Talk:Catholicity/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Catholicity. 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 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Merge from "Catholic" & "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"

To write an article about Catholicism can only indicate that it will be written by Catholics. This means no atheists, Protestants, Jews, Satanists or anything else. Every other religion is to keep out of it. If this requirement is not kept then the whole article will be nothing more than confusion, incorrect guesses, delusions, and verbal gymnastics that can only come from misplaced hatred of what the non-Catholic thinks the Catholic Church is. Anathasius (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean 'about' Catholics, right?

I think in the chaos that is editing this article, we've forgetting certain fundamentals like, say, the primacy of peer-reviewed sources. Throughout the discussion here I don't recall anyone bringing up what the scholars have to say about Catholicism as a concept. I trust that this will not be the case for long Nautical Mongoose (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The only source that is credible would be one that is written by Catholics who know their religion. Who are these scholars that you are talking about? By what authority are they considered credible on the subject of Catholicism. Your edit can only be accurate by the accuracy of your references. If your references are ill founded, of course you will have chaos. By the way, Catholicism is a 2000 year old religion. It is not nor will it ever be a concept. Anathasius (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

An interesting proposition. However, I think you ought to take at look at what WP policy has to say about reliable sources. We've been so focused on determining what Catholicism means to "us" that we forget that it's not our views but the views of scholars that we should be looking at. In the context of a Wikipedia article, the scholarly consensus is what really matters here. Can the Church of England, for example, be considered "Catholic" in at least a broad sense or not? Maybe, maybe not, but in Wikipedia the standard is not "truth" but verifiability. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a major merge from "Catholic" & "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" to "Catholicism." (the latter is referenced from the "Christianity Template") These ought not to be merged with "Roman Catholic Church" but ought to point out that not all Catholics are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but that the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Catholic Church today. It ought to talk about the history of the words catholic and apostolic, discuss breifly the use of the words as they apply to a survey of the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation (both the Magisterial Reformation and the Radical Reformation - the former considered itself to be Catholic while the latter rejected this), and contemporary usage among modern Protestants (i.e. Neo-Lutheans and Reforming Catholics: I find the term Neo-Lutheran to be misleading, all the Reformers including Luther took seriously the charge of schism and innovation and maintained the position that they were Catholic).

It ought to thus talk about how Christians from Eastern Christianity, Western Christianity, and Protestantism (as well as non-Christian) think of the words "Catholic" and "Catholicism" in context and in a NPOV manner, rather from an exclusively Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox POV.

These three articles are essentially the same except that "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" discusses the word "Apostolic" in relation to Catholicity. "Catholicism" is rather long and and so much of the content that is rather specific to either of the afore mentioned Christian Catholic Groups ought to be moved to their own respective articles to focus the article. (Information about Roman Catholicism specifically ought to be moved under the "Roman Catholic Church" article for example.)

The "Catholic (disambiguation)" ought to remain to redirect people to the correct article.

I don't believe that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church should be merged with Catholocism seeing as the article itself talks about how the Orthodox churches also claim this title. To merge it would be in ignorance of the other groups who claim this title.

Hodijah 15:09, 04 October 2006

To me it seems obvious that it would be nonsense to merge with "Catholicism" One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which deals with more than the "Catholic" adjective. Lima 05:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC) One could, of course, put in the latter article a reference directing the reader to Catholic or to Catholicism. Lima 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Propose merging with Roman Catholic Church

I'm sure this proposal will raise a ruckus. I just don't see the point of having both articles.

Yes, I know that this has been proposed before and the claim is that there IS a difference between Roman Catholic Church and Catholicism. If you read the INTRO to this article, it sounds like there is a plausible distinction between this article and that one. However, if you read the CONTENT of this article, you will find that 75% or more of the content in this article is duplicated in the Roman Catholic Church. So again, what's the point?

--69.236.189.158 06:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather foolish to have the two separate entries, but I think we're probably better off relegating all the turf war stuff about who should call themselves 'Catholic' to this post while talking about the Catholic Church as a historical entity under the Catholic Church/Roman Catholic Church.

Given the communal nature of the Wikipedia, and in order not to have to spend half the Catholic Church article discussing who might possibly claim to be part of the Catholic Church, I vote that we keep the articles separate as a peacekeeping measure.Brendanhodge 06:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We have greeco catolics, asirian catholics, so it's not the same.

The two articles should be merged with the appropriate redirects, while distinguishing the Roman Rite from the other Rites of the Catholic Church. JBogdan 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Object. This is a point that has been made before: large numbers of people outside the Roman church use the word catholicism to refer to beliefs they hold (the members of Affirming Catholicism, for example). This is a neutral encylopedia and so should record the fact. I think the article makes this clear already. Perhaps what is necessary is a separate page on Catholic doctrine on which all the repeated material can go. MAG1 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I also object. Not all Catholics are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Fishhead64 06:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Catholicism" and the "Roman Catholic Church" are clearly two different things. "isms" are descriptions of the collections of practices, and sometimes the motivations behind them, as they have influenced or are influencing action, and may vary depending on which branch or aspect of the "ism" you are talking about, and the meaning of which is often largely open to debate, whereas the Church is an "entity". No credible encyclopedia would fail to have an entry for the "Roman Catholic Church". This would really be an attempt to merge two separate topics, with the consquent loss of a substantial amount of information which could not rightly be placed in an article about the Roman Catholic Church. pat8722 14:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging thefollowing articles would be benificial: "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" "Catholic" and "Catholicism" Butwe aught not to merge these with "Roman Catholic Church" because there are other churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Neo-Lutherans, and Calvinists who emphasis a "Reformed Catholicity." (The Protestant Reformers took seriously the charge of schism and inovation claiming the mideval church had left them and they were simply reforming the Catholic church. But to be sure there are anti-catholic churches. The word Protestant has come to indicate these churches almost exclusivly promting many Protestants with high church leanings to prefer designations like "Reformed" "Evangelical" and even "Reformed/Reforming Catholic.")

