead. The Catholic Church article underwent considerable work in the past year or two to reach "Good Article" status, and I do not believe this infobox template is the best way to keep it there.
Bottom line, I thought the template was of low quality, removed it, and placed a comment on the talkpage explaining my concerns (another editor innocently did not see my note of the removal). This is an ordinary act of editing. You have repeatedly maligned my motives, accused me of "owning the page", edit warring and violating "consensus" over removing a template that had only been there a few days, and few had noticed yet. There were a few miscommunicated reverts, but never edit warring.
From the get-go, you threw accusations, such as "I'm not sure what you mean by "fiducially obedient to the Pope", but if you are suggesting that the Pope does not have "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered", you are wrong." I politely tried to explained a simple line I stated, and you started "rebutting" that, even though it was not my argument, and no longer relevant to discussion of the template. I try explaining some of the complex vocabulary that was misused on the template, and you started rebutting that, making an ass of yourself because you did not realize that you were misunderstanding.
I am not going to reward your incivility. I am going to delete the template, and report you for vandalism if you restore it without considerable modification.
This template may only be restored by an uninvolved editor. This dispute is pointless, and must not continue. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 03:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
My original issue was the unsourced controversial claims introduced in the infobox. It is your singular opinion that they are "adequately sourced" elsewhere. No one else has weighed in on that matter, not even @
Farsight001: who most recently restored the infobox. Per
WP:PROVEIT, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." It is not edit warring to refuse to allow unsourced material to be posted; it is at best
Wikipedia:TEDIOUS tedious your part to continually restore unsourced material. This can be somewhat amicably resolved if the infobox were removed until adequate sources for all disputed content were added. I have aesthetic concerns as well, but my primary concern about the lack of sources has been repeatedly buried by your attempts to disprove my non-arguments. --
Zfish118 (
talk) 15:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
At the very beginning of this discussion, I wrote in part:
While very obviously good faith, the organizational template added has several issues. ... Two, there is no "official" website for the "Catholic Church" (The Vatican.va is the official website of the Pope/Holy See). There is no single (earthly at least) corporate entity known as the Catholic Church [that could possess its own website]. It would be more accurate to describe it as hundreds/thousands of local entities, all fiducially obedient to the Pope. ...
I probably could have written this passage better, so I wish explain what I had meant now. Misinterpretations seem to be the root cause of the long argument above. In Canon Law, the Catholic Church recognizes "Physical Persons" and "Juridic Persons". Physical persons are Human beings, and juridic persons are equivalent to corporations authorized by the church; these include individual diocese, parishes, etc, where groups of people are formally organized. The Church herself is called a "Moral Person", because it is incorporated by God himself in the Catholic view. While individual dioceses and parishes are often incorporated locally under secular law, I am not aware of a secular corporation representing the Church itself. According to both Catholic law and secular laws, these entities have an obligation to faithfully serve the Pope. The word "fiduciary" itself is of Latin origins meaning "faithful duty".
