Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 8

Revenues
Hello, I would lik to know something about the revenues in US or in other countries of the Roman Catholic Church. --Calgaco 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can look at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Catholic Information Project. Scroll down to the section on "Church Finances". The numbers are a few years old, but should give you a pretty good idea. Kylef81 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctrine Site
Is there an official site (possibly within the vatican.va site) that states the doctrines of the RCC? Tim Long 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim, I am not sure what exactly you are looking for, but the best authoritative presentation of Catholic teaching is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Vatican website has a copy, but you may want to try others which have better search engines. There are many copies of the CCC online. Here is the Vatican's web link. Vaquero100 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Describing Criticisms
The portion of the article describing criticisms of the church seems to suffer from slight POV problems due to its defensive nature. Generally, it describes the criticism, then quotes a Catholic clergyperson's refutation of it. Sometimes the refutation is given through facts that lack detail, or even narrative describing why the charge is inaccurate. The following is one example of a statement in the article which a nuetral would consider lacking in perspective. The article says that "Throughout the centuries, the Church has had to respond to many criticisms, some of which are now considered outright heresies." Most of the subsequent criticisms are charges which are usually made most strongly by non-catholics, who probably don't consider it relevant whether their criticisms are called heresy. Indeed, many of them belong to groups whose official beliefs would also be called heresy. --Todemo


 * I've seen the same thing happen in the Ordination of women article. What I've tried to do there was to move the refutations to another section where they would be more appropriate. -- Cat Whisperer 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

End religion wars - start here now
“Roman” Catholic recapitulates old Reformation fighting points. It stirs up defensive behaviors, natch. It would be great to put an end to that here and let each group call itself what it wants. I don't care what anybody calls me. There's always somebody to hate, and always somebody to hate you back. I've been called a lot worse than "Roman" - the rednecks I grew up with in the backwaters of the USA thought my name was Jewish (not my Wikipedia name, which is Olompalian). When they found out I was "Roman" Catholic, well - that was worse! The Associated Press stylebook in the US recommends "Roman" Catholic, as does the Chicago Manual of Style, perhaps under the influence of the national curriculum set by the Ivy League colleges, themselves descended from Protestant divinity schools formed in the period shortly after the English Reformation. --Olompali 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that institutions which dropped their religious affiliations centuries ago make this style recommendation as a prejudicial stereotype? While your expression appears to be heartfelt, this stretches the limits of my imagination. Durova 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The institutions themselves don't make this recommendation: the "Roman Catholic" meme is a part of the culture, and was pushed just as much by unintellectual Catholic-baiters as it was by Anglophiles in the intelligentsia.  In both cases, it stigmatizes the Catholic Church as being foreign to the speaker and the (English-speaking) audience and evokes various black legends and historical rivalries (e.g., England-Spain).  Chonak 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The OED disagrees. The distancing term is Romanist or Romish. "For conciliatory reasons, it [Roman Catholic] was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this, printed by Rushworth (1659), I. 85-89. After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term, and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary usage Catholic alone is often employed."


 * Do we need to be more scrupulous than the Court of Spain, the Most Catholic Kings? Septentrionalis 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the King of Spain does not have the perogative of changing the name of the Catholic Church. The OED, published in Oxford, (Hello? OXFORD!). If you dont understand the significance of this fact, please educate yourself here. It is precisely this kind of reference (and Encl. Britannica) which gave credance to the Anglican position on the Catholic Church. If not for that movement, we would not be having this conversation. If you look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the matter, you find that the OED intentially left out many known references to the term which were hostile in tone. It most definitely does not come from the era of the Spanish Match! Vaquero100 21:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful, if instead of quoting dated polemics from 1917, Vaquero had  consulted the current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which says:
 * ''This qulaification of the name Catholic seems to have been introduced by those reformers who resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of Catholicity In England, many of the reformers thought of themselves as catholic. So the term Roman Catholic became accepted as a useful designation of those who owed allegiance to the pope, and it passed into legal usage. English Catholics resented the appelation Roman Catholic insofar as it implied that they were but a part of the one true catholic church which also included the Anglo-Catholic and the Orthodox.


 * On the other hand, Roman is an apt designation of the true Church. Peter was given the primacy over the church by Christ... [much, much more, covering the association with Rome; and then another paragraph on the special senses of the Roman Rite and the local Church of Rome, the Roman See.]


 * In short, RCC is an acceptable term for Catholic use; it is only derogatory if used with an implication which this article does not (and should not) make; and that sense hasn't been the primary one in centuries. [Option 2 might be read as having that implication, and is therefore rightly opposed.] Septentrionalis 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * English is spoken in Oxford and the OED is a citable source on the origins and usage of terms in English. If the above assertion is correct that the "Anglican position" has influenced English usage, then we should note that fact somewhere (citing sources of course), but that is hardly a reason not to follow the most common unambiguous English usage.  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia found a few uses before 1605; one appears to be from 1601; the earliest from 1588, IIRC. Most are from pamphlets which prefer  Romish or Popish Catholic, but  once or twice use the  literal translation of Sancta Romana Ecclesia catholica for irony. I'm underwhelmed; so is the second edition of the OED.


