Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 52

This is an archive of past discussions about Catholic Church. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Criticism of Vatican II

On the history part of this article, under the Vatican II section, this article breaks with the practice consistent thoughout the remainder of the article, namely, to tell what the Catholic Church believes, not what individual Catholics believe themselves, since these are not always the same thing. The same principle should apply to the Vatican II section. It should list the changes made at Vatican II, and should leave the opinions that Catholics have about it to the Vatican II article. Therefore, I feel the following sentance should remain removed: "The Council, however, generated significant controversy in implementing its reforms; proponents of the "Spirit of Vatican II" such as Swiss theologian Hans Küng claimed Vatican II had "not gone far enough" to change church policies.[148] Traditionalist Catholics, such as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, however, strongly criticised the council, arguing that the council's liturgical reforms led "to the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments," among other issues.[149]" wikiCatholicIndiana(talk) 23:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This section isn't simply a "history section", its a "contemporary issues" section. The exact interpretation of the Council's documents is very much an on going issue today. These individuals are used to broadly represent the major opinions of their respective factions, not simply the opinions of two Catholics about the council. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree; the Criticism of Vatican II is a big deal when assessing how the Church deals with contemporary issues. Achowat (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, we have seperate history and contemporary issues sections. Perhaps someone could write some material on this issue in the comtemporary issues part of the article if it is deemed important. wikiCatholicIndiana(talk) 18:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how mentioning the mere existence of criticism of the second vatican council is out of line. Earlier in the "history" section, the article discusses the reaction to Vatican I (the formation of the Old Catholic movement). Earlier still, it mentions the controversies that led to the creation of the Orthodox, and earlier than that Coptic movements. This history section is extremely abbreviated, as the overall article is already extremely long. An intro to as much Catholic Church related material as possible is desirable, to point to where more detailed information can be found.Special:Contributions/zfish118 (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I restored the material in Question. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide view tag?

What's with the worldwide view tag? The Catholic Church is worldwide. It has millions of members in both the Eastern and Western hemispheres. We have a hierarchy: we have bishops that can remove a priest from Catholic parshes when their view of something is not the same as Catholic dogma. I'm pretty sure these are the worldwide Catholic doctrines. I think we should we should remove the tag saying "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" because the hierchy makes sure the view is the same everywhere. JBGeorge77 (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove the tags. They were added on 18 March by Lihaas (talk · contribs), with discussion in this section: #"Catholic Church"!? Since I don't think there will ever be a resolution to this debate, tags should not be worn by the article as a "Badge of Shame", and in my view, there is nothing wrong with the terminology, "Catholic Church", when referring to the communion of 23 sui iuris Churches, or "Roman Catholic Church" when referring specifically to the Latin Church. Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

These concerns were address and dealt with in Talk, and consensus was determined to be that there is neither a neutrality nor worldview issue. I've removed the tags. Achowat (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any consensus. NPOV seems to have been repeated violated and the tags ought to stay on. DrTh0r (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The worldwide tag was presumably expressing the opinion that not enough coverage was given to the Global South in the history section etc. No possible version will avoid striking many of the thousands of readers the article gets daily as POV, & there is really no point in having the tag since there are hundreds of editors aware of the issues, & mostly avoiding the article after experiencing the intractable arguments here. I see someone has recently promoted the article from "Start" to "C", unjustifiably imo, as though long it is still inadequate & bitty. But I can't be bothered to change it. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no blatent shortcomings which merit the tags. No one will be completely satisfied with the article; that doesn't mean that any disgruntled editor can plaster the article with tags. Best that these tags are removed and stay down. Majoreditor (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Theotokos and inclusion of Eastern Churches in lede

I believe that the lede paragraph is too slanted to the Latin Church. Doctrine such as transubstantiation is a uniquely Western view of the Eucharist; the Catholic Church is a communion of 23 sui iuris Churches all in communion with Rome, and the Eastern Catholic Churches do not teach transubstantiation. They have much more in common with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. More relevant to the point, recent edits removed Theotokos from the lede claiming it was undue. On the contrary, I think it is extremely important to balance to mention the Theotokos as Mary, Mother of God. Theotokos is her venerable title in the Eastern Churches and indeed it is the actual article to which we link when we mention the term "Mother of God". Elizium23 (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the assertion that the eastern Catholic Churches - all of them, apparently - do not teach transubstantiation needs to be backed up with a reliable source. The assertion is perhaps based on an understanding of "transubstantiation" different from that of the Catholic Church: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (CCC 1376). I know of no evidence that even one eastern Catholic Church rejects the teaching of the Council of Trent or that the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be retitled "Catechism of the Latin Church". Esoglou (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely not a rejection of any doctrine, it is merely different language used in the East. Of course the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, it is simply called a Holy Mystery, the word transubstantiation and the idea of accidents is a foreign concept to the Orthodox and to the Eastern Churches. The East believes the same thing as the West, but different words are used to arrive at the same conclusion. Just try to tell a Byzantine Catholic that she believes in transubstantiation and watch the comedy. Elizium23 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My position is confirmed in the very article I referenced: transubstantiation#Eastern Christianity explains that the Eastern Churches prefer to use the term μετουσίωσις Elizium23 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed true that the CCC is only intended for the Latin Church. If you search it carefully, you will see occasional references to the Eastern Churches, for example when the Sacrament of Confirmation is discussed, it explains the Eastern praxis of chrismating infants, and so forth. However, these are very explicit deviations from Western thought in a document that uses almost exclusively Latin-derived terms and reference to documents produced by the Latin Church. In fact you will see that some Eastern Catholic Churches are hard at work on their own catechisms. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has actually produced one already, titled Christ Is Our Easter. I have not seen a copy, but the article says it will help Greek Catholics 'know our own traditions and rituals and most importantly to keep our faith and prevent foreign elements from changing it'. The Eastern Churches are very sensitive to Latinizations which have in the past threatened to destroy the unique patrimony of the separate Eastern rites. Writing their own catechism is an extremely important way to reclaim it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Latin Church too produces catechisms. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says it is intended for, among others, "redactors of catechisms" (CCC 12). Have you found in a Ukrainian (or Latin, or other Catholic) catechism any denial of what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Esoglou (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I must interject upon Elizium23's comment stating that the CCC "is only intended for the Latin Church". Pope John Paul II in what is essentially the introduction to every bound CCC "APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"[1] -preceding the Prologue- he cites a statement from the Extraordinary(including Eastern Catholic leaders[2]) Synod of 1985 "On that occasion the Synod Fathers stated: Very many have expressed the desire that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed, that it might be, as it were, A POINT OF REFERENCE FOR the catechisms or compendiums that are prepared in various regions. The presentation of doctrine must be biblical and liturgical. It must be sound doctrine suited to the present life of Christians. " The pope continues, "After the Synod ended, I made this desire my own, considering it as "fully responding to a real need of the universal Church and of the particular Churches". For this reason we thank the Lord wholeheartedly on this day when we can offer the ENTIRE Church this "reference text" entitled the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for a catechesis renewed at the living sources of the faith! Following the renewal of the Liturgy and the new codification of the canon law of the Latin Church AND THAT OF THE Oriental(EASTERN) Catholic Churches, THIS catechism will make a very important contribution to that work of renewing the whole life of the Church, as desired and begun by the Second Vatican Council." (emphasis mine) We must remember although the Church is made of multiple rites, expressions & traditions we are ONE Church united in faith and morals. And though in the past both east and west have confused ritual pride over universal Church truths we have all matured beyond such narrow mindedness respecting the beauty of all rites as the CCC states in 1203 "Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way." and 1208 says, "The diverse liturgical traditions or rites, legitimately recognized, manifest the catholicity of the Church, because they signify and communicate the same mystery of Christ"Micael (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I never said there is a denial of anything, I said there is different terminology used for the same belief. For example, you might be interested to know that Eastern Catholics are permitted to recite the Creed without the filioque. However, East and West have over the years come to an agreement about the procession of the Holy Spirit, that is explained here: Holy Trinity#Eternal generation and procession Elizium23 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify that the article cited does not support a perfect agreement between East and West, but rather a concession by the Roman Catholic Church acheived through ecumenical dialogue for the compatibility of belief of her 22 sui iuris Eastern Churches. Elizium23 (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Before withdrawing from this discussion, in which I have got too much involved in minor matters, I permit myself just to point out that the Greek translation of CCC uses (of course) the word μετουσίωσις (μετουσίωση in the modern form of the language) to translate transsubstantiatio: μετουσίωσις/μετουσίωση is the Greek for transsubstantiatio, just as "transubstantiation" is the English for transsubstantiatio. And the eastern Catholic Churches are not just "permitted" but encouraged to recite the Nicene Creed without adding (not "omitting") the Filioque, but they too uphold the Catholic teaching on the matter (see this information on an eastern Catholic Church that has never used Greek). Esoglou (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Elizium23, and with the original editor who made the change Anglicanus, for the inclusion of the word Theotokos in the lead for referencing Mary. Catholic doctrine (as defined in Ephesus) is indeed that Mary is the Theotokos, the woman who gave birth to God, the woman who gave birth to the man we believe is God. The title "Mother of God" is only a derivation of Theotokos due to the translation into other languages and more specifically, due to languages always seeking to express itself in the least amount of words possible. Theotokos is the word approved by the Council, and it is true that some of its meaning and strength is lost in the translation "Mother of God". Also, unlike the current wording, I actually liked the original change defining Mary as Theotokos, with "Mother of God" in parenthesis.

Yet, using the same reasoning, the word trasubstantiation was agreed also in a Council, way before most Eastern Catholic Churches returned to Rome. It has been the word that defines the Catholic doctrine since Trent. Since, even though worded differently, Eastern Catholic Churches believe its meaning, it takes the same place in doctrine as the word Theotokos. Include Theotokos in the lead, but leave transubstantiation in the article. Is this a good compromise?

Also, Elizium23, you have to take into consideration that, although Eastern traditions (those that may differ from the Latin Church, including the wording) are highly regarded in the Latin Church, there were 12 addition Ecumenical councils in the West defining dogma and traditions before most of the Eastern Churches joined Rome. The (Roman) Catholic Church that the Eastern Catholic Churches joined had been developing a theological thought for over 700 years since the 7th Ecumenical Council. That is why the article might seem Latin Church POV. It is nothing against its Eastern Churches, but due to historical circumstances. Eastern Catholics might use different words or have different practices, but its theological thought is the same as the Latin Church (even with the Filioque).--Coquidragon (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue of Mary as Theotokos is too specific for the lead paragraph. Byzantine (Greek) Catholics are well familiar with the title; however, the term is somewhat obscure in the rest of the Church except among theologians. I'm all for mentioning differences in terminology and traditions, but that's a bit much for the introduction. Majoreditor (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We agree. Theotokos is appreciated but may be very confusing for non-orthodox, Westernized readers. We believe that a mutual respect may be met by merging the approximation of the English term Mother of God to the Greek name of God-Bearer. Should they click on the link, it shall lead them to a deeper understanding of the Greek coin. Lay commoners and most Roman Catholic devotees do not know theotokos, this is a theologian term. 38.121.23.173 (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)OSB

I disagree. Is it really so much to allow a single word to represent Eastern thought on the Blessed Virgin, and I find it especially absurd that when describing her as "Mother of God" we link directly to the article Theotokos, making it an easter egg of some kind, or a way to astonish the reader when they land on the page with a Greek word. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, designed to present unfamiliar terms and explain them. That is exactly what we do when we present the word Theotokos as a wikilink. Elizium23 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I present two articles, unfortunately no longer available at their host sites, but only available through the Internet Archive, presenting Eastern commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Toward a Response to the Universal Catechism and An Eastern Catholic view of the Catechism. I am told that these documents had some influence on the final edition of the CCC. Elizium23 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My own guess would be to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see which words it uses in the basic introduction to the topic. Unfortunately, yes, that work is in English, and on that basis may be slanted toward English terminology. However, it is the basic reference on the subject in this language, the English language, and it would seem to me that whatever it says, specifically including the specific words used to describe the subject, would probably be the most neutral way of presenting the material to our English language readership. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Coronation of Mary as dogma

The claim that the coronation of Mary in heaven is a dogma has already been discussed and rejected, but an editor whose contributions seem to show clearly that he is again the indefinitely blocked Lloydbalthazar is insisting on putting it back in. I leave the solution to those who know better than I do how to deal with such cases. Esoglou (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead needs to at least imply the existence of Eastern Catholics, and should probably mention them explicitly

This statement is from a review article about the Encyclopedia of Religion entitled "Christianity among the Religions in the Encyclopedia of Religion," written by Colin Gunton, in Religious Studies Vol. 24, number 1, on page 14: "...[T] he article [on Catholicism in the encyclopedia] rightly suggests caution, suggesting at the outset that Roman Catholicism is marked by several different doctrinal and theological emphases." I believe it would be very reasonable for the lead of our article to also suggest from the outset that there exist a variety of different emphases on doctrine and theology, probably with at least one link to and explicit mention in the text of the Eastern Catholics. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The Catholic Church is a communion of 23 sui iuris Churches, and the Eastern Churches should be given due recognition, especially where their terminology, theology, and praxis differ from the Latin Church. Elizium23 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both ideas, but how would you phrase it? Have in mind that the mentioning of Eastern Churches in the lede has been widely debated in the past.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something to the effect of "Within the Catholic Church, there are a variety of different doctrinal and theological emphases. These may be most visible between the various Particular churches, including the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as between the religious orders like the Jesuits and the Franciscans." Granted, the phrasing could use work, but I think it worth mentioning that both the churches, and in many cases the orders, who have a significant role in the history of the church, have rather widely different interpretations of what they emphasize. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the "variety of different doctrinal and theological emphases" are too minor and abstruse to merit mention in the lead. And you don't have to go outside a single religious institute in a single particular Church to find such different doctrinal and theological emphases. Esoglou (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Esoglou but using a different reasoning. The problem with "different doctrinal and theological emphases" is that you would have to refer to liberation theology, SSPX, charismatic movement and Marianism. I can't see how you could craft a short set of sentences to bring all of those topics into the lead.

When I first read the title of this section, I was thinking more that we should talk about the divisions within Christianity. We could say something like "The Catholic Church is the largest of the Christian churches; the remaining x% of Christianity being comprised primarily of the Orthodox and Protestant churches. The Eastern Catholic churches are churches within the Catholic Church that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome that practice the Eastern rite."

The question is whether the focus is on diversity within the Catholic Church or division between the Christian churches. We can say that the Eastern Catholic churches represent diversity within the Catholic Church but, IMO, the truth is that the represent an attempt to close the division between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My main point, actually, was the quote from the source indicated. It might be the case that in some later section of this main article we might want to refer to some of the groups you mentioned specifically, although liberation theology generally goes beyond just the Catholic Church. There has been discussion for some time about "the CC says this" or "the CC believes that". The fact is the CC has had some few very clear beliefs, but lots of ways of interpreting them. This isn't limited to just the Eastern Churches. And there is the new or about to be created former Anglican church/rite as well. I do definitely think it makes sense to indicate in the beginning that the church is not as monolithic as some in the west like to believe. I think mentioning the different rites, and the different views of some of the major orders, is one way to do so. Again, the ER article apparently stressed those differences, and it is in a very highly regarded encyclopedia itself. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, when I read John Carter's proposal "Within the Catholic Church, there are a variety of different doctrinal and theological emphases. These may be most visible between the various Particular churches, including the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as between the religious orders like the Jesuits and the Franciscans" I thought about the theological plurality that exist within the Church for issues, where there is no official belief, and where there exist multiple, sometimes contradictory, beliefs, none being officially condemned: 1. Filioque, 2. Original sin (held in Western Church, not on Eastern) which leads to 3. Mary's immaculate conception (needed in the West due to original sin, but understood differently in the East as original sin is not part of theological thought), 4. Incarnation (God incarnated because mankind sinned (Thomas de Aquinas) or God incarnated because it was part of his eternal plan (in other words, God would have incarnated even if men had not sinned) (Karl Rahner), 5. (historical debate) Good deeds come out of man's free will (historically Jesuits) or are they the result of God's grace in mankind (historically Dominicans), etc... There are many contradictory beliefs held within the Church, where no heresies are yet to be condemned. I like John Carter's proposal, changing Franciscans for Dominicans. I think it could be a good addition to the lede.--Coquidragon (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I could very easily accept the change from Franciscans to Dominicans. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but instead of "religious orders" we should write "religious communities" because a religious order is a specific canonical structure that does not encompass all types of religious organizations. Elizium23 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. I guess the question then is where in the lead. Based on its current structure, I think the fourth paragraph is probably the way to go. Would that be acceptable to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Could someone provide a citation for the "encyclopedia of religion" (there seem to be several publications by that name). Thanks! --Zfish118 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, finally! That last part has already reached consensus.

Patience pays. Finally, a consensus has been reached regarding that last part in the summary. I'm so glad to read the entire line regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary in its full doctrinal context. Patience pays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartyBowl1989 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Catholic name

Guys, really - what is your job?

You don't even have to walk down to the library and touch *pages* any more even! This kind of information is readily available! Why am I constantly asked to prove that the sky is, in fact, blue?!

First three results and the seventh. Plus the fact that it's a fact known for centuries! --173.93.239.247 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL. That issue has already been addressed before and been solved many times. Your issue is not the term Catholic church, but the term "Catholic". Please see the Wikipedia page for that specific term you wish to edit. And if you have further addendums, make it there. Wikipedia > Catholic. Wikipedia editors are aware that the word "Catholic or catholic" is now being used by other Christians, and even non-Christians... but Google search wins the majority on this one-----which is the Roman Catholic Church. HeartyBowl1989 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)HeartyBowl1989

Are you really suggesting that a Google search should be the final arbiter in deciding terminology? If that's the caliber of Wikipedia... -- Newagelink (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I remember an earlier Google search I did years ago for Pierre Plantard. If I remember right, the second page to appear, after our own, was one which conclusively proved he was the Antichrist. Of course, that was a self-published website, but it was evidently a highly regarded, or at least linked to, website. And, of course, anyone who wants to help me ~~googlebomb the story~~ neutrally inform the public that my biography by Pixar earlier this year was in fact the greatest artistic achievement of the decade, why, I guess when I'm done, all of you will be forced to believe that too. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

??????? Guys, the only reason Google is relevant here is as pursuant to WP:COMMONNAME. No one's suggesting taking random articles from Google at face value for article content...they're using Google hits as a measure of the most common terminology by which people search for information to the Catholic Church, the idea being that if a search for "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" on Google returns a lot of hits, folks are more likely to search using the same terminology here. Yeesh. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and I think we actually understood that from the beginning. However, if anyone reviews the archives, that point is probably one of the most frequently discussed topic to be found in them. Also, I think the word "suggest" doesn't actually do justice to the nature of the comments in the beginning of the thread. The editor who started seemed to indicate he felt he had to repeatedly prove the sky is blue. I think that point hasn't actually been in question. The fact is that the IP editor seems to have done so repeatedly, by his own admission, without apparently having read the relevant discussions. I am sorry he apparently doesn't seem to think those discussions relevant or significant. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no point anymore in trying to change the name back, it will never be allowed! Any claim to fix it is just responded with corrupt wiki-lawyering and "The Roman Catholic Church is THE Catholic Church!" from its followers here!75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would encourage you to be patient, nothing is set in stone. WP:Consensus can change. However, if you exhibit a poor attitude and make attacks against your fellow editors rather than trying to work with us in a collegial manner, you will not find many converts to your way of thinking. Elizium23 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the whole problem, to change it back to the correct NPOV form would require literally to CONVERT all the Roman Catholics here to "betray" their religion to stop this propaganda. That is impossible, the only way to change it is to flood this with correctly-minded editors, as was done to change this to "Catholic Church". This is not an attack, simply a observation. 75.73.114.111 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Intentionally flooding an article with like-minded users to change the article to the way you want it would be WP:MEATPUPPETRY and is a good way to get your account blocked. This is not an attack, simply a observation.Farsight001 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note I never said to do it, I only said that is one of the only ways it would be done, as it was how it was changed to Catholic Church.75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Further, if you wish, I can supply you with editors who did flood this article in the exact way you say to change it to Catholic Church.75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Has it never occurred to you that you may simply be wrong about the name? Per wikipedia naming conventions, an article name should usually be the most common name used to refer to it. This is, far and away, simply Catholic Church. The big book of beliefs of the church is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and this is the name most often used by the Church to refer to itself. Furthermore, most of the Eastern rite Catholics take "Roman" as an insult, believing that it excludes them. Per wikipedia naming conventions, thus, Catholic Church is simply the name the article should take. No conspiracy theories or watchdogging needed.Farsight001 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

First, your claim that "Catholic Church" is the most common name is false, as evidenced by other users with sources. Second, of course the Roman Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church, as to not do so would to lessen its claim on being the "Catholic Church". The Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself also the Catholic Church, does that mean we should call it the Catholic Church? No, it is not an issue it does not matter what the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself. Now, the Eastern Orthodox Church takes offence to the Roman Catholic Church calling itself the Catholic Church. Who are there more of? Eastern Rite Catholics or Eastern Orthodox? There are more Eastern Orthodox, by a HUGE margin, so the squabbles of the Eastern Rite Catholics should not take precedent over the Eastern Orthodox squabbles. Heck, why would they even be offended, as the article states that "Catholic" here only means "To be in communion with the Holy See" thus to say Roman does not mean the Eastern-Rite is excluded, as it still says CATHOLIC in the name. The concerns of the Eastern-Rite would be valid if the article was just "Roman Church", but if "Catholic" is included, then there is no exclusion as they are part of the "Catholic" in their eyes. The naming conventions recommend not to use titles that evoke controversy when other non-controversial titles can be used. Roman Catholic Church is much less controversial than just Catholic Church. Only one church claims to be the Roman Catholic Church. The only controversy is the Eastern Rite Catholics. What about Catholic Church? Well, MANY CHURCHES CLAIM TO BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! AND, by naming THIS PARTICULAR CHURCH "Catholic Church" IS MAKING IT DE JURE THE "ONE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH" ON WIKIPEDIA which is the most POV title possible. If it was just Roman Catholic Church AS IT WAS BEFORE maybe this article might even make it back to GOOD ARTICLE STATUS!75.73.114.111 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, the Roman Catholic Church also calls itself the "Roman Church" in its catechism. "The Catholic Church is also called the Roman Church to emphasize that the centre of unity, which is an essential for the Universal Church, is in the Roman See" http://books.google.com/books?id=7MQbg9j_sboC&printsec=frontcover&dq=An+Advanced+Catechism+Of+Catholic+Faith+And+Practice#v=onepage&q=Roman%20Catholic&f=false 75.73.114.111 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My claim that Catholic Church is the common name is false as evidenced by other users with sources? The only sources provided here were google to give an overview of what was more common, and that is clearly just Catholic Church, so I really have no idea what you're talking about.

