Jump to content

Talk:History of the Catholic Church/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Einstein misquoted

Einstein is quoted in language uncharacteristic of him. Yes the source of the quoute is correct, but the source of the source is untraceble. Research into the quote is done here, which seems to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the quote. It is not up to wikipedia standard, though up to Times standard. The quote should be removed regardless of its validity as Einstein was not an expert in church-nazi relations anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.69.130 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a misleading entry from the start which supports a modern Catholic world view in the most positive light possible. I read it all, thinking "what bullshit" from time to time and when I got to the Einstein quote, I had to check if anyone called bullshit on that in the talk page. It doesn't reflect the known letters and public statements by Einstein before, during, and after the war about his view on the activity of religious organizations. All of those statements are well sourced. This contradictory and uncharacteristic statement is not well sourced. In fact, the linked source says nothing about it.

The dubious origins of the quote is pretty much what anyone would find if they looked at the link you provided. It is from Thomas F. Torrance, who claims it is from the Evening Yews, Baltimore, April 13, 1979, and that it came from a letter sent to the American Episcopal Bishop about the behavior during the Holocaust. Later, Sister Margherita Marchione claims she read it in the Times article, and that it was not about the Episcopal church. With journalism what it is, I wouldn't even trust a news article, but rather see a digitized copy of this mythical letter owing to the fact that his other statements are to the contrary.

The best part is the link that supports that this statement is from the Times article is a 2001 New York Times article that says NOTHING about Einstein. The quote or reference to the Times article is absent. Oh, they put a blue link there thinking you will now believe the nonsense they just wrote, expecting you never to click on it. Ironically, the article it does link references books that attempt to show that there was a great deal of anti-semitism from the Church. A statement categorically denied in that section, as "the Church has also been falsely accused of encouraging antisemitism."

I can understand leaving out of Church history all of the clergy (and saints) able to fly, teleport, and heal people with a touch (apparently flying became too difficult to do after the advent of the photographic camera), but you have to make real life people say things they never said too? The entire articles modus operandi appears to be state the modern view of Catholicism (ignore any inconsistencies in the past), if you can't say anything good, just describe events, mention if they did something positive, totally don't mention if they ever said anything to the contrary in the past. Did they say slavery was bad? Mention it, but don't mention the reams of Catholic doctrine like Saint Thomas Aquinas that supported a slave mother's child being a slave due to the sin passed down to that child. It would be easy to make that statement during the talk about the the Church's stance on slavery in South American, such as "contrary to some stances in the past which supported slavery, the Church..." That doesn't happen, because a morally ambiguous history of Catholicism just doesn't sit well with some people. They want the Disney version, even if it means lying. It seems inconsistent, biased, and knowingly so. In essence, those that wrote this article had to know the evil to dance around it. If you dance around the devil, are you dancing with the devil? Ignorance is not an excuse here.

Further up, someone argues that they shouldn't have to make this article conform to reality because the Mormon article doesn't question all of their beliefs, but seriously, the Mormon article on their history is awful. Mentioning the Egyptian papyrus that John Smith translated, and neglecting to mention that Egyptologist agree that is NOT what it says, and that similar (almost identical) iconography and writing is found all over tombs which well known meanings that correlate with a library of work in the Egyptian script. This is central to their faith because John Smith had the divine ability to translate ancient writings. So yes, the Mormon article is for Mormons who don't want to accept that their religion is a pile of lies, and in that same vein, so is much of this article, with what is left out, what is implied (suggesting, without saying a lie must not be a lie?), and out right fabrications.

I am sorry for the rant, but yesterday I read on Wikipedia about a Hollywood Producer known for forcing drugs on children, sexual molestation of children, and other unsavory behaviors. It reads like he was a saint with areas that clearly show the writers are aware of this behavior, not fully describing why famous female movie stars thought he was a "monster" (you never learn about his behavior towards young children), and refuting the incomplete criticism with unrelated statements. From the previous edits and talk submission, it appears that getting this article even this decent was a struggle. So for anyone else who looked to the Talk page because they questioned the legitimacy of this article, you're not wrong. 50.33.42.16 (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

  • Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.cwnews.com/news/biosgloss/definition.cfm?glossID=67

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Closed neutrality dispute

I am closing the neutrality dispute that started in Oct 2014. If there are lingering issues, please feel free to repost the tag and discuss them. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

When reading through the article I got the impression that it is biased towards a conservative Roman Catholic view on their history. Especially the early part would be in dispute. Now I'm not saying that the Catholic position should be excluded from the article, by all means it should be included. But other historical views need definitely to be included into this. Some of the claims or issue being made are also of a theological nature. E.g. the role of Peter, the start of the Papacy etc. --41.150.89.181 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest listing specific passages where you think there is an obvious or implied bias, so that other editors can see what the problem is. In some cases adding sourced material from writers and historians who have a less favorable view of this Church may be enough, though there might also be errors in omission.

Currently the entire Investiture Controversy is only briefly mentioned, despite being a prolonged military and political conflict between the Church and the secular authorities over who has the right and authority to appoint bishops and abbots. It is a key moment of the Middle Ages with lasting political, economic, and cultural effects for several European states, and barely gets a mention. Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on History of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Article introduction relies too much upon primary sources at the expense of historical accuracy

The first two sources used in this Wikipedia entry are works by the subject (i.e. primary sources). The introduction claims that Peter ministered in Rome, without any historical evidence (and indeed the Wikipedia entry on Saint Peter seems quite clear that this is a later myth).