 * Depicting this as an Anglican plot does require an explanation of why a  Dundee Scot would throw away his reputation for it, and why a pious Catholic would agree to work on such  heretical pravity. Septentrionalis 02:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Vaquero100 seems to indicate above that it is specically what he calls the "Anglican" position on the use of the word "Catholic" which he is defending. I belong to both the Anglican and Catholic projects here, although I have closer ties to Catholicism than Anglicism.  However, it seems to me obvious that citing the OXFORD English Dictionary, which is published from one of the few counties on the planet where Anglicans have more influence than Catholics, is in no way a credible defense of his position.  The fact that C. S. Lewis and others also were at Oxford is at best tangential and probably irrelevant to the editorial policies of the OED itself, barring direct citation of such reference. J.R.R. Tolkien working for it is also somewhat irrelevant, given it is may well be the best English philological encylopedia out there, regardless of any possible religious bias.  Personally, I would like to see this issue hashed out by some larger entity whose decision, when made, would be binding.  My personal opinion, as stated above, is that the church of the pope which is involved in the (note the lack of the word "Roman", by the way) Catholic Almanac and Catholic Encyclopedia clearly has a right to have itself referred to in the way which it is most readily and unambiguously named in these publications.  However, as stated, I would be more than happy to try to have this matter referred to an outside body which would be able to render a final decision.  If such a body could be found, and if the terms of the argument could be agreed to by all interested parties, would both sides be willing to accept the decision reached by such a body? Please indicate yes or no below.  Badbilltucker 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll respond here to make clear the flow of thought. The above suggestion proposes a binding decision, which is against policy, and an abdication of responsibility to an outside body, which strikes me as craven.  Even if we could agree on such a body, which is unlikely, we cannot constrain the next group of editors from reconsidering the decision.  The only larger body that would be remotely relevant would be a larger group of the editors of the English-language Wikipedia.  The proper avenue for that is to open an article RfC.  Robert A.West (Talk) 02:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If we assume for purposes of discussion that this line of reasoning is true - up to the point of foreign branding - I'm not at all confident with the conclusion that this constitutes any slur against the religion. Oxford and the Ivy League universities are among the places in the English speaking world that most revere the Western classical heritage. Durova 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Robert A. West, there is one extreme and admittedly possibly unworkable option which has to the best of my knowledge not yet been tried. We are currently going through an election of a new member to the Wikipedia Foundation Board of Trustees.  It might be possible to, upon the conclusion of this election, hold a referendum vote among all those who voted in the election regarding the matter of naming the page for the Catholic Church headed by the pope, the similar pages for the Eastern Rite Catholics, the Old Catholic Church, and any other pages whose subject contains the words "Catholic" and "Church" in close proximity.  This is one of the articles of top importance to wikipedia, and on that basis such extreme action might (I emphasize might) be acceptable.  If we were to do this, we might then have a true and verifiable decision of the wikipedia on an article, possibly(?) for the first time in the existence of the wikipedia.  It might be possible to give each position some space to put forward their specific positions, their responses to the positions of others, and the various alternatives available to resolve the dispute.  I think we would all agree that those individuals who took part in the Board election, regardless of their religious affiliation (if any), would have demonstrated sufficient interest and knowledge regarding the wikipedia to be informed about wikipedia matters and be capable of making reasonable decisions most in keeping with the policies and procedures of the wikipedia.  I acknowledge a regular RfC would work as well, but I do think that in a matter as controversial as this one, some individuals might feel more comfortable with the kind of secret ballot which is available in an election.  I also acknowledge that even a decision made by such a means would be at least potentially reversible by subsequent developments, but that the clear opinion of the wikipedia itself regarding the current dispute would be available, which should be sufficient to constitute a final decision on the current dispute.  Again, I would welcome an indication from the rest of you whether any of you would find such a proposal acceptable or not.  Badbilltucker 13:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think an elaborate mediation process is needed here. Although I am not 100% comfortable with the title "Catholic Church", upper case C, redirecting to the "Roman Catholic Church", I can understand the sincere effort to make the topic navigable in Wikipedia. While some may regard the label "Roman" as some kind of slur or foreign branding, I think they realize that others don't feel that way. If we are to navigate this topic at all we have to be able to distinguish between the "Catholic Church" that has allegiance to the Pope and the plethora of other Catholic Churches which do not. If we try to lump all Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church centered in Rome into one homogenous group despite their clear differences in hierarchy, liturgy, theology, canon, etc., this topic will be unintelligible. Despite the context of bitter religious wars in the past, and to some extent today, visitors need these distinctions to find the exact topic they are looking for. If someone wants to cast aspersion on the Roman Catholic Church today, there are much more effective ways than merely referring to it as "Roman". In all the interaction I have these days the term "Roman Catholic" carries no derogatory connotation. I really don't think this rises to the level of "edit war" or administrative intervention. I think the current configuration is quite workable and any differences can be worked out by dialogue.claimman75 04:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Eastern rite churches
I observe the survey to be no consensus, which should mean no action. Would there be any interest in a dab header, noting that Roman Catholic Church can also be used for Churches of the Latin Rite? Septentrionalis 17:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea. Latin Rite seems like the most like canidate to link to, something like For the Western particular church, see Latin Rite. To complicate things, we have Roman Rite, which is one of the Latin liturgical rites, however this term probably isn't common enough to belong in a dab header, no? (or we could make a Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) page as well, though personally I find that unnecessary).--Andrew c 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "'Roman Catholic Church' can be used" or "... may be used" - no. These phrases would indicate adoption of a non-neutral position of declaring legitimate use of "Roman Catholic" in a sense contrary to the Holy See's usage, a sense few attribute to it.  "... is used by some" - perhaps.  But that would be inviting questions: "By whom?"; "Is it correct usage?" etc.  Is the point really important enough for a header?  Why not leave it for "Terminology"?
 * "For the Western particular Church, see Latin Rite" - "... and for the Eastern particular Churches see Eastern Rite Catholic Churches"? And why put so technical a term as "particular Churches" right at the beginning?  Lima 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason for this header would be to acknowledge the argument for Option 1, which is quite valid as far as it goes (there is disagreement about how far that is): that the Eastern Rite Churches are not, in one sense, Roman Catholic; if no supporter of Option 1 thinks this point worth making, then it need not be made. Septentrionalis 01:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Eastern Catholics do not consider themselves 'Eastern Rite Roman Catholics', but rather 'Eastern Catholics'. Being a supporter of Option 1, I think this point really is worth making. Please remember that while Eastern Catholics make up only 3% of the Catholic Church at present, our Rites, Traditions and 22 Churches are of equal dignity with the Roman Church, and numerically speaking, will always be outnumbered in votes by Romans who neither know nor care about issues that affect us. InfernoXV 10:24 9 Sept 2006 (GMT+8)
 * In response to InfernoXV, I would like to note that I had earlier created a rather small number of pages and/or categories regarding various bishoporics and archbishoporics with the name "Melkite Catholic...", "Maronite Catholic...", etc. I think that, if we could ever resolve the matter of whether the church of the pope is called "Catholic..." or "Roman Catholic...", designating all the Eastern churches in communion with Rome by names such as the above might be acceptable to all sides.  However, if we were to be forced to label the entire papal church as "Roman Catholic," there might be problems with the designations, if there were Churches out of the Roman communion which also used similar names.  "Maronite Roman Catholic..." for example, seems, at best, a tortured naming.  However, I would ask InfernoXV if he would have any specific naming preferences for these Eastern Catholic churches, taking into account whether this page is called "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic." Badbilltucker 17:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Badbilltucker, thanks for the thought! Easterns absolutely and vehemently object to being called 'Roman Catholics', and you were quite right in naming those pages "Melkite Catholic", "Maronite Catholic" and so on. The whole dispute about whether the Church in communion with the Pope of Rome is to be called "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" is due to a historical confusion between the two rôles of the Bishop of Rome. First, he is Pope of the entire Catholic Church. Second, he is Patriarch of Rome and the West, an office where his Patriarchal powers are limited to the Church of the West (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, one of the particular Churches that make up the Catholic Church). Due to the numerical superiority of the RCC in the last millennium, it has been confused with the larger concept of the CC. Easterns are part of the Catholic Church, but not the Roman Catholic Church. I hope I have not made myself entirely obscure. InfernoXV 07:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Those who have read through all the discussion that led up to this recent poll will have observed that one of the commonest complaints about the name "Roman Catholic Church" for this article is that the term "Roman Catholic Church" is taken by many to exclude the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, whereas this article's text clearly includes them within its scope. For those readers then there is a confusing mismatch between the article's title and the article's contents. To say that the term "Roman Catholic Church" is also used to refer to the Latin Rite particular church in opposition to the Eastern Rite particular churches is merely an observation regarding language usage - it makes no claims about the "correctness" of this usage. I think in light of the dispute surrounding the naming of this article, a slightly longer (but not too bloated!) disambiguation link is warranted. Would others consider this excessive?:
 * "Catholic Church" redirects here. For the broader theological concept, see Catholicism; for the Western particular Church, see Latin Rite; for other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation).
 * (Actually I still think it would be worthwhile to turn that last disambiguation page into a full blown article called Catholic Church (term), and in that case the disambiguation link could be reduced to pointing to just that and Latin Rite.) Thylacoleo 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And Bishop of Rome. Septentrionalis 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "For the broader theological concept.." part, as it supposes that it's a different concept than the subject of this article. 2nd Piston Honda 02:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it is. The subject of this article is an actual organisation which has its name "Catholic Church" (or according to some, "Roman Catholic Church"). The "theological concept" is something which theologians dispute over, and is based on varying interpretations of the word "Catholic" and historical continuity and so on. It might be the case that the organisation called "Catholic Church" considers itself to exclusively manifest the theological concept "Catholic Church" (and hence calls itself "Catholic Church"), but that doesn't mean the actual organisation and the theological concept are the same (except in the theology of the organisation called "Catholic Church"). Perhaps we could omit the word "broader" from the disambiguation link to avoid any misinterpretations here. Thylacoleo 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thylacoleo. CC (organization) and CC (theological concept) are not the same thing for encyclopedic purposes.--Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] »saudações! 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Get rid of the word "broader" and it would be fine. 2nd Piston Honda 08:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, let's try it. We should probably add something about Church of Rome too, since the New Catholic Encyclopedia does. Septentrionalis 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the setup on the Catholic Church (disambiguation) page. The only thing I would add is a grouping, on perhaps the bottom of the contents, indicating all the other groups who place a claim on the use of the word.  This could include the Anglicans as well as the Old Catholics and all the other bodies who use that word as a part of their name.  I think that there's even an "American Catholic" church, having heard it's name mentioned in a local controversy, although I know regret to say that I know nothing of the details about it.  Badbilltucker 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict...) If we are going toward an extended dab link on the top of the article, I think we should distinguish between subjects that are discussed inside the article and the ones that don’t. We could say, for example:


 * ''"Catholic Church" redirects here. For the theological concept, see Catholicism; for other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation).


 * ''On subjects that are part of the institution described in this article, see Bishop of Rome, for the diocese of Rome; see Latin Rite for information on the Western particular Church; see Eastern Rite Catholic Churches for information on the various Eastern particular Churches.

--Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would prefer not to have an extended dab link, and only have the first paragraph of Leinad's text.  Lima 18:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually tend to agree with Lima. To give many links on the top of the article without much explanation may have more potential to confuse than to resolve ambiguity problems. --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] »saudações! 18:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur, reading all that seems very dense just for dab. It introduces jargon and issues that I feel is better covered in the body text, and shouldn't start crowding the top of the article before the article even starts.--Andrew c 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid Leinad that that was the kind of bloating of the disambiguation link I was hoping we could avoid. I agree with Lima that the first paragraph is probably sufficient, and I think it's actually an improvement on the current minimalist version in at least one way - it allows those who favour the term "Catholic Church" to be used in the larger sense to get to the appropriate article (i.e. Catholicism) in just one click, rather than being diverted through the somewhat confusing Catholic Church (disambiguation) page.
 * Of course this dab wording would still do nothing whatsoever to mitigate the problem with the alternative interpretation of "Roman Catholic Church" as implying exclusion of the Eastern Rite Churches. Seeing as this article won't be moving names any time soon, I was wondering if someone could explain to me what the objections are to reversing the order of the two terms in the intro sentence (so it reads "The Catholic Church, often called the Roman Catholic Church, ..." instead). I know it's been tried before and reverted, but I'm not sure why. There's no rule on Wikipedia (that I'm aware of) disallowing the first bolded headword of an article text not being identical to the article name (cf. United States for an example), and it seems if the terms are reversed we would no longer be giving the misleading impression that "Roman Catholic Church" is more "preferred" or "formal" than "Catholic Church". Thylacoleo 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Considering that the first bolded word is usually (or should be) the subject's preferred official name, and that this side of the debate won the most recent poll, i think it would be a good compromise. 2nd Piston Honda 02:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go quite so far as to say the "Catholic Church" side of the article naming debate "won" the most recent poll, but I don't think anyone on either side has disputed that the organisation in question prefers to use the term "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church" when referring to itself. Thylacoleo 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article should stay where it is. Belly Flop Patrol 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Decree of Gelasius, 495 A. D. - early use of the terms "Roman Catholic,"   "Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" ect.
I changed this:

While Protestants were the first to use the term Roman Catholic to distinguish this Church from theirs, Catholics themselves employed it as early as the seventeenth century, both in English and in Latin ("Ecclesia catholica romana") and French ("Église catholique romaine"),[8] to profess their faith in the importance of communion with the see of Rome.