As for your claim that calling it the Catholic Church is a "de jure" declaration that it is the one true Catholic Church of God is absolutely ridiculous, and if you had been through past discussions (as I believe someone suggested), we've been through this exact issue before. Why is it that calling it Catholic Church is tacit backing of it's truth, but calling it the Orthodox Church is not tacit backing of it's orthodoxy, or calling it the "Church of Christ" is not tacit approval of it being THE church of Christ? This accusation of tacit approval of a Church's truth based solely on its name is leveled only at the Catholic Church. Sure, the Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be THE catholic church, but that is not the Church's name. The Church's name is "Eastern Orthodox Church". Calling this article Catholic Church is in no way a statement supporting its truth. It is just calling it what it's named. Is the band One Republic an actual republic? No. It's a band. but that's it's name, so that's what the article is called. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous and has literally no logical basis whatsoever.Farsight001 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The word 'Catholic' comes from the Greek word for 'universal'. The Catholic Church is so called because it is present throughout the world and encompasses Roman, Byzantine and other rites. Eastern Orthodox claims to be Catholic, but they broke off from the Catholic Church long ago. They are no longer part of this Catholic Church, and therefore its members are fine having their own wikipedia article under a different name (look it up). They might even be offended if we tried to place their religion under this article. I agree with Farsight, the current article title is fine.TopazStar (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Orthodox are, in fact, routinely offended to find out that their Church officially calls herself the "Orthodox Catholic Church" in liturgies, and attempt to remove this information from the lede paragraph on that article. They are also unsatisfied by the article name, and requested moves are posted from time to time in an attempt to change the status quo. But so far consensus has supported these names, and posters here are strongly encouraged to search the archives so that conversation here does not go around and around in circles. Elizium23 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We do not call the EASTERN Orthodox Church the Orthodox Church (Which is also a nice rebuttel for your claim that the Eastern Roman Catholics get offended by "Roman", OH NO BUT EASTERN ORTHODOX OFFENDS THE "ORTHODOX" IN AMERICA! EASTERN ORTHODOX MUST BE ORTHODOX CHURCH NOW TO COMPLY WITH THE "CATHOLIC CHURCH" ARTICLE NAMING!). That would be POV. Same with Church of Christ. It is a disambiguation, which Catholic Church should be IMO. Catholic Church should be either a disambiguation or its own article talking about the pre-schism church and the concept itself. Also, yes, the Eastern Orthodox Church does call itself the Catholic Church, it only adds Orthodox to differentiate between the two churches. I hope you knew that. Topaz, you should read up on history and also the Eastern Orthodox Church. All I heard from you is propaganda from the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church. Your argument can be made in the opposite way. The Catholic if from the Greek word, καθολικός, which means universal. The Catholic Church is so called because it is present throughout the world and encompasses Roman, Byzantine and other rites. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be Catholic, but they broke off from the Catholic Church long ago. They are no longer part of this Catholic Church, and therefore its members are fine having their own wikipedia article under a different name, Roman Catholic Church (look it up in the Archives). It is pure rubbish argument. Elizium, read the talk page there again, you seem to have read it wrong. There is one person there who said their friend said the Eastern Orthodox Church did not call itself Catholic so he wanted to know what it called itself. Then IN UNISON, all editors corrected his friend on his historical error, as they do claim to be "Catholic" and the editor who believed it did not admitted his error and said the Eastern Orthodox do call itself Catholic. Please show me requested moves to change the name, requests to change it to only Orthodox Church is POV and should be rejected, but in the same time it should be the same here for Catholic Church to be rejected as the name. I have a feeling you just made the rest up as you were likely in ignorance misinterpreting the talk page there.75.73.114.111 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You will get exactly 0 people to agree with you if you contend that they're part of a massive Catholic Conspiracy to use Wikipedia to promote catholicism based on a word that should be ruled "obscure" and "Greek" by anyone foolish enough to be caught up in this. I think WP:DENY should take over here. If you want to yell, be our guest, but I think we're all a little done listening to you. Achowat (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you might have a problem with the naming of the Eastern Orthodox article. If that is so, then go there and take issue with it there. This talk page is for improving THIS article only. If you only have angry rants to provide, and are simply going to continue to ignore our repeated policy-based explanations, then you are clearly not trying to contribute to improving the article. And, as other policies state, any post on the talk page not related to article improvement can be simply hatted or deleted. So really, you should count yourself lucky that half of your posts are still here at all. Provide a tangible, policy-based argument free of rants and accusations of conspiracies, or find another website.Farsight001 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Gay Marriage

Hi, I'm new! I think there should be a section in here where it talks about what the Catholic Church says about gay marriage. I know this is controversial, but all that needs to be done is that there be a short paragraph on what the Church believes, because I am sure there are many people curious about it. The Church's public stance on the issue has been clear enough that a one-liner and a reference could say it, and then the opposite point of view could be stated with a reference of its own. I propose the following: The Church holds a firm and controversial stand against gay marriage, because the Church defines marriage as between one man and one woman. (reference: Catechism of the Catholic Church #1601, 1603-1605, 1660) There are some Catholics who disagree with this stand however, arguing that the Church should change its position. (insert reference, perhaps a news article stating this position) Well, what do you think? I know there has been a section on this topic in the article previously, so this is nothing new. 76.101.4.117 (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A recent edit connected two sentences as follows: The church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. Therefore it teaches that homosexuality is instinctively disordered and that homosexual behavior is "contrary to the natural law". I disagree that the Church's teachings on marriage form the basis for her teachings on homosexuality. The basis for the teaching against homosexuality is based on Sacred Scripture and natural law, not on another teaching. It is also synthesis to make this claim without a source that explicitly says so. Elizium23 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a source present. Also, if it is natural for a man and woman to marry, as the sentence above (with proper sources) outlines, then it must be un-natural if there is something against the nature of marriage present, even in its natural and not sacramental state. Thus it is unnatural for two men to marry, and so on. Also, while you may disagree with the Church's teachings, the above is still what the Church teaches. This is not a forum for opinion, but for truth, and it would be untrue to say that the Church supports gay marriage. If you like, you may add to the teaching with one of your opinions why it should change its position, keeping it neutral of course, as long as you give proper sources to back up your claim.TopazStar (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? Please respond to my concerns as written, not some imaginary opinion I have about Church teachings. Elizium23 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Beg pardon, I misunderstood your argument. The basis for the Church's teaching on gay marriage is both Scripture and natural law, which is also the basis for its teaching on marriage. And because gay marriage is the opposite of natural marriage, one can say that the Church's teachings on gay marriage come from its teachings on true marriage.TopazStar (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But that is not what you have asserted. Nowhere in the Catechism does it say that the Church's teachings on homosexuality proceed from the Church's teachings on marriage. Yes, the Church's teachings on gay marriage may proceed from that, but that is not what you have asserted, you have asserted that the reason for judging homosexual behavior "intrinsically disordered" proceeds from the marriage teaching, which does not make any sense and cannot be supported by any reliable source. Elizium23 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But it does make sense. The Church says it is disordered, because it against what is ordered. What is ordered is the natural union of man and wife. Anything other than that, be it polygamy, gay marriage or whathaveyou, is disordered because it is unnatural and against what God planned. Thus homosexuality is disordered because it is against true marriage. TopazStar (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am very glad that it makes sense to you. Now please furnish a source which supports your assertions or you are guilty of synthesis. Elizium23 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, my friend: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html#fn9 Specifically, you might be interested in number 4. In Christ, TopazStar (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel your source is sufficient, and I feel that you misrepresent teaching on sex and marriage. The teachings on marriage are based on sexual complementarity, procreation, and a need for a family unit to raise children, while the teachings on homosexuality and gay marriage come from the same bases, not directly from the teachings on marriage as you are attempting to prove. However, I will leave the judgement to other editors, as we seem to be at an impasse. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that the teachings on gay marriage come only from the teachings on marriage, but that they come from sacred scripture and are supplemented by the teachings on marriage. That said, I second the motion to leave it to other editors, and I thank you for the debate.TopazStar (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Herein lies part of the problem. You keep mentioning "gay marriage" when your edits made assertions about homosexuality in general, not "gay marriage". Elizium23 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Related to the above, you took a source describing "acts" and replaced the word "homosexuality" in the sentence with "homosexual inclinations". Be careful that you don't accidentally misrepresent the sources. eldamorie (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that Wikipedia should remain honest, genuine and exact on the teachings against Homosexuality by the Church. To maintain integrity, proper source should be cited and should adhere to the teaching of the Magisterium regardless of popular opinion. This is neutral wikipedia, and the teachings of the church state that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and is against both natural and moral law. Tomlin87721 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Tom Linden

If you'd notice, that IS what the article says. The only dispute is to how to frame that information. eldamorie (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Catholic drift

There's been a bit of a tendency by editors of late to state Catholic doctrines as fact rather than opinion, using Church documents/the Bible as references to support them, which carries the danger of reducing the objective, encyclopaedic tone of the page. It's nowhere near as bad as it has been in the past but it's still something we should be aware of I think. Haldraper (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Long time, no look at this page. Still mostly useless. The material during the old tyranny two or three years ago was one sided and far too Catholic oriented, but the term "objective, encyclopaedic tone of the page" is just laughable buddy. I had not looked on here for a while, but the page is still a serious candidate for a BA (Bad Article) award. During the old tyranny (a few, including yourself, may remember that) the page was propaganda based, but was well kept and well presented. Now it is just shamefully unkempt and disordered, e.g. there are two instances of the handing of the keys to Peter (same img) within the page. And much of the presentation is just confused and a few smart 10 year olds could have done better than this. I am not going to edit here, but could you all do us a favor and replace this with someone who looks less confused? And look at the See also section: pretty irrelevant. So overall, a terrible quality downgrade since the tyranny days, if you catch the drift - pun intended. I will not be watching here.... History2007 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The point of the article is to state what the Catholic Church is, which means it must state what the Church believes, not what other people think or assume it believes. As such, with regard to the material in the article, what the Church believes in stone should be considered as good as fact (since they do in fact believe it), and what individuals think it should change is their own opinion. Those who think the Catholic Church should change something may say so with a reference to back up their point, but cannot dispute the fact that the Church believes things in a certain way. Therefore they should not try to change the facts of the Church to fit their own opinions and agenda. That said, it should still be neutral and the article is looking much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.4.117 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is fine in my opinion (besides the terrible title). Should one expect an article like this to be unbiased and critical? It is certainly better than nothing! It clearly portrays the beliefs of the church, there is no distortions of their beliefs I don't see. The article right now is a good summary of the Roman Catholic Church in its view, and at least it has some secular sources to counteract it. I would agree the content itself is getting better, excluding the changing of Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church in the title and in the article as it makes Wikipedia seem like it endorses the Roman Catholic Church to be the "One True Church" when it should not endorse anyone.75.73.114.111 (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rambling Introduction

Too many chefs spoil the soup. People have piled so much of their pet topics into this introduction that it is now long, rambling, and difficult to understand. Back in April we had a nice, short, tightly written introduction. Now we have this. It doesn't really matter if the Church is the established religion in Lichtenstein, etc. I am going to slim this down to a size I think is more appropriate for Wikipedia. Feel free to disagree and discuss here. I think we should have a conversation about what truly belongs in the intro. WikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, as the previous version of the lede seemed to enjoy a wide consensus here as we all had some input on it, and this one is your own personal opinion of what belongs. Please revert and discuss first. Elizium23 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been on in a while, so I suppose I am out of the loop. But reading through the talk page, the only part of the introduction that I was aware a consensus had been reached on was the section about Mary. I left this section untouched out of respect to the editors who worked hard on it. ETA I think the intro had some good content, just with the length of it, it would be much better in the body of the article than here ETA if you go through the history, there had been a consensus introduction that stayed nearly the same for about two years. In the past months it has been changed and lengthened. My edit largely mirrors the original consensus intro.WikiCatholicIndiana(talk)

I also object to the part about the Eucharist and transubstantiation, because that is not a teaching of 22 sui iuris Catholic Churches, only the Latin Church; that is explained in the body of the article, and it was fine before you changed it. The Catholic Church is a complex subject and while I am sure the last lede section could be trimmed a bit, you basically threw it out and started over. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You also took out mention of the Eastern Catholic Churches and religious institutes and their spirituality, which was extensively discussed here also. Elizium23 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the remark about transubstantiation. I wonder what grounds there are for supposing that the non-Latin autonomous particular Churches reject the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent that the whole substance (reality) of the bread and wine are changed into that of the body and blood of Christ, a change that, the Council said, is fittingly called "transubstantiation". Is the remark based perhaps on an idea that the Council of Trent dogmatized Aristotelian hylemorphism? Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have said before, the Eastern Churches do not reject the belief in the Real Presence, they just won't necessarily call it Transubstantiation, so don't use such a broad brush to paint all the Churches in communion with Rome. Elizium23 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I still think your statement about transubstantiation needs to be "substantiated" :-). The Council of Trent defined more than the Real Presence: consubstantiation could give you the Real Presence of Christ. The Council defined that there is a change, a real change, and a total change of the reality of the bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ. The Maronite Church declares: "The Council of Trent declared the Church's official teaching on the Eucharist, and used the formula of official teaching on the Eucharist, and used the formula of transubstantiation to express this teaching. The Maronite Church, of course, believes and accepts all the teachings of Councils and of the Church" (emphases added). The Melkite Church teaches transubstatiation, and it quotes Saint John of Damascus, surely a representative of the Byzantine tradition of 14, a majority, of the Eastern Catholic Churches, as speaking of "transubstantiation". (I haven't looked for the Greek word Saint John used, probably not μετουσίωσις, but whatever it was, an Eastern Catholic Church presents its English translation as "transubstantiation".) The term "transubstantiation" is used by the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, according to this parish site and this and more. So what are the Eastern Catholic Churches that do not accept the term? Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Elizium23, you seem to be the only person supporting the less precise wording of "miraculously changed" over transubstantiated. Does the Church use this wording in any of her documents? This wording seems to me to have been originally coined by a Wikipedia editor. "Miraculously changed" seems also to be a weasel word; to many this would mean that both the substance and accidents are changed, while to others it means what the Church actually teaches, namely that only the substance is changed. I echo Esoglou in that the Council of Trent was a dogmatic council for the entire Church, not just the Latin Rite, and that its decisions are binding on the universal Church. WikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am only supporting a more general description of the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the lede (which by the way might be a better way to describe it). I only object to the specific usage of "transubstantiation" without explanation that this is Latin terminology that may be rejected by Eastern Catholics. Esoglou has certainly demonstrated that Latinization is rife in some Eastern traditions. Some even practice Eucharistic adoration! But also read Eucharistic theologies summarised. This book asserts that 'transubstantiation' is a neologism coined in ca. 1140 and introduced in a Western Thomistic context that was not absorbed by Orthodoxy until hundreds of years later, and not without much resistance. As we read in transubstantiation, the Orthodox have myriad terms for this process, and simultaneously, none at all, because many Eastern Christians will simply tell you that it is a mystery, that the Church has not defined the change, and they are perfectly happy with that explanation, as is often the case. Compare and contrast this with the Dormition of the Theotokos and the Assumption of Mary, which when defined as a dogma, the Pope carefully defined it without declaring whether Mary died first or not, thereby permitting the West to believe whatever we want, while the East holds definitively that she did die. The point of the matter is that there is a spectrum of belief that we can perfectly well address in the article body, but the lede must adequately summarise the global viewpoint of all Churches in communion with Rome without excluding valid points of view. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Playing the devil's advocate, although agreeing with Elizium, what the Council of Trent declared a dogma was the Real Presence, not the name. Every Roman Catholic believe in the Real Presence, yet not all Roman Catholic call it Transubstantiation, specifically Eastern Catholics. Dogmas are about ideas, not about names, and such should be the lede.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, since there is an article on the Latin Church, which should address differences in terminology, I also agree that the language in the lede should be inclusive of Eastern Catholics, which means stating ideas, even if it means sacrificing traditionally accepted terms in the West.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What the Council of Trent defined with regard to transubstantiation was not just the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which, as I said, even an upholder of consubstantiation would believe in, but "that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation" (Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, chapter 4); and "If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema (canon 2 of the same decree). That is the idea or doctrine that is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church, of all sections of the Catholic Church, part of "the global viewpoint of all Churches in communion with Rome". Whatever names are given to an idea or doctrine - Theotokos or Mater Dei - they should not be used to suggest that they indicate a disagreement in teaching between the different Churches in communion with Rome. Even the terminology "transubstantiation" is used by the Eastern Catholic Churches, as I have shown. When and where the term was coined is of no more importance than when and where the term "Trinity" was coined.

Note that I am not saying that the term "transubstantiation" should be used in the lead of the article. I am only commenting on what I consider to be inaccurate statements here on the Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just read what I wrote, and it has to be that I was very tired. I know that transubstantiation is about how the Real Presence happens to be. I don't know what got into me. Thanks for clarifying Esoglou. Also, thanks for bringing forth the language from Trent. It makes my point about ideas, not names (regardless of my arguing for a different idea). After doing some original research, I've found that even though Eastern Catholics in their theology agree with the "objective reality, but keep silence about technicalities", not using the word transubstantiation when referring to it, they are well aware of the word and it's meaning, and there shouldn't be any problems with using it in the lede, in this instance. Still, my argument stands, when there happens to exist different terminology for Latin and Eastern Churches, the chosen words for this article should be inclusive of Eastern Theology, even at the cost of Western accepted terminology.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about where you think you got information that "Eastern Catholics in their theology agree with the 'objective reality, but keep silence about technicalities'". Perhaps what you read was about "Eastern Orthodox". It is false to say that Eastern Catholics are "not using the word transubstantiation when referring to it": I have given examples above of Eastern Catholics of different autonomous particular Churches using the word "transubstantiation" in their teaching. Again, were you thinking of Eastern Orthodox? Within the Catholic Church, "transubstantiation" is not a term exclusive to the Latin particular Church. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou, up until now I have been charitable in entertaining your discussion, but I really must object now, based on your topic ban and associated history of POV-pushing Roman Catholic theology against Orthodoxy. Eastern Catholics are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" and I can assure you that among them, you will find a spectrum of belief and practice, some with latinizations and very friendly to the Roman Pontiff, and others with beliefs and practices more familiar with the Orthodox than anyone else. As Eastern Catholic Churches are all complementary to autocephalous Orthodox Churches, they have much in common with them. I do not deny that some or many Eastern Catholic Churches use terms from the Latin Church and these can be accurate theological terms. But they are foreign to the patrimony of Eastern theology, and your attempt to impose these terms leaves Eastern Catholicism in a "ghetto" and violates WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the eastern Churches that you call "complementary" reject the primacy and infallibility of the Pope and various other Catholic teachings that the eastern Catholic Churches do profess. If you agree that "some or many" eastern Catholic Churches use the term "transubstantiation", and if you present no reliable source that says that they (or any of them) reject the term, there is in this matter nothing that we disagree on regarding reliable-source-based Wikipedia. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please answer a question? Roman Catholicism has come up with the term 'transubstantiation' thanks to (among other things) the Roman Catholic Saint Thomas Aquinas' examination of the nature of the sacrament in his Summa Theologiae (part III, questions 73-83). The Eastern rites believe in the sacrament, although I am not sure if they expressly follow Aquinas' logic and I do not think they describe it as transubstantiation. What exactly do they call it, and how do they define it? I already tried researching the answer, but was unsuccesful. TopazStar (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Aquinas died in 1274. The term "transubstantiation" was already in use by, at latest, 1079. Aquinas was born in 1227. The Fourth Lateran Council used the verb "transubstantiated" in 1215. Aristotelianism was something that Aquinas was in his time condemned for introducing. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your answer. However, I am still curious as to what other Catholic rites call transubstantiation.TopazStar (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

They call it "transubstantiation". See the examples cited here. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I checked the sources, and this answers my question. I always knew other rites followed the same teachings re: the Eucharist, and thus the sacrament was valid, but I wasn't aware that they also termed the act of consecration 'transubstantiation'. TopazStar (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I started writing just after TopzStar's question, but several edits made it before mine. I'll leave them nonetheless.

Esoglou, your sources (all but one, St. John's), which by themselves are already enough to keep the word transubstantiation in the lede, are pastoral applications of the Catholic universal theology. What I mean, and here I agree with Elizium23, is that due to their Orthodox heritage, Eastern Catholics care not about the how's, but are happy just calling it a mystery, or saying that a change happens. The Eastern Catholics theological traditions, in general since sometimes they do as you have shown, care for other matters.

Elizium23, your attack on Esoglou is unfair and untrue. First, he gave you 4 sources to back his claim. Secondly, these sources account for three of the four largest Eastern Catholic churches (only leaving out the Ukrainian Church, for which I add this source[3].) So, according to the stated sources, most Eastern Catholics (which is not the same as most Eastern Catholic Churches) do use the word transubstantiation. He is not imposing anything.

TopazStar, as I said, Eastern Catholics believe in the idea of transubstantiation, but their theological tradition does not call it anything special, conforming to believing that something happens, and it is a mystery. They also just use the word "change" to define it. There are other differences, for example (and correct me if I'm wrong Eliziium23) as the moment when it happens. In the West, emphasis is given on the words of institution (what Christ said), while in the East, the emphasis is given to the epiclesis (when the Holy Spirit is invoked). On a special note, both events happen at the end of the Eucharistic prayer on each tradition, since in the Eastern Churches (some? all?), the epiclesis comes after the words of institution.--Coquidragon (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the different wiki articles on the Eucharist, on transubstantiation, on Eucharistic theology, and on Eucharist in the Catholic Church are very helpful.

Thank you for your answer.TopazStar (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I object to the wording "transformed" to describe the Real Presence, because the form of the elements is not changed, it is their substance that is changed. http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/TransubstantiationExplained.aspx Elizium23 (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Although 'transformed' is technically accurate because the substance is changed, it can cause confusion among those reading the article who are unused to the idea that the substance of bread can be changed while the accidents of bread (taste, shape, etc) remain. This might not be any better, but do you have any objections to "The Church teaches that bread and wine used during the Mass becomes the body and blood of Christ ..." ? TopazStar (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe "The Church teaches that bread and wine used during the Mass becomes the body and blood of Christ while retaining the appearance of bread…" ?TopazStar (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As is obvious from the edit I made before reading the above, I agree with TopazStar. But brevity has advantages. Esoglou (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you guys, I made a mistake. The current wording is the best choice.WikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

History expansion

The history section quite truncated from a a year ago. I propose restoring at least parts of the original history section (archived at Old history section June 2011), focussing on perhaps the past 200 years --Zfish118 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Because there's so much history, we have a separate article specifically for the history of the Church at History of the Catholic Church. Focusing only on recent history is WP:RECENTISM.Farsight001 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I like the idea of restoring the section titles, but I think there is too much info to restore everything in the sections. I would go for a short paragraph under each heading for Early Christianity (the Apostolic period), Late Antiquity (the Dark Ages), Middle Ages, Reformation and Counter Reformation. These would be present to make a short overview of Church history. But like it was pointed out, this might not be neccesary since there is already an article on Church history. What do you other editors think? TopazStar (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think if we are going to expand anything that we add a little bit about events occurring prior to the Middle Ages. I think we are already too heavy on recent history. WikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

I think that the article is OK with regard to events occuring prior to the middle ages, although some improvement can be made in that respect. However, I think that the section heading of "Middle Ages" should be changed to "Late Antiquity", since the events described under that heading seem to belong more to the dark ages than to the middle ages. If that is changed, we might want to add another heading for the middle ages. 76.101.4.117 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bishops, Priests, Deacons

I think the beginning part about the Church hierarchy should talk about the distinctions between Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. This is fairly central to the day-to-day operations of the Church, and isn't spelled out clearly anywhere. WikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_hierarchy this is for? And I see this written in the article

"Dioceses are further divided into numerous individual communities called parishes, each staffed by one or more priests, deacons and/or lay ecclesial ministers." 75.73.114.111 (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Social Teaching Section

Regarding the new section on catholic social teaching, can someone tell me how to move the two boxes on the corporal and spritual works of mercy next to one another? The blank space on the right caused by one being below the other looks very unprofessional. TopazStar (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. Took about 10 minutes, but its well worth it. You are right, it is an eyesore. Pray hard for the LCWR nuns! :-) God Bless! QvisDevs (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

For other uses

I feel that the distinction between Catholic Church and Catholicism may be unclear to enough people that it might be better for the hat to read:

This article is about the church in communion with the Holy See. For the faith, see Catholicism. For other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation).

