Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This needs some kind of criticism attached to it

The power of appointing nearly all the bishops, even many of the Eastern Catholic Churches, is solely in the hands of the Pope, who also appoints all those (the cardinals) who, in turn, choose which man next exercises the same power. The Pope is also the absolute ruler of the independent state, Vatican City State. There is no provision for deposing a Pope, and it has been many centuries since any Pope has resigned.

There's no criticism here. All it's stating is Church's structure. Could someone please write in some criticism about why people dislike this structure? If no one does, I'm going to remove it from the criticism section, since it says nothing about what critics say to this. Thanks! Stanselmdoc 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I say remove it. KHM03 17:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing it it is then! If people have issues, they can reinstate it WITH some criticism.Stanselmdoc 18:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

ARGHHH! There is nothing wrong with documenting this structure. The presence of the documentation does not mean that Wikipedia endorses the structure; on its own, the documentation is inherently neutral. If I went to create an article on the sky, I should be able to say that the sky is blue (citing my sources, of course) without having to say that a lot of people don't like blue. Many people have favorite colors other than blue. WP:NOT a soapbox. As to the stuff about the pope being an absolute ruler, well, the Vatican City is an absolute monarchy. Should we go back to every article about every absolute monarchy that ever existed and put in something about how some people think absolute monarchies suck? Geez. --Mm35173 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Um. Only if said absolute monarchy is being referred to in a Criticism section. I think you've probably mistaken the context of the above debate. TSP 18:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem canonically with the statement the pope appoints bishops in the Eastern Church. Whoever has a copy of the Code of Canon Law, would you please correct? Strictly speaking, most of them are either elected with confirmation from Rome or they choose a couple of names and the Pope picks one. Dave

It is the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (not the Code of Canon Law) that Dave wants. He can read for himself an English translation at this site. The canons on appointment of bishops are 180-189. The answer to Dave's question is in canon 181. Lima 14:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

HUGE POV problems

Nowhere in this whole article was the word Protestant or reformation used. Why the mention of Eastern Orthodox but not protestants. I put a brief mention of Protestants.

ken 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I'm not sure why this is necessarily considered a problem. The existence of Protestantism is not absolutely relevant to a discussion of the beliefs and structure of the Catholic Church. If one were discussing the constitution and character of the British Isles one wouldn't necessarily talk about the American revolution, unless British history were a significant part of the discussion. MS

If the South won the US Civil War, and we were writing an article about the subsequent history of the Union, it would defy reason to entertain complaints by the Confederates that our article made no mention of the Rebellion. Endomion 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if it is deemed important, then just list a link to Protestantism under "see also". KHM03 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the link with protestantism should come out when talking abouth the history of the Catholic Church, as well as about its relationship with other religious groups.--Nino Gonzales 06:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sacraments

The Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian church in the world to administer all seven sacraments. (added 03:07, August 29, 2005 by 209.217.93.197)

I've removed this as POV. We can state that the RCC administers seven sacraments. However, when we say that the RCC is the only church to administer all seven sacraments, we then endorse the following statements as factual:

1. There are exactly seven sacraments. This is not universal belief, as many churches recognize fewer sacraments and others do not recognize any sacraments whatsoever. It is POV to suggest that the RCC view of the sacraments is the correct one.
   1. Corollary: That the RCC is the final arbiter of what are and are not sacraments. Who are we to say that Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. are incorrect in their beliefs about the sacraments? We may state fatually that the RCC believes there are seven sacraments, but we may not state factually that there are exactly seven sacraments. It is a difference of belief, and must be noted as such to maintain NPOV.
2. That no other church in the world administers seven sacraments. Do we have an authoritative and exhaustive listing of every church in the world, without any possible omissions, that can back up the statement that the RCC is the only church in the world to administer seven sacraments? If not, then the statement is not factual.
3. Any community calling itself a church that administers seven sacraments, but is not the RCC, is not a church. If the RCC is the only church to administer all seven sacraments, then anyone administering seven sacraments but not a part of the RCC is not a church.
4. Any church that does not administer all seven sacraments is wrong. If the RCC is the only one to administer seven sacraments, and there are exactly seven sacraments, then anyone not administering them all is wrong.

I suspect that other statements could be included in the above list, but I believe these are sufficient to justify removing the statement as POV, and accordingly, I have made the removal. -- Essjay · Talk 04:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in seven sacraments.Davescj 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You could've just...removed it without adding this eyesore. :p -Alex 12.220.157.93 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti semitism (not NPOV)

I think that having a section on anti-semitism is pov regardless of what it says in the section. This article is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia article on the Roman Catholic Church, there have been alligations of anti-semitism, and it may be useful to state that in the article. There is already an article on the relationship of Catholics with Judaism, there is no reason why all of the information in this section cannot be moved there. to have a section in a factual aticle called anti-semitism could in itself seem POV and be misleading or suggestive. There should be mention of allegations of anti-semitism in the article but by no means a category. When looking at the article on Islam there was no category on terrorism or anti-westernism, which I see completely apropriate, as it would be misleading. There is no reason why this same practice should not occur in this article. Mac Domhnaill 23:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Though I do not think the Anti-Semitism subsection is POV, I do think it disproportionate and out of place. Why have a special subsection on this question alone, and on no other criticism or controversy? And its length, even if not quite sufficient for forming an article on its own, would certainly make it worthwhile to merge some or all of the text of the subsection into the article to which the reader is referred. Mention of the question and the reference could then remain. Lima 04:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Islam comparison isn't really valid - the article is about the Roman Catholic Church, the organisation, not about a religion per se. The Anti-Semitism section certainly isn't in breach of NPOV against the Church - like most of the criticism sections in this article, it contains only the vaguest criticisms and a vast amount of defence of the church; and it is a sub-section of the Criticism section, so I don't think it's necessarily NPOV for it to exist if sufficient things can be said about allegations of anti-semitism against the church. The length of the section probably is excessive, though; mostly because of the vast length of the pro-Church material contained in it. As a postscript, incidentally, I don't think it's necessarily valid to say "it's wrong to have a section on (N) when (M) doesn't have a section" - it's either justified for topic N to have a section or it isn't; if topic M should have one too then you can write one. TSP 10:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully that it isn't necessarily valid to say: "It's wrong to have a section on (N) when (M) doesn't have a section." I wonder, however, if it's necessarily valid to say: "Though (N) is no more significant than (A), (B), (C), ....(M), (O), (P), ... (Z), still there has to be a section on (N) alone." Are allegations of anti-Semitism so much more important than any other accusation whatever that has ever been made against the Roman Catholic Church? Lima 13:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Cooldoug111, maybe you should talk about this article being NPOV instead of tagging it. Antisemitism is a retty blanket statement. Dominick 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Church needs Change

If the Church wants to boost church attendence, increase the number of preists, and reduce crtisism, than they need to get of the "oh so holy" butts and do somthing about this dang sex abuse crisis!!!!! Let them marry! Change some rules! Anything to help themselves!--The Republican 00:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)The Republican

This is beyond the scope of this article, thanks for your opinion. Dominick 10:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if people can't keep their genitals in their pants, they are always welcome to leave the priesthood. Priesthood is about total and complete service to the world. It's not that different from budhist monks. 209.124.115.101

This is beyond the scope of this artcile. This is about the Church, written to explain it to a reader. If you would like to debate the Church and its role, perhaps the Catholic Answers Forums at catholic.com would be a better venue. I agree though, in any endeavor, if you can't live by the promises you make you should leave. Dominick 23:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think that we are moving toward POV. While like all, I am horrified by the abuse crisis, I would suggest it has nothing to do with celibacy.Davescj 20:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that celibacy is the priest's forgoing the marital union in the hopes of a more complete eventual union with God. Also, celibacy is supposed to remove "distractions" from the love of God in the work of a priest. --Perhaps this could be included in the section that discusses "theories" about the why of celibacy 216.99.65.10 16:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Civil Rights

I altered the section: Catholics are a significant minority in Britain, where their faith underwent a revival in the 19th and early 20th Century after three centuries of intense persecution and official repression of civil rights. to remove the words "intense" and "of civil rights", and I just wanted to give a bit more justification.

Firstly, intense; certainly there was persecution during that period, and some of it was intense; but "three centuries of intense persecution" would mean that the persecution was intense for all of those three centuries; and certainly by the end of the 18th century there were some Roman Catholic churches and colleges operating openly in Britain; which seems to indicate that, though there was still persecution, it could not really be characterised at that time as 'intense'.

Second, civil rights. The Civil rights article seems to indicate that the term refers to rights guaranteed by law or a constitution, or generally held to be innate. I'm not convinced that it makes sense, or at the least it seems to express a particular point of view, to use the term in a historical context about 'rights' which were at the time explicitly witheld by law (as they also were, in the case of voting for example, to women and non-land-owning men). This is not to deny the injustice of the treatment; but to refer to things like the right to vote, and to freedom of religion, as rights seems only to express an opinion that the editor believes such things should be rights - the people in question were regarded as having no such rights at the time, nor is there any impartial measure of what rights people should be entitled to. TSP 15:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Understandable. "Intense" was merely my attempt to be more NPOV than a predecessor's "relentless". As for the latter, your comments seem sound. Thanks for your work on this article --Dpr 01:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

To call it "civil rights" might be the best way to make it intelligible to a contemporary reader. All non-members of the Church of England were under various civil disabilities, generally called the penal laws; these laws excluded both Protestant dissenters and Roman Catholics from voting, the established universities, military service, and other offices of profit or privilege. These were generally enacted between the Restoration and the first quarter of the eighteenth century. Only a handful of them targeted Roman Catholics specifically; and some were repealed for non-Anglican Protestants before they were repealed for RCs. The position of a RC under these laws was not enviable, but there were very few populist risings against them or pogroms against them, except in Ireland, where religious violence went both ways, and tended to grow worse as the laws restricting Roman Catholicism were repealed. As religious persecutions go, it was there, but in retrospect it seems hard to call this one "intense." Smerdis of Tlön 19:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Leader of Christendom

The term "leader of Christendom" refers to the Catholic belief, not a temporal reality. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

--Dpr 17:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Davescj== Liberation theology ==

Is liberation theology a subject which can be included somewhere on the page? Tiksustoo 22:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberation theology has it's own article. Dominick 02:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

i realized to my embarrassment sometiema after my cmments. sorry. Tiksustoo 14:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries! Dominick 14:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure you are wrong. While liberation theology needs its own page, as it is a complex subject, it certainly is one point of view within Catholic Theology. And it certainly is an issue within the Church if you include it among other points of view.~

Theological and sociological perspectives

This article is very long, dense, technical and "jargon" heavy. I have to wonder how helpful it would be to a casual reader with limited exposure to Catholicism. I think it needs to be re-written with a more "sociological" and less theological perspective. Objectively describe describe what a visitor or observer of Catholic practices would see and hear. Then, as appropriate, explain the beliefs related to the practice.