To this:

One of the earliest documents in which the terms Roman and catholic were associated with the church at Rome was the Decree of Gelasius in 495. The terms Roman church and Roman catholic appear throughout, while phrases such as catholic Roman church and Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church appear only once.[7] During the reformation, Protestants began using the term Roman Catholic to distinguish this Church from theirs. In the seventeenth century, both in English and in Latin ("Ecclesia catholica romana") and French ("Église catholique romaine"),[8] Catholics again employed this ancient term to profess their faith in the importance of communion with the see of Rome.

My edit was then promply removed by 2nd Piston Honda, who said it was off topic. But in what way? How does documenting the falsity of the statements that "Protestants were the first to use the term Roman Catholic," and that "Catholics themselves employed it as early as the seventeenth century" qualify as off topic? Could someone please explain to me what it is I'm missing? Here is the footnote ref. I provided:. And, for what it's worth, her is an interesting letter to the editor of the Nov. 1996 issue of Catholic Answers's "This Rock" magazine along these same lines. The letter is entitled "A Mere 1,000 Years Off." Delta x 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement is "the first to use the term Roman Catholic to distinguish this Church from theirs". Your additions were about use of "Roman Catholic" apart from the intent to make a distinction between two churches, and that's not what the section is about. 2nd Piston Honda 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. But something is still not right with this section. And granting that these statements are perhaps not altogether false, they are in fact, still somewhat misleading. Therefore, I offer the following revised version of my edit, which I believe, not only does not trespass on the of the sense of the original, but indeed, lends an important historical perspective to it. Here is my proposed change:

The Church at Rome, at least as early as the fifth century, was the first to use the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish itself from the various heretical groups existing at that time. During the reformation, the term was adopted by Protestants, who wished to distinguish themselves, and the reformed churches, from that of the Roman church. In the seventeenth century, both in English and in Latin ("Ecclesia catholica romana") and French ("Église catholique romaine"),[8] Catholics once again employed this ancient terminology to profess their faith in the importance of communion with the see of Rome.

So unless someone objects, I'll add this change to the article (footnoted of course). Delta x 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Little trouble maker. You've chosen the right time to stir things up. --WikiCats 12:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The current translation puts Rome in the genitive case (the Church of Rome), but it is an adjective and would properly be translated Roman Church; it could refer to the empire of Rome rather than the city, since the Byzantines in Constantinople identified themselves as Roman, hence it may have nothing to do with the city of Rome. Lostcaesar 13:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not just change "seventeenth century" to "fifth century" in the original version (w/ accomodating edits)? 2nd Piston Honda 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope this is of some interest to everyone: It comes from a 28 page booklet entitled The Roman Catholic Church: A Divine Institution or a Human Invention? by Adam S. Miller. And although no longer online ( hard copy available here ), I did happen to find, as you can see, a cached version of the appendix to Mr. Miller's original (1997) booklet (a copy of which I have) while trying to do some follow-up on several of the quotes he gives. And so I thought would just throw another scrap of information into the mix here for anyone who might be interested.  Delta x 05:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop having this argument in the text of the article. If this is not an example of "Roman Catholic Church" being used to refer to the entire Church in communion with the Pope, it is not relevant to the article - it should be removed, not left in but surrounded by arguments as to why it isn't relevant.  If it is an early example of this usage, it is relevant; but either case, a reputable source for the opinion on its meaning needs to be cited, not just arguments made by Wikipedians in the text of the artcle. TSP 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Desperation
It seems that we have come to another turning point in the conversation--a quite predictable but sad one. The term "Roman" is well established in its origins in the bigotry of 16th Century England and is 450 year-long project of Anglicans to deprive the Catholic Church of its name. As an emblem of anti-Catholicism (an irrational hatred or disdain for Catholicim) it is not at all surprising that Anglicans and other who hold the Anglican position lose ground in the face of rational arguments, they have become even more desperate in their insistance that the Catholic position on the issue be obliterated from the WP record. Article after article from "Catholic " to "Catholicism" the Anglican position is smeared all over WP. However, no reportage of the Catholic Church's position is permitted even on the this page. This is an intellectual atrocity.

In practice at the moment the debate is not about the name of this article but whether the Catholic position on the very name of the Catholic Church will be able to find space anywhere on WP! In March there was a vote on the name of this article argued mostly on theological grounds. This allowed people to simply vote their own biases. The vote was something like 17 to 7 in favor of "Roman." Now that there is a slight majority that favors CC because the issue has been argued on WP policy, the stridency of the anti-Catholics on WP has become all the more shrill.

I am a busy man, but as I get the time, I will redouble my efforts to set the record straight.

Lima's point that the Catholic Church most often calls itself "the Church" is an example of a clear absurdity. These references are a linguistic shorthand common in the English language. "America" is not the name of the nation where I live. The "proper name" of this country is the United States of America. However, in common parlance "America" is a shorter reference to the nation. "America" is by far the more common use in English, but no one honestly confuses this reference with the proper name of the country. Lima is grabbing at straws and is utterly desperate to hold on to this mental delusion.

This is to be expected when rational argument fails to uphold a position based upon irrational predispositions/prejudices especially those which belong in 16th Century England. An examination of conscience is in order. Vaquero100 07:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your current post Vaquero, borders on the abusive. There's nothing shrill or delusional or even anti-Catholic on the part of those who prefer the correct and descriptive name of the church: Roman Catholic. I wish there could be more grace extended, because many of those who call themselves Catholic simply refer to themselves as a part of Christ's Church, and are quite willing and happy to include Roman Catholics, English Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, etc, as fellow members of the Catholic Church. It is the persistent claim of the Roman Catholics to exclusivity - the refusal to accept other Catholics of slightly different doctrinal pursuasions as fellow Christians. To thus label the article "Catholic Church" is to adopt a POV endorsing this claim to exclusivity, which is not acceptable to at least half the Christians in the world. This is the heart and core of the issue, and those who are politicking for the change are simply trying to require the rest of the world to acknowledge the exclusivity claim. Pollinator 06:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg those who are not members of the Church that considers itself to be truly one, holy, catholic, apostolic, Roman, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth, the Church that Jesus built in the way he promised in Matthew 16:18, etc. not to be offended by what follows. I am only saying how the Church sees itself, not asking them to accept the Church's point of view.

Bodies that broke away have felt the need to adopt a name (a "denomination") to indicate their separate identity. The Church sees itself simply as the Church, not as a body that needs to adopt a distinguishing name. It has thus always continued to describe itself as before, using terms such as "apostolic", "one", "catholic", "Roman", "the Church", etc. as descriptions, not as names, still less as "linguistic shorthand" for a name or names that it is alleged to have adopted. Only when it is being contrasted with one or more other bodies does the practical need arise to refer to it in some distinguishing way. Internally, it may use for this purpose phrases such as "the true Church", "the historic Church", "the original Church", etc. But in direct relations with the other bodies, it has found that the descriptions acceptable to both sides are, as far as I know, only two: "the Catholic Church", and "the Roman Catholic Church". Of these two, the Church prefers the first, but does not insist on it in its relations with those who object: it then accepts the second description as a way to refer to it, and thus as a name. It does not consider either term to be the name for the Church, which continues to see itself simply as the Church: not this kind or that kind of Church, but simply the Church.