What do people think? Ryan Vesey 23:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

At least in the form expressed, the proposal won't pass. The term "Catholicism" is interpreted in many different ways, as the article on it states, so "the faith" is inapplicable. Esoglou (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan has a point but I agree with Esoglou that it is problematic to suggest that there is only one Catholic faith of which there are multiple churches. I note that Catholic Church (disambiguation) has an entry for Catholicism at the bottom of the page that reads "the beliefs and practices of various religious groups that identify as 'Catholic' ". While this specific text is too verbose, we could consider having something in the hatnote that says something like "For the beliefs and practices of various religious groups that identify as 'Catholic', see Catholicism. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I can agree that the word 'faith' has too much spread to be confined to the one scope as used here. When I think about treating Roman-centred Catholicism, I think about how the Old Catholic Church should be related. They aren't part of the institution, and given the strict definition here they aren't part of the institution but does that mean they aren't part of the institution? I do think something like the suggestion above (PR's) is needed, addressing the broad category of 'faith'. Shenme (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

i think the current structure on the Roman Catholic Church should remain untouched. It is correct, has already received consensus and makes proper sense. Please do not make the article verbose. the Church is already a complicated topic, it takes a lot of effort to simplify the sentences in this article. For once, I believe that Less is More should be the topic on this article. Dont be too wordy, it is a pain to read! QvisDevs (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We aren't talking about changing the structure or scope of this article. I feel there should be something in the hatnote that should show that this is about the Catholic Church (Roman Catholic) and not about Catholicism. I've only been a lurker on this article, and didn't realize the scope myself until just recently. Ryan Vesey 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

On that point of argument, you are still wrong. Wikipedia rules the most relevant term on search engines (aka Google) should prevail. The term Catholic Church rules on this one. If you don't like it, then ask Google to make the Catholic Church less relevant on their search lines. If you want to make that article change go ahead, but I think you're just nitpicking things to suit your own bias. People have already raised this question many times over, its the same answer. Look at the thread discussion on Talk page. QvisDevs (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly on a different page than me. I have no bias and I'm not nitpicking things. I don't feel like we should change anything here. All I want to do is provide a link to Catholicism in the hatnote for readers who aren't aware that Catholic Church is not the article talking about Catholicism. They are two different concepts and should be. Some readers don't understand that as can be evidenced here. Ryan Vesey 04:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Do what you want to do. QvisDevs (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @QvisDevs: wow, it seems you must be burned out on this article, as you really haven't understood the request and apparently jumped to conclusions. He wasn't asking for the article text/structure to be touched. Rather, if someone comes here with an uncertain idea of 'catholic', then it might be nice to prompt them up top, within the hatnotes, that they might be thinking of Rome, or various things called Catholic Churches, or just maybe they were thinking about the more general topic of Catholicism. Strange to say, but Catholicism isn't mentioned or linked in the first several paragraphs of the lede! But I wouldn't want to suggest any changes there, would I? Again, just a prompt in a hatnote would be a nice thing. Just like Catholic has a hatnote link to here. Cross-linking articles ain't a bad thing, right? Shenme (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok fine there is your link to "Catholicism". Geez, something so trivial you really insist on what you want. Honestly I don't think it makes a difference, but you're being hardcore and anaI about it so there. Anything else you want to edit, go ahead and do it yourself. QvisDevs (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

oldest institution

Not 'among one of the oldest institutions in the world.'

But THE oldest institution in the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/catholic/catholic_1.shtml

Just common knowledge really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.95.197 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. But what can we do? These progressive liberals dominate this article and don't like to make the Catholic Church relevant as it really is. To us all, it is THE oldest organizational institution surviving in the world. QvisDevs (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Except, of course, that this is not an objective truth as the Orthodox Church also claims to be the true embodiment and historical continuation of the ancient Catholic Church. Anglicanus (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the source, that is qualified by "in the Western world". Not the whole world. Nothing is mentioned about the putatively older institutions in other parts of the world. Elizium23 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Chinese civilization is over 5000 years old. Judaism is over 5000 years old. A city in the middle east has been continuously inhabited for several thousand years. While these may arguably span several "institutions" or regimes, it should be enough to justify a qualifier that the Catholic Church is only "among" the oldest institutions. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think most people would consider either of those examples to be "institutions"Farsight001 (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

What happened? I thought that this article was being semi-protected due to a high probability of possible vandalism? 71.72.29.241 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It was only semi protected for one day (this last time). Ryan Vesey 02:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church name

This article should be rename Roman Catholic Church as to comply with the need to show that the Eastern Orthodox Church (and others) also teaches Catholicism even if churches seem to diverge in the meaning of Catholic, see History of the term Catholic.

I've been writing a Wikibook covering history and this seems a disservice to historic facts and bring unnecessary confusion. 79.168.0.22 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

See previous discussions. This issue has been talked about extensively in the past. The fact that the eastern Churches also teach the four marks of the church is really just plain irrelevant. "Catholic Church" is the most common name used to refer to this entity. It is also their official name. There's really nothing more to it.Farsight001 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that might revive this within-Wikipedia issue from the coma it is in and in which it is better to leave it is the posting of statements on the lines of "It is also their (the Church's) official name", which sounds somewhat like a claim that it is the Church's only official name. Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no clear evidence I know of which supports the claim that "Catholic Church" or any other name is somehow the only "official" name. It is certainly the usual name by which the church now refers to itself but that is not the same thing. If there is such a thing as an "official name" it is probably something such as "Holy Catholic and Roman Church". We really don't need to open this issue again in any case. Anglicanus (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church is similar but different that the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. The primary differences if that the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church does not recognize the Pope as the leader of their Church. To the Eastern Church he is one of many bishops. This is what caused the great Schism The word Catholic in both religions is confusing but they are similar but different religions altogether. Please see detailed explanation at Talk:Sacraments of the Catholic Church Section: Two similar but different Religions. Mugginsx (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality and Gender Issues Rewrite

I propose editing the language on Humanae Vitae to read:

The Church teaches that sexual intercourse should only take place between a married man and woman, and should be without the use artificial birth control or contraception. In his encyclical Humanae Vitae[174] (1968), Pope Paul VI firmly rejected all artificial contraception as contrary to both the procreative purpose and total self gift of sexual intercourse. Instead, he encouraged the regulation of births by means of natural family planning, which remains open to procreation through periodic abstinence, limiting intercourse to naturally infertile times. This teaching was continued especially by John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, where he clarified the Church's position on contraception, abortion and euthanasia by condemning them as part of a "culture of death" and calling instead for a "culture of life".[175]

Immediately following the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, dissenting theologians vociferously argued that the birth control pill, prohibited by Pope Paul VII, should be considered a morally justifiable method of contraception.

I would like to hear how other editors feel about such an edit and would love to hear any improvements that are suggested. I think the text that I am proposing has the advantages of being more clear and more specific. wikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there appear to be no objections, I will go ahead and make the edit. I'm still open to discussing this edit with anyone who is interested, thoughwikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

The text you are proposing does not seem neutral to me and the additional paragraph is not supported ----Snowded ^TALK 18:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the second paragraph is badly done. I was trying to find a way to include some information from the existing text without creating pronoun confusion, since there is a sentance that reads "This teaching was continued especially by Pope John Paul II." The word "this" could mean the Pope's teaching, or the dissent, depending on how it was read. I figured it was easier to move it to another paragraph. But I agree it was tacky. I'll oblige and simply drop the language. Are there other non-neutral wordings in here? I don't see how that could be. wikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

The current wording is fine. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Two problems with the proposed paragraphs. First, it needs to be folded up in terms of "the Church teaches..." or "Catholics believe..." rather than stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. This is to comply with WP:NPOV. Also an NPOV concern is wording such as "dissenting theologians" and "vociferously argued". If it is not reported that way in reliable secondary sources then we can't insert an intense term like vociferous. Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How does this look then:

The Church teaches that sexual intercourse should only take place between a married man and woman, and should be without the use artificial birth control or contraception. In his encyclical Humanae Vitae[174] (1968), Pope Paul VI taught that artificial contraception is contrary to both the procreative purpose and total self gift of sexual intercourse. Instead, he encouraged the regulation of births by means of natural family planning, which remains open to procreation through periodic abstinence, limiting intercourse to naturally infertile times. Pope John Paul II expanded on these teachings in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, where he clarified the Church's position on contraception, abortion and euthanasia by condemning them as part of a "culture of death" and calling instead for a "culture of life".[175]

WikiCatholicIndiana (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks good. Are critical responses to the Churches teachings found in an adjacent paragraph? Majoreditor (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Its an improvement, but it doesn't reflect the controversy. As far as I am aware its not been declared by the Pope "de fide" and teaching varies in practice on birth control. Confusing the issue of birth control with issues of homosexuality also seems wrong. Not that both don't need to be handled, but they should be separate. The birth control issue was and is a major one. Its various controversies are at least in part reflected in the present wording. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The controversy? You are confusing what individual Catholics believe vs. what the Church actually teaches. There is no controversy whatsoever within the actual magisterium of the church over the birth control issue, and never has been. There should be no controversy implied in the wording of the birth control section, because the teaching of the church on this matter is definitive, consistent, and final. While there has not been any Extraordinary Magisterium teaching on the birth control issue, in the form of an ex-cathedra statement, there is an overwhelming amount of Ordinary Magisterium supporting this teaching. To see the constancy of the Church's stance, look no further than Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and The Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly CCC 2370. I challenge you to find any Church document that in any way contradicts these statements or in any way backs up your assertion that there is a controversy within the Church over this teaching. The controversy that does exist is between individual Catholics as to whether they think the church teaching should be followed, but not in regards to what the church teaching actually is. A paragraph discussing the reaction of dissenting theologians or commissions or individual bishops, none of which have any authority over what the church teaches, and is clear in that regard, would be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCatholicIndiana (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct - the controversy is outside the Church, not within it. And the Pope doesn't have to declare everything to make it doctrine requiring assent of faith and submission of intellect. See Magisterium. Elizium23 (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

At the time it came out it was controversial and remained so with individual teaching allowing birth control. From the statements above WikiCatholicIndian is taking a somewhat doctrinaire (sic) and highly centralised view of the teaching of the Church. Apologia is not the function of Wikipedia ----Snowded ^TALK 08:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you disagree with WikiCatholicIndian, I invite you Snowded to find sources stating a different teaching for the Church. Remember that WP is all about sources. WikiCatholicIndian has his, where are yours stating that there is actually internal controversy due to conflicting opinions within the Church as to its teachings? If you can't find them, then the controversy is external to the Church, and has no place in this article.--Coquidragon (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well even in 1965 over 50% of Catholics did not following the teaching, and it is not a matter pertaining to the faith. But that is not the point really. I am not wanting to insert text, I am happy with the existing wording and I don't see WikiCatholicIndian making a good case for change. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "thus contradicting dissenters in the Church that saw the birth control pill as an ethically justifiable method of contraception" is an opinion. There are no sources that there are dissenting voices in the magisterium of the Church. The Church is pretty clear in what it teaches. I agree with the new wording, since WikiCatholicIndian is removing unsourced opinions. If not, we can put a tag asking for sources and delete the sentence later when none appears, following WP criteria. This might not be a matter of faith, but it is of moral, which are also part of the Official Magisterium, even if Catholics in the West (yes, in the West, since in the rest of the World they are followed, or if not, those who don't are aware they are going against Magisterium) does not agree with them.--Coquidragon (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Church's teaching is the Church's teaching whether or not it is followed by people inside or outside the Church, whether or not it is agreed with by people inside or outside the Church. The Church's teaching is the Church's teaching also regardless of the manner in which it has been expressed. Opinions may differ about what is the teaching of Christianity, but the teaching of the Catholic Church is unequivocal. Esoglou (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the original encyclical arose as a result of dissent and disagreement. Remember the article is reporting the history. People argued that the pill was a form of regulation not birth control, hence the commission and then the Pope made a call. A simple web search will get that but I would be surprised if anyone questioned it anyway. Esoglou, I think you have a very narrow definition of the Church's teaching. To confine that the Magisterium is bad doctrine ----Snowded ^TALK 13:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

1. As per most official positions in the Church (i.e. Creed (belief), Mass (practice), Abortion (moral)), there were several positions within the Church (not for abortion, but then again ask Biden and Kerry (just as an example, not to be political) that are Catholic that disagree with the Church on this) and the Magisterium (today or the Councils when in function) determines what is the correct belief or practice, as in this matter.

2. This is not "History" but "Contemporary issues." The official position of the Church is stated, and then well-sourced disagreements with the official position of the Church are stated, again, disagreements with the teachings or practices of the Church, since those are clearly stated.

3. There is within the Church's body a large diversity of matters of theology and practice, where several, sometimes contradictory, positions are held, none being condemned or supported officially by Church. In these cases, a Catholic person can hold the position that finds most convincing or coherent with Christ's teachings. There are other matters, such as the one in question, where the Church's Magisterium has been determined. That's the Church's official teaching until the time comes when it changes, officially. Snowded, your critic of Esoglou is unfounded.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what this has to do with the question to be honest. The article makes a historical reference and is as far as I am concerned uses a better form of words than the new one proposed. Humanae Vitae took place in a specific historical context (the 1965 book The Time has Come for example) and that cannot be ignored. Your statement that "thus contradicting ..." is an opinion is simply not true. The question was controversial per my comments above. While I am happy to discuss issues of Church Authority (and my criticism of Esoglou is not unfounded by the way) its not especially significant. As to asking Binden and Kerry I think you illustrate the problem here. Tthe debate seems to be is coming from the manachian culture that goes with any discussion of religion in the US, along with some ideas of authority which are strange to say the least. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"The original encyclical arose as a result of dissent and disagreement." So what? The proposed text begins: "The Church teaches that ..." Do you think the Church teaches the opposite?! Or do you think that whatever idea, agreeing or disagreeing, assenting or dissenting, sensible or crazy, some member of the Church ever expressed or now expresses can be called what the Church itself teaches?!!! Surely not. You speak of "dissent": dissent from what, if not from the Church's teaching? Esoglou (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, instead of writing an encyclopaedic piece about the development of the subject, setting the historical context, the proposed text jumps straight into "the Church teaches ...". Its an unnecessary change. As to your little tirade, please stop trying to polarise discussion into extremes. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It should not be hard at all to source statements about the vast majority of rank-and-file Catholics disagreeing with teaching on artificial birth control. It is certainly an oft-quoted statistic today, in light of the HHS Mandate, that "98% of married Catholics are using ABC." This sad and sorry situation comes about from over forty years of inaction on the part of the Church hierarchy after the advent of Humanae Vitae, because it was seen as an unpopular and rather inconvenient teaching. The Church and her teaching authority are united and unequivocal in the facts: ABC is grave matter and an intrinsic evil. The Catholic people are divided and muddled in their reply: we will use it anyway if we feel like it. Again, sources should definitely not be hard to come by to document these assertions, but it must be clear that while the Church has heretofore been relatively silent, she has not reversed or quashed her teaching, which has been the same all along. Elizium23 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, it was genuinely open which way the Church would fall after it commissioned that enquiry which lead to Humanaw Vitae, neither is opposition confined to rank and file not was it. The point is that Church Doctrine and teaching has adapted to events in the world, Catholicism unlike Protestantism is not solely dependent on a single point or revelation, justification by works etc. etc. etc. In writing the article we need to set the context which the current text does. We should not just be repeating what the Church through the Magisterium promulgates. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The existing wording impies, as Snowded himself suggested, that there is a controversy within the Magisterium of the church regarding the stance on birth control, and that its morality is an open question within Catholic theology. That is not true. The current wording is misleading and should be changed to my text, or another text that is unambiguous on the Church's constant moral teaching. Another issue I will bring up is that the current text makes it sound like outlawing ABC was a "big idea" of Pope Paul VI. The reality is that the Church has not permitted birth control at any point in her 2,000 year history, and even opposed primitive forms of birth control back during Roman times. It is important that we replace the current text with an unambiguous text that is clear on the Catholic Church's unchanging and final teaching on the issue. The current text sounds like it was intentionally obscured by a Catholic who didn't want to have to deal with following the Church's teachings.wikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

No it doesn't imply that it simply states what the position was at the time. You are sounding more and more like you want to write this article from a rather narrow and polemical perspective. Your last sentence is a bit of a give away there as is your user handle. We are here to provide a neutral point of view. I love the sweeping statements by the way. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a tract from Catholic Answers explaining the Church's historical teaching on ABC. I would argue for its validity as a reliable secondary source. Catholic Answers is well-known and respected for its editorial oversight and fact-checking. It seems to me that the facts are clear: the Christian Church, from its roots in Old Testament times, through the Apostolic and Patristic Ages, through the Protestant Reformation, has always condemned ABC. It was not until 1930 when the Anglican Communion started a break in the dam. I do not see evidence here of an "open question", I do not see evidence of "controversy" within the Church or even ecclesial communities; while there may have been much push-back from the faithful of all kinds throughout history, what sin or heresy can you say has not enjoyed its supporters? Again, if there has been historical rebellion from people in the pews, then that should be easy to document. But I contend that this has been a settled question in the Catholic Church since ancient times. Ecumenical councils and papal encyclicals are often used just as much to reiterate an orthodox teaching and quash stirring heresies as they are to develop doctrine. I contend that Humanae Vitae was issued merely to repeat the same old, same old teaching that the Church has held for thousands of years, in the face of new questions such as the hormonal pill and the latex condom. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure others agree with you unfortunately Wikipedia is not a place to "quash stirring heresies" ----Snowded ^TALK 18:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but it is a place for neutrally reporting the facts, which I have given you, backed up by a reliable source; I have nowhere suggested that we use my own verbiage for wording in the article. I am merely requiring that all factual assertions in the article be accompanied by a source. You want to include "controversy" and "dissent" as part of the context - that is fine, please provide your reliable sources to document such, and I will welcome that point of view. What me and WCI are contending against you is that there is some sort of disagreement among bishops or popes in the hierarchy of the Magisterium; you may possibly find scattered voices of dissent among the liberal episcopate, but you will not find valid dissent in Church teaching; the Magisterium does not dissent with itself. You seem to be taking the position or point of view that the Church is some kind of democracy, but that is not the Catholic Church. The Church interprets faith and morals for the people, who listen and obey because of her authority. The primary objective of this article is to document Catholic belief. There are separate articles to document controversy and criticism; although notable controversy would not be unwelcome to this article due to the principle of WP:NPOV. But if we are to document Catholic belief, we must say that ABC is considered grave sin. To believe otherwise is not Catholic belief, it is dissent. There has never been a doubt or controversy by the teaching authority of the Church. The dissent is wholly in the minds of the faithful. Many teenage boys believe masturbation is OK, that doesn't affect Catholic belief in the matter. Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And if we were agreed that the paragraph in question should start off with "The Church teaches ...." then you would have a point. However the position of the church in this respect takes place in a historical context. Humanae Vitae made a statement in a context where people with the Church were advocating that the Pill was a method of regulation not birth control (i have give you a reference for that). The article reflects that, your proposed amendment would switch the tone to one of advocacy. At no stage have I taken the position that the Church is a democracy, I have argued that you can't confine the position of the Church to that of the Magisterial and your continued use of phrases like "considered grave sin" and "listen and obey because of her authority" further confirms me in my view that you are trying to shift the article to one of advocacy of a rather conservative perspective. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Then for Heaven's sake just add the source! I am trying to effect no such shift. The current wording is perfectly fine with me. There is just no source for the assertion about "dissenters". That's my only problem with it. Contentious information likely to be challenged requires a reliable secondary source. Add it and I'm fine. I have not seen this source you claim to provide. It does not appear here on the talk page, and if it is in the page history I have not looked. I apologize for missing it. Elizium23 (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you had made that clear life would have been easier. There are a range of sources. Remember that the Pontifical Study Commission on Family, Population and Birth Problems, set up by John XXIII had a majority that was pro pill and a minority was against (it was leaked). It said for example "it is impossible to determine exhaustively by a general judgement and ahead of time for each individual case what these objective criteria will demand in the concrete situation of a couple". The world expected teaching to change, but after three years Paul VI supported the minority. Rock's book The Time has Come advocated the control position. von Hildebrand said procreation might be the purpose of sex. but love was its meaning. The Dutch Hierarchy wanted the use of the pill to be considered in a broader context. Pyle's The Pill and Birth Regulation and The Pope and the Pill have examples as I remember it. I don't really see the need for citation here as there is little doubt about the controversy, but that might be my age showing. If you really want a reference the Pyle book would probably do it. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I am guilty of not being clear enough also. I see no problem documenting the oposition of the faithful. My concern is that the existing text is ambiguous. The phrase "Pope Paul VI firmly rejected all artificial contraception, thus contradicting dissenters in the Church that saw the birth control pill as an ethically justifiable method of contraception, though he permitted the regulation of births by means of natural family planning" seems to put the Pope and the unnamed dissenters on equal ground as to who is in charge of church teaching, and the section on natural family planning starting with "though he permitted" makes it sound like the nfp issue was a compromise between him and the dissenters. Using the sources suggested by Elizium23 and Snowded, I propose giving complete context and removing all ambiguity. A rough draft would look like:

The Church teaches that sexual intercourse should only take place between a married man and woman, and should be without the use artificial birth control or contraception. Soon after the close of the Second Vatican Council, Church teachings about sexuality became an issue of increasing controversy due to changing cultural attitudes in the Western world (see the Sexual Revolution).]

The Catholic Church has always taught that any form of artificial birth control is contrary to what it considers to be the divinely created purpose of sexual intercourse, and is thus a grave sin. During Roman times, the Catholic Church opposed the primitive forms of birth control that existed then. As Chritian Churches boke away from the Catholic Church, all continued to hold to the position of the Catholic Church on this issue. During the 20th Century, attitudes on birth control began to change, and in the 1930s the Anglican Church became the first Christian denomination to allow the use of it. As more Christian denominations began to change thier teaching on the issue, pressure grew on the Catholic Church to consider altering its teaching as well. Catholic theologians began considering if the newly invented birth control pill could be morally justified. The Pontifical Study Commission on Family, Population and Birth Problems recommended to the Pope that Catholics be allowed to use the pill, and a Dutch Synod of Bishops suggested that the issue be studied.]

In his encyclical Humanae Vitae[174] (1968), Pope Paul VI upheld the Catholic teaching that artificial contraception is contrary to both the procreative purpose and total self gift of sexual intercourse. Instead, he encouraged the regulation of births by means of natural family planning, which remains open to procreation through periodic abstinence, limiting intercourse to naturally infertile times. Pope John Paul II expanded on these teachings in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, where he clarified the Church's position on contraception, abortion and euthanasia by condemning them as part of a "culture of death" and calling instead for a "culture of life".[175]

wikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

Given that the current wording says that Paul VI rejected and contradicted I don't see how you can say it implies equal ground. Providing a richer context would be better, but you seem intent on arguing for the article to adopt a particular conservative position. Uses of phrases like Western World for example ignore the influence of Aggiornamento on and by Latin America where change was more all encompassing in its vision before the suppression of the Mendellin Conference, there were also movements in African and the Philippines. Your proposed wording makes some very absolutist statements, its whole tenor is justification. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the last wording offered. Snowded, when will you be happy? The new wording has the historical perspective (giving context as you requested) and it mentions the controversy (as you requested). Your words "the article to adopt a particular conservative position" is your opinion. The Catholic Church position is what is. The Church is not concerned that its sexual morality position aligns with conservatism, nor it is concerned that its social morality position aligns with liberalism. Your comments show your disagreement with the Church's "conservative" position, but if the wording seems absolutist, it is because the Church's teaching are absolute, and by that, I mean unambiguous. The Church can either teach that contraception is allow, or it can teach it isn't. NEWS FLASH, it isn't. That's it. Now, WCI seems to be doing your job on this. It wasn't up to him to offered wording to reflect your view. If you disagree so much with the last wording, please, let's end this, offer your own wording, and let us agree on it.--Coquidragon (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that the current wording is not acceptable for lack of sources and for its ambiguity in its reflecting the Church's position. So, let's work on it.--Coquidragon (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I will not be happy as long as editors attempt to make this section of the article reflect a conservative position (which includes your 'absolute' statement by the way) within the Church. Its needs to properly set the historical context and not have all the apologia of WCI's last draft. If you want an illustration of the problem look at what s/he is trying to say, the narrative thread tells a story of unchanging views over different historical contexts. I know that is the conservative position within the Church (as are your statements on absolutism), but its not NPOV. As to wording, I think the current wording is fine, its the two of you who want to change it, and for the worse as far as I can see. I'm happy to insert a reference for the contradictory aspect if anyone really thinks that is an issue.

I also note that this is an important section of the article. Paul VI in effect turned his back on Aggiornamento with the encyclical, and that combined with the suppression of the Mendelin conference by the last two Popes (the latest in a former role) produced the focus on sexual practice which characterises much of the debate even since. So the way it is portrayed, as a key turning point in the history of the Church, is critical. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no conservative position. The Church teaches ABC are not allow. You don't agree. Many don't agree. Fine! Nevertheless, there is only one position in the teachings of the Church. As for the current wording, let's see it.