It is fine to say that such things are 'part of the church's teachings', but quite another to claim myth as fact. It is also important to be aware of the potential biases in writings about religious matters, when seeking appropriate references. --203.206.39.160 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Some grammatical corrections:(1)Section titled "Early Organization"; 3rd paragraph; first sentence - Change "According to some historians and scholars The early Christian Church was..." to "According to some historians and scholars, the early Christian Church was..." by adding a comma after 'scholars' and making the next word 'The' start with a small 't'. (2) Section titled "Persecutions"; 1st sentence - Change "... adopted from Judaism, see Idolatry." to "... adopted from Judaism (see Idolatry)." by deleting the comma after the word 'Judaism' and putting parentheses around 'see Idolatry'. Greg Stokley (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've corrected the capitalization of "The" to lowercase, and I've placed the Wiki-link for idolatry within the words renounce all other gods in the sentence you mentioned. I think the text flows better without the "See also" placed there as an interruption, yet the practice itself will be wiki-linked for readers who wish more info on it.  Spintendo  02:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ"?

In this edit, an anonymous user changed the sentence:

According to Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

to:

According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

Obviously, not all would agree with this assertion—for example, most Protestants. It may be argued that the sentence doesn't show a neutral point of view. For this reason, the edit was reverted a couple of times,[1][2] but the user kept adding it back.[3][4]

It would be nice to reach consensus on this topic. Should this change be reverted, or should it be left as it is? — Zenadix (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I would support reverting back to the original wording as no WP:RS has been provided to verify this change. Glad you've started this discussion. Would be good to get consensus since the anonymous user is extremely insistent that their assertion remains. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, the current phrasing is terrible. What does "according to history" even mean? If it is a historical fact that the church was founded by Jesus Christ, then just say "The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ." Bennv3771 (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would support leaving the wording as "According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.[8] "
over fifty citations WP:RS have been provided:
Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.208.204.252
Please investigate and sanction: Bennv3771 for her dishonesty and misuse of wikipedia along with her attempt to jeopardize wikipedia's credibility and integrity because of her own personal beliefs. It is critical that a neutral point of view is maintained at all times
Here again are fifty citations:
List of fifty citations

1. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD...The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

2. ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. (Marriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )

3. The history of the Roman Church, therefore, in relation to the ancient oriental churches, is in fact, the history of this claim to supremacy. The claim of supremacy on the part of the bishop of Rome rests on the belief that Christ conferred on the apostle Peter a 'primacy of jurisdiction;' that Peter fixed his see and died at Rome and thus, that the bishops of Rome, as successors of the apostle Peter, have succeeded to his preorgatives of supremacy. In this light, historians read the facts of the early history of the church---and they trace to this acknoledgment of the superiority of that see, the numerous references to Rome on matters of doctrine or discipline; the appeals from other churhces, even those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; the depositions or nominations of bishops, examination and condemnation of heresies---of which the first five centuries, especially the 4th and 5th, present examples. . . In all the controversies on the Incarnation---the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monothelite---not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church. ( Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32 © 1903)

4. The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome.(The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14,)

5. The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built "upon a rock," (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)

6. Historical Notes. The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on this earth, and as the Head of the Church. It traces its origin from the naming of the Apostles Peter by Jesus as the chief of the Apostles . The authority of Peter as head of the Church is exercised by his successors as the Bishops of Rome. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church come from the faith given by Christ to his Apostles.( World Religions, By Benson Y. Landis, © 1957 Page 110)

7. At first the Christians were terribly persecuted, but gradually they spread the Christ’s radian spirit and teachings until they united many races, classes, and religious beliefs into a brotherhood which extended from Persia to the Atlantic Ocean. Later, this brotherhood spread to American, and Christianity became the prevailing religion of the Western Hemisphere. It has now ben taught in all countries.For nearly a thousand years the Christians remained practically one great community. Then the Greek Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics. "The World Book Encyclopedia ©1940, Page 1413 Volume 3)

8. (The Catholic) Church... traces an unbroken line of popes from St. Peter in the 1st century AD to the present occupant of the papal throne. During this nearly 2,000-year period there were more than 30 false popes, most notably during the late 14th and early 15th centuries. These men were merely claimants to the position. There have rarely been periods when a genuine pope was not ruling the church. In 1978 John Paul II became the 264th true pope.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

9. By A. D. 100,...Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal.(The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Published by Vintage Books. 1994)

10. The Empire within the Empire.—Long before the fall of Rome there had begun to grow up within the Roman Empire an ecclesiastical state, which in its constitution and its administrative system was shaping itself upon the imperial model. This spiritual empire, like the secular empire, possessed a hierarchy of officers, of which deacons, priests or prebyters, and bishops were the most important. The bishops collectively formed what is know as the episcopate. There were four grades of bishops, namely, country bishops, city bishops, metropolitans or archbishops, and patriarchs. At the end of the third century there were five patriarchates, that is, regions ruled by patriarchs. These centered in the great cities of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Among the patriarchs, the patriarchs of Rome were accorded almost universally a precedence in honor and dignity. They claimed further a precedence in authority and jurisdiction, and this was already very widely recognized ...Besides the influence of great men, such as Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, and Nicholas I, who held the seat of St. Peter, there were various historical circumstances that contributed to the realization by the Roman bishops of their claim to supremacy and aided them vastly in establishing the almost universal authority of the see of Rome. In the following paragraphs we shall enumerate several of these favoring circumstances. These matters constitute the great landmarks in the rise and early growth of the Papacy.