I object to merging "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" with "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholicism." Although most of the material does have to do with Roman Catholicism, I think it should be re-written in a more NPOV manner and/or merged with ecumenism. Confiteordeo 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion is a waste of time. Why is that? If we were investigating Jews we wouldn't ask a nazi to give us his explanation. You would naturally go to someone that has a close interest with the Jews. Possibly even a loving relationship with the Jews. If you want to know what Catholicism is all about you must go to Catholic books which explain in detail what it means to be Catholic. You can start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as a religion which is Protestant that is also called Catholic. If they do they certainly are not being sincere. 76.205.117.6 (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Mergimg articles would create a ton of complaints, requests to un-merge, ect... 75% may be duplicates, but much of the 25% would be lost in attempting to create continuity. Why are we even having this discussion. The Romans murdered hundreds of Catholics. As said before, a Jewish person would give their view, while a Nazi would give their own view. --Vock (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sacraments

I boldly removed the sacraments section; on the basis that a) It largely contains material also contained in Catholic sacraments, and b) Churches that consider themselves Catholic do not all have the same beliefs about sacraments, and the section largely documents Roman Catholic beliefs.

It was reverted with the comment "rv: not all Christian churches believe in them all, therefore the sacraments section is needed".

I accept that it is valid and useful to mention sacraments; but is there any reason to do so in full when several articles exist already containing largely this content?

It might be useful to have a section explaining the different beliefs about sacraments of different churches calling themselves Catholic (for example, Anglican churches often only recognise baptism and eucharist as sacraments, and administer chrismation and confirmation, if both are used, separately); but this section doesn't really do that.

Thoughts? TSP 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Being that I was the reverter, I think I should handle this. First, the fact than the Catholic sacraments page exists doesn't affect this article. A user going to looking up information on Catholic sacraments will most likely not go to that page, but a generic page. Secondly, yes, it is very valid to mention sacraments, for the aformentioned reason. Third, making a new section explaining differences between sections doesn't belone in this page. If you want to create a page describing the differences between churches, go ahead- but that doesn't belong in this page. History of the Protestant breakoff from the Catholic church should be included, but Protestant/Eastern beliefs that don't directly corrolate with the RCC's teaching don't go in this article, I believe. ^The True _Sora 17:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? But this article isn't about the Roman Catholic Church. It's about all churches that call themselves Catholic, and what they mean by that. Therefore surely the beliefs of the Orthodox Churches, and Churches such as the Church of England which while often classified as Protestant consider themselves fully Catholic, belong in this article just as much as those of the RCC? The RC beliefs on sacraments would be in Roman Catholic Church... except that over there, the concensus has been that it's better to leave it to the article Catholic sacraments rather than duplicate content and thereby make the main article longer and harder to navigate. TSP 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As a result of the debate over "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic", there was an agreement (perhaps not implemented) a couple months ago to create a series of articles titled "Roman Catholic Church and X" (e.g. Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church) which would presumably contain the contents of the Catholic sacraments article. This series of articles would then contain only the "Roman Catholic" view of various doctrinal topics. See my message below for an example of why talking about "catholic sacraments" is a brain-twister.

Somewhere along the line, an issue has come up in the sacraments section, under Confirmation. As an Anglican, CHRSMATION can occur at Baptism, but Confirmation can ONLY be done by a young adult (or older) who is ready to confirm the choice to accept the church. I'm pretty sure that's true for Lutherans, as well. As written, it appears to say only Roman Catholics are confirmed as young adults, while Anglicans confirm potentially as infants, an absurdity. Can someone who has a better handle on the specific theology for all of the effected groups please correct this? It looks like an honest mistake, but it's a biggie. I know it's got to just be because of particularly poor word choice. Bill Ward 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W.E.Ward.III (talk • contribs).

Actually, figured out a better phrasing myself... I just changed "this sacrement" to "this aspect of this sacrement" and added "often", since it is not always administed at Baptism. Bill Ward 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W.E.Ward.III (talk • contribs).

Thanks to the anonymous user who found a much better, and clearer, way to clear that up than my awkward phrasing! I like your improvement a lot, and it fixes the issue. Bill Ward 00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W.E.Ward.III (talk • contribs).

Baptism

I think that the phrase "even in infants who have committed no actual sins" should be rephrased as the word actual suggests that the doctrine of original sin is optional, and is just generally misleading. im going to substitute "who have not personally comitted and sins" but that isnt a very elegant turn of phrse. Ill try to come up with something better. --Phil 20686 18:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm getting a serious headache trying to wrap my brain around this one. My knowledge of theological doctrines across various Christian denominations is too meager to grapple with this question.

The problem is that I know how to think about baptism from a Roman Catholic POV and, with a little research, I could probably figure out how to think about it from the POV of any single Protestant denomination but I don't know how to think about it from a "catholic" perspective (i.e. across the spectrum of Christians that consider themselves "catholic" as part of their confession of faith via the Nicene creed).

Here's an exposition of the problem as I sse it. Having been educated a long time ago as a Roman Catholic, I understand that baptism remits original sin (and any other actual sins committed by the individual being baptized). What do other catholic Christian denominations think of this? Many other Protestant denominations accept infant baptism. Do they generally accept the doctrine of original sin?

Do Protestant denominations believe that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven? Do Roman Catholics believe that?

Do Protestant denominations believe that unbaptized adults cannot enter heaven? Do Roman Catholics believe that?

I believe that many Protestant denominations would accept a profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior to be sufficient for salvation. Do any Protestant denominations insist on baptism as a prerequisite for salvation? Do the Roman Catholics?

Please enlighten me

--Richard 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I can help you with this one. Catholics believe an infant can enter heaven, whether they are baptised or not, baptism washes away the original sin, unbaptized adults can enter Heaven, and that honestly stating their love for Our Lord will save them and grant them access to Heaven —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vock (talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, just because an unbaptized Catholic can enter Heaven does not mean that they will. In fact, the Church teaches that we cannot be certain about whether a good non-Christian will enter paradise, because without the grace of God granted through baptism it is more difficult for them to do so, especially if they reject the Gospel when they encounter it (and I speak of the Gospel objectively; one can be in harmony with the Gospel without knowing it). Similarly, we cannot be certain whether an unbaptized infant can enter heaven through God's grace. That is why the Church continues to evangelize and continues to insist on infant baptisms: salvation is much, much more certain when one is a baptized Christian. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass Merge Discussion

Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Mass_Merging Dominick ^(TALK) 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Apostolic Succession does not mean Catholic

Add reference demonstrating that the Church of England asserts apostolic succession This reference does not say that. I can't see WP:V Dominick ^(TALK) 18:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, actually you're right; it's not as explicit as I had read it as being. I've replaced the link with one which includes: "We reaffirm our own commitment to the apostolic succession of the Church and to the interrelationship between the historic episcopal succession and the continuity of the whole Church in faithfulness to the original witness and teaching of the apostles."; which seems a pretty clear assertion. Note that we are not attempting to demonstrate that anyone has a valid apostolic succession; only to mention which ones assert episcopal descent from the historic church. The word claim needs changing back to something else, as it is on the list of words to avoid; I'm not sure what the best way to express this is, though. TSP 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sui Juris (or Iuris)