Pope Paul VI firmly rejected all artificial contraception, thus contradicting dissenters in the Church that saw the birth control pill as an ethically justifiable method of contraception... Excuse me, but the Pope doesn't contradicts dissenters. The Pope states the position of the Church. Dissenters disagree with the Pope. This first sentenced is ambiguous. Dissenters believe ABC are ethically justifiable method of contraception? Well, the Pope said they are not. Dissenters are free to dissent, are free to disagree, but they disagree with the position of the Church, which hasn't changed in 2000 years. This first sentence is ambiguous and needs new wording.

... though he permitted the regulation of births by means of natural family planning. "Though?" This sentence weighs the Pope statements against the dissenters. It should be the opposite, it should weigh the dissenter's position against the Church.

This teaching was continued especially by John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, where he clarified the Church's position on contraception, abortion and euthanasia by condemning them as part of a "culture of death" and calling instead for a "culture of life. Yes, first Paul VI, then JP II and then Benedict XVI. All three Popes have stated the official teaching of the Church. Is this conservatism? That's your opinion.

You say "its needs to properly set the historical context and not have all the apologia of WCI's last draft... the narrative thread tells a story of unchanging views over different historical contexts" Yes, can you find a source that cites the Church's teachings as being different? I am not speaking about a theologian or priest. I am talking about somewhere or sometime in history where the Church has approved of ABC. The position of the Church has never changed and there is plenty of sourcing in that regard.

You say "I know that is the conservative position within the Church (as are your statements on absolutism), but its not NPOV." "Conservative position?" Again, history and the documents of the Church are against you in this one. You claim NPOV. What would be NPOV in this regard? Misrepresenting the teachings of the Church? Giving undue weight to the opinion of dissenters? WP is an encyclopedia and should state the position of the Church. This is what all of this is about. Here are three WP editors, two with plenty of history in WP, telling you that the current wording is NOT fine, it isn't.

You say the Pope turned his back on "aggiornamento." That is also an opinion, so I won't comment.

You mentioned several times the Medellín Sinod. Have you read its documents? I have and you shouldn't be using it in your arguments since it took place after "Humanae Vitae" and it supports its opinion "La enseñanza del Magisterio en la Encíclica es clara e inequívoca sobre la exclusión de los medios artificiales para hacer voluntariamente infecundo el acto conyugal" (Medellín, 11a). [In English: The teaching of the Magisterium in the encyclical is clear and unambiguous about the exclusion of artificial means to make the marriage act infecund.] Moreover, Medellín was a Latin American council, and its decisions were never uninversal. BTW, in 1989 CELAM said: "El liberalismo sexual va ganando foros de legitimidad. Ya nadie parece sentirse preocupado por los problemas que hasta pocas décadas tenían un tratamiento privileagiado: masturbación, relaciones pre-matrimoniales y promiscuas, contraceptivos de todo tipo, aborto, homosexualismo, divorcio, agrupamientos conyugales sin ningún vínculo, familias simultáneas, etc." In good Spanish, it critizices all types of contraception. So, I ask again. Where is the dissenting voice in the teachings of the Church?

You say "... produced the focus on sexual practice which characterises much of the debate even since. So the way it is portrayed, as a key turning point in the history of the Church, is critical." If for you, a turning point in the History of the Church is its position on sexual morality, let's agree to disagree on this.

So, we have wording that needs to be changed and we have you to make sure the new wording doesn't portray a "conservative" view. Please, I ask again, help us find a better wording.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think you are reading what is being said here. The current wording does not need to be changed in my view. One other editor is happy with it if a reference is added and two of you want to change it. As I side note I mentioned Medellin to indicate that there was a much wider context to what was happening in the 60s. Oh and I'm an experienced editor as well, and seem to have more knowledge/experience of the period in question than you do. Rather than deliver increasingly lengthy lectures to me on your interpretation of the authority of the Church, doctrine etc. I suggest you focus on outlining exactly why you feel a change is needed.----Snowded ^TALK 09:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is your response? Coquidragon raises serious issues with the text, and your response is that you are also an experienced editor? We understand completely that you want the wording kept the same. We disagree. Significant issues have been raised with the text, which you have either not addressed or not addressed adequately to convince the other editors that the existing text is ideal. Let's review some of the problems that I see with the existing text:

1. The article implies that Pope Paul VI was the first Catholic ever to teach that ABC was immoral. The reality is that this has always been the official position of the Catholic Church. The text should read "Pope Paul VI upheld the Catholic teaching that artificial contraception is contrary..." rather than "Pope Paul VI rejected..." because although both are accurate, the first avoids any implication that the Pope invented this teaching in the 1960s. When you talk about the fact that historical perspective is missing, I find it strange that you only want to include the historical perspective of individual Catholics opposing Church teaching, leaving out the historical perspective of the actual church teaching.

2. "though he permitted the regulation of births by means of natural family planning" could be understood as pejorative. It makes it sound like the Pope doesn't really like nfp much either, but he is willing to look the other way. Perhaps I am he only person that reads it this way, but don't you think using positive language such as is done in my proposed text is clearer and free of ambiguity? "Instead, he encouraged the regulation of births by means of natural family planning." Isn't that better?

3. If you want historical context, it's impossible to do that in a sentence fragment that is sandwiched between two other sentence fragments discussing actual Church teaching. Let's examine just how badly this sentence is constructed, and how it confuses the pronouns in the following sentence: "Pope Paul VI firmly rejected all artificial contraception, thus contradicting dissenters in the Church that saw the birth control pill as an ethically justifiable method of contraception, though he permitted the regulation of births by means of natural family planning. This teaching was continued especially by John Paul II." We have the first phrase representing Church teaching, then the second phrase documenting the opposition to that teaching, and then the third phrase goes back to talking about the Church teaching. To properly provide context and remove ambiguity, we should cut up this run on sentence and make the parts that go together stay together, and make the parts that don't go together into their own sentence. I've actually expanded the context in my proposed wording, giving several sentences to documenting the opposition. What more do you want? As far as I can tell, you want to keep the Church teaching on birth control ambiguous. To add insult to injury, the exiting text begins the following sentence with the words "This teaching." It is unclear what the word "this" refers to-the teaching of the Pope, the teaching of the dissenters, or just the teaching about nfp.

4. This one can't be said better than it's been said already: "the Pope doesn't contradicts dissenters. The Pope states the position of the Church. Dissenters disagree with the Pope. This first sentence is ambiguous. Dissenters believe ABC is ethically justifiable method of contraception? Well, the Pope said they are not. Dissenters are free to dissent, are free to disagree, but they disagree with the position of the Church, which hasn't changed in 2000 years. This first sentence is ambiguous and needs new wording."

If you have a better idea for how to rectify the ambiguity, I would love to hear it. Although the existing text could be better than my text, let's not settle for good enough. Let's create a text that removes that ambiguity and is unbiased. I suggest that my proposed text does exactlty that, and if you can do better, I would love to see you do so. Whatever we do, let's agree to get rid of the current textWikiCatholicIndiana (talk • contribs) 14:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that its useful. I will go through it later today when I have some time. I am not opposed to change per se, but to change which unbalances the article. On item 4 you are plain wrong by the way. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

OK lets go through your points.

I am not sure I agree with your interpretation of the article, but we can insert something to say that he (contrary to expectations) asserted the position of Pius xii over the recommendations of the Commission set up by John. Your wider assertion is more questionable, you are asserting a historical perspective which is not referenced and anyway doesn't handle the context of the pill. It only needs a couple of sentences and that can be referenced.
I don't see how its pejorative to clearly state his position, it was after all important that he did not forbid regulation of birth. Some might argue it makes his position a little silly, but that is a matter of opinion, we need to report what he said.
See my suggestion on 1, lets make it simple
The Pope can contradict people as well as any other person and here he contradicted a commission set up by his predecessor (who would have almost certainly followed its recommendations). The Pope has to declare he is speaking de fide for it to bind the faithful. Historically the role of the pope has flluctuated, as has the authority of the teaching orders, the magisterial etc. etc. Its not the simplistic dictatorship you imply.

So, my suggestion is a simple amendment to reference his asserting the position of Pius and some possible stylistic changes. Keep it simple, keep it factual, let people form their own conclusions----Snowded ^TALK 09:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

What commission did John XXIII set up? Excuse my ignorance. As far as I can tell without having researched the matter, Paul VI himself, not John XXIII, set up an advisory study commission, without power of decision, whose majority opinion he did not accept (there was a majority and a minority report). Is this the commission you mean? And on what grounds do you say that the faithful are in no way bound by what is called the ordinary magisterium? Can you cite any teaching of the church (not merely of individuals within the church, before or after Paul VI's encyclical) that contradicts that encyclical? I'm sorry I don't understand you. Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The commission was established by John XXIII and then enlarged by Paul VI. There is also as you should be aware a debate as to the difference between the extraordinary and ordinary teaching of the Church, a brand of (mainly US) polemics which seeks to argue that in the case of birth control ordinary means extraordinary. We are not obliged to take this polemical position. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether initiated by John XXIII or not, the commission was not authorized to express the Church's teaching in either in majority or its minority report. The Church has stated that even the ordinary magisterium is authoritative. You haven't, as far as I can see, even attempted to cite of a teaching by the Church that contradicts Paul VI's teaching. Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the decision of Paul VI was controversial. That is all the article says. As to the ordinary/extraordinary issue, the point is that the teaching of the encyclical is not binding for the faith. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What you really mean is that the Church's teaching, expressed by Paul VI, was and is controversial. It is the Church's teaching, and its opponents argue that the Church's teaching is wrong and/or want the Church to change its teaching. Esoglou (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

People should not be left to draw their own conclusions over what church teaching is. The article should be unambiguous in regards to what the Church teaches, be it considered liberal, conservative, or something else. The article should provide historical context so that readers can see that this teaching has been consistent throughout the Church's 2000 year history, not an invention from the 1960s. Before you point out commissions and synods of bishops to prove that the teaching has not been consistent, let me mention that such opinions mean absolutely nothing in regards to Church teaching unless they are promulgated in a document from the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. This is an article about the Catholic Church, not about Catholics. The primary purpose of this article should be to plainly state facts about the Church. While occasional editorial remarks about people's opinions in regard to the Catholic Church are appropriate, particularly in the Contemporary Issues section, the article should not be unduly obscured by them. There is no controversy in the Church Magesterium over this teaching, and never has been, and the article should be clear on that matter. I again propose my own text as a replacement for what currently stands. I would be interested in hearing the specific criticisms of other editors in addition to Snowded on it. Snowded, if you feel that I have left out too much context, there is a clearly written context section starting with "During the 20th Century...". Simply propose a revision to add the context you feel has been left out.wikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Very quickly, as I have to leave in a few minutes, you have not provided citations to support the various assertions made in your wording. Please do so if you want to sustain the proposal. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Post Your Draft Here

To keep this talk page neat, please post your best version of the new text for this section below. I would love to see how people could modify my proposed text to make it better, or else think outside the box and propose something new and better than this. Please use the below area only for posting text for the article; please keep the discussion above.

The Church teaches that sexual intercourse should only take place between a married man and woman, and should be without the use artificial birth control or contraception. Soon after the close of the Second Vatican Council, Church teachings about sexuality became an issue of increasing controversy due to changing cultural attitudes during the Sexual Revolution.

The Catholic Church has always taught that any form of artificial birth control is contrary to what it considers to be the divinely created purpose of sexual intercourse, and is thus a grave sin. During Roman times, the Catholic Church opposed the primitive forms of birth control that existed then. As Chritian Churches boke away from the Catholic Church, all continued to hold to the position of the Catholic Church on this issue. During the 20th Century, attitudes on birth control began to change, and in the 1930s the Anglican Church became the first Christian denomination to allow the use of it. As more Christian denominations began to change thier teaching on the issue, pressure grew on the Catholic Church to consider altering its teaching as well. Catholic theologians began considering if the newly invented birth control pill could be morally justified. The Pontifical Study Commission on Family, Population and Birth Problems recommended to the Pope that Catholics be allowed to use the pill, and a Dutch Synod of Bishops suggested that the issue be studied.

In his encyclical Humanae Vitae[174] (1968), Pope Paul VI upheld the Catholic teaching that artificial contraception is contrary to both the procreative purpose and total self gift of sexual intercourse. Instead, he encouraged the regulation of births by means of natural family planning, which remains open to procreation through periodic abstinence, limiting intercourse to naturally infertile times. Pope John Paul II expanded on these teachings in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, where he clarified the Church's position on contraception, abortion and euthanasia by condemning them as part of a "culture of death" and calling instead for a "culture of life".[175]

wikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

I'm sorry, but a lot of this reeks of aplogetics, and was undoubtedly drawn from apologetic sources that would fail WP:RS. The idea that the church always believed artificial birth control is wrong is suspect. For very practical reasons, it was a non-issue until the mid-20th century, and not settled until Humanae vitae. You're going to need top-notch academic sources for any history prior to that time. Not mentioning that the decision is wildly unpopular among Catholics and very widely rejected by the faithful is a major omission. Sorry, but you've taken a fundamentally flawed approach to writing the section by basing it on the apologetic literature you have read, rather than on what reliable independent scholarly sources say. My best advice is to limit your reading to high-quality scholarly sources, and base your proposed changes on them. You have to accept the fact that apologetic sources (whether for Catholicism or for any other religious movement) are held in extremely high disregard in the real world because of their inherently self-serving nature, and cannot pass muster as reliable sources here on WP. You also seem to have lost sight of the fact that we describe the church and its teachings not on how the church and it's apologists describe it, but on how reliable independent (and in this case, scholarly) secondary sources describe it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If, as Dominus Vobisdu says, the question was a non-issue before the mid-20th century, there seems to no point in saying anything whatever about the Church's teaching before that time, and it is enough to state what the Church's position actually is. Apart from the clear statements by the Church itself, the attacks on the Church's teaching make clear what the Church's teaching actually is. Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, where are your sources? Don't attack me for not having good enough sources when you don't have any at all. I find it interesting that for all the controversy surrounding my text, no one has successfully called its factuality into question. When I have more time, I'll come back and post accurate sources that back my text up. wikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are some quotes on the non-issue of birth control before the 20th century.

"If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1). The First Council of Nicaea which defined Christ’s divinity, A.D. 325
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2). Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 195
"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17). Augustine, A.D. 419
"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps.” Augustine, Against Faustus, 15:7, A.D. 400
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with His laws? Yet such turpitude. The matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24, A.D. 391
"In truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5, A.D. 391

Quick search on google [4] The position on this has never changed. In the 20th century, with the sexual revolution in the West, many Catholics disagreed with the position of the Church, but they never claimed theirs was the Chuch's position. As to the statement from Dominus: "Not mentioning that the decision is wildly unpopular among Catholics and very widely rejected by the faithful," this only, or mainly, true in the West. This is a non issue on many other countries. This is not to say that nobody uses birth control, but that those who use it are aware they are going against the teachings of the Church. The Church's official teaching is only one, and it is in no way apologetics to make sure that is clearly understood. You can state the disagreements, but to state that the Church is not clear on this would be untrue.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That is called original research and/or synthesis Coquidragon. I'm tempted just to delete it as it has nothing whatsoever to do with editing wikipedia. Try and read up on the need for third party reliable sources.

WikiCatholicIndiana, you are proposing changes and those changes are unsourced. Its your problem to find them no that of those seeking to maintain the stays quo. If you think any of the other material in the article is not accurate then raise it - and when you raise if someone answers you have the decency to respond rather than just creating a new section and asserting the validity of you partisan proposed change. We are not here to be a mouth piece for US conservative catholics, we are here to reflect the facts. To that end I think there is a case to make it clearer that Pope Paul overruled the recommendations of a pontifical commission established by his predecessor, the the simple fact that the policy does not have the practical consent of a large number of catholics. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You dare accusing me of original research? Where are the citations that time and time again have been asked of you? This is not the article, this is the discussion page. My quotes are not supposed to be included in the article. I put them here, in the Discussion Page, to show the inaccuracy of the statement that ABC was a non-issue before the 20th Century or that the Church's teaching have changed over time. BTW, that suggestion that you are giving me, why don't you apply it to yourself and show the sources that we so much want to read where the Church's teaching are ambiguous, reliable third party sources stating that the Church's position on ABC is not clear. Nobody here doubt you and many other people disagree with the Church's teaching. That's not the question. The question is What is the Church's teaching? I am still waiting for your sources stating that it is different to what here is being said. The papal commission made a recommendation. Fine! The Pope didn't approve. That makes the Pope's statement unofficial? Where is your source? Where is your source stating that the commission's recommendation is the official Church teaching?

And before I forget, "the practical consent of a large number of catholics" is not criteria for the Church's teaching. If it were, taking into account that by the time of the Nicaea Council "Arians outnumbered the trinitarians," (not my quote, I'll give you my source if you give me yours), then a heresy won over Orthodoxy and we are all heretics, followers of a corrupted Christianity.

Finally, "We are not here to be a mouth piece for US conservative catholics," really? Is this what this is all about? I am Puerto Rican. I have lived in Latin America, in Europe, and now I'm living in Asia. What you call US conservatism, I call Catholicism, of which it is obvious, according to your opinions, there exist two, one in the US where the use of ABC falls within the Church's teaching (liberal teaching), and the rest of the world, where it doesn't.--Coquidragon (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I dare because you do, you are simply cherry picking original (not secondary) sources that support your opinion and giving those as evidence. Read up on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS please. Otherwise you are the one proposing changes to the article not me, so its down to you to provide citations to support the position you present. There are some facts here that can be referenced, such as the overruling of a majority opinion and the large scale practical dissent from the encyclical. If I make changes to insert that I will properly reference them. Otherwise your and my opinions of what is or is not catholicism may or may not be of interest to other editors, neither of us however has the right to impose that view on the article. So please stop trying to do so. Provide third party non-partisan sources to support your proposed amendments, or stop wasting people's time ----Snowded ^TALK 09:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the "majority opinion" was Church teaching?
If you cannot get even one editor to support you, who is wasting people's time? Esoglou (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Catholic canon law states: "Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it." Paul VI was the Supreme Pontiff when he issued the encyclical. The teaching he gave was a doctrine concerning morals, even if he did not intend to proclaim it by definitive act. According to their religion, Catholics are not free to ignore that teaching, but are obliged to give it a religious submission of the intellect and will. Of course, if you are not a Catholic, Catholic canon law does not apply to you. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are proposing a change to the article, I and other editors (try and keep up) have told you the wording you propose (none of which has third party citations) reads as apologia. Neither I or you are I think making proposals to change the article in respect of doctrine and the duty of catholics so all of the above is a red herring. I asked what was wrong with the existing text, was given four reasons and made a response. Todate neither you, or your fellow protagonist has bothered to answer me. All you have done is issue lectures on your particular understanding of cannon law; while interesting it has nothing to do with changes to the article. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed no wording and have voiced no support for any particular wording. I have only pointed out the baselessness of claims by you about "cannon law" and about what the Catholic Church teaches. Nobody but you has negated my observations. I repeat the question: If you are a persistent lone voice with support from nobody, who is it who is wasting people's time? Esoglou (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good, then focus on the wording proposed not on an interesting but not relevant debate about authority; and I'm not a lone voice if you check. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What caused my interventions was your repeated: a) calling Church teaching what is not Church teaching; and b) denying that papal declarations on morals require religious submission of intellect and will on the part of Catholics.

As long as you do not again make such baseless claims, I need not intervene in a situation where several editors argue against you, and only imaginary ones support your arguments. Esoglou (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I agree that the text needs sources. Here are my sources.

The Church teaches that sexual intercourse should only take place between a married man and woman, and should be without the use artificial birth control or contraception."CCC, 2370". Vatican.va. Retrieved 2012-10-01.

Soon after the close of the Second Vatican Council, Church teachings about sexuality became an issue of increasing controversy due to changing cultural attitudes during the Sexual Revolution. This sentance is part of the existing text, but I am having trouble finding a source for it. I think a missing source tag should be added until someone can find one. It shouldn't be difficult to find such a source, but can't seem to do so myself.

The Catholic Church has always taught that any form of artificial birth control is contrary to what it considers to be the divinely created purpose of sexual intercourse, and is thus a grave sin."Contraception". BBC. Retrieved 2012-10-01.

During Roman times, the Catholic Church opposed the primitive forms of birth control that existed then.St. Augusinte. "On Marriage and Concupiscence". New Advent. Retrieved 2012-10-01. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help)

As Chritian Churches boke away from the Catholic Church, all continued to hold to the position of the Catholic Church on this issue. During the 20th Century, attitudes on birth control began to change, and in the 1930s the Anglican Church became the first Christian denomination to allow the use of it."Contraception". BBC. Retrieved 2012-10-01.

The rest of the text does not appear to be as disputed, but if issues remain with it I will be glad to procur more sources. I simply don't have the time right now to finish. I will try to come back later and finish the job. wikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

Firstly you need sources, then you need to establish relevance and balance in respect of the entry. Apologists for Paul's action argue that his views represent the view of the Church for all time, and you appear to be trying to edit the article to reflect that view. I think the more relevant fact is that he rejected the majority view, we might say that then add that he claimed this to be the all time view. The latter is contested regardless of sourcing. As to the sources, the BBC one might count as third party, but its coming up as being not accessible when I check it. I suspect its a summary article rather than a reliable source but I can't check. Do you have another link? ----Snowded ^TALK 23:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I am sorry that the link does not work for you. It seems to be working fine for me. Here is the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_1.shtml. Also typing the following text into Google should result in the article being the number one result:

Christian ideas about contraception come from church teachings rather than scripture, as the Bible has little to say about the subject. As a result, their teachings on birth control are often based on different Christian interpretations of the meaning of marriage, sex and the family.

wikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

OK that worked, but its a very general piece, no mention of Pope Paul etc. etc. I have to get an early flight to the US so will not be able to look at this for some hours, but I have an idea for a compromise that might work and which could be supported. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I am very interested to hear your proposed text. Are you sure you read the whole piece? I suspect you have read only the introduction. The article goes into extreme detail, and mentions Pope Pius at least five times. I should furthermore add that I didn't use the article to source anything related to him, so that should be a non issue. I encourage you to read the entire BBC piece. Enjoy your flight.wikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

(Between lounges on cancelled and rearranged flights). The link to Pius, which is in more academic texts is I think the compromise. More when I get the chance. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBC article is not a sufficient source for the assertion that the Church *always* taught that contraception is immoral. A more academic source that discusses the history and scholarly consensus on the matter, with perhaps a footnoted quote would be more adequate. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Does any serious source say that, before the 20th century, any Christian church, or at least any major Christian church, held contraception to be moral? See Christian views on contraception and the sources cited there. Esoglou (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"The argument of theologians at the time was that the pill was regulation not contraception. We need to be very careful about how we understand the use of language over time. --Snowded ^TALK 12:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, this illustrates my point. The Catholic Church always condemned contraception. The argument made against church teaching wasn't so much that it should starting allowing contraception, but that abc wasn't contraception, but a form of regulation. I will change my proposed wording to reflect this. On other topics, I have no idea why the BBC source doesn't count. It is third party, balanced, and extremely detailed. The text goes on for about four pages. How much more detail do you want? wikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am having difficulty seeing how the BBC is an insufficient source for an article that references the USA Today and This Rock Magazine.wikiCatholicIndiana (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Read up on WP:SYNTH the issue here is the commentary on Paul's decision. --Snowded ^TALK 15:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the BBC link is that it is itself a tertiary source, a reference section equivalent to Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. The information is not itself an authority, but relies on the research of others not explicitly stated. There many very good sources that support the notion that the Catholic Church has always condemned contraception. It is sloppy to not use these sources. The claims of the Catholic Church can stand up to the most vigorous academic scrutiny - use strong sources to demonstrate this! --Zfish118 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Text, Revised and Sourced

Here is a revised and sourced version of the text I am proposing.

The Church teaches that sexual intercourse should only take place between a married man and woman, and should be without the use artificial birth control or contraception."CCC, 2370". Vatican.va. Retrieved 2012-10-01.