For example, the first two paragraphs of the liturgy section describe the liturgy as "the celebration of the mystery of Christ, in particular the Paschal mystery of his death and resurrection. . .[It] is something that 'the whole Christ' Head and Body, celebrates - Christ the one High Priest together with his Body, the Church in heaven and earth."

Instead of this dense theological language, why not describe the structure of the liturgy? (Liturgy of the Word, Liturgy of the Eucharist). What would a visitor observe at each stage? Then, briefly explain the theological significance (anyone interested in reading more theological explanation in the catechism can follow the link).

There is also very little about parish life or the daily practices that most Catholics identify with their faith. Any thoughts on this approach to improving the article? TMS63112 20:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds excellent - good luck with it!--shtove 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you added a parish life section that would be nice. It would be hard to make it general and NPoV. I think there are a lot of difficult terms in this article, but it really can't be helped. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 22:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

CCC references

Catechism of the Catholic Church numbers refer to the entries, not the years. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Stats

(The figure in the 2003 Statistical Yearbook of the Church, based on the annual statistical reports sent by Catholic dioceses throughout the world, is 1,085,557,000; because of obstacles to regular contacts, this figure does not include Catholics in mainland China and perhaps in some other places.)

This sentence is indisputably important for clarification/comprehensiveness, but does it have to be the second sentence of the entire article? I think we lose much by introducing this degree of detail in the second sentence of the article. --Dpr 01:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Older discussion on terminology

I think the current second paragraph of the Terminology section, and associated quote, are distinctly "Point of View" - at least when placed in the Terminology section, which can be assumed to be expressing the opinion of the encyclopedia, not describing opinions of the body the article is about.

The second paragraph begins "The choice of the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" should not be interpreted as opposition to the use, for this Church, of the simpler term "Catholic Church", which its members prefer". In fact, I think it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to unambiguously grant the title "Catholic" to the churches in communion with the Pope, given that a large proportion of the world's Christians consider themselves to be part of the "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" despite not recognising the Pope as its head. The Catholicism article does a good job of exploring the different meanings of, and claims to the term; whereas this article currently contradicts that, appearing to assert that not only is the Roman Catholic Church the only real claimant to the term "Catholic", but other Christians clearly accept that they are heretics because they accept colloquial use of "Catholic" to mean "Roman Catholic"! This seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I'd tend to think that all that is really appropriate in this section is the current first paragraph: "Since the term "Catholic Church" has multiple meanings (see Catholicism), this article uses the term "Roman Catholic Church", to avoid confusion. The relationship between the Western or Latin and the Eastern Churches in union with the Roman Catholic Church is dealt with below." I just wanted to check here first - does anyone have a reason why it is compatible with the Neutral Point of View policy to leave the remainder of the Terminology section in? TSP 17:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking but would need to see your final edits before granting my own personal "imprimatur". KHM03 19:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Why offended Eastern Catholics twice on wiki? Eastern Catholics are members of "Eastern" and "Orthodox" Churches, but are in union with Rome (the Roman Church). Eastern Catholics are **NOT** Roman Catholics. Eastern Catholics are Catholics. Both articles on the "Eastern Orthodox Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" do not pertain to them.

The "Eastern Orthodox Church" wiki article is about the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome. The article on the "Roman Catholic Church" is about the Roman Catholic Church, which the Eastern Catholics are not apart of. They are apart of the Catholic Church.

To sum it up:

Eastern Catholics are Eastern.

Eastern Catholics are Orthodox.

Eastern Catholics are Catholics.

Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics.

--Robertsussell 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Which seems clear... but what are, for example, Anglo-Catholics (most of whom would identify themselves as 'Catholic)? The problem here is that 'Catholic Church' is not a term on which everyone agrees a meaning. Wikipedia's Naming Convention is to "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". So there are two principles here. The first is that what is important is the commonly-used term, not necessarily the official or technical term. The second, which is most relevant here, is that the term needs to be unambiguous. Putting articles under disputed titles is not normally acceptable.

Now, I'm not deeply wedded to the term 'Roman Catholic'; I can see it has problems. However, I do believe that the term 'Catholic' is unacceptable in this context, for the same reason that the church itself does not use it in much of its ecumenical work; because it is a controversial term, which by no means all people accept. A couple of billion people stand up in church on a Sunday and say they belong to a "holy catholic and apostolic church"; perhaps half of them believe the church described in this article to be that church. If Wikipedia uses the term to mean the church which accepts the Pope as its head, then it appears to be saying, encyclopedically, that it believes the church headed by the Pope constitutes the church entitled to call itself Catholic (i.e. Universal) and all those other Christians are wrong. That doesn't appear to me to be an acceptable thing for an encyclopedia to do.

While we're here, there are some issues I'm not particularly clear on myself, so here's something which an Eastern Catholic can hopefully clarify for me:

- Is the Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) understood to speak for Eastern Catholics, or not? Similarly, the "Joint international commission for the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church"?

- When Pope Pius IX spoke of the "holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church" in the First Vatican Council, was he understood to refer to Eastern Catholics, or only those of the Latin Rite?

I ask because these same questions seem to keep coming up, and answers would help me get the issue straight in my head. TSP 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the term “Roman” Catholic, not only is it a term coined by those which separated from the Church many centuries after its foundation, but is technically and historically incorrect. By being politically correct the writer serves to create more confusion, and ignorance, as well as, simultaneously presents a naturally anti-catholic bias from the onset.(you can't make everyone happy, but in siding with the anti-Catholic term the writer is not only being historically inconsistent but simply conveniently siding with the majority if the English speaking world of non-Catholic Christians even though Catholics comprise over 50% of the world's Christians.) He should present the topic as is written chronologically and historically. If documents that date back to a church that is nearly 2000 years old, claim themselves to be Catholic and proclaim the SAME fundamentals beliefs( Baptism with Holy water, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, an authoritative Church run by Bishops, and is bound the church in Rome- not the Empire, etc.- see Ignatius and other Church Fathers - Polycarp, Clement, and Ireneus of the 1st and 2nd century http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html ) as the present Catholic Church then you must define it as the same CATHOLIC Church.

MY TWO Cents worth regarding the improper/informal term "ROMAN" Catholic: First one must understand what is the topic discussed. If speaking of the entire Universal Church(which is what is discussed here) the use of the word "ROMAN" is improper. 2)The Catholic Church is made up of various global RITES the largest being the western Latin(or Roman) Rite. However, we in the West completely ignore this since the "Western" schism (or Reformation) affected primarily the Latin rite not the eastern churches. Thus in utilizing the term "Roman" for the general Church you are simultaneously ignoring the entire Eastern Catholic Church(also in full communion with the Vatican, ie. Byzantine Catholic, Maronite Catholic and several others-MENTIONED FURTHER DOWN ON YOUR VERY PAGE) which have been part of the Church since the beginning and it's the very branch(the Byzantine Rite*of the Eastern Church, specifically) of the Catholic Church where a large PORTION if its base left almost 1000 years ago (eastern schism) and became what we commonly call the Orthodox Church. [If the Orthodox REuninte with the Catholic Church its obvious they will not be "latinized" as they NEVER belonged to the Latin rite but the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church [whom's Governmental body= Holy See resides in Rome-Vatican] but is not "Roman" Catholic(aka Catholic Latin rite)].

The proper use of this term "ROMAN" is when speaking specifically of the geographic Roman Church in Rome (just as one would speak of the Parisian Church as the church in Paris) which IS both a geographical Archdiocese(district) of the Catholic Church and the geographic capital-though now actually called "The Vatican"- The Holy See of the Catholic Church. - 65.3.196.4 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Micael: rkosuave@yahoo.com - Feb. 11, 2006.//

My proposal at present is simply to remove everything but the first paragraph of this section, leaving that as it is. It would probably be worth adding something about the common usage of "Catholic" to refer to this church; but I think it's probably best to let this be built up from scratch, rather than keep any of the current content. TSP 19:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You might also mention that most/many Roman Catholics prefer to be called simply "Catholics", but that this article will use the "Roman" designation to avoid confusion. KHM03 19:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been asked to express here my thoughts on the terminology question. My thoughts have in fact already been expressed somewhere else on this extremely long page. In short, I think the title should remain "Roman Catholic Church, for otherwise the article will attract all sorts of battling insertions about what is meant by "Catholic Church"; but I see no need for uniformity (between "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church") within the article itself. I would be very happy with a more or less equal mixture of the two terms, with tolerance on the part of those who prefer one expression for the preference of others. Lima 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've realised that my request was unclear - I was actually hoping that you'd comment on the Augustine quote, which, as I've explained above, I think should be removed (from the 'Terminology' section, at least); but which you restored earlier today. I have noticed, though, that the purpose of the Terminology section seems to have changed since June (it was originally an explanation of terminology use within the article; it seems to be starting to become a general discussion on use of the terms 'Catholic' and 'Roman Catholic'), so I admit that my criticisms may have become less relevant. TSP 10:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. Though I did realize almost immediately after writing the above hurried comment, that the request made to me was for an observation on the Saint Augustine quotation, I have not been able to find time until now to come back and address that question.