Eastern Orthodox Church is not recognized, mutually or otherwise, as a sui iuris Catholic Church The claims that Orthodoxy is Sui Juris are pretty well know Lima. Any expansion? Dominick ^(TALK) 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Ancient Church of the East, which has split from the last, are all more than sui iuris, and might even consider it an insult to be compared with the autonomous Churches within the the Catholic Church. But they are not acknowledged as Catholic by the Catholic Church. They do not recognize each other mutually as Catholic. Each recognizes only itself as Catholic. But I think I now understand the quite valid distinction Dominick wishes to place in the text, and I have tried to express it in my latest editing. Lima 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Those psychic vibrations pay off, thanks Lima. Always a pleasure. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Vatican I reference

Reference to Vatican I as an instance of the Church calling herself the "Roman Catholic Church" is absurd.

What is at issue here in all of these naming debates is simple: There are qualities of a church and there are names. These are two different things. Credal and consiliar statements (credal formulae are consiliar statements) are discussions of qualities, not names.

The Catholic Church has always been called by the same name with very minor and rare exceptions. These exceptions should be stated, but Vatican I is not an example of naming.

There is not other institution by the name "Catholic Church." Every other institution which claims to be "catholic" or "Catholic" in the adjectival sense has a name. And non of them is named "The Catholic Church." There is no ambiguity.

Anglicans and others may take offense. But they cannot take the name of the Catholic Church. When they do so, they imply that the Catholic Church only began with the Reformation, which is ridiculous in the extreme. --Vaquero100 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter how we want the world to be: if there are significant groups of people who sy they are in a catholic church that is not the Roman variety, then this should be recorded. The point is not that Anglicans and others claim the catholic church came into being in the reformation, but that they have continuity with the pre-reformation catholic church and so remain part of it. MAG1 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the paragraph before this. If this was just a personal opnion: "The point is not that Anglicans and others claim the catholic church came into being in the reformation, but that they have continuity with the pre-reformation catholic church and so remain part of it" then I would have no qualms but this is a statement with theological significance and thus it would be best not to manifest such a view unless it can be backed up with plenty of historical as well as theological verifiable data. No other church in the world has more history about the Christian Religion than then Roman Catholic Church (Example Document of the RCC Vatican Archives [[1]] ). In conclusion, all statements must be made in light of verifiable data and the most accepted interpretation according to its context, and for that statement above it would be theological in context.

Ööh! Wikipedia is not about our views! This isn't a page for theological discussion. Said: Rursus ☻ 12:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The See Also list

Thanks to whoever edited it, it brought my attention to it. (Gimmetrow 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

It seems very long to the point of being useless
Liturgical Year, Lapsed Catholic, and Santeria? Not sure they are major "see also" items
If denominations are a category, shouldn't RC be there?
Instead of Ruthenian, perhaps link to Eastern Rites (name likely to change soon)
NPoV order is probably alphabetical

Merge Roman Catholicism With Catholicism Instead of the Other Way Around

Very well, and accurately, put.

I suggest that we merge the article Roman Catholicism with Catholicism instead of merging Catholicism with Roman Catholicism. The reason is that Roman Catholicism refers to one rite of Catholicism which is the Latin/Western rite. Catholicism, on the other hand refers to all the rites. Another reason is that there are many pseduo-Catholic groups such as the SSPX that would do well to go under an article titled "Catholicism" instead of "Roman Catholicism" as once again "Roman Catholicism", often refers to Catholicism which is in communion with the Vatican/Holy See. --PaladinWriter 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

At the moment Catholicism, Catholic and Catholic Church (disambiguation) seem to be doing essentially the same thing: describing the different meanings attached to the term 'Catholic' in a theological context.

Catholic Church (disambiguation) obviously sets out to do this in the form of a disambiguation page, but it doesn't do it all that well, so this page probably fulfils that role just as well as that one does (essentially, the reader either wants Roman Catholic Church, in which case they will find the link prominently at the head of the article; or they mean something more theoretical, in which they need something a bit more extensive than a simple (and very long, but still incomplete) list of churches claiming in one way or another to be 'Catholic').

Catholic and Catholicism, meanwhile, seem to cover pretty much exactly the same ground - unsurprisingly, as one is just the noun form of the other; and Wikipedia policy tells us that the adjective should be redirected to the noun.

If you don't agree that these pages should all be merged, could someone at least explain what the distinct roles of these three pages are meant to be, so that they can be rewritten to fulfil different roles, rather than the same role? TSP 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been debated ad nausaum on WP. Catholic has a set of meanings, not all of which are religious. Catholicism has a purely religious meaning. They are not the same. Please don't restart this same infernal argument about merging. Whenever it crops up the result is always the same: a resounding 'no'. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)}

But the Catholic page begins:

Catholic [...] when used as a specifically Christian religious term, can have a number of meanings:

It then goes on to be entirely about those meanings. There is no mention anywhere in the Catholic article, as far as I can see, of any meaning outside that "purely religious meaning"; which is covered by Catholicism.

At the very least, we have at least one two many articles. If Catholic is not trying to serve the same purpose as Catholicism, it's trying to serve the same purpose as Catholic Church (disambiguation) (and serving it rather better than that page does). We should at least be able to get rid of one of these pages. TSP 22:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your (FearÉIREANN's) edit comment:

This has been debated to death for years here. The answer is always the same: no merge. Don't put us through yet another rerun with yet another guaranteed outcome

I really can't see where it has been debated in any of the talk page archives. A few times it's been proposed by one person; another single person has disagreed; it's been dropped. There never seems to have been a debate, or any proper consensus sought. If, as you say, Catholic is meant to examine non-religious meanings, what is meant to be the content of that article? What is there that is worthy of an encyclopedia, rather than a dictionary, to say about the word "Catholic" which is not the religious meanings? What encyclopedic content is covered by "Catholic" and not by "Catholicism"? Can't we leave on the tags and see if anyone can actually explain what these two (three, indeed) separate pages are meant to be about? TSP 22:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion strikes me as disingenuous. The noun term "Roman Catholic Church" is clearly not identical to the adjective "Catholic," which is clearly not identical to the noun "Catholicism." That there is a common grounding with respect to the meaning of the Koine Greek term "Catholic" is pretty much all that these subjects have in common. Is this somehow not obvious...? Merging is clearly not called for. --66.69.219.9 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a start, I haven't proposed merging with "Roman Catholic Church" - that's an entirely different matter.