Soon after the close of the Second Vatican Council, Church teachings about sexuality became an issue of increasing controversy due to changing cultural attitudes during the Sexual Revolution. This sentence is part of the existing text, but I am having trouble finding a source for it. I think a missing source tag should be added until someone can find one. It shouldn't be difficult to find such a source, but can't seem to do so myself.

The Catholic Church has always taught that any form of artificial birth control is contrary to what it considers to be the divinely created purpose of sexual intercourse, and is thus a grave sin."Contraception". BBC. Retrieved 2012-10-01.

During Roman times, the Catholic Church opposed the primitive forms of birth control that existed then.St. Augusinte. "On Marriage and Concupiscence". New Advent. Retrieved 2012-10-01. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help)

As Christian Churches broke away from the Catholic Church, all continued to hold to the position of the Catholic Church on this issue. During the 20th Century, attitudes on birth control began to change, and in 1930 the Anglican Church became the first Christian denomination to allow the use of it."Contraception". BBC. Retrieved 2012-10-01.

{{quote | As other Christian denominations began to change their teaching, Pope Pius XI in 1930 upheld the Catholic teaching on contraception in his encyclical Casti Connubii, writing that contraception is "contrary to the law of God and nature."http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

Following the invention of the birth control pill, which works differently from prior forms of contraception, Catholic theologians began studying whether its use could be morally justified as a means of birth regulation, in contrast to birth prevention.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_church.html

Pope John XXIII appointed the Papal Commission for the Study of Problems of the Family, Population, and Birth Rate to study this and other related topics. The majority of the commission encouraged the pope to allow all forms of birth control, and the minority advocated no change in church teaching, condemning the pill.Health Care Ethics A Catholic Theological Analysis, Fifth Edition, Georgetown University Press: 2005; ISBN 978-1-58901-116-8

In his encyclical Humanae Vitae(1968), based on the minority report, Pope Paul VI upheld the Catholic teaching that artificial contraception is contrary to both the procreative purpose and total self gift of sexual intercourse. Instead, he encouraged the regulation of births by means of natural family planning, which remains open to procreation through periodic abstinence, limiting intercourse to naturally infertile times. Pope John Paul II expanded on these teachings in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, where he clarified the Church's position on contraception, abortion and euthanasia by condemning them as part of a "culture of death" and calling instead for a "culture of life".[175]

wikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

Your proposal does not comply with WP policies. Nothing to even start with here. You're basically putting lipstick on a pig, and wasting your time, and ours. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wording of lede sentence

I think it is a trivial matter and bears some discussion as there has been edit warring over this point. While I will accept either wording, I feel that if it is felt necessary to say "sometimes called the Roman Catholic Church" rather than "also known as the Roman Catholic Church" then we should just use that. It is true and correct. For more background information about the name, see Roman Catholic (term). This is a trivial issue in the context of a greater, more controversial argument about the article name. See the archives for more discussion. It is very hard to reach a consensus on this. Elizium23 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There is, I feel, absolutely no solution that is acceptable to everyone. Is it necessary to say "sometimes called the Roman Catholic Church" rather than "also known as the Roman Catholic Church"? The title of the article was "Roman Catholic Church" until one period when few editors were actively involved and nearly all of those few wanted to change to "Catholic Church". Perhaps we should not weaken further the use here of "Roman Catholic Church", the expression used in other secular (non-Catholic) encyclopedias. Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope we are not once again hopelessly trying to say that the Roman Catholic Church is the same as the Orthodox Catholic Church. See: Talk:Sacraments of the Catholic Church See: Two similar but different Religions. Also repeated below. Mugginsx (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church is a general name covering many churches but the Roman Catholic Church is the only church that recognizes the Pope as the Apostalic leader and Infallible when speaking of faith or doctrine. http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=catholic Mugginsx (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the english-language wikipedia, and to the best of my knowledge, this organisation is most widely known in english-speaking countries as "the Roman Catholic church". Whether they just call it "the catholic church" in Italian or Latin or Polish is not particularly relevant. And also, it is necessary to point out that both names are in actual use, and they refer to the same organisation, because some people from non-European backgrounds may not realise this. I've personally encountered both Chinese and Indian people who were somehow under the misapprehension that "the Catholic Church" and "the Roman Catholic Church" were different, and who were astonished when I convinced them that they were actually the same.Eregli bob (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Title should be changed to Roman Catholic Church - All others like Eastern Orthodox Catholic are similar but different Religions

I hope we are not once again hopelessly trying to say that the Roman Catholic Church is the same as the Orthodox Catholic Church. See: Talk:Sacraments of the Catholic Church See: Two similar but different Religions. I will copy and paste my answer for your convenience and then there should be a vote for consensus.

Two similar but different Religions

There are many titles to the Eastern Orthodox Church. One is Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. Similar in custom but not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church does not recognize the Pope as the Leader of their Church. See the articles I referenced here. They state the primary difference:

The Pope of Rome would still have honorary primacy before Constantinople if the East-West Schism had not occurred. Because of that schism the Orthodox no longer recognize the legitimacy of the pope. The Patriarch therefore, like the Pope before him now enjoys the title of “first among equals”. This is not, however, meant to imply that he is the leader of the Orthodox Church. Also, this is not an official title of any sort, just a way of describing the seniority of the "imperial" bishops with respect to all other bishops. Also look at their official website, http://www.easterncatholicchurch.org/ and here: http://rbsocc.org/history.html You see no mention of the Pope there. The Pope is not, to them, as it is to Roman Catholics the representative of Christ on earth, not Infallible in matters of faith and doctrine. I repeat, a very similar but different religion.

Because the Eastern church also has (Catholic) in its title does NOT make it the same as the Roman Catholic Church. The fundamental difference is as stated above. To be more specific: They do NOT recognize the Pope as the Vicar of the church and as Infallible when speaking of faith or doctrine. Research, if you will the Infallibility Doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox Church or Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church as sometimes called, regarded the Pope as "first among equals" equal to any other bishop. That was and is the cause of the Schism and the reason that, although they are a very similar religions they are nonetheless different religions. See here: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol. 49, No. 1, MARCH 2010. It states: The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches share a similar theology and a hierarchical church administration. Local parish communities are organized in similar ways. However, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches occupy different places in the context of American culture, and they have developed distinct notions of priesthood. Also see the Official Eastern Orthodox Catholic websites: here: http://www.easterncatholicchurch.org/ and here: http://rbsocc.org/history.html You see no mention of the Pope there. http://www.easterncatholicchurch.org/ and here: http://rbsocc.org/history.html . You will see no mention of the Pope there. Two similar but different religions. Mugginsx (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Vote for consensus to change the title of this article to Roman Catholic Church. The title now is incomplete and incorrect.

Agree to change of title to Roman Catholic Church. Mugginsx (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere, never, has there been some indication that the Catholic Church is the same as the Orthodox Church...I really have no idea what you mean by all this. Achowat (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Then why it this titled Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church? There is only one correct title. Do you care to vote to correct the title? Mugginsx (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd take a look at WP:COMMONNAME. We title articles, not based on their "correct" title, whatever that may be, but based solely on how the sources tend to name them. Achowat (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of titles of Wiki articles that are not the most common names persons would look at. I am not a newbie. Mugginsx (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a WP:WAX argument. I'm not saying you're new here, what I'm saying is that WP:COMMONNAME is the standard that is being used to name this article "Catholic Church". Achowat (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As there are many churches that have the word Catholic in it, I do not believe the guidelines applies here. The title implies that all churchs that have Catholic in their title are the same. It is a misleading title. That is why it is only a GUIDEline. Mugginsx (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see how that's relevant. The common name used by independent sources for this church is "Catholic Church". Other churches claim to be Catholic; other groups claim to be churches, too. The claims of the Church in Communion with the Papacy are neither being confirmed nor denied with this title. All this title is saying is that when Reuters says "Catholic Church", this is the one they mean. Achowat (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reuters is a good source for news. It is not infallible. There are exceptions to most guidelines, as you know. There are arguments to be made, however, I will not pursue them. Mugginsx (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a guideline, but we should ignore it because you'd like to? And there are arguments you could make, but you're not going to? I really don't understand what you mean by any of this. Achowat (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry you do not understand. I was quite clear. Further, I do not like long protracted disagreements. If there is no sign of an impending consensus, I move on to other things. Clearer? Mugginsx (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree to change of title to Roman Catholic Church.DrTh0r (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds? (Not saying you're wrong, I just want to know the why). Achowat (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is the reason. It is too vague and misleading. It incorporates many Churches that are not affiliated with the Roman Catholic church although they have catholic in their name. There is the Polish Catholic Church, then, as offshot, the National Polish Church, the Greek Catholic Church, and the Urkranian Catholic Church As I said, none of these Churches are affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church in fact emcompasses all those countries but the names remains Roman Catholic. The other churches I mentioned are offshots of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church and the Eastern Rite Churches and are NOT part of the Roman Catholic Church. We are talking about two very large organizations, if you will - The eastern Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. They are different and distinct though they share many customs. There should be not be an article that just states: Catholic Church - it is too vague, misleading, and has proven to be misleading in at least one article already. It is a unique or almost unique situation and calls for an exception to the Guideline WP:COMMONNAME for those reasons. Mugginsx (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think it's misleading. If it were misleading, than AP and Reuters would use "Roman Catholic Church" more often than they use "Catholic Church", which isn't the case. The situation isn't anything similiar to unique. United Kingdom...but what about the United Kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark...or Israel and Judah...or Libya...or the Netherlands. United States...but what about the United States of Belgium, or Brazil, of Indonesia, or Venezuela, or China, or Colombia. When [the Toronto Sun talks about Six men suing the Catholic church for alleged sexual abuse], not a single person is confused thinking that they are talking about the National Polish Church. Not even one. Achowat (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not an encyclopedic title. It is not exact. Who care about Reuters or AP - how odd to use them as authorities on what a church should be called in Encyclopedic Wikipedia article. They do not have the same burden that we do. There mission is different than ours. Mugginsx (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And our goal is to report what the WP:VIndependent Secondary Sources say, not what you, personally, would rather they say. That's the point of WP:COMMONNAME. Achowat (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reuters and AP are not experts in the history of different religions that happen to share a similar name. They merely report an event - we are constructing articles with detailed facts and history. Try to find a Reuters or AP story with an in-depth history on the origin customs and history of a particular religion. It does not exist because, as I said, it is not their job to write such hisories.Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have plenty of quality sources, and they are better than Reuters or AP - that is a joke when you think about it to use them as sources on an indepth theological division in churches called catholic. I like to edit with constructive editors and do not mind debating with good faith editors, but there is only one here and, again, I do not see a consensus seeking group of editors at this time so my time is better spent elsewhere. Mugginsx (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Geez, again? Why am I not surprised? This is a perennial topic/proposal that comes up at least once a year so I guess Mugginsx is rushing to make sure we've covered it at least once in 2012. I haven't the time right now to go back through the archives of this Talk Page to find all the many times this has come up before. The title of this article has been established through much heated and contentious debate and is the result of a consensus of many editors. If you bring the debate up again, it will involve the opinions of many editors and you will likely not accomplish anything. My advice to you, Mugginsx, is to let it go until you have read all the discussion in the archives.

A few points should be made about the dialogue that has gone before...

The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church(es) and the Anglican Communion are all parts of the same church although these parts have differing opinions on both ecclesiology (how the church is governed) and theology (what the church believes). All of these churches claim to be "catholic". (note the lower case "c" in "catholic") So, they are all parts of the "catholic" church in perhaps the way that the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are parts of the same China with different claims to sovereignty. Both sides agree that there is only one China, not two Chinas. They only disagree as to what the legitimate government of that China is. (OK, the analogy is not an exact parallel but perhaps it is useful.)

The Polish Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. However, the Greek Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Catholic Church are as are all the Eastern Catholic Churches.

As for the name(s) of the Catholic Church, you may find it instructive to read this userpage in my userspace: User:Pseudo-Richard/Names of the Catholic Church. This page was created as part of a very long and heated debate as to whether the official name of the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome was "Catholic Church" or whether "Roman Catholic Church" was also an official name of the church.

If, after you've digested all that, you still feel like talking, come back and we'll discuss it some more.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose any change in title. The "official" title of the Church is Catholic Church. Saxophilist (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" is the church's usual or common name. There is no compelling evidence that it is the only "official" name ~ and whether the church even has an "official name" as such is open to dispute. The best historical evidence appears to suggest that names such as "Holy Roman and Catholic Church" were more "official" than "Catholic Church". Afterwriting (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard - Your statement, The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church(es) and the Anglican Communion are all parts of the same church is incorrect and almost outrageous. The Orthodox Church, nor any other Church other than the Roman Catholic Church - no matter if it has Catholic in its title or not) does NOT believe in the Pope as the Leader of the Church. As for the Orthodox Church mistatement, I have shown the reference where their official sites shown NO mention of the pope. Here is another site: http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076 It is here where they specifically say: The Orthodox Church cannot accept the papal or institutional concept of the Church, for many reasons. Orthodoxy strives to remain faithful to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church. I have provided other links to churches of the Orthodox faith above and none of them mention the Pope. They had a great Schism with the Church of Rome (called at that time) and this was and is the very reason they split. I ask this in good faith, do you have one citation that shows that the Orthodox Catholics believe in the Pope? If you do I would sincerely like to see it. Please see my links above to the official Orthodox fatih sites. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx, why do you persistently make comments about the Pope which are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed? You constantly fail to misunderstand what is actually being discussed. Anglicanus (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Anglicanus: I usually do not respond to uncivil editors. My remark was addressed to a CIVIL editor and if you do not understand the premise of it, I will again explain. It is used as an example of why all Catholic Churches are not the same, in fact the differences are so fundamental that it is improper to put them in one article. Ergo, an article title simply "Catholic Church" has too large a Scope, see Wikipedia:Scope Mugginsx (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, my previous comments were valid and there was nothing uncivil about them ~ but your false accusation that they were can be considered to be uncivil by you. Secondly, you do in fact frequently make erroneous comments and edits and also seriously misunderstand or distort other editors' comments. Please stop doing this ~ it is unconstructive and disruptive. You have already made your point several times so to keep on repeating it will only be pissing in the wind. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This from an editor who has received a warning for edit warring. Editors are supposed to believe you? when I have been wrong I have at least admitted it and not had to be warned to stop edit warring. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You really need to stop being so aggressive and obnoxious. Your hypocritical comments to me and other editors have sometimes been very uncivil and patronising. So you think we should tolerate this crap from you and take you seriously? I don't think so mate! Anglicanus (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx, go back through the multitude of past discussions on the subject and read them. Come up with a new reason for changing the article title and come back to us. Until then, you are wasting everyone's time.Farsight001 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This from an editor who has been warned on three occasions for incivility, personal attacks, rudeness vandalism and edit warring. You would do well to heed the warnings. Mugginsx (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My report history is inconsequential to the veracity of my statements. Address the statement, not the user. And for your information, every last report on my page was from trolls and blatantly disruptive editors. 90% of them are now banned for their behavior. Try some fact checking next time.Farsight001 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If you go up to the top of this page, you will see two (!) search boxes that will allow you to search the Talk Page archives for this article.

If you then use the search terms "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" together, you will come up with 60 results.

The earliest discussion of this topic was back in 2005 and there have been many, many words written about this since. The last time was in June 2012. After you've read and understood the arguments for and against the title of this article being "Catholic Church", understand that there are editors on both sides of the argument and that there will definitely NOT be a consensus to change this article's title. So, don't waste your time and ours. I'd be willing to bet that any argument that you could come up with has been answered multiple times. It may not have been answered to your satisfaction but, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is not a forum and we're not here to educate you or argue with you. Move on and a find a different way to contribute to the project; you'll be happier that you did.

Talk:Catholic Church/Name - Discussion in 2006

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a reasonable suggestion and one that I will take. I said yesterday since there was no consensus I would not waste my time. It was you that said to look at the archived discussion and to come back and discuss it. I do not wish to waste my time either with the two edit-warring editors on this article. There will be no resolution on this article as long as these kinds of editors are here. I am not talking about you.

As for educating me, I have had twelve years of Catholic School Education, have members of the clergy in my family, and speak and understand some Latin which is more than most of the editors here can do. Sometimes when editors give up working on a page it is because they do not want to waste their time. For that reason, it is good advice. Mugginsx (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa - "messy editing" attributed to Mugginsx was probably my fault

Anglicanus has been cleaning up the repetition of the section started by Mugginsx. Upon reviewing the edit history, it seems that the problem was started by me with this edit which appears to have been the result of a hasty and sloppy recovery from an edit conflict. I didn't see the problem at first and when I did see it later, I didn't realize my part it creating it. My profuse apologies and much thanks to Anglicanus for cleaning up the mess. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Tracing its origins

Whilst it may be generally accepted that the Christian church can trace its origins back to immediately after Christ's death and resurrection, it is a whole different issue as to when the Roman Catholic Church (or "capital C" Catholic Church) as an organisation or institution, can trace its origins back to. Supt. of Printing (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That the (Roman) Catholic Church claims to have been founded by Christ in his lifetime is recognized even by those who reject the claim, such as those behind this "Bible Believers" site. The Church itself has declared: "Catholics are bound to profess that through the gift of God's mercy they belong to that Church which Christ founded and which is governed by the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, who are the depositories of the original apostolic tradition, living and intact, which is the permanent heritage of doctrine and holiness of that same Church. The followers of Christ are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection--divided, but still possessing a certain unity — of Churches and ecclesial Communities. Nor are they free to hold that Christ's Church does not really exist anywhere today and that it is to be considered only as an end which all Churches and ecclesial Communities must strive to reach" (Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Supt. of Printing does not deny the existence of the claim, while questioning its validity. The alleged non-existence of a claim by the Roman Catholic Church to be the concrete reality of the church founded by Jesus, its one and only concrete reality, cannot be used as an argument against including in the article a reference to "about AD 33". Other reasons may, perhaps rightly, be advanced instead. Esoglou (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said on Farsight's talk page, when I said "tracing its origins" was weaselly, I meant that deliberately or not it's ambiguous: it reads as if it's a statement of fact when of course it's heavily debated by scholars, with many tracing the origins of the Church to the fourth century when it fused with the centralised bureaucracy of the Roman Empire. We could rewrite it to say "The Church teaches that it dates from 33 AD" but given that the next but one sentence starts "The Church teaches that it is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ" I think that would be a bit superfluous, especially as it's the lead and is discussed fully at the beginning of the History section. Haldraper (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What was claimed here about a fusing with the imperial bureaucracy could well be defended with regard to the Church in the east, of which it has been said that it merged psychologically with the empire to the extent that its bishops had difficulty in thinking of Christianity without an emperor, but it certainly could not be said of the Church in the west. The whole of the west was lost to the empire within a few years of the setting up of Nicene Christianity as the state religion of the empire in 380. The western Christians who remained in communion with those under the emperor's power were not subject to the imperial bureaucracy. The empire recovered military and political control of Rome in the sixth century and held it until the middle of the eighth, but had power over little else of the west even that long. The bishops of Rome, even those who were easterners appointed or at least confirmed by the emperor, were loyal to him as their political lord, but "that loyalty did not always extend to questions of religion. ... Constantinople quickly learned that (even) the oriental popes were irritatingly intractable" (Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes, p. 218). Esoglou (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The article never said that its origins are traced to 33. It said that the Catholic Church traces its origins to 33. Just as when attributing the opinion of a journalist to that journalist, there is nothing weasily about it. The Church DOES trace its origins to 33. Do historians? Some do, some don't. But it doesn't say historians trace. It says the Church traces. The action of tracing is attributed to the Church. Nothing about that can be weasily.Farsight001 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"tracing its origins to 33 AD" is ambiguous. It can reasonably be read as a "dating from" and would be by many readers. Haldraper (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You can call it ambiguous all you want. It's still not ambiguous and you cannot simply change it because some users might read it wrong. That's their fault.Farsight001 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not their fault at all. As I said, it can reasonably be read as a "dating from". Why use an ambiguous phrase, or indeed one at all, here? Haldraper (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Why use any phrase at all here? Few historians would support the statement as is without a subsequent and involved explanation, most especially about the concrete date used. That lies within the realm of historical speculation, and is certainly not a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church itself, which has no official position on the actual date of Jesus's death. As such, it seems indended to unduly simplify and take sides in a historical debate, whether it is written in WP's voice or (falsely) attributed to the Church. Furthermore, it seems little more than peacock language to me here in the lede. As does the statement that it considers itself the one true church. So what if it does? Is an unduly self-serving self-evaluation significant enough for the lede? If it's significant at all, it's only in the context of a larger discussion about the relationship of the Church with other Christian groups. Taken out of that context, it's basically meaningless from a scholarly point of view. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Even Protestants accept that the Christian Church traces its origins to 33 CE, so what this argument really boils down to is whether the Christian community headed by the Bishop of Rome can validly claim a one-for-one identity with that original Christian Church, with all others having departed from her. Linuxgal (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversial Wording Changed

"--74.185.50.77 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)In 2010, the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, a body within the Catholic church, self-reported that the Church manages 26% of health care facilities in the world, including hospitals, clinics, orphanages, pharmacies and centres for those with leprosy." The former wording referenced the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance without explaining that this is a part of the Church. This was not obvious to readers and lead to drawn-out confusion and argumentation on an internet forum. In short, "a body within the Catholic church, self-reported that the Church" was added for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.164.47 (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have clarified the wording to read "In 2010, the Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers said that the Church manages 26% of health care facilities in the world, including hospitals, clinics, orphanages, pharmacies and centres for those with leprosy." That makes it clear that the Pontifical council is an organization of the Catholic Church.

It's best not to use the term "self-reported" unless the source specifies that the data are self-reported. It's possible that the Pontifical Council is merely quoting a statistic generated by another organization. It's best that we don't assume whether this data was generated by the Council or generated by another entity. Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Denomination vs church

I think the word denomination is preferable because the phrase "largest church" can mean many things such as largest building, largest service etc. In this case what is meant is a subgroup within a religion; the most appropriate term for such a context is "denomination" (see also Religious denomination. Nevertheless User:Afterwriting has been repeatedly reverting it to "church". I think this is inappropriate. If consensus is not reached i will open an WP:RFC. Pass a Method talk 17:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What I was "reverting" it to is the consensus process wording. What actually is "inappropriate" is your repeatedly changing this wording even when this was pointed out to you. At least you have now sought discussion. Afterwriting (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open the RfC. Personally, I find the reasoning above rather inadequate, as I think it is extremely obvious from context, and from the article title itself, that this is about a church. I cannot see what a "largest service" might be, by the way. Based on what I have seen historically, admittedly not having looked recently, I can say I cannot remember ever seeing this particular body referred to as a "denomination" except in the context of discussion of multiple religious groups. However, so far as I can see above, the reason for the change to "denomination" seems to be based exclusively on personal opinions, and personal opinions rarely if ever determine content. I think it would be reasonable for the editor making this request to perhaps provide reliable sources rather than personal opinions as evidence for why the changes requested should be made. Otherwise, one editor's opinion honestly has no more weight than any other editor's opinion. Ideally, sources referring to the Catholic Church as a "denomination" which are clearly and primarily about the Catholic Church itself would be the best sources to produce. Otherwise, this could perhaps not unreasonably be seen as maybe an attempt at a form of "politically-correct" original research, and I believe several policies and guidelines indicate such is at best dubiously acceptable. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not a denomination; it is a Church. The word "denomination" generally refers to the many Protestant sects. Saxophilist (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The article "Denominationalism" in the Eliade Encyclopedia of Religion would seem to agree with the above. I think the term denominations is used in Protestant churches primarily because they tend to be more or less created and run on a national basis, with, for instance, all the different bodies which call themselves "Lutheran". Each one of those generally has a different name and structure in various parts of the world, often with the bodies limited to individual countries. The same doesn't really apply to the Catholic Church. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This topic has come up before. The consensus was to use the term "church" rather than "denomination". I suspect that a RFC will yield similar results as what we saw last time. Majoreditor (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I also prefer the term branch over church. Pass a Method talk 05:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Pass, but I think your concerns about the word "church" are a bit overwrought. If someone is going to think that a building is what's meant here, their reading skills are certainly too poor to read the rest of the article. Also agree that an RfC is pointless. That would be making a mountain out of a molehill, at best. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I might have confused this article with the Catholicism article. Pass a Method talk 13:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. This is about the institution itself, not the theology behind it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Doctrinal disputes and schisms

The first paragraph of this section is ridiculously short. Two massive schisms, Orthodox and Protestant, are basically glossed over in a sentence or two and seem to have been no big deal. By comparison, the second paragraph gives far greater emphasis to a much smaller and less significant (no offence intended) splinter movement. Can someone with some knowledge of either Schism turn their attention to the first paragraph and A) flesh it out a little and B) clarify that the events of the 11th and 16th centuries were massive upheavals and not minor disputes? Richard75 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rchard75, this section could use some work. wikiCatholicIndiana (talk)

Old Redundant Statistics

The section on membership has old statistics, rambles, and repeats itself. More could be said in far fewer words. I propose that it be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCatholicIndiana (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

WikiCatholicIndiana has reverted changes I made to the New Evangelisation section. The text as it now stands reads:

Pope John Paul II recognised the need to evangelise an increasingly secular world and used new means to reach the faithful. He instituted World Youth Day, a "worldwide encounter with the Pope", for young people from all over the world which is celebrated every two to three years.^[1] He travelled more than any other pope, visiting 129 countries and preaching the Gospel in nearly every part of the world.^[2] He also used television and radio as means of spreading the Gospel. In 2012, on the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, the Church called a new Synod to address the "New Evangelisation" and the task of re-evangelising the many lapsed Catholics in the developed world.

