User talk:MicaelTru

Welcome!

Hello, MicaelTru, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Hello. Would like to stess the importance of our civil tone policy including the importance of courtesy and respect for other editors and their work, even when one disagrees. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is User Talk:Shirahadasha. You can simply edit it (please add new comments at the bottom) and save your edits, like any other page. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comment to Eedo Bee

I moved your comment to User talk:Eedo Bee#Erroneous term of "Roman" Catholic Church, because Eedo Bee is now indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, and can only reply on that one talk page. I don't expect that there will actually be a reply forthcoming, but if you're both interested in having that conversation, it can only occur there, due to that user's editing restrictions. — coelacan talk — 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last note from me; there was a reply at User talk:Eedo Bee so you can take it from there if you want. — coelacan talk — 07:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

In a nutshell, it is common courtesy to discuss any change that could be conversial on the article's talkpage before making a change. If you are ever unsure, that is your best bet as a regular editor could ask for a citation to accompany the change, which is what I would do in this case - meaning if you claim he is Latin rite, where is a citation saying that.

In addition, please use user talkpages for comments and not a userpage like you did with mine. Ronbo76 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a while to get used to. But, comments placed on a userpage could be seen as a form of vandalism. Mine's gets hits because I am a Recent Patrol Change editor. Ronbo76 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my time on Wikipedia, I have learned that the best changes involve discussion on the article talkpage. See Talk:Kate Mulgrew as an example. That is another page I watch. I take care not to edit personalities I follow - unless I can factually add to the article that improves it. On Mulgrew's page, over time, I have seen edit wars where one side will request a fact citation and then delete/revert any change which basically falls under the Wikipedia:Trifecta. If you follow its links to NPOV, verifiability, citation, and no original research you will do fine.

In the case of Mulgrew's talkpage, if you look at the index, I introduced possible sources for this article followed by citeable articles/links. This made known my possible intentions and previewed the citations to all the other editors. Since then, other editors have made use of the citations and other than keeping watch over the article (with the help of other regular editors), I have not had a need to edit the article. Hope this helps.

If you follow the Trifecta, you will be okay. Ronbo76 07:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, please respect your fellow Catholics.

I accept the term "Roman Catholic ",as an alturnate to catholic as it implies the humility Christ calls for. So do at least 90% of my fellow Catholics. The term no longer carries any perjorative . So do not presume, in your pride, to speak for all 'Roman' Catholics. We are not ignorant of our Faith. (Heck, since Galdiator hit the screens I'm pretty happy being called 'Roman' :') & as Christians, don't we have bigger fish to fry? whatever happened to the love of Christ in these religious discussions?> oh tempore! oh Mores!

Opuscalgary 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I ran this past our ACA at the bishops meetinglast nignt. cheers Opuscalgary 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

Unless the context (of the words or of the persons with whom I am discussing) makes it inappropriate, I use the term "Catholic Church". But I am convinced - all the more because of the still recent failed attempt to change the name of the "Roman Catholic Church" article - that in Wikipedia, which is not a Catholic encyclopedia, the present name of the article is best.

I intervene only when the Church as such is alleged to have attached to certain terms a meaning that contradicts the way the Church (not others) has actually used the terms. (On the Church's use of "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church", I do believe that the "Terminology" section is factual.)

As for your researching "verifiable support for identifying the 'Catholic Church' as the true historical Catholic Church", I certainly will not oppose you. But I am convinced that for every source you quote in favour of your thesis others (not I) will quote another source that says the opposite. Please excuse my scepticism: I simply do not believe in your chances of success. Still, I wish you good luck. Lima 10:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your thanks to me are unmerited. You now ask me: "(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?" The oldest use that has come down to us is that by Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who may of course not be the initial author of the term. You and I would say that the Church he wrote of is the same Church that we today call the Catholic Church. An Eastern Orthodox person would say the Church Saint Ignatius of Antioch wrote of is the Orthodox Church, from which the Western Church broke off in the schism of about 1000 years ago. The arguments we could propose would not convince him that his view is ill-founded. The arguments he could propose would not convince us that our view is ill-founded. What more can I say? Lima 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

There are two matters that you will have to address in your argumentation: (1) the naming policies of this encyclopedia, and (2) the terminology used in relation to the Church. It is from an analysis of this that you will have to derive your argument. There is another point, however, to be attended to. Because the system of determining a proper name, especially name change, is the achievement of a general consensus, it may be that there is simply no amount of reasoning that will carry the day.

The use of "Roman Catholic Church" is favorable to Anglicans, and ill-favored to Eastern Rite Catholics. It is not an especially fitting way to describe the Church, since it is not the common term used by the Church herself, nor the term used in common parlance. However, understood in certain ways, it need not necessarily be at variance with the Church's own identity.

The difficulty you will face on an English speaking forum is that there will be a considerable number of Anglican editors, and virtually no Eastern Rite editors, hence, given this context, use of "Roman Catholic" will almost always, inevitably, look like a "compromise" or a "neutral label", and those who disagree will likely be thought of as "pov pushing" by secular editors and among other Protestants who employ denominationalist thinking.

First, you will need to look at the instances when the Church has used the term "Roman Catholic Church" and take this issue head on. Without a good argument not to take this as evidence in favor of the current article title, you will find you position undermined quickly. One possible argument is to state that the Church's use of the term is radically different in meaning than what the common understanding of "Roman Catholic Church" is, i.e. the latter is oft employed by Protestants to imply that the Church is not really the [Catholic] Church. If you establish this, you could suggest that the terminology section could take up the matter in detail, but because of the possible misconception it ought not grace the title of the article. Still, you will have to establish this point in detail.

