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.

The information that Mirko Krav Fabris is the first conclavist antipope was added to the article Conclavism in added 2008 without giving any source.
I have not found anything on this supposed antipope from Croatia apart from a reference from Chryssides (see below). The information on the standup.si website of "MIRKO FABRIS KRAV" does not match with someone who is born before 1978.
George Chryssides gives in his Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements (2nd ed. from 2012) the name "Mirko Krav Fabis" (not "Fabris", but the book also has in the same entry "Joaquia Sánez y Arriga" which is a typo mistake for Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga so maybe "Fabis" is also a typo) as the first Conclavist antipope. However, I am afraid it may be a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. The first edition of the book is from 2001, and after consulting this first edition on the Internet Archive, I see there is no "Conclavism" or "Conclavist" entry where they should be (p. 96-7), and after a digital OCR search inside the book I see there is no mention of "conclav", "Krav", "Fabris" or "Fabis".
Does any of you have any source from before 11 October 2008 stating this Mirko Krav Fabis/Mirko Krav Fabris claimed in any way to be pope? Veverve ( talk) 14:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a couple print sources that I will review later today for any reference. My understanding is that we indeed have made up a pope. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Pbritti: any breakthrough? Veverve ( talk) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No; after consulting several sources–including The Oxford Dictionary of Pope–and receiving research help from some clergy friends, I believe that this is citogenesis. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem, A. C. Santacruz, GoodDay, and Johnbod: I revently had a discussion throught revert-editing summaries with @ LoopaMoopa: at David Bawden. LoopaMoopa argued that antipopes should have as honorific "Antipope" and stated it was the convention. Therefore, I decided to investigate.
I have checked the list of historical and modern antipopes at Antipope and noted my observations about honorifics for antipopes who have an infobox. Here are my observations, the popes with "(Pal.)" next to them are leaders of the Palmarian Catholic Church to show how inconsistent honorifics can be:

• the antipopes who have "Antipope" in their infobox: Antipope Felix II, Antipope Boniface VII, Antipope Clement VII, Antipope Benedict XIII, Antipope Alexander V, Antipope John XXIII, Antipope Clement VIII, Amadeus VIII, Duke of Savoy, David Bawden, Manuel Corral (Pal.), Joseph Odermatt (Pal.)
• antipopes who do not have "Antipope" as honorific: Antipope John XVI, Antipope Clement III, Antipope Theodoric, Antipope Christopher, Antipope Adalbert, Antipope Sylvester IV, Antipope Gregory VIII, Antipope Anacletus II, Antipope Victor IV (1159–1164), Antipope Paschal III, Clemente Domínguez y Gómez (Pal).
• Ginés Jesús Hernández (Pal.) has "Former Antipope"

As we can see, there is no convention on this. Therefore, I think a consensus should be reached on what antipopes' honorifics should be.
As for me, I think only the latest honorific used for those popes within their denomination while they are in office, sourced within the article with proper RS, should be used, whatever they may be ("His Holiness", "His Greatness", "Mary's Great Fighter", "His Humbleness", etc.). Of course, this could be changed in some special cases, such as with Ginés Jesús Hernández who is not pope or even priest anymore. If ther is no honorifics properly sourced within the article, then no honorifics should be used. I believe "Antipope" is not a honorific, rather it is either the contrary - a pejorative term used by mainstream denominations - or a neutral qualificative used by historians. Veverve ( talk) 11:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
EDIT (I forgot this one):

• Lucian Pulvermacher: has "His Holiness" as honorific.

Veverve ( talk) 14:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't taken a good look at the articles to have much opinion on what to do as convention, but I think the idea that antipope is an honorific seems somewhat illogical, as it is only used by their opponents or historians. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, antipope is an opponent's/ retrospective job title, not an honorific. For the antipopes within the Western Church, the word should be in the title, per WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod ( talk) 12:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I would have the honorifics deleted, since none of them were popes. Even though, they believe & believed themselves to be. GoodDay ( talk) 13:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@ GoodDay: I think your proposal would heavily depend on POV; it is not up to WP to judge who is the legitimate leader of a denomination (see for example Abune Merkorios and Abune Paulos/ Abune Mathias who each claimed to be the legitimate head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church during about 30 years, until 2018 when Merkorios and Mathias reconciled and became both co-Patriarchs), or who deserves to use such or such honorifics. Veverve ( talk) 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the Catholic Church. GoodDay ( talk) 23:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@ GoodDay: we are, I simply tried to give a meaningful example from another denomination to make my point. Veverve ( talk) 13:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Antipope" should be used consistently among the historical claimants to the papacy (prior to the Reformation). This list from the OCE is as good as any. The post-Vatican II individuals are irrelevant unless independently notable. Antipopes are notable for having posed a serious challenge to the seated pope, who in a few cases was ambiguous. I can think of no such challenge after the Reformation. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 00:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The anti-popes (Avignon & Pisan) of the Western Schism, were the only ones to have ever truly threatened the pope's status. GoodDay ( talk) 01:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@ Zfish118: so, do you think "Antipope" should be used as a honorific in the infoboxes? Veverve ( talk) 13:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Some of the articles already have "antipope" in the article title. The honorific in the infobox would provide some consistency for historical antipopes without the term in the title. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 18:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod & Zfish118, there are two separate issues here.

• The first issue is whether the title of "Antipope" should appear as an honorific in articles about the respective individuals. Here, it's important to realize that "Antipope" is not a formal title of any office, but rather a de facto role that several individuals assumed at various times in history. I'm not sure whether the Catholic Church has published an official list of individuals who falsely claimed the papal office or not, but I'm not persuaded that any articles should use the title of Antipope in the same way that articles about popes use the title of Pope.
• The second issue is that of consistency. I'm generally a very strong proponent of consistency, but there are situations in which blind insistence on consistency for consistency's sake does not sense. In particular, there are at least five antipopes who warrant special treatment.

1. Saint Hippolytus was later reconciled, and subsequently canonized after his death. He is the only canonized antipope.
2. The four "antipopes" of the Western Schism were actually popes of separated bodies during a period when the Roman Rite was split into two, and subsequently three, separate ecclesial communions, each of which had its own pope (hence the term "schism"...). None of these men were regarded as antipopes during their reign. It was only after the Council of Constance "deposed" the popes of the communions centered in Pisa and Avignon, while accepting the conditions demanded by the pope of the communion centered in Rome to secure his resignation under threat of deposition because that was basically the path of least resistance and thus the practical way forward, that papalists, arguing that an ecumenical council could not depose a pope, construed the actions of that council to give legitimacy to the popes of the Roman communion and illegitimacy to the popes of the communions centered on Avignon and Pisa. But, curiously, those same papalists argued that the first several sessions of the Council of Constance == one of which promulgated the decree Haec Sancta Synodus saying that even the pope is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council, once it's convened == even though the magisterium included the decrees of those sessions in a volume of all decrees of ecumenical councils provided to the participants in Vatican II, indicating that the magisterium regards those sessions as part of the legitimate Council of Constance. The bottom line is that the historical record of the Council of Constance does not match to the pretense of modern papalists.

So these five cases clearly warrant special consideration, and probably deviation from the standard format for antipopes. Norm1979 ( talk) 23:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The Avignon & Pisan anti-popes did have enough of a following (thus the Western Schism) to warrant being handled differently from other anti-popes. GoodDay ( talk) 00:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any ambiguity within this issue, and including the honorific "antipope" is the simplest way to address the issue. These individuals may have been "pope" of some church, but not the Roman Catholic. Wikipedia does not need to "discern" correct leader, rather report what other sources represent to be the correct leader. None of the antipopes are reported by modern reliable sources as a pope of the Roman Catholic Church (if any sources do, it would be a minority opinion to be represented as such). Most of the individuals on this list are of note and interest to to modern audiences because they were antipopes. By what office they were known in their lifetime can be addressed in the body of the article, but it becomes cumbersome to try to represent this in the infobox. Therefore, the infobox documenting their purported reign should say "antipope". I'd further argue alternative terms to "papacy began" and "ended" within the infobox should be used (see Felix II as an example of incorrect use). – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 14:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Zfish118, let's remember that the present sui juris ritual churches of non-Roman rite had not returned to the full communion of the Catholic Church at the time of the Western Schism, so the Catholic Church was substantially what's now known as the Roman Catholic Church. I have not found any indication that any of the two, and subsequently three, papal obediences of the Western Schism ever regarded themselves as anything but the true Catholic Church. But see this map showing the alignment during period of two papal obediences to get an idea of the scope of the Western Schism. This situation was not exactly some irrelevant guys claiming to be popes, as was the case for the rest of the antipopes. Norm1979 ( talk) 18:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@ Norm1979: I don't wish to sound pedantic, but I having difficulty following this discussion as there are several different points under discussion that seem to be straying far from the specific issue of whether "antipope" should be used in the infobox. On that issue, my opinion remains that the term should be used as the honorific. I am uncertain what relevance the sui juris churches have on this issue; I am addressing to your statement that the "Roman Rite was split into two, and subsequently three, separate ecclesial communions". The notability of these individuals rests on their purported claim to the Roman papacy, and that subsequent church leaders denounced that claim. They may well have been the duly elected head of one of those schismatic bodies, and used the term "pope", but they were never the pope. The official list of popes does not included these individuals, and modern reliable sources do not list these individuals as popes. Their infobox should reflect their purported claim to the Roman papacy using the most common and recognizable term, "antipope". As applicable, the article should also note which branch of the schism they led. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 22:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Zfish118, the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the use of the term "pope" in reference to its supreme bishop. The Coptic Church, for example, also uses this title -- and the Vatican recognizes this use, at least in the context of ecumenism (see, for example, the list of joint communications at http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-orientali/relazioni-bilaterali/patriarcato-copto-ortodosso-degitto/dichiarazioni-comuni.html on the Vatican's web site). So to say that the claimants to the papal office who resided in Avignon and Pisa were not in fact popes is fallacious. Rather, they were in fact popes of churches that were in a state of schism with the Roman pope and, once the Pisan papal obedience came into being, with each other -- and there's no problem with a schismatic body using the title of pope for its supreme bishop. Perhaps the fact that these schismatic bodies never identified themselves by a distinct name that would indicate the state of separation lends some confusion to the matter, but the fact remains that the Western Schism was a time when the Roman Catholic Church was split into two, and subsequently three, distinct ecclesial bodies, each with its own pope. And where the Council of Constance did not even attempt to recognize one papacy as legitimate and the other two as illegitimate, but rather treated all of them equally -- that council claimed authority to depose all three popes and then demanded their resignations under threat of deposition to clear the way for election of a new pope who would be accepted by all. The Roman pope offered his resignation on the condition that the council recognize the cardinals that he had appointed, while the other two refused to resign. The council then accepted the condition of the Roman pope's resignation, that being the path of least resistance, and followed through on its threat to depose the other two before ordering the College of Cardinals to convene and elect a new pope (Martin V). It seems pretty obvious that the Council would have accepted resignations under the same condition from either or both of the other popes.