Catholic and Catholicism are different words, yes, but are they different concepts? Wikipedia's page on merging and moving pages lists among its "good reasons to merge a page":

There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.

That seems to be exactly the situation here. Even if there are subtle variations in meaning between Catholic and Catholicism, that still doesn't mean that they need separate encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia needs one article per topic, not one article per word. Catholic and Catholicism represent essentially the same topic; as demonstrated by the fact that the two pages currently have extremely similar content.

It's a shame to merge in a way, because both pages are well-written; but nevertheless, they do cover the same subject, and Wikipedia is supposed to have have one page on each subject, not one on each word. TSP 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church (disambiguation) was created for a specific purpose. It was created as a compromise to an ongoing debate[2]. It is a disambiguation page not an article. It is not suitable for a merge into an article. I feel that to merge this page would start the whole debate again. --WikiCats 04:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

True, it was; but, on the other hand, the same purpose had earlier been served by Catholicism for quite some time without significant controversy[3]. It just so happened that this link had been lost in the heated debate over where Catholic Church should redirect to shortly before you proposed the new page.

I was interested to see where Catholic Church (disambiguation) went, in case it turned into a useful page, but I don't think it has. Catholic at least, and possibly also Catholicism fulfils its role better than it does, and it suffers from constant low-level edit warring between people who disagree on what its purpose should be.

In any case, compromise between editors isn't usually a particularly good reason for a page to exist: if we work that way we end up not with an encyclopedia, but with an eternal record of what arguments we've had. TSP 11:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There has to be a disambiguation page for the term "Catholic Church". What do you propose we use for that, if not this page? --WikiCats 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There only has to be a disambiguation page if there are more than two or three distinct possible meanings of the term. In this case, there seem to be basically two meanings - the specific (Roman Catholic Church) and the general (Catholicism), this could be covered - as it used to be - by '"Catholic Church" redirects here. For other uses of the term, see Catholicism at the top of the Roman Catholic Church page. TSP 18:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" refers specifically to the body or bodies of Catholic Christians. "Catholicism" refers to an ecclesiological and theological ideology. I think the two categories are sufficently dissimilar to warrant two separate pages. However, Catholic and Catholicism is another matter. Fishhead64 00:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your going to have to convince a lot of people for this to happen. At this point you have no support. --WikiCats 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

True. Not helped by the fact that two of my merge labels were reverted within a few minutes of being put there, meaning that most people probably don't know the proposal has been made.

I think something needs to be done, though; at the moment Catholic and Catholicism are near-duplicates, while Catholic Church (disambiguation) is an article (and intermittent battleground) covering largely the same topic less well.

As I've said, I don't mind losing this proposal; if only someone would tell me what the distinct purposes of these three pages are, so we can make them into different pages rather than pages covering more or less the same topic with varying degrees of quality. TSP 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I concur that Catholic and Catholicism cover roughly the same ground, and I believe the former could be merged into the latter with a redirect without any violence being done to the concept. As I said above, Catholicism represents an ecclesiological and theological perspective, and to be Catholic is to be characteristic of or to subscribe to that perspective.

OTOH, Catholic Church (disambiguation) is useful as a stand-alone page insofar as it helps mediate the ongoing debates over what constitutes the Catholic Church and the degree to which it is synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church. It thus not only disambiguates, it explicates. If I had my druthers, this would not be a disambiguation page, but what one would get if one types in Catholic Church, but I lost that argument some months ago. Fishhead64 23:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was do not merge.--WikiCats 04:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the merge was only signalled on one of the three pages involved; so if anyone wants to announce and have this debate properly, I'm not sure they should feel constrained by this decision. TSP 12:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Catholic in to Catholicism

You may wish to take up Fishhead's suggestion and propose a merge of Catholic in to Catholicism. If that's the case, someone should put the appropriate merge notices on those pages. --WikiCats 04:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. They were removed after a few minutes. I could have put them back, but I assumed that the removing editor would go on to explain the difference between the two pages; however, no-one ever really did. TSP 12:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

~~I think they should be put back up. If they're removed again, the offending editor should be rebuked. Fishhead64 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)~~ I just checked - I don't see the editorial history of these tags being placed at Catholic and Catholicism. I'll put them up. There was one at Catholic Church (disambiguation), but that wasn't one of the articles in question. Fishhead64 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They were added here with this edit and at Catholic with this edit. The removing editor DID provide some thoughts on what he saw as the difference between the two pages; but it didn't seem to match up to the reality of their current content. TSP 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support a merge of Catholic in to Catholicism. They are about the same subject, so there should not be two articles. --WikiCats 11:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There are three in agreement on this merge and no one against. The first thing to do is move all the unique content from Catholic over to Catholicism. --WikiCats 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming here thanks to WikiCats' note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Quickly looking through the articles, they seem to largely duplicate each other, and therefore I support this merger. —Mi ra 08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Having read the articles and looked how another encyclopedia handles this, I think a content merger to Catholic is reasonable. Nevertheless while the content is similar, the articles are written differently, and any merger will not be simple. Gimmetrow 11:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Catholicism" and "Catholic" aught to be merged and keeping this new merged article seperate from "Roman Catholic Church" for reasons stated above, and we aught to keep the disambiguation page to help direct people to the correct article.--208.191.143.197 16:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that Catholicism should be used primarily to designate a reduction of Catholic belief to a system. The term is late and despite authors like De Lubac does not fully do justice to the rediscovery of the patristic heritage in the twentieth century, e.g. at Vatican II. Catholic Chuch/faith/belief should normally be used as substitutes. Catholicity also is deserving of an entry----Clive Sweeting

neutrality disputed

The external links provided fail NPOV standards. Not alone does the list exclude criticism, the list contains unambiguously supportive spin all the way through. External links, like reading lists, should provide a broad range of analyses, not promotional material for one viewpoint. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 14:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)}

Amen. I say, get rid of them all since they all have a particular "take" on Catholicism and none are the total picture. Wikipedia is not a directory!

"Catholic"

The subject term has been drafted to read as follows:

Catholic (from Greek καθολικός, from καθόλου, in general: κατα-, according to, in keeping with + ὅλου, neuter genitive of ὅλος, whole), from Greek katholikos, from phrase "kath' holou," from kata "about" + genitive of holos "whole"...

