User talk:Lima/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

User Page

You should establish a user page so you dont appear as a "red link". People in this place tend to take more seriously the "blue link" users. Its strange but true! -Husnock 13:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Monsignor

Saw your edits to the Monsignor section of Roman Catholic Church, and I was wondering if you'd share your reference with me. The reference I consulted was obviuosly outdated (or just plain wrong) and since it's a fairly well-known and respected reference (I've required it in for students in my undergraduate courses) I want to bring the inaccuracy to the attention of the authors. If you wouldn't mind posting a link or other source information on my talk page I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks for the good work! Essjay 13:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Your latest changes to Mass (liturgy)

I appreciate your additional refinements in the introductory words to Mass (litergy). I am not a Catholic, but the previous intro seemed confused and a little misleading -- hence my changes. Thanks, Jim Ellis 19:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Communion article

Thank you for your edits! The introduction was truly a mess before. Good work! -Rekleov 17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Greek

Thank God someone's finally come along to correct all our atrocious Greek spelling! I wonder if you could take the trouble to look at the Orthodox section of Vestments and make sure we've got the Greek right there, and maybe add it where we're missing it?

In your recent edit to Eucharist you remarked that you didn't know how to add a breath mark. You ought to be able to just use the Greek keyboard mapping and type normally. Wikipedia normally encodes its pages in Unicode, so anything with a Unicode encoding should display correctly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in Vestments the older forms would be preferable. But when I was trying to check my spelling all I could find for comparison was the modern, so I used that rather than risk misspelling the koine. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Dankon

Thanks for your excellent work at Roman Catholic Church. It (still) needs all the help it can get. BTW, you make me very envious...kiel lernis vi tiel mutajn lingvojn? Hasta la próxima...--Dpr 18:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome

You are, indeed, welcome. I appreciate your thanks. God bless you.--Midnite Critic 05:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Catholic

Good call on the reverts, esp. when your heart agreed with the more POV version! KHM03 13:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

reliquiae et relliquae

Hi Lima. I can't help with this question as I speak neither Latin nor Greek. My only involvement was in copying Drboisclair's text from one page to another. One observation, though: since this is apparently a quote, it's also possible that Luther just simply made a mistake.--Srleffler 18:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		An Award
		I award this Barnstar of Diligence to Lima for his tireless work maintaining verifiability at Eastern Rite and Roman Catholic Church, in the face of persistent opposition. Gentgeen 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your agenda

It seems you are on some kind of busy-body agenda to go around to every Church or religion in the world like you are the authority, and ascribe Original Sin to them. DO NOT DO THIS. Stick to your own beliefs. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Amasaginallehu - Thank you for your courtesy. Lima 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

'Abro yisTen. If you have figured out how to say 'Amesseginallehu, you might also perceive that no one in the Armenian Evangelical Church can set doctrine for any Oriental Orthodox Church outside of Armenia at any rate, so I was a little taken aback when after a week you told me "time's up, I'm reinserting what I think your doctrine is for you!" I apologize if I sounded brusque, but it just looks like you are coming out of nowhere, like someone had specially appointed you to point out what you think other churches doctrines are or what you think they should be... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

You seem to be under a misapprehension about the New York-based Armenian Church diocese whose website I quoted. It is part of the Armenian Church headed by His Holiness Karekin II, Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicosate of All Armenians, and is listed as such on page 31 of the 2005 edition of Orthodoxia (Ostkirchliches Institut, Regensburg). The content of the website should be enough to show it is not of the Evangelical/Protestant variety. You will have seen that I have not reverted your revert, and have not raised the question publicly on the Original Sin talk page. I prefer to leave it to you to restore to the Original Sin page the account of what the Armenian Apostolic Church, which, as you know perfectly well, is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, actually teaches, not what someone thinks it should teach. Perhaps you will also give a source for your own statement about the teaching of one or more of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches. I do not wish to remove your statement from the page as long as there is some hope that it can be shown to be verifiable, as required on Wikipedia. (Some day, I must ask you to be good enough to explain to me, preferably with International Phonetic Alphabet characters, what exactly are the seven Gi'iz and Amharic vowels: I believe I was wrong in supposing that the vowel in "Gi'iz" was the Slavic /y/ or the Turkish /ı/. That's enough ውይይት - with more of the vowel that I mistook - for now.) Lima 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is disappointing that you have not yet restored the sourced account of Armenian teaching. Lima 14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Propsed move for RCC

Lima, please visit Talk:Roman Catholic Church#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church again. If voters don't start responding to my actual case (laid out in the discussion section), and explain to me why Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of Christ, and similar articles, should be titled by their claimed names--even though they can be ambiguous--but the Catholic Church should not be extended the same treatment, then I will begin proposing moves for those articles, as well. Merely for the sake of consistently applying this new de facto policy we are inventing for this article. Also see Robertsrussell's point on this double standard at the top of the page. --Hyphen5 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Sorry to have partly-reverted you on the lead section of Roman Catholic Church. I just don't think that a paragraph as long as that, explaining one concept in such technical detail, and employing so much jargon needing explaining, belongs in the lead section. I don't think that the average reader would gain any information from that paragraph; and Wikipedia needs to be written for the average reader, not for experts. All the same, you know more about the subject than I do. I've tried to get the important information into a couple of sentences employing as little inaccessible language as possible. I hope that we can come to a solution which you are happy is technically correct, but which I am happy is readable and informative for the average reader. (PS. You may find Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section useful - I'm finding them quite informative.) TSP 19:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Lima, I just want to say thanks for your major revisions to RC calendar of saints. Very helpful. Actually, I find most of what you do on WP thoughful and high quality work. --Vaquero100 10:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lebfreve

Thanks for the kind attention, just wasn't sure. --V. Joe 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Laity