What you call "modern reliable sources" generally reflect Papalist thinking that the pope is above an ecumenical council, and not subject to it, and that therefore must hold the first several sessions of the Council of Constance to be illegitimate. Why? Because the fifth session of that council promulgated the decree Haec sancta synodus which stated that even the pope is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council -- a position that the Papalists reject. But the problem with that rejection is that the edition of prior ecumenical councils that the magisterium provided to participants in Vatican II included all of the decrees of the early sessions of the Council of Constance, including Haec sancta synodus, with no mention whatsoever of doubt as to the ecumenical character of those sessions. And although the Papalist interpretation that the Roman popes constitute the true papal lineage, deeming the papacies of the other two bodies to be antipopes, did make its way into official publications, those publications do not have infallible character at all. I think that reinterpretation of events after the fact should be clearly identified as such, ideally with the history of when and how that reinterpretation took root. Norm1979 ( talk) 19:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have expressed my opinion on the matter of whether "antipope" should be used as an honorific, and my opinion remains "yes". I do not wish to engage in side discussions about unrelated matters. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 23:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added Lucian Pulvermacher which I had forgotten. Veverve ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Here is one possible way of handling Western Schism anti-popes:

Antipope John XXIII Western Schism - Pisan claimant
Miniature from the Chronicle of the Council of Constance by Ulrich of Richenthal
Papacy began	1410
Papacy ended	1415
Predecessor	Alexander V
Opposed to	Roman claimant: Gregory XII Avignon claimant: Benedict XIII
Personal details
Born	c. 1365 Procida, Kingdom of Naples
Died	1419 (aged 53–54) Florence, Republic of Florence
Coat of arms
Other popes and antipopes named John

See sidebar with sample infobox for the Pisan claimant Benedict XIII – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 18:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• The sample infobox looks good to me. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A side note: I should point out, that in the past, some editors have gotten the Avignon Papacy confused with the anti-popes residing in Avignon. In recent weeks in some areas, I've had to untangle that confusion. The Avignon Papacy was the time period between 1309 & 1377, when the popes were residing in Avignon, rather the Rome. This was before the Western Schism occurred. GoodDay ( talk) 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I like the sample sidebox too. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Investiture Controversy#Second merge from Concordat of Worms. Thanks! -- Beland ( talk) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I wanna inform about the draft Male-female and pro-gender variants of the site in the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. ✍️  Dušan Kreheľ ( talk) 13:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Vatican City–related articles, a maintained high-importance WikiProject page viewed by hundreds and sometimes thousands of readers a day, is up for deletion mixed-in with 173 other pages. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please comment here on the potential of a move of this article to be merged with Ambrosian Rite. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that no one (so far) has jumped the gun about the changes to the Roman Curia from the document Praedicate Evangelium which was released yesterday (but only in Italian). The changes will become effective on 5 Jun 2022. There are 2 mergers and 1 rename, the rest are the change to Dicastery from either a Congregation or one of the previous lesser forms. I suspect there will be a number of personnel changes between now and then as well.

The mergers are:

• Evangelization of Peoples (Congregation) + Promoting the New Evangelization (Pontifical Council) => Evangelization (Dicastery)
• Culture (Pontifical Council) + Catholic Education (for Institutes of Study) (Congregation) => Culture and Education (Dicastery)       

and the name change is:

• Papal Charities (Office) => Service of Charity (Dicastery)

Also any references to Pastor Bonus for current descriptions of the various curial offices will be null and void as of the same date. The document has not been published in the normal spot on the Vatican website yet, but it is available (in Italian only) here. ^[1]

Dcheney ( talk) 05:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for being on top of this, Dcheney. Jdcompguy ( talk) 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a move request currently under discussion which needs input from experienced editors who may have some knowledge regarding the Church of the East. The discussion can be found here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem:is the link to the Ciro's nightclub on purpose? Veverve ( talk) 14:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

ACK no. Hold on. I am correcting. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Dcheney, Jdcompguy, and Pbritti: (and anyone willing to help), what are we to do with Dicastery with the upcoming changes with Praedicate evangelium?
The current definition is quite vague and is unsourced.
The definitions of Catholic Culture and Collins Dictionary say the word is used only for congregations. Merriam-Webster's definition is completely unrelated. The definition of Pastor bonus is "the Secretariat of State, Congregations, Tribunals, Councils and Offices, namely the Apostolic Camera, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, and the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See" (Art. 2).
I can find no clear consistent definition of the term.
Do you have any idea or suggestion on what is to be done with this article? Please bear in mind that the article is already linked to various WIkipedia articles, likely for its current scope and definition. Veverve ( talk) 02:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Veverve: The Dicastery article obviously needs serious work, but it might be easier to do this after Praedicate evangelium has taken effect on 5 June 2022, because then we can speak in the present tense instead of wrapping everything into future clauses. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Jdcompguy ( talk) 12:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Jdcompguy: the thing is, the current version is not acceptable and I fail to see how it could be improved. The information from the current version will have to be kept in some way once the PE reforms take place, and those information are not reliably supported and I did not manage to find any RS to improve the article. Veverve ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Veveuve & Jdcompguy, the term "dicastery" has been a generic term for the various agencies of the Roman curia until now, encompassing the various "congregations" and "pontifical councils" and perhaps even "tribunals" in some contexts. Until we get a look at an English translation of the new apostolic constitution, we won't know how, or whether, that usage has changed. Thus, my recommendation is to maintain the status quo until an official translation of the new constitution becomes available.

JTOL, the policy of Project Catholicism has been to refrain from changing the published articles until the change actually took effect, though it's certainly reasonable to create drafts of new or revised articles so they are ready for publication on the effective date of the change. Norm1979 ( talk) 18:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not think there is any doubt about the change of usage of "dicastery". It can be clearly seen in the previous smaller curial reforms under Francis. I also doubt an official English translation of the document will be available before the implementation date. Italian (and to a much lesser extent, Latin) is the day-to-day language of the curia. The English version of the Bollettino and other official news sources will be of same help after implementation. Dcheney ( talk) 23:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Norm1979: The thing is, the statu quo is clearly wrong when one consults the current, i.e. pre-Praedicate evangelium, sources on the topic; see my very first message. Veverve ( talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Veverve:, I don't dispute that the present article is outdated, but we also know with certainty any changes today will be obsolete less than three months from now. It probably is not worth spending much time rewriting the article now when we'll need to rewrite it again in June. If you can't update the present article with a few minor edits, just put a note in header of the present article that some details in the article are not fully current, but that major changes are imminent and that the article will be revised when the newly announced changes take effect. Norm1979 ( talk) 17:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Today while updating Orphan articles I discovered Abibon and Saint Abibas. Within article Gamaliel#Veneration, together with his son Abibon (Abibo, Abibas, Abibus)...". If both are about the same person, asking for expert help to merge into one article. JoeNMLC ( talk) 18:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@ JoeNMLC: merge done, thanks for notifying us! Do not hesitate to also post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard for those cases. Veverve ( talk) 05:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a request for comment at Talk:Syro-Malabar Church § request for comment: 1663 vs 1923 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 15:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Somebody needs to have a look at this article. A couple sections look like they were written by his PR team. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saint Timothy#Requested move 13 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing this. The original thread started in November, lost all traction, and WP:ANRFC has denied requests to close in the past. We're all poking at mudded waters without finding any clarity so I suggest those looking to make proposals create a separate, clear, and concise discussion below. They'll likely find more participation, as editors might ignore threads that repeatedly show up in their watchlists for months on end. — Ixtal ⁂ ( talk) 22:46, 21 April 2022 (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.

---

With the recent departure of a number of the most vigorous supporters of the usage of " Roman Catholic" from Wikipedia, it might be time to formally reopen the matter for discussion so that a renewed, revised, and improved set of consensuses can be developed on the topic.

Linked here are a series of debates, discussions, and consensus-building precedent on the issue of using the term "Roman Catholic": 2006, 2017, 2021

While the above links are perhaps the smallest snapshot of the discussions surrounding the terminology of "Catholic" versus "Roman Catholic" on the talk pages of this website, they represent the facts at the crux of this issue:

• "Roman Catholic" is a valid, academically accepted term
• "Roman Catholic" is a contentious, often debated term
• "Roman Catholic" means different things at different times ("Do you mean Catholics in Rome, the 'Latin Church,' or every Catholic in communion with the Pope of Rome?")
• There are different communions that use the term "Catholic"
• Generally these organizations self-distinguish between themselves and Catholics in communion with Rome ("Liberal Catholic Church," "Old Catholic Church," "Polish National Catholic Church")
• The Catholic Church contains 23 Eastern Catholic Churches that often very much resent the term "Roman Catholic" or interpret it in a mightily different way (looking at you, Melkites)

So, what's the solution? I will list a series of proposals for discussion. Please feel free to agree with some and disagree with others. This is simply about creating a clearer, more wieldable precedent that will be serve as a SOP for this Wikiproject's articles.

• Proposal 1: In articles primarily pertaining to matters in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, the term "Roman Catholic" may be retained in-text as the established and traditional term for both the entire Catholic Church and Latin Church in these regions is "Roman Catholic." This does not mean all articles written in British English must use "Roman Catholic."
• Proposal 2: Articles on the Catholic Church in a particular nation should not use the term "Roman Catholic" int their title, as generally there are Catholic of both the Latin and Eastern Churches in these nations.
• Proposal 3: Articles on the Catholic Church's history, doctrine, theology, or relationship with third-parties should not use the term "Roman Catholic” as, with limited exception, the articles pertain to matters involving the entire Catholic Church. This does not apply to matters primarily dealing with affairs in the nations addressed in Proposal 1.
• Proposal 4: Articles on the Catholic Church’s ecclesiastical jurisdictions (dioceses, apostolic vicariates, etc.) should not use any modifier in their title unless necessary to distinguish them from an ecclesiastical jurisdiction of a similar name within a major denomination or other sui iuris church. In such cases, article titles will read “Archdiocese of XXXX (Catholic Church)” or “[Sui Iuris Church] Eparchy of XXXX”. This rule will not apply in nations discussed in Proposal 1.

Preemptively addressing some of the criticisms frequently brought up:

• “We already have a consensus”: While this is frequently said, very rarely are actual specific consensuses cited. It is imperative we develop a citable consensus, particularly one developed by more editors more recently. I don’t mind terribly if it is the opposite of my proposals; having such a consensus would prevent edit-warring.
• “But X denomination considers itself ‘catholic’”: This is an interesting comment, insofar as it is effectively impractical: the Catholic Church in communion with Rome necessarily considers itself “orthodox,” “eastern” (and “western”), “anglican”, or essentially every other identifying title other denominations actively refer to themselves as. In casual discussion, academic discussion, and even most inter-religious dialogue, the average observer is not confused by the term “Catholic” as to what the meaning is. Better to generalize and simply to the highest common denominator that is still readily recognizable as the specific matter under discussion.
• ”Roman Catholic’ in article name is a necessary distinguisher”: In that case, we must alter ever Anglican diocese article name or accept a double standard.

If you are even only cursorily involved in this Wikiproject’s articles or care about accuracy, precision, and anti-edit-warring, this is your opportunity to have a lasting impact on Wikipedia and the public understanding of one of the most wide-reaching topics around. Thanks ~ Pbritti ( talk) 00:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, yes, this has been hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum.... But with respect to your proposals:

• Proposal 1: I see no reason whatsoever to adopt a different practice for a handful of countries. That can only lead to confusion.
• Proposal 2: I concur completely.
• Proposal 3: Again, I concur completely. The correct term is "Catholic" when referring to the whole of the Catholic Church, or to that which applies to the whole of the Catholic Church (doctrine, etc.). But the accepted term is "Roman Catholic" when referring specifically to the Roman/Latin church.
• Proposal 4: The implementation of your proposal would be a monumental task because you would need to change both every article about a particular church (probably doable) and every article containing a link to those articles (good luck finding all of them!), and it would also create major problems in the road. To illustrate this, if you change the title of the article about my diocese from "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston" to simply "Archdiocese of Boston" and another denomination establishes an Archdiocese of Boston of its own ten or fifteen years from now, your approach would create the need to change both the title of the article about the existing archdiocese and the links in every Wikipedia article that contains one or more links to it back to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston" in conjunction with deploying the article about the new jurisdiction. The current practice of including the words "Roman Catholic" in the title also give the reader immediate indication of the body to which the ecclesiastical jurisdiction belongs, making it easy for Wikipedia users to be certain that they have the article for which they are looking. Note that this is is also true of both ecclesiastical jurisdictions of the Catholic sui juris ritual churches (the article about the Eparchy of Newton of the Melkite Catholic Church should bear the title "Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton" rather than simply "Eparchy of Newton") and ecclesiastical jurisdictions of other denominations (the title of the article about the Diocese of Massachusetts of The Episcopal Church (TEC) should be "Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts" rather than simply "Diocese of Massachusetts").

The present standardization clearly makes life easier for all concerned!