The quotation is decidedly apposite. Augustine cannot be accused of expressing a non-neutral point of view about the twenty-first century situation. If the cap fits... Concealing the historical fact that Augustine made the remark would be censorship for the sake of a particular point of view.

Lima 11:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, is it appropriate for a Terminology section? Using that particular quote to back up the position of using "Catholic" basically states "we are using the term 'Catholic', because only members of this church are not heretics". Indeed, that quote seems to provide a very good reason why the article should NOT use "Catholic" undisambiguated, if to do so implies, as Augustine says it does, self-professed heresy on the part of all other Christian groups.

I don't propose "censoring" Augustine's views; but it doesn't really seem to be being presented as a historical view at the moment, but as representative of the current situation. Which quotes you select to make a point can express point of view just as much as an original opinion does. TSP 11:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It is the current situation that in informal circumstances people usually understand by the term "Catholic" (unless specified in some way) "Roman Catholic". This is true even of people who are not Roman Catholics, people of today who are no more self-professed heretics than the people Augustine wrote about. In the eyes of the people Augustine wrote about, it was not they, but Catholics like Augustine, who had the wrong beliefs. In what way has the current situation changed from that in Augustine's time? Lima 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, as regards that matter of opinion, not at all. I am sure that in Augustine's eyes, the Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Methodist Church, and so on, would all be heretics; and he would consider their willingness to use the term "Catholic" to refer to the church headed by the pope as evidence of this. But is that an opinion worthy of the prominence it is given? Just because it is true that an opinion has been expressed, does not make that opinion encyclopedically relevant.

Here is another quote:

Since from this it is now clear that the name "Catholic" has a new meaning, namely the Roman papacy with all its atrocities and in no way the universal Christian Church, and thus indicates a sect, obviously no one who recognizes the Word of God as the true rule of the Christian faith can trouble us to use this name. - C.F.W. Walther, 1884

Why is one of these explanations of why the term 'Catholic' is commonly applied to mean the Roman Catholic Church alone worthy of inclusion, but the other not? Is it 'censorship' not to include Walther's views? (I don't mean to imply that I agree with Walther; but if a quote that is biased in one direction can be found for a particular situation, so can one that is biased in the other; so it is better to use neither.) TSP 14:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church manages to set things out in a more neutral point of view. A claim that the Catholic Church = the Roman Catholic Church is a claim of theological point of view. Having found colloquial uses, or agreements between other churches and the RC church (where surely each party would use the name it wishes) is inadequate proof that the Catholic - Roman Catholic conjunction is NPOV if used as anything other than shorthand. Paulleake 16:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The terminology used in the documents was agreed on by both parties. Similar documents on discussions with Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists etc. have "Roman Catholic Church", not "Catholic Church", again as accepted by both sides. They can be found on the same Vatican website. The question is not what terms ought to be used, but what terms are used. The term "Catholic Church" is in fact used in this sense, as is stated also in other Wikipedia articles. Nobody is forcing Paulleake to use it himself in this sense. Nor does he have the authority or power to prevent others from using it in this sense. In this article, both terms are admissible. Lima 17:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity is often termed "Orthodox"; aren't many Western Christians also orthodox? There are many "Church of God" groups out there; arent't Methodists, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, etc., also at least part of the "Church of God"? Names can be misleading and tell only part of the story. This article is called "Roman Catholic" in order to distinguish it from other groups which call themselves "Catholic" (as well as "catholic"), and also because many people know it as the Roman Catholic Church and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. I can't believe this name thing is still an issue. Let it go, sisters and brothers! There are more important battles to fight! KHM03 17:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an issue because among Catholics--Roman, Maronite, Ukrianian, Armenian and so on Catholic churches to use "Roman" Catholic is incorrect. This article is more than an article on the Latin rite known as "Roman Catholic" its focus is on the whole church historically and theologically. It's important because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that if it wants to be a credible source should get its p's and q's correct. Allowing Catholic teachings, history and theology under an all-inclusive Roman Catholic umbrella is understandable but very sloppy.Virgil61 13:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

As a Catholic I'd say the "Roman Catholic Church" applies, technically, only to that part of the church under papal guidance that follows the Latin rite. There are Unite (Ukrainian), Armenian, Maronite and a handfull of other rites that are also Catholic, whose bishops follow papal doctrine and are appointed from the Vatican as well. I can live with Roman Catholic being used, it's not that big a deal, but it's (unintentionally) disrespectful and marginalizing to the rest of the Catholic Church, Vatican website and all notwithstanding.Virgil61 11:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine; however, as an encyclopedia, we can't take account of the views of individual editors; only of information we can source. Can anyone provide any source indicating that this is what the Church, or indeed anyone else authoritative, considers the term to mean? I'd take the multiple statements that the church has made under the name "The Roman Catholic Church" as a source that at least suggests that they believe the term to refer to the Church as a whole.

My understanding of the history of the term (I think I've cited the OED elsewhere; I can, if I haven't) is that it was originally a 17th-century English compromise between the term 'Catholic' - which, as it is has a meaning of 'all-encompassing', 17th-century English commentators were unwilling to grant solely to this particular Church; and 'Romish', meaning 'headed by the Bishop of Rome'. I don't think its history suggests that it was meant to refer to only one part of that Church. TSP 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The sources being used for using "Roman" Catholic Church aren't exactly controlling documents. An agreement between Catholics, Methodists and other protestants in the US, UK or Western Europe would contain "Roman Catholic" because that it is the only rite predominately in areas where Catholicism and Protestantism have co-existed historically. Using the OED to describe internal Catholic structure isn't the answer either. The Catholics, at the time of the writing, in strongly anti-Catholic UK were and are predominately of the Latin rite and the intent of the opponents of "Catholic only” were to deny the use of the single word as a description and substitute RC. That’s not a controlling source, it’s a minority religion in a single country having to compromise in the culturally hostile environment vis-à-vis Catholicism in the U.K. of the 17th century.

Because of the predominance of the Roman rite it's easy to "cherry-pick" sources. The Catechism of the Catholic church does not contain the words "Roman Catholic" but refers to the Holy Catholic Church as does the Second Vatican council. RC is colloquially ok I suppose, but for an encyclopedia that wants to be used as a legitimate source it’s intellectually lazy.Virgil61 19:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I realise that the Catholic Church does not, where it has the choice (i.e. in its internal documents, such as its catechism), refer to itself as "Roman Catholic" - it would have no reason to do so, as we know that it is not its preferred term; its preferred term being a word, meaning "all-embracing", which is claimed by the majority of orthodox Christian churches (those which use the Nicene or Apostles' Creed). Nevertheless, "Roman Catholic" is a common term (in my experience the most common term, but this may differ between different areas of the world) used to refer to the Church externally; and a term the Church appears to accept of itself. I do not wish to be "intellectually lazy"; but I find it hard to see how not accepting facts of which you provide no evidence is being so.

Of course, if when signing documents in the name of "The Roman Catholic Church" the Pope does not sign on behalf of all parts of the Catholic Church, then we have a new and interesting issue, which I have been pondering for some time. That would seem to mean that there are different Churches which cannot truly be regarded, from Wikipedia's point of view as the same organisation. They are churches in communion, certainly; the Church of England and Church in Wales are in communion, but they have separate Wikipedia pages. They acknowledge fealty to the same pontiff, certainly; but the United Kingdom and Australia have the same Queen, but are different countries.

The web site of the Eparchy of Passaic is extremely interesting. Among other things, it says: "Many Catholics are not aware that Catholicism is actually a collection of Churches in union with Rome"; and refers to the Metropolitia of Pittsburgh as "America's only self-governing Church in union with Rome." So, one church or several? Theologically, obviously, Catholics regard it as one church; but Wikipedia is not a theological document. If one Church within the Catholic Communion regards itself as "self-governing"; and the Pope makes statements which apply only to the Latin Rite; then perhaps it would make more sense to have pages on the "Catholic Communion" or on "Catholicism"; then another on the "Roman Catholic" (i.e. Latin Rite) church, and on each of the others within the Communion. TSP 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comments. My answer, which I should have fleshed out, that in the Catechism of the Catholic church and the work of the Second Vatican council were valid sources. The first a statement that reflects the doctrine of all the rites and the second a collection of decisions by a meeting of bishops of all the same rites refer to all the churches in communion with the Holy See as the 'Holy Catholic Church' I think that's at least as good if not a darn sight better proof than what is used as rationale for using 'Roman Catholic' to refer to the whole. Anyway, my only concern is to not propogate incorrect usage in what is an encyclopedia rather than refer to the theological. Be that as it may, in English speaking counties it's a losing battle as non-latin rites make up only a small percentage of the Catholic populace and RC has become a shorthand for the whole. I've resigned myself to wincing slightly evertime I see it. Virgil61 01:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It still seems to me that, on the evidence I've seen, both are acceptable names, not just a shorthand. Yes, the Church headed by the Pope calls itself the "Holy Catholic Church"; however, when the other billion Christians in the world say "we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", they are not referring to the church headed by the Pope. Therefore, to say on Wikipedia, "we believe that these people constitute the Holy Catholic Church" would be to affirm a claim of one set of a billion people, over the disagreement with that claim of another billion. So another name must, in my opinion, be sought, for neutrality and lack of ambiguity. At least in the UK, the common term is "Roman Catholic" (because someone here who says "I'm a Catholic" is almost equally likely to be an Anglican of catholic inclinations); and it seems that the Church itself - assuming the Pope IS speaking for the whole Church, not just the Latin Rite - is happy to call itself the "Roman Catholic Church" in official pronouncements, and that this is the title preferred by the church when working with organisations unwilling to call it the "Catholic Church". Many people have asserted that "Roman Catholic Church" means only the part of the church that uses the rite used in Rome, not the entire Church lead by the Bishop of Rome; but I've yet to see anything really constituting evidence of this, and it seems to have profound implications on the interpretation of various statements Popes have made if it is the case. TSP 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting link to "How did the Catholic Church get her name" from the Global Catholic Network; http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm Virgil61 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes - and that article also identifies most of the problems with using the term "Catholic Church" in a general encyclopedia.