I repeat, I am not asking those who do not belong to the Church as thus understood to accept the Church's point of view. On the other hand, it is somewhat surprising that a priest of the Church adopts their point of view. Lima 08:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Over the years, I've noticed that the persons who hold the visible offices in a hierarchy are not always the one who actually hold the power that supposedly goes with the office. There is frequently an invisible hierarchy that one must know and respect, if one is to survive in that organization. If this is true of human structures, it certainly is more likely to be true of a spiritual structure that depends on graces and activities that are contrary to human nature and the expectations of the world. I doubt that *any* physical structure (including my own denomination) is "the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth, the Church that Jesus built." Whatever the body, I see far too many failings to consider that to be possible. The genuine church can be found within a great variety of denominations, and quite likely also outside them too. Whatever the true Church is, it is primarily God's perogative to establish, uphold, or judge. It's time for us to stop insulting other members of that church with our claims of exclusivity. Pollinator 06:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am behind Vaquero's efforts 100% to call this article by its correct name. I can see the tide turning in that direction. --WikiCats 12:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that running around to find supporters of a position is called internal spamming and is not an acceptable Wikipedia means of editing. Campaigning to influence a vote may change the outcome on one occasion, but won't bring about a more NPOV Wikipedia, nor will it be a permanent change. Pollinator 06:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Vaq: People who voted for RCC are not by default anti-Catholic. Accusing people of bigoty and being party to some Anglican conspiracy is NOT helping your position. Calling a fellow editor's thoughts a "mental delusion" is NOT helping your position. Claiming your position is the only rational position is NOT helping your position. I understand that this is a very close and dear and theologically important issue for you. But I would urge you NOT to redouble your efforts on this topic. Wikipedia has spent years arguing over this debate, and it isn't going to be settled, and no-consensus is the best we have ever got. I hate to say it this way, but we should all just suck it up and accept that both RCC and CC are acceptable on wikipedia, and all vow never ever again to edit pages for the sole purpose of adding or removing the word "Roman". Seriously, I'd suggest not bringing up this topic again until this article has reached FA or at least GA status. It wastes SO MUCH time that could be used to actually focus on improving content, not arguing over a single word that only is a matter of dire importance to POV-warriors. Seriously, think what is more important to everyone personally: correcting the wrong names across wikipedia, or bringing articles up to FA status? If you answered the former, I'd ask you to seriously reconsider your motives for contributing to wikipedia.--Andrew c 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what frustrates alot of people on WP is that liberal or politically correct changes can be made at someone's whim or just after a discussion with no vote (or no 'consensus'), and then reverting it back is treated as out of the question and requires a super-majority vote. It's a double standard and shows the general liberal bias at WP. 2nd Piston Honda 23:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any such double standard. Perhaps you could give an example?  It is the case that people who act out of process often find it easier than those who follow the rules, which is perhaps a problem, but it cuts both ways (most of Vaquero's RCC->CC changes have been without concensus, and many of them have stuck).  In this case, the article was at this location by clear concensus (over 2:1) 6 months ago; this time there has been no clear concensus.  TSP 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Vaquero's efforts in having this page moved to its correct title are entirely justified. Vaquero did a lot of work in explaining the reason for moving this article based solely on the guidelines. The vote was 29 to move the article and 24 against. We have to say that this is the best outcome we have had to date. Vaquero should be encouraged for his perseverance in this matter. --WikiCats 04:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't especially a criticism; but 2nd Piston Honda seemed to be presenting a world in which one side was persevering with votes and concensus and the other (making "liberal or politically correct changes") acting without discussion. I just haven't seen that.  TSP 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't noticed that it's harder to change something from liberal-favored to conservative-favored than vice versa on WP? 2nd Piston Honda 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not particularly, but the two terms are so broad as to be almost meaningless. In a well-written article the 'liberal' and 'conservative' points of view should be presented together, proportional to their support, without endorsing either.  It should be easiest to change something to whatever is best supported by independent sources; but people from all points of view are guilty of trying to bend Wikipedia to their personal opinions rather than to the neutral point of view.  TSP 13:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am Catholic. My church has a big sign out front indicating it is "Roman Catholic".  I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostoltic church, but also happen to believe we aren't going to get there by taking offense over the difference between being called Roman Catholic or Catholic or disparaging other denomination's interest in sharing that Catholicism - good for those Anglicans in having the interest in being Catholic, now let's talk together about what it means!  Ultimately, those of us with an interest all need to get over denominationalist self-righteousness to build that common Catholic church. I would suggest that we set aside the labeling issue and worry about more fundamental things. Sam 17:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines make it clear the name the article should be titled. --WikiCats 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I echo Sam's comments above. I would like to state how sad I am, as a Catholic, of being accused of anti-Catholicism, something which shocks me and I deeply resent.  It is easy for me to see now why every Mass includes so many invocations to unity, when members of God's Church are so easily provoked into recrimination and name-calling. Slac speak up! 01:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The way to resolve this problem is not so difficult. Its not a political way out or a consensus vote, for neither achieves the main purpose- the truth. History is not political and can not be changed by vote, period. Why can WP simply apply history to provide a final answer to this problem. If Ignatius of Antioch(patriarch of the Eastern-rite Church and student of John the Apostle), spoke of simply the "Catholic Church" in his letter to the Smyrneans(in 107, AD), as well as Augustine of Hippo, and Jerome (in the 3rd century). Then what church were they speaking of. Were they speaking of another Church separate from what Anglicans refer as the "Roman" Catholic Church or was it the same "Church". Because if it is the same church then it should be called by the true and historic name. If one looks at the beliefs of Ignatius, Ireneus (2nd century), Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo or any of the "Church Fathers". It would be indisputable that they were all Catholics, their beliefs all consistent with the modern Church. Ignatius of the eastern church and the others of the Western/Latin church.

Nobody wants to do this academic inquiry, because it would be to shockingly true. Since the truth can be very controversial its easier for WP to take the political way out and leave things as is, especially since this is an Anglo-speaking site.

However, the error of such a term is undeniable even by WP standards. As "Easter-rite Catholic Churches" is correctly sited, not Eastern Rite ROMAN Catholic. As the gross error, of adding "Roman" would be so obvious that it could not make any intelectual or historical sense.Micael 16:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We should go easy on sweeping attributions of error, which might be found to apply also to the Popes. See Divini illius Magistri ("in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing") and Humani generis ("the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing"). Lima 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Decretum Gelasianum
Aside from all the polemical and rhetorical happenings here, we have a matter that needs attention. The following paragraph has various problems:
 * The probably sixth-century Decretum Gelasianum speaks of books by certain heretics and schismatics as rejected and banished from "omni Romana catholica et apostolica ecclesia", a phrase which probably means "the whole catholic and apostolic Church of Rome" (i.e. the see of Rome), but which, in a version that also mistranslates "repudiata .. eliminata" not as "(the books) have been rejected ... banished" but as "is to be rejected ... eliminated", has also been interpreted as meaning "the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church."

There is no source for the assertion that the Latin "probably means" the Church of Rome. The Latin itself doesn't say that. Also, why does this text quote a translation, only to the discredit that translation? Besides, I don't think "to be rejected… banished" is a mistranslation; the passage says:
 * ''We profess these [heresies] to be things not only having been rejected by the entire roman catholic and apostolic church but also to be things having been banished with their following authors under the unbreakable chains of anathema and to be things having been damned into eternity.

What is wrong with saying "to be damned" rather than "to be things having been damned"? Sounds fine to me; actually, it sounds like a better English translation. Look, I am Roman Catholic and I voted that the name should be Catholic Church; but the text above says what it says. Lostcaesar 10:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mistranslation?
 * "rejected ... banished": a perfectly good translation that has not been questioned.
 * "is to be" (the words italicized in the previous text): wrong tense; the text has the past tense; also, but less important for the meaning, the verb should be plural, to agree with the subject.
 * However, the observation about mistranslation may perfectly well be omitted. The English translation in question was quoted, since it seemed (wrongly? I think not) to be the basis upon which the claim was made that "Roman Catholic" was at that time a name for the whole Church, East and West, not just for the see of Rome.
 * The translation in question did not use the wrong tense; it used the past tense: "we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but..."; the article said it was a mistranslation because it used the simple "rejected" rather than the perfect participle "having been rejected" - if the article is going to argue for a genitive noun rather than an adjective to translate Romana, then it cannot get upset about this perfectly fine translation.   Lostcaesar 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Reread what the observation in the article did say. Rather, don't bother: nobody is putting that observation back.  So why fuss?  Lima 13:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Does "Romana catholica et apostolica Ecclesia" mean "the Apostolic Roman-Catholic Church"?
 * In the Decretum Gelasianum, "Romana catholica et apostolica Ecclesia" appears once with the words in that order. Surely this is the same Church that the document also calls "catholica et apostolica Romana Ecclesia", i.e. "the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church (or Church of Rome)" - the same words in another order.  If the order mattered, perhaps we'd have to say two different Churches are also meant when the document speaks, as it does several times in both cases, of "sancta Romana Ecclesia" and of "sancta Ecclesia Romana"!