The belief in the Primacy of St. Peter and in the Founding by him of the Church at Rome.—The Catholic Church teaches that the apostle Peter was given by the Master primacy among his fellow apostles and, furthermore, that Christ intrusted that disciple with the keys of the kingdom of heaven and invested him with superlative authority as teacher and interpreter of the Word by the commission "Feed my sheep"; . . ."feed my lambs," thus giving into his charge the entire flock of the Church. It also teaches that the apostle Peter himself founded the church at Rome. Without doubt he preached at Rome and suffered martyrdom there under the Emperor Nero...The Pastor as Protector of Rome.—With the advent of the barbarians there came another occasion for the Roman bishops to widen their influence and enhance their authority. Rome’s extremity was their opportunity. Thus it will be recalled how mainly through the intercession of the pious Pope Leo the Great the fierce Attila was persuaded to turn back and spare the imperial city; and how the same bishop, in the year A.D. 455, also appeased in a measure the wrath of the Vandal Geiseric and shielded the inhabitants from the worst passions of a barbarian soldiery...Thus when the emperors, the natural defenders of the capital, were unable to protect it, the unarmed Pastor was able, through the awe and reverence inspired by his holy office, to render services that could not but result in bringing increased honor and dignity to the Roman see. (Mediaeval and Modern History, By Myers, Pg 26-27 Ginn and Company New York, 1905 )

11. Peter: d AD 64? Apostle, pope, and saint. According to the Bible Peter, a fisherman of Galilee was originally known as Simon. He was chosen by Jesus to be the first leader (pope) of his disciples. During Jesus' crucifixion, Peter denied knowing him, an act that Jesus had predicted and that Peter bitterly repented of. After word of Jesus' ascension to heaven, Peter actively sought converts, and is believed to have been crucified, head downward, in Rome by Nero. In the Roman Catholic Church, he is considered to be the first Pope. (Excerpted from the Macmillan Concise Dictionary of World History, compiled by Bruce Watterau. © 1986 Macmillan Publishing Company, a division of Macmillan, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

12. "If you are a Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ began your religion in the year 33. "(Ann Landers (Jewish), syndicated columnist in the Daily Record of Morris County, N.J. (from which we take this piece) for Monday, November 11,1996 reads)

13. "The Roman Catholic church ... the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ...Until the break with the Eastern church in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 1500s, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic church from the history of Christianity" (The Encarta Encyclopedia © 1997 says)

14. "33-40 A.D.The Roman Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ"(The Timetables of History © 1975)

15. "The Catholic Church...Saint Peter and the Popes who have descended in unbroken succession from him have never ceased to feed, with the life-giving Sacraments and doctrines of the Catholic Church, the sheep whom Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd" (History Of The Popes © 1965)

16. "Jesus Christ has founded one only Church, the Catholic hierarchical Church, whose chief pastors are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope," (The Early Church © 1945)

17. "St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock .Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)

18. "ROMAN CATHOLICISM The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD, ...the Roman church owes its existence to the life of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD" (Comptons Encyclopedia ©1995)

19. "Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)

20. "Roman Catholicism Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure that traces its history to the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)

21. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, the largest single Christian body, composed of those Christians who acknowledge the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome, the pope, in matters of faith. The word catholic (Gr. katholikos) means "universal" and has been used to designate the church since its earliest period, when it was the only Christian church. The Roman Catholic church regards itself as the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from St. Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ on the 12 apostles (see APOSTLE). The church has had a profound influence on the development of European culture and on the introduction of European values into other civilizations. Its total membership as the 1990s began was about 995.8 million (about 18.8 percent of the world population). (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia ©1998-2000)

22. The doctrine of apostolic succession, that is, the continuous transmission of ministry from the time of Jesus until today. The doctrine is found as early as the Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 96), traditionally attributed to Pope Clement I...It is expressly affirmed in Roman Catholicism. It is identified with the succession of bishops in office and interpreted as the source of the bishops’ authority and leadership role. The most specific instance of these claims is that the pope is the successor of St. Peter, who was chosen by Jesus as head of his church (see Matt. 16:16–18). (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia ©1998-2000)


IN THE WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS (ancient writings of antiquity prior to 900 A.D.)