Some have taken the route of an interpretive translation of Catholic to be "universal," which means literally "one verse." This, again, is an interpretive and not literal translation, as "one verse" does not come close to "about whole" in the conveyance of meaning. An interlinear, direct translation is the only way to avoid the destruction of meaning...which is quite profound with respect to "about whole", which implies a touch of humility along with a profound embracement of the powerful concepts underlying the word "whole" (holy, holistic, integral, integrity, etc.) --66.69.219.9 15:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than the anonymous (66.69.219.9) user's idea of "universal" - or rather "universe" - as meaning "one verse", surely most people will prefer the derivation in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language:

from Latin universum, neuter of universus, whole, entire, "turned into one": uni- + versus, past participle of vertere, to turn

Κατά (kata) does not mean "about" in any form of Greek - can Anonymous quote even one passage where it is used in that sense? The Greek for "about" (both in the sense of "concerning" and in that of "around") is περί (peri), as in Matthew 2:8, 3:4, 4:6, 6:28, 8:18 etc. etc.

Lima 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See the online etymology dictionary entry for Catholic; there "kata" is being defined as meaning "about." In any case, I think we may be converging on violent agreement that some form of "whole" is a vastly better translation of Catholic than "universal" -- in particular because "whole" simply carries more appropriate meaning in today's vernacular, but also because the first meaningful definition of universal which you've quoted above in fact refers to "whole" as well. Clearly, "universal" (notably, BTW, an adjective...not an action-verb such as you describe above) and "universe" both miss the mark in terms of translating "Catholic." Whenever possible, a good translator will retain similar or identical phonetics of the original word.

Also notably, even the Catholic Church refers to itself as "one, holy (very clearly derived from the Greek holos, "whole")...Church" -- not a "universal" one.

There are reasons that Latin is a dead language. Latin has nothing to do with the original Scriptures, and the Church has abandoned it accordingly. --66.69.219.9 22:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "Anonymous" is a vastly more appropriate term when applied to Wikipedia profile-names, as you should be well aware; i.e., IP addresses on Wikipedia are vastly less anonymous than a profile name. --66.69.219.9 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the anonymous editor does not like to be referred to as "Anonymous", I shall call him "66" (only two sixes). I am glad to see that what 66 said about the meaning of κατά is not his own imagination, but due to a mistake in on online source (though 66's statement that κατά means "about" in Koine Greek does seem to be his imagination). Since TSP is absolutely right in his comment on the Catholic Talk page, I now indicate in the article the meaning given to the Greek word καθολικός in the authoritative Greek-English lexicon of Liddell and Scott. Lima 04:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the dictionary definition, not as a ploy to push certain books or types of language, but becuase I think the OED definition is fuller and makes clearer the sorts of issues discussed in the article, and in these talk pages (sometimes ad nauseam).

Bravo Lima. MAG1 20:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, the thing about "holy" being derived from "holos" is completely of the mark - that might be the correct etymology but only concerns the English translation. In Latin it would be "Sancta", "Hagia" in Greek and "Kedosh" (or something like this) in Hebrew. Originally it means "set apart from other things for a special purpose" The name the church calls herself by is, in line with the Nicene creed, "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" - every epithet denoting a different aspect - the Catholic denoting the "Universality" as opposed being restricted to time, place, class, occupation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Women as theological figures

Can someone add the date of John Paul ii's statements about women Catholic priests - and addd some information on the general subject please? Jackiespeel 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there no criticism setion, alot of ppl have bad things to say about how dumb they think catholics are. While the above poster is irrelevant, there are many known criticisms of the history and origins of Catholicism, including its strong roots in Paganism, including rituals and beliefs.

I was wondering why there didn't appear to be any mention of the many international paedophile scandals in the Catholic church and the huge amount of compensation that has been paid out in consequence. It would be dishonest to pretend that it wasn't something that most people associate with the Catholic church. Maybe I missed it as I only skim-read the article.

SteveRamone 22:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is the only Church that has come out with the pedophile scandal. I have many pages of Protestant ministers that have been convicted of perversion with young children. Not only that there is a very strong interest in public school teachers all over the nation that have had sex with under age children. This latter source of pedophilia far surpasses anything the Catholic or Protestant Churches have done. The Catholic Church has made a lot of headway in correcting its pedophiles. The other groups have not done so of late. Actually it is dishonest of you to only mention the Catholic Church that has had anything to do with pediophilia. But then I don't hate the Catholic Church like some do. 76.205.117.6 (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Try Roman Catholic Church. IrishGuy ^talk 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Four Groups"

Many Christians (and denominations) are commonly considered "catholic". They fall into four groups:

1) the Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Churches of the Roman Catholic Church, understand "catholic" to mean Communion with Rome as well as Apostolic Succession, following the teaching of Sts. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Ireneus, second century Church Fathers [4].

2) those that, like the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Old Catholics who have recognized Apostolic Succession from the early Church; and

3) Anglican Churches, Lutheran Churches and others who have denied the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), and may have followed confessions or movements condemned by the Catholic Church during the reformation or afterwards; and

4) those who claim to be spiritual descendants of the Apostles but have no discernable institutional descent from the historic Church, and normally do not refer to themselves as catholic.

I'm not happy about these "four groups"; mostly because they seem to be considered from a Roman Catholic point of view, not from a neutral point of view. "Recognized Apostolic Succession" is used to mean "recognized by the Roman Catholic Church"; "condemned by the Catholic Church" is used to mean "condemned by the Roman Catholic Church".

Can anyone suggest a more neutral phrasing? Except from a Roman Catholic point of view, I'm not sure that the groupings currently make sense. The Orthodox churches consider themselves to alone constitute a Catholic Church, which the Old Catholics do not. Not all Lutherans hold that they maintain an apostolic succession, whereas Anglicans do. 1 and 4 make sense (though I'm not sure that the characterisation of the teachings of the three saints mentioned in 1 is accurate), but 2 and 3 seem distinctly blurred when considered from anything other than a Roman Catholic point of view. TSP 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

They are classified this way here because this is the most common way of classifying them. This happens to agree to certain extant with a RC outlook, though not completely (or the OCC would have to be moved to Protestantism or have a group of its own). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Catholic should be inserted into the Catholicism column

Since Catholic refers to a person who is part of Catholicism itself, it should be merged into there right this very second.

You are right. In Wikipedia Buddists are listed under Buddisism. By the way latter day saints should also be changed to mormonism.