 * Does "Romana ecclesia" mean "Church of Rome", or must it always be translated as "Roman Church", implying that it is something different from the Church of Rome?
 * When Bosnia Herzegovina was part of Yugoslavia, the bridge in Sarajevo now called the Latin Bridge was called the Principov Most in the Serbo-Croat language, in which "most" means "bridge" and "principov" is an adjective referring to Princip, the man who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914. Would Lostcaesar insist that in translating "Principov" an adjective ("Principan"?) be used in English, calling the bridge the Principan Bridge?
 * That "Roman Church" meant Church of Rome (the see of Rome) is obvious from other documents of the same period. Take the c. 401 reference to some bishops, the first mentioned being the bishop of the Church of Rome: "Ecclesiae Romanae Liberius episcopus, Eusebius quoque a Vercellis, Hilarius de Gallis"  (Denzinger 209).  Or the 11 March 422 letter in which Pope Boniface told Rufus to examine, if he wished, what sees the canons put next after the Church of Rome: "Recensete canonum sanctiones, repperietis, quae sit post Ecclesiam Romanam secunda sedes, quaeve sit tertia"  (Denzinger 235).  Or the 435-442 text, possibly by St Prosper, in which the author speaks of  research he had done into the decisions of the successive heads of the Church of Rome about the heresies of their times: "inquirere quid rectores Romanae Ecclesiae de haeresi, quae eorum temporibus exorta fuerat, iudicarint" (Denzinger 238).   Lima 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All we need to do, then, is source this; but it doesn't seem appropriate to me to say, basically, that it is wrong to translate the text as "Roman Church" - its not wrong; what does Roman mean? Well, lets just source it out (or perhaps omit it alltogether) rather than engage in a debate style interpretation where we involke and then repudiate a translation which happens to (correctly) read "Roman Church". Lostcaesar 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Source what out? That a "Church" can mean a see?  If it makes Lostcaesar happy, of course we can use the more obscure "Roman Church".  So I have already inserted "Roman" before "Church" in the article.  Lima 13:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What would make me happy is getting rid of the entire ridiculous argument. Lostcaesar 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank God, it's done. Lima 13:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there must be something here that I missed. Lostcaesar 13:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not try mediation?
Hey guys! Why not try Mediation? It works you know. Check out Resolving disputes, you'll see how Wiki fixes things. Tis simple. Tis objective. No frills. Try it. It works. And if not, then to Arbitration you go! If you are proWiki policy you win. ;) Ndss 11:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I recall we already went down the DR route, which is how we ended up with the current title. Guy 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging by the number of votes, "we" now is not the same as "we" then, whenever then was. Chonak`

Show the link to the mediation and I'll check. Do you know JASpencer is with Arbritationcom and he voted for "Catholic Church." This has a chance at arbcom! Ndss 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One more chance for the compromise option?
Now that we've been through the vote with no consensus resulting, would the interested editors be willing to entertain a proposal for one more vote: an up-or-down consideration of some version of Option 2? E.g., "Catholic Church (organisation)" and "Catholic Church (concept)" Chonak 07:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Perhaps in the future, when feelings have cooled down.  Not now.  We've (rather, I've?) already wasted too much time on the dispute.  Lima 07:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hell
Do Catholics believe that God sends people there? Or does the Bible? Or both? Or neither? TommyBoy76 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Catholics, like the majority of other Christians, believe that there are at least a few individuals who choose to go to Hell rather than accepting Heaven. "Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven", to quote Milton.  If I remember correctly, modern theology indicates that upon their deaths these individuals descend into Hell, to be brought back out for the Final Judgement before everybody, receiving their public "final" sentence, and then returning to Hell.  Seemingly, they do all this at least in part on their own.  Their motivation seems to be that something not related to Heaven is so important that they choose Hell if that is the only way of retaining this physical attachment.  The exact nature of the afterlife is somewhat unclear in the Old Testament, although you might look at Sheol for the relevant details on it.  The nature of hell was made a bit clearer in the New Testament.  Gehenna and Hell in Christian beliefs might be useful too.  I'm not an expert theologian, but if you have any other similar questions please feel free to contact me at my user page if you prefer.  I might (emphasis might) be able to help you out a little.  Badbilltucker 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it can be some peoples' choice? TommyBoy76 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's always a choice. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not correct. Christ said that many will go to Hell and wide is its path. Catholics believe that those who die in a state of mortal sin go to Hell. Mortal sin is grievous sin which deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace. The things necessary to make a sin mortal are 1) a grevious matter, 2) sufficient reflection, and 3) full consent of the will. That is, it has to be a serious offense, you have to think about it before you do it (knowing it's a serious offense), and then you have to do it of your own will. Confession is the sacrament by which mortal sin can be forgiven and absolved, along with all venial (lesser) sins. 2nd Piston Honda 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The things necessary to make a sin mortal are ... full consent of the will. Right. Therefore, committing a mortal sin is a choice. Not repenting of it and not confessing it are also choices. Therefore, hell is a choice. Why did you say "that's not correct"? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My post was in response to Badbilltucker. And it's not exactly right to say it's our choice. It's God's choice, based on our deeds. 2nd Piston Honda 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I have to ask it? We've all heard it before. "If God has so much love, then why does He send people to hell?" I personally don't think He does. TommyBoy76 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Read Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-1037. Lima 04:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello User:TommyBoy76, I have thought about this question on similar occassions. I am a Catholic teenager, probably much like yourself. I have even thought of becoming a priest. This doesn't make my following remarks and more credible than the above statements, but I just want to show we are on a similar plane. All of the above statements do contain some degree of truth. This is the explanation I like to take from the catechism, and if any other clerics or laity want to criticize my understanding, they are free to do so. God is love. "Deus caritas est". God loves humanity so much that he was willing to give them a great gift: free will. When humans committed original sin, they fell from God's grace, and were only redeemed through Christ's death on the cross. The promise of the afterlife is through Christ's Ressurection. For Christians, original sin is erased from the soul by the sacrament of Baptism. Only those without original sin can go to heaven. The church also believes if one didn't accept God in their life time, the could recieve this sanctifying grace through God's great mercy. This is why the Pope is considering abolishing the doctrine on limbo, because of developments in abortion. Now, when humans sin, they choose to disobey God. If a sin is commited with full knowing, it is a mortal sin. Venial sins are very serious offenses, as well, but are done in full contempt of God. Remember that God has given humanity free-will, so it is man and woman's choice to choose God. He can not force one to love him in this life or the next. So by sinning, one is expressing their decision to turn away from God. They themselves are choosing not to be with God, and if they don't seek repentence at death, they may go to Hell. (I am not the judge, so I can't say for sure). By our actions, we choose to go where we want. We won't be able to tell God we didn't "mean it" after our mortal life is over. I hope I didn't insult your intelligence, but since we are all children of God, sometimes it is easier to explain things like one would a child. If you have any questions just aks. (P.S. If you are a Catholic youth interested in Church questions, but can't understand all the "mumbo jumbo," read "Did Adam and Eve Have Bellybuttons?" by Matthew J. Pinto.) Trevor 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, everyone. Though I am keeping my opinion, I leave the computer knowing more than I did. Trevor, you didn't insult my intelligence. I have been Catholic all 16 years of my life so I know all the 'mumbo jumbo' and everything after. Feel free to use any termonology you wish and explain in whatever way you think will get the point across. Only the same thing, with better grammar. :) TommyBoy76 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a very common misconseption that we belive that those with mortal sin go directly to hell. Roman Catholics belive only those thatm wish to go to hell go to hell. Anyone "unclean" or unforgiven at time of death goes to purgatory. Here, people must witness and be sorry for all sins they commited before they died. If someone is not Roman Catholic, they still do not go to hell, but also go to purgatory. However, since they are not Roman Catholic and never were prperly forgive, they basicly have to watch every sin they ever commited in life. Once the person has expressed remorse, they go to heaven. If not, they stay in purgatory untill they do feel remorse.--68.192.188.142 01:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There are section in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica on this. It is available via Project Gutenberg if anyone is interested. Here is my understanding on the matter:

If you commit a mortal sin, that is a manifestation of hatred for God. This will probably manifested through an abuse of human nature, which was made in the image and likeness of God. You may not think you hate God at the time, but that's probably because you have misunderstood God.

When you die in a state of mortal sin, you will condemn yourself to hell, as hell is merely being without God, once you have seen him face to face. This will occur as a necessary result of your hatred for God. Once you are dead you no longer have the ability to change your mind about these things, as you exist outside of earthly time (but there must be some sort of time considering purgatory). In this way, yes only someone who wants to go to hell will go to hell, but whoever dies in a state of mortal sin will want to go to hell (as an act of aversion towards God). This does not mean that someone could possibly enjoy hell, anyone in hell suffers increadible both physical and other types of 'pain' (whatever that means in this context).

Confession obviously clenses you from Mortal sin. It is possible to have your sins forgiven by an 'act of perfect contrition' before death, which means a person is sorry for their sins because of the offense they have caused God. This is actually very difficult, and any act of perfect contrition should be followed be sacramental confession wherever possible.

Purgatory is for those who have died in a state of grace, but not a state of perfection. This includes if you have venial sins which have not been forgiven or mortal sins which have not been properly atoned for.

I would appreciate any question on this topic on my talk page. Thebike 08:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Time to archive this talk page?
It's getting unwieldy. Chonak 05:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Let's archive. --WikiCats 11:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved most of the name debate entries into /Archive7. I didn't move all of them since some of them still appear to be active. Those can also be moved to the same archive when it's time. Kylef81 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

American/British English
I suppose this comes up a lot on Wikipedia. The article currently uses a mix of American and British spellings. According to Manual of Style - National varieties of English we need to standardize on one form. This is to avoid "jarring" the reader when two different forms are used. Here are the key guidelines from that article:


 * Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
 * If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
 * Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both.
 * If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.