Hi Lima! I saw the changes you made on my latest additions on the laity in the Catholic Church. Just two issues I'd like to discuss with you: (1) from charism to movement. Opus Dei is technically and canonically not a movement, being a hierarchical structure lilke a diocese. So to group them together, I think it is best to call them charisms. (2) addition of Opus Dei being there long before the council. In fact, the exact statement from John Paul II is OD "anticipated the theology of the laity, a characteristic mark of the Council and after the Council". That is why I placed "complemented by the rise of .... in the 20th century" because I also wanted to avoid making it appear that Opus Dei is the only one which anticipated the Council. I think the addition of "long before the council" somehow makes it appear pre-Vatican in thinking, an opposite idea of its being regarded as a "forerunner" of the Vatican II. May I request you to please consider if it would be better not to include that additional statement? Thanks. :) Lafem 05:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt response, Lima. I've just done some editing. I kept the word "movements" and just added "structures." Hope you like it. :) Lafem 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Uniate

For me, "Biserica uniata" and "Biserica unita" are the same, because they both point to the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic. I presume "Biserica unita" is better w.r.t. the Romanian language, but I've seen people using the other, too. But there are probably many romanians that don't even know what this church is, for its traditional denomination in Romania is "Biserica Greco-Catolica" (The Greek Catholic Church), regardless of its official name. As concerns other united churches, few people know about them (I presume). Dpotop 09:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation

I just wanted to thank you for your work on the Confirmation page, especially for restoring the Roman Catholic View section which I was hoping someone would write (having been unaware that it had previously existed). The only thing is your contribution to the section on Confirmational Names which removes a source I added, along with where the name is usually placed. It also seems to shrink the section to the point where it's a tidbit rather than an important part of the process (for confirmees in the English speaking countries :)). I don't want to revert you out right, so will try to rewrite it a little to incorperate certain parts of your revision. Comments are welcome, and I would like to work and improve this section. Chooserr 05:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your prompt reply and helpful edits. The current version seems informative enough though I'll try to find out a bit about the history of this practice (confirmation name). The place where I got the information about the practice of adopting a Confirmation Name in Germany was from the German wikipedia article for confirmation. Give it a look if you like. Chooserr 18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Junia

Thanks for your work on Junia! --Ephilei 21:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting the facts straight

Lima, you need to get your facts straight. "Catholic Church" is the normative name by which the Church is known to the world and by which it calls itself in virtually every public document. Your wording continues to misrepresent the facts. Do some reading. [1] --Vaquero100 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Has the Church ever declared "Catholic Church" to be its "normative name"? For every instance in which the Church calls itself "the Catholic Church" in a public document, you can easily find hundreds in which the Church calls herself simply "the Church". Lima 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Church calling itself "the Church" is like the president of the United States of America calling his country "America." It is just shorthand. Still, you need to do some reading. --Vaquero100 09:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Quod gratis affirmatur gratis negatur. One might as well say "Catholic Church" is just shorthand for "Roman Catholic Church" (which it isn't). Why not do some reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? How many times will you find in it the name "Catholic Church"? Yes, the title is one time, but how many times within the book? (I have counted them, but I have of course made no attempt to count the multitude of times that the term "the Church" is used instead.) Was the Catechism written in shorthand? In Lumen Gentium, how many mentions of "Ecclesia" (and "Ecclesia universalis") do you meet before you come across the first "Ecclesia catholica"? Was this document also written in shorthand?

Photo of John XXIII at RC Church

Leave my comments to the picutre of John XXIII at a Papal Mass in 1962 like they are, please. He is facing eastward, not "towards the people". How do you conclude such a thing? The altar in St Peter's is facing the nave and the Doors, but still eastward. It's no "towards the people" celebration of the post-conciliar era. This can be easily proven, given the fact, that the candlesticks, the cross and the statues of Moses and St. PEter at the altar block free sight for celebrant and congregation. My comments were correct, yours were incorrect from the beginning. Leave them as they are now, I kindly beg you.Smith2006 20:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Lima, the RCC article has 4 images of the liturgy, and 3 of them depict "old rite" practices. Granted, 2 are historical, but considering the tiny percentage of Catholics today using that rite it seems a bit skewed. What do you think? Gimmetrow 04:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

John XXIII

Is that true about John XXIII facing the congregation while saying mass? I've never heard of it but am fascinated. Do you know a source for this? --Vaquero100 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation Mass

Please prove those acolythes kneeling int he Bohermeen pictures are priests. They are old acolythes. The bishop is kneeling. Normally Confirmation is conferred at a Mass celebrated by the Bishop. So why are you constantly reverting my editions? Constantly removing my comments? Is Roman Catholicism your monopoly? Kind regards, Smith2006 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

For Smith2006, was it normal attire for a non-priest to wear a cotta with lace (like a rochet), especially at a low mass? For Lima, sorry I missed your comment at the article, but aren't the girls wearing what is called a mantilla among traditionalists? Just seemed like a good connection for the picture. Anyway, this could easily be a confirmation, but I am still puzzled by the candles. Is it possible this is the start of a "40 hours" devotion? Gimmetrow 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Early Christianity

Hi Lima, I've made a number of attempts to re-edit the first few paragraphs of the "Origins and History" section recently - and you have been one of people who has persistently replaced my amended version with the earlier version. I would genuinely be interested to know what your objections were to my amendments? Kind regards and best wishes: 82.198.252.2

I am sorry I cannot tell what amendments you speak of. I cannot find your ISP number (82.198.252.2) in the history page of the most recent edits. And without knowing your User name, I cannot respond on your Talk page, but only here. Are you perhaps Giovanni33 or Professor33? Or perhaps both, since the coincidence of the "...33" is curious?