'So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.'

In other words, the term "Catholic Church", applied to the Church headed by the Pope, is one which expresses a point of view; it expresses the belief that the church under the Roman Pontiff is the universal church established by Christ, and that other bodies calling themselves churches are not part of that Church. 'The proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church.' Indeed; because "catholic" means "universal", the "Catholic Church" is the Universal Church. But it it is only a point of view, held by about half of the world's Christians, that the Church headed by the Roman Pontiff is that universal church. The other half believe either that they are that universal church, or that no one denomination constitutes that church. As an encyclopedia, we should not identify with either view, but simply report on both. To use the term 'Catholic Church' to mean 'the church headed by the Pope' - rather than, for example, to mean 'the combination of all Christian Churches', which is roughly what most Protestants mean by the phrase when they say it in the Nicene Creed - is to take one position on this issue. I don't think that's an acceptable thing for an encyclopedia to do.

I'm not particularly wedded to the title "Roman Catholic Church"; but as that document says, to use the title "Catholic Church" is to express a disputed opinion. I believe that another title is necessary; and "Roman Catholic Church" seems to be both the one in most common use; and the one which the Church itself uses: not in its governing documents - as the document you linked to says, it was a deliberate decision not to use it there, in order to express the church's own point of view over competing ones - but in circumstances where, to ensure harmony with other churches, it cannot use the disputed term. TSP 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A humble point: I feel that this discussion is an example (admittedly one with little impact) of the deterioration of scholarly precision. The term "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the Latin/Roman Rite clearly predates its use meaning "those in communion with the Bishop of Rome." There is not a single use of the church described in this article calling herself the "Roman Catholic Church." All uses of the term "Holy Roman Church" clearly apply to the see of Rome, proper (e.g. "Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, who were all originally from the diocese of Rome). The term "Roman Catholic Church" was clearly used by an outside group, and still only a small portion of the world at that. All of these factors make it textually inaccurate to call this article "Roman Catholic Church." If the term had not already been assigned a meaning prior to it's use in England, it would be more acceptable to use it. For example, the term Orthodox Church had not existed as a title prior to the Great Schism, and so it was then it became a self-imposed title. As a general rule, it is wholly ahistorical to call a group of people a title contrived by a third party where knowledge of a self-imposed title exists. For a more dramatic example, to call the article titled "Eastern Orthodox Churches" "Schismatics" instead would be abhorent. I admit that feelings might be hurt, but this is inevitable. "Roman Catholic Church" might hurt the feelings of Eastern Particular churches. It also implies that there are two equal Roman and Anglo branches of some entity. The "Catholic Church" seems to portend the legitmacy of universal claims. Both sides just need to suck it up and side with academic precision. And, both sides need to realize that THE TITLE OF AN ARTICLE IS NOT AN ADVOCACY--"Eastern Orthodox Church" does not imply that this church is orthodox and the Catholic Church is novel and baseless. Revert to self-imposed titles as a standard, no matter the claims invovled (If the Anglican church wishes to call herself as a matter of title "Anglo-Catholic" or "Catholic" then that is what her article should be called.) The articles should be some thing like this:

Under the title: "Roman Catholic Church" 1. The territorial jurisdiction and all people therin over which the Roman Pontiff, as Bishop of Rome, exercises authority as LOCAL ordinary. 2. A portion of the Universal Church consisting of Anglicans, Romans, and Orthodox. (If the Anglican Church makes this official claim and if my understanding is correct. I very much apologize regarding my comparative ignorance regarding Anglicanism.) 3. See Roman/Latin Rite Catholicism

Uner the title: "Catholic Church" 1. The notion of a Universal Church, see "Catholicism" 2. The whole universal church consisting of three major branches....(Again if the Anglican Church makes this claim herself. I am sorry once more for the comparative ignorance on my part.) 3. The univsersal Church, over which the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pontiff, subsisting in and consisting of all particular churches with local ordinaries in full communion with the Pope. This article.

Textual truths like those in the above proposition are much more critical to encyclopedic claims in comparison to competing advocacies. The breakdown above inherently makes known all competing claims, and imposes no polemical titles on any of them

Er?

Catholics are for jews
Someone put this in here don't know who but I edited it out. Whispering 20:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Concrete realization or "subsists in"?

In the second paragraph of the article, Vatican II's Lumen Gentium is quoted as saying that "the sole Church of Christ" ... has a concrete realization "in the Catholic Church". Lumen Gentium uses the Latin term "subsistit in" which translates as "subsists in." The expression "concrete realization" seems like the best explanation of what this term means, however it also prejudges a theological issue that is still not determined in Catholic theology. Perhaps it would be best to use the original words and have an explanatory paragraph somewhere on the page, or elsewhere in Wikipedia, explaining what the "subsists in" debate consists of. I have read through the Talk page discussion but have not seen this issue addressed. I haven't waded through the 500 or more revisions to the page, so I don't know whether this issue has been debated previously. Forgive me if this has already been dealt with. Njesson 23:20, 22 November 2005

Njesson, you're probably right that it prejudges the issues, besides being confusing for many lay individuals (no pun intended), or even misleading (for those in a non-receptive or non-critical frame of mind)...subsistere or subsit in is probably worthy of further discussion. There are resources on the net (and in print) explaining it. Thanks for your worthwhile contribution! --Dpr 06:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not return to the earlier text: has a concrete realization (the Latin term is "subsistit")? Lima 08:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the official english translation is "subsists in" not "concrete realization"... Protoclete

Further, there is a theological difference between the two terms. Subsits is a theological and phil category, so is always used in official translations. The Church of God is always one, but subsits only fully in the Catholic church according to Lumen gentium.DaveTroy 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the Roman Catholic Church a cult?

As a Protestant, I have always regarded the Romish 'church' as being a cult, given the fact that its belief system is actually deviating from scripture, especially in terms of equating the Pope of Rome with God. The Ten Commandments is very clear in this - 'Thou shalt not worship false gods & idols'. What do you think? - (Aidan Work 03:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

Thank God, not all Protestants believe such nonsense. Lima 05:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a member of the ordained Protestant clergy; I in no way feel that the Roman Catholic Church is a cult. In so many ways, they are far more faithful than Protestants. We all have much to learn from each other, and we desperately need one another. KHM03 02:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The false claim that any aspect of Roman Catholic worship involves worshipping false gods/idols is already mentioned at Anti-Catholicism, although traditionally the smear is that Catholics are directly worshipping Mary or other saints. I've never heard the claim that the "Pope of Rome" is being equated with God -- that being, y'know, something I think I would have been notified of if it was part of my religion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely the primary point, in this context, is that any editor's opinion on whether the Church is a cult is irrelevant. It may be possible to encyclopedically note if any notable people or groups have claimed that it is a cult. Anything besides that is outside our remit as an encyclopedia. TSP 15:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a Catholic priest, and I believe neither are we a cult nor do we deviate from Scripture. If you would like to learn further on why I say this, any Catholic bookstore can point you to any number of books which discuss the relationship of Scripture within the church.Davescj 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Aidan Work's question amounts to a restatement of the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Endomion 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that every one of the Christian denominations is a cult, from an encyclopedic point of view? Not in the sense of a group of wierdos who kidnap impressionable young people etc - but in the sense that to give one denomination a higher status than any other would not be NPOV. There is one overall Christian belief system, containing a large number of cults. No? JackofOz 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The crucial moment for any new religious movement is the death of its founder. If the movement was centered around one strong figure merely to allow him to exercise power over the men and get sexual favors from the women, then it most likely will shatter upon that leader's death. If there is at least a core of truth in the movement, it will survive the death of its leader, such as the lynching of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, and perhaps rally around another one, such as Brigham Young, who led an LDS remnant from Missouri to Utah. So we can define a cult as any new religious movement whose founder has not died. And by death, we're not talking about those close calls in the operating room where the heart stops for a few moments, we're talking about someone who is whipped to within an inch of His life, nailed to a cross all day, then buried in the ground over the weekend. So right away, Catholicism is not a cult because Christ has died. Endomion 04:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism was the first and is the biggest form of Christianity in the world today. Catholicism may deviate from some scripture, much in the way that many protestant sects or eastern orthodox sects do. After all, according to Matthew 6:5-6, no one is supposed to pray in public at all.

Matthew 6:5-6 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly."

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe all christians (Catholic or Protestant) pray in some kind of public place (i.e. in churches), and therefore all Christian sects violate at least this much scripture. I understand that Catholics do not obey every commandment of there religion, but I don't believe that makes them cult members because of it.