23. Saint Cyprian (died A.D. 258): "He who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ; he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. Our Lord warns us when He says: `he that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.' Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ." (Unity of the Catholic Church)

24. "He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation." (Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Latina)

25. "Nay, though they should suffer death for the confession of the Name, the guilt of such men is not removed even by their blood...No martyr can he be who is not in the Church." (Ancient Christian Writers)

26. "Christ has declared the unity of the Church. Whoever parts and divides the Church cannot possess Christ ... The House of God is but one, and no one can have salvation except in the Church" (The Unity of the Church)

27. "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church ... and it is they who in His Church have labored in doing good works whom the Lord says shall be received into the Kingdom of Heaven on the Day of Judgment." (Epistle 73:21)

28. Bishop Firmilean (died A.D. 269): "What is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church." (Anti-Nicene Fathers)

29. Saints Cosmas and Damian (died A.D. 303): "There is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church" (Saints to Remember)

30. St. Catherine of Alexandria (died A.D. 307) "It is necessary for you to believe the Catholic Faith and to be baptized, as must every man in order to save his soul." (Saints to Know and Love)

31. Lactantius (died A.D. 310): "It is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the Faith, this is the temple of God; into which if anyone shall not enter, or from which if anyone shall go out, he is a stranger to the hope of life and eternal salvation." (The Divine Institutes)

32. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (died A.D. 386): "Abhor all heretics...heed not their fair speaking or their mock humility; for they are serpents, a `brood of vipers.' Remember that, when Judas said `Hail Rabbi,' the salutation was an act of betrayal. Do not be deceived by the kiss but beware of the venom. Abhor such men, therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon. For what fellowship have you with men without hope. Let us confidently say to God regarding all heretics, `Did I not hate, O Lord, those who hated Thee, and did I not pine away because of Your enemies?' For there is an enmity that is laudable, as it is written, `I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.' Friendship with the serpent produces enmity with God, and death. Let us shun those from whom God turns away." (The Fathers of the Church)

33. Saint Ambrose (died A.D. 397): "Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. ...Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward." (The Fathers of the Church)

34. St. John Chrysostom (died A.D. 407): "We know that salvation belongs to the Church alone, and that no one can partake of Christ nor be saved outside the Catholic Church and Catholic Faith." (De Capto Eutropio)

35. "We should mourn for those who are dying without the Faith ... And well should the pagan weep and lament who, not knowing God, goes straight to punishment when he dies!" (On the Consolation of Death)

36. St. Gaudentius of Brescia (died A.D. 410): "It is certain that all men of Noah's time perished, except those who merited to be in the Ark, which was a figure of the Church. Likewise, they cannot in any way now be saved who are aliens from the Apostolic Faith and the Catholic Church" (De Lect. Evangel)

37. Bishop Niceta of Remesiana (died A.D. 415): "He is the Way along which we journey to our salvation; the Truth, because He rejects what is false; the Life, because He destroys death. ...All who from the beginning of the world were, or are, or will be justified - whether Patriarchs, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or Prophets, whether Apostles or martyrs, or any others - make up one Church, because they are made holy by one faith and way of life, stamped with one Spirit, made into one Body whose Head, as we are told, is Christ. I go further. The angels and virtues and powers in heaven are co-members in this one Church, for, as the Apostle teaches us, in Christ `all things whether on the earth or in the heavens have been reconciled.' You must believe, therefore, that in this one Church you are gathered into the Communion of Saints. You must know that this is the one Catholic Church established throughout the world, and with it you must remain in unshaken communion. There are, indeed, other so called `churches' with which you can have no communion. ...These `churches' cease to be holy, because they were deceived by the doctrines of the devil to believe and behave differently from what Christ commanded and from the tradition of the Apostles." (The Fathers of the Church)

38. Saint Jerome (died A.D. 420): "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. ...This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. ...And as for heretics, I have never spared them; on the contrary, I have seen to it in every possible way that the Church's enemies are also my enemies." (Manual of Patrology and History of Theology)

39. "Therefore, I believe it is good for me to praise the Chair and Faith of peter: with you alone remains uncorrupted the inhereitance of the Fathers. As I follow no one but Christ, so do I therefore unite myself with Your Holiness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this House is profane; whoever is not in this Ark of Noah will perish in the Flood; whoever does not gather with thee scatters; that is: he who is not Christ's is Antichrist's." (To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15)

40. Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

41. "So certain and so clear is the Catholic Faith as expressed in the words of the Apostolic See, so ancient and so well-extablished, that it would be a sacrilege for any Christian to doubt!" (Faith of the Early Fathers)

42. "There is nothing a Christian should dread more than to be separated from the Body of Christ, for if he is separated from the Body, he is not one of His Members. If he is not a member of Christ, then he does not live by His Spirit. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ," says the Apostle, "he is none of His" (Romans 8:9) ... Do you also wish to live by the Spirit of Christ? Then belong to the Body of Christ. No one ascends into Heaven except him who remains glued to Christ, for "no man hath ascended into Heaven except Him Who alone descended from Heaven: the Son of man Who is in Heaven" (John 3:13). Do you want to ascend, too? Then become a member of Him Who alone ascends! For He, the Head, is one man with the other members ... If, then, the Body of Christ and its members belong to "one man," do not make two of them ... He is the Bridegroom Who is the Head, the Bride is he who is in the Body. For "they two," He said, "shall be in one flesh" (Mt. 19:5-6) ... And since no one can ascend into Heaven but him who has become His member in His Body, the saying is fulfilled that "no man ascends to Heaven except Him Who descended" ... What do these words mean if not that no man ascends into heaven who has not been made one with Him and, as a member, become hidden within the Body of Him who has descended from Heaven? And what is that Body if not the Church?" (Treatise on John)