Second, you will have to examine the naming policy in detail and present an argument that the current policies are on your side. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). Furthermore, you may wish to point out use in other articles (why does "Church of Christ" get this name, when the Catholic Church calls itself the "Church of Christ" also, for example). You might also benefit from finding clear examples where "Roman" is used as a pejorative. It was common among Anglican documents to call the Church the "romish" or "papish" Church as an insult, and a few examples will help your case.

My position is as follows. I think the name of the article should be Catholic Church, first because that is what the Church is, and second because that is what the Church calls itself. Roman is a modifier that only makes sense in a few narrow and limited contexts and risks importing hostile ecclesiology upon the page in question. I also would like "Catholicism" to redirect to this article, as well as "Christian Church", since both properly describe the Church. Furthermore, I think the article should treat both Latin and Greek traditions of the Church. I will support whatever name change suggestions align with this view.

Lostcaesar 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church - not just Roman

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that the members of the Eastern Catholic Churches prefer the name Catholic Church over Roman Catholic Church.

That said, I think that Lima has made an excellent point that it may be difficult to make the change at this time. However, I am always willing to help. Majoreditor 02:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ' ' Roman' ' in the Catholic Church

Happy Feast of Saint Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church.

The Roman in the Roman Catholic Church has rankled with me for quite some time, also.

I frequently call to mind, though, the sufferings of the Catholics faithful to the Holy See in Rome who live in the Peoples' Republic of China. Wanting no "foreign interference" (i.e., from Rome), the Chinese Communist government outlawed the Catholic Church when they came to power in 1949, and imprisoned and tortured thousands of priests, nuns, and laity who remained faithful. The persecuted continued to practice as well as they could underground. After some time, realizing that Catholicism was not going away, the Communists erected the "Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association" (CCPA) with their own bishops, priests and parishes, as an alternative "Catholic Church", and subject to the Communist regime, and directed all Catholics either to join it, or cease to practice their faith, . . . or else. The CCPA does not recognize Rome; it is answerable only to the Party. Many did join the Chinese Catholic Church, but many others of the faithful continued to operate the underground "Roman Catholic" church in China, in communion with the Holy Father in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church in China thus continues to operate, even to thrive, although its members are constantly subject to imprisonment, loss of their jobs and livelihoods, even torture by the Chinese authorities.

Estimates of the numbers of "Catholics-faithful-to-Rome" in China range from four million to eight million. It is hard to get accurate figures; membership must be kept secret from the authorities if one hopes to escape imprisonment.

I can get over having my church called "Roman Catholic" when I consider the heroism and fidelity of these brothers and sisters on the other side of the globe. For it is for their fidelity to "Rome" that they risk their necks every day. To be known by a name that distinguishes them, how can I not consider that an honor and a privilege?

Thank you for letting me leave my essay on your user page.

Ivain 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your commentary, EXCELLENT! However, just remember to say they are faithful to Rome...does not truly represent what is occuring. Even such a comment, adds fire to the divinely unfaithful(atheist/communist). Why, because such earthy souls misunderstand "ROME" as just a worldly state. What is truly representative is a faithfulness to Peter or the Petrine Minister. An office instituted by Christ, the Divine; an earthly office founded by the heavenly. Thus, faithfulness to Christ through his earthly Prime Minister.

To merely focus on the geographic capitol of the Universal Church, instead of the individual, the Petrine Minister essentially minimizes the true meaning. It is the equalent of referring to your belief as a faithfulness to the Israeli God-Man. The moment you place a specific geographic description to that which is Universal and Spritual you minimize the very meaning of the office, particularly for those that merely think of everything by such earthly definitions.Micael (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic vs. Roman Catholic

It wasn't you that "lost" me but "EastmeetsWest". I thought I made that clear with the sentence that followed "I still don't get it." We disagree on the importance of this issue although I am neither Anglican nor Orthodox.

<get on soapbox> My personal spin on this is that the "Catholic Church" has usurped the concept of "catholic" by throwing out churches (or allowing them to leave) such that there is no longer a single "catholic" Church but many (yes, including the Anglicans and the Orthodox). It is a great tragedy that there is no longer a single, universal catholic church. I would even go far as to call it a sin against God. Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans are all guilty of this sin of pridefulness that allows them to value separation over union. (Protestants too but let's solve one problem at a time). <get off soapbox>

Some "catholic" churches are in communion with the Bishop of Rome and others aren't. If there are Catholic Churches which are in communion with the Bishop of Rome but don't wish to be called "Roman Catholic" then the article should say that. If there is a distinction between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church, then the article should say that also and perhaps there should be two separate articles.

--Richard 18:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II

Hello Micael, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to take a look. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authority of the Pope

Hi, just a comment in regards to the post you made at Talk:Pope. First off the title Pope is synonymous with that of Bishop of Rome. They are the same office, not different ones. The Bishop of Rome has three separate authorities, particular Episcopal Jurisdiction over the Diocese of Rome, Patriarchy of the Western Rite and he is also the Supreme Head of the Church. (All rites). Papal jurisdiction extends to every corner of Christ's Church and is full and cannot be restricted. If the Bishop of Rome wishes he could change the liturgies of the Eastern Catholic Rite, if the Bishop of Rome wishes he could dismantle the Eastern Rite Patriarchies. Of course we know it pleases the Roman Pontiff to continue the particular Churches which exist in the Eastern Rite. However, even though they, unlike the West, have Patriarchs who are not the Pope this does not mean that they are independent or exempt from Papal Authority. See, Lumen Gentium. Gavin (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida

I have reverted the change you made to Florida. You removed part of a direct quote from a Census Bureau statement. In doing so, you left an incomplete, grammatically incorrect statement. Please do not remove portions of direct quotes, even if they are not essential to the statement. Horologium (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Micael. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Micael~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

01:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

16:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)