--Loki Laufeyson 03:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Anybody that truly reads the Bible can realize that YES the catholic church deviates A LOT from scriptures. The book of Hebrews talks about Jesus being the ONLY PRIEST and that no more sacrifice for sins is needed after Jesus's sacrifice. It's not scriptural to believe that a sinful man can represent God on earth. regardless of what the catholic church says. To believe that is completely against the second commandment of making any likeness of God (Exodus 20:4) and it deviates from biblical truth in which case the catholic church is a cult. (unsigned USER: 68.8.204.49)

(Added sig! /bow) Dominick ^(TALK) 13:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph was inserted, unsigned, some days after I made the following comment (cf. history). It certainly does NOT represent my thinking. Lima 13:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Many sources are quoted throughout the article. The opening section alone quotes a Second Vatican Council document, the Statistical Yearbook of the Church and the Annuario Pontificio. What statements does Brian0918 want sourced? What further information is required for identifying, for instance, a Second Vatican Council document? It is doubtless due to my ignorance that I fail to understand what is wanted. Someone wiser and more experienced can doubtless explain. Lima 16:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it by promoting some links used for the article to references. THis was a silly exercise. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Lima unsigned user (apologies to Lima), even if the Pope is the likeness of God on Earth, we didn't make him, God did. Endomion 07:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if the Pope were the likeness of God on Earth, which he isn't, except in being a human being and thus being made in God's image and likeness, we didn't make him: God did. As successor of Saint Peter, he is Christ's Vicar, not God's likeness (cf. papal oath. Lima 13:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Visible and spiritual head

I notice that the phrasing of the position of the pope vis-a-vis the (earthly) Church has seemed difficult to achieve a consensus on. "Visible and spiritual head" sounds right in orthodox Catholic thought, but it has been reverted or modified various times. Can we do a better job of satifying the secular viewpoint with a more widely understandable term, as well as religious accuracy? --Dpr 04:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that 'visible and spiritual head' sounds distinctly like jargon to me; I don't think it's really appropriate for a general-use encyclopedia. Personally I was happy with just 'head', in that an encyclopedia can only really hope to cover the effable and worldly, and in a worldly sense the organisation is headed by the Pope; but I can see that that probably won't be satisfactory to members of the Church. TSP 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just returned the whole first paragraph to something more like what we had about a month ago. Editors need to be familiar with the Neutral Point of View policy, particularly the 'Neutral Tone' section. This article needs to cover the subject of the church in fashion that is factual, well-sourced, and neutrally-presented; at the moment, a lot of the article is distinctly from a Roman Catholic point of view; whereas a factual and neutrally-written article should be as acceptable to a Muslim or an atheist as to a fervent Catholic believer. The Guide to writing better articles has this to say on the first sentence of an article: "If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise, conceptually sound definition that puts the article in context." Therefore, it needs to be something purely factual and neutrally-presented. Phrases like "united in the profession of the one Christian faith" aren't really appropriate in the first paragraph, even if they are in a quote.

Regarding the issue of this section, I've currently put the church down as "led by" the Pope. I'm not sure what the best way is, if at all, to approach the point that Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the real leader of the Catholic Church (of course, all Christians believe that all their actions are subject to the authority of Christ). TSP 22:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I see TSP's point about "the one", which I interpreted differently. Since Robert Bellarmine wrote in Latin (a language that has neither definite nor indefinite articles), an equally good or - if "the one" is interpreted as TSP does interpret it - a better translation would be "a single": "the society of Christian believers united in the profession of a single Christian faith and the participation in a single sacramental system under the government of the Bishop of Rome." This is what Bellarmine meant. Lima 07:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps; it's mostly just that I don't think that a quote is likely to be the best way to provide a first-sentence definition of an organisation. One of the things that concerns me about this article is that it is almost entirely sourced from the Catechism and other internal church sources; meaning that it presents an almost entirely 'internal' view of the Church (i.e. the Catholic Church as it would wish to be seen) as opposed to a view gained from observation and unbiased reporting.

I also balked a little at "Since the description "head of the Church" is seen as applicable in the strict sense only to Jesus Christ, the Pope is described more precisely as only the visible head of the Church." While I understand the ideas behind it, even with the qualification "seen as", the distinction between "visible head" is the "more precise" term only to Catholic believers; to those outside the church, "head" is the more accurate term for the Pope. Something worth considering is that Catholic faith is a minority position in the world at large; arguably, by Wikipedia's policies, we should present the Catholic Church purely as an organisation, and mention only parenthetically what its members believe it represents. TSP 13:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting to read this stream, especially in light of the proposed 'Britishness' citizenship test. Neither the Archbishop of Canterbury's office nor that of the Queen could provide an answer to the question 'Who is the Head of the Church of England?' (Mark, Birmingham)

roman catholicism is a satanic pagan cult!

Don't let this woman riding a beast fool you, she is the only entity that fullfills endtime prophecy on all accounts to the limit.

Click Here For The Truth About Catholicism

This isn't entirely relevant to this article; however, if you'd like to provide some prominent exponents of this viewpoint, we can probably add something in 'Criticisms'. TSP 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For the real truth you could visit www.catholic.com.

I'm not sure that this particular 'posting' even qualifies as discussion. --Elliskev 00:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can believer in Christ and the Bible say that Catholicism is such a cult, yet accept the half of the bible, the New Tesament which was organized and declared inspired Word of God by a group of Catholic Bishops lead by the great Catholic Theologian-Philosipher St. Augustine during the Synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397A.D. respectively? (Protestants accept the Catholic N.T. but reject the O.T. ,accepting the O.T. devised by Christ rejecting Pharisees in Jamnia, in 90 AD- 57 years after Christ had declared the Church's authority to bind and loosen Mt 16 & 18). See this Protestant site regarding the history of the Bible http://www.literatureclassics.com/ancientpaths/bibhist.html

Historical fact from the 1st and 2nd centuries, shows that the Catholic Church existed, is named and described by the earliest of Church Fathers, Iganatius, Polycarp, Ireneus, and Justin Martyr. Additionally, they all believed they were bound to the Church in Rome, in the authority of bishops, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist all characteristics of the Catholic Church we see today as protected by Christ and is written in Matthew 16:17-19 and is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Read the Early Church Fathers here from this Protestant site and tell me collectively that they do not essentially describe the same Catholic Church we see today. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ See volume 1 for these earliest of Fathers. Contact me at rkosuave@yahoo.com .

Lastly, the idea that the Catholic Church was founded by a pagan Roman Emperor is an absolute fallacy see http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/roman.htm or http://www.ancient-future.net/constantine.html .[Micael- February 2006}

Sounds like POV to me, and not to subtle at that. But, people have a right ot believe as they choose, whether or not it is correct. I did, however, give the courtesy of looking at her site. I didn't find anything, however, that even slightly represented accurate Catholic teaching. They managed to get some of the names in order, but managed to get nothing else correct. Davescj 17:09, 8 December 2005, Feast of the Immaculate Conception (UTC)

I don't expect the anti-Catholics to bother, but if they have an open mind, an excellent resource on this Dave Hunt/Woman/Beast stuff is found at http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp Endomion 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can a cult be satanic and pagan at Can believer in Christ and the Bible say that Catholicism is such a cult, yet accept the half of the bible, the New Tesament which was organized and declared inspired Word of God by a group of Catholic Bishops lead by the great Catholic Theologian-Philosipher St. Augustine during the Synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397A.D. respectively? (Protestants accept the Catholic N.T. but reject the O.T. ,accepting the O.T. devised by Christ rejecting Pharisees in Jamnia, in 90 AD- 57 years after Christ had declared the Church's authority to bind and loosen Mt 16 & 18). See this Protestant site regarding the history of the Bible http://www.literatureclassics.com/ancientpaths/bibhist.html

Historical [[Image:fact from the 1st and 2nd centuries, shows that the Catholic Church existed, is named and described by the earliest of Church Fathers, Iganatius, Polycarp, Ireneus, and Justin Martyr. Additionally, they all believed they were bound to the Church in Rome, the authority of bishops, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist all characteristics of the Catholic Church we see today as protected by Christ and is written in Matthew 16:17-19 and is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Read the Early Church Fathers here from this Protestant site and tell me collectively that it does note essentially describe the same Catholic Church we see today. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ See volume 1 for these earliest of Fathers. Contact me at rkosuave@yahoo.com .

Lastly, the idea that the Catholic Church was the same time? Wouldn't the presence of Satan qualify it as Abrahamic?

Selling advertising space to a Catholic online dating firm on your anti-Catholic polemic website strikes me as odd.

Just a note about paganism. As far as I'm aware 'pagan' comes from a root meaning rural or of the country. The implication being that while Christianity was seen as urbane and urban, the indigenous beliefs were trivial by comparison. Many people today believe that institutional Christianity is compatible with local 'pagan' beliefs.(Mark, Birmingham)

Can this talk page be archived?

It's at 144K as I write this. I haven't been involved in much of the discussion, so I don't want to move any sections that may need to stay. --Elliskev 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. It serves almost no purpose as it is, because it's too long for people to properly be aware of what has been and is being discussed. To give a concrete example, in the 'Terminology' section, I proposed a change to the page; waited several months to see if anyone objected; then made the change, which promptly received objections. This talk page is useless as it is; let's archive and see if it gets better. TSP 01:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I archived about 2/3 of the talk. It's still at about 30K, but I tried not to archive any recent discussions. If I did (on accident), please move it back. --Elliskev 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive link at top of page. --Elliskev 01:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh

"I am curious as to the reasons for the changes you made to Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh...", someone who did not sign wrote on my Talk page.