And, for what it's worth, editing names of articles about Anglican/Episcopal dioceses that don't contain the denominational affiliation most assuredly would be a much easier task than editing the names of articles about Roman Catholic Dioceses, because there are a LOT fewer of them! Norm1979 ( talk) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, I concur with Norm1979: No to proposal 1. Yes to proposals 2/3. Regarding Proposal 4: Yes, the double standard between Catholic/Anglican dioceses is problematic, but the better solution would be to rename the Anglican/Episcopal diocese articles, as Norm1979 suggests. Having the ecclesial communion in the article name helps readers ensure they've found the right page. Jdcompguy ( talk) 18:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Jdcompguy and Norm1979. I suggest you at the minimum reconsider Proposal 1 on the basis that, having spoken with our compatriots in the Anglican, Methodist, and Eastern Orthodox Wikipedia communities, they are generally unwilling to accept "Catholic" over "Roman Catholic." With that in mind, I suggest we produce something of an essay discussing the term "Roman Catholic" that will permanently serve as the reference point for usage of the term across Wikipedia. Obviously, it will be non-binding, but I would like to muster a group of signatories from this Wikiproject to accompany this essay to give it some authority. Additionally, in reference to Norm1979's point of "Roman Catholic" being accepted in reference to the Latin Church, the whole point of Proposal 2 is to eliminate the confusion this term brings. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 00:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The last discussion was less than six months ago. Why is this coming up yet again? "With the recent departure of a number of the most vigorous supporters of the usage of " Roman Catholic" from Wikipedia," WT!?!?! Manannan67 ( talk) 01:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, the objections/outcry of which you speak over the use of the word "Catholic" undoubtedly comes from people who don't understand the distinction between the "Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" because they are not Catholic (though, truthfully, many Catholics are not aware of this distinction, either...),, so I concur completely that Wikipedia should have a clear explanation of the distinction between "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" -- but that the explanation should be in the main articles that bear the titles "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" rather than in some sort of essay that we pass around informally when people of another denomination complain.

* The main article with the title "Catholic Church" should contain a list of all of the sui juris ritual churches and the head (patriarch or major archbishop) and liturgical rite of each, including the Latin Church, with a link to a main article about that sui juris ritual church, structured so it's clear that the Roman Catholic Church is equal to the others even though it is much larger than the others and the Catholic pope is, ex officio, its head. This could be in the form of a table that also shows the size and other relevant data of each ritual church.

* There also should be a separate main article for each sui juris ritual church, including the Roman Catholic Church, which identifies it as a subset of the Catholic Church and links to the main article on the Catholic Church.

BTW, I say "Catholic pope" because the head of the Coptic Church also uses the title of pope -- which means that articles about Catholic popes also should include the word "Catholic" in their titles and the main article with the title of "Popes" should state that both denominations use the title and contain links to main articles with the titles of "Catholic Pope" and "Coptic Pope" that discuss the popes of the respective churches.

Unfortunately, I can't commit much time to assist in this effort right now because I'm buried in admissions interviews for my alma mater and we have a couple thousand early action applicants who still don't have interviewers assigned, and we usually have twice as many applicants in Regular Action as in Early Action. But I hope that this helps! Norm1979 ( talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Norm1979! Best of luck and Godspeed with those efforts in your professional life. Some of these things you mention have been completed, but your recommendations are certainly a good proposal. I might reach out to you on your talk page in a month or so when I’ve complete those things that are not done already. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 04:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, you're welcome, and thank you for your kind words! I'm always glad to be more of an "asset" than the first 3/5 of one....  ;-) Norm1979 ( talk) 16:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am just seeing this "RFC", and still believe the status quo regarding "Roman Catholic" is acceptable, and that no major changes are appropriate or desirable. It would be a violation of neutral point of view to pretend the term "Roman Catholic" isn't frequently used by the Church itself, and thus must be purged from Wikipedia. I myself see it written on nearly every church building I encounter. I also resent the tone of this discussion, as it is dismissive and condescending towards long time contributors. Everything else I have to say about the subject is said here, and all of it still applies: " Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic?" – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 16:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, Zfish118, but think you received the discussion in a personal manner that is inappropriate. As you can see by looking at the above discussion, common usage of the term "Roman Catholic" is discussed in a rational fashion. Consensuses can change. Your essay, while useful for understanding your perspective and the discussions that occurred early in the Wiki's history, is not universally applicable and the topic clearly requires more thorough project consensus considering the frequency I and other editors run up against it. Thank you for the partial revert and feel free address any of the formal points raised above. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to "receive" the discussion in a non-personal manner, since you state at top you are trying to avoid editors who disagree with the proposal. That is not how you build a consensus. To address you points, each seems to be a solution in search of a problem. They are purely in advance of the point of view that "Roman Catholic" is inappropriate. If you disagree with that axiom, I do not see any case for these proposals.

• Proposal 1: "Roman Catholic" is also extremely common in the United States, in addition to the Commonwealth nations you list. Virtually the whole English speaking world uses "Roman Catholic". There is no reason to exclude use of a common English term, nor restrict it use to Commonwealth nations.
• Proposal 2: Roman Catholic refers to the churches in communion with Rome. It is a recent innovation to retroactively apply it to the Latin Church exclusively; historically it has meant all 23, and is used in that manner by the Vatican. Roman Catholic is the natural disambiguation when multiple orthodox or other "catholic" churches exist in a nation.
• Proposal 3: See response to Proposal 2; as Roman Catholic is the whole church, not just the Latin Church. There is no reason to exclude it from doctrine and history articles.
• Proposal 4: How does this offer any clarity to the user? Roman Catholic provides a natural disambiguation, and virtually all dioceses use this convention. There is no good reason to revise this. There is certainly no pressing reason to use a different convention in English speaking countries versus non-English speaking countries, since virtually all English speaking countries use "Roman Catholic" commonly and frequently. You are proposing to remove a consistent category for a series of diocese names with ad-hoc disambiguation, solely for the purpose of getting rid of the term "Roman Catholic". – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Zfish118: Thank you for your review of the points involved. Considering my posting this discussion on the WikiProject page, I don't understand the accusation that I am trying to "avoid editors who disagree with the proposal," especially since I have engaged with some of them here. A minor point of confusion I would like you to expound on: if "Roman Catholic" is the whole church as you say in response to Proposal 3, then why is it how we distinguish Latin dioceses from Eastern Catholic ones? Seems inconsistent. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is an inconsistency. However, the goal is natural disambiguation, not shoehorning consistency. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 19:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I've only seen this discussion now on my watchlist. What is the problem leading to needing a change in consensus? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz, I would refer you to the previous discussion for an answer to your question and hope for comment. Zfish118, if the natural disambiguation is the goal, would "Catholic" not then capture the same idea in a shortened form and "Latin Catholic" be more precise? ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Catholic is ambiguous as several church bodies unaffiliated with the pope self-identify as such. Latin is not natural; outside of formal situations, the "Latin Church" by name is rarely discussed, and few if any dioceses or church bodies publicly advertise themselves as a "Latin". Roman Catholic, however, is common and readily understood. A._C._Santacruz This was last discussed in June 2021; I don't see any changes in circumstances since that time. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 21:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but some church bodies unaffiliated with the pope also use the term "Roman Catholic" and I hazard to guess few people would be confounded by "Catholic Diocese of X" any more than "Roman Catholic." Further, the referenced RfC is something I included in my original message and never returned a conclusive consensus. In the spirit of having a citable consensus for when this eventually gets archived, I will withdraw it and suggest retention of the status quo for diocesan articles but still believe actual conversation–rather than affronting suggestions that require rapid reversion–will ultimately be necessary. In any case, I encourage all those on the project help clean up the diocesan articles; they are often quite dreadful. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not clear what you mean. Are you withdrawing all four proposals, or just the diocesan one? I would also appreciate your comment on why "Roman Catholic" is inappropriate, despite its frequent use by dioceses and parishes.– Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 14:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but come on. This is totally disingenuous. When you say "Catholic," nobody in the entire English-speaking world is confused about whom you mean. We say "the pope," not "the Roman pope." The Wikipedia article on the Pope says as much. By your logic, this demands disambiguation. Of course, you can't possibly think there are English speakers out there who would have to ask a follow-up question about whether you're referring to the real pope or to some antipope living in his mom's basement. Similarly, you can't sincerely believe people are wondering if you're referring to the real Catholic Church or to some sedevacantist sect with like 500 members.

We all have personal names that are shared by thousands of people, at least. We don't prefix regional qualifiers to our personal names just because someone, somewhere might get confused. We don't even do that to distinguish one person from another of equal note, except when the two subjects come up in the same context. So why on Earth would we do prefix a regional qualifier to the name of an extremely prominent, notable, well-known, and enormous institution, just to help distinguish it from other organizations that are so tiny, so marginal, that most people are not even aware of their existence?

It's especially ironic because, even when we're talking about both the Catholic Church and other organizations that call themselves Catholic, even when we're comparing and contrasting them, we still don't distinguish between them by adding qualifiers to the name of the actual Catholic Church; instead, we add qualifiers to the name of the tiny pretender. If someone else is claiming to be "the Catholic Church," and their members don't constitute 1/6th of the human population, then in the event that we need to discuss them in contradistinction with the actual Catholic Church, we're gonna add a qualifier to their name, not to the Catholic Church's name.

But that's all purely hypothetical anyway, because I'm not even sure there is any real, practicing organization mentioned on Wikipedia that is separate from the Catholic Church and yet calls itself "the Catholic Church." Aside from phishing scams, is there even a real organization like that anywhere in the world, that literally calls itself "the Catholic Church," such that we'd be confused? Of course not. Sedevacantist sects might call themselves "Catholic," but their official names don't typically compete with the Catholic Church's. At worst there might be a church that calls itself "the {qualified} Catholic Church," adding a qualifier to its own name, because it presumably doesn't want to be confused with another organization that is vastly more well-known than it.

In reality, the usual reason for people to take umbrage at the Catholic Church calling itself such is because they don't accept that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on universality. But we could say the same thing about Eastern Orthodoxy having a monopoly on orthodoxy. Just as in "Orthodoxy," here we're talking about "Catholic" with a capital "C." Its meaning has, for nearly two millennia, evolved to refer to a very specific thing, not to the concept that was expressed by the word in its original usage. Most English speakers don't even know what the word means as a common noun, because it doesn't come into English as a common noun. The Greek was already transformed into a proper noun long before English speakers transliterated it as "Catholic."

Nobody is confused about the meaning of "Catholic," just like nobody is confused about the meaning of "Roman Catholic." Let's please stop pretending this is all about "clarity" and "disambiguation." We all know what both words mean. We all know they are colloquially used to refer to the same thing. We all know one of them has political and religious connotations. We all know which one is preferred by Protestant apologists and anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists. But even if we're going to disregard all of that, it's still better to use "Catholic," because it's more correct.

Yes, you can find official Magisterial documents with the self-designation "Roman Catholic." But there's no guarantee that Magisterial documents will be prudentially perfect. The authors made a mistake or accepted a colloquial error, as people sometimes do. That doesn't change the fact that "Roman Catholic Church" is either 1) a superfluously verbose way of saying "Catholic Church," 2) a pejorative term intended to associate the modern Catholic Church with the sinful, oppressive ancient Roman empire, or 3) a technical term that excludes Catholics who practice other rites.

Regarding point 3, there's something I'd like to note, by the way. The Wikipedia article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles is misleading if it's taken as saying something about the rites. The Archdiocese of LA, by its own declaration, possesses six Eastern Rite churches. So by calling it "Roman Catholic" we are explicitly affirming that it must not refer to the rites. The Archdiocese of LA can't be a "Roman rite archdiocese" because it practices additional rites. So what does it mean for it to be a "Roman Catholic Archdiocese"? It can only mean the exact same thing as a "Catholic Archdiocese." Either the terms have the same referent or they don't.

So what could possibly motivate the continued use of a lengthy synonym for the word that Wikipedia officially uses? The article Catholic Church clearly privileges the short form, either because it's the short form, because it avoids negative connotations, or because that's the English form by which the Catholic Church typically refers to itself today. Why on Earth would we want to establish a second convention that explicitly contradicts the first, and potentially confuses readers who are not already familiar with the terms? Someone from east Asia learning English as a second language is obviously going to assume that "Roman Catholic Church" must refer to a regional subdivision of the "Catholic Church." So we're also promoting confusion!

Clearly there are several disadvantages here. So what are the advantages? What are we buying in exchange for this mess? It can't seriously be to avoid offending Protestants or Orthodox Christians, can it? We're going to systematically offend Catholics by denying them the proper, official name for their church, in articles about Catholics, in order to avoid offending other religious groups? What other mainstream world religion does Wikipedia refuse to call by its official name on hundreds of articles that are explicitly about it?

While I'm at it, the point about "Episcopal Diocese" being better than "Diocese" is, once again, clearly disingenuous. Nobody is proposing we replace "Roman Catholic" with "", an empty string. The debate is over "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" according to the title of the section. So, obviously we're not talking about changing "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles" to "Archdiocese of Los Angeles." (That said, I can't even find another denomination that claims to have an archdiocese in LA. The Episcopal Church's diocese in LA is a diocese, not an archdiocese.)