The Holy See is also considered a "Moral Person", distinct, but integral to the Church. All I meant I meant by the sentence in question was that the Holy See is a separate entity from the church itself, under both church and secular law, and that it is misleading to state that the "church" has an official website. This was a relatively minor quibble that I had with the infobox template, and I perhaps should have elaborated more on my concern about the Jesus as founder issue. I feel that due to misunderstandings and confusion over this paragraph, the argument got side tracked and tangled, as we talked past each other. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 05:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Sundayclose: Regarding this edit. There is already lots of information in this article. Why does the above have to be specified as such? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
→It is important to keep in mind that "Roman Catholic Church" is an alternative title for this article that redirects here, and its hatnote should remain at the top so that anyone looking for the Roman Catholic Church article knows that they ended up at the right one. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you give me a proof that the Catholic Church claims herself as a denomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.82.76 ( talk) 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the information in the infobox should be limited to historical claims. The only citation in the article citing Jesus Christ as the founder is a Catholic source in the lead section describing the Catholic Church as the "one true church" founded by Jesus, which is a doctrinal claim subject to dispute by other Christian groups. In the history section, it is only stated that Jesus founded Christianity, and then doctrinal point from the lead section is repeated (using the same source as in the lead). I do not believe there is sufficient sourcing within the article to support the claim in the infobox that Jesus is the direct historical founder of the Catholic Church, and I do not believe that the qualifier "according to Catholic Tradition" is appropriate there. In the discussion regarding Saint Peter ( Archive 53: "History Section" - "GA Drive?"), we eventually agreed that phrasing such as "according to Catholic Tradition" was not appropriate in isolation from other mainstream opinions in the history section. I am also uncertain whether the statement that the modern Catholic Church originated directly in 1st Century Judea is explicitly cited in the article. On these issues, I would like other opinions. I have also expressed concerns about factual errors in the template and other minor issues, but I have corrected most of these, and do not feel they need further discussion. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with you that the polity is episcopal, but the governance clearly is not episcopal. Polity and governance are separate parameters in the infobox. I don't disagree that "the Catholic Church considers its episcopal character (with valid orders) to be an essential trait of the Church", but that is an altogether different issue than governance. Other non-Catholic churches consider their orders valid (and in fact the RC Church acknowledges that in some cases they are valid); their polity is episcopal and their governance is episcopal. But the issue of valid orders is not the same issue as the absolute authority of the Pope, an issue that is distinctly part of the Roman Catholic church. That is the very reason that bishops or churches that do not ackonwledge the authority of the Pope are not considered in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. That is one the main factors that distinguishes Eastern Catholic Churches from Eastern Orthodox Churches. The issues of polity and governance should not be confused in the infobox because they certainly aren't confused by the Catholic Church. The governance of the Catholic Church is the Pope, and that distinguishes it from all other churches that claim episcopal polity. There are some issues on which I am flexible regarding the infobox, but Papal governance is an inflexible doctrine of the Catholic Church and, for me, an inflexible part of the infobox. Otherwise it suggests something that is simply not true. I would insist on reliable sources that confirm otherwise (which do not exist) or an overwhelming consensus on this talk page to agree to "episcopal governance". Sundayclose ( talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the confusion about governance and polity. In looking at the template page, I noticed for the first time that both fields are described as ecclesiastical polity, so the author of the template has provided no help. I couldn't find anything on the talk page that addresses the distinction. Unfortunately this complicates an issue that is already disputed. Of course, there is a difference in the meaning of the terms, but that doesn't help resolve the dispute. My personal preference is to include both fields in the infobox. I suppose we will have to wait and see how others feel. Sundayclose ( talk) 17:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to move the infobox to draft space
The issue still remains whether the infobox contains clear, neutral, and helpful information for the general public. Several experienced Wikipedians have expressed here confusion and disagreement over the usage of terminology in the infobox, so I do not believe that the infobox is serving its intended purpose. This discussion has also revealed an apparent disagreement over what exactly the church teaches about the nature of its leadership, and what the sources say, with the possibility of a RFC being brought up. This is a valid and good discussion that might lead to significant changes to the hierarchy section; I would propose that the narrow discussion regarding the infobox is not place to try to address the issue. There are are also still my concerns regarding the neutrality of presenting Jesus as historical founder, which are also based on poor sourcing in the early history sections. Addressing these issues may also lead to changes in the history section. I wish to suggest that the current infobox be moved to draft-space while these larger article issues are worked out. Building consensus on article content itself, based on high quality sources and research, would make it simple for an interest party to build a high quality infobox. Without these additional sources, or expansion of content directly citable to existing sources, we risk wasting time and effort trying to summarize the current version of the article into the infobox, only to find that things must be changed later when a consensus on the whole article is reached. --
Zfish118 (
talk) 08:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for cooperatively working out differences of opinion and improvement of the infobox. Are there remaining issues that need to be addressed? Sundayclose ( talk) 19:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
How about Islam, is it not a religion? Why are you telling guys that the Catholic Church is the religion, not Christianity?