The "Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh", as it was described on the page of that name, was not the Metropolitan Archeparchy, but what is officially called the Ruthenian Rite or particular Church (cf. pages 1138 and 1141 of the 2005 Annuario Pontificio). Page 1141 lists the component local Churches of the Ruthenian Rite as follows:

• U.S.A.: Metropolitan: Pittsburgh of the Byzantines - Eparchies: Parma, Passaic, Van Nuys.
• Ukraine: Eparchy: Mukacheve
• Czech Republic: Apostolic Exarchate: Košice Lima 07:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Campaign to move History of the Roman Catholic Church

I am afraid to report that there is a currently a campaign underway at the history counterpart of this article, History of the Roman Catholic Church to remove the word "Roman" from the entire article and rename the article to History of the Catholic Church. The user attempting these changes did not discuss these widespread edits and I think this might even violate a naming convention on the issue. I also know that numerous attempts on this article, the main Roman Catholic Church article, to remove the word Roman and change the name to simple "Catholic Church" have been reverted. I invite folks to come look at the History article. A page protection may very well be needed if these multiple page moves and purge of the word "Roman" continue. -Husnock 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Golly, do you think it is the same vandal who took the word "Roman" off the 1994 Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (CRCC)? Endomion 07:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

'Good Article' listing

I've thought about this for a while, but I don't think that I can in all conscience leave this article listed as a Good Article. I think it misses out on the criteria in the following ways:

• Neutral Point of View. While attempts have been made to ameliorate it with phrases such as "according to the Church" and "adherents believe", a great deal of the article still seems to me to express a Catholic point of view, rather than to neutrally report on the organisation. I think the repetition in this article of a great deal of information general to all Christian groups is an example of this.
• Stability. There still seem to be significant parts of the article which are disputed or still extensively edited. The creeping replacement by various editors of "Roman Catholic" with "Catholic", though the terminology section states that the two will be used interchangeably, is an example of this.
• Referencing. Much of the article is unreferenced; where it is referenced, it is almost exclusively from sources internal to the Church, rather than from impartial reporting.

I don't want to malign anyone's work - and a great deal of excellent work has gone into this article; but I think that the label of 'Good Article' might give editors the impression that this article has reached heights which I don't think it yet has. I think it still needs a lot of work; and, unfortunately, while I have been involved with it it has seen almost as much editing which has moved it away from good article status (particularly regarding the neutral point of view issue) as has moved it towards it. TSP 23:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

.............. With respect to the "repeated information" comment, I disagree. Since the Catholic Church is the largest (and arguably the oldest) Christian body, it is necessary that its beliefs are presented as a unitary and easily comprehensible whole. The fact that other smaller Christian groups share many core beliefs should not affect this. A reader needs to know what the largest Religious body on earth believes, not just be told where peiople consider that it differs from some other groups. Xandar

The section "Particular Churches within the single Catholic church" is repeated. I deleted it, but was accused of vandalism and it was replaced. --Davrg

Gosh, maybe we could go to Jack Chick and get an outside point of view on the doctrines of the Church to make this a "good" article again. Endomion 07:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the whole template for "deleted from Good Article". It seemed that editing make it a bad article, and that goes against what we SHOULD be doing at wikipedia. No hoghprofile or controversial article could be considered good with this arbitrary criteria. I still dont see a good reason for removal from a "good" status. I think it is silly, so I used WP:BOLD. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Particular Rites and Churches

Please Note: According to the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, a "Rite" is a corpus of traditions which has arisen among certain people distinct by culture and hisory. There are six principal rites or traditions, each having arisen from a center of culture, education, and worship. A "Church" on the other hand, is a distinct group of the Christian faithful organized into an autonomous (sui juris) ecclesial body. (CCOC 27, 28) Please maintain this distinction throughout the text of the article.

This section should be expanded to include the jurisdictions that are officially listed as belonging to another rite, but in reality were created for different reasons.

The Czech rite was created in 1996 as a new Apostolic Exarchate for Eastern Rite Catholics in the Czech Republic. It included those of Ruthenian (Rusyn) Descent & might officially be listed as being part of the Ruthenian rite, but it was also formed "unofficially" to facilitate the switching rites needed for approximately 100 or so Czech priests who were married. The precedent is there for this being a separate rite, as the Hungarian Rite Church also originated as a separate jurisdiction for Ruthenians in Hungary that was supplemented by those of Hungarian and other origins.

The Georgian Rite previously was acknowledged as a separate rite, including being listed in previous editions of the source listed for this section of the article. While it's survival is definitely in question, it has not declared extinct anywhere by the church that I am aware of. Even if this church was extinct, this rite did at one time exist, & so should remain acknowledged in this article the same way in which some of the defunct Western Rites are noted (and rightfully so I might add). The current political situation in Georgia itself is very volatile, & religious persecution has been reported.

[04:41, 3 January 2006 71.0.228.30, by an anonymous editor who omitted to sign by typing a tilde (~) four times]

Before ranking Czech Byzantine Catholics as a separate particular Church, we should wait for that status to be given to them, just as, when Hungarian Byzantines still formed part of the Ruthenian Church, it would have been wrong to reckon them, prematurely, as a distinct particular Church.

It would be interesting to know in which "previous editions" (plural) "of the source listed for this section of the article" Georgian Byzantine Catholics were acknowledged as a distinct particular Church or Rite. I have failed to find it mentioned in the past editions of the Annuario Pontificio that I have looked up.

The "defunct Western Rites" were liturgical rites, not autonomous (sui iuris) particular Churches.

Lima 05:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this: "As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia may not contain original research. Therefore, even if the revised list is accurate, we must stick to Lima's sourced and verifiable version until you can find a better source which backs up any altered version. TSP 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

To expand on the Georgian Catholic Church, a July 5, 2005 article in Crisis Magazine that covers the different Eastern Rite Churches briefly chronicles the Georgian Catholic Church, including the fate of the Exarch in 1937. Citation: "The Other Catholics: A Short Guide to the Eastern Catholic Churches" Crisis Magazine, July-August 2005, by Kevin R. Yurkus.

My understanding is that the Georgian Church was listed in the Annuario Pontificio up until around 1994, but was removed as of the 1995 edition.

There was also a Georgian Rite Catholic Church in Constantinople, which has I believe since closed.

05:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Anonymous User

I don't know if this helps or not, but according to an EWTN site, there is a Czech and Hungarian Church. http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Of course there is a Czech Church, and a Hungarian Church – and an Irish Church, and a Polish Church, and ...

And there is a Czech Byzantine Church, and a Hungarian Byzantine Church. There are no less than three Canadian Byzantine Churches: the 2005 Annuario Pontificio lists (on page 1111 of its pages 1105-1137 geographical summary) one for Greek-Melkite Canadians, one for Slovak Canadians, and one for Ukrainian Canadians. And the United States Byzantine Churches, according to the same source, are four.

But how many of these are particular Churches in a sense higher than the sense in which each individual eparchy (diocese) and each individual metropolitan Church (ecclesiastical province) is a particular Church? In other words, how many of them have the status of autonomous ("sui iuris") ritual Churches?

No doubt, there are marginal cases, and different people would make different classifications. Some might dispute the correctness of the Annuario Pontificio's classification and might ask why, for instance, if it reckons the Macedonian Church as a separate Byzantine Catholic Church, it does not do the same for this or that other Church. But Wikipedia, as TSP has rightly indicated, cannot set up its own classification; it must limit itself to reporting the most authoritative classification available, which is that of the Annuario Pontificio (pages 1138-1141 of the 2005 edition).

Perhaps the 2006 edition, due out in a month or so, will have a different classification.

I am grateful to the Anonymous user for directing me to the "about 1994" Annuario Pontificio in relation to Georgia. The 1994 edition did in fact inform of a change with regard to Georgia, but not for Byzantine Catholics. The Apostolic Administration of the Caucasus for the Latins was set up at the very end of the previous year, on 30 December 1993, with headquarters in Tbilisi, Georgia. But neither the 1994 Annuario Pontificio nor the editions immediately preceding have any mention of a Byzantine Catholic Church of Georgia. Perhaps Byzantine Catholics in Georgia come under the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church, which I now see comprises an exarchate in China as well as in Russia, a point I must add to Roman Catholic Church.

Lima 15:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The existence of a Georgian Rite Catholic Church in the city of Constantinople (now referred to as Istanbul) is provided in the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (1999), under the entry of Georgia. Another source for Georgian Rite Catholics is the 1974 Oriente Cattolico, which is a survey of Eastern Catholic Churches.

As to the point above about Byzantine Catholics in Georgia coming under the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church, it is possible, but many actually went underground by joining the Armenian Catholic Church. There was less opposition to this church, it was not seen as an encroachment of the Eastern Orthodox, but of the separate, "Oriental Orthodox" Armenian Church. The Byzantine Rite was illegal until 1905, & only officially tolerated after that until 1917. There has been no organized hierarchy of this church at this time. The exarch was murdered in 1937 & many priests were also killed or sent to gulags.

Sites such as the ones referenced above are not indicating that each and every church in each country are a separate rite, but they are noting that there are specific cases where the formation of independent Apostolic Exarchate has occurred, which is not directly subject to the jurisdiction of the existing hierarch for the respective rite. This includes the Czech, Serbian & Montenegrin, and Macedonian Apostolic Exarchates. The latter two were separated from the Eparchy of Krizevci. The Macedonian Exarchate falls under the jurisdiction of the Latin Bishop of Skopje. My understanding is that the Exarch of Serbia and Montenegro of the Byzantine Rite is also not subject to Krizevci.

The Ruthenian case is unique, as both the Czech and United States Churches are officially of the Ruthenian Rite, but each jurisdiction is independent and they do not fall under the Eparchy in Mukaèevo, even though the bishop is listed as the head of the church. This will presumably be addressed at some point in the future and the status of all three will be hopefully be defined.

71.48.105.177 20:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Anonymous User

I don't think it necessary to look up the Blackwell Dictionary: the very phrase that Anonymous User employs, "The existence of a Georgian Rite Catholic Church in the city of Constantinople", points to the meaning: "a Georgian Catholic church" (lower case), i.e. a building, not a Georgian Catholic Church in the sense of an autonomous particular Church.

The source that Anonymous User has helpfully pointed me to, the 1974 publication of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches, Oriente Cattolico, clearly indicates, on page 193, that a Georgian Catholic Byzantine-Rite particular Church never existed. (You cannot have a particular Church without a bishop.) It states that, in 1861, two now defunct religious congregations "of the Immaculate Conception" for Georgians (one male and one female) were founded in Constantinople, which explains the Blackwell reference to a Georgian church in that city. The church, and the congregations, must have been of Latin Rite: Oriente Cattolico states that, until the end of the nineteenth century (when some of them, including some priests, joined the Armenian Rite) all Georgian Catholics were of Latin Rite, and only in 1905 did some, presumably very few, begin to use the Byzantine liturgy.

