Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Terminology

Explanation of different Eastern Catholic Jurisdiction Titles?

I'm trying to put in Short Descriptions on all the Catholic diocese/eparchies etc., but am getting tripped up with all the different Eastern Catholic terms. I think I understand (arch)eparchy, but I'm not finding anything clear enough regarding exarchates in Eastern Catholic Church or Exarch.

Eparchies seem similar to western dioceses, and I think exarchates are missionary jurisdictions, but I'm struggling with all the different types of exarchates (Apostolic, Patriarchal, Archiepiscopal.)

Could someone either explain them to me or provide me with a resource that clearly explains them?

Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks! --Referencer12 14 February 2023

Catholic vs. Roman Catholic

There is a concerted effort to eradicate use of the terms "Catholic" and "Catholic Church" in all article and category names. This includes even the category WikiProject Catholicism. The historic name of the Catholic Church is in the process of being banned on WP. Anyone who is interested in this issue is welcome to join the discussion which I hope to have moved from the RCC page to this one. God Bless, --Vaquero100 09:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? What is the motivation for such changes? Lostcaesar 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for the change is to distingush the Roman Catholic Church from other churches which use the word "Catholic" in their titles. I'm sure Talk:Roman Catholic Church, among other places has plenty of discussion relating to this issue. —Mi ra 09:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should oppose this, the RCC has referred to itself as the Catholic Church, from its very inception. Letsbe honest if this went to a court of law as a trademark we know where the decision would go. Phil 20686 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a difference. The Catholic Church would include our Eastern Rite brothers, while the Roman Catholic Church would only be those of us in the Latin Rite. poopsix 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support the use of 'Catholic Church' over 'Roman Catholic Church'. I suppose the latter is not very p.c. because it excludes Eastern-rite Catholics. I think there is also a discussion about this in Talk:Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, which of course has the Eastern-rite Apostolic Exarchate for Ukrainians. Bonus bon 09:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem in specifying "Roman Catholic Church" if that is what is meant, and if the facts pertain exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. However, if the change would merely restrict the group of people to whom a statement applies, that seems counterproductive to me. So: "Catholics look to the Pope as the successor of St. Peter" should not become "Roman Catholics look to the Pope..." because this adds a restriction while not making the sentence any more true. But "After Vatican II, the Catholic liturgy was revised" could become "...the Roman Catholic liturgy was revised" the eastern rites were revised (were any?). The.helping.people.tick July 5, 2007.

Yes, eastern rite liturgies are being revised but not in the same way as in the west so your example might, or might not, be appropriate. In Vatican II, a 300 year 'oopsie' was admitted (essentially, the true part of the Orthodox critique of latinization) so a lot of our revision emphasis in the East is undoing past mistakes without stirring up more trouble than is necessary. After all, JP II apologized over this in his catch-all apology regarding sins of the western Church to the East. TMLutas 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily agree with your effort to allow reference to the Catholic church without having to use the designation "Roman." In a Wiki article I wrote on "The History of the Catholic Church in Belize" an editor changed this to "The History of Roman Catholicism in Belize" and on chatting with another editor I was told that it could not be changed back to what the Bishop in Belize and I want the title to be.(UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism My only recourse is to initiate a discussion on the Catholic terminology page. The article uses the word "Roman" only once, to refer to "Roman authorities", and never otherwise. While some sources cited have the word "Roman" in them this can be seen as a reflection of the pre-Vatican II church. One of the major achievements of Vatican II was to point in the new direction of seeing the Catholic church as a world church, not so closely associated with Rome as it was during 15 centuries of Holy Roman Empire and more recent Counter-reformation theology. I can cite much more, as Pope Francis calling himself right after his nomination "Bishop of Rome." He is pointing us in the right direction, with the appointment of many cardinals from the South and a much diversified Curia. At some point we'll all be forced to accept this renewed understanding of the Catholic church. What purpose does it serve to postpone that time?jzsj 21:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reviving this old discussion... everyone please take a look at the discussion here regarding the use of "Catholic Church in" vs, "Roman Catholicism in" for titles of articles dealing with the Church in particular countries. Thanks for your help. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greek v Latin

As long as I'm here, I thought I might toss in a new topic. There are an awful lot of things attached to the Church that have both greek and latin names for them. When is it appropriate to use the greek and when the latin? TMLutas 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 1054 is an accurate date? Rome, however, ceased to use Greek long before this date. From the other hand, there are versions of some conciliar documents from late medieval period in many languages, including Greek (like declarations of union with Rome). During the Renaissance period Greek Christian literature started to regain it's place in the Church. So you have asked a difficult question... Kameal (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the "Kyrie eleison". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops: Ordained, not consecrated

In virtually every page about an individual bishop there is a box on the side which lists vital stats, including date of ordination and date of consecration. I'm not sure where the template for that box is, if i should suggest this there, but here is the concern:

A person is ordained a deacon, a presbyter (priest), and bishop. Not "consecrated". That may have been acceptable terminology pre-Vatican II, but the ecclesiology of the Church has changed as has the proper usage. Holy Orders consists of three orders, and one is ordained into each of those three. Previously, the theology was that bishop was not one of the holy orders, but just an increase in juridic power on top of someone already ordained to the presbyterate - so they were consecrated but not ordained. We have reclaimed the Traditional teaching that bishop is the fullness of orders and that one is ordained, not consecrated.

Really, the box migh list dates of ordination, and then indicate diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate. "Consecrated" is for non-sacrament blessings of people and things - like consecrated virgins or the consecration of altars. Protoclete (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include "Saint" when naming saints in articles?

I just noticed that there was a recent edit war on Opus Dei as to whether the words "saint and" should be removed from "Founded in Spain in 1928 by the Catholic saint and priest Josemaría Escrivá." I tried to find parallel examples and the first 2 didn't match "Priest Saint Dominic Guzman" and "Ignatius of Loyola." Do we have a policy here? >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 23:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dom and Dame

I am contributing pages on influential Catholic artists and architects. I'm struggling because people keep deleting things. One problem I have is with the Benedictine glass artist Dom Charles Norris who is known in every source by this name (including his title). However, an editor deleted the "Dom" part of his name insisting it is a superfluous title. I pointed out that everyone who googles for him will look for him by this name. Apparently this isn't relevant as unnamed "other" people will think Dom is his first name. I think the Dom is important not only because that's what he's known as, but it's an integral part of his catholic identity as a monk who contributed religious artwork. Dom Perignon gets to keep the title but others eg Dom John Chapman have had it deleted. What is the policy and correct way of doing this? Why are such titles deleted simply because a single editor hasn't heard of them? Why are they not being applied consistently? Thurzajones (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]