I'm not convinced it passes WP:NPOV and it may even stray into WP:ADVOCACY.

Pope John Paul II recognised the need to evangelise an increasingly secular world

implies there is a need to do so, even if the world is "increasingly secular" (no evidence is presented to back up that assertion).

and used new means to reach the faithful.

is similarly unreferenced.

World Youth Day, a "worldwide encounter with the Pope", for young people from all over the world is a bit vague, peacocky and again unsupported by a reliable source.

He travelled more than any other pope, visiting 129 countries and preaching the Gospel in nearly every part of the world.

is not only vague but very close to being advocacy and breaching WP:NPOV, as is He also used television and radio as means of spreading the Gospel.

In 2012, on the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, the Church called a new Synod to address the "New Evangelisation" and the task of re-evangelising the many lapsed Catholics in the developed world. has the same problems as the first sentence, i.e. it assumes that there is a need to do so. Haldraper (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Haldraper, I think you've brought up some good points. I would rather not do wholesale deletions of informative text that desribes the major overall focus of the Catholic Church for the past twenty ears. However, I think we should address the issues you brought up. I think sources should be easy to find, but phrases like "recognized the need" should for sure be modified.

Pope John Paul II recognised the need to evangelise an increasingly secular world could be changed to

Pope John Paul II sought to evangelise an increasingly secular world

In 2012, on the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, the Church called a new Synod to address the "New Evangelisation" and the task of re-evangelising the many lapsed Catholics in the developed world. could be changed to

In 2012, on the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, the Church called a new Synod on the "New Evangelisation" to address what the church sees as the task of re-evangelising the many lapsed Catholics in the developed world.

I don't see the same issues you do with some of the rest of the text, but I can see how the prase "preach the gospel" is overused and might have an unncessesarily positive sound. I am interested to hear what other editors think. Meanwhile, I'll try to add some sources. As to world youth day, those are the words the offical website uses to describe it, so I'm not sure how that could be better explained or sourced. WikiCatholicIndiana (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Flagging article as British English

I have added a banner at the top of this Talk page to notify editors that the article is written in British English. Hopefully editors will take note before they change the spelling of "organisation", "honour" and "evangelise". Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason this article should be written in British English? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The relevant principle is MOS:RETAIN. Since this article was begun in British English, we are retaining it with no compelling reason to change it to American or some other variety. Elizium23 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Catholic Church is NOT "also known as the Roman Catholic Church". Rather, the Catholic Church is a community of Christians that includes the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, and a few small Western Catholic Churches besides the Roman one.

The Catholic hierarchy does not include cardinals. The only role of cardinals in the church is to elect the pope of Rome. If a particular cardinal has authority in other matters, it is because he is also a bishop, and not because of being a cardinal. The head of the church is Christ. On the next level are the patriarchs. The patriarch of Rome is known as "the pope", and is held to be first among the patriarchs because he is Peter's successor.

75.114.223.28 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you Orthodox or Anglican or something? You have a poor understanding of how the Catholic Church is constituted. Elizium23 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Some comments:

I agree with the first statement of the edit request: The Catholic Church is much bigger than just the Roman Catholic Church. When speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, one is properly talking about Latin-Rite Catholics. There are Eastern Churches in communion with Rome (which are in themselves distinct from each other, and also distinct from the Orthodox Communion).
I'm not sure if I wholeheartedly agree with the second statement of the edit request. The Cardinals are not part of the hierarchy of the Church, though you can speak of them in relation to the Pope. The College of Cardinals can be seen as close advisers to the pope.
- It is important to note that the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches have the same authority over their particular flocks as the Pope does for the Roman (or Latin-Rite) Catholics. But because of the gift of primacy associated with being the Successor of Peter, the Pope has full authority over the 'other-rite' Catholics.

KRam41 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic Church" : This wording is the result of a long discussion and it was agreed by consensus. The "Roman" in "Roman Catholic Church" makes no reference to rite but to primacy. All 23 churches that conform the "Roman Catholic Church" are under the Roman Pontiff, regardless of rites (Latin or Eastern), and hence are "Roman." This is to distinguish from the Orthodox Catholic Church, which of course it is not under Rome, as it is composed of 14 (15) Autocephalous Churches, each with its head, and all with the same authority over their flock. The heads of the 22 Eastern-rite Catholic Churches do not have the same authority as the Pope, since they are below him, accepting his authority. They are Primates, in a sense of the word, since they have authority over other Bishops.

Cardinals are not part of the Hierarchy. It is honorific title, giving right to elect the Pope and nothing else. Any authority any given Cardinal might have come from their respective position within the Hierarchy of the Church, not from being Cardinal.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Primacy

User:Proxima Centauri, I have reverted your edits because I think you're being a little too bold. patheos.com isn't much more reliable than religionfacts.com. Patheos mentions only tertiary sources and religionfacts is unsourced entirely. WP:CITE discusses why this is a problem. The Catholic Church article does not need this information. The issue of primacy is discussed at Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Please make use of the talk pages as a general practice so we can avoid edit warring. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is a huge NPOV violation. It uses "The Church" for The Roman Catholic Church, much as Mormons use The Church for their denomination. It also tries to give a patent on the name Catholic to the Roman Catholic Church, even if (for example) many confessions recite words like "I believe in the Catholic Church." That is the bone of contention. What is The Church & The Catholic Church. Do papists have patents on those names? All the NPOV violations in using The Church & The Catholic Church for the pope's organization in Rome must be changed to NPOV. Just use Roman Catholic Church. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC))

Please see multiple previous discussions on this subject ----Snowded ^TALK 20:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked above and found nothing specifically on this issue. The fact is that it is a violation of NPOV for Romanists to put an article on Wikipedia and call the Roman Catholic Church "the Church." Similarly it is a violation to call the Roman Catholic Church "The Catholic Church." Catholic means universal and the term is used by many for themselves, though they are not part of the RCC. Now what would the RCCists do if they found an article like this under Catholic Church wherein some other denomination claimed the term and called itself "the Church" in the article? Would you not squawk?

Most of the above discussion is not about this simple violation. Even some papists will probably admit that The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ and includes everyone who trusts Christ as Savior & has been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the one Body of Christ. The Church is not a denomination. And there is but one Church. So to speak of "apostolic churches," thus, is a big misnomer, as is "the methodist church" or the "baptist church." Church rightly used never means a denomination. Now we are not going to agree on theology or ecclesiology. But we should agree that it is a violation of NPOV to call the RCC

"The Church" or "The Catholic Church."

Thus I ask do we have a consensus that for NPOV all the references in this article that use "the church" or "the Catholic Church" be changed to "Roman Catholic Church"? (EnochBethany (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC))

Once again, I invite you to read all the long discussion on this subject on this page and its archives. The arguments are many, as well as the references. 1. "Catholic Church" is the English-language common name for the Roman Catholic Church. Are there other churches part of the catholic church? Yes. Nevertheless, they are usually called by other names Orthodox, Anglican, etc. 2. "The Church..." is used for composition purposes. When you speak about President Obama, will you always use President Obama? Wouldn't you also used "The President" (which in no take legitimacy from all other presidents, be them past presidents of the US or current presidents of other countries), or Obama, or he, etc. An article that only names the Roman Catholic Church by the full name, without the use of pronouns or abbreviations such as "The Church" would be very repetitive. After all, "The Church" is used in the body of an article titled "Catholic Church." The context as to which church is referring couldn't be clearer. Please don't read more from it, since this in no way means what you are reading from it. Does the (Roman) Catholic Church believes itself to be the one true Church? Yes. That has nothing to do with the continuous used of "the Church" in this article.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You have an unfortunate blatant error above. You speak of "other churches." There is no such thing as "other churches." There is but one church, the Body of Christ. To use "churches" for denominations" is an error. For NPOV, simply put, "The Church" must be changed to "The Roman Catholic Church." What possible reason can there be not to do this, except propaganda by papists who want to push their claim (contary to NPOV)? To advance by repetitive reference to the RCC as "The Church" is propaganda. Use RCC if you want to be short. Now just what is your basis of objecting to changing "The Church" to "The Roman Catholic Church." Why do you insist on not doing it? What will be hurt by the change? How does it hurt anyone to see RCC repeated instead of "church" repeated?

Can we have a consensus that "The Church" and "The Catholic Church" be changed to RCC? (EnochBethany (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC))

It's just shorthand for "Catholic Church", what's hard to understand about that? Most readers will understand that usage of 'the Church' throughout the article is not implying that this is the 'one true church'. I'm also going to point out that the article content as a whole is not biased towards a pro-Catholic viewpoint.

As for the issue of "Roman Catholic Church", that, as far as I am aware, is not the official title the Church uses, so if Wikipedia insisted on using that name then it really would be bias. Now it seems obvious from the content of the article that it concerns the church in communion with Rome and not the Church Universal. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is NPOV. Roman Catholic Church is not a term that papists are offended by. They use it themselves. There is no bias in calling the RCC the RCC. Calling it "The Church" is rank bias, and this is done over-and-over. This use is pro-papist. The article has a very early error in it: "the world's largest Christian church, . . . ." That sentence implies that there are several churches, when there is but one church. The issue is to eliminate all use of "The Church" & "The Catholic Church" as a reference to the papal organization out of Rome. Use a neutral term for it. I don't know of anything other than RCC which is intelligible & neutral. If you have something else, it can be considered. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC))

The issue has been discussed before and resolved, through a RfC. You are going to have to introduce a substantive new argument to reopen this one and in the mean time you should stop making edits to the article that are clearly against consensus. I've now warned you for edit warring so if you carry on it goes to the 3rr notice board to request a block ----Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic Church is not a term that papists are offended by. They use it themselves."

Actually, a great many Catholics are offended by it, most noticeably, the 20+ Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. And an even greater amount are offended by the use of the term "papist". In fact, so much so that your liberal use of "papist" is normally indicative of an inherent discriminatory attitude towards Catholics, just as the excessive use of the N-word by a white person would indicate racism. You obviously don't like it, but "Catholic Church" IS a neutral term and none of your complaints or arguments are things that we haven't heard here a dozen times before. It was not without good reason that you were advised to go back through the archives and read past discussions on this issue.Farsight001 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Catholic Church" is a neutral term, but not when used for the Papal organization. It constitutes the claim to be the Catholic Church which it is not. And since we don't agree on that issue, NPOV demands that one cannot call the Roman Catholic Church the "Catholic Church." To speak of Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church again means you are trying to foist your POV on others. The Catholic Church is The Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ. It includes all Christians who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, regardless of denomination or lack of it. You simply cannot put up an article about the RCC or the Papal Organization centered in Rome and then call it "The Church" or "The Catholic Church" without violating NPOV. The Roman Catholic Church is a term that Roman Catholics use for themselves. Thus it is acceptable. But if Roman Catholics want some different name to use for this article, fine; but it cannot be "The Church." But regardless of whether RCC is acceptable, both "The Catholic Church" and especially "The Church" are not acceptable, since this violates NPOV. (EnochBethany (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

Although I am sympathetic to your concerns, the fact is that this article went through a prolonged and often conflicted formal consensus wording process around three or four years ago. There is a snow ball's hope in hell of having this consensus changed without having yet another formal consensus process which, no doubt, will be just as prolonged and conflicted and will probably end the same way. So I suggest that you need to realise that you can argue about these matters all you like but you will never change things with your current way of doing things. And referring to Roman Catholics as "Papists" and the Roman Catholic Church as the "Papal Organization" and so on will not help you to persuade other editors of your arguments. Anglicanus (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You said it sister. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not introducing "papist" into the article, just using it on the talk page as a short term for those who are not really catholics, nor "the Church," but are distinguished by believing in an office of pope. This is like those who believe in integration are "integrationists." Why should those who believe in a pope object to being called papists? It is not my intent to offend, but use a short work that clearly distinguishes. Is there another word that could be thus used? I suggest that this meta-talk is a distraction from the issue, which is the use of The Church for the papal organization (a gross violation of NPOV). Since I am not introducing the word papist into the article, I suggest that you don't worry about it. I don't think that the papists will be persuaded by anything, since their use of The Church is a polemical issue which they want to use to enhance a claim to be The Church. BTW, I don't exclude all Roman Catholics from being part of the Church, the Body of Christ; I recognize all those who trust the Lord Jesus (2nd person of the Trinity) as only & sufficient Savior, as Christians & a part of the Bride of Christ. But I do object to those who think that belonging to the pope makes them exclusively The Church. I read repeated references to archived discussions. Has the NPOV issue on this been wiki-adjudicated?(EnochBethany (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

Please cease and desist usage of the word papist in discussions, or I will warn you for personal attacks against editors with appropriate escalating warnings and reports to admin notice boards as necessary. It is very uncivil to continue to use the term, which has been indisputably derogatory for the past 500 years, and belongs nowhere in Wikipedia or polite conversation. Elizium23 (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Parallel construct/social teachings

The "social teachings" section isn't exactly doctrine, at it focuses actual services provided such as hospitals. I moved it to a new section below "doctrine" to be in parallel with the introduction, which has a social teachings paragraph beneath several paragraphs of doctrinal teaching. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Category Christianity

IMHO, there is no need for this article to be included in the Category:Christianity. This is because it is already diffused to the Category:Christian denominations. This latter cat reports to the former. So there is no need to duplicate it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The Catholic Church does not regard itself (or any of the other apostolic churches) as a denomination, a term it only uses when referring to Protestant churches. Haldraper (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The same is true for every other religion: each regards itself as the sole repository of Truth. Wiki makes no judgements about them, it simply categorises them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That first bit isn't true at all, to my knowledge. There are non-denominational protestants, but no Baptist would deny that he or she is part of the Baptist denomination. Same for Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. When you get into more unique territory, such as Latter Day Saints, the Witnesses, etc., things may be different, but I don't know of any mainline protestants of any of the major churches who claim to not be part of a denomination. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of judging the Church's claims to truth but of maintaining a neutral point of view. Haldraper (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I left the cat. Laurel Lodged added Category:Christian denominations, though this sounds more like a Protestant term which they common use (Baptist etc.) and not really one that the Catholic church fits into. If anyone feels it should be removed then please do so, unless there is a valid reason it should remain? I am not sure on this one. Tyros1972 Talk 22:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about how categories are decided on but it does appear abundantly clear that as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned that the Roman Catholic Church is considered a "denomination" and that this is consistent with maintaining NPOV rather than making an exception. The following is from the category's page at Category:Christianity:

"This category contains articles about Christian denominations, (not denominational families). A Christian denomination is an identifiable Christian body that has an identifiable name, doctrine, and structure. Although not all Christian traditions are comfortable with being termed as denominations, it is nonetheless common usage." Anglicanus (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Anglicanus, this is getting a bit circular. Who wrote the Category: Christianity description of a denomination? Is it backed up by reliable sources? Why do people want to describe the Catholic Church as a denomination when it says that it isn't one? Haldraper (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are irrelevant and indicate your own non-neutral POV. Wikipedia doesn't make any judgements about the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be "THE Church" or anything else. It was you who argued for "maintaining a neutral point of view" but you then let your own bias to get in the way of doing this yourself. Whatever the Roman Catholic Church believes about itself this doesn't determine the meaning of what constitutes a Christian denomination or whether it is appropriate to include it in a listing of Christian denominations on Wikipedia. It would be absurd to exclude it from such listings. Anglicanus (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

All I'm really asking is what the reliable sources are for it being a denomination. I'm sure I can find a few to back up my belief that it isn't. And again: why the desperate need to try to prove that it is? Haldraper (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a "desperate need" to try and prove or disprove anything on this matter. There are plenty of reliable third party sources which refer to the Roman Catholic Church as a "denomination" ~ as well as many reliable first party sources which do so as well regardless of what the "official" RCC view is. For what it's worth I have never liked the word "denomination" anyway and avoid using it. Unlike America, for instance, it is not so commonly used here in Australia where "Christian tradition" is the preferred term. Anglicanus (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is silly. What denomination says of itself "We think we got a lot of things right here but others may have gotten more things right than us. But please don't leave, 'cause we're not a denomination, we're the real thing, the others are just fakes"? You might as well say than man ought not to be categorised as genus homo sapiens sapiens because man is just different. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack and caricature the sincerely held beliefs of other editors. Elizium23 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't an attack. It was a discussion of reality and common sense. Sensitivities over beliefs should never influence nor restrict discussion here, nor should it ever guide the content of our articles. We're here to publish well referenced facts. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Laurel Lodged, HiLo48, a discussion is two (or more) sides stating their position and stating what they see wrong in the other positions. When the sentence starts "This is silly" and when a caricature of one's position is used in an argument by itself, without stating the actual position, that is an indirect attack that has nothing to do with "reality" nor "common sense," nor does it help the discussion to progress.

2. [Please note the first use of the words "church" and "denomination" in apostrophe. I am not defining, but using the terms used by the groups themselves] The problem is not so much what Apostolic groups believe, that is the beliefs of those "churches" that do not consider themselves "denominations" (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Orientals, Assyrians), but actually in the practices and in the differences between the two groups: a. Most (Protestant) denominations accept as valid other denomination's baptisms; b. They share the same 5 fundamental beliefs (sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria); c. Conversion from one denomination to another is quite a simple process; d. Most denominations consider the other denomination also as Christians, etc... The Apostolic churches do not share any of these with the protestant brothers. Catholics (and other Apostolic churches) themselves are not considered Christians by many Christian denominations. You can say that within the two big groups (Apostolic and Non-Apostolic), although differing in doctrines and practices, the fundamentals are common, yet those same fundamentals are not the same between the two groups. i.e. The 5 solae are commons to most if not all denominations; the 5 solae unites them (better said the interpretation of the 5 solae, since Apostolic also share them, although with different interpretation). Practices "perceived" as contrary to the 5 solae are shared by all 5 groups that do not consider themselves denomination. You can also say that there are two big groups within Christianity with very different practices and beliefs: the Apostolic Christians (which have the role of bishops) and the Congregational Christians (which do not, instead having the role of councils or equivalent). I hope I was able to communicate my point effectively. I am quite in a hurry writing these.

3. The above being said, there is no NPOV in this point. The definitions for "church" and "denomination" are different for both groups. Whatever decision is made, it is already taking one or the other side. On one side, the 5 Apostolic groups consider themselves churches, while protestants are not churches but denominations. On the other side, most protestant groups consider themselves churches and consider Apostolic groups also as denominations (if they even consider them Christians, which is not always the case).-Coquidragon (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The rudeness, if that's what you think the problem is, didn't start with "This is silly". That was a response to "...why the desperate need to try to prove that it is?" from Haldraper. Language like that is hardly likely to "help the discussion to progress". As for denominations, where I come from (and it doesn't matter where that is) that word is commonly used to discuss every branch of Christianity. It's a simple, practical, convenient word. For some Christians to argue so determinedly against it further convinces me what a problem self-proclaimed Christians have. They love to tell us how many Christians there are, in the world and in various countries, based on highly inflated, nebulous figures from the most inaccurate sources, while ignoring the reality that most of them don't practice Christianity in their daily lives at all, and then argue that some other group of these Christians aren't proper Christians "cos they're not the same as us". The hypocrisy in the Christian push here is appalling. I doubt of Christ would have approved. For the purposes of this encyclopaedia, the most practical descriptions of Christianity are not going to come from within. They have to come from outsiders without an internal ideological and theological POV barrow to push. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors. Elizium23 (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, HiLo's correct here, and this is basically the thrust of what WP:YESPOV is about. If neutral sources tend to consider the RCC a denomination, then we should too, published Catholic opinions to the contrary. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus? My sense of the above is that there is a consensus that there is no need for this article to be included in the Category:Christianity and that it should instead be diffused to Category:Christian denominational families. I propose to do same in 2 days. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that consensus has been achieved; there are too many conflicting opinions as to whether the " " is appropriate. Perhaps you could explain why you believe consensus was achieved? Personally, I'd recommend a category title such as "Branches of Christianity" or "Christian Churches and Denominations"? --Zfish118 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have taken up Zfish's suggestion and have created the Category:Branches of Christianity. Only the categories of the 10 principal branches are populated. I have left this category out, instead using the RC category. I trust that this solution is satisfactory. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this a reference to the branch theory of Anglicanism? It is discredited within Catholicism and considered a heresy. Catholicism is not a branch. Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

These are perfect examples of asserting contested points of view or beliefs as truth claims. On Wikipedia the beliefs of any religious groups ~ including particular beliefs about themselves ~ can never be presented as "the truth". This principle also applies to what one religious group thinks about another group's beliefs. Whether the the Anglican "branch theory" is considered "heresy" by the Roman Catholic Church does not determine the truth or otherwise of the theory. Equally, the Roman Catholic Church's belief that it is not a "branch" or "denomination" also does not determine whether or not it ought to be categorised or described as such in Wikipedia articles. Anglicanus (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And yet a wide berth of latitude is given for self-identifcation. Consider Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, two clearly non-Christian religions, which are allowed to self-identify on Wikipedia as Christian. This is presented as "truth" in Wikipedia's voice. This controversy is addressed in Mormonism but appears to be totally absent from Jehovah's Witnesses. But in both articles these assertions are put forward as truth. So I would say that most organizations get to self-identify their classifications based on their own beliefs. Elizium23 (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your examples illustrate the difficulties with trying to be neutral when it comes to these kind of issues. Tough examples, however, don't obliterate the general principle of not presenting a body's beliefs as being the truth. The JW article also ought to address the issues around them being considered a Christian church or not. There are, however, some significant differences between them and Mormons concerning this question. Organisations and groups are rightly allowed to self-identify within certain limits. When there are significant differing points of view, however, we have to try to reach a wording which is as acceptable as possible. Not an easy task sometimes ~ as the protracted and ongoing debate about "Catholic Church" versus "Roman Catholic Church" keeps reminding us ~ but still necessary. Anglicanus (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Synonyms for Branches would be Groups, Clusters, Categories. There are others that use the term. See Branches of Botany. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Anglican "branch theory" is a different grouping, referring to "Catholicism" being divided into "branches". Calling the Catholic Church a different "branch of Christianity" from Orthodoxy or Protestantism is not problematical in the same way. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Would changing the category name from "Category:Christian denominations" to "Category:Christian churches or denominations" be acceptable to all sides? Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but it also raises the question of whether some "denominations" are "churches" or not. If it is somehow implied, even innocently, that there is some kind of distinction to be made between a body being a denomination and an authentic Christian church then it becomes problematic. Anglicanus (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that "Christian churches or denominations" or, perhaps better, "Christian churches/denominations" necessarily implies a real distinction rather than a preference in terminology. Esoglou (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation, Restrictive vs Non-restrictive Clauses