My latest edit to the "Origins and History" section was simply to specify that both "Messiah" and "Christ" literally meant "the Anointed". My previous intervention, last month, was linked with my renewed appeal for someone to discuss what reasons there can be for reviving a superseded version. I got no response. It is obvious that I am quite open to discussion. If you are ...33, perhaps you will, as I then suggested, begin by explaining why you want the article to give space to matters beyond its declared limit, the year 325. This may perhaps be the easiest point to settle. Lima 14:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Salvation

User Danras is wreaking havoc on this article, particularly the Roman Catholic section. Your meritable contribution from 8 September 2005 has sadly been replaced with very unbalanced and irrelevent material.--Antelucan 14:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the pre-Danras section, but he has already reverted it back to his version. I am not sure what to do about this. I applied a "totally disputed" banner to the section. Hopefully more people will get involved so we can see this dispute resolved.--Antelucan 03:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your latest contribution to Salvation. It is superb.--Antelucan 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Saints

Concerning naming conventions for articles on saints, please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Clerical_names. Could I also suggest you use wikification and categories (see Category:Saints, Category:Saints by country, etc.)? Eixo 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lima, Just to let you know that I'm adding categories to the Saints articles that you recently created... but it would be great if you could add them into new articles at the time you create them, as it's a real challenge to keep the Category needed list down to a reasonable size! Thanks, --Sepa 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical heraldry

I have ecclesiastical heraldry up as a featured article candidate. Something came up that you might be able to look up for me; you seem to have access to old and contemporary Roman ceremonials. Old books (before 1960) say that in the (Roman) rite of ordaining a bishop, the ordinand presented two little casks with his coat of arms to the ordaining bishop. Does this custom still exist, and if so is it part of the rite itself, or is it merely an optional custom? What status did it have in the old rite? Was it mentioned in the ceremonial? Thanks. Gimmetrow 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Rite

I appreciate your concern that the non-Byzantine traditions not be neglected. OTOH, the articles for Eucharist and liturgy are not as topic-specific (i.e., Eastern-focused) as Divine Liturgy is, so they are not as helpful on a disambiguation page. I will simplify the line to just cite the Eastern Christianity page. Chonak 08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

History

Please stop re-introducing Hitler Jugend practices into an article that has nothing to do with such. You wouldn't put the same section in an article about Catholic Scouts, would you? The similarities are probably more convincing though (uniforms, organization, etc...). Many things went on during the Nazi era that were and still are quite common in other societies, while these societies and their current practices have nothing to do with whatever the Nazi tried to get out of it. The secular, most often Humanist, rite as an analogy to the Christian rite of confirmation, did not need a Hitler and certainly never tried to imitate the Hitler Jugend. — SomeHuman 30 Aug 2006 19:17 (UTC)

Again on my talk page you asked: "I compare Nazi youth ceremonies with the religious Confirmation rites that they were meant to counterbalance or rather outweigh. Why should I not do so?" — Simply, beside introducing an insulting POV against a bona fide cultural element, you would have to compare just about every element in today cultures with the Nazi culture: The latter promoted just about every element of its complete culture; most of these elements are typical for many cultures. We cannot have Hitler mentioned in every article. If you find proof of Hitler having been a gourmet, would you than hang a pancarte on every restaurant mentioning that historical fact? That's why it must neither be done in the article. Such historical facts can belong only in articles on Hitler Jugend, Nazi regime, Nazi culture, or Hitler; or in articles about subjects that mainly exist because of the Nazi influence. Secular rites exist mainly because Humanists want to confirm a life stance as the example given by religions to confirm a belief, not as some example given by the Nazi. — SomeHuman 30 Aug 2006 20:41 (UTC)

Pre-Tridentine Mass

Please refute the criticism, based on the books referred to in the article, before deleting it just because you don't like it. Truth is not yours, liturgical history certainly is not. That is something for the liturgical scholars ánd for historians, not to serve a given ideology. Given your description and apology at your own User frontpage, I would advise you to be less dominant in article and respect other people's contributions. You may have a lot of time to delete and controll articles in order to ensure they reflect your opinion, others do not. Deleting their good works without a good reason, and not only with my works, may arouse aversion and mild attaquism among other users.Smith2006 13:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You were asked to provide citations in support of your sweeping statements about the situation existing two hundred years before Gregory the Great. Instead you deleted the requests for verification. This naturally led to deletion of your unsourced statements. Quote sources for them, and then put them back in. Lima 14:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave sources: the work of Fortescue, Lang, Ratzinger. That will do.Smith2006 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Start with any one of your statements. The first statement you were asked to provide a citation for was to the effect that many scholars deem musical scholar Richard Hoppin's analysis incomplete and partly incorrect. Please quote the words with which that judgement is expressed in a reliable source. Otherwise withdraw the statement. Are you implying that Father Adrian Fortescue said it in a 1912 book, long before Hoppin's time? Lima 15:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Young children

A sentence in the intro of the article Confirmation (sacrament) has been bothering me for a long time: "A confirmation conferred on young children has become common in the Roman Catholic Church". The vagueness of 'young', and the entirely missing time frame for 'has become', are not proper Wikipedia style. More so, I simply do not quite know what is meant and thus whether this is true. Perhaps I explain: to my knowledge, at the age of seven, Catholic children in Belgium receive their first communion (sacrament); around twelve, they receive what in my language is called the 'plechtige communie' (which means 'ceremonious/formal communion') where the bishop applies oilment to the child. In older times, around that age most of the children would stop going to school. Thus traditionally this was, and as far as the Catholic Church is concerned this still is, an age of sufficiently mature wisdom to understand a concept like confirmation. I do not know this age to have changed at all. Does the sentence in question than refer to the first communion (this is not what I gather to be confirmation proper), or did the practice only evolved towards a younger age in some countries with a significant Roman Catholic presence? Or is the time frame several centuries ago? If you can manage to point out (or find out) how to interpret the sentence, perhaps you will be as kind as to improve it in the article. — SomeHuman 31 Aug 2006 22:24 (UTC)

Anglican doctrine

Hi Lima. You are doing a lot of good work on the Anglicanism articles. Therefore it seems a bit ungracious of me to revert a sentence you wrote at Anglicanism today. I have tried to explain why I don't think it means what you intend it to mean, at Talk:Anglicanism. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment in Talk:Roman Catholic Church

Hi, Lima. I’m not here to convince you to change your vote. I'm just sad you don't seem to have a high opinion of the objectives of my actions during the discussion. I think some of the charges you made in your vote are not really fair. For example: you seem to have interpreted my objection to the Option 2 of the vote as an attempt to obstruct mutual understanding… … But, far from that, the option was (is) opposed by me specifically because it requires "Catholic Church" to become the redirect to a generic disambiguation article with various meanings (it currently redirects to the main RCC article). I simply think that the option would not be appropriate, since CC as a religious organization is what WP calls the "primary meaning" of the name.