43. "Everyone God teaches, He teaches out of pity; but whomever He does not teach, He does not teach them out of justice ... The saving grace of this religion, the only true one, through which alone true salvation is truly promised, has never been refused anyone who was worthy of it; and whoever did lack it was unworthy of it. Consequently, those who have not heard the Gospel, and those who, having heard it, have refused to come to Christ, that is, to believe in Him ... all of these have perished in death; they all go in one lump into condemnation." (Predestination of the Saints; Admonition and Grace)

44. St. Patrick (died A.D. 493): "Not without just cause does the Apostle say: 'Where the righteous shall scarcely be saved, where shall the sinner and the ungodly transgressor of the law find himself?' (1Peter 4:18). The Words are not mine, but God's and the Apostle's and Prophet's who have never lied: "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be damned' (Mk 16:16). God hath spoken!" (The Writings of St. Patrick)

45. Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): "Hold most firmly and never doubt at all that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Enchiridion Patristicum)

46. "No one can be saved by any means outside the Church; all pagans and heretics are infallibly damned ... Anyone who is outside the Church is walking a path not to Heaven but to Hell. He is not approaching the home of eternal life; rather, he is hastening to the torment of eternal death." ("On the Faith of Peter" and "The Forgiveness of Sins")

47. "Anyone who is out of this Church is walking a path not to heaven, but to hell. He is not getting closer to the home of eternal life; on the contrary, he is hurrying to the torments of eternal death. And this is the case not only if he remains a pagan without Baptism, but even if, after having been Baptized, he continue as a heretic" (To Euthymius, on the Remission of Sins)

48. Saint Bede the Venerable (died A.D. 735): "Just as all within the ark were saved and all outside of it were carried away when the flood came, so when all who are pre-ordained to eternal life have entered the Church, the end of the world will come and all will perish who are found outside." (Hexaemeron)

49. "He who will not willingly and humbly enter the gate of the Church will certainly be damned and enter the gate of hell whether he wants to or not!" (cf. Sermon 16; PL94:129)

50. "Let nothing be done without the bishop See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans) Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm>.

Furthermore, regarding the statement:
"Obviously, not all would agree with this assertion—for example, most Protestants. It may be argued that the sentence doesn't show a neutral point of view."
Most would recognize that just because, "not all would agree" is an irrelevant comment to make, and quite frankly, and also arguably a sentence that doesn't show a neutral point of view, but rather a protestant point of view.
The fact of the matter, is that there is no other Christian church other than the Catholic Church that can trace it's roots back to the time of Jesus Christ (2000 years ago). The protestant faith did not even exist until 1500 years later. (The protestant faith is a mere 500 years old). It is ridiculous to argue that history shows that Jesus Christ started the protestant church or that the church that Jesus Christ started did not come into existence until 1500 years after his death and resurrection.
For those who would challenge the wording, "According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ", have a poor understanding of recorded history.
This is not a matter of faith; this is a matter of historical fact!
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
If you truly believe I should be investigated and sanctioned, an article talk page is not the place to do that. You can try WP:ANI but I wouldn't recommend that course of action as you are likely to face WP:BOOMERANG for your edit warring (you are clearly aware of this policy as you asked me to read WP:EDITWAR) and bad faith aspersions (e.g. calling those who revert you "conspirators"). Bennv3771 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Continued discussion

Hi Bennv3771 It was a typo. What I meant to say was co-conspirators. I also provided Websters dictionaries definition for conspire. ((According to Merriam Websters Dictionary, "conspire" is defined as: to act in harmony toward a common end))

You said:

"I would support reverting back to the original wording as no WP:RS has been provided to verify this change. Glad you've started this discussion. Would be good to get consensus since the anonymous user is extremely insistent that their assertion remains. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)"

You were being dishonest when you made this statement. You know very well that I have provided over fifty citations on numerous occasions. Because of this action you jeopardize wikipedia's credibility and integrity.