Rather, we're talking about changing it to "Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles." It's still disambiguated by an adjective with an identical technical meaning, the difference is that the qualifier is vastly more concise and its semantic range does not extend to offensive, pejorative, intolerant and even racist uses that English speakers have historically (and even recently) conflated with terms like "popish," "papist," and "Romish." This means it is FAR more fitting in a neutral encyclopedia than the term "Roman Catholic" is. Aminomancer ( talk) 01:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Aminomancer: Thank you for your extensive response here. While I almost wholly agree with you, there is one point I would like to raise with you. "Rites," despite some poor term usage, refer to liturgical matters. There are six parishes within the territory Latin Church Archdiocese of Los Angeles. These six parishes belong to separate sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches (not "rites," though they practice Eastern rites liturgically). So, properly, the archdiocese in question would be described as a Latin Church archdiocese that exclusively utilizes the Roman Rite (obvious exception being if there are biritual clergy, which are typically not considered here). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 03:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Aminomancer:, whether any of us like the fact or not, "Roman Catholic" -- NOT "Latin Catholic" -- is the term that has gained traction in popular usage. The sign in front of the pastoral center of my own archdiocese identifies the entity as the "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston" and I have seen many parish churches with signs bearing the words "Roman Catholic" throughout the English-speaking world. Never have I seen any sign bearing the words "Latin Catholic" in front of a parish church.

With respect to the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, yes, it's a "diocese" today -- but The Episcopal Church (TEC) could elevate it to an archdiocese at any time. The inclusion of the words "Roman Catholic" in the title of the article about the (Roman Catholic) Archdiocese of Los Angeles avoids the need to change the article if TEC decides to elevate its Diocese of Los Angeles to an archdiocese or if another ecclesial body erects an Archdiocese of Los Angeles of its own.

I should also mention that the canonical titles of these entities are seldom the official names of the legal corporations erected under secular law. Norm1979 ( talk) 21:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I never even mentioned the phrase "Latin Catholic" anywhere in my post. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. In Southern California, Catholics call it the Catholic Church. Signs say Catholic Church. Frankly, I only hear "Roman Catholic Church" in protestant apologetic works. I've never heard anyone call it the "Latin Church" except with respect to ancient history. Just "Catholic Church," like I stated in my previous post. Second, it is completely irrelevant whether something is a diocese or an archdiocese, because nobody is suggesting that Wikipedia articles for dioceses omit the name of the religion in their titles. It would not matter if someone erects another "Archdiocese of Los Angeles," because there's no reason to call an article "Archdiocese of Los Angeles" in the first place. It should be called "Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles," like I said in my original post. In the unlikely event that a new archdiocese is created by another religious group in Los Angeles, we should title the article "{religious qualifier} Archdiocese of Los Angeles," such that neither it nor the Catholic archdiocese is treated preferentially. Aminomancer ( talk) 03:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Zfish, you are utterly wrong about standard use of the term "Roman Catholic." This term refers exclusively to the Roman Rite, also sometimes called the Latin church. The sui juris ritual churches have full ecclesiastical communion with the Bishop of Rome do NOT call themselves "Roman Catholic" under any circumstances. They all have "Catholic" in their names, but NOT "Roman." For example, here in Massachusetts, there are TWO catholic cathedrals within the city of Boston -- the Cathedral of the Holy Cross of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, and the Cathedral of the Annunciation of the Melkite Catholic Diocese of Newton. If you look through the list of dioceses in the United States on the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), you'll see this usage for the jurisdictions of all of the sui juris ritual churches -- Holy Protection of Mary Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix, Armenian Catholic Eparchy of Our Lady of Nareg in the USA & Canada, Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of St. Peter the Apostle, etc. The sui juris ritual churches of non-Roman rite are NOT "Roman Catholic" in any proper usage of that term. Norm1979 ( talk) 18:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Norm1979 I am correct on this matter, that "Roman Catholic" refers to the entire church, though it is a convenient and least confusing to use it with the Latin Church in particular. It is the plain meaning of the term in any dictionary or encyclopedia. You may also refer to the Baltimore Catechism or numerous other official documents dating into at least this decade use the term to refer to the church as a whole. Please refrain from hyperbolic statements that suggest I am utterly ignorant. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 02:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Norm1979: With respect, Zfish118 is actually very correct: up until recently (well, "recently" in the ecclesiastical scheme of things), the term "Roman Catholic" was broadly applied to all in communion with the pope of Rome. The term "Roman Rite" is almost exclusively applied to the liturgical rituals delineated within the Roman Missal(s), Roman Breviary/Liturgy of the Hours, and other ritual texts of the Roman Rite (though there are those that use the term "Roman Rite Catholic" when describing themselves). "Latin rite" and the discussed "Roman Catholic" are the terms most often conflated with the Latin Church, and have been used semi-regularly by even the Vatican to describe the Latin Church. Also, I can refer you to a Melkite text that refers to itself as "Roman Catholic": the Byzantine Missal by Raya and de Vinck (yes, yes, I know there are Melkites that will contend they meant something else). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, these diocesan titles you mention (the "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston," the "Melkite Catholic Diocese of Newton") are regularly used names but not their actual names. Indeed, the "Archdiocese of Boston" is the full name of the jurisdiction, and the "Eparchy of Newton" is the Melkite jurisdiction's name. Even more properly, neither colloquialism "Roman Catholic" and "Melkite" would be used in the names, as it would be the "Latin Church Archdiocese of Boston" and the "Melkite Greek Catholic Church Eparchy of Newton" (but these again are not the jurisdictional names). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Pbritti, yes, you are absolutely correct that the affiliation is not part of the official title of a diocese or canonically equivalent entity. But the problem is that this is true of every denomination, and there is no unique right to the title of a diocese. The Roman Catholic Church has a Diocese of Fort Worth, and The Episcopal Church (TEC) also has, or at least had, a Diocese of Fort Worth (which apparently formally left TEC and joined the Anglican Churcn in North America (ACNA), but still retains the title of Diocese of Fort Worth). Thus, disambiguation is necessary -- and the best way to provide it is to include the affiliation in the title of the respective articles. And such entities do come and go, so the least painful practice for those of us who are Wikipedia editors is to include the affiliation on every article about a diocese (or equivalent jurisdiction) so that we don't have to go through the process of changing not only the article, but also every reference to it that may appear in other articles, when a new diocese comes into being that creates a name conflict. Changing the title of a Wikipedia article is pretty easy, but finding all of the links to it in other articles would be very difficult. Norm1979 ( talk) 17:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Norm1979 I think you are in part confused as to the proposal here, but I will add that changing an article name does not automatically break every link on other articles because of redirects. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the ngram Manabimasu ( talk) 06:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Dioceses, Eparchies, Patriarchies

The following suggestion is not Wp:commonname but WP:IAR. For the example, look at Baghdad. Two sources Gcatholic and Catholic-hierarchy may not give the same name. Since Latin is the eccclesiastical language of the church. Both sources will have the same latin name. Suggestion - Use the English translation of the Latin name

• Latin Archdiocese catholic-hierarchy, gcatholic
• Syriac Archeparchy catholic-hierarchy gcatholic
• Chaldean Patriarchate gcatholic, catholic-hierarchy

Better yet source is Annuario Pontifico, the notizie being the predecessor. Anyone know if the AP is in English? Thoughts? Manabimasu ( talk) 06:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

One note, on the Chaldean Patriarchate, due to the recent name change, we may not be certain of the new Latin name until the AP 2023 is published in about a year. Dcheney ( talk) 07:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the Annuario Pontificio is primarily in Italian. Diocese names are generally provided in the local language if it uses a western alphabet. It also provides the name in Latin. Dcheney ( talk) 10:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

All this said, I do like using the Annuario Pontificio as a primary determinant in a jurisdiction's name, and finding English translations of these names in RSs could be a good thing, especially since Gcatholic and Catholic-Hierarchy have both been questioned. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to be totally transparent, I am associated with the Catholic-Hierarchy website. Dcheney ( talk) 20:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

That is good, I do wish that CH was not accused of not being an RS (because it is an RS in my opinion). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Dcheney, I, for one, would be a lot less suspicious of Catholic Hierarchy if Catholic Hierarchy used official titles of certain jurisdictions as they appear on the respective jurisdictions' web sites. There are two examples that stick out like a caw: the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, which is canonically erected as a personal archdiocese (headed by an archbishop with four auxiliary bishops and several auxiliary bishops emeritus incardinated therein) rather than as an ordinariate, but which Catholic Hierarchy persists in calling "Military Ordinariate" with no indication of its actual status or official name, and the quintessentially British "Bishopric of the Forces" (which probably is canonically constituted as an ordinariate, but which uses the "bishopric" title). In the latter case, the form "Bishopric of the Forces (Military Ordinariate)" would be better, as it reflects actual usage within its episcopal conference. Perhaps you can exert some influence on the Catholic Hierarchy site? Norm1979 ( talk) 02:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Various jurisdictions may choose to call themselves in all sorts of ways. I prefer to use solid primary sources. In the two cases you mentioned, let me cite the official entries in the Acta where the each of the their respectively leaders was appointed. (Note, both are in Latin.) "die 19 Novembris. — Ordinariatui Militari Civitatum Foederatarum Americae Septentrionalis, Exc.mum P.D. Timotheum Paulum Broglio, hactenus Archiepiscopum titularem Amiterninum et Nuntium Apostolicum in Republica Dominiciana et Delegatum Apostolicum in Portu Divite." (AAS, v99, p1072) and "die 9 Iulii. — Ordinariatui Militari Magnae Britanniae, Exc.mum D. Paulum Iacobum Mason, hactenus Episcopum titularem Scalholtensem et Auxiliarem archidioecesis Southvarcensis." (AAS, v110 p1251). There is no mention of "Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA" nor the "Bishopric of the Forces". Also note, in the "Statutes of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA" it notes the "canonical or official name of the previously entitled Military Vicariate is Military Ordinariate" before providing its own preferred name. Dcheney ( talk) 10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Dcheney, thank you for the info. But in a cases like the examples that I cited, I think that a source such as Catholic Hierarchy gains credibility if it includes the title that's used as well as the canonical title. A format such as Military Ordinariate - United Kingdom ("Bishopric of the Forces") or "Bishopric of the Forces" (Military Ordinariate - United Kingdom) would be suitable, especially where the alternate name appears in the respective entity's canonical statutes. Further I recommend that we adopt one of these formats or the other, obviously preceded by "Roman Catholic," here on Wikipedia to minimize confusion. Norm1979 ( talk) 03:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Manabimasu and Dcheney, the statement that the pope had approved the change of title in the "News" window of the Vatican's home page, which I can't locate at the moment, gave the new title as Patriarchate of Baghdad, and that's also the title that appears on the web site of the Chaldean Catholic Diocese of St. Thomas the Apostle USA for Chaldean Catholics in the United States. To follow the standard format for Wikipedia articles, the title of the article should be "Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate of Baghdad" (with a redirect from the former title and a note about the former title in Italics at the top of the article since people who are not aware of the change probably will search on the former title for some period of time). Norm1979 ( talk) 02:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The name change can be found at the bottom of the English Bollettino for 19 Feb 2022. Dcheney ( talk) 09:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am not clear what the specific suggestion is for "Dioceses, Eparchies, Patriarchie". What is the current practice? What are you suggesting instead? What is your argument in favor of your suggestion? Thank you. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 15:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

There is a new RfC open at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Request for comment on lead which is relevant to this project. Instaurare ( talk) 06:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

On the Italian wikipedia, there is a very interesting/useful page (ok, for Catholic geeks like me ;-) that has no equivalent on the English wiki (at least not that I've found). Its called Project: Diocese / Nomination monitoring. It basically tracks Bishop nominations until they are installed in their new diocese. Dcheney ( talk) 21:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Maximilian775: This has you written all over it. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks very interesting. a few things come to mind: 1) it cites the Bolletino very seldom, which is odd for something like this, 2) it cites catholic-hierarchy very liberally, but C-H is not a reliable source on English Wiki for some bizarre reason 3) i'm not sure where he's pulling the base list of vacant sees from? Perhaps from C-H, but then we run into the same issue. I'm considering going to the talk page of what seems to be a prominent Italian contributor to the page but I don't know a lick of the language. Maximilian775 ( talk) 22:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Pbritti!