I’m still not sure we share the same interpretation of the disambiguation policies and its requirements. I don't understand what you mean when you mention an "attempt (under Option 2) to find an (additional) "unambiguous page name"..."; and why it would be a "condition, under Wikipedia guidelines, for giving what is judged to be the primary topic sole right to a disputed name as the title of the article". I can only say that, to me, any ambiguity problems with the title Catholic Church seem easily workable by folowing the standard procedures you pointed under WP:DAB#Primary_topic. All that, it seems to me, can be done with minimal disruption of the text of the RCC/CC article.

BTW, I'm not necessarily opposed to the usage of a term like Catholic Church (organization) as the main title of the article, since it may be less ambiguous than both CC and RCC. (See my comment at 00:33, 6 September 2006 in the subsection for discussing the "Option 3").

My actions during the whole time were inspired by a belief that the objective criteria described in the guidelines clearly supported CC over RCC. I still think the guidelines support CC, but it seems that the reasoning behind it is not clear enough to form a consensus for the change. --Leinad

»saudações! 20:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Lima. I feel much better after your reply in my talk page. As a psychologist, I know that discussions like that tend to polarize opinions over time, sometimes to the point of alienating concerns of people holding intermediary views. In that sense, I feel that I haven’t replied adequately to your remarks (as I was busy convincing people from the "other side" that my view was "the right one"). When the current vote is finished it may be a good time for me to discuss this name affair with you in a more calm way. --Leinad »saudações! 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of Congregation of Bishops

Hi Lima. My dispute at Marcel Lefebvre is not over whether the congregation issued a statement but whether their statement was sufficient to establish a declaration of latae sententiae excommunication of a bishop when the only competent forum for episcopal penal cases is the Pope himself. I used formal when referring to Ecclesia dei because it was the only declaration that had full juridical effect. My argument is fully detailed on Talk:Marcel Lefebvre. Thanks. Pmadrid 12:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cardinals "supposed" policy

You seem not to be aware of it, but major policy changes in Naming Conventions and MoS are not decided upon by one or two users chatting to each other. They require a clear consensus in a broad debate. If not enough people participate to produce a consensus then the policy proposal does not go through. Major changes are never supposed to be decided by a handful of users.

Your supposed new policy on cardinal names is invalid in terms of consensus, participants, range of discussion and a host of other reasons. The actual policy was produced following a debate that ran for over a month, involved discussions on the IRC, on the mailing list, debates across pages (then, debates were not held on single pages, for the very simple reason that one debate in one location is usually only known about by a tiny fraction of people and invariably produces a "consensus" that isn't a consensus, and a cabal decision by a small number of people who have been in contact).

You did try to alert a number of users. Unfortunately a number of those users (myself included) are away from WP right now - at this time of the academic year most students and academics who partake in such discussions are kept off WP by coursework and will not be back for a couple of weeks yet. As the supposed new policy had neither mass participation or anything that could be defined as a consensus, it is invalid. I have reverted it. Please revert changes made on the basis of this supposed policy change. Other users who have worked on this area, when they return in their various colleges will simply engage in a mass move of those articles anyway. Supposed "consensus" policies on controversial matters, where only a tiny number of people participated, always simply produce mass edit wars and get overturned.

Please don't try to set policy on the basis on a small discussion. WP doesn't work that way. Doing that simply offends many users who get annoyed when they find that a policy widely debated gets replaced by one set in a small unrepresentative discussion somewhere. When that happens, users just quit WP in disgust, wondering "why bother?" I was one of those involved in a major reorganisation of royal naming conventions and that reorganisation involved an eight week debate across 7 locations, with the final proposal listed at three locations, including on relevant mailing lists. Policy on papal naming was debated for months all over WP. Policy on broad clerical naming was debated across a host of pages for weeks before a consensus was agreed even on the basics. The debate on styles, which produced the consensus approach, and which I moderated, involved contacting everyone involved and not taking a decision until they had responded, the creation of subpages, example pages, the use of the IRC, mailing lists and was still then not implemented even when a (practically unanimous) decision until people had been informed of the decision and given a further chance to contribute.

One or two users have specialised in holding cabal-style debates and deciding on the basis of a handful of opinions to rewrite NCs and MoS rules. Please don't try to follow their behaviour. The rest of us simply revert what they do and will continue to do so until there is evidence of a genuine consensus on topics after a widespread, multi-faceted debate involving a large number of people over a sufficiently large timespan to cover people who are not always on WP. This tendency of some to hold small debates, or try to hold large debates where in reality on a handful of people (for various reasons) take part, simply produces bad blood, angry users, edit wars and invalid decisions, while driving users off Wikipedia in disgust. (I have been off WP and only became aware of this "new policy" when emailed by someone else who was quitting WP over it, saying "why bother doing anything on WP when Francis and a couple of others can highjack a debate, make up their own rule and dump everyone else's work? I have had a enough of it. I have given up trying to build a community. You try to do work and work with people and then this happens. Yet another cabal." It is a hard and perhaps unfair comment, but that is how people feel when supposed new policies are made up in small debates. At least this one was proposed. Other users don't even bother, just try to sneak in subtle word changes, hope no-one notices and then a few months later tell everyone "but it is in the MoS/NC" and no-one realises that it was actually a phoney addition they planted in there weeks earlier.