Poor Buddhism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.82.76 ( talk) 16:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. Have you read Wikipedia's article about religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.82.76 ( talk) 13:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is St. Peter's Basilica featured at the top of the article? If we're trying to demonstrate the organizational aspects, we should be showing St. John Lateran which is the actual "seat" of the Pope. 2602:306:C407:D070:95B0:DCC3:C332:EEA8 ( talk) 14:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
St. Peters fits better I think – more recognizable; Vatican is actual administrative head; it's where the Pope is chosen, lives, works and often dies; etc. – but I changed the photo. Is it an improvement? It is a more different angle than the Catholic template. -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 04:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There had been discussion previously that the history section made more sense at the end of the article, to explain the contemporary organization before diving into a history that is 1/3 the length of the entire article (itself a rather long article). See here for instance. If you believe it should be otherwise, feel free to discuss. -- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 19:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, an alternative Template:Infobox Christian church body exists that is currently used for many Orthodox and Eastern Catholic church articles. Might be easier to use than the current template, which seems to have been written primarily for protestant churches, and needed heavy modification. -- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 18:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
While the governance and polity tags remain ambiguous and difficult to fill, I agree with with Jahaza restoring "hierarchical", simply because the sources provided do [not] state state "Roman Curia" as the means of governance. The two sources describe a twofold hierarchy, based on the sacramental authority of the priesthood, and the religious authority of the bishop over his diocese. The sources currently used do not name a specific body; however, better sources might. (As an aside, the "College of Bishops" is a separate entity than the "Roman Curia".)-- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 20:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
"governance should be episcopal"too, or maybe more clearly an episcopal hierarchy on a universal level, on a regional level, and on a diocesan (local) level. The Roman Curia home page states, from Christus Dominus, that "In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, [...] perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors." In other words, I agree with Zfish118 and Sundayclose. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 01:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC) modified 02:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to a discussion at Template talk:Roman Catholicism of which picture is best to illustrate the Template:Roman Catholicism navigation box. -- Zfish118 ⋉ talk 02:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The "Head" field in the infobox currently reads " Pope Francis as Bishop of Rome" and it looks fine now, but I think we should at least be aware that it will break during interregnums. Because "Francis" is supplied by the {{ Incumbent pope}} template, it will automatically revert to Sede vacante or similar when Francis dies or resigns. Perhaps that is OK with everyone that the field will always need fiddling at these times; personally I would rather see a more robust treatment that did not need changing, in the spirit of {{ Incumbent pope}}. What do you think? Elizium23 ( talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
|leader_name=[[Pope]] {{Incumbent pope}}
is the simple way. No matter what, a person will need to change some variable at the beginning of an interregnum and at the end. What would be your suggestion? –
BoBoMisiu (
talk) 19:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In the infobox, the Governance tag should be "hierarchical". For example, "Governance is hierarchical" (rather than "Governance is hierarchy"); for comparison, "polity is episcopal" (rather than "polity is episcopacy"). The polity and governance fields seem to require adjectives to be consistent. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 23:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Certainly. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Chicbyaccident ( talk) 00:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense for the entire phrase "Churches sui iuris" to pipe to the " Particular churches" article. With the line break, it [used to appear] that " churches" refers only to "Latin Church", and " sui iuris" refers only to "Eastern Catholic Churches". The "Particular Churches" article is more relevant too, as it discusses what an autonomous church is, rather than discuss solely the meaning and use of the technical Latin term "sui iuris". -- Zfish118⋉ talk 22:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
fellowships_type1=[[Autonomous particular churches|Churches ''sui iuris'']]
fellowships1=1 Western [[Latin Church]] and 23 Eastern ''[[sui iuris]]'' Churches in one Catholic Church
@ 8bitW: Yes, this note was to document why I had made the change; the goal is so that the Latin and Eastern Catholic churches are shown as peers under the same heading, rather than separate classes under the confusing split heading there previously. (Clarification made to original post.) @ BoBoMisiu:I piped " churches sui juris" to Autonomous particular churches to make this distinction more }clear, although the target still redirects to Particular church. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 20:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would someone revert such a useful edit? Didn't Michael Lawson found the Catholic Church according to tradition? -- Zfish118⋉ talk 17:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
American
British
The "State and religion" section remains unsourced. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 02:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The Catholic teaching in Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom (1965), states that all people are entitled to religious freedom, that constitutional law should recognise such freedom and that no one is to be coerced into belief in the Catholic faith, but the Church also condemns the notion that "the Church ought to be separated from the state", as in the Syllabus of Errors. While recognising an individual's freedom of worship, the Second Vatican Council in Dignitatis Humanae "leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ". This traditional teaching is found in Vehementer Nos, a 1906 encyclical of Pope Pius X, which condemned the laicisation of the French state, but the teaching ultimately was derived from various texts in the Bible, and the magisterial teaching of Pope Gelasius; hence the traditional teaching is known as the Gelasian doctrine.