Dcheney, I’m on mobile rn, but if you get the chance, Google MitreSighter - it might be a good tool in establishing something like this. Maximilian775 ( talk) 21:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I love the name! Very interesting :-) Dcheney ( talk) 23:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The article Latin Mass seems to serve no purpose. As of now, the article appears to be about 'Use of Latin in Christian liturgy'. The fact the article is called "Latin Mass" excludes Eastern Orthodox despite them being mentioned in the lede without any source to support the claim associated with them (EOrthodox very, very strongly reject the term 'mass' for divine liturgies). Or is the article only about Catholic liturgical practices? The AfD does not provide any clear consensus as to what the topic should be. The article seems mostly WP:SYNTH and often goes out of topic.
The article should be renamed to reflect its topic whathever topic is decided; the current title is too vague.
But the crux is: is this topic really notable? Is there really RSs covering the way Latin is used in Christian liturgies beyond what could be expressed in two lines? Should the article be turned into a DAB? I know of the WP fr article fr:Latinité du chant grégorien ('Latinity of the Gregorian chant') which had a lot of editing problems a few months ago and likely still has many due to the main author POV-pushing and lacking WP:COMPETENCE; this article seems to indicate Latin in liturgies was studied scholarly, but again the information there should not be taken at face value.
So, what do you say? What do you think should be done with the Latin Mass article? Any comment is welcome. Veverve ( talk) 20:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I lean towards retention. There is a notable topic in the development of celebration Eucharistic liturgies in Latin (rather than the vernacular) and the continued practice of celebrating the 1969/70 Roman Missal in Latin (again, as opposed to the vernacular). I think it covers a semi-valuable topic, considering that the practice of using Latin in the liturgy has been a topic of debate for roughly a millennia and continues outside the liturgy often described as the "Traditional Latin Mass." Heck, there are even instances of Latin liturgies among Protestants (thinking of those translations of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer). Of course, I also think it is woefully inadequate and sometimes distracted article. Perhaps it should be turned into a stub or draft until such a time as it is suitable for the mainspace? ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree the article is redundant, nor should it be merged with Tridentine Mass. It could do with more on modern conservative Catholicism. Since they never (afaik) use Latin, yes it does naturally "exclude" EO. Since the title is "Latin Mass", it is equally pointless to complain that other uses of Latin are excluded. It averages 105 views a day, btw. Johnbod ( talk) 03:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have boldly split the article into Liturgical use of Latin and Latin Mass (disambiguation). In the process, I rewrote the whole thing because it was unsalvageable. I hope this is an acceptable solution. Jdcompguy ( talk) 06:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Jdcompguy: Beyond acceptable; it's impressive! Thank you so much! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 06:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Very good initiative, Jdcompguy! Veverve ( talk) 07:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Jdcompguy and Pbritti: what do you think should be done with the Latin Mass Wikiquote page now? Should it be renamed? Should it be left as is and split into its own Wikidata item? Also, see WP:DABSISTER. Veverve ( talk) 08:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that the current quotes don't actually pertain to the Mass in particular, but only to liturgy in general, I say let's make it a sister page of Liturgical use of Latin. Jdcompguy ( talk) 08:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Veverve ( talk) 08:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith " Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith " Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb { t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. What do you think should be done with the "Extraordinary form" redirects?
Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, Extraordinary Form, Extraordinary form currently all redirect to Summorum Pontificum. Whatever you believe those four redirects should point to, it must be noted that:

• the expression "extraordinary form" is used to designate a version of the Tridentine Mass and the expression is in bold in the summary since a long time in this article; Summorum Pontificum has no focus on the "extraordinary form" expression
• the expression is officialy obsolete in the current terminology of the Holy See

Any feedback is welcome. The current target is not bad, so there is no rush to take any decision, so feel free to speak your mind. Whatever decision is taken - if a decision is taken at all -, all four links should target the same WP article. Veverve ( talk) 02:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Veverve, "extraordinary form" is a generic term that correctly refers to every form of the Roman Rite other than the current ordinary form. Thus, there are now two extraordinary forms -- (1) the Tridentine form (where it remains authorized) and (2) the "Divine Worship" form (authorized for use within the three ordinariates for former Anglicans received into the full communion of the Catholic Church). Pope Benedict XVI promulgated the motu proprio Summorum pontificam well before the promulgation of the "Divine Worship" liturgical books, so that document refers to the Tridentine form as "the" extraordinary form of the Roman Rite because it was the only extraordinary form then in existence, but that is no longer the case. All of these Wikipedia articles clearly need to be updated to reflect the present reality. Norm1979 ( talk) 18:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Norm1979: My understanding is that the "Divine Worship" books were considered a "Use of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite" under the Summorum Pontificum schema, not a third "form" in the sense of the ordinary/extraordinary form distinction. @ Veverve: My suggestion would be either (1) to keep the redirects pointing to Summorum Pontificum but rewrite the SP lede to emphasize and explain the "Extraordinary Form" term; or (2) to create a new article at Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite on the subject of the authorized usage of the 1962 and pre-62 missals in the period between 2007 and 2021. Jdcompguy ( talk) 20:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Norm1979: from what I get from reading the Summorum Pontificum, "extroardinary form" only refers to the 1962 missal. Summorum Pontificum states:

• "The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage."
• "the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy"
• "For those faithful or priests who request it, the pastor should allow celebrations in this extraordinary form also in special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages."

Divine Worship: The Missal is never refered to as an "extroardinary form", be it in Anglicanorum coetibus or in the media. The CDF approbation (I only found a retranscription on this blog) of Divine Worship: The Missal does not use the expression either.

@ Jdcompguy: there is not enough content or clear declarations from the Holy See to create a new article. Veverve ( talk) 20:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Jdcompguy and Veverve, I think you missed a nuance in my earlier comment. When Pope Benedict XVI promulgated the motu proprio Summorum pontificam, the "Divine Worship" liturgical books did not exist so the authorized use of the Tridentine form was the only extraordinary form then in use. Also, the relevant documents actually don't use the term "Tridentine," either, referring instead to the "missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated" or similar wording. However, the change introduced by Pope John XXIII was very slight, insertion of the mention of St. Joseph into the anaphora (or "eucharistic prayer" or "Roman Canon") being the only change so it was still substantially the liturgical form that came from the Tridentine reform nearly four centuries earlier.

Also, the terms ordinary form and "extraordinary form" do not appear in any liturgical book. They are not, and never have been, official designations of any liturgical rite. Official references to the ordinary form usually refer to the "missal of Pope Paul VI" or similar wording -- and your quote from Summorum pontificam reforring to missal "promalgated by Blessed John XXIII... as an extraordinary form (emphasis added) affirms this. That said, the "Divine Worship" liturgical books clearly are NOT part of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite -- they are approved for use only within the three ordinariates that Pope Benedict XVI erected for former Anglicans and the surviving "Pastoral Provision" congregation of the Archdiocese of Boston, so parishes of normal dioceses have to obtain special permission to use them. Norm1979 ( talk) 22:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Norm1979: Do you have any reliable source which has the expression "extraordinary form" being used in Catholicism for something else than the missal of John XXIII after Summorum Pontificum? Your understanding of the expression seem OR to me. Veverve ( talk) 22:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Veverve:, not sure what you mean by OR, but the word "extraordinary" literally means "outside of (or beyond) the ordinary" and thus, by definition, encompasses everything that is not ordinary. Thus, the "Divine Worship" form of the liturgy must be either an ordinary form or an extraordinary form, and it clearly is not the former.

Of course, this discussion also begs the question of whether we should regard the Ambrosian Rite (still celebrated in Milan, Italy), the Mozarabic Rite (still celebrated in one chapel in Toledo, Spain), and the Dominical Rite (still celebrated by the Order of Preachers, popularly called Dominicans) also should be regarded as extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite since they exist only within Roman (Latin) Catholic Church or whether they actually are distinct non-Roman liturgical rites.... Norm1979 ( talk) 15:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

By "OR" I mean WP:OR. Veverve ( talk) 16:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Norm1979: I noticed and understood the nuance in your earlier comment, but the assertion behind it is incorrect. It's not true to say that "[SP] refers to the Tridentine form as 'the' extraordinary form of the Roman Rite because it was the only extraordinary form then in existence." See, for example, the Zaire Use (1988), which is "extraordinary" in the sense that you mean it, yet predates SP (2007), and which, like the "Ordinariate Use," is a "Use" of the Roman Rite, not a "Form." The "Form" nomenclature introduced by Benedict and embraced by traditionalist communities was a quasi-juridical novelty used to describe the irregular situation of two historically-separated collections of Roman Rite liturgical books coexisting in contemporaneous utilization. The post-conciliar "Uses" of the Roman Rite (including Divine Worship) fall under the "Ordinary Form" category in this distinction insofar as they are derived from the post-conciliar texts. I understand that you are using "form" in the generic sense, but in this context the word has a technical meaning that doesn't apply to the post-conciliar Uses. A "Use" is a set of books intended for a particular community. The pre-conciliar texts were not designed for a particular community, but rather were used by the worldwide Roman Rite at one time. In our current situation, the pre-conciliar books are, in fact, used by a subset of Roman Rite Catholics (hence why it can be called a "Use" ex post facto, as Benedict does in SP, referring to it as the usus antiquior), but it is more commonly called a "Form" to capture the subtle distinction that the old books were once used by the whole Roman Rite, and were not originally confined to a specific group as the Uses have always been. Jdcompguy ( talk) 16:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Veverve: When I speak of developing an article called Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, I am referring to an article focused on the uptake of traditionalist practices post-SP (2007-2021). There are easily dozens or even hundreds of news articles, websites, and even books that could be used as sources on this topic. (Right now our encyclopedic content on this topic is underdeveloped and scattered across various articles.) The Summorum Pontificum article, on the other hand, would remain focused on the document itself (as it is now) and the developments leading up to it (2007 and prior), together with discussions of subsequent legal alterations to the SP status quo. Thoughts? Jdcompguy ( talk) 16:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Jdcompguy: So you mean an article on the use of the extroardinary form as established by SP - i.e. the John XXIII missal and pre-Vatican II Roman Ritual - by communities in communion with the Holy See, while thoses dispositions lasted (2007-2021)? I see two problems:

• foremost, there is no clear official announcement by the Holy See that the term "extraordinary form" is now obsolete, even if there is a strong innuendo in the link I had given about this in my very first message
• what about the former Ecclesia Dei communities? How is their liturgical practice called now? Again, since there is no clear terminological decision by the Holy See, it is unclear. There were rumours an official document would be published this month concerning those communities; this document might (or might not) have clarified things up, but we are 30 March and nothing has been published

So, on the expression and its meaning post-Traditionis custodes, maybe we should wait for the Holy See to clear things up, or for a clear academic consensus to be established. Risks of OR or WP:SYNTH are quite significant I feel. In any case, feel free to make a draft and collect the data while it is still fresh and easy to find in case the article gets created. What do you think? Veverve ( talk) 17:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course any Vatican sources using it evade me at the moment, but I feel like "usus antiquor" has become the new way of referring to the preconciliar books in an official manner? i thought I had seen the Holy See use the phrase, but I can't find any use of it presently.

Maximilian775 ( talk) 05:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Maximilian775: Here is a fine example of the term being utilized prior to Traditions Custodes's publication. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, great! thanks for that. it doesn't completely show my thought that the Vatican has switched completely over to "UA" after TC, but it's a start. Maximilian775 ( talk) 05:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Extraordinary form" should redirect to Tridentine Mass, and I am surprised it does not. The lead of Tridentine Mass already lists it as an alternative title, while the lead of Summorum Pontificum makes no mention of it. The redirects are all very lightly used, but seem consistently refer to the 1960's Tridentine. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 16:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly agree with Zfish118 here. Unless a new article were to pop up, I think the only common-use connotation of "Extraordinary Form" is for Tridentine ritual (which makes me wonder if there should be a page encompassing all pre-1965 Roman Rite rituals). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Zfish118 and Pbritti: There are two problems with redirecting "Extraordinary Form" to "Tridentine Mass": (1) "Extraordinary Form" is broader in scope, as it includes the whole rite (actually, more than one rite), not just the Mass; and (2) it is, in another sense, narrower in scope, because it covers only the postconciliar usage of the Tridentine Mass and other liturgies (or, possibly, only the SP-era usage). @ Veverve: I agree with your criticisms of the scope of my previously proposed article. Instead, I have created a new article called Preconciliar rites after the Second Vatican Council and have retargeted the Extraordinary Form redirects to it. This new article has much potential for expansion, so contributions are welcome. Jdcompguy ( talk) 22:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Jdcompguy: This is best fit. Thanks, article will need massive expansion. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Pbritti: Thanks. Yes, apart from the lede, the article is deliberately a "skeleton" to which I hope other editors can add much more content. I didn't have the time to flesh it out further. Jdcompguy ( talk) 22:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Jdcompguy: the whole article only concerns the pre-Paul VI Roman rite, yet there were reforms to Eastern Catholic liturgies, see "Rome's Liturgical Instruction for the Eastern Catholic Churches". I have also strong doubts concerning the expression "Preconciliar rites", as I have never seen it used anywhere. Maybe the article should be moved to show that its focus is the liturgial practices before the liturgical reforms of Paul VI which continued in parallel. Sadly, there is no good word or expression to describe the liturgical books used between the council of Trent and the 1960s-70s.