Sorry if I sound a gripe. When I got that email my first reaction was "oh here we go again. Another decision by a handful declared as policy." That sort of thing has come close to driving me away too. It has driven away some of our best contributors. One of those driven away by past battles on cardinal names is himself a cardinal!!! He was told that he didn't know what he was talking about. (He wasn't "out" on WP as a cardinal. He emailed me and we kept in contact. We met eventually.) Here endeth the lesson. lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(My reply on the article's Talk page seems to have been sufficiently clear to settle the matter definitively.)

French contributer of fr : page de discussion

Hello, I don't know if you check your Discussion Utilisateur:Lima, but I've added some informations and comments. Please read it. sincerely yours Bigor 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: document

Perhaps I am confused, but does that document not confirm the changes? A person who decides to leave the Church has "ruptured those bonds of communion" i.e. incurring excommunication, and this act supposes apostacy, heresy, or schism? Lostcaesar 08:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Am I then correct in understanding that abandonment of the church entails either apostasy, heresy or schism? The article at present just says "unless they formaly renounce membership" - I think it should add "and thereby enter into a state of excommunication" or "which assumes heresy, schism, or apostacy" or something like that. At present it sounds like one might "renounce membership" like he might quit the poker club. Lostcaesar 10:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the document was issued to indicate that, but does the article indicate that? Lostcaesar 11:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now. To answer your question, what I wanted the article to do was to use the words "apostacy" or similar language to express the religious significance of formally leaving the Church. Lostcaesar 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Membership of the Catholic Church

I am not a Canon lawyer of the Catholic Church. I'm simply a university graduate well grounded in philosophy and logic with a very large vocabulary and excellent reading comprehension.

I am simply drawing the logical conclusion of the second paragraph of the section. I did not write the section - you did. I presume you are a Catholic with a very specialized knowledge of your Church. But your level of minutiae is more suited to a specialist's journal than an encyclopedic entry. A third party reading this for the first time will draw the same conclusions. Whether you admit or not, the paragraph will be interpreted that excommunication is not what it used to be. You WILL disagree because you are a specialist on this matter, but a casual reader like a high school or college student will draw the conclusions I have drawn.

On your comment regarding if women who carry out an abortion is automatically excluded from the Catholic Church: if the laws of the Catholic Church say she is automatically expelled because of her act, then, she is expelled. Simple. She is no longer a Catholic; I did not make the rules, the Church did. She might THINK that she is still a Catholic, but IN FACT, she is not, if that is what the rules say - unless she is ABSOLVED and ACCEPTED BACK into the Church. Again, I did not make the rules, I'm simply trying to follow their logic. It's pretty black and white for me since I couldn't care less. Unless things have changed, I believe excommunicated people, heretics and apostates and other non-Catholics are prohibited from being buried inside Catholic cemeteries - non-Catholics are excluded even in death. That is why this Church is so monolithic.

I would like to add that from an atheistic point of view, the RCC page should be move under the title Catholic Church. The term Catholic Church is a GENERALLY accepted term, normally accepted by others as referring to the religion whose members are led by Pope Benedict XVI, his predecessors and successors; in the same way that a typical person cannot mistake the fact that Benedict XVI is the topic of convesation if you say the Pope, instead of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria (Coptic Pope? Who?! - get my point?).

I would like to appeal to your mature level of logical reasoning to have the RCC page moved under the title Catholic Church - it is only logical and historically accurate.

It should be written in the manner of how the Catholic Church and its apologists teach and refer to themselves. It is far too easy to search the web to find instances of references to Roman Catholic Church and how others use it. A good encyclopedic entry must strive to expound intent, context and fact. Archeology and history are full of facts, but low on context and even lower on an explanation of intent(sometimes the great unknown). At least, the Catholic Church is full of intent and context, all you need to do is join it with the facts.
I have taken the time to investigate the official sites of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc., etc. ... and have found, not surprisingly, that they do not refer or call themselves Catholic. Only the SSPX, Traditionalists, and sedevacantists, it seems, are the only ones calling themselves catholics. So the first test of self-identification is already defined. Their only claim to catholicity is in the Nicene Creed - but practically all Christians claim that.
It is generally accepted that no ambiguity exist when one refers to Catholic. I have asked some Orthodox, Pentecostals, Anglicans, etc. if they consider themselves Catholic - and the term is alien to them.
Eastern Catholics, who also see the Pope as their Supreme Pontiff above their patriarchs, are Catholics. But they are insulted at being called Roman.
I sense an Anglican bias in the article. This is a carry over from Encyclopedia Britannica. I hope Wikipedia has the academic and logical fortitude to counteract this bias. I believe that only science and possibly the science of history can be written in a NPOV. When it comes to religion, I believe that it should necessarily be written first and foremost in the POV of the religion in question, then, add sections of criticism from other religions. This should be done in order to preserve context.

I wish to go on, but I'll spare you the tedium aside from having no time to spare right now.

Respectfully, Dr mindbender 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bigor = Marsouin

Hi, I am able to work a little bit on en:, since an administrator registered me yesterday. Thank you, and see you. Marsouin | speak 17:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal Martino

I think the full name would be, in fact, a better destination for the move. I see from the List of Cardinals that a large number of the articles do not in fact satisfy the naming conventions. Thank you! Hornplease 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Nidaros Use of the Roman rite

I am interested in starting a page on the Medieval Nidaros Use of the Roman rite. Considering you seem to be a key point man of Catholicism on Wikipedia, I thought that I would ask your opinion. The Nidaros Use was used in Norway prior to the Protestant Revolt. I have one source that I've found on-line, but if you have any additional info., I'd be appreciative. --FidesetRatio 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Liturgia

Hello Lima, I saw that there is nothing about the dominican mass on WP en: ... I'm quite surprised! Have a look on Rite dominicain : my english is enough to translate from en: to french, but from fr: to english, it's too hard for me. Regards. Marsouin | speak 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I summarized (and hope it's not copivyo) mainly this text, which is a translation from spanish language to french by saint-Vincent-Ferrer Society of an introduction of a dominican missal missel dominicain des fidèles. I don't have a source better, maybe it could be interrested to contact these communauty to know the name of the original source...