The Apostolic Exarchate for (all) Byzantine-Rite Catholics resident in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia does not "fall under the jurisdiction of the Latin Bishop of Skopje", any more than the Diocese of Brooklyn "falls under the jurisdiction of" the Archbishop of New York. Each ecclesiastical jurisdiction is either part of an ecclesiastical province (metropolia) or is otherwise associated with some other jurisdiction; but it is not subject to another jurisdiction. The Eparchy of Križevci itself is fully part of the ecclesiastical province of Zagreb. An apostolic exarchate, not being a diocese/eparchy, cannot be part of an ecclesiastical province; but it must link with some other Catholic jurisdiction, though without being subject to it.

In 1904 the Acta Sanctae Sedis, forerunner of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, was declared the only "official" publication of the Holy See (giving the word "official" a more restricted sense), and the description "official publication" ceased to be placed on the title page of the Annuario Pontificio. However, the Annuario Pontificio remains just as "authoritative" as before. It is difficult to think of anything more authoritative on internal matters of the Catholic Church than a publication compiled by a department of the Roman Curia.

"This will presumably be addressed at some point in the future and the status of all three will hopefully be defined." Yes, indeed. But not by Anonymous User nor by me.

Lima 09:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Lima's argument still seems to be holding more water at the moment. Lima has provided a Vatican-published list; this seems to be the most useful thing to report. If you (the anonymous user) can identify, AND PROVIDE A SOURCE FOR EACH ONE, other churches not on this list but which some consider to be Particular Churches, it would be appropriate to note these after the end of the official list; but you're not making any friends by keeping reverting without proper explanation of your sources. TSP 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The "unnecessary" task of looking up the entry in the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity seems relevant to this discussion. I was not referring to the building itself, but the two congregations established in the middle of the 19th century in Constantinople for Georgian Catholics of the Byzantine Rite. I thought that was evident from my post, but I apologize if this was in some way unclear. I was not aware there were two congregations, I only knew of one, but I have since confirmed that there were two.

As to the church never existing, sources provided here state otherwise. An additional source is an entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition entitled "Georgian Byzantine Catholics" and published in 2003. The article confirms the existence of the two congregations in Constantinople, & explicitly states they served Georgians of both the Byzantine & the Latin Rite. It goes on to confirm that a Georgian Byzantine Catholic community entered union with Rome, and numbered about 10,000 members at its peak. It does state that no hierarchy was formed, but it specifically acknowledges its existence. Other sources have spoken of the later extermination of the Georgian Catholics, including the Exarch in the 1930's by the Soviets, which was part of a wider persecution of Eastern Catholics that is well documented during the twentieth century. The statement of "you cannot have a particular church without a bishop" is a bit misleading because the bishop does exist, but need not be a bishop of the rite. There are Eastern Catholic Particular Churches under the care of a Latin Rite Bishops such as the Albanian, Belarusian, and Russian Byzantine Catholic Churches. That does not nullify the existence of those churches.

As to the Annuario Pontificio being an "authoritative" source, I have no issue with using it, but I do not agree that it should be the only source used to the point of dismissing all other sources of information. Regarding the status of the source, it cannot be called official if the Holy See itself does not designate it is such. A balanced article should strive to integrate as many different sources as possible, as in some cases "authoritative" sources of information shy away from "unpleasant" facts and details. Independent confirmation through various sources is vital to maintaining the accuracy of any article. Does the Annuario Pontificio acknowledge the conversion of 100 Czech priests to the Byzantine Rite in order to remove questions of their being "secretly" married? Is it possible that this had no bearing on the decision to create a separate jurisdiction for the Byzantine Rite in the Czech Republic in 1996, of course, but it is a significant development for the church in the Czech Republic and as such should be included if there are legitimate sources.

The defining of the Ruthenian Church will not be made by me, but acknowledgement of the current situation increases the accuracy of this article. Simply listing this as one particular church ignores the development of what has become the three separate jurisdictions. The Church in the U.S. is listed as a 'Sui Juris' Church, while at the same time being officially part of the Ruthenian Rite. To not acknowledge this exception in the listing of the churches is excluding relevant information. Yes, it appears as part of the same church in the Annuario Pontificio listing, but there is an exceptional status given to the church in the United States for historical reasons.

65.41.245.189 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Anonymous User

Anonymous User says that the "Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition ... published in 2003", which is unknown to me, states that no hierarchy was formed for Georgian Byzantine Catholics. In other words, no distinct particular Church was ever set up for Georgian Byzantine Catholics. Accordingly, if a Georgian Catholic Exarch was "exterminated" by the Soviets in the 1930s, he cannot have been of Byzantine Rite. Perhaps he was of Armenian Rite. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Out of from 30,000 to 35,000 Georgian Catholics, about 8000 follow the Armenian Rite, the remainder having adopted the Latin Rite. The only Catholic Georgian organization in existence is at Constantinople."[1] In another part of the same article, the 1917 publication, speaking of Byzantine Catholics, says: "The number of Catholic Georgians is unknown, but it is small."

Anonymous User rightly remarks that there are Eastern-Rite eparchies headed by hierarchs who are, personally, of Latin Rite. There are also Latin-Rite jurisdictions headed by ordinaries who are, personally, of an Eastern Rite. An example is the Latin-Rite Apostolic Vicariate of Meki in Ethiopia, which has been headed since its inception by ordinaries who are themselves of Ethiopian Rite. But there has never been a Georgian Catholic Byzantine-Rite exarchate or eparchy, headed by any bishop of any rite. There have been, and may well still be, individual Byzantine-Rite Georgian Catholics, entrusted to the care of the head of a Latin-Rite jurisdiction, as today all Eastern-Rite Catholics, except Ukrainians and Melkites, living in New Zealand - including any Byzantine Georgians who may be there - are entrusted to the care of the heads of the Latin-Rite dioceses of that country. But there has never yet been a Georgian Catholic Byzantine-Rite particular Church.

The only publication that the Holy See designates as "official" is the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. In that narrow sense, a papal encyclical does not become "official" until it is printed in that "government gazette" a month or more after it has been signed by the Pope and given to the public. An encyclical does not have to wait that long to be "official" in the ordinary sense of the word. Nor does the Annuario Pontificio, which in any case is far more authoritative on questions of the contemporary structure of the Catholic Church than the Catholic Encyclopedia or any similar publication. The Annuario Pontificio may not - indeed, does not - explain the reasons behind the setting up of a particular jurisdiction, but it does indicate how, in the view of the Holy See, that jurisdiction fits into the over-all structure of the Church.

Lima 09:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have corrected the above reference as it was the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition that was published in 2003, that was a "data entry" error on my end. The article name is correct, "Georgian Byzantine Catholics." The information in the article is derived from a book by Ronald G. Roberson that is listed in the bibliography as The Eastern Christian Churches; A Brief Survey, 6th Edition (1999). A brief biography of this particular author is included on the website of the the CNEWA (Catholic Near East Welfare Association), which is on the web at http://www.cnewa.org.

The CNEWA Website also provides a description of the specific particular churches, including four without hierarchies, the Georgian, Russian, Belarusan, & Albanian churches. Returning the the Georgian discussion, this entry notes the existence of the two extinct religious orders mentioned earlier. In addition, it refers to a small Georgian Rite Byzantine Catholic Parish in Constantinople (Istanbul). I had previously believed references to the church and the religious orders that occurred separately in different sources were noting the same institition, & I apologize for letting the misconception carry into this discussion. I presume the Latin Diocese founded in 1848 at Tiraspol covering Georgia and other parts of this region that were absorbed into the Russian Empire would be the hierarchy for all Catholics in the area.

The link that Lima provided to the New Advent site that includes the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia was a wealth of useful information, despite being almost 90 years old. In the article on the Eastern Churches, it provides a opinion (slanted as it may be) on each of the eastern churches not in union with the Holy See. In addition, it provides a similar break-down for the Eastern Catholic Churches. In the section under the different churches of the Byzantine Rite, it lists our "Georgian Congregation in Constantinople" again, & notes it is a remnant of the independent Georgian Orthodox church that was destroyed by Russian when they annexed Georgia. It also indicated it is under the Latin jurisdiction. This article does not differentiate this listing as being different than the other 6 groups, the impression from it is that there is a Georgian Byzantine Catholic Church.

Returning to the CNEWA website, the explanation of the Ruthenian Rite Church also includes the information on the establishment of the Czech jurisdiction that was "officially" classified as Ruthenian while serving to deal with the issue of "married" Latin priests that occurred during the communist regime. The metropolitan "sui juris" American Byzantine church statistics are also provided. The un-defined relationship between these three jurisdictions is contained here. While still technically one church, listing it as such based solely on an "authoritative" source would exclude this information.

Of particular interest to this discussion is a PDF file of Eastern Catholic Church Statistics that is from the 2005 Annuario Pontificio and lists membership data on 19 of the churches. The Belarusan, Russian, & Georgian Churches were not on the list. The entry for The Greek Catholics of the Former Yugoslavia contains the Croatian Eparchy, the Macedonian Apostolic Exarchate, & the Exarchate of Serbia/Montenegro. Since this comes from the same source as the one listed for this article, I'm unsure why the Macedonian Church is reckoned as a separate particular church in the Annuario Pontificio but not here, so if please tell me if I am missing something on this. On the surface, the separation of the Macedonian Church in 2000 and the similar split in 2003 for Serbia/Montenegro look the same. Other sources have listed the Serbian Catholic Church separately as well. The article in the CNEWA website lists a single entry for Byzantine Catholics in Former Yugoslavia, but notes of the new jurisdictions formed in the wake of the break-up of Yugoslavia. The information on the Latin Bishop of Skopje referenced earlier is also here. Obviously, there has been much disruption in the region in the last 15 years, & so there is still much that needs to be assessed and addressed regarding the faithful here. Many parishes were destroyed and populations were moved, and whether the populations will be able to return remains to be seen.