The article says, "the Pope is the sole successor to Saint Peter who has apostolic primacy.[note 2][note 3][note 4]." If you know English grammar & punctuation, you should know that since the sentence does not refer to a certain Peter who has primacy as opposed to another, a comma is required after Peter (as the relative clause is making a comment on Peter not specifying some specific Peter). Now kindly do not edit war on this. If you don't know English 101 on commas, I suggest you go study it. Someone reverted my comma addition. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for the attempted grammar lesson but you are really just continuing to create erroneous arguments for reasons best known to yourself. It should be obvious to just about anybody that in the context of the sentence that the "Saint Peter" being referred to was St Peter the Apostle and not any other "St Peter" in church history. But even if it had been referring to another St Peter it still was not a "non-restrictive clause" as it was obviously "specifying some specific Peter" even if it wasn't explicitly made clear which one. Part of the clear context of the sentence was that the bishops are considered the successors of the apostles. Another part of the context was the claim that the Pope is the only bishop with "apostolic primacy" in succession to St Peter and only one of the apostles was named "Peter". Therefore your addition of a comma and your claim that this was needed due to a "non-restrictive clause" were both clearly mistaken. I suspect that you already knew this anyway. Anglicanus (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

user:Anglicanus reverted your change because he argues that it is the Pope who is the successor possessing apostolic primacy; there are other successors, but only the Pope inherited the special privileges of office. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The provoker may have been right in this question. In any case, WP:DNR is a good policy. I have now removed the bone of contention together with the strange use of "apostolic primacy", which properly applies, not to the Pope, but to Peter, the holder of primacy among the apostles. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I liked Zfish118 edition, but I do find this last wording clearer than his. Nevertheless, it doesn't accurate reflect the idea of primacy. It is not only as "successor of Peter," but as "successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome." Look at the article you are linking Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Remember that the Bishops of Antioch and Syracuse are also successors to Peter, yet they didn't inherited his primacy. (I don't know if any other Church also claim Peter as its first Bishop.) I will go ahead and edit to reflect this. This was the original reason behind the debate of the restrictive vs. unrestrictive clause.--Coquidragon (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the edition by Afterwriting, and I don't know how to word it exactly, so I won't even try editing the article, but something is not clear. Leaving Primacy apologetics aside and looking at history and tradition, tradition assigns to Peter three Episcopal lines: Rome, Antioch and Syracuse. (I don't think there are others, but I don't know.) Why was Rome primus inter pares among the ancient Patriarchates? Only because Peter was head of the Apostles? What about Antioch or Syracuse? This doctrine has what Newman called a developmental history. Since many Orthodox theologians (and some Eastern Fathers of the Church) did not recognized Peter as head of the Apostles, how did they accepted the Primacy to start with? Do both Antioch and Syracuse also have Petrine ministry? Reading the article on Primacy would be very beneficial. At the end, Rome had position of honor, politically, for being the capital of the Empire and, from the Church, because BOTH Peter and Paul died in Rome. Now, since the wording in the article concerns what the Catholic Church teaches, what I just said does't apply. Nevertheless, technically, from a Catholic perspective, Primacy doesn't derive from Peter being head of the Apostles, but from Jesus naming him the "rock" over which He would built his Church. Peter as head of the Apostles is a posterior interpretation of the passage. So, why Peter? Because he is the rock. Why Rome? His and Paul's place of martyrdom, although its being capital of the Empire did had practical influence. How can these be reflected in the article?--Coquidragon (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if head of the "College of Bishops" sufficiently summarizes the role of the Pope for the lead. Linked to "Papal supremacy" instead, which may be of more general interest, and is more directly related to the Pope than "Apostolic primacy". Mentioned Saint Peter's martyrdom too; details of the succession might be better placed within the body. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have regretfully decided that it is necessary to revert the latest changes by Zfish. The statement is about what the Church teaches. The Church does not teach that St Peter was martyred in Rome. Still less does it teach that the martyrdom occurred in AD 67. Even the Annuario Pontificio indicates that this is not certain. The Church does teach what the CCC says about the Bishop of Rome, Peter's successor, being head of the Episcopal College. This Church teaching should not have been replaced by any unsourced statement of Church teaching. Other statements of Church teaching about the Pope may be added or perhaps may replace the Church teaching at present given, but only if properly sourced. Also, I think that changing "Pope" to "Bishop of Rome" in a context that speaks of "cardinals, patriarchs and diocesan bishops" is inappropriate. Sorry for being so drastic. Esoglou (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe you overlooked the additional source I provided for the material in question. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/453832/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle/5632/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome) --Zfish118 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What I missed was whatever it said about the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in 67 being a teaching of the Catholic Church. Is it there? Esoglou (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I failed to notice how Esoglou's two queries support the reversal of the whole edit. The Church, its tradition as attested by at least three Church Fathers (Clement of Rome, Tertulian and Origenes), does teach that Peter was martyred in Rome. St. Peter's Basilica is named after St. Peter, for being built at the place where tradition says Peter was martyred (or buried, I'm not sure). So, if the problem is the date, we can just take it out. Given that Esoglou's wording goes along CCC 880, Zfish's goes along CCC 882. Furthermore, since this is the lede of the Catholic Church article, are we talking about St. Peter or about the Pope, as head of the Church? Under Esoglou's wording, the subject is Peter, which then derives to the Pope. Under Zfish, the subject is the Pope, and derives from Peter. I think Zfish fits best the lede and will revert, taking into account Esoglou's comment. I'll come back to provide the sources for the Church's father on St. Peter's martydom.--Coquidragon (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Hazhk version Perma-linked Here is adequate. The origins of the Pope's authority cannot be fully summarized in one sentence, yet there are sufficient links to find this information if desired. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Various versions floated around the past few days cited Saint Peter as "head" of the apostles. Is this an important point to include? --Zfish118 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ordained Priest

Question asked and answered. Per WP:IDHT there is no further fruitful discussion to be had on this subject.

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.

In Catholic theology, all baptized men and women are priests. CCC 1546 states: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood." With this I'm not arguing por putting back the "ordained" clause in the lede, yet if the only reason for removal is, as the description said, that RCC has no ordained priests, then that reason was wrong. Another question is if this is appropriate or not for the lede.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The section you cited refers a priesthood concept not at all related to ordination. If you would read the next paragraph in CCC (§1547) "The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful...differ essentially." In §1549 it states "through the ordained ministry, especially that of the bishops and priests, the presence of Christ...is made visible." Go ahead and revert your edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm refering to the deletion of the lede: "The Church teaches that when consecrated by a ~~ORDAINED~~ priest the bread and wine used during the Mass become the body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation." The argument given to delete the "ordained" clause is "The Catholic Church has no non-ordained priests." This is false, as per my first comment, all baptized men and women are priests. Nevertheless, only validly ordained men can consecrate during the mass.--Coquidragon (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Although the expression of the argument to which Coquidragon referred is faulty, I don't think that the Catholic Church, which does speak of the priesthood of the faithful, and does speak of them, again collectively, as priests, ever uses "a priest" to speak of a baptized John or Mary Smith who has not been ordained to the ministerial priesthood. The same holds for common parlance, and this may be even more important for Wikipedia. So there appears to be no ambiguity in speaking of consecration of bread and wine by "a priest". Esoglou (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

1. First reason given for the deletion: "In the Catholic Church there are no non-ordained priests." Accepted as faulty, enough said. My own statement: "I'm not arguing por putting back the "ordained" clause in the lede, yet if the only reason for removal is, as the description said, that RCC has no ordained priests, then that reason was wrong. Another question is if this is appropriate or not for the lede." Should it be? I don't know.

2. New argument for keeping deletion: not needed for lack of ambiguity because "the Catholic Church,... (n)ever uses "a priest" to speak of a baptized John or Mary Smith who has not been ordained to the ministerial priesthood." This statement just kills the theology of the laity. I remember when I was a layman, how many times my Parish Priest reminded me "you are a priest of the Church and should take active participation in this community." He would say that to all laity, empowering them (us) to assume responsibilities in the Parish community.

3. Final argument: "The clause "ordained" is not needed because the context is clear." With this statement, I can't argue.

My purpose for all this going back and forth: it is not about agreement or disagreement with the action taken, but the reasoning needs to be clear.

By the way, thanks Esoglou, you are doing a great job with the page, always looking for opportunities of improvement and watching for vandalism.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have reverted User:Esoglou's deletion of "ordained." Both of you simultaneously agree that your logic is faulty and then claim that's why you made a change. I also find it odd Coquidragon makes the explanation for someone else's edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My comments in response to the question Anglicanus raised were expressions of my poor view that "an ordained priest" is a pleonasm. If other editors prefer to keep it, especially if they have strong feelings about it, I will of course make no fuss. Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Validly ordained priest

I am making a proposal here rather than editing the article directly, because of the commotion that followed my removal of the former presentation of the celebration of the Eucharist and the celebration of the Mass or Divine Liturgy as distinct celebrations. (The new text is ambiguous or pleonastic, but the articles that the wikilinks point to show that it is the same celebration.)

Both "consecrated by an ordained priest" and "consecrated by a priest" are unsourced phrases based on editors' preferences. I propose a change to "consecrated by a validly ordained priest" with a mention, as source, of canon 900 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: "The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone." Any objections?

There are two points in the article where the change would be made. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the edits of Pretty Pig (talk · contribs), this statement now misrepresents Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. The Catholic position is that a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist. The Catholic teaching does not specify that the priest must be Catholic. It does not require him to have faculties from a bishop and it does not require the Church in which he operates to be in communion with Rome. It only requires correct form, matter, and intent. All of these are present in other Churches (as an easy example we shall choose the Eastern Orthodox.) Please do not misrepresent Catholic teaching in this article. The word has to go. Elizium23 (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Catholic teaching has been misrepresented here. As Esoglou has mentioned above, Canon 900 states that "The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.". I think it is clear that the context deems that the term "validly ordained priest" refers to a Catholic priest. Otherwise, it would be possible for an Orthodox priest to say a Catholic Mass now wouldn't it?

I think it is an entirely different matter altogether that a Catholic may receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox Church as the Catholic Church recognises the sacraments in the Orthodox Church. However, Catholics are allowed to receive such sacraments only under exceptional cases, so it is most definitely not the norm.

Regarding the form of the Eucharist, the Orthodox Church uses leavened bread whilst the Catholic Church uses unleavened bread (although the Eastern Rite Churches do use leavened bread). According to Canon 926, "According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the Eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.". So I think it is clear that the Orthodox priest will never confect the Eucharist in the same way as the Catholic priest does.

That's why I think the word "Catholic" should be included. The term "Catholic" does not imply that the Eucharist is different from that of the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, we all know that they are mutually recognised. Rather, it is to indicate the Eucharist found in the Catholic Church, that can only be confected by a validly ordained Catholic priest. From the context, I think it is pretty self-explanatory that only a Catholic priest can confect the Eucharist in the form expected in the Catholic Church. Rather than misrepresentation, I think the omission is an underrepresentation instead. Pretty Pig (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The sacrament is the same. The Catholic Church simply recognizes the validity of apostolic succession, ordination of priests, bishops and deacons, and confection of the sacraments by the Orthodox as well as others. The question of leavened and unleavened is a red herring, because that only affects liceity, not validity. It is not enough to rely on Canon Law because these issues are doctrinal and not disciplinary. The Catechism also agrees in wording that a "validly ordained priest" confects the Eucharist. Why must you insist on adding words that are not found in the sources? This is WP:OR and as we can see it is leading to unwanted conclusions. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As you know, Pretty Pig, what counts in Wikipedia is what reliable published sources "clearly and directly" (WP:V) say. This edit of yours was illegitimate in that it distorted what the Code of Canon Law (surely a reliable source on the matter) said. You can argue as much as you like about what "should" be included, but until you find a reliable source that "clearly and directly" says what you want to put in Wikipedia, you can't put it in. Esoglou (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever considered the fact that the Code of Canon Law is directed to and is applicable only to Catholics? It is very clear that in the original context, it was referring to someone bound by Canon Law, that is a Catholic. In this case, it is a Catholic who also happens to be a validly ordained priest.

Even then, what does validly ordained mean? Canon 1033 - 1039 states the prerequisites clearly. Clearly in this case, only a Catholic can become a validly ordained Catholic priest as according to Canon Law, unless of course special permission has been granted, even though the sacraments are mutually recognised across both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. My point being, as mentioned earlier, that while the Eucharist is the same, the article is about the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which can only be confected by a validly ordained priest, who is also required to be a Catholic.

"clearly and directly" also has an element of inference to it, otherwise all the works on Wikipedia would just be a collection of plagiarisms and quotes now wouldn't they? But then again, it is also clear that your minds have been made up already. Pretty Pig (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and at this point, WP:IDHT applies. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, let me just say that if you want to take Canon Law as your point of reference, you should take the whole Canon Law into context and not just what suits you. There must be some sort of consistency here don't you think? Pretty Pig (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to start making arguments on the basis of the MOS instead of relying on special pleading. You also need to understand and follow the WP:BRD process instead of initiating any further edit wars. If you make a bold edit and it is then reverted ~ especially if it is reverted on the basis of MOS principles ~ then you need to start a discussion and argue your case based on the MOS and not just your personal point of view. Until you start doing so then you will be not be a constructive editor but only a constant irritant. Anglicanus (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How about a compromise instead?

Instead of "Because the Church teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist,[44] there are strict rules about who may celebrate and who may receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.[45] The sacrament can only be celebrated by a validly ordained priest."

I propose that the fullstop after [45] be changed to a comma instead, so that it is clear the following sentence refers to the practice of the Eucharist within the Catholic Church itself and prevents any misunderstandings.

So it would be ""Because the Church teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist,[44] there are strict rules about who may celebrate and who may receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church,[45] whereby the sacrament can only be celebrated by a validly ordained priest." Pretty Pig (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

One would have thought, Pretty Pig, that as a Catholic you would accept the Catholic Church's teaching that "the only minister who can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained priest", instead of trying to wriggle around this repeated clear teaching. As for your suggestion to run two sentences together, joining them with the word "whereby", that is acceptable neither stylistically nor logically. There is no source that supports the idea that the inability of anyone other than a validly ordained priest to confect the sacrament follows from the teaching that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Esoglou (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why you insist on not even allowing a single edit. If you are a Catholic, you would understand perfectly what the difference means. If you want to use the term "is a validly ordained priest", then you also have to take into account the prerequisites of being a validly ordained priest. Otherwise, Canon 900 should not be cited at all so as to be consistent. I stress that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I cannot emphasise enough times that this has nothing to do about the validity of the Eucharist confected by either an Orthodox or a Catholic priest, but about who can confect the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, so much so that I am appalled that you think that I am attempting to twist the teaching of the Church. If my contributions are unwelcome, please just say so and I will refrain from contributing further. Pretty Pig (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't I who do not allow. It is the WP:OR rule, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. That rule is what does not allow you to insert edit cannot be sourced to a reliable source, not just to an argument by yourself. Go, find yourself a reliable source that says what you want Wikipedia to say. Then cite it, quote it, and insert what it clearly and directly says. Esoglou (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have cited Canon Law regarding the prerequisites of being a validly ordained priest in the Catholic Church. Why is that insufficient enough for Wikipedia? Pretty Pig (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You have cited Canon Law and I have cited the CCC yet what you do not seem ±to understand is that we don't permit you to insert your own words and twist the sources around to something they didn't say. Elizium23 (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen Canon 1? It states that "The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church." Do not put words in my mouth. I am not inserting my own words. For all intents and purposes, coupled with the prerequisites, the validly ordained priest would have to be a Catholic. If that is not clear enough for you, I don't know what is. Pretty Pig (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for deciding that the discussion is over when clearly nothing has been concluded. WP:OR also has a clause that says "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.", that was conveniently not mentioned. So even if you think that the sources cited are insufficient, it is clear enough what it means. But anyway, it is clear that my contributions do not matter here. Good day to you. Pretty Pig (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Virgin Mary" heading

Anglicanus, I appreciate your concerns, but such an insult is uncalled for. If you refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the term "Blessed" appears a significant number of times with regards to the Virgin Mary. If that is insufficient for you, then so be it. I will not fight with you. Pretty Pig (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't any "insult". I stated some things that you need to do in order to become a constructive editor. So far, it seems to me, you have started some unecessary edit wars due to insisting that your changes should be accepted even when experienced editors have not agreed that they are in line with MOS principles. The article already makes it clear that the Virgin Mary is also often known as the "Blessed Virgin Mary". That does not mean, however, that this is how she should normally be referred to in article headings. Anglicanus (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should rephrase your wording in future. I fail to see how calling me an "irritant" and claiming that I resort to special pleading is not an insult. Maybe it's not part of your culture, but heaping negative labels and accusations on people is totally uncalled for. Would you like it if I negatively labelled you something in return?

Why should it not be the case that the article heading should be reflected as the "Blessed Virgin Mary"? The Catholic Church refers to her as such, and since this article is about the Catholic Church, why should it not be reflected as such? Don't just quote some Wikipedia policy and expect me to understand what you're thinking, explain to me concretely why it should not be so. Pretty Pig (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2013 (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.

""""""""""

The Eucharist

I am sorry that editor Dominus Vobisdu was offended by my questioning his revert (on grounds that "the eucharist is only one part of the liturgy") from "the Eucharist (the Mass or Divine Liturgy)" to "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the Eucharist is celebrated". He reacted by deleting my comment on this Talk page that his view disagrees with the statement in sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1332 and Virgilio T. J. Suerte Felipe that "the Eucharist" and "the Mass" are names for the same reality. I expected not a deletion of a Talk page remark but a citation in support of Dominus Vobisdu's view that they are instead distinct realities. Esoglou (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have asked Dominus Vobisdu to stop deleting other editor's comments. This is not permitted except in exceptional circumstances such as gross offensiveness which Esoglou's comments haven't been. Anglicanus (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(Going back to the article) I believe this problem at hand is due to different uses of the word "liturgy." Both editors are partially correct.

"Liturgy" could be:

1. Mass or "Divine" Liturgy. [The name "Divine Liturgy" is mainly used in the Easter Churches, while in the West, Mass and Celebration of the Eucharist are normally used, although Liturgy is also used.]

2. Parts of the Mass: Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist.

3. Rites: Roman liturgy, Byzantine liturgy, etc...

4. Liturgical celebrations, which include the Divine Office and the administration of the sacraments outside of Mass. These are official services and prayers of the Church, as opposed to personal devotions. The Compline is liturgy, the Rosary is not. Giving the Eucharist to an ill person outside of mass is a Liturgical celebration, a procession of the Way of the Cross is not.

CCC 1136 defines "liturgy" as "an action of the whole Christ (Christus totus)." CCC 1163-1178 "WHEN IS THE LITURGY CELEBRATED?" is divided into 5 sections: 1. Daily Mass, 2. Sunday Mass, 3. Liturgical year, 4. Sanctoral, and 5. Liturgy of the Hours. So, both the Mass (1 & 2) and the Divine Office (5) are part of the Liturgy, and they both have different prayers for ordinary times, liturgical times (3) and celebrations of saints (4). Moreover, in some Eastern Churches traditions, the "not-equal, but somehow equivalent" divine office (Divine Office has a completely different understanding in the West and in the East) is incorporated inside the Mass.

As per the 4th use of liturgy, and as understood in the CCC, Liturgy is not necessarily equivalent to Mass; although by adding "divine" to "divine" liturgy, is this equivalent to Mass now? Should the wording reflect this? I don't know. Was this Dominus Vobisdu's intention? I also don't know.

Leaving the deletion of the Esoglou's comment aside, I think this is a good discussion to have.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping that Dominus Vobisdu would respond to the invitation to discuss the edit by which he maintained that the "Eucharist" (not "the Liturgy of the Eucharist", which is a different thing, as "the Mass of the faithful" is not the same as "the Mass") is only a part of the Mass. As I said in my first comment here, I was presuming that, in line with the edit he made, what Dominus Vobisdu meant by "the liturgy" is the Mass/Divine Liturgy. If by "the liturgy" is meant all (and more) that Coquidragon mentions, it is the Mass that is part of the liturgy (which includes celebration of all the sacraments, the liturgy of the hours and much more), and not the other way round, as Dominus Vobisdu claimed. The Eucharist is not part of, but is the Mass/Holy and Divine Liturgy/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection/Holy Sacrifice/Most Blessed Sacrament/Eucharistic Assembly/Holy Communion. "The inexhaustible richness of this [one and the same] sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it" (cf. CCC 1328).

The edit in question was not about "the Mass" versus "the liturgy", as Dominus Vobisdu's comment might mislead into thinking, but a change from "the Eucharist (the Mass or Divine Liturgy)" - all names for the same thing - to "the Mass or Divine Liturgy, during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated" - making the Eucharist out to be distinct from the Mass. Esoglou (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring your rudeness, this is what I was talking about [[5]]. And the argument I am using is exactly the argument you yourself used in the previous section, where you also argued against the CCC vs common usage. Eucharist in normal parlance refers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, a part of the Mass. Or to the consecrated host itself. If you hadn't been such a WP:DICK, you would have gotten an answer sooner. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Dominus, it is not smart to enclose your reply in a personal attack or two. Your decision to remove Esoglou's comments was in fact ruder than his actual statements in the first place. Please comment on content, not contributors and much progress can be made. Elizium23 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's not focus on the fact that a comment on another editor, as you have done just now, is in fact also a comment on a contributor. I think this edit [6] puts the emphasis in the correct place. Not sure why it is being argued over. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Eucharist |ˈyoōkərist|
noun
the Christian ceremony commemorating the Last.  Supper, in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed.
• the consecrated elements, esp. the bread.
(Apple Dictionary)

Mass |mas|
noun
the Christian Eucharist or Holy Communion, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church : we went to Mass | the Latin Mass.
• a celebration of this : there was a Mass and the whole family was supposed to go.
• a musical setting of parts of the liturgy used in the Mass.
(Apple Dictionary)

It seems to me that the sentence uses "Mass" in a correct sense to describe the act of celebration as a whole, and "Eucharist" to describe the "consecrated elements" in particular. Perhaps rearranging the sentence, to say "Catholic worship focuses on the Eucharist, celebrated in the Mass or Divine Liturgy."? --Zfish118 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The document Dominus Vobisdu cites does not say "the Eucharist" is a part of "the Mass". It says "the Liturgy of the Eucharist" is part of "the Mass", and Church documents say that "the Mass" and "the Eucharist" are synonyms. "The Liturgy of the Eucharist" and "the Eucharist" are not synonyms. "The Liturgy of the Word" and "the Liturgy of the Eucharist" are simply names now used for what used to be called "the Mass of the Catechumens" and "the Mass of the Faithful".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "the Eucharist" and "the Mass" are used as synonyms. Of course, each of these two names is used in other senses too. "The Eucharist" is used not only of what Apple Dictionary calls "the Christian ceremony" but also of the consecrated elements; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same thing, when, speaking of the name "the Most Blessed Sacrament" (used for what it also calls "the Eucharist", "the Eucharistic assembly", "the Holy Sacrifice", "the Mass", etc.), it states that "the Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name". And "the Mass" is used not only of what Apple Dictionary calls a celebration of "the Christian Eucharist" ("the Mass" and "the Christian Eucharist" are here given as synonyms) but also of a musical composition.

The phrase "the Eucharist (Mass or Divine Liturgy)" is exact and is based on reliable sources. No source has been put forward here for saying that in this context "the Eucharist" means anything different from "the Mass".