St. Jane Francis

Decree 2492/01/L of 18 Dec. 2001 moved St Jane to 12 Aug. - comment from a recent edit

I think that adding this to a footnote for the dates of 12 Aug and 12 Dec would be valuable, since this info is missing from English language breviaries. Without this footnote, I predict we will be re-correcting this error many more times in the future. Rwflammang 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that footnotes on the new memorials would be so necessary. I see the issue as more of a psychological one rather than one of academic consistancy. Everyone knows that new memorials are being added from time to time, so they are not so likely to remove an existing entry. They are, however, quite likely to add an "omitted" entry, unless a note forwarns them. A note for Dec 12 would be quite useful, IMHO. Rwflammang 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

A conflict has arisen on Christianity as to which English translation of the creed to use, since you have contributed so much to Nicene Creed I thought you might like to get involved. You should be able to figure things out by looking at the history. Thanks. 75.14.222.46 09:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Baptism

I've reverted your edit to the Eastern Orthodox section of the Baptism page. I seriously doubt that the Orthodox accept baptism by water vapor. Also, you've just reverted a wide range of details synthesized from the CCC that fit within the scope of this article. In place of these edits, you've put direct quotations that emphasize only one aspect. It would be great if we could discuss the different versions on the talk page. Also, I really think Baptism (Catholic) should be created to account for the richness of baptism within Catholicism. Freder1ck 13:24, 30 November 2006

Wow! I'm impressed to see the source on air baptism. Who knew? Freder1ck 15:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

I've changed some of your edits under the "Early Christian practice" heading. Can we please try and keep this section as objective as possible.

Please don’t try eluding, against the facts, that full body immersion wasn’t the most common form employed by early Christians.

Your comments put a biased spin on the topic, leaving the reader confused as to the most common form of early Chistian baptism.

Trying to obscure historical facts to promote your own personal views, or that of your particular denomination is not what wikipedia is all about. --Traveller74 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Our Lady of Guadalupe

Hi Lima. I'm working on finding citations for the Our Lady of Guadalupe article and I was wondering if you could tell me where you got all that information about Guadalupe and the Popes? You could do the citations if you like, or just point me in the right direction. Thanks Katsam 15:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ganachakra & Transubstantiation/Transignification

You deleted a reference to ganachakra that i entered in transubstantiation. I concede that this might not have been the appropriate placement for the metalink but I would welcome a dialogue with you to locate a mutually satisfactory location for its inclusion. Thanking you in anticipation B9 hummingbird hovering 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman's work

could you please have a look on it and tell me what you think about... don't hesitate to correct the "version de travail". Thank you very much, yours Marsouin | speak 14:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Papal Orders

Hello there. I noted your query on the CFD page re. merging Papal Orders of Chivalry and Papal Orders. There's no formal proceedure for doing this, it's up to the editors on the two articles to achieve consensus. If they decide to merge then this is done manually. Just leave a note on the talk pages of each article, proposing a merger. Follow this by adding the {{mergeto}} template to the top of both articles. Wait for any feedback, or, if none is forthcoming, wait for a week or so. Provided that there are no objections, you can now go ahead and merge one into the other.

In most cases you should probably leave the empty article set as a redirect to the merged one to preserve links - although if you change all links to the empty article to point to the merged article, you could probably get it deleted on AFD.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Another link

These are what I've seen being used to invite comment/consensus as regards merging – but yes, I'm not sure if there is a procedure written up anywhere; I just found out about them from seeing them in use! Yours, David Kernow (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Public International Law

I would be grateful for your explanation as to how the Holy See should be seen as an early subject of international law in addition to (other?) states. The Roman Catholic Church/Holy See (I appreciate I may be using this terminology loosely) has always had temporal sovereignty over at least some land, even if now it is rather small. Should it not simply be regarded as a rather unusual form of state?--Lucifer 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You say that it would be false to say that the Holy See always had territorial sovereignty. I did, of course, use the phrase Roman Catholic Church as an alternative. Thanks for the explanation: whilst I do not necessarily accept all the logic of your argument it is good to have your position: I'll have to give this further thought.--Lucifer 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Do you know of any place online where I can find the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English? --Midnite Critic 15:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and thanks for providing the reference and translation re: deacons administering Holy Communion in the Traditional Catholics article. Have a blessed Christmas. --Midnite Critic 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Vicars general as protonotaries.

No, all this was abolished by Paul VI. Why does Wikipedia insist on editing out his reign? That Catholic Encylopedia was published a century ago, and Inter Multiplices is no longer the controlling document for any of this. I'm sorry, but this is not the Sedevacantist Wikipedia that holds that there has been no valid pontiff since Pius X.HarvardOxon 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

I've just been reading through the Talk of traditionalist Catholic - I think you have done a fine job of holding the discussion on track in the face of some entrenched views and some less than stellar examples of good faith. I salute you. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Monsignori edit

Saw your edit to Monsignor and was puzzled a bit. The Pius X legislation had 4 classes of PA, one of which was the titular protonotary, or "black protonotary". The Paul VI legislation had 2 classes of PA, neither of which correspond (in dress) to a "black protonotary". Do you have a reference referring to a V.G. as a "titular protonotary" after 1970 or so? Just because a V.G. is called a monsignor doesn't necessarily mean he's a temporary/titular PA. Even a rector of a college is accorded special address. Gimmetrow 17:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the "black protonotaries" text; it was mentioned in the Noonan book we've discussed before. If you're confident that being a temporary PA is the current basis for addressing a V.G. as monsignor, that's fine. Gimmetrow 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking for text