I think we can agree that the Church doesn't have a strong tie to any specific region or dialect. We could try to avoid any words that differ in spelling, but that's hard to do. So, that leaves us with the last item, making it match what the first significant contributor used. This edit, 3267007, appears to be the first significant contribution. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much either, since it uses both British and American spelling (organization vs. organisation). So, since I'm a technical person and don't have anything better to do with my time (sad), here's a table that calculates the occurrences of American vs. British spelling in the previously mentioned edit and in the current article. Hopefully that will provide enough support for one version over the other. The words used are from Manual of Style (spelling). I removed entries that had zero results for both forms in both versions of the article.

Updated based on Lima's comments.

* our refers to words such as "behaviour", "favour", "honour", etc. *or refers to the alternate version of those examples: "behavior", "favor", "honor", etc.

Numbers in parenthesis: Acceptable in both Non-US and US. Not counted in total.

Summary
 * Total British: 4 and 5
 * Total American:  19 5 and  20 5

Conclusion
 * The majority of the article (both the first significant edit and the current version) uses American spelling. In order to follow the Wikipedia guideline of using the same dialect throughout the article, I think it is clear that it should be standardized on the American spelling. I'm not trying to impose this version, merely trying to follow the guidelines.
 * The US version has a very slight edge in the first edit and is a tie with the Non-US version in the current article.

Since my previous edit was reverted, I'm going to hold off for a while on making these changes, to give others the chance to comment (if necessary) and/or make any adjustments to my analysis (I was just doing a find and counting, so it's possible my numbers could be off, but not by much ). I also don't know all of the words that are spelled differently, so maybe I've just missed a bunch of the British words. If so, those would need to be added to the table.

Comments? Anyone? (Sorry that these changes won't do a lot to improve the actual content of the article, but this is how I'm able to contribute.)

Kylef81 15:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll let Kylef81 redo his calculations. But he should take into account:


 * Non-US spelling - by the way, I am not British - accepts both "-ise" and "-ize". I use non-US spelling, but also always use "-ize". UN documents, in general, do the same.
 * The same holds for "-ization"
 * Has Kylef81 distinguished between "practice" (the noun) and "to practise" (the verb), or has he counted the nouns as exclusively US spelling?

Lima 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Lima. I knew I had probably missed something. Updates:


 * Removed "practice" vs. "practise." All instances were nouns, no verbs.
 * No longer count -ize and -ization words in the US total. But still count -ise and -isation in the Non-US total.

Those updates now make it a virtual "tie" with regards to US vs. Non-US. Now it isn't as clear what needs to be done. A change needs to be made, in order for the article to be consistent. But I don't know which one. (No, I'm not going to suggest a vote.) Maybe there are some more US or Non-US words that haven't been counted that will tip the scales one way or the other, to make it more obvious which version needs to be used.

Kylef81 16:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither can I solve the problem. I might like to recommend the UN practice (which is also mine), but that is not Wikipedia policy. Sorry, I cannot help in any way. Lima 17:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a website that has a list of words that are spelled differently between US and Non-US: British, Canadian and American Spelling. I took that list and did a search on both the first edit and the current article, as described above.
 * I made one exception: In the case of -ize/-ise and -ization/-isation, those differences were ignored. I did that because of what Lima noted above, the -ize/-ization form is acceptable. That's also mentioned on Manual of Style (spelling) (see Oxford spelling).  Since that form is (I assume) acceptable to all, I think (hope) we can agree on using -ize/-ization for consistency. Also, the -isation form was use in the first edit, but isn't used in the current article. So, no changes need to be made for that.
 * With that in mind, here is the updated table:


 * {| style="border:1px solid black;"


 * - style="font-weight:bold;text-align:center;background:#EEEEEE"
 * colspan="4" | First Significant Edit
 * colspan="4" | Current Article
 * - style="font-weight:bold"
 * Non-US || Count   || US || Count
 * Non-US || Count   || US || Count
 * behaviour || 1 || behavior || 0 || behaviour || 0 || behavior || 0
 * centre || 1 || center || 3 || centre || 0 || center || 2
 * endeavour || 0 || endeavor || 0 || endeavour || 1 || endeavor || 0
 * favour || 0 || favor || 0 || favour || 2 || favor || 0
 * honour || 0 || honor || 0 || honour || 0 || honor || 1
 * judgement || 0 || judgment || 2 || judgement || 1 || judgment || 2
 * neighbour || 1 || neighbor || 0 || neighbour || 0 || neighbor || 0
 * vigour || 0 || vigor || 0 || vigour || 1 || vigor || 0
 * - style="font-weight:bold"
 * Total Non-US || 3 || Total US || 5
 * Total Non-US || 5 || Total US || 5
 * }
 * neighbour || 1 || neighbor || 0 || neighbour || 0 || neighbor || 0
 * vigour || 0 || vigor || 0 || vigour || 1 || vigor || 0
 * - style="font-weight:bold"
 * Total Non-US || 3 || Total US || 5
 * Total Non-US || 5 || Total US || 5
 * }
 * Total Non-US || 5 || Total US || 5
 * }


 * Summary
 * Total Non-US: 3 and 5
 * Total US: 5 and 5
 * Conclusion
 * Again, it's not obvious what the right answer is. Going strictly by the numbers, the US version would be selected. But I'd like more input from other editors before a change is made. To put things in perspective, we're only talking about changing 3 or 4 words, depending on which version is selected.
 * Kylef81 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in again: both "judgment" and "judgement" are perfectly acceptable as non-US spellings, with, I believe, "judgment" being perhaps slightly more common. I personally prefer "judgement", but I accepted instructions to use "judgment" when I worked in an office preparing texts in English (not a UN office).  Now I am free to do as I like.
 * So it seems to be a 3-3 tie for First Significant Edit, and a very slight 4-3 non-US advantage for Current Article. Only four -our/-or words and a single -re/-er word are concerned.  Do we absolutely need uniformity?
 * Lima 19:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess not. I just like things to be consistent. But, since no one else has ever brought this up, it must not be that big of a deal. I'll let it go, and just have to remember not to change them the next time my spell checker says one of the non-US spellings is wrong. Kylef81 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Two things I'd like to mention. First of all, I think it is important to standardize the article. Second of all, because of the crazy history of this article, with name changes, and cut and paste moves (and I think at one time it was at Catholicism), I fear that the "earliest significant contribution" being used isn't necessarily that (which may explain the mixed usages so far back in the history). Looking at the tables above, it seems like it is just a matter of changing 5 words, so either way it shouldn't be that big of a deal. We just need to make sure that no one is going to cry foul if we make the move. So which one is it, US or non-US? I think removing the extra 'u's in the '-our' words would be less intrusive, even if I personally prefer non-US spellings.--Andrew c 11:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever about -our/-or, my personal reaction to "center" (someone or something that "cents"?!) is quite negative. Perhaps because, not only in the (more?) widespread form of English, but also in the other languages that I know, "tr" stays together: French centre, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Esperanto centro, Dutch centrum, German Zentrum, Ancient Greek κέντρον, modern Greek κέντρο. Lima 12:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Come to think of it, even in US English spelling, "tr" stays united in words like "central". Lima 13:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) And furthermore again, Andrew's argument could perhaps be extended to all or almost all articles, and so might come to: "Use US spelling throughout Wikipedia." Lima 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Some comments: Centre is extremely jarring to writers of U.S. English; whoever put that in can hardly be an American; whereas judgment/judgement falls within the normal range of typoes (by analogy with appeasement and others, where the e is kept.) Similarly, favour and vigour have been inserted by a distinctly Commonwealth editor. If you're going to go by this standard, BE seems clear; but a mid-Atlantic style, avoiding all usages exclusive either to BE or AE, may be a better idea. Septentrionalis 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnote Error?
Sorry if I sound stupid, but shouldn't the bible citation for footnote 21 (The Church is, as scripture states, "the body of Christ") be COLOSSIANS 1:24 or EPHESIANS 5:30 or something other than the current one (Romans 12:4-5)?

Ephesians 5:30 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Romans 12:4-5 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswcheng (talk • contribs) 17:51, September 16, 2006 (UTC).


 * Agree. Might also suggest:
 * Ephesians 1:22-23 And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
 * Kylef81 19:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to . Kylef81 00:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not include Romans as well? It's pretty clear here that "we who are many" is the Christian ekklesia. Slac speak up! 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! Added back Romans 12:4-5 as a cf. The reason I agreed with Jameswcheng was that the Romans verse isn't as "obvious" in its meaning. Kylef81 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Help request for related RCC article
I am not sure if this is the right place to make this request (I am still relatively new), but the Roman Catholic section at Christian views on contraception needs attention from someone more knowledgable than myself. Can someone help? CyberAnth 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what we can do about it. I'll get some quotes from the early fathers. why don't you try the Catechism? Thebike 11:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Terminology Revision
Nature of God Section:

'born' of the Virgin Mary.