I do truly believe that you should be investigated and sanctioned. I tried referring to "WP:ANI" but was unable to file the grievance. Can you please help me to report this to the proper authorities so that we can settle this once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly said, the the citations you provided are either not reliable or do not support your claim. I am not going to report myself to ANI on your behalf as your claims against me are ridiculous. Although if you continue edit warring with other editors and cross the 3-revert rule, I may report you to WP:ANEW. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Bennv3771
How can we go about settling this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing to settle between us. I haven't edited this article in over 2 weeks. Other editors are repeatedly reverting your edits, although you keep singling me out for whatever reason. And no, these editors are not my "co-conspirators" according to the Websters definition, as we are not "acting in harmony". Those editors are all acting independently and apparently coming to the same conclusions. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and right now the consensus is against your changes. You can start another discussion and try to get consensus for your changes. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Bennv3771
Can you please refer this to a ruling authority so that this can be settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I will not do that as I have explained above. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by WP:CONSENSUS so that is the "ruling authority" in that sense. If you mean that you want administrative sanctions such as blocks to be handled out, you can contact an administrator directly on their talk page (you can find Wikipedia admins here: Category:Wikipedia administrators) or try WP:ANI again (just follow the instructions at the top of the page). But as I've said, that will probably end the opposite of the way you want it to. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, while we are waiting on the ruling, can you please tell me which of the first (5 out of 50) sources that I cited that you would consider to be, "unreliable?"
1. Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996
2. Marriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938
3. Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32 © 1903
4. The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14
5. The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume 13
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
None of them. They fall under the latter part of "either not reliable or do not support your claim." Bennv3771 (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe that I only need one source but I provided over fifty. Lets look at just the first one:
1. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD...The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)
A. Would you consider Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996 to be a reliable source?
B. Would you consider this to be a Catholic Source?
C. Can you please explain to me how this citation does not support my claim?
D. If the Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus Christ, then which church was?````
How does the above text support your claim that "according to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ"? It doesn't even mention Jesus. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
If you are referring to the part which says "for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination," then please note the key word "claimed", i.e. according to the Roman church (not history)... Bennv3771 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, we are getting ahead of ourselves.
Let's try the questions one at a time.
A. Would you consider Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996 to be a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
We are not getting ahead of ourselves. I already answered that question earlier and I don't want to repeat myself. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not see where in this thread that you answered this but I will assume (unless you say otherwise) that you find this to be a reliable source.
So, we have now established that my first source, is indeed, a reliable source.... GREAT
B. Would you consider this to be a Catholic Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I have been taking the time to read all your long comments and reply. if you aren't going to read my replies then I don't see why I should bother replying anymore. PS: See my reply ("None of them") when you asked which of the first 5 sources I consider unreliable. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I am reading your comments and I apologize if I am giving the impression that I am not.
I was confused because at the beginning of our dialogue you stated, "As I have repeatedly said, the the citations you provided are either not reliableor do not support your claim."
In this one sentence you have made two assertions.
So, in order to discredit you, I was trying to address these one at a time.
Assertion #1 The citations that I provided (are reliable) or (are not reliable)
I asked you, "Also, while we are waiting on the ruling, can you please tell me which of the first (5 out of 50) sources that I cited that you would consider to be, "unreliable?"
You responded, "None of them. They fall under the latter part of "either not reliable or do not support your claim
So of the first five sources that I have provided, you find them all to be reliable....GREAT
My second question to you was: B. Would you consider this to be a Catholic Source? I will assume (unless you say otherwise) that nobody reading this would think that this is a catholic source so therefore,
We have now established that this source meets the criteria and does not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy .... GREAT
Assertion #2 The citations that I provided (does support my claim ) or (does not support my claim)
I asked, "C. Can you please explain to me how this citation does not support my claim?"
You answered, "How does the above text support your claim that "according to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ"?
It doesn't even mention Jesus." (hint: The man who founded the religion was referred to as Jesus [Christ]. According to history (as I will demonstrate to you with these 50+ citations) He was on earth in the 1st century
starting a religion).
1. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian [Christ] denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD...The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)
then referencing the second part of this passage, "The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination",
you said, "If you are referring to the part which says "for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination," then please note the key word "claimed", i.e. according to the Roman
church (not history)
this is describing the word, "catholic." which means the wholeness of the church. well for many centuries this was the case until the church started breaking away and different denominations sprang up. Totaling nearly 33,000 and growing everyday. Needless to say, the catholic church can no longer claim to be the only denomination. Although this is what it was when it was first established by Christ72.208.204.252 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Bennv3771,
Shall we continue on to citation #3 of 50?72.208.204.252 (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)



                  Please view:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ad_Orientem    72.208.204.252 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)




                   PLEASE ALSO VIEW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citizen_Canine72.208.204.252 (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I took the time to analyse the list of 50 citations that you produced to support the claim that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. I have the following comments to make:
  • Citations 23–50 come from early Catholic Christians, whom cannot be regarded as impartial sources.
  • Citations 2, 6, 8, 20 and 21 only claim that the Catholic church "traces its history" or "origin" to Jesus, "traces an unbroken line of popes" from Peter, or "regards itself as the only legitimate inheritor" of the comission to the Apostles.
  • Citations 3, 10, 11 and 22 only talk about the "belief" or "doctrine" that Christ conferred special authority on Peter, and that the bishops of Rome are his successors.
  • Citations 7 and 9 nowhere mention that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. The latter even seems to imply the opposite—that the supremacy of the bishop of Rome was the result of a gradual development and was not instituted by Christ since the beginning.
  • Citations 15, 16 and 17 come from unreliable sources, no author is specified and I can't find any trace that they even exist.
  • Citation 12 can at most be regarded as the personal opinion of a columnist.
  • Citations 1, 4, 5, 11, 13, 18 and 19 are hard to verify because they have been taken from very old versions of encyclopedias. I've consulted more recent versions of some of those encyclopedias, and haven't found any such claims.[1] I wouldn't be surprised if most of them were either misquotations or mistakes. And if they were mistakes, they probably were corrected in later revisions.
  • Only citation 14 unambiguously says that "the Roman Catholic Church [was] founded by Jesus Christ". The source seems to be the 1946 book The Timetables of History, by Bernard Grun. I haven't been able to verify the citation or establish the reliability of the author, but, of course, a single author making a claim doesn't make it true.
It looks like the vast majority of your citations do not support the idea that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus. Even if some of them did, it's undeniable that the most reliable sources do not assert that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus.[1] They merely recognise that the Catholic Church claims to have been founded by Jesus, but make no judgement as to whether this is true or not. I think it's logical to follow their example here in Wikipedia.
1. ^ See, for example, the current Encyclopædia Britannica article on Roman Catholicism, which merely states that the Church "traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles".
— Zenadix (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@72.208.204.252: Please do not claim that you “have reached consensus” with me as you did at User talk:Ad Orientem. You seemed to be implying that I support your proposed changes. To be clear, I do not support your proposed changes and I do not think they are supported by reliable sources. You have not changed my mind. The reason I said (over 2 weeks ago) I would no longer revert your edits is because I was annoyed exasperated by what I saw as WP:IDHT behaviour by you and no longer wished to have to engage with you. I suspect this is also User:Citizen Canine’s intention in their last reply to you (I apologise if this is not what you meant Citizen Canine), and they too have not “reached consensus” with you as you claimed at the aforementioned talk page. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Wall of text by User talk:72.208.204.252
Hi Zenadix,
Thank you for your response.
The beginning of the article reads, "According to tradition, the history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus."
I made a change by removing the preposition "according to tradition"