"Roman Catholic Church"

I've restored "Roman" to the page. I know this is a controversial issue, and it has been extremely extensively discussed over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Two things seem clear, however. First, the church in communion with the Pope uses, including in official documents, "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the entire church in communion with the Pope; never, as far as anyone could establish, to mean 'the Latin Rite church'. Secondly, it is hopeless, in a discussion about different meanings of the term "Catholic Church", to call one of the bodies referred to "Catholic Church". It would be like the Ireland page saying, "The term 'Ireland' can be used to mean two different things - Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland". It presupposes the correctness of one of the views described, which is hopeless both for clarity and NPOV, and makes a sensible and neutral terminology discussion impossible. TSP 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Roman might be called for for clarity's sake but I would be surprise if you could provide a document with the term "Roman Catholic Church" referring to the entire Catholic Church. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the papal encyclicals Divini illius Magistri and Humani generis, the term "Roman Catholic Church" has been used to refer to the whole Church in communion with the see of Rome. It is repeatedly used in this sense in official documents concerning dialogue between the Church as a whole and groups outside her fold. Several examples of such documents can be found at the links on the Vatican website under the heading Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Lima 09:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to correct the ignorance that I have read on this page please let me explain something: The so called Roman Catholic Church is not a Church per se. It is a rite of the Catholic Church. There is only one Catholic Church with many different rites. The Catholic Church is called "The Catholic Church". It is improper, but not necessarily out of order, to call it the Roman Catholic Church. If anyone here has such great animosities concerning the Catholic Church they should get off this article. After all would any honest researcher go to a nazi for a description of the Jew? The honest researcher would go to someone that likes Jews to give him the information that he is looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.117.6 (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of some of the other comments you've left, I know that you'll be in disagreement, but you've kind of raised the proper point, just not the point you think. Most of the folks working as editors DO agree that there is only ONE Catholic Church. The disagreement is how to define the ONE. If we accept as true your premise (and to some extent, many folks here can accept it) that the "There is only one Catholic Church with many different rites" and your premise that the (paraphrased) "Roman Catholic Church" is just a particular rite of this greater Catholic Church, then many (but not all!) can (more or less) agree if you add that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. (basically, any church maintaining that they follow Apostolic Succession), "Churches" are ALSO just particular rites of this greater Catholic Church; you disagree, which is why we need, for NPOV purposes, to describe the part of this greater Catholic Church to be communion with the Latin Rite Bishop of Roman to be the "Roman Catholic Church". Some agree with you, so we can't use the definition I gave, either, because it ALSO wouldn't be NPOV. And a friend of mine who is Greek Othodox wouldn't agree completely with EITHER of our definitions (according to him, if you aren't Orthodox, you aren't directly part of the original Catholic Church, either, but are schimatics; therefore, according to him, Pope Benedict the XVI is a heretic, who is outside the true faith). I'm sure from your POV, that would be VERY wrong, but his POV is just as valid as yours, or mine, on this issue. This article has been carefully written to be as fair and balanced to all of those relatively mainstream interpretations of what Catholicism is as the authors can do... and in general, it does a workable job of walking that tightrope. Could the article be better? You bet! There are a LOT of places where I'd like to see it "fixed"... but some of those would violate that NPOV. And while some wouldn't, they could potentially cloud the issues and information the article really does do well... and that would be a shame. Catholic means, roughly, universal... so the Catholic Church is the Universal Christian Church. How you define it beyond that is your POV. I disagree that the Roman Catholic Church is the only "Catholic" church... strongly! I'm an Episcopalian, and I'm a catholic. My wife, two daughters, all of my in-laws, even my own mother, they're all Roman Catholic. My son and I are Episcopalians... but even Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged (in a 2007 letter to Francis Bishop DiLorenzo) that I'm also catholic, just not a Roman Catholic. Oh, and Pope John XXIII at Vatican II acknowledged that there are other legitimate paths to Christ than JUST the RCC. So my POV has the backing of the top of the folks you believe are the only authoritative source in YOUR POV. But even THAT doesn't mean mine is more valid than yours... because, in the end, it's still POV. And Wikipedia demands NPOV for articles. Bill Ward (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m not going to give you my opinion. I’ll give you the opinion of the Catholic Church. This opinion will show you the error of your ways and thoughts. If you don’t accept your errors, that’s OK, the truth will continue to stand. Our Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. Where there is Christ Jesus there is the Catholic Church. The Church receives from Christ the fullness of the means of salvation which Christ has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentacost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia. The Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole human race. All particular Catholic Church’s throughout the world are in communion with the Church of Rome. The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church (shepherd). If your Church is not in communion with the Church in Rome your Church is ‘not’ Catholic. The Episcopalians are not Catholic. There are no Protestant Catholic Churches. This article is twisting facts, ideas, and definitions. It is a lot of nonsense. Anathasius (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you and all others like you are welcome to your opinion, but it is that, opinion. It is also NOT the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, as you've maintained, specifically, where you assert that to be catholic is to be in communion with the Holy See in Rome. At Vatican II, the Blessed John Pope XXIII explicitly, and the RCC as a whole, asserted that there was Truth in Faith and Salvation through Grace outside the bounds of the Roman Catholic Church. More recently, as I mentioned, in a letter from Benedict Pope XVI (Pope Benedict XVI in more normal form, as opposed to the "correct" formal form I used) to Francis Bishop De Lorenzo, Richmond, specifically about the church that I'm a member of, asserted that I am catholic while not being Catholic, i.e., I am part of the body of Christ without being a part of the Roman Catholic Church. Many Anglicans such as myself only have three modern issues with the doctrines and catechism of the RCC: Papal Infallibility (which is actually a fairly modern doctrine, coming at Vatican I in the 1870s), Celebacy Requirements for Clergy (which were not the case for the first 1000 years of the RCC), and the prohibition against female clergy (who are we to tell a woman that God has not called her to His church's service?) One of those is already partially relaxed under certain conditions (Celebacy; there are indeed a few married priests in the RCC, especially in the US, though only under a few exceptional conditions; it will probably be even more relaxed in the next fifty years). One will almost certainly never be renounced (Papal Infallibility), and John-Paul Pope II made strong moves against ever allowing female priests by renouncing the church's ability to even discuss the issue. I already accord the honor of Primacy of Opinion (though not finality of Opinion) to the Pope, as do many others, especially since almost all of the other major issues I would have had with the RCC at the time of the Reformation have been corrected through reform in the RCC. The fact that the RCC has acknowledged that I am "little c" catholic acts to put your statement to rest as incorrect, and either an opinion not shared with your faith, or a mistake that you're parroting. In the 1920s, your statement would have been "correct and true" according to the then current understanding of your faith (you simply need to look up some of the belicose writings of that era from the RCC to understand what I'm saying is true there!) But Vatican II saw a very different church doctrine. The word "Ecuminism" was a null word as far as the RCC was concerned prior to 1962. Luckily, the RCC has realized the error of that doctrine. Now, if you want to debate the merits of Vatican II, be my guest. You can even pronounce everyone who is a "small c" catholic as a heretic... but then your Pope isn't John Ratzinger, either, he's David_Bawden. At any rate, feel free to disagree. But regardless, there's enough that neither you nor I can allow our own personal POV to enter into the article; it needs to be NEUTRAL per Wikipedia guidelines. Bill Ward (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bill, but what I have said is not my own opinion. It came straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, almost verbatim. You are either ignorant or maliciously lying about the Catholic Church, Vatican II, and anything else. If you are misinformed, then you should find the correct facts to back up your opinion. If you are lying, then you should be banned from anymore writing on this article.Anathasius (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So, your assertion then is that your parroting a mistake in a book about the RCC (put out by the RCC) through translation, and not stubbornly parroting opinion? Fine, please give me page and paragraph.... I have the CooCC at home, I've read it through a number of times. In the 1920s, your statement would have been acceptable, and correct, as far as it went; however that statement does not reflect the post Vatican II RCC, nor it's most recent statements, edicts, and behavior. In particular, I'll point again to the 2007 letter stating that the RCC considers my faith to be catholic while not being Catholic. Please note the letter case difference... since you also used that case difference in your original statement I'm going to assume until I've read the particular passage myself in a recent CotCC that you are misunderstanding what you are reading. As far as the RCC is concerned, you cannot be Catholic without being in communion... but you can be catholic without being in communion, as the Orthodox church is, for example. In that case, we're actually okay with BOTH parts... but if you are saying that catholic=Catholic=Communion with Pope... then you are in disagreement with what your church is actually saying and teaching. BTW, I'm in communion with the Pope... he's not in communion with me (I.E., he's welcome to share the Eucharist with me, and I would be willing to take it from him. He's not willing to share it with me because I reject the three stances that the RCC has taken in regards to Married Priest, Female Priests, and Papal Infallibility. One of those is simple to change at any time, one is an issue that the RCC says they have no right to change, and one is a doctrine that was so contrary to opinion that even many otherwise good Catholics rejected it (only one person is EVER infallible, and the Pope is merely His vicar... not Him incarnate) Bill Ward (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m truly sorry if I was curt to you Bill, but you are way off base in everything that you have said. For starters, in order to be in communion with the Pope you first must be Catholic. To show that you are validly in communion, join the Catholic Church. Bill please read paragraph 834 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It proves beyond a doubt that I am correct in saying what I did. I am not just being casually verbal about your knowledge of the Catholic Church. You are almost totally ignorant of any knowledge of the Catholic Church if I may judge by what you have just said. You are so far off base that I think someone has purposely manipulated you for whatever reasons they had.Anathasius (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway... none of this seems to be discussing the content of this page. Please stop or take this elsewhere unless it relates in some way to what content should appear on this Wikipedia page. TSP (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What I have written has everything to do with this article. The vast majority of editors for this article are ignorant of Catholicism. They should in no way be writing anything about Catholicism. How could they? Anathasius (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The principle on which Wikipedia runs is not that articles should only be written by experts on the subject; but, rather, that all assertions should be based on reliable sources, not on the editor's personal knowledge. There is not going to be a ruling that only members of the Roman Catholic Church should edit this page. If there is something about the content of the page that you would like to discuss or suggest a change to, please do so. Arguing about others' qualifications to edit the page is not improving it. See WP:TALK TSP (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What in the world is a "reliable source"? Are you basing this encyclopedia on any perversion of facts just because some particular editor says he got his information from a "reliable source"? If this indeed is the case then Wikipedia is a joke.Anathasius (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you are unaware of Wikipedia's policies, you should also read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the other core content policies. TSP (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that Wikipedia's rule on "no original research" is being deleted by Wikipedia? Now we also have Wikipedia's "neutral point of view". I have been so neutral that I didn't even give my point of view. Ward started a namecalling edit in which he attempted to demean me and the Catholic Church. Everything he said was his own point of view. Wikipedia should not have an article called "Catholicism" because it is impossible for any of their so called editors to verify or be neutral on the subject. Editors, such as Ward, have even taken an extremely credible source, the Catholic Catechism, and called it false. Is Wikipedia attempting to show how ignorant they are? What kind of a moronic outfit is this?Anathasius (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware that Wikipedia's rule on No Original Research is being deleted.