For some time, I have been looking for a LITERAL English translation of Eucharistic Prayer III in the revised Roman Missal sometimes called the "Novus Ordo". Are you aware of such anywhere online? I know enough Latin to see where certain words and phrases have been rendered "dynamically" in the official translation but not enough to come up with a coherent complete translation of my own. --Midnite Critic 22:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Roman Catholic Church

Don't know why I didn't get an edit conflict warning when my change ended up folloiwng yours. One of those little glitches I suppose. David Underdown 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RCC Talk Page

Lima, I would like to invite you to engage in the conversation on the RCC talk page rather than to simply make unilateral edits and reverting all the edits of others.EastmeetsWest 13:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(My reply on the article's Talk page, asking what I had done wrong, has elicited nothing but silent withdrawal. Lima 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Revert.

I reverted this edit. Move the page first, then change the redirects. Your edit broke the link, because it created a double-redirect.--Srleffler 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-reverted by Duja on 11 January 2007.

Italian version

I saw somewhere you said you have the Italian of the L'Osservatore Romano article. Can you post it on my talk page? Or at least the quotation in question. I could send you my email if you would like but I don't know how to do it privately. Thank you again. --WannabeRubrician 21:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

THANKS AGAIN. GREATLY APPRECIATED. --WannabeRubrician 19:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

L'Osservatore Romano

Can you please explain further about the quote in L'Osservatore Romano that you have written about on your talk page? What does it really say? Thank you. --WannabeRubrician 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ETA quote refered to: "That required, for instance, taking advantage of a visit to Rome to look up an edition of L’Osservatore Romano of many years ago, because of a claim (still made on various websites) that this edition contained a statement by the secretary of the commission on the basis of whose work Pope Paul VI revised the Roman Missal to the effect that the revision aimed at adopting Protestant ideas. Of course, the claim proved to be baseless: what the secretary wrote was quite different."

Text and rubrics of the Roman Canon

I reverted your edit because my Latin text of the Supplices te Rogamus is exactly as the Tridentine Missal, and is so attributed. Also my translation is preferable: 1)whoever heard of suppliantly? 2)shall is the correct future for 1st person sing. & plur. 3)in hac altaris participatione hac agrees with participatione. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelaCollins (talk • contribs)

(My reply on the article's Talk page has elicited no response. Lima 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Moved from user page

I wonder when your will stop persecuting Eastern Catholics by deliberately using negative terminology to describe them or denigrating them by insisting that they are simply a part of the "Roman Catholic Church" and not the Catholic Church?? Your arrogance is only matched by your ignorance of the Eastern Catholic experience. Sorry that we do not wish to throw away nearly 2000 years of our own history to fit neatly into your worldview! Your elitist and condescending attitude is woefully out of touch with the dialogue of rapproachement sought by many Catholics, both Eastern and Western, with those separated through the tragedies of human misunderstanding between communities of the Christian family and only leads to exacerbate the pain of the separation. Please cease from your thoughtless edits of Eastern Catholicism as your self serving interests are not welcome there by those of us who actually live in the world you see as a mere encyclopedia article!

65.41.92.16 05:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Sick and Tired of Your Disgraceful Attitude!

(Unhelpful response to a request for a citation in support of a statement contradicted by cited evidence. Lima 13:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Your background

I was curious. What is your background? Are you a priest, a scholar or both? I found treasure trove of pre-Tridentine Missals on Google Books that you might take a look at.--FidesetRatio 05:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lima, I found such goodies as the York Missal and Breviary; the Hereford Missal and Breviary and the Sarum Breviary in Latin

among others. --FidesetRatio 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that should you wish to review it, you can click on the download feature and save the book as a pdf for future review. I've already gone through the trouble of hotlinking many of them in Wikipedia, so it makes getting there easier.--FidesetRatio 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Benedictine rite

What do you think about describing the Bendictine rite as a usage of the Roman rite akin to the Sarum, York, Dominican, etc., in the article you started on the Benedictine rite--FidesetRatio 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lima,

In your revision of the article Ge'ez as of 14:03, 10 January 2006, you added to the table, that Ge'ez is the official liturgical language of the Ethiopic Catholic Church. You did not cite the source for this claim. This statement has persisted to this day, and it is still unsourced. I'd like to request that you indicate the source for this claim. Thanks Itayb 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the citation you've added. Thank you. :) Itayb 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Roman" Catholic terminology issue

Lima, I read your last post on the terminology page. While you are correct, and I was well aware that the Church does use various other adjectives to describe itself, I really do not see how it contributes to the push for a change. Actually, I feel it hurts my effort by straying from the focus of the topic. I am not offended, but it is a bit frustrating.

By the way, I am working on a verifiable support for identifying the "Catholic Church" as the true historial Catholic Church. If you do not want such a change I appreciate you tell me asap as I am taking some time researching the material and any lack of support from actual Catholics would destroy my plea for such a change no matter the verifiable and accurate evidence I provide for support. Otherwise, please, place your additional commentary on my talk page especially if it does not contribute significantly to the topic at hand. Thanks.Micael 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"The points you make, replete with the claims of injustice and oppression (despite the fact that there are several Roman Catholic editors who support the current name or don't care about the issue one way or the other) have all been made before, as Archive 7 above will reveal in all its prolix glory. I invite you to read it if, for nothing else, the strange sense of deja vu it will likely inspire in you, as it does in me. Cheers."

This it the type of patronizing rhetoric I've received from what I consider at this point, outwardly Anti-Catholic editors in this site. I know there is a good faith policy, sure, but the repeated disrespect and blatantly forward condescending attitude is just too obvious to conclude anything less.