"various texts in the Bible"that are sourced to a good reference.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 10 external links on
Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I changed "Churches sui iuri" to "Autonomous churches", as phrased in the lead:
The Latin Church, the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches and religious institutes such as the Jesuits, mendicant orders and enclosed monastic orders, reflect a variety of theological emphases in the Church. [1] [2]
The term "sui iuris" is not currently mentioned until several sections into the article, and only then, mentioned as a Latin synonym for "autonomous". -- Zfish118⋉ talk 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
References
The rich variety of … theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches 'unified in a common effort shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church'.(cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 23)
Comments:
Catholic Church | |
---|---|
Classification | Christian |
Polity | Episcopal [1] |
Structure | Catholic hierarchy [2] [3] |
Head |
Pope
Francis as Bishop of Rome |
Organization |
Holy See Episcopal see of the Pope Churches sui iuris (24) Self-governing particular churches • Latin Church • Eastern Catholic Churches (23) Dioceses • Archdioceses (640) • Regular dioceses (2,851) |
Region | Worldwide |
Founder |
Jesus Christ, according to Catholic tradition |
Origin |
1st century Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire |
Members | 1.254 billion [4] |
Clergy | 5,100 bishops 413,000 priests |
Website | Holy See |
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |city=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help)
CCC880
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CEHierarchy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Why is this article named ‘Catholic Church’? It is true that the Roman Catholic Church claims that it is THE Catholic Church, but that is a claim not held by other Churches. The churches of England, Norway or Sweden, for instance, also claim to be part of the Catholic Church. Some claim that ‘Roman’ isn’t ‘good enough,’ as there are non-latin churches in communion with Rome. But ‘Roman’ can also mean ‘in communion with the Roman Pontiff,’ and that is exactly how pope Pius XII used the term. In Humani Generis, he used ‘Roman’ to describe all Catholics in communion with Rome: «The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.» Of course I don’t agree with this, but I recognise that the pope used ‘Roman’ as a term which covered everyone in communion with him, latin or non-latin. We see the same thing, in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, which was adressed to «our venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.» In that encyclical, he is even more explicit: «If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.» Here the Pope is using the term Roman for every Catholic Christian in communion with him, including Eastern Catholics.
The point I’m making is that ‘being in communion with the Roman Pontiff’ is NOT art of the definition of the word ‘catholic.’ So why, again, is this article named ‘Catholic Church’? Carissimi ( talk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Catholic Church has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first line of the page says "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with more than 1.25 billion members worldwide". The Roman Catholic Church is a large portion of the Catholic Church, but they are not the same. The Catholic Church is made up of smaller churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Russian Orthodox Church, or the Armenian Catholic Church. Also, the third sentence states "Headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope, its doctrines are summarised in the Nicene Creed"(referring to the Catholic Church). The Catholic Church is not headed by the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church is headed by the Pope. The invisible head of the Catholic Church is Jesus, and the visible heads of the various Churches are the bishops, who are direct apostolic successors to the original twelve apostles. The Eastern Churches accept the papacy of the Bishop of Rome(making them in full communion with the other Eastern Churches, and the RCC), but they also have their own distinct heads of their churches, such as the Armenian Catholicos(Karekin II), or the Patriarch of the Russian Church(Kirill). LegendOfDello ( talk) 17:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 18:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)This
edit request to
Catholic Church has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the basic info section, that the "Founder" be changed from "Jesus Christ, according to Catholic tradition" to simply "Jesus Christ", because it is objective, verifiable, and historical fact that He did founder the Catholic Church. 2601:2C3:201:C049:753D:79F1:E08F:7FEF ( talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
A very immature part of me is giddy that I'm the original cause of this flame war. ;) Crusadestudent ( talk) 02:36, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
{{{separations|
East-West Schism
Protestant Reformation}}}
{{{merger|Post-
Schism reunions of the "
Uniate" Churches with the
Latin Church}}}
{{{founded_date|AD 33}}}
is subjective and{{{founded_date|1st century}}}
is better.{{{parent|
Second Temple Judaism}}}