I didn't say that Mr Ward's comments were justified and yours were not; I said that the whole debate did not seem to relate to the content of the article which this talk page is here to discuss, and therefore asked you both to stop. I don't care who started it or who is right; I care only that this whole debate is not about content of this article, so should not be on this talk page.

Wikipedia is not attempting to show anything about its editors. It is attempting to write an encyclopedia. If either of you has a point to make about the content of this article, please do make it; I heartily encourage you to propose improvements to the article or discuss its contents . If either of you have a point to make on any other topic, however, I would ask you to please make it elsewhere. TSP (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

TSP, I will respect that. However, there IS a slight further point to make in relation to this article, and it's the last I'll say (other than Mr. Anathasius needs to be more respectful of others, since he called me both ignorant and a liar... I'm BILL, as he got right earlier, not "WARD" as he derogatorily wrote to you, and I have a very good, and fairly deep, understanding of the RCC; I also wasn't the original poster, I was trying to explain that NPOV policy, and why it is important originally). However, paragraph 834 of CooCC brings up the point that DOES end this... because immediately before it is paragraph 833, which is the real issue here. His problem isn't with this article, it's with the Apostolic Succession article, with particular churches claiming Apostolic Succession. 834 further defines a church as FULLY catholic (and I'm surprised; I could have sworn that that paragraph used the "C" as it was a discussion item during one of the recent Ecumenism meetings that my own Roman Catholic Priest made (especially in regards to "Big C" versus "Little C" in the Catechism, which is normally very particular in the distinction)). Since we're talking catholic, not "fully catholic", 834 doesn't apply, 833 does, which is one of the main points of the entire article on Catholicism and it's close relations to Apostolic Succession and One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; therefore, perhaps you should visit those pages as well, review CooCC sections 832, 835, and in particular 838. With that, I'm leaving this part of this conversation for good other than to remind folks that issues such as this are the reason we have a NPOV requirement in Wikipedia, as I don't see it serving any further purpose. Bill Ward (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

based on what?