I am aware you have supported the change of the article for the proper name "Catholic Church" in the past. I am determined to have our voice heard again and have this issue reviewed and hopefully repealed. However, there is no way I can do this myself, I need you help and anyone else that may assist us. (by the way where the due process ?)

My most significant points for change are found in the one of my latest post as follows:

"1)Using a geographic description in addition to the title of a Church has to be one of the poorest excuses. What is not understood is that regardless of additional descriptive properties "Catholic" Church IS the common title of the Petrine Church in the equivalent manner as "Anglican" Church is the common title of the Church of England...regardless of any descriptive meanings of the words "Catholic or Anglican". If anything it proves how inappropriate it is to impose an extrinsic adjective upon an institution that is not titled in such a manner. If that is allowed then where does it end. Why not add to the Greek the Athenian Orthodox Church, or say London Anglican Church since the symbolic head of the Anglican communion resides there.

2)Since "Catholic Church" is NOT a description, but the title of the lone Church titled as such, by far, historically, in the present and by the world at large it deserves to be title as such. It is not ambiguous, Anglicans do not say they are going to the Catholic Church, do they? Thus, no point in pulling out the ambiguity alibi Also, the article describes one Church, it is not a comparative study of several churches, no confusion to be entertained.

3)The personal ignorance of a Catholic which refers to himself as Roman Catholic is not an excuse to go by such a term. Many of these same Catholics are the same ignorant Catholics that think Catholics of other rites are not real Catholics. Thus, ignorance is no reason, if any a reason for proper education.

4)The listing of a Parish as Roman Catholic is reference to the Rite not the Church at large(albeit slang, where "Roman" is interchanged for "Latin") just as Byzantine Catholic churches are frequently listed as Greek Catholic Church. Since this article is discussing the Church at large and not the Rite, the usage within the church by the "listing" excuse does not apply to this article.

5)The Church in the few instances where it does add the descriptive adjective "Roman" it is used in reference to its Petrine primacy and only when describing or comparing the Church with other schimatic churches. This fact, is perfectly exemplified in Pope Pius XII's encylical Humani Generis where he mearly mentions "Roman Catholic Church" as he speaks of churches not in full communion. Because, in that entire encyclical Puis referrs to the Church as simply "The Church" vs RCC 46 times to 1.

6)Since, this article is NOT from within the Church there is no way to confirm that it is not mentioned pejoratively, thus the additional push to disregard this disrespectful term. Face it, the only way to prove an article's description is not meant pejoratively is only if it comes from within the Church. (Wikipedia should not pretend that anti-Catholicism does not exist)

7)There is no neutral point of view where both sides are equally respected. Since, the Protestant/Anglican POV is represented in everycase (i.e., Catholic, Catholicism- both presented by their descriptive meaning); and the lone institution which presents itself to the world as simply the "Catholic Church", as a title, it should be respresented as such. Not to mention that it is the historical first "Catholic" Church, and thus should be reserved that entitlement, by that fact alone.

Lastly,Wikipedia is not a Protestant or Anglican outlet. I mean really how many Protestants, Anglicans, or Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic", yet that article is presented from the non-Catholic POV(as well as Catholicism). Yet, the Catholic is supposed to shut up and take it - fine, I'll take that for the terms "Catholic and Catholicism". However, we are not allowed the common title of our Church in the name of outlandish excuses, instead the Catholic is supposed to swallow a term imposed by others outside the church, Anti-Catholicism, as is the preferred connotation of those against the Petrine Church.[9] [10] Where are the concessions coming from the non-Catholics?

The injustice is truly preposterous! "

Additionally, and possibly the strongest point is historical. (What do you think about this?..) How did the initial author of the term "Catholic Church" describe that church as and does it still exist? Yes,, and there is documented proof that leaves no doubt that it is the present day Petrine Church and its 23 churches in full communion. (I am presently researching the material, it is facinating!) If anyone or any group has the right to be named by such a term it should be the actual institution which the original author and his companions were referring to.

Thank you very much for your support.Micael 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lima, with due respect, if Ignatius is the first person EVER to document the term "Catholic Church" is it wrong to infer that he was the origiinal author? Additionally, if his cohorts also used the term and referred to a specific church and its teachings is it not safe to assume they are speaking of the same church.

Lastly,there is clear evidence that sets Ignatius and all the other early Apostolic Fathers apart from Orthodoxy. Guess what that is? Its quite easy.

By the way, no offence, but are you really (Petrine) Catholic? Cause as you already mentioned... I am beinginig to question...why am I thanking you? Micael 13:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Various adjectives by which the Church describes itself

"Catholic", according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is only one of the adjectives that the Church applies to itself (CCC 751-871), of which the principal are "one", "holy", "catholic" and "apostolic" (CCC 811-871); but its basic name for itself is "the Church", in forms derived from Greek ἐκκλησία or Κυριακή (CCC 751-752). Lima 09:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dominican rite

I am changing saying the Dominican rite is distinct from the Roman rite because it is a usage of the Roman rite, just as the differences between the liturgical customs of the Greek and Russian Churches are usages of the Byzantine rite.--FidesetRatio 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

John Dowling

Let me know if you can't access google books. There's a partial text here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

here - Kendrick7^talk 04:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be pg. 140. Sorry, I wish g.books links were more stable.... -- Kendrick7^talk 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'd be interested to know the answer to your question. My latin got past ubi o ubi est me sub ubi but stalled out at Quid, me vexare? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really did pause and wonder if it wasn't vexari. It's been 16 years since high school Latin, but I ain't a complete slouch! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Baptism

Hi. The article was originally in American English. It became mixed. I changed it back. That's what the WP:MOS says we should do. Please focus on improving article quality, not spelling wars. Thanks. P.S. The original quote used the 'z' spelling. --Justice for All 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)