The article could be said to be mostly WP:SYNTH and its topic WP:OR, I am on the fence and may give it more thought later.

I am all in favor of WP:DOIT and WP:DEADLINENOW, but in this case the content of this article and whether or not its creation was judicious should have been discussed here first before creating it. Veverve ( talk) 23:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Veverve: Discussion of Eastern liturgies certainly could be a way in which the article could be expanded. As far as the terminology is concerned, here is an example I found of one diocese using the terminology of "preconciliar liturgical rites" in a post- Traditionis custodes situation. I disagree that the article is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR; the concept is well-established and heavily sourceable (even if the terminology for the topic is all over the place) and I'm surprised we didn't have such an article sooner. Jdcompguy ( talk) 23:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think a new article was strictly necessary based solely on the mere existence of the redirects under discussion, but I have no issue with the new article as written. I don't have a strong opinion about retargeting the redirects here, given how infrequently those redirects were used. I would advise that care should be taken to properly link to to the new article from appropriate articles so it isn't effectively orphaned. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 01:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I will not AfD the article, you are right in saying it is more a terminology than a content problem. the terminology for the topic is all over the place: typical for this WProject, sadly 😕. Why are there so few recent Catholic dictionaries when you need them the most? Veverve ( talk) 12:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Veverve: You might be interested to look at the terminology section on page 3 of the PDF that I linked to. Obviously, this is only coming from one specific diocese, but it's nice to see that at least someone is thinking about the terminology issue and addressing it head-on. They conclude that "preconciliar"/"postconciliar" is the only appropriate pair of terms to be used in a post- TC context. Given the absence of clearly-defined vocabulary from Rome in this context, I heartily agree that a thorough, reliable, regularly-updated Catholic dictionary would be great to have! Jdcompguy ( talk) 13:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I created the following template:

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Catholic-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Catholicism? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Catholicism-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of members. We also have a to-do list and other things to do that might interest you as well. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Peaceray ( talk) 19:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

When used as {{subst:WP:CATHOLICISM/Invite|~~~~}}, it will also add a header, WikiProject Catholicism Invitation.

You can see instructions for its use at: WP:CATHOLICISM/Invite. Please let me know if I should include it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism#Templates. Please also make any necessary adjustments to the template. Peaceray ( talk) 19:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The template looks good! My only comment would be that the "To Do List" and "Things you can do" list are woefully out of date, and should probably be cleaned up if we're going to publicize them. Reading 10 year old arguments is not a good way to introduce new users to the project! – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 23:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Maximus the Confessor for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

There is an AfD discussion now open for the article The OC wall calendar, an article that is adjacent to this WikiProject. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello all, just a quick notice that there has been a heavy POV push in several articles regarding universal resurrection (inexistance of Hell). It was a fringe view held by maybe 4 or 5 Church Fathers (out of hundreds) but is depicted as the belief of the "majority of Early Church". See: Apocatastasis, Christian universalism, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and related articles. In fact the Apocatastasis article must be re-written almost in whole, I have left some comments on its talk page. Please take a look. -- El Huinca ( talk) 22:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

In light of Praedicate Evangelium having taken effect, the "Roman Curia sidebar" needs some attention. I have no idea how to even locate the source for it! Dcheney ( talk) 20:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Dcheney:, click on the "Edit" link at the very top of the article, in the same manner as to edit the text before the first section heading, to edit the main sidebar. Norm1979 ( talk) 21:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

First attempt is posted - comments/suggestions/edits welcome :-) Dcheney ( talk) 01:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a merge discussion open at Talk:Orthodox Anglican Communion#Merge discussion for merging these two related entities. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This article could use some attention from this project. For one, none of the other wikipedia languages use this title, instead calling it the Cattedrale di Santa Maria Assunta. (see it:Cattedrale di Santa Maria Assunta (Brescia) for example). It also appears to have content different from the much better referenced and developed Italian language wiki page on the same subject. It needs some fact checking for errors, better citations, and perhaps re-naming to be consistent with other foreign language wiki pages. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion in progress about recent additions to Joseph Pearce. Project members are invited to visit the discussion and contribute their views. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I've read through MOS:HON and believe honorifics are generally not included in the body of an article, however, I do not know the general consensus on Catholic articles and since Our Lady of the Assumption Cathedral (Moncton) is one such article I thought it best to ask if the honorifics included in the article are generally acceptable. I could have just removed it as per WP:BOLD but thought it best to at least contact a related WikiProject on common practice. I found the article through random selection. It appears to be a translation from wp:fr. -- ARose Wolf 14:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi editors, my name is KC and I work for Ascension. I've been trying to make some updates to the Ascension article and I'm hoping someone here might be interested as Ascension is the largest Catholic health system in the world. I'd love some feedback on my latest request. I won't make any changes due to my COI, but I hope I can offer some resources and wording suggestions. Please let me know what you think! KC at Ascension ( talk) 22:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Papal primacy about whether to remove or retain the Papal primacy#Opposition arguments from Church Councils section. The thread is removed a section.

I am at loggerheads with what appears to be a single-purpose IP editor. I am not saying that I am in the right & would acquiese to any consensus. We need help with expertise in the matter or someone who is fluent in reading Latin. In the thread there are two links of unvetted Worldcat records for online sources that are in Latin.

Thanks! Peaceray ( talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am asking for input on a new parameter for {{ Infobox church}} and have opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox church#Addition of ecclesiastical region. Please come and give your thoughts on the matter. Your input is welcome! Vesuvio14 ( talk) 12:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Just the usual warning: the 21 cardinals on the list today will not become cardinals until the ceremony on 27 August 2022. It is appropriate for a note to be added to their wiki articles that they will be created cardinals on that date. Dcheney ( talk) 11:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and this announcement is very interesting on multiple fronts -- most notably, that three of the new cardinals are bishops of dioceses rather than metropolitan archdioceses and, in at least one case (San Diego), the respective metropolitan (Los Angeles) is neither a cardinal nor included in the list. A situation in which a cardinal is a suffragan of a metropolitan who is not a cardinal has to be awkward at best. I suspect that either reassignment of these bishops or erection of new provinces with elevation of their sees to metropolitan status probably are well into the planning stages but not yet announced.

JTOL, both the Diocese of Orange and the Diocese of Fresno have grown quite large so splitting one or both and erecting a new province in southern California might make a lot of sense. I'm not familiar with the situation surrounding the other two bishops who are not archbishops. Norm1979 ( talk) 19:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Considering we have an Auxiliary Bishop that is already a Cardinal when his ordinary is not (Gregorio Cardinal Rosa Chávez, Auxiliary of San Salvador) - I'm not surprized at anything anymore. Dcheney ( talk) 01:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Dcheney, a cardinal appointed as an auxiliary bishop probably is an "auxiliary bishop provided with special faculties" of Canon 403, §2. Such "special faculties" may include jurisdiction over certain matters that normally would be within the diocesan bishop's purview, as happened in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle in the mid-1980's. Norm1979 ( talk) 22:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

While it is possible, there is no indication of that. The Archbishop continues to serve as the ordinary and the Cardinal continues to serve as an Auxiliary Bishop. Dcheney ( talk) 23:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Bishop Van Looy has requested to not be created a Cardinal and this has been accepted by the Pope. [1] There is already an update on his page but the Cardinal pages probably need to be updated. Dcheney ( talk) 18:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, is there anyone here who could cast an eye on the way that the medieval Catholic view of Astrology is presented in that article? I am trying to approach it from a history of thought angle, but am completely out of my depth when it comes to Aquinas and other theologians. Many thanks if anyone with an understanding of medieval Catholic thought could come past. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

See here. Veverve ( talk) 08:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:infobox diocese about whether to add Episcopal conference of a diocese to country or add a new parameter altogether. The thread is Episcopal conference.

Please feel free to contribute to this discussion, thought I ought to bring it to your attention! Vesuvio14 ( talk) 14:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Please participate in this AfD discussion regarding the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

As noted early by @ Dcheney four dicasteries have been merged into two dicasteries under PE. What is Wikiproject Catholicism's policy for retaining articles for older extinct departments of the Curia? (i.e. should Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples be retained for historical purposes (as I imagine Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization surely will be), with a new article for the new dicastery, or should it simply be renamed Dicastery for Evangelization, as most of the former Congregation articles are? - same question and logic for "Education & Culture") Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator ( talk) 19:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator: A discussion with some more input has been opened on another project talk page. We don't really have standing policy on this so we're doing a survey here. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator:, it really depends upon the situation.

• When the pope merely changes the title of a dicastery while substantially preserving its functional responsibility (as when the Holy Office of the Inquisition became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after Vatican II), the best approach is to rename the article and modify the intro and the history section to reflect the change in title, and replace the old article with a redirect to the new article.
• But when a new dicastery is formed by merger of two or more dicasteries or a dicastery is suppressed with its functions reassigned to another, I think the best practice to be three-fold:

(1) Create a new article for the new dicastery.

(2) Modify the header and the history section in the current article to say that the old entity was dissolved, or merged into the new entity, or whatever else might have happened on the date when the change took effect, with links to the new article.

(3) Modify the general article on the Roman Curia appropriately.

This approach preserves the historical record, while directing readers to current information.

And we should follow substantially the same practice for mergers and suppressions of dioceses and other particular churches. Norm1979 ( talk) 16:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Evangelization is a difficult one. The title Propagation of the Faith is very well known and has been around for centuries. It is likely to get a good number of searches based on that name and history. The other part, Promoting the New Evangelization has only been around since 2010 and isn't really known for much of anything. Dcheney ( talk) 16:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Dcheney:, yes, hence my suggestion to (1) update the article on the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to say that it was suppressed, with its functions are transferred -- probably divided between the Dicastery for Evangelism and the Dicastery for Catholic Education, actually -- with links to the articles on the dicasteries that assumed its functions. Norm1979 ( talk) 16:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Indirect abortion is in need of more specific sources. The journal "The Linacre Quarterly" I have found to have self-identified to be a catholic perspective. The current article is lacking specificity of indirect techniques and cases of indirect abortion in relation to medical field. 64.53.212.155 ( talk) 04:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

64.53.212.155, in Catholic moral teaching, the term "indirect abortion" is understood to mean an abortion that occurs as a consequence of treatment for some other condition. The classic example is that of a woman having a hysterectomy to remove a cancerous uterus, and it's then discovered that she was pregnant. The abortion was indirect -- the consequence of the hysterectomy -- rather than the primary purpose of the procedure. Note that there's no moral culpability in such situations because there was no intent to abort the child.