There needs to be ade the distinction between being 'born' and 'begotten'. To my knowledge the Church stresses this point, that he was 'Begotten not made'. 'Born' implies being made through conception, not the immaculate conception...

Just my thoughts,

161.253.29.204 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)James Stephenson Oct 10, 2006


 * No changes should be made. "Born of the Virgin Mary" comes from both the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. "Begotten not made" refers to the belief that Christ was not created; "born of the Virgin Mary" refers to the belief that in the Incarnation, he was born to a mother like any other human since Adam and Eve. It does not refer to his conception, only his birth. Also, the term Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Jesus, but to his mother's: the Catholic belief is that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New template
I was surprised when I could not find a template for citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So I created one: ccc1. This version works only for a single paragraph. This is my first template (not counting userboxes), so improvements and comments are welcome. I hope other editors find it useful. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I created a second template for citing whole articles of the CCC: ccc2. This can also be used for paragraph ranges. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Move page
I propose that the page be moved to Holy Roman Catholic Church. --WikiCats 20:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * and I oppose. Let's not make the title more complicated than it has to be. Gentgeen 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I got your message about the RCC disambig page. I think I agree with Gentgeen though. However, would you like to explain yourself further? Why change the name? What are the pro's and con's? What would we do with the RCC disambig page? etc. -Andrew c 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose, on two grounds. First, the official name of the Church isn't "Holy Roman Catholic Church". It's simply the "Catholic Church". Full stop. However, in everyday parlance -- outside of Vatican City, that is -- the Church is known as the "Roman Catholic Church," to distinguish it from the other "Catholic" churches. So, unless I've missed something here, I see this proposal as having only drawbacks and no advantages. --Todeswalzer 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Church's name is simply "the Church", or "the Christian Church", and in everyday parlance, it is most commonly refered to as the "Catholic Church". 2nd Piston Honda 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We have been over the name thing before. I see the current name as an inconsistency on wikipedia's part, but one I am willing to live with as a modus vivendi, at least for now, since there doesn't seem to be too much harm from it.  Lostcaesar 07:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew* and Honda. The reason I am proposing that title is to strike a concession. What do you think of that Andrew? Where would you put your disambig.? --WikiCats 09:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To Todeswalzer I would say,"Yes you are right." --WikiCats 09:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Caesar, you are Anglican. --WikiCats 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In considering the matter, I turn to the advice of Father Vaquero. --WikiCats 10:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Caesar, you are Anglican" - could you elaborate? Lostcaesar 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What on earth? Is this proposal flamebait or what? Slac speak up! 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly looks like baiting now, particularly since the person who made the original proposition claims to agree with my counter-arguments. --Todeswalzer 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro and hersay, apostasy,hersay, excommunication and formally renounced membership.
There have been some changes to the intro recently. I feel they are for the worse. The sentence is not clunky, hard to read, and possibly gramatically incorrect. I felt the previous version (or one of the earlier edits with a much simpler wording) was better. What exactly are we trying to say here? And how is the most elegant way to say it? Perhaps the long reference could be moved to another section? References are generally not supposed to be in intro text. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the article content, so there should be a section describing membership and leaving the church somewhere else in the article. This discussion seems better someplace other than the intro, and I feel that we can find a much more simple yet elegant way to describe what needs to be said. --Andrew c 14:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fix the beginning part of the page.
Part of the right column is covering the main article. I don't know how to fix it, so can someone do it? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.215.189 (talk • contribs).


 * I don't see this... perhaps your system has a display problem? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is text over the top left corner of the "Christianity series" box. Changing the size of my browser window changes which word overlaps, but the problem is still there.  I'm not sure how to fix this, though. Lyrl  Talk Contribs 15:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure celibacy for priests is NOT an ETERNALLY unchangeable doctrine.
First time that I'm doing anything on Wiki; apologies if I have not stuck to correct format or anything like that. I am pretty sure that the requirement that priest be celibate, is considered a "practice" but not a "essential thing". Compare this with ordination being allowed only of males, which is a formal doctrine, it CANNOT Be changed even by a pope, EVER. Whereas, it IS possible for a pope to declare that "from today onward priests (not already ordained ones, but future priests) do NOT need to take a vow of celibacy. It is unlikely to happen, due to the practical reasons which has lead the wise Mother Church to enforce this requirement; however, I think it is important to state and explain how this practice is NOT an absolute unchangeable requirement for all time. --Sohan (23 Oct 2006)
 * I don't have time to look up citations but my understanding is that this is correct. Look at the fact that in Eastern rites, priests can be married, and the apostle Peter (considered the first Pope) was married as well. My understanding is that priestly celibacy is a discipline, while the all-male priesthood is doctrine. (Or is it dogma? Not sure the difference between doctrine and dogma.) I can look this up when I have more time. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 15:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. In fact many of the Eastern Rites do allow married men to become priets under certain conditions. I knew a Catholic priest who was married when I was a kid (I am a Maronite). However this is not very common. It is also forbidden for priets to get married once they are already ordained, and if I am not mistaken, this is an Eternally unchangeable doctrine. The same rules appliy in most Orthodox churches. All male clergy is certainly an eternally unchangeable doctrine, and they two should not be mentioned in the same breath because they are really very different issues. Thebike 06:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The prohibition against priests getting married after they are ordained is also a discipline. The Holy See can grant a dispensation from this regulation, although it has never done so except in cases where the priest is laicized.  (The sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark, so a laicized priest is still a priest ontologically.) -- Cat Whisperer 11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the CCC reference (please note the use of the nifty citation template): --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Priests are only celibate, since the 12th century I believe, because there was a habit of passing off church lands to their heirs when they were married. Rome didn't like that. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 23:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. See what the article says on the matter.  Lima 08:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article, incorrect in some regards, says nothing about the true origins of the celibacy rule. But then again, the church is known to cover up the less nice parts of its past...i.e. calling Mary Magdalene a whore (confusing her with another woman), getting rid of certain gospels, ironing out inconsistencies in the concept of the trinity 1000 years after christ was nailed up, stuff like that.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I though an online encyclopedia just might help against historical ignorance like this, alas. Lostcaesar 08:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alas, I've always known religious faith to blind people to historical truths. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See:, , Frazee, Charles A. "The Origins of Clerical Celibacy in the Western Church" in Church History, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jun., 1972), pp. 149-167, and a gazillion webpages, and about 1500 other scholarly articles. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Vatican is currently discussing the topic of priest celibacy. This should be strong evidence in itself.  I believe the decision to require priests to be celibate came at the Church at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 which someone had mentioned previously. Even so, there are a couple ways to be married and be a priest but these are usually dependent on which diocese and which archbishop you are under.  Outside the US, im not sure if its possible.  Sorry but i dont have references off the top of my head --Blckavnger 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vatican reaffirms the value of priestly celibacy -- Cat Whisperer 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference Cat Whisperer, i think maybe an edit or a little asterik is in order for the priest celibacy in the main article. or maybe thats just being nit picky --Blckavnger 19:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following this issue closely enough to make any edits to the main article. I just noticed your comment here on the talk page, and wanted to follow up with a news reference.  P.S. I think one of the ways to be a married priest in the US that you might be thinking of could be Pastoral Provision. -- Cat Whisperer 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perfect, I know of two specific cases from my experience which this was the exact case. Another case happened when i was much younger so im not sure if its correct.  Is there a way a deacon who marries is allowed to become a priest in america?  i could have remember this wrong.--Blckavnger 21:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've only heard of this happening when the deacon becomes a widower, and doesn't intend to remarry. -- Cat Whisperer 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Think what you will over whether the discipline is good or not, but understand that it predates the reform of the 12th century. Lostcaesar 22:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of those discussing the question raised here seem to have forgotten the distinction: marriage is impossible for a priest (according not only to the Catholic Church but also to the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy); but priestly ordination is possible for a married man. The Latin Church has chosen to make it not a dogma but a rule (the rare exceptions that it admits are enough to show it is not a dogma) to ordain only men who undertake celibacy. In the Eastern Churches, Catholic or not, the rule is only that episcopal ordination is reserved for those who undertake celibacy.
 * The apparent forgetfulness of this distinction makes me believe it necessary to restore to the Roman_Catholic_Church section matter that someone some time removed from it. Lima 05:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Playing Devil's Advocate here, I'd point out that on rare occasions, a young priest whose wife has died, leaving a number of small children, may be permitted by his bishop to remarry. This is to ensure that his ministry is not burdened or affected too much by having to raise children. This is quite exceptional, to be sure, but indicates that while it is generally forbidden, marriage *IS* possible for a priest. InfernoXV 00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I find this quite surprising. Do you have a reference for this? -- Cat Whisperer 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised and it does make a lot of sense. The bishop is the authority in the Church (in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy) and bishops don't always see eye-to-eye with the pope or patriarchs. In both communions, the general discipline can be moderated when reasonable. So, I did a little search and came up with two interesting links: Dogmatic Basis for prohibiting remarriage of sacred ministers and Orthodox News reports on bishops that allow priests to divorce and remmary. Freder1ck 03:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck
 * Alas, I don't think I can find a reference to this - it's not common practice, and is a very rare application of œconomia. It's certainly not something that one will find in official books. I should point out that the primary consideration in this case is the children - that they may not be deprived of maternal love and care while growing up, and not so that the priest doesn't feel lonely.InfernoXV 03:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound right to me, Inferno. If you have no source, could you share where you yourself learned of this? Lostcaesar 08:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The best I can do, unfortunately, is to tell you that these have been recounted to me by various bishops over the years, both from Greek and Slavic traditions, with the understanding that this was told in confidence and not to be shouted from the rooftops. This is a practice that happens only once in a blue moon, and the hierarchy is naturally very discreet and quiet about this. Offhand, I can only think of one example - Fr Ireneu of Dublin, who was a Greek Orthodox Archimandrite. In a nutshell, Fr Ireneu acquired a wife and personally contributed to the population of the parish (that's as kindly as I can phrase it). His bishop was loath to defrock him, as he was well-loved by the parish and apparently a good priest (not to mention being fluent in all the major languages of Orthodoxy). The result was that after a little talk with the bishop, Fr Ireneu acquired the status of a married priest and continued being pastor of the parish. I realise this is a first marriage, not a second marriage after the death of the first wife, but I think the principle is similar. InfernoXV 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In modern (Catholic) canon law, the local bishop does not have the authority to do this. (Canon 1087 - Holy Orders is a diriment impediment to marriage.  Canon 1078 §2 - Only the Apostolic See can dispense this impediment.)  As far as I've been able to research, the Pope has only given such dispensations to properly laicized priests. -- Cat Whisperer 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Married permanent deacons who have been made widowers and left with small children have sometimes been allowed to remarry and remain in their ministry. -- Cat Whisperer 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ecumenical Patriarchate is studying the question. I have not found where the following information is placed permanently on the Internet, but the 2 November 2006 twice-weekly bulletin of the Orthodox Church of Greece had this (in Greek):
 * On 1 November 2006, the Holy Synod held a long discussion on the extremely serious queston of the celebration of a second marriage by widowed or divorced clerics, a matter on which the Ecumenical Patriarchate has asked for the views of the Autocephalous Churches, so that it can be dealt with in a Panorthodox Council.
 * The Press Representative of the Standing Holy Synod, Metropolitan of Alexandroupolis Anthimos, declared: "In its decision today the Holy Synod views this question with understanding (κατανόηση). Unfortunately, cases of this kind do need to be examined, such as the case of the death of the wife (Πρεσβυτέρα) of a Clergyman.  The Church desires to provide a solution, distinguishing cases of widowerhood from cases of divorce.  However, the Panorthodox Council must first of all give a verdict on the matter."  Lima 12:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The name "Ireneu" of the priest InfernoXV mentions above seems to me to indicate that he is a Romanian Orthodox, not a Greek Orthodox. That fits in with what a Greek Orthodox bishop told me in the mid-1990s: that the Romanian Patriarch wished to change the rule. It also fits in with the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarch in consulting the autocephalous Orthodox Churches on the matter. While oikonomia has been used to deal with almost anything anti-canonical at one time or other, the Romanian proposal and the consultation by the Ecumenical Patriarchate seem to me to envisage a change in the rule. I suppose there is no certainty that the rule will be changed. And I suppose there is certainty that there is as yet no change. Lima 05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fr Ireneu is certainly of Romanian origin, but he is a priest under the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Thyateira (who resides in London). Ergo, he is a Greek priest. InfernoXV 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Membership information is incorrect
The membership in the Church definition is incorrect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (available on the Vatican's website) is reliable regarding Catholic teaching; the same cannot be said for the blogger text images. The following is what I have been using more-or-less as the explanation:
 * All properly baptised persons, even those not in complete communion with the Roman Pontiff, are members of the Church of Christ and may rightfully be called "Christians" and "brethren in Christ." Baptism permanently makes one a Christian, cannot be undone, and never needs to be given a second time. Although a person may enter into heresy or schism, or even completely reject Christianity and apostasize, the person will never be able to cease being a Christian. Although the Catholic Church may use penalties and censures to attempt to reform a person or minimize the harm a person can do, it does not have the power to revoke Baptism or expel a member from the Church.

