Talk:Catholic (disambiguation)

2006-07 discussion
The four following sections all have to do with long settled matters. In most cases, the concern is prosey content not admissible under the navigational function of Dab pages (in the first case, language since removed); the remaining case was one user objecting to use of "Othodox", which has been removed without apparent objection. Those sections could be archived from most talk pages; i trust there will be no objection to my rendering them easier to skip over via the following box markup. --Jerzy•t 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy
"distinguishing it from the beliefs of other Christian denominations." doesn't add anything to the meaning of the sentence ending "that church".

For example, Catholicism can refer to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church in distinction to Judaism. As a theological term it is not limited its distinction to other Christian demoninations as the current wording of the sentence states.

--patsw 02:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--Lima 07:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Do omit the phrase "distinguishing ...".

Vagueness
"Some restrict the meaning to the traditions and theology of the Latin rite component of that Church or communion." is vague. I don't know of any who make this restriction, and I think the author of such a statement is obligated to identify them.

I'd also don't know what "component" is doing there. The Church itself defines a "Latin rite" but not a "Latin rite component". Also, the Latin rite doesn't define a theology distinct to that rite.

The former text is superior in being specific and its accuracy was not disputed.

--patsw 02:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do not think the phrase objected to adds much to the article. There would be no great loss, if it were omitted. --Lima 07:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree. Some people do understand “Roman Catholic” (and so also “Catholic” when used in reference to that Church) in a way that excludes the Eastern particular Churches that are parts (components) of that Church.  Some contributors, one of whom is, I think, of Anglican tradition called the use of “Roman Catholic” to cover those components “a misnomer”.  The Latin rite (“rite” in the sense of particular Church, autonomous Church, Ecclesia sui iuris, not in the sense of a liturgical rite) is another component of the same Church.  Each of these component particular Churches within the (Roman) Catholic Church does in fact have its own traditional emphases in theology and devotional practices.

Orthodox
If the early Christian Church described itself as the Orthodox Church before identifying itself as the the Catholic Church, I think that would should be cited and included here. I'd be surprised but it would be significant to mention. --[User:Patsw|patsw]] 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hum..."Due to the dominant history and current influence of the Catholic Church"
Now what is the meaning of this? Should we define things as reported by history or disproved them by history.

If the history is admittedly dominant *yet, not specified, suspiciously?* then why is this even mentioned.

Clearly, the answer is simply undeniable, if you look at it purely historically. If the earliest of Church Fathers state from the 1st century "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC Church." (Ignatius of Antioch[30-107AD], letter to Smyraeans Chapter VIII http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html ) and ALL those Church Fathers had the same basic beliefs which included baptism by holy water, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a hierarchal church run by bishops, and bound by the church in Rome all exclusive characteristics of the present day Catholic Church then it MUST be the SAME Catholic Church we see today!(not the otherwise extrinsically named "Roman" Catholic Church). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.74.108 (talk) 11:36 & 12:09 (3 spelling corrections), 22 February 2006 and by Micael (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2006  (Consult page history for details.)


 * Interestingly, even the bible, looking at it from a historically perspective supports this:
 * 1)Christ founding a Church in the year 33AD where He promises He will protect forever (Mt 16:17-19 & 28:20) and not leave orphaned (Jn 14:18).
 * 2)He also promised the Holy Spirit would be with this church forever(Jn 14:16-17)
 * 3)The Spirit of truth for the "church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)...thus only ONE truly, non-contradicting unified Church of Christians.(1 Corinthians 1:10)
 * The lone church which claims Jesus Christ as its eternal High Priest, has existed since the year 33AD, and holds to the fundamental beliefs of the early Church Fathers is the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.74.108 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2006 and by Micael (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2006 Micael 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) The immediately preceding signature/timestamp that i have struck thru was not part of any of the adjacent, multiple, content contributions by each of User:Micael and an IP. It appears to be a claim to authorship of both Micael's contribs and the IP's two preceding ones.Jerzy•t 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Doctrinal disputes
Most, perhaps all, of the preceding discussion seems aimed at overcoming others' perceived claims of priority or inclusion of a particular Christian doctrine. The solution to such conflicts is not settling those claims, but rather what MoSDab requires: just enuf information to guide each user to the article that they came looking for. (The relevant article is the place for the various PoVs to be not only mentioned, but discussed at length.)  AFAI can see, the only reasonable addition (to any existing entry) that should be considered would to clarify the breadth of the churches claiming Western-Christian apostolic succession as including e.g. (and solely to indicate the breadth) Lutheran churches, and the Autonomous particular churches of (eastern rites?). --Jerzy•t 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)