There's a very clear moral dilemma when a woman who is known to be pregnant requires a procedure that may cause an indirect abortion. The preferred approach obviously would be to delay the other procedure until after the birth of the child, or at least until the child reaches viability and can be delivered by C-section, but this is not always an option -- especially when an aggressive cancer is involved. In such situations, it's clearly morally permissible to act to save the mother's life even though it's known that the action will cause the death of the child. Norm1979 ( talk) 15:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides the original Italian, it is now available in English, Arabic, Portuguese, and Spanish. Links on English Wikipedia should probably be updated to this version. Dcheney ( talk) 15:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have any sources that might establish notability for this Marian prayer, As a Child I Loved You? Despite potentially having the requisite sourcing, seems to have very, very limited notability. If nobody has anything in the next couple days, I'm going to propose an AfD. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep; if it has the requisite sourcing, it meets the notability criteria. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 23:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Zfish118 Not sure if you have read the sources, but they are just lists of prayers, so they absolutely does not meet the notability criteria. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 00:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

In your statement, you said it might have the requisite sourcing; having reviewed the sources, I agree that it does. Therefore, having acceptable sources, it meets the notability requirement. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 16:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Having reviewed the sources, I disagree. The so-called sources say absolutely nothing; just three separate listings of the identical prayer -without context. When was this composed? Why? What was the occasion? How was it distributed? There is nothing that makes this prayer any more notable than any others attributed to him. Move it to wikisource. Manannan67 ( talk) 18:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Per the different opinions expressed here, I'll push it to an AfD (and ping both previous commenters there). Agree that WikiSource is a good second home. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Zfish118 and Manannan67: The article deletion discussion is open here. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, folks! @ Horse Eye's Back has decided to trawl through a rather large swath of articles, including those covered by this project, and tag them for notability. He isn't participating in discussion, raising any particular issues on the talk pages, nor has ever participated in constructive editing there, so I consider these to be instances of WP:DRIVEBY tagging. I feel it is counterproductive for an editor to go through dozens, hundreds of articles to merely tag them, and even revert editors who disagree. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course I'm participating in discussion, do not cast such aspersions. Ping me to any talk page and I will give my two cents. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you're not; I can point at four recent reverts you made rather than BRD or starting discussion, and if you won't begin a discussion until someone pings you, that's WP:DRIVEBY. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted you... If you want to challenge the valid page tag then you're going to have to open a talk page discussion, the issue is major and self evident. You keep linking that WP:ESSAY as if it were policy or guideline. You are aware that it is an essay? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 Agree. Manannan67 ( talk) 07:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the correct phrase for the traditional Benedictine motto: " Pray and work" or "Ora et labora"? Feel free to chime in. Manannan67 ( talk) 20:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Manannan67:, the Order of St. Benedict uses the Latin motto Ora et labora officially, but "Pray and work" is the correct English translation. So I'm perplexed as to what you mean by "correct phrase." Norm1979 ( talk) 14:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This is in the context of the requested move discussion currently underway. I would say that Manannan67 is referring to the "correct phrase" that the article title should refer to in this case, which is currently unanimously supported as the Latin, rather than the English translation that is poorly attested in WP:RS. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Can this get some expansion? Peter Ormond 💬 20:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it, including Salvatore Cordileone.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 20:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A page move discussion has been opened at Talk:Society of Jesus#Requested move 31 July 2022 – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 00:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging. Jahaza ( talk) 01:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Catholic Worker Tom Cornell has died. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 04:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

For the reasons explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of post-nominal letters (Vatican City), I've nominated the article for deletion.-- Jahaza ( talk) 04:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! It seems that we could arrive at more WP:CONSISTENT article titles for papal visits.

• Category:Foreign trips by popes shows us a variety of formats: some use "State visit", some use a year. Glancing over the specific articles I don't see any need yet to disambiguate like that. I propose a simple format such as "Visit by Pope [N] to [C]". Optionally we could include "State visit" - I assume they are all state visits already. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

They are not all state visits. A state visit is a particular kind of international diplomatic trip where a head of state visits the head of state of another country as head of state.-- Jahaza ( talk) 06:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I say we use the formula mentioned by Elizium, drop "state visit" from the title (it should be mentioned in the first sentence or early in the lede if it is such a visit), and include the date if there’s a need to disambiguate. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 06:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

One problem is that "pastoral visit" is often contrasted with "state visit" and our comprehensive articles are titled e.g. List of pastoral visits of Pope Francis. Typically the Vatican titles the overseas trips "Apostolic journeys" (sometimes translated "apostolic voyage") Jahaza ( talk) 06:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Elizium23:, it's probably worth maintaining the distinction in titles ("Papal state visit to...," "Papal pastoral visit to...," "Papal pilgrimage to...," "Papal ecumenical pilgrimage to...," etc.) of articles according to the nature of the visit, while ensuring that this usage is consistent across all articles. Of course, a single journey may have more than purposes, making a combined title (for example, "Papal state and pastoral visit to...") appropriate. Norm1979 ( talk) 18:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. For one, it would be difficult to maintain such a standard going forward, as I'd expect that disparate editors would create new ones infrequently, rather than core editors having a system down. Secondly, I see the need for consistency in naming to be stronger than elaborate or descriptive naming schemes. It would seem that our easiest solution is to keep this very simple and straightforward, so that in the future we can readily point to them all being so similar that the template is undeniable and easily replicated. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! It has come to my attention that there are many articles in this project which we should rename. MOS:ENBETWEEN specifies that an en-dash "–" should be used to join two geographical terms. For example, List of Catholic dioceses in Italy indicates many territories which have been merged and therefore have compound names. The ones which currently contain a hypen "-" would need to be moved to a new name, and slightly edited for consistency. MOS:ENBETWEEN is more nuanced, so I don't expect that every single article could be renamed. @ Dcheney, others: any idea how we could identify the lot, and file a WP:BOTREQ or define a WP:JWB job for these? Elizium23 ( talk) 00:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

On the off chance this isn't uncontroversial, I support. If there isn't a bot, we can put together a very quick weekend warrior team. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 00:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I can generate a list of current dioceses which contain a hyphen easily (from my databases, not from wiki). A quick query comes up with 381 total including 4 Cardinal Titles and 19 Titular Sees. There are a few of those that can be stripped out (religious orders, curial offices, etc.). Dcheney ( talk) 01:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Cool! Can you correlate those with a history of territorial merges so we could positively identify some? Elizium23 ( talk) 01:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@ Dcheney:, from a standpoint of proper typography, you probably are correct in saying that separator between the names of the sees of dioceses with more than one see usually should be an en dash, but this is not without exception. In the case of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, for example, its official title uses the word "and" instead.

But, alas, changing the titles of the articles about the dioceses to use an en dash rather than a hyphen creates a major problem. Must Wikipedia users, and many Wikipedia editors, probably are not aware of the typographical distinction between an en dash and a hyphen, and many of those who are aware probably don't know how to generate an en dash in the Wikipedia environment, so typing a hyphen when doing a search or when editing an article probably is the more prevalent practice. Thus, the change that you propose would not exactly be user-friendly. If you are going to make that change anyway, you need to create redirects with the hyphen for the affected dioceses.

And, JTOL, there's no telling how many links within other Wikipedia articles this change will break....

So, the bottom line is that it might be better to leave the hyphens as they are. Norm1979 ( talk) 02:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The redirect Sedevacantist Antipope and a few very similar redirects which currently target Conclavism are under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 21#Sedevacantist Antipope. Tartar Torte 13:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Franciscus Renatus Boussen#Requested move 7 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 10:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard has an RFC for regarding the reliability of New Advent, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, as a source on Wikipedia. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 17:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This is just a casual reminder for those on this WikiProject to set Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity‎ to your watchlist! Backlogs on relisted AfDs are all too common and commenting on just one AfD a month will substantially reduce this! Thanks! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

An RFC concerning papal intros is being held. Input there, would be welcomed. GoodDay ( talk) 08:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:William Mulvey#Requested move 25 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 00:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Requested move 17 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As I was making edits to the Catholic Church article, I was looking for a good summary article of the various Eastern-rite liturgies, and could find none other than a few bare lists. This would be a valuable article to have, even if its not much list with a paragraph or two for each rite, describing when/where it originated and any distinguishing characteristics. I may start one, but if anyone is ambiguous you are welcome to as well. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 16:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want a single summary article for a dozen disparate liturgies? They are each well-served by their respective main articles, and I do not believe that a single article could easily or succinctly compare and contrast them.

I am not really aware of a lot of sources that we could draw upon for such a project, either. Most scholars tend toward a historiography of a single rite's development, because comparing even two Eastern rites would be extraordinarily complex, cross-discipline, and cross-cultural. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

By that same logic, there would be no need for an article about Eastern Christianity, because the churches are too disparate and well-served by their respective main articles. There is a category of liturgical rites that are referenced in multiple places, but no article outlining these liturgies in any systematic way beyond repeating the same list over and over. All I am looking for is a summary to substantiate the various bare lists, not necessarily exegeses comparing and contrasting them. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 20:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing this earlier but I'm in the process of three articles covering this topic: Use (liturgy), Rite, and Eastern Catholic liturgy. I will submit them for your review, Zfish, once I'm further along. I'll change gears and expedite the Eastern Cath liturgy article; expect something around 10 Oct. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Consider this something of a long-lead notice of my intention to create two pages to supplant Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites: one for "Christian liturgical rites" without a singularly Catholic focus (and exclusionary of Masonic rites etc.) and "Eastern Catholic liturgy" to cover the terminology, history, and forms of that topic. From there, I hope we can abridge the aforementioned extant article to cover the topic of particular churches more exclusively. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Zfish118:, @ Elizium23:, and @ Pbritti:, a summary article on Christian liturgy is a very good idea, the demarcation of Christian liturgy as "Eastern" or "Western" really is artificial and somewhat arbitrary, and it varies with perspective. Several of the ancient oriental churches would regard the churches of the Orthodox Communion as part of western Christianity, and thus would regard the Byzantine Rite as a western rite rather than an eastern rite. Thus, the summary article should encompass ALL Christian rites and uses. "Christian liturgical rites and uses" or "Christian liturgy" might be possible titles for such an article.

As to the question of what such an article should include, here are some suggestions.

• 1. A map, or even a series of maps, illustrating the geographical regions where the various rites and uses evolved
• 2. A hierarchical listing, or even timeline graphic or family tree, showing the evolution and, where appropriate, suppression of the various rites and uses
• 3. A brief summary of the historical evolution and distinctive features of each rite or use
• 4. A link to the main article about each rite and its various uses
• 5. Clear identification of the bodies that employ each rite or use (both Catholic sui juris ritual churches and non-Catholic bodies)

And yes, the discussion should include the liturgical practices of various Protestant bodies. Norm1979 ( talk) 17:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Norm1979: An article on Christian liturgy already exists, as does one on Protestant liturgy (and the narrower Reformed worship). The article Catholic liturgy has zilch in the practical sense and may require a major overhaul independent of what we're discussing, as it seems to be redundant subject-wise to Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites and Latin liturgical rites. Right now, articles specifically addressing the terms "Rite" (in the context of ritual families) and "Use" are in my sandbox and are about 25% done. Another on Eastern Catholic liturgy is also in my sandbox, probably 33% done. The modern terminology regarding Eastern and Western rites are fairly well established, and "Western" almost exclusively applies to Latin liturgical rites and Protestant liturgies developed from them. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Santa Maria de Monserrato (est 1889) the same as "the Abbey of Our Lady of Montserrat" also known as São Bento Monastery (est 1890)? Coincidental names? founded within a year of each other by Benedictines in the same city. (Most of the Santa Maria page looks like outdated CE material; if so, that could be trimmed and moved to the Brazilian Congregation article.) Please respond to Talk:Santa Maria de Monserrato. Thank you very much. Manannan67 ( talk) 04:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

As this family has ties to Christian/Catholic history, editors may wish to comment here. All opinions are welcome. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello all, I feel like this discussion may have been had before but I cannot find it so will ask now. On pages such as dioceses, should the metropolitan parameter be filled with the metropolitan archdiocese or metropolitan archbishop? I have seen both cases across different articles, as well as some which use the archdiocese's main city. Would be good to get a conclusion on this. Thanks in advance, Vesuvio14 ( talk) 11:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Vesuvio14: the Metropolitan parameter, if filled, should give the name of the metropolitan bishop of the ecclesiastical province or similar body that the diocese is a part of. If the diocese is itself a metropolitan see, leave the parameter empty. It can become more complicated when dealing with Oriental Orthodox dioceses and these parameters, as some metropolitans may occasionally overlap in their own sees or in suffragans. Let me know if there's ever a tricky case and I'll help! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

On one of the articles you started, St Aldhelm's Roman Catholic Church, Malmesbury, you filled the ecclesiastical province and metropolis parameters. Typically, this isn't necessary except in chases such as parishes of the Exarchate of Saints Cyril and Methodius of Toronto, a jurisdiction for Slovak Catholics that is part of a Ruthenian metropolis. While information is always nice, unless sourcing explicitly refers to a parish's metropolis, the information is superfluous and can confuse a reader about which ordinary has authority. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Pbritti: Thanks for letting me know! Two things; do you therefore think that the metropolitan parameter in diocese info boxes should be under the leadership section rather than location? Also, should this be the metropolitan archbishops’ name or title e.g. Archbishop of Westminster or Vincent Nichols? Vesuvio14 ( talk) 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering that essentially every metropolitan in the Church is either an archbishop/archeparch or patriarch/major-archbishop, I wouldn't worry about inserting honorifics. Of course, we have more defined policy to this end at WP:HONORIFICS. I typically delete them when I encounter them unless there's something unique about the person's title. Also, I'm sure you're already aware, but if a diocese or similar is " exempt", link to the concept as it's fairly niche nomenclature. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much! Vesuvio14 ( talk) 12:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment Is the name of the Metropolitan Archbishop relevant in mos diocesan articles? I could anticipate a limited number of cases where this might be relevant. It would seem to me the parameter is ambiguous and might be revised into two explicit "metropolitan archbishop" and "metropolitan archdiocese" parameters. That way, when it's relevant, it's consistently used. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 15:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the utility of the "Metropolitan" parameter is trivial in almost all Latin jurisdictions, though in non-Catholic dioceses and a number of Eastern Catholic contexts it is decently important. The disambiguation is intended through the "Ecclesiastical province" parameter, but obviously that isn't working. "Metropolitan archbishop" carries its own issues as not every metropolitan is an archbishop (or equivalent). Some churches don't even modify the term "metropolitan"; the Malankara Jacobites and Orthodox both just call those of that station "metropolitans". I'm open to solutions; it's obvious there's a problem. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The {{ infobox diocese}} template is maximally inclusive. There is no need for us to fill in fields which do not apply or are redundant. Infoboxes are for at-a-glance relevant information only. A suffragan diocese can list its archdiocese. In other cases, for example, a suffragan ordinary bishop, I do not see a need to list the archdiocese (or archbishop) at all. When listing a leader who is not directly covered in the article, we run the risk of unmaintainability as well, because upon their succession someone will have to track down all mentions. Elizium23 ( talk) 03:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Wikiproject!