I would have thought that the Catechism of the Catholic Church's saying that the two terms are names for the same reality was quite enough as a reliable source for discussion of the Church's teaching. For good measure I also cited a book that says the same thing. And Zfish has cited Apple Dictionary, which says that both terms are used of celebration of the Christian ceremony. I could have added others, such as:

"Mass. The common name for the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church. Synonyms: Eucharist, Eucharistic celebration" (source)
"Mass: The common name for the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church. Synonyms: Eucharist, Celebration of the Liturgy, Eucharistic celebration, Sacrifice of the Mass, Lord's Supper." (source)
"Eucharist. the Christian service, ceremony, or sacrament commemorating the Last Supper ... The service of worship is also called Holy Communion or (chiefly in the Protestant tradition) the Lord’s Supper or (chiefly in the Catholic tradition) the Mass" (source)
"The Mass is the complex of prayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the Eucharist" (source)
"Mass. Definition: (Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches) the celebration of the Eucharist"(source)
"Any reality that is so rich will naturally end up with many names and synonyms, each emphasizing a different quality. The Mass has gathered many titles throughout the ages. ... The Eucharist ... " (source)
"Mass. 1. the Christian service of the Eucharist ..." (source) Esoglou (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't now dispute that the two are synonyms in most instances, although this subtly is not something I was previously familiar with. At some point though, I probably wrote or edited that sentence, and my intent was to link to the separate articles regarding Mass (Catholic Church) and Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which focus on the liturgical structure and theology respectively, both of which may be of specific interest to a reader. I have no particular attachment to any particular phrasing, but do wish to keep or clarify the wikilinks to the separate articles. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The wikilinks Zfish118 speaks of are in the text that Dominus Vobisdu removed: "the Eucharist (the Mass or Divine Liturgy)".

While many side-comments have been made, no reliable source has been presented in support of the idea that, in Catholic teaching, the Eucharist is a distinct celebration occurring during the Mass, as in Dominus Vobisdu's text, now in the article: "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated". Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, another argument due to differences in the use of one word. Eucharist (which by itself means thanksgiving) has three main uses: 1. Eucharist = Mass (Esoglou); 2. Liturgy of the Eucharist as part of the Mass (Dominus Vobisdu in last comment in this talk page); 3. Sacrament of the Eucharist (current text in the article). You are comparing oranges and apples, and this way, no consensus will be reached.

Esoglou, the Eucharist is distinct from the Mass in uses 2 & 3. If you look at the current wording, it says that the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated during the Mass. This statement is 100% correct. The sacrament, the moment when we received the Body and Blood of Christ, is a specific moment during the Mass. The celebration of the Mass, is not a sacrament. Dominus Vobisdu is not saying that the Eucharist is celebrated during the Mass (which is also partially correct in its 2nd use), but that the sacrament is celebrated during the Mass. There is no ambiguity in his use of Eucharist, since he explicitly says "sacrament," he is speaking of the sacrament also called Communion. Now, consensus needs to be reached about which use of "Eucharist" will be reflected in the article, and agree on the wording.--Coquidragon (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Coquidragon. The part of the Mass/Eucharist known as the Liturgy of the Eucharist is, on its own, no more the Eucharist than the Mass of the Catechumens (or the Mass of the Faithful) is, on its own, the Mass. What reliable source says that your number 2 is a meaning of "the Eucharist"? This says that the Mass and the Eucharist are the same thing and that rather than "Mass", Catholics today use "the term 'Eucharist', which emphasizes the Liturgy of the Eucharist and our active participation in both the Word and the Lord's Supper" - it emphasizes a part, but doesn't mean that part, in fact it emphasizes active participation in both parts of the Eucharist/Mass. Liam G. Walsh says that your idea is mistaken, and he corrects it, saying: "In fact, the whole celebration, from the assembling of the community right through to its dismissal, is a unified action of word and rite, which in its totality is called Eucharist" (read more of what he says here). Your number 3 notion, that the sacrament of the Eucharist is "the moment when we receive the Body and Blood of Christ", sounds like Protestant teaching, not Catholic. Catholic teaching is that the sacrament of the Eucharist is far more than that. See this and this and this (which I have cited already); the "sacrament of the Eucharist" is not just consumed; it is "confected" by a validly ordained priest (see here). But enough of that. Dominus Vobisdu's text speaks of the sacrament of the Eucharist being "celebrated", not "consumed"; that in itself is enough to exclude your number 3. The main problem with Dominus Vobisdu's text is that it excludes what you call meaning number 1, it excludes the idea that the Eucharist is the Mass. Even if some think may think that the Eucharist and the Mass are not the same thing, no reliable source whatever says they are not. On the contrary, the sources that have been cited here in this discussion all say that, in Catholic teaching, the Eucharist and the Mass are the same thing. Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Eucharist = Mass is not the only use of the word Eucharist. You can present many sources for Eucharist = Mass. This is true. Nobody is arguing this. But within the Church, Eucharist is not only used for the Mass. It is because of these other uses that we can say, not only that the Eucharist is the Mass, but that the Eucharist is part of the Mass, occurs in the Mass, is celebrated in the Mass, is partaken at Mass, etc... Please read the section on the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the CCC for all the uses.

For one instance, the problem at hand:

-Dominus Vobisdu wrote: the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated.

-CCC 1367 says: The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

Please, pay attention to the underlined sentence. The Mass is normally called Eucharist (there are many references to this as you have shown), because is in it where we celebrate the sacrament, but they are not always the same thing. In the section of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the CCC, you'll find not only the three uses mentioned by me, but others as well, but this one section 1367 is clear enough for what I wanted to convey.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Just in case, for other uses within CCC, please see:

1323 - At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. - This is the most important use of the word, not the Mass. Jesus did not say Mass that day. The sacrifice in the cross = The sacrifice of the Eucharist. He offered his body and blood on the cross. He left us his Body and Blood, consecrated in the Bread and the Wine.

1324 - For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch. - Is Christ contained in the Mass?

1328 - 1332 - WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED? - The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it. Each name evokes certain aspects of it. It is called:... It has many names, each evoking different aspects.

1332 - Esoglou's use - Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God's will in their daily lives. One of the names. This is the current teaching of the Church as to why the Sacrament of the Eucharist is also called Mass.

1334 - When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

1335 - this unique bread of his Eucharist. Can you say Bread of the Mass?

1336 - The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples,... The first announcement of the Mass divided the disciples?

1346 - The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship"; the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord. Eucharist = Body of the Lord

1351 - From the very beginning Christians have brought, along with the bread and wine for the Eucharist, gifts to share with those in need.

1355 - Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist ("eucharisted," according to an ancient expression), "we call this food Eucharist, and no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught. Food = Eucharist

An so on and on. --Coquidragon (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Conquidragon, which of all these quotations says the Mass is not the Eucharist or the Eucharist is not the Mass. The citations I gave are explicit about the identity of the Mass and the Eucharist. "This divine sacrifice" (Christ's one sacrifice on the cross) "is celebrated in the Mass" does not mean that the Mass and the Eucharist are different things: it could just as truly be said that "this divine sacrifice is celebrated in the Eucharist". The Catechism of the Catholic explains the origin of the name "Mass" for the one reality - so what? The Catechism of the Catholic Church also explains the origin of the name "Eucharist" and of other names for the same reality. Of course, some names for a single reality, names that differ because of concentrating on different aspects of the same reality, are inappropriate in certain contexts - but again so what? Is there any source that actually says the Eucharist and the Mass are different realities?

It is inappropriate to speak of "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated". Reliable sources state explicitly that the Mass is "the sacrament of the Eucharist". Esoglou (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, read what I just wrote. You say "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated" is inappropriate, but CCC 1367 says: "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice... and since in this divine sacrifice (you read the cross, I read Eucharist) which is celebrated in the Mass..." You have Is celebrated in the Mass and the Mass during which is celebrated, two expression that convey the same idea. Are you saying the wording in the CCC is inappropriate? Your request for sources as to Eucharist not equal to Mass only goes to show you don't accept other uses of "Eucharist." I have given official uses, by the Church, where Eucharist is used for other realities, like you say. I think, right now, references supporting the current wording has been provided and you cannot ask for anything more official than the CCC, as to the teachings of the Church. Teaching of the Church: 1) Why is the Sacrament of the Eucharist called Holy Mass? CCC 1332 responds: because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God's will in their daily lives. 2. CCC 1367 says: The Sacrifice of the Eucharist... is celebrated in the Mass. Can you show me a source that explicitly says that the Eucharist IS NOT celebrated at Mass? I'm not asking for sources that say Eucharist = Mass, for sources that EXPLICITLY say the Eucharist IS NOT celebrated in Mass. Since this seems to go nowhere, you have three editors reading the sources and reaching one conclusion (Zfish, Dominus Vobisdu, and myself) and one editor (you) reading the sources and reaching a different conclusion. Do you want me to ask for an external opinion on the matter?--Coquidragon (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

To your question "Is there any source that actually says the Eucharist and the Mass are different realities?" here is a quote, straight from the Official Compendium of the CCC at www.vatican.va [7]: #86. "What kind of worship is due to the sacrament of the Eucharist? The worship due to the sacrament of the Eucharist, whether during the celebration of the Mass or outside it, is..." Please pay attention to the underlined. The sacrament of the Eucharist can be celebrated outside of Mass.--Coquidragon (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

CCC 1328-1332 lists various different names (of which Mass and Eucharist are two) in which "the inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed". "The divine sacrifice" (which is the Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection/Holy Sacrifice/Holy and Divine Liturgy/... and which, the Council of Trent, citing Hebrews 9:27, links to the one sacrifice that Christ offered once for all on the cross) is celebrated in the Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection/Holy Sacrifice/... There is no need to posit (synthesis) a celebration distinct from the Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... "The whole celebration, from the assembling of the community right through to its dismissal, is a unified action of word and rite, which in its totality is called Eucharist." So, of course, I don't say that the Eucharist is not celebrated in Mass, nor that the Mass is not celebrated in the Eucharist. They are the same celebration.

Names such as "Eucharist" and "Most Blessed Sacrament" (though not all names for the sacrament of the Eucharist - names such as Mass, Divine Liturgy, Eucharistic assembly, Breaking of Bread ...) are applied both to "the celebration of this sacrament" (that of the Eucharist) and also to "the Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle", as CCC 1330 rightly and authoritatively states. You can worship the sacrament of the Eucharist (the species) both during the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist/Mass/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... and outside that celebration; but in spite of what Dominus Vobisdu attributes to you below, you can't celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist (the rite) outside the celebration of Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... And so it is inappropriate to speak of "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated", instead of "the Mass or Divine Liturgy, which is the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist". "The Eucharist" never means the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" or "Mass of the Faithful". Esoglou (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

When this text refers to the worship due to the Eucharist "outside" of the Mass then it means the sacrament of the Eucharist when it is "reserved" and the focus of prayer and worship either in the tabernacle or a monstrance or in liturgical celebrations such as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. It isn't suggesting that the Eucharist as such can be "celebrated outside of Mass" (at least not in the usual sense of what "is meant when referring to the celebration of the Eucharist). Of course it is possible to consecrate the elements in certain circumstances without celebrating a complete Mass but that is obviously not what the text is referring to. Anglicanus (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict as a result of which I have inserted ahead of the comment by Anglicanus the reply I had tried to save. I must therefore specify that the text Anglicanus is referring to is that concerning "The worship due to the sacrament of the Eucharist, whether during the celebration of the Mass or outside it". Anglicanus is, of course, right. I would add that, in spite of what is often said, some theologians doubt that the words of consecration pronounced outside of the context of a celebration of the Eucharist/Mass/Divine Liturgy/... would be effective. In any case, Anglicanus spoke of an abbreviated Mass/Eucharist/Divine Liturgy, not of something that could in no sense be called a Divine Liturgy/Eucharist/Mass. Esoglou (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Historically, the Liturgy is a cobbled-together collection of different rituals, prayers and practices that included the Eucharistic ritual. Orignally, the word "missa" refered exclusively to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and excluded the preparatory and penitential rites and the Liturgy of the Word. That is no longer the case, as the word "Mass" now refers to the whole service, including the non-Eucharistic elements. As Coquidragon rightly points out, the Eucharist can be celebrated outside of Mass. Even after the Liturgy became a cohesive whole, catechumens were required to leave before the Eucharistic portion of the service began (although no longer part of the Latin Mass, the words commanding them to depart are still part of the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy, though they are no longer considered as an actual dismissal). I have no problem with the wording that the Eucharist takes place in the Mass, and I doubt that any source will be found to contradict this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dominus Vobisdu, for discussing the question. I think several of your statements are unfounded, such as your claim that the word missa originally referred exclusively to what is now called the Liturgy of the Eucharist and that used to be called instead the Mass of the Faithful (missa fidelium), as distinct from the Mass of the Catechumens (missa catechumenorum). Note the use of the word missa for both parts of the Mass (missa). Similarly, although the Byzantine Divine Liturgy still marks the change from one part to the other by pronouncing an instruction to catechumens to leave, it is the whole rite that is called Divine Liturgy or Eucharist.

Coquidragon did not say that the Eucharist can be celebrated outside of Mass. It can't. Outside of Mass/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/..., the Eucharist (the Eucharistic species) is worshipped, but not celebrated. Every celebration of the Eucharist is a celebration of the Mass/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... "The whole celebration, from the assembling of the community right through to its dismissal, is a unified action of word and rite, which in its totality is called Eucharist" - and is also called Mass/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... The Eucharist can be said to take place in the Mass in the same way as it can be said to take place in the Breaking of Bread, the Lord's Supper, the memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection, the Holy and Divine Liturgy, the Sacred Mysteries ... and vice versa. In short, "the Eucharist" never means the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" or "Mass of the Faithful". Esoglou (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The first mention of the word "missa" is in a letter by Ambrose, where he very clearly uses "missa" to refer to the Liturgy of the Faithful only:

"The day after, which was Sunday, after the lessons and the sermon, when the Catechumens were dismissed, I was teaching the creed to certain candidates in the baptistery of the basilica. There it was reported to me that they had sent decani from the palace, and were putting up hangings, and that part of the people were going there. I, however, remained at my ministrations, and began to celebrate mass."

He uses it consistently, or at least not inconsistently, with the same meaning elsewhere in his writings. Of course, the ORIGINAL meaning of "missa" was almost certainly limited solely to the Dismissal of the Faithful, but we have no surviving examples of that usage before Ambrose. The word thus creeped in meaning from the dismissal, to the Liturgy of the Faithful, and especially the Anaphora, to the whole Liturgy including the Liturgy of the Catechumens (preparation, penetential rite and Liturgy of the Word), which was probably appended to the Liturgy of the Faithful some time after Ambrose.

As for Eucharist, it referred orginally only to the words of institution or consecration proper(Didache), and later only to the Anaphora (Didascalia and Apostolic Constitutions, see also Basil and John Chrysostom). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting comments. You may well be right.

However, to get back to today, does "Eucharist", as a celebration, now mean for the Catholic Church the Liturgy of the Eucharist or Mass of the Faithful? Or does it mean the whole celebration? Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Given. It means the whole celebration. Nevertheless, it also means the sacrifice of Christ; it also means the consecrated host. So, if we use "Eucharist" to mean the Sacrifice of the Eucharist (instead of the Mass), then, we can celebrate the Eucharist during the Mass. It all depends what you mean when you say "Eucharist." You cannot eat the Mass, yet you can eat the Eucharist. The order of the Mass has four parts, the thir of which is the Liturgy of the Eucharist, you'll never say the Liturgy of the Mass; etc...--Coquidragon (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's try one more time. I cannot hide my frustration. CCC 1278: "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it." The only thing I want to convey is how in this one sentence, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a distinct "reality" than the mass. "Offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist... not only during Mass, but also outside of it." If I can adore the sacrament of the Eucharist during Mass, then you have one object (sacrament of the Eucharist) which is adore during the time of a second object (the Mass). Nobody is denying that the Mass is also the Eucharist. The whole purpose of this long and pointless discussion is that the word Eucharist is used for different objects, or realities: the sacrament, the Mass, the consecrated host, etc... Once again, yes, the Mass is also called Eucharist. Once again, the consecrated host is also called Eucharist. Once again, the third part in the order of the Mass is the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If you use "Eucharist" meaning sacrament, which I have shown is a different "reality" than the Mass, then we have that we celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass. This is my last intervention. If this is not solved, I'll asked for a third opinion. This is 3 editors with one idea vs. 1 editor with another, with different interpretations of the same texts.--Coquidragon (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that the phrase being insisted on is "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the Eucharist is celebrated". The trouble is speaking of the Eucharist as a celebration and at the same time applying to the word meanings that are not about an action (a celebration) but about something static ("the consecrated host"). Why insist on "is celebrated"? Esoglou (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The full sentence is "Catholic worship is highly liturgical, focusing on the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated." The subject of the sentence is "Catholic worship," the predicative is "highly liturgical," relative sentence to subject "focusing on the Mass or Divine Office." This sentence looks at the Mass from the standpoint of the worship. Now, why does the Catholic worship focuses on the Mass? Because it is during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated. A very well redacted sentences that allows the reader to differentiate between Mass, Liturgy and Eucharist, each of which has more than one use, that might or might not be the same, depending on the use and the context. If we also consider the possibility that the sacrament of the Eucharist is a distinct reality to the Mass, you can also celebrate the Eucharist during the mass. This does not look at the Sacrament from the static reference of the consecrated host, but from the standpoint of Christ' sacrifice in the cross, which is indeed an action. It all depends how you read "Eucharist."--Coquidragon (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem about the use of "liturgy", "Mass" or "Divine Liturgy"; and there is no question that "the sacrament of the Eucharist" in the sense of an object that you can receive and touch and venerate and worship is different from "Mass" and "Divine Liturgy". Sources cited by both you and me say so. The problem is the insistence that "the sacrament of the Eucharist" in its sense as a celebration, an action, has a meaning different from that of "Mass" and "Divine Liturgy". No reliable source says that the sacrament of the Eucharist in this sense is anything other than the Mass or Divine Liturgy.

You say: "You can also celebrate the Eucharist during the Mass." In what sense do you mean "celebrate the Eucharist"? Do you mean "worship, praise, etc."? In that case there is no difficulty, requiring only clarification. Or do you mean, if I may use a technical term, "confect"? In this case you would seem to posit an action within the celebration as a whole that can be at least mentally separated from the celebration as a whole. Would that be the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" or "Mass of the Faithful" part, for which (unlike the consecrated elements) we have found no source that explicitly calls it the Eucharist, while there are sources that say it is wrong to call it the Eucharist? If not this, what is it? Esoglou (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It means "confect", to utter the words of institution and effect transubstantation. See the Didache and the other sources I mentioned above and read up on the history of the Liturgy. And the history of the terms "Mass" and "Eucharist", which I've already explained to you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Esoglou. I'm not seeing the problem with it that you apparently are seeing. The primary and essential meaning of the word "Eucharist" refers to the sacrificial sacrament, which is the words of institution or the consecration proper. All other meanings are derived from this, including the "consecrated host" meaning, the "distribution and reception of communion" meaning, and any other parts of the Liturgy of the Faithful or the Mass as a whole. The sentence as it now stands seems fine to me. Equating the terms "Mass or Divine Liturgy" and "Eucharist" as exact synonyms does not. What alternative to "celebration would you suggest? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So, Dominus Vobisdu, for you, celebrating the Eucharist means confecting it, and you seem to identify celebration of the Eucharist as the consecration (unlike Coquidragon, who at least earlier, but perhaps no longer, seemed to identify it as the act of receiving). What sources can we cite to say that the Catholic Church (now) calls the consecration the Eucharist, rather than trsating it as part of the Eucharist? Esoglou (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Eucharist is defined very neatly and succinctly in CCC 1358 and explained at length in the subsequent sections. All other usages of the term are derived from this, specifically the words "he gave thanks" in the words of institution. None of the other meanings exclude the consecration. No consecration, no Eucharist. And you'll never find a source that says otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, the sources see the consecration only as an essential part of the Eucharist understood in CCC 1328 as what goes also by names such as the Lord's Supper and the Mass: none of them calls the consecration on its own the Eucharist. There isn't any source that speaks of "the Eucharist" as something celebrated during the Eucharist as understood in CCC 1328. "The Eucharistic celebration always includes: the proclamation of the Word of God; thanksgiving to God the Father for all his benefits, above all the gift of his Son; the consecration of bread and wine; and participation in the liturgical banquet by receiving the Lord's body and blood. These elements constitute one single act of worship" (CCC 1408). Esoglou (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm changing "during" to "in" per CCC 1367. It's ambiguous enough to accommodate all definitions, including yours. I've said all that there is to say, and I'm not interested in discussing the matter further. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we playing scrabble? First, use of Liturgy, then, use of Eucharist, now, use of "celebrate". Oxford dictionary: 1. to publicly acknowledge (a significant or happy day or event) with a social gathering or enjoyable activity (let's celebrate the redeeming sacrifice of Christ in the Cross who stayed with us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist); 2. to perform (a religious ceremony), in particular officiate at (the Eucharist) (It is very interesting that the Eucharist is mentioned by name, but if "officiate" means "to preside," then this might be correct English, but it is wrong Catholic theology, since in our theology since 2nd VC, all laity also celebrate, only the Bishop/Priest presides.) (Let's celebrate in our Lord, let's remember and make present his eternal sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Eucharist); 3. to honour or praise publicly (let's celebrate our all loving God in the sacrament of the Eucharist). We can also say: let's celebrate the sacrament of Baptism at Mass (receive a new member in the Church), let's celebrate the sacrament of Matrimony at Mass (union of love in the presence of God and his Church), let's celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist at Mass (a God that gave his life for us, that gave his life to us in the sacrament of the Eucharist), etc... Signing out!--Coquidragon (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Coquidragon, a citation is needed for the assertion that "post-Vatican II, all laity celebrate the Mass." In Canon Law, the term "celebrate" refers to a priest only. Witness Canon 916: Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession This clearly refers to a priest celebrating, otherwise it would mean that the laity should not attend Mass unless in a state of grace. So clearly "celebrating Mass" isn't for everyone according to the Church's legislation, so I would be interested to see the Vatican II document that says otherwise. Yes, it is true that the priest "presiding" is new terminology that is officially used, but other priests are still referred to as "concelebrants" so I am not sure the term has slipped down as you say it has. Elizium23 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Many theologians speak today of the idea of 'concelebrating from the pews,' that is "the whole community" gathered for Eucharist "celebrates"... the priest is the presider, leading the assembly in prayer, but the entire community "celebrates" the Eucharist." Before Vatican II, our theology emphasized the priest's role: he was "celebrating Mass" and the people in the pews were "assisting at Mass". With the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the emphasis changed. Is this reflected anywhere? Yes, in the spirit and letter of the document. Nevertheless, to your question, I don't think this has reached Canon Law or the Roman Missal yet. For some things, our beloved Church (like a priest friend of mine use to say) "moves like a Dinosaur on a skateboard while theology (and society) drives cars in the highway." Regardless, let's not open another Pandora's box. This is not important since it was my comment on the definition of "celebration" from the Oxford dictionary. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand. If anything, I'm using "celebrate" under the first and third definition. Nevertheless, I'll need to check up on my sources, thanks Elizium23.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote attributed (I haven't been able to confirm it) to Pope St. Pius X: "The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the altar. Further, you must pray with the priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way, you have prayed Holy Mass." I think it reflects what I'm talking about. Here is another quote that I found in the internet, "The Eucharist is the expression of all the people offering the whole of their lives together to God our friend and lover. The presider is merely the conveyer of that offering. The less he is noticed, the better. The presider must decrease while Jesus must increase." (Well, I guess I kept Padora's box open, without bringing real sources to the table, jeje)--Coquidragon (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am grateful to Dominus Vobisdu for changing the text. Surely nobody objects to the revised text. May we end the discussion on a text that no longer exists in the article? Esoglou (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

^ "WYD 2011 Madrid – Official Site – What is WYD?". Madrid11.com. 15 June 2011. Retrieved 2012-08-17.
^ Maxwell-Stuart, P.G. (2006). Chronicle of the Popes: Trying to Come Full Circle. London: Thames & Hudson. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-500-28608-1.

[1] "WYD 2011 Madrid – Official Site – What is WYD?". Madrid11.com. 15 June 2011. Retrieved 2012-08-17.

[2] Maxwell-Stuart, P.G. (2006). Chronicle of the Popes: Trying to Come Full Circle. London: Thames & Hudson. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-500-28608-1.

[1]

[2]