What about having Holy See as Governance rather than Administration, leaving Roman Curia there alone? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not looking to start an edit war, but the Oxford comma / no Oxford comma divide isn't really a British/American divide. The use of the Oxford comma could still be British English (cf. the page on the Oxford comma). Deus vult! Crusadestudent ( talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the reliable sources and find "Roman Catholic" is used without any problems as a standard term. I browsed the titles in some self-identified Catholic scholarly journals to demonstrate this: 1) "Faith and Leadership: The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church" in Catholic Historical Review. (Autumn 2015); 2) "The Feast Of Corpus Christi In Mikulov, Moravia: Strategies Of Roman Catholic Counter-Reform (1579-86)" in Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2010); 3) "Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States." in U.S. Catholic Historian (Fall 2013); 4) "The church and the seer: Veronica Lueken, the Bayside movement, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy" in American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 5) "Incompatible with God's Design: A History of the Women's Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church." Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2013); 6) "The Rise and Fall of Triumph: The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976." Catholic Historical Review (Spring 2015); 7) "Mary, star of hope: Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the United States from 1854 to 2010, as seen through the lens of Roman Catholic Marian congregational song." American Catholic Studies (Spring 2013); 8) "Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics In English North America, 1610-58: A Comparative Assessment" CCHA Study Sessions (Canadian Catholic Historical Association). (1999) ; 9) "Gender, Catholicism, and Spirituality: Women and the Roman Catholic Church in Britain and Europe, 1200-1900." American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 10) "Master'S Theses And Doctoral Dissertations On Roman Catholic History In The United States: A Selected Bibliography" U.S. Catholic Historian (Jan 1987). Rjensen ( talk) 10:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
"usage of Catholic Church vs Roman Catholic Church can change over time".
"Quaker" and "Methodist"are good examples too. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 02:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
“ | Roman Catholic A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church....It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. [2] | ” |
Gulangyu ( talk) 08:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"conception among Anglicans". Papist and Romanist are still used by fundamentalist Christians, e.g. Jack Chick tracts. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
History aside, the term " Roman Catholic" continues to be used today without irony by thousands of individual Catholics, Catholic parishes, and Dioceses to describe the church they are affiliated with that is led by the Pope. There is nothing wrong or improper about using the term today, especially to avoid ambiguity when discussing different churches. For instance, the private legislation in the US state of Connecticut giving religious groups certain rights and privileges, disambiguates between the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" and "Protestant Episcopal Church" respectively. Both local churches covered by the law equally claim being both "catholic" and "episcopal" as adjectives, so the law uses the additional adjectives "Roman" and "Protestant" to disambiguate between them. This Wikipedia article is called "Catholic Church", because that name is the most common and most official name for an international organization, that is locally organized under hundreds of different laws. "Roman Catholic" is an acceptable secondary name to avoid ambiguity; both are commonly used contemporarily with little concern for any historical baggage. If fact, most concordats signed by the Holy See and the respective host state within the past few hundred years tend to use a long string of adjectives to legally designate which church is involved, has as "Holy", "Roman", "Catholic" and/or "Apostolic" (example: Guatemala 1854). The church has no specific official universally recognized name, so we default in Wikipedia to the simplest name that is sufficiently distinct for most purposes "Catholic Church", extending to "Roman Catholic Church" when helpful and appropriate. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 18:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"It is never used to only mean the Latin Church". Afterwriting reminded that there is a Roman Catholic (term) article. I think this discussion should be closed or moved to Talk:Roman Catholic (term) – Catholic Church should continue to be used in this article and many others. There are many articles where Roman Catholic Church is better to use. Gulangyu pointed out that there is a difference between Catholic and Protestant usage. There is no style manual for Catholic articles like MOS:LDS or naming conventions like WP:NCLDS. Maybe there should be a few sentence long guide about Catholic Church article naming conventions that condenses Talk:Catholic Church archived discussions about Catholic (term) and Roman Catholic (term). – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 12:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe the title Theotokos should be added to the sentence "The Catholic Church venerates Mary as Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and practises numerous Marian devotions" in the intro, after the phrase "Mother of God", so it would read: "The Catholic Church venerates Mary as Mother of God, Theotokos, and Queen of Heaven and practises numerous Marian devotions".