• List of people beatified by Pope Francis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article follows the format and structure set up by predecessors, however things on the ground are different now. Firstly, we cannot add "future beatifications" to articles like this because of WP:CRYSTAL. You can discuss an upcoming event in article prose at the base article but a list like this needs to be restricted to verifiable events only.

Now, as I mentioned on its talk page, Pope Francis isn't really beatifying anyone directly anymore. He signs off and then the beatification ceremony is held locally. That means not in Vatican City, not in Rome, mostly not in Italy, etc. So the article title is rather misleading: Pope Francis does not participate in these beatification ceremonies other than sending out the decree.

I think that this is an opportune time for us to consider how we structure these articles (think about also the venerated and canonized people as well.) Perhaps one article per year, rather than per pope? List of people beatified in the Catholic Church in 2022 for example. A navbox can link them together and they would typically be a good manageable size. It wouldn't matter who is Pope or who is signing decrees. People could be listed month-by-month or by region-continent?

And for Pete's sake, can we please add reliable sources for these? Elizium23 ( talk) 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

We could take this opportunity to rename the article to something that denotes beatifications under a particular pontificate. Agree on everything you've said here. Lean towards a continental organization with it done chronologically under each continent. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the assessment that Pope Francis doesn't beatifying just because he doesn't go to the ceremony. In the 2005 communique from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints which created the norm that beatification ceremonies happen in a local diocese, Cardinal Martins suggests that even though the new norm is that they are presided over by a papal emissary, beatification is "nonetheless a Pontifical act."

I don't think a name change makes sense here.

Moreover, I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Numerous media sources use this "beatified by Pope Francis" phrasing. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator ( talk) 04:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 23. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church § Ordination of women to the priesthood. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

A search failed me. Can anyone remember a prior discussion we had about allowing flag icons in diocesan infoboxes? Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG I was able to justify this as dioceses are "human geography" and "administrative divisions" but I'm not sure we had a solid consensus or a widespread discussion on it. It may have been restricted to a couple article talk pages. Elizium23 ( talk) 17:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I recall being told something to the end that diocesan articles were not to have flags about a year ago but I haven't a clue of where to find that interaction or the consensus it cited. I lean towards excluding them as nations generally hold little actual authority over ecclesiastical jurisdictions, but MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does seem to say diocesan articles can have flags. I'll avoid removing them going forward. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

An editor has requested for Peter Forster (bishop) to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Peter Forster (bishop), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Elizium23 ( talk) 09:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

An editor has requested for Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Elizium23 ( talk) 11:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Solemn Mass § Specific term of art. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I just finished the article on Eastern Catholic liturgy. Sorry that it took much longer than I had hoped, but I wanted to balance it being a survey article with the need for a comprehensive article covering Eastern Catholic liturgies as a unified topic. Modifications are welcome. On a related note, is there a way we could incorporate this overarching article into Template:Particular churches sui iuris? ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Recently an editor redirected Frank Bayard, the current Grand Master of the Teutonic Order. Is the position of Grand Master of the order not notable enough itself to justify an article for Bayard? Thriley ( talk) 04:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that any of his predecessors rose to that level. This order is obscure in the United States and perhaps other English-speaking nations. Are there non-English sources with WP:SIGCOV that would grant notability to Bayard or other grand masters? Elizium23 ( talk) 06:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that he passes WP:NBASIC as the subject of significant coverage by multiple, independent RS. Per WP:ATD-R, the bold re-blar was not appropriate, and I've restored the article. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 08:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

See [2] Horse Eye's Back has posted a list questioning the reliability of what appear to be some often used sources -without advising a group most likely to possibly use them. Some may be reliable, some may not be. Different people will have different opinions, which is why I bring this here. I don't use Catholic Online, but I like New Advent for its access to CE and Ante-Nicene fathers etc. He, of course, does not consider CE reliable. A bit outdated in some respects, but not too bad on a good deal of standard stuff. This comes after a campaign of WP:DRIVEBY cn tags for both articles bearing a CE template indicating where the info came from, as well as, things that clearly fall under WP:SKYBLUE. This was followed by a continuing spate of notability tags (see above). As a wise woman once said, "AGF is not a suicide pact." Manannan67 ( talk) 08:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Manannan67: the NewAdvent and C-H portions are goofy (considering we have the WikiSource citation for CE pretty well established and use similar means of data collection as C-H). If you think good faith isn't present, though, you should take this up with HEB directly or one of the admin noticeboards. As best I can tell, HEB is trying to make sure material is reliably sourced but at the expense of ignoring those with subject-matter expertise—both are something a simple talk page message or response response on the linked notice board could potentially resolve. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Pbritti: CE WikiSource is drawn from New Advent. Although I use both, I prefer New Advent because it includes links to related topics and includes the contributors sources, which wikisource sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. As for CH: that has been discussed ad nauseum. What I can make out is that it is OK as a source on historical bishops or the general hierarchy of the Catholic Church but not for BLPs. Manannan67 ( talk) 20:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Manannan67:Out of curiosity, where are you pulling that consensus RE C-H being not okay for BLP but okay for historical persons? That kind of dichotomy of standards seems not very Wikipedia. Maximilian775 ( talk) 06:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I do take subject-matter expertise into consideration, unless I am mistaken none of the sources I took to RSN are published by subject-matter experts (please interpret that as an open invitation to let me know if I am mistaken). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's blatant wp:canvassing, you can only notify wikiprojects of an ongoing discussion with a neutral summary... Blackening my name behind my back is not the way to do it. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Behind your Back?!?! This is not "canvassing". See WP:APPNOTE: "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." You should have done it yourself. The fact that you chose not to bring it here at all says a lot. Manannan67 ( talk) 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion." Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Also just FYI "A bit outdated in some respects, but not too bad on a good deal of standard stuff." is also my opinion of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. My issue with its use is generally one of due weight (it is an archaic source after all), not reliability. Also to quote a famous dog who's leg do I have hump do be called they here? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears that CE is generally used as a framework upon which editors add more recent scholarship. As to whether or not they actually get around to it, is another matter, and depends, I suppose, on how obscure the subject matter is. Most of the CE contributors were well-respected in their particular fields, and often provide details that is either unavailable elsewhere or that later writers don't. I don't see what the problem is. Manannan67 ( talk) 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is challenging CE. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I wrote my first BLP (first article entirely, in fact), today — it's a local auxiliary bishop.

If you have a minute, could you take a look? I'm concerned in particular about using catholic-hierarchy.org as a source.

Draft:Joseph Dabrowski Ethamn ( talk) 07:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I made a few edits on the article and then moved it to the mainspace -- good job!

Just a few things -- there's a general format to episcopal biographies for the sake of consistency, especially BLP ones -- Robert J. Brennan and Nicholas Anthony DiMarzio follow it well.

As regarding catholic-hierarchy, as far as I know, it is not WP:RS, sadly. I found another reliable source stating the primary consecrator, though.

Also, when you hyperlink the diocese which a bishop is affiliated with, link to the page for the Catholic diocese rather than the secular city; IE " Diocese of London, Ontario" rather than "Diocese of London, Ontario Thanks for your contribution!

Maximilian775 ( talk) 07:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I started a draft for J. Harding Fisher, an American Jesuit. Can anyone assist with sourcing? Thriley ( talk) 05:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll look when I have the chance, but I also can't see how this would pass notability and don't want you to waste your time... Maximilian775

• Category:Lists of cardinals by country contains 7 articles, and could be expanded by leaps and bounds with the appointments coming through during this pontificate. However, I'm curious. Are these articles intended to be categorized by ethnicity? Or is it by nationality, citizenship, or location of reign/residence? They appear to focus on ethnicity. If this is the case, we should make the scope explicit, and we should also rename the category to Category:Lists of cardinals by ethnicity to be up-front and accurate about this chosen scope. (Be careful how you answer, and consider that Jorge Mario Bergoglio would be an Italian cardinal.)

Elizium23 ( talk) 11:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if "by country" is too specific in many cases (yielding a category of a handful or less). I suspect by ethnicity would be a challenge. How far back, what %, etc. Plus there is Category:Cardinals_by_nationality Dcheney ( talk) 12:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Glenstal Abbey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Congregation of the Annunciation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I ran across these examples this week and noticed that neither article mentions the Catholic Church or any other church affiliation! Now, ecumenical and Reformed monasteries are not unheard of, so I'm hesitant to claim them all in the name of Rome just yet. I'm also not sure how many articles are affected - is this the tip of the iceberg, or a few isolated cases? Elizium23 ( talk) 04:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Manannan67 you've contributed to related articles, any ideas? Elizium23 ( talk) 05:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's either just an oversight or assumed to be implied. (Glenstal is part of the Congregation of the Annunciation which is a member of the Benedictine Confederation based at Sant'Anselmo all'Aventino in Rome. Founded out of Maredsous Abbey, also part of Annunciation, which itself was founded after WWI when it was felt better to separate the Belgian fr the German Benedictines.) A short phrase in the lede would fix it. I haven't noticed any others. If there are, I suspect it's presumed to be inferred fr other info such as its founding, etc. I think Catholic is sort of a default, because if it was Anglican or Lutheran that distinction I would expect to see in the lede....(RE Glenstal: I see that three of the nine citations are to "Catholic Ireland" so that should provide a hint.) Manannan67 ( talk) 05:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The former pope's health has taken a sharp turn according to the Holy See. I would note that in the event of his passing, there is certain to be a nomination at In the News. Standards for articles being linked on the main page tend to be quite high, with a particular emphasis on referencing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping some of those involved here will chime in the discussion so that we can ditch this extra article that serves no real unique purpose. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 21:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Carlo d'Ippolito di Sant'Ippolito, grand commander of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta from 2011 to 2014, has died. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 02:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

An editor has started Draft:Death and Funeral of Pope Benedict XVI (actually it was originally in the mainspace, but I draftified it). I imagine there might also be others working on a similar article. Perhaps some of the members of this WikiProject could help out with this draft and maybe even figure out how many competing drafts there are out this about this topic. If there are more than one, then perhaps the best of the bunch should be kept and the others merged into it to avoid duplicate articles suddenly appearing. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

After looking, there frankly doesn't appear to be any other draft relating to this article. The fact that when I first created this article, I created a bunch of redirects ( patrally stemming from this old archive I found a few days ago), plus featured it at the top of the section relating to his death may have to do with that. With that, I would like to ask for help from WP Catholicism for aid in bettering the draft. Knightoftheswords281 ( talk) 11:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Knightoftheswords281: I have improved the article. What do you think should be done next? Veverve ( talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we should just continue to edit the article as further updates pour in for now. Knightoftheswords281 ( talk) 18:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)