My intent here is not to "win friends" but really to enhance the article in this particular area based on all available information.

69.69.122.67 06:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Anonymous User

Yes, some Eastern Catholic Churches are at present without a hierarch, and indeed without any secure knowledge whatever of their faithful: the Annuario Pontificio gives no statistics about them. This is the case, for instance, of the Exarchate of Harbin, China, founded in 1928, and still listed as a component jurisdiction of the Byzantine Russian Catholic Church. If some day it is ascertained that there are no longer any Catholics belonging to this jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction itself will have to be abolished. But for the present it is still listed, as various other Eastern-Rite jurisdictions, supposedly wiped out in the decades of Communist rule in eastern and central Europe, continued then to be listed. The case of Georgian Byzantine Catholics is completely different: no Georgian-Rite exarchate or other form of particular Church was ever set up. Whatever Byzantine Georgian Catholics there were and are, and whatever form of liturgy they attended, they have always belonged to the Catholic jurisdiction, Byzantine or, if necessary, Latin, of their place of residence, not to a distinct particular Church.

The CNEWA .pdf page is interested only in statistics, not in listing Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches. Accordingly it makes no mention of those Churches for which no statistics are available. Presumably, it places together the three jurisdictions now existing in what was Yugoslavia to avoid giving the impression of a sudden slump in the number of Byzantine Catholics in the statistics, which are retrospective to 1990, when all three were a single jurisdiction. And it seems quite natural to write, as yet, of all three together, because of their common history and very recent division. CNEWA certainly did not intend to distance itself from the Annuario Pontificio listing of Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches: describing is one thing, listing another.

Anonymous User is right abot the relationship of the Bishop of the Latin-Rite diocese of Skopje with the Exarchate of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I apologize for not having checked earlier, and for having therefore previously written beside the point. It is stated on page 1036 of the 2005 Annuario Pontificio that he is Exarch of the Byzantine-Rite jurisdiction, as well as Bishop of the Latin-Rite diocese. But the Byzantine jurisdiction does exist, and has its Exarch. On the contrary, no Georgian-Rite jurisdiction ever existed, under any hierarch whatever.

Lima 09:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re the Annuario Pontificio and the Exarcate of Habrin in China: you keep in mind that pproviding a name and an address for the Exarach will lead to his arrest and detention by the Chinese communist government. Just take a look at the Catholic Sees in China and notice how many f those are vacant with no listings or statistica mentioned.

Criticisms and controversies

Since there exists a Wikipedia article entitled "Criticism of the Catholic Church", should not the whole of the "Criticisms and controversies" section here be merged into that article, and a link to it be placed here? Lima 05:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so; and I don't really think that article should exist. It sounds like it is, or at least is in grave danger of becoming, a 'POV fork' - moving all critical material off into a separate article, so that anyone who attempts to balance the main article by mentioning critical opinion can be pointed to that one and told, "no, criticism belongs there". (In this case, it seems to be the opposite way round from what you might expect - Criticism of the Catholic Church is an entirely unreferenced and largely pro-church examination of a few selected controversies.) Positive and negative points of view should be kept together in the one article. Indeed, now I think about it, the 'Criticism' section here is not ideal; we should be ordering by topic, not by positive and negative views. So mentions of criticism of the church's stance on celibacy should be in a section about celibacy; historical criticism should be in the section about the relevant period of the church's history; and so on. On the other hand, the article is currently quite long, so splitting some parts off by topic might be reasonable; I just don't think that 'criticisms' is particularly helpful subdivision. TSP 12:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that balance (aka impartiality) will require another section entitled "Encomium of the Catholic Church" if you include a section entitled "Criticism of the Catholic Church". Otherwise, the whole enterprise degenerates into mere polemic. Thus, you have both or none.

Papists

I put up a posting on the term "Papists", for which there is a long tradition of use in the English language. It derives from same cultural context that generated the use of the term "Roman Catholic". It was removed in a very fascist manner without any form of explanation, dialogue or discussion. I believe that a discussion of this term should be held. (posted by User:85.43.58.100)

"Fascist"? Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks...KHM03 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may want to review Fascism, as you may not understand its meaning. KHM03 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand it all right and have lived under such a regeime. No need to tell me anything about the suppression of free thought or open debate. Now let us cut the side show and concentrate on the subject. In itself, it is telling that any reference to facists is automatically regarded as "wrong". Now, back to the point. Why use/or not use the term "Papists"?

Opening paragraph

"The Roman Catholic Church, (also known as the Catholic Church), is the ancient Christian Church led by the Bishop of Rome (commonly called the Pope)." -- This seems pretty POV to me. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say something like it claims to be...or something like that, as opposed to "it is..."? Other denominations make similar claims (the Orthodox, for instance). Perhaps we should try and make it a bit more NPOV. Thoughts? KHM03 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel the sentence is making the claim you think it does. It is stating that the "Roman Catholic Church" is an ancient church, defined by those who accecpt the authority of the bishop of Rome. Similarly, the article for the Orthodox churches could start: "The Eastern Orthodox Churches are the ancient Christian Churches led by the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople (commonly called the Ecumenical Patriarch) and the other hierarchs in communion with them," and, "The Oriental Orthodox Church is the ancient Christian Church led by the Patriarch of Alexandria (commonly called the Coptic Pope)." Gentgeen 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand; but the wording "is the" is rather absolute, or at least reads that way to me (a non-Roman Catholic). KHM03 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe changing it to The Roman Catholic Church is an ancient Christian Chruch, led by the Bishop of Rome.. I don't see a problem with that wording. Gentgeen 00:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is that this opening paragraph has undergone several revsions and always reverts to the same text? Can it be that those who have given alternatives (and there have been not a few) are always wrong on every point? This indicates a very remarkable mide-set, indeed one closed to any suggestion or alternative. It is also interesting to note that the most insistent person in the respect says he is not a Catholic and that he does not belong to any mainstream Christian Church. What are we to infer here? An infallible source of truth? - added by anonymous user 85.43.58.100

Opening paragraphs are very important in Wikipedia articles, because they set the tone of what is to come; this means they are subject to several rules and guidelines on what they should contain. It also means that they tend to be the first target for people wanting to change the tone of the article, or push a particular point of view.

If you look back in the history, the opening paragraph has changed a number of times - even a month ago it was different to its current state. However, changes have usually been made after discussion here on the talk page, rather than as a unilateral action; because such a change has a significant effect on the page.

Incidentally, ad hominem arguments are usually regarded as a logical fallacy, and may violate Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. If you wish to argue, please do so based on someone's arguments, not on who they are. TSP 00:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, KHM03, and although the current wording certainly expresses my POV(!), I agree that it's not quite appropriate for a Wikipedia article. However, I recall from one of the NPOV pages (perhaps the tutorial) that "claims" is not ideal either, as it carries a slight insinuation that the claim is false (like "alleges"). I'd be happy with changing "the" to "an", as Gentgeen suggested. I don't think that would actually contradict Catholic teaching (something I'm always looking out for), but it wouldn't assert it either. AnnH ^(talk) 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How about omitting "ancient" (The Roman Catholic Church is the Church led by the Bishop of Rome)? Lima 05:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, how about "The Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church led by the Bishop of Rome."? --Aquarius Rising 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Any of these will work, I think. Whatever the community wants to do is fine with me...I just wanted to point it out. KHM03 11:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the business about " an ancient Church" works. For quite a while, you know, all of the Oriental Patriarchates recognised the Roman Primacy and the existence of but one Church. "An ancient Church", apart from the historical problem, would be anachronistic and clearly an isogesis.

By the way, the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" was never conceded to Constantinople by an Ecumenical Council. It was unilaterally assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and, as such, can, at the very best, be regarded as a "claim" not universally admitted - even among the Oriental Churches. here is nothing "common" about this title at all. And anyway, where is there any mention in the New Testament of "Patriarchates"? (posted by User:85.43.58.100)

Category:33 establishments

What on earth does Stijn Calle mean by "Category:33 establishments"? Lima 12:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's meant to be a category for institutions founded in 33 AD. In my view, it's ripe for deletion. KHM03 13:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Lima 17:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this. Quite apart from the dubious significance of such categories, it is by no means possible to neutrally say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD. Even if you do believe that the Roman Catholic Church represents the Christian Church founded by Jesus, and that he did so in the last year of his life, most experts now believe that Jesus died nearer 30 than 33AD (due to miscalculation of his birth date). TSP 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is an objective fact that the Roman catholic Church was founded in 33 A.D. It has existed since then. Stijn Calle 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you can claim this as an objective fact, as there are no external historical accounts of the founding of the Church.--SarekOfVulcan 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Compare with Latin version

(This was posted by User:159.134.52.37 talk), who also managed to delete the entire contents of the talk page. I've reverted the change, and am now adding his comment back. Gentgeen 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

In relation to this article I enclose the Latin version of Wikipedia which looks as though it is talking about a different institution. There should at least be internal consistency in Wikipedia>

(Latin language version sniped, you can use the interwiki link to read it yourself. Gentgeen)

In view of the way Wikipedia is edited, the language versions are bound to differ. To see a view of the Roman Catholic Church vastly different from that in the Latin version, just read the Sicilian-language page (a basic knowledge of standard Italian is enough for understanding it), which must have been written by a certain man from Palermo who only a few weeks ago has been ordained as a priest of the Orthodox Church of Greece. His version is that the Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054. Should we change this article to fit his ideas? Lima 05:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)