My edit to add this was reverted for not being "specific to Catholic teaching". I have no clue what the other editor means by this; it is very much a Catholic title for Mary, as much as Mater Dei or Regina Coeli. Nothing in the sentence indicates that it is intended to show only aspects of Catholicism that differ drastically from other Christian traditions, so I see no reason not to include this nontrivial title. (It's not like I'm asking to add "Our Lady, Undoer of Knots" to the intro.) Crusadestudent ( talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone actually opposed to having the lang-la template in the lead sentence, or can we all recognize that the note there was intended to deal with the "Roman" issue? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 04:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
... is there any particular part of this article that shouldn't be edited (constructively), besides the lead? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 19:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The article is currently inconsistent regarding capitalising the word "pope". Although the MoS treats the position as a generic one, there seems to be a strong case for, at least sometimes, treating it as a proper one and capitalising it as "Pope" even when not followed by a name, at least when referring to "the Pope" and not just "a pope" or "popes". The Pope article already generally follows this practice. Those of us who want to base arguments on what the main article on a subject does might want to take note of this. What do others think? Afterwriting ( talk) 05:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you all think this or some improved version of it might be appropriate for the lead? I was thinking of placing it after "... emphases in the Church."
Deus vult (aliquid)!
Crusadestudent (
talk) 02:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Do the two paragraphs on Marian devotions really belong in a section on doctrine? Seems more like a practice than a doctrine. (I'm not referring to the summary of Mariology that immediately precedes these; that is unambiguously appropriate.) On the other hand, I don't see any other sections that might be more appropriate for it. Should we expand to include a general section on "Other practices" (i.e. those not included in "Sacraments" or "Liturgy")? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 04:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The MOS very clearly states both here and here that "Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to specific incidents or periods".
A certain someone seems to think that this doesn't apply to the Assumption of Mary—clearly an incident, clearly a specific one, and clearly [s]piritual or religious. Yet he/she (?) keeps reverting this and other analogous edits.
My edits to capitalize this and other analogous instances have always been "with reference to the Manual of Style instead of merely personal preference", per this user's personal page.
Please discuss.
Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 06:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
To any interested and knowledgeable editors, help is needed at Christian perfection. As of now, the section on Catholic teaching is not very informative. Thanks. Ltwin ( talk) 07:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
An editor is introducing a modifier to the lead ("by some"). "From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised [by some] for its doctrines on sexuality, its refusal to ordain women and its handling of sexual abuse cases." I believe this modifier adds no clarity and should be removed, per WP:Weasel. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 02:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
If this is not the appropriate place to post this, feel free to take it down. I'm putting it here so the relevant editors see it.
As a gesture of good will, I'm going to take the advice of @ Zfish118: and take some time away from this article for a couple of weeks. In the meantime I'll only come back if I notice blatant typos or blatant vandalism. Please take this as a sign that despite my habit of getting myself into arguments with other editors, I really do want this article and others to be the best they can be. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 20:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
"The Latin Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as institutes such as mendicant orders and enclosed monastic orders, reflect a variety of theological and spiritual emphases in the Church."
