Talk:Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church

Translated from Portuguese

I translated this page from the Portuguese equivalent, leaving out a complex prelude about various attempts to create a Brazilian national church which probably needs its own article. I am not an expert on this denomination, nor am I fluent in Portuguese, so I would be overjoyed if someone who was one of these or both checked over my article. Kennethmyers 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Membership Figures

The ICAB website gives a figure of 14 million members in Brazil. Someone has added the comment that analysts say there are really only a few thousand members. The source of this statement should be cited/linked. I'm not doubting the numbers, since I have no idea personally, but sources for divergent information like this should be cited. Thanks. Timotheos 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the international membership to 2 million, per the ICAN website as of 6/12/2007. Timotheos 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Those figures are unrelable. Actual membership is about 560,000 according to the 2010 census of Brazil. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Inquiries

More context regarding events leading to the creation of ICAB can be obtained here [1]. Also, membership info can be confirmed with the church's Apostolic Delegate to the United States, Bp. Andre Queen (appointed by Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez in 2005), at (312) 994-2339 [posted publicly on the church's website]. Pax! Dcn. Steve (Slohrenz 13:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

GA?

Somebody should nominate this for GA. -- SECisek 09:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and nominate it. Anyone can nominate an article for GA, and it's good to get the feedback from reviewers on how to improve the article. Timotheos 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I already have three articles rotting on the GA candidate list - waiting for review - or else I would have nominated this one myself. If somebody else nominates it, I'll judge it. I have never edited it. -- SECisek 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

1. Well written. Clear prose and layout.  Done

2. Accurate and verifiable. Footnotes from reliable sources.  Done Needs more citation if possible.

3. Broad. Major topics are covered with no unnecessary details.  Done

4. Neutral.  Done

5. Stable.  Done

6. Images. Appropriate with fair use rationale.  Done More pictures would be nice, too.

Could also use an info box. Not even close to FA, but good enough. Well done and keep up the good work here. -- SECisek 04:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are multiple issues that needs to be addressed.

Needs citations:

1. Address the "citation needed" tags that have been there since April 2008.
2. "However, a few months later the churches were permitted to reopen, provided that their liturgy would not duplicate the Roman Catholic liturgy, and their clergy would wear gray clerical attire in contrast to the black clothing worn by Catholic clergy."
3. "The Church is considered to have become more theologically, and generally, conservative under the Patriarchate of Dom Luis."
4. The majority of the "Apostolic succession" and "International communion" sections are uncited.

Other issues:

1. The citations currently only include a title. In addition, they should include author, date, publisher, access date, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET can help with formatting.
2. The external links need to be properly formatted.
3. Why does the lead state that the church has 5 million members and the infobox 800,000-900,000?
4. Unless there is some guideline that recommends against this, the history section should come before the belief section. Readers need to know how it was established and what the church has gone through to understand what they believe in.
5. "As a result of all this it is usually inferred that the Holy Orders conferred by Duarte Costa himself after leaving the Roman Catholic Church are valid but illicit." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. To improve the flow of the article, either expand on this sentence or incorporate it into another paragraph.
6. The lead needs to be expanded to touch on all of the different sections. In addition, some of the information in the lead is not mentioned in the text of the article.
7. There are several dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Delisted

The article has been on hold for a week and no improvements were made. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Personal Ordinariate

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups such as the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the content of the article it doesn't seem to me that this Church would have any reason to want to be in a structural union with the Roman Catholic Church. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@ADM: there is no need one, preserving rituals or heritage is not an issue. Individuals, who are former Roman Catholics, can accept the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and reconcile at the local Roman Catholic parish individually; individuals, who are not former Roman Catholics, can participate in a local Roman Catholic parish conversion process, such as the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults in the US, and become members of the Roman Catholic Church individually. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa was an outspoken critic of the regime of Brazilian president Getúlio Vargas (1930–1945) and of the alleged Vatican's relationship with fascist regimes"

In the sentence above, the word alleged is crucial. If we omit that word, then we will be using Wikipedia voice to present Bishop Costa's personal POV as if it were objective truth. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

How come this policy just seems to be implemented with ICAB and not with the Roman Catholic Church? Katholikenhabeneinewahl (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides, I am not trying to present untruths and truths, or break any policies, I am just trying to protect the pages connected with my church from vandalism. Unfortunately sometimes some of the wikipedia editors are part of the problem! Especially when they have no idea about religion or the Catholic faith, or are trying to discredit the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, because of their affiliation with other catholic churches. Katholikenhabeneinewahl (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This also applies to the Roman Catholic Church. Right in the introduction of Roman_catholic_church, we see

Led by the Pope, it defines its mission as spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ,[2] administering the sacraments[3] and exercising charity.[4]

It doesn't say "The mission of the Roman Catholic Church is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ", it says "it defines its mission as spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ". -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with so-called "vandalism". Do not make false accusations against other editors of vandalism when they are only implementing Wikipedia's policies. These policies apply to ALL articles. It would also be a good idea if you stopped creating sockpuppet user names for this and related articles. You are running the risk of being indefinitely blocked from editing. Afterwriting (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Afterwriting I just wanted to thank you for changing "Catholic Church" into Roman Catholic Church in the paragraph about Bishop Ferraz. Katholikenhabeneinewahl (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Article in The Guardian

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

---

Does [2] belong here? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jackiespeel: no, theguardian.com article is about Society of St. Pius X, an unrelated group. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

David Bell

David Bell was added in this edit by an IP editor. His name is not found on the denomination's endereços page included in the article.

La Stampa published two articles about Bell in 2012. One of those articles state that Bell "professes to be the archbishop of London, was ordained in ICAB and founded the Roman Catholic Society of Pope Pius XIII" and that Bell claims that he "had been welcomed in a community in the Diocese of Fiesole, [...] Italy, where he ordained a deacon [...] and a priest."[3] Bell is implicitly labeled as an episcopus vagans in the article.[4] "Bell - who uses the title 'Eminence', reserved for cardinals, referring to himself also as 'Archbishop of London' – superior of the Roman Catholic Society of Pope Leo XIII, a traditionalist group that celebrates the Tridentine Mass."[5] It seems, from the articles, that there was confusion in 2012 about Bell claiming to be a Roman Catholic and the Vatican made clear that he is not a Roman Catholic bishop.

From the articles, Bell is definitely not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. He might also not be a member of ICAB, since he seems to have represented in 2012 that he was in some way a Roman Catholic.

An Old Catholic blog reposted a 2013 blog post which claims that Bell is not an ICAB bishop.

So his name does not appear on the ICAB website and he represented himself as a Roman Catholic and a blog (which presents itself as ICAB related) states Bell is not an ICAB bishop. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822084754/http://home.comcast.net/~woca/History.htm to http://home.comcast.net/~woca/History.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Interesting to note bits and pieces of vandalism here. A user - 2a00:23c6:64b5:8600:dc21:7aed:3794:ac0 - deleted a sentence with TWO published sources (there are many more to support it) and commented "Hearsay" on the edit. I have replaced the sentence about a very well-documented link to a paedophilia and child-exploitation ring. Apollinari (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

WCCAC

The references to WCCAC must correspond to the separate entry about WCCAC - this is not a lot to ask! If there is ANY evidence (reliable sources) of activity in the WCCAC communion, it should be added to both the ICAB and WCCAC articles. The current references to WCCAC are sourced. If there are other sources, let's add them. Apollinari (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)