Talk:Unitatis redintegratio

Merger proposal

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Separated brethren → Talk:Catholic Church and ecumenism#Separated brethren merger discussion → Talk:Unitatis Redintegratio#Separated bretheren revisited

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging the Separated brethren article into this article (Unitatis Redintegratio). Though the term was apparently coined earlier, the term "separated brethren" was first officially used by the Catholic Church in the Unitatis Redintegratio document. It was this use, within the context of Vatican II, that gives the term whatever significance it has or had. There has been debate about the significance of the term on Talk:Separated brethren, including at least one editor who has doubts about the import of the term at all ([1]). Regardless, the term can be best explained and placed in context within this article. Giving the term its own article would either cause duplication of the context that Unitatis Redintegratio should provide or would make it seem as if the term has more independent significance than the reliable sources indicate, or worse, would allow for the Separated brethren article to stray into WP:OR and WP:NPOV problem areas as it has in the past. Novaseminary (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

provoking things again huh?

And bringing this matter up again for uptight personal reasons, when it was already a settled matter a while back.....even where you came to agree. Now you do this.

Of course that's no surprise at all, as other editors have come to know how you are....

Anyway...I already proved fairly well why it should be its own article, (more than once this matter has been discussed, but since you're unstable and you change your mind on a whim, and can't be trusted, this matter is brought up again by you....)

seriously this matter has been DISCUSSED AND SETTLED ALREADY. Do you care about "stand-alone" topics that are sourced by themselves, and true WP policy on the matter? Obviously not....cuz this nonsense is a running issue with you.

and I cited VERBATIM where you're wrong. Do I have to paste it here again? It's a stand-alone subject, and it is referenced by itself, and and and WIKIPEDIA POLICY SAID THAT THINGS LIKE THAT SHOULD NOT BE MERGED OR DELETED. I love how you respect that. Then you wonder why I have SEVERE problems with you, Nova....and why I wish you would just go away (at least from this article). You never change, and you can't be trusted. And you have serious issues. And find fault with almost everything. THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND SETTLED.......A LONG TIME AGO NOW... yet for some reason you neurotically cannot let this go.

and again, to re-iterate to you check this down below again:

Merging should NOT be considered if

1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

as for number 3, there's NO QUESTION that that applies to the "Separated brethren" article. It's a subject that ALONE is sourced and referenced and of interest and importance. There is a number of sources that deal with the specific term "Separated brethren" alone.
So, as I said, to answer your question, yes, I do have WP policy and guideline to support my position. This subject alone is easily sourced, and easily recognized, and independent, on its own, and can be proven to be so...and that's a lot of the criteria and policy.(As you yourself admitted.)
— User:Sweetpoet 08:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

—Sweetpoet (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I withdrew my earlier merger proposal because the merger target was not a great fit, not because I was convinced of the value of a stand-alone article on separated brethren. In fact, I noted my continuing concern at the time. The Unitatis Redintegratio article (which I did not know existed when I made my initial proposal) does seem like a good vehicle to discuss this phrase. Putting the personal attacks aside, Sweetpoet has not indicated why Unitatis Redintegratio shouldn't house the coverage of separated brethren. Separated brethren is not a discrete subject separate from the document that made it (almost) notable. Novaseminary (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the only objection was from a blocked user, I have begun to merge the pages. I have pasted the text from Separated brethren and will now redirect that article to the relevant section on this article. Novaseminary (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After reading the last 2010 version of Talk:Separated brethren page, the standalone article would have been better, in my opinion, because they are different concepts. Please see my comment in the Talk:Catholic_Church_and_ecumenism thread. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Separated bretheren revisited

Although a used sources, Paul Kroll's article on the website Christian Odyssey, does not explicitly state that Unitatis Redintegratio (UR) was the first use of "separated brethren", incorrect content is found in the article. For example: Kroll incorrectly claimed that "For the first time, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox were regarded as 'separated brethren'" around the time of the Second Vatican Council. While in another used source, Edward Oakes argued, on the website First Things, that "Doctrinal clarity is lost when Catholics call Protestant heretics. To be sure, that habit of unthinkingly hurling accusations of heresy at Protestants pretty much died out after the Second Vatican Council, when talk of 'separated brethren' became all the rage."

Although not included in the Wikipedia article, Oakes also wrote that,

I do hereby conclude: When the Western Church fissiparated in the sixteen century, the Reformers took a portion of the essential patrimony of the Church with them, and they thereby left both the Roman Church and themselves the poorer for it. This conclusion can be established by looking at later history, both Protestant and Catholic.

Oakes' conclusion is quite explicit – there are Catholics as well as non-Catholics and they are separated.

"Separated brethren" was not used for the first time in UR. This is demonstrably not true. The words used in UR are "fratres seiunctos" in latin. A Google book search shows that the concept and wording is found in the 1793 Acta Congregationis archiepiscoporum et episcoporum Hetruriae Florentiae anno MDCCLXXVII, p. 1003, at Google Books, as "fratres nostros a nobis seiunctos" which is sequencial-word-for-sequencial-word translated as "brothers our from us separated" and phrase translated as "our brethren divided from us" by Google translate.

The language used in the section also misrepresents the Catholic Church as being only the Latin Church and excludes the other 22 sui iuris Churches which collectively make up the Eastern Catholic Churches within the Catholic Church.

References

--BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit was really an edited and expanded revert of content from a previous page on which that content was added. It also answers the question about "official" and whether "the term was intended to stand for a discrete and precisely-delimitable theological concept" and not just "a colorfully descriptive phrase" as was brought up on the previous talk page. The explanation is:

The original URL with the correct content had all the content and a link to a more specific page with the correct content. The 2010-06-18 revision of Separated brethren, changed URL into a wrong target URL. That page did not have the original URL content. The edit war continued, but the replaced URL remained incorrect, so when the 2010-07-10 revision removed the wrong target URL, the 2010-07-11 talk page section "Explanation for removal of This Rock Q&A about Mormonism" discussed the wrong target URL which no longer had the correct content as did the original URL. Then the content from "Separated brethren" was moved into "Unitatis Redintegratio", the original "Separated brethren" page was turned into a redirect, and the content was then stripped out after the move. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2U.HTM
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_en.html

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Separated brethren

Though I know this has been discussed before, I'm moving the section called "Separated brethren" to its own entry: Separated brethren. It bears little relationship to Unitatis redintegratio. The editors involved in previous discussions were at loggerheads -- I'm not sure what lay behind the animosity -- and are no longer active. So I'm just going to make the move. Perhaps the new entry, properly categorized, will attract appropriate attention. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)