This makes it sound as if the orders are divorced from the Latin and Eastern particular churches (e.g. that Franciscans cannot be Maronites, or that no Ukranian Greek Catholic is a Carmelite), which is not the case if I'm not mistaken. juju ( hajime! | waza) 05:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I never really got a straight answer before... does anyone oppose the addition of the Latin name (i.e. Ecclesia catholica) to the first sentence? Latin is the official language of the Church, and the articles on Church documents generally list both their Latin and English names. It would look like this:
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 16:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
However, is it valid to have the font size of "Catholic Church" enlarged in the infobox, and if so why, please? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead section currently states: "From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised for its doctrines on sexuality, its refusal to ordain women and its handling of sexual abuse cases." However, this arguable says little in a global, broadly historical perspective. It is arguably too Western-centered and 20th century related a sentence. What about expanding it or at least changing it to something encompassing more of the Anti-Catholicism met by the church during its history around the world, including in these days - being the majority of a religion considered the most persecuted in the world as we speak? Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This would violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:
A single-paragraph introduction could not accomplish this. Also you fail to summarize the section "Social and cultural issues" which does cover most of the modern controversies. Also the negative role this Church has played in the development of Western civilisation is downplayed. There is nothing on the Investiture Controversy, the Crusades, the Western schism, the Counter-Reformation, the Roman Question. Nothing about Papal claims to power, or anything about the Church's history of religious intolerance. Dimadick ( talk) 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm for instance thinking about Christianity being the most persecuted religion currently, and the Catholic Church being the largest Christian church. This could perhaps be included in the bottom paragraph mentioned, if not also the a few words about the historical conditions in the same fashion. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST: re}} ( Talk) 14:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've started an RfC about the title of this article and the name of the article on the Orthodox church. The RfC is found here; I suggest keeping the discussion in one place. Jeppiz ( talk) 19:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
We've been over this before and my own viewpoint that "pope" can be capitalised as the proper name of a particular ministry was not supported by many others. The MoS treats the word as generic and says it shouldn't be capitalised by itself. The Catholic Church article consistently uses "pope" except in quotations so the disambiguation information at the top should do so as well (even though the Pope article is inconsistent as are many church publications). Afterwriting ( talk) 12:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, the section explaining the main Marian dogmas was changed. Instead of saying "her status as the Mother of God," it was changed to "her status, as the mother of Jesus, as Mother of God." I am not sure which editor added this content. This section has been the same for years, and this addition was not only unnecessary and a blatant misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine, but can be easily inferred by anyone who has a basic understanding of Christianity or Catholicism. I can explain clearly why the article should be left as I have just made it. Mary was prepared to be the vessel for the Word of God from her moment of conception, when she was preserved from all concupiscence, in what is known to us as the Immaculate Conception. Then, the Archangel Gabriel visited the Virgin Mary and asked for her consent to take part in the Incarnation, to give birth to the Word of God, soon to be known as Jesus Christ. The Second Person of the Trinity, as God, existed from all eternity, but came into our world through the womb of Mary. Jesus is God, and God is Jesus. There are NOT two persons in one Jesus, but one divine person with two natures: one divine and one human. What I have just described is a very basic Catholic doctrine, which this article is supposed to summarize. Despite the ignorant beliefs of Arius and Nestorius, Jesus was, is, and always will be God Himself. He did not become God at His Baptism, nor was He just a very holy psychopath claiming to be God, as those heretics would tell you. I will not allow Jesus to be slandered on this page dedicated to His Church, and I am confident that I am not breaking any rules in restoring this article to the way it was. In the meantime, I will investigate who made the improper change, though I suspect it was the editor who misused a warning template against me, User:Sundayclose. Thank you, and God bless! ~Lord Laitinen~ ( talk) 06:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 23 external links on Catholic Church. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Dioceses do indeed count as particular churches. However, I'm wondering whether the current presentation is really convenient? That is why I propose this modification:
Churches |
Latin Church
sui iuris: |
Eastern Catholic churches: 23
Dioceses: |
Archdioceses: X
Regular
dioceses: X
The advantage of such a modification would be a little less space needed, while sparing the information that both of the variables apply to particular churches, somethimg that could well be pointed out in the content of the articles, perhaps. Thanks! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Attempt to an overview of the existing few pages related to the Catholic Church and the Glossary of the Catholic Church.
I think that's all, although feel free to add or edit. All of these are contained or could be said to be contained under . Most if not all of the above have equivalent articles on Wiktionary. Also, most if not all have more or less overlapping content. That is completely natural in the case of Wikitionary. However, my question is to what agree that separation and overlapping is motivated in the Wikipedia realm, please? Are every single on of these articles motivated standing alone rather than as merged into another article as a section? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST: re}} ( Talk) 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 29 external links on Catholic Church. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
What applies to links to this article in terms of its name? I'm referring, for instance, to this edit. Thanks! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).