thereby allowing the passage to read, "The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus."

This is what the hoopla is all about.


Can you please explain to me how this somehow changes the meaning of the first line of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

72.208.204.252 (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"Tradition" is, by the definition employed here on Wikipedia, "a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past." So the phrase "according to tradition" makes a rather important difference to the meaning. 50 sources seems a little overkill when 5 would have done. You threatened to go through them one-by-one challenging me to show how they do not support the proposed changes, as opposed to it being your responsibility to show that they do. To avoid the bother I suggested that you "go ahead and make those changes again" (I wonder if this wasn't your intention?). I did not mean that I agreed with those changes, I apologise if you were led to that conclusion. Citizen Canine (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Citizen Canine, you wrote, "Tradition" is, by the definition employed here on Wikipedia, "a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past."
If you quote the passage in it's entirety "Tradition" is, by the definition employed here on Wikipedia, A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past.[1][2] Common examples include holidays or impractical but socially meaningful clothes (like lawyers' wigs or military officers' spurs), but the idea has also been applied to social norms such as greetings. Traditions can persist and evolve for thousands of years—the word "tradition" itself derives from the Latin tradere literally meaning to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping. While it is commonly assumed that traditions have ancient history, many traditions have been invented on purpose, whether that be political or cultural, over short periods of time. Various academic disciplines also use the word in a variety of ways."
The next paragraph reads: "The phrase "according to tradition," or "by tradition," usually means that whatever information follows is known only by oral tradition, but is not supported, (and perhaps may be refuted) by physical documentation, by a physical artifact, or other quality evidence." Tradition is used to indicate the quality of a piece of information being discussed. For example, "According to tradition, Homer was born on Chios, but many other locales have historically claimed him as theirs." This tradition may never be proven or disproven. In another example, "King Arthur, by tradition a true British king, has inspired many well loved stories." Whether they are documented fact or not does not decrease their value as cultural history and literature.
Regarding your answer to the question that I posed to Zenadix:

If the preposition "according to tradition" is absolutely necessary, and apparently it is because each time I tried to delete it someone put it back; then wouldn't it be the responsibility of those who required the preposition to be a part of the sentence in the first place, to document and provide sources that show why this preposition is absolutely necessary in this sentence? Further, how should we go about explaining away what the second paragraph of the "Tradition" article states about tradition in bold letters?

I concur with your next comment, "So the phrase "according to tradition" makes a rather important difference to the meaning."


If, (the phrase "according to tradition" makes a rather important difference to the meaning) and (The phrase "according to tradition," or "by tradition," usually means that whatever information follows is known only by oral tradition, but is not supported, (and perhaps may be refuted) by physical documentation, by a physical artifact, or other quality evidence), then why is there a consensus by Wikipedia editors to leave it in?


I suppose we can edit, censor, obscure, and silence what the Wikipedia articleTradition says about what tradition is, in order to contradict this point that I have raised.


I must caution you though, that if we are to embark on such a mission to obscure historical truths and historical facts in order for it to fit our narrative, we will be embarking on a very steep and dangerous slippery slope which will surely arouse indignation for all of Wikipedia and its editors.




Hello Citizen Canine,
Indeed, it was my intention to,"go ahead and make those changes again", immediately following our dialogue. Unfortunately, because of Wikipedia's WP:EDITWAR policy I was forced to wait the time stipulated in the policy to make the changes. While waiting, I was threatened and bullied not to make the changes (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ad_Orientem). As a result, I will continue my dialogue with the hopes that you, or someone else reading this, will make the changes on my behalf. Additionally, and for the time being, I would accept Zenadix's compromise at the beginning of this thread, "I agree that the original wording is preferable, and would support reverting back to it. Alternatively, a compromise solution would be to change it to something like "The Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus Christ" or "The Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles", which could potentially satisfy everyone. — Zenadix (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)."