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.

maybe someone can help me. i read all of the new testament with the exception of the book of acts and revalations. i am not a catholic, but 1/2 of my family is. they pray the rosery, the take communion and go to confession. can someone tell me where going the act of going to confession is in the holy bible becuase i couldnt find it. and if it isnt in the bible then is it really a holy practice or something that was just made up. also, praying to mary? where is this in the holy bible? and also, where is the rank structure of the catholic church in the bible? biships? cardinals? i dont remember reading about these things either. can someone help me? Keltik31 23:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Confession: John 20:22-23, Matthew 9:2-8, and 1 Corinthians 11:27

Mary: Catholics don't pray to Mary per se, but through Mary. Her assistance is asked to intercede with God on behalf of the person praying. IrishGuy ^talk

i dont remember confession in those books telling the sinner to go tell a priest anything. and where does it say to ask mary for assistance? Keltik31 23:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it you are a follower of Sola Scriptura? IrishGuy ^talk 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

no. never heard of it. just wondering where catholics get some of their practices from. if it isnt in the bible, then it isnt legit in my book. you just cant make it up as you go. Keltik31 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sola Scriptura means "scripture alone". It is the belief that only the Bible is relevant...which is what you are espousing. Catholics believe in the Bible as well as tradition, just as the followers of Judaism have scripture and tradition. If you have a legitimate desire to learn more about Catholicism, there are many articles here and many editors who might be able to help you. If you are trolling in an attempt to cause problems, I would suggest you find somewhere else to go. IrishGuy ^talk 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

i suggest you kiss the sunny side of my royal irish ass. trolling? is that a personal attack? Keltik31 16:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines on civility before telling people to kiss your ass. Trolling? I would say yes. You come here ostensibly to ask a question looking for information, but when the information is given to you, your response is argumentative. Your edit history shows that this is something you seem to enjoy doing elsewhere as well [5] [6]. IrishGuy ^talk 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

dont get mad at me if you cant hold up your end. Keltik31 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling. IrishGuy ^talk 21:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

be civil now, Irish guy. Keltik31 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

hey irish guy, you said that catholics believe in the bible as well as tradition. i take that what you are saying is that the things in the religion that are not in the bible like confession and praying through mary are the traditions? where do these come from and is there a biblical basis for them? Keltik31 12:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have nothing to contribute or to ask about editing this article, then please take your queries somewhere else. Goodday, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

i think i'll do what i want to do and wait for irish guy's response. thanks for your input though. Keltik31 17:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion section does not appear to improve the article in any way, which is the primary purpose of an article's talkpage. Interested parties should feel free to continue this discussion on personal talkpages, but this ain't the place for it. Doc Tropics 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion section does not appear to improve the article in any way? that is your POV. dont put your own POV in here or i'll ban you. Keltik31 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Keltik31, you are not an administrator and do not have the authority to ban a user. Moreover, please be civil to other users. --Db099221 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with improving the article, and is simply an abuse of Wikipedia server space. The discussion is over now. AnnH ♫ 22:56, 28 November 2006 (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.

Clean up added

I have added a clean up tag following an attempt to read this article from top to bottom. It rambles, has poor structure contains arguable irrelevant material and needs some work. --BozMo talk 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I couldn't understand anything that that was trying to say. It was a bunch of absolutely nothing.

I agree with BozMo and MrX insofar so that the introduction rambles and says nothing, and the rest may contain irrelevant material. I propose that the intro is shrinked to approx 3 paragraphs reflecting various opinions on what is "catholicism". The "proofs" for this or that opinion should preferrably be moved into the main text. And we should remember, that if the text NPOVly reflects what the World thinks about Catholicism (excluding the individual churches) then, we've done a great WikiDeed! Said: Rursus ☻ 13:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking a little, I feel that the intro should contain:

it's the Christian churches, who use to call themselves "catholic", or "universal" - many sects and small Christian churches reject "catholicism" according to their own definitions, (This means Moslems, Jews and Buddhists don't call themselves "catholic", and not all christians either);
no universal definition exist - the vague common background about "catholic" is a kind of "universalness", either in availability to each and every human, or some kind of universal validity;
the various defs bouncing around are these:

# insertme catholic,

# insertme lutheran-anglican as per Porvo Communion,

# insertme more here;

Said: Rursus ☻ 13:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing here: /newintro. Being WP:Bold is good, but, in order to not distrupt the current one, I wish to finish the new try. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Divergent interpretations section

I just wanted to provide some grounds for my most recent edit here. I don't see how categories (2) and (3) substantially differ from one another, since both claim the Apostolic Succession of their bishops. The use of the adjective "recognised" is telling here. Recognised by whom? Other catholics? Opinion amongst those who claim the descriptor "Catholic" (both large-C and small-c) diverges on this point. I don't think it is NPOV to use the opinion of one or more Catholic denomination as the basis for distinguishing relative status - and 1-4 already suggests a hierarchy of legitimacy. It is fine to condition the language, but anything else implies the relative granting of legitimacy. Fishhead64 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The heading of this section, as altered by Fishhead, should, I think, be changed from "Divergent interpretations of the term Catholic Church" to "Divergent interpretations of the term Catholic", since (apart from the reference to "subsistit in" in item 1) it is no longer about "Which or what is the Catholic Church?" In view of the assumption underlying the new text, that apostolic succession of bishops is what makes Catholicity, the opening sentence should also, I think, be changed to "Many individual Christians and denominations consider themselves "catholic" on the basis, in particular, of Apostolic Succession." At any rate, that is how I read Fishhead's text. Lima 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a fair conclusion. Fishhead64 06:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The new wording is much better, I think - thanks for your work on this. My only two remaining quibbles would be:

(1) "recognized Apostolic Succession" in point 2: it's not clear what this means, and in some cases not all groups recognise the apostolic succession in others. Would anything be lost by simply removing 'recognized'?

(2) using "Catholic Church" in point 1. While I'm happy with this as reasonably unambiguous in the majority of situations, a page which specifically discusses different meanings of the term seems to be the epitome of a place where the qualifier 'Roman' is necessary - it seems an obvious flaw of presentation or even logic (begging the question, perhaps?) to say, in effect, "Various groups consider themselves to be the Catholic Church; these include (1) the Catholic Church...". TSP 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! I think my views on this matter are pretty well known ;) Fishhead64 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whats up!?!