What Church is this wikipedia article referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church


72.208.204.252 (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want the qualifying phrase "according to tradition" to be removed, it is your responsibility to show that the sentence following can be reliably sourced, which you have failed to do. If the assertions referred to are part of official Catholic doctrine, then by the definition cited, I believe the phrase "according to tradition" is justified. The Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Roman Catholicism repeatedly stresses: "By its own reading of history, Roman Catholicism originated with the very beginnings of Christianity" "the hypothesis of its continuity with the past, and the divine truth embodied in that continuity, are central to the church’s understanding of itself" "According to Roman Catholic teaching, this is the charter of the church".
As for the entry on Great Church, that article makes clear that it is primarily the term that is under consideration, and it is primarily employed by Roman Catholics. What precisely is the existence of that article supposed to prove?
No compromise is necessary, as the present wording is supported by consensus. One rogue user making baseless objections to it does not merit changing it. Citizen Canine (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
When I said "(I wonder if this wasn't your intention?)" I meant I wonder if it was your intention to tire or overwhelm me into relenting with your fifty sources, as you said, "I believe that I only need one source but I provided over fifty.". And all I meant by "go ahead and make those changes again" was that I wouldn't oppose them via reversion, but only because I couldn't have done so without violating WP:3RR and in any case I assumed, correctly as it turned out, that some other user would revert them. Citizen Canine (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
How can you believe that the phrase "according to tradition" is justified when you sourced a Wikipedia article Tradition that clearly states,
"The phrase "according to tradition," or "by tradition," usually means that whatever information follows is known only by oral tradition, but is not supported, (and perhaps may be refuted) by physical documentation, by a :::physical artifact, or other quality evidence."
and then expect people believe the article to be based on fact?


For the sake of discussion, please answer this question for me:
IF THERE WAS A MAN NAMED JESUS CHRIST WHO LIVED DURING THE 1ST CENTURY AD, AND THIS MAN ESTABLISHED A CHURCH HERE ON EARTH, AND IF THIS CHURCH WAS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THEN WHICH CHURCH WAS IT?



72.208.204.252 (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, by that definition, what physical documentation, artefacts or quality evidence conclusively establish that "the history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings"? And what precisely commits me or anyone else to the view that the historical Jesus established anything? Citizen Canine (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


Citizen canine, please do not allow your atheism to interfere with sound judgement. This is not trying to convince you or anyone for that matter, that God is real or that God is not real. Or that Jesus is God or that Jesus is
not God. Try to focus on the subject at hand. Try to be impartial. Maybe it will help if you focus on the first word of my question, "if." Ok, lets try this again:


(IF) THERE WAS A MAN NAMED JESUS CHRIST WHO LIVED DURING THE 1ST CENTURY AD, AND (IF) THIS MAN ESTABLISHED A CHURCH HERE ON EARTH, AND (IF) THIS CHURCH WAS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THEN WHICH CHURCH WAS IT?


72.208.204.252 (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that changes nothing. It's a loaded question that assumes that I accept that Jesus founded a Church, but this was not the Catholic Church. I accept no such thing, so the question is irrelevant. Citizen Canine (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

The following item should be deleted from the History of the Catholic Church article; Section: Persecutions; 9th sentence - ""Relations between the Church and the Empire were not consistent: "Tiberius wanted to have Christ placed in the Pantheon and refused first of all to persecute the Christians. Later on his attitude changed. [-] How are we to explain the fact that men like Trajan and above all Marcus Aurelius should have so relentlessly persecuted the Christians? On the other hand Commodus and other villainous emperors rather favoured them."[44]"" First reason to delete - Marcus Aurelius DID NOT persecute the Christians AT ALL. See: "Did Marcus Aurelius Persecute the Christians?" at https://donaldrobertson.name/2017/01/13/did-marcus-aurelius-persecute-the-christians/ which definitively documents his total lack of persecution. Second reason - It is only documented that Trajan tolerated some amount of persecution in the Roman province of Bithynia by its governor. And even that was moderated by him by his insisting on giving accused Christians the benefit of the doubt in unproven cases. There is NO evidence of Trajan, himself, initiating an empire-wide persecution. See: "What to do With the Christians" at http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christianproblem.htm which documents this. Lastly - the quote to be deleted uses subjective, inflammatory language where it says "...other villainous emperors..." "Villainous" is in the eye of the beholder. It has no place in a supposedly 'objective' historical article. Greg Stokley (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

The request is formally inappropriate as more than two editors are involved, but I'll give a brief opinion anyway. I presume we're talking about the inclusion of the phrase "According to the Catholic tradition" the history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ. As opposed to leaving it out. Now, if we were to produce good sources from across the various traditions of Christianity and historians beyond it that agree on the definition of "Catholic Church" in the first few centuries of Christianity, with agreement that this specific church does in fact begin with Jesus, it might be reasonable to leave the phrase out. No such agreement is likely and the phrase - or some other way of acknowledging the various uncertainties and competing claims involved, other formulations would be available - should remain. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It's a WP:POV phrase that frames the entire lead and the article as commentary to that Catholic dogma (is or is not the Catholic Church the "Church that Jesus founded"), and that's not the topic of this article. A far more neutral initial phrase would simply state that the Catholic Church has a very long history, perhaps to the degree that it is often considered the world's oldest existing institution. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Saint Peter's marital status

Saint Peter's marital status is irrelevant to the fact that he is the first Bishop of Rome. Celibacy of bishops is a discipline, not a doctrine, and it was instituted later. Elizium23 (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Catholic_Church/Archive_2&oldid=1177720488"