Also, there is a lot of "some say this, and others say that.." and "subject of debate..." and other third person arguing in the article. JBogdan 02:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The old material was completely wrong; however, it was relevant to the question of who is a Catholic. Your new material is completely correct; however, it doesn't answer, or even address, the question of who is a Catholic. Your last sentence, discussing Catholic centures, doesn't really belong with the earlier sentences which relate to being a Christian (whether Catholic or non-Catholic). It's actually a very complicated issue, and I'm not sure the "everyone gets a say" paradigm here at Wikipedia is up to getting it correct. -- Cat Whisperer 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the previous material was completely right. Surely the Holy See's Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts knows what it is talking about!  More, I must regretfully add, than Bogdan, who quotes CCC, which in turn quotes canon 96 of the Code of Canon Law, which indicates how one becomes a Christian (by baptism).  Lutherans are Christians.  Are they members of the Roman Catholic Church?  Obviously not.  And since they are not its members, the Roman Catholic Church does not consider them bound by the rules that it makes for its own members, "merely ecclesiastical laws" as opposed to the laws and commandments of divine origin that apply to all Christians and to all human beings.  So canon 11 of the Code says: "Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who were baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it ..."  This is what distinguishes Catholics from other Christians.
 * It should also be absolutely and unquestionably obvious that a declaration that someone is no longer a Catholic is not a revocation of that person's Baptism!
 * The statement about excommunication (which, as an ecclesistical censure, is indeed a "medicinal" measure, meant to reform a person) has proved necessary because at least two editors were insisting (again on their own authority alone) that excommunication excludes that person from the Church. Lima 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The PCILT does indeed know what it is talking about. However, what it was talking about was a small point not directly related to membership in the Catholic Church, and not at all relevant in this article's discussion of membership. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, for the Latin Rite introduced a novel concept, that of "defection from the Church by a formal act", without explicitly defining what it meant. This concept is only important insofar as determining who is subject to Church rules regarding canonical form of marriage, and is highly relevant in many annulment proceedings. It does not determine membership in the Catholic Church. For that, look under canon 11 in any good canon law commentary. -- Cat Whisperer 13:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The English translation (Montréal 1993) of the University of Navarra commentary on the Code of Canon Law (which, I think, is considered perhaps the best one-volume commentary) explicitly equates "being a member of the Catholic faithful" with canon 11's "were baptised in the Catholic Church or received into it". This commentary certainly does not say that someone baptized in a non-Catholic Church is a member of the Catholic Church.  Does some other commentary disagree?
 * The Church has now made clear how someone formally defects from the Church, and lays down that the fact of the defection must be entered in the baptismal registry. What does "defection from the Church" mean, other than ceasing to be a member of the Church?
 * To me, an official declaration of how one formally defects seems decidedly relevant to the question of membership.
 * The recent document says that, in themselves, schism, heresy and apostasy do not constitute a formal act of defection. The Navarra commentary on canon 11 agrees: "In principle, Catholics who later abandoned the Church are not excluded from subjection to it, regardless of their possible good faith."  I see no conflict whatever between canon 11 and the recent document on what determines membership of the Catholic Church.
 * There must be something in Cat Whisperer's reasoning that I fail to grasp. For that I apologize.  Would he please explain it to me?  Would he at least tell me what precisely he thinks is wrong in the present material?  Lima 15:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lima I must disagree with you on certain points. Let me first say that I am sure you have a greater knowledge of official texts than I, and I welcome you to point me in the proper direction if I am in error. I admit that I may well be mistaken and, if so, would please request correction. Nonetheless, I am not entirely naive to the matter at hand. Below I will quote from your comments and then explain my objections: The Body of Christ and the Christian, i.e. Catholic, Church are one and the same. If Lutherans are Christian then, in some sense, they are members of the Church. Lutherans are not baptized into a different Church than Catholics, because there is only One Church to be baptized into. Obviously Lutherans, because they reject certain doctrines, are heretics, and hence not in full communion, and in this sense it is fair to consider them in excommunication, as long as one distinguishes between degrees of excommunication. However a full excommunication, i.e. fully outside of communion with the Church, means that, by definition, you are not a member of the Body of Christ. As I said, I am not a canon lawyer, but I have read enough excommunication decrees in my study of the middle ages to know this with certainty. No one is baptized into a non-Catholic Church, because there is no other Church to be baptized into. Obviously, it would be silly however to think of all baptized people as "members" of the Church in the sense the article intends it (a headcount of people who are identifiable as Catholic). Thus I think we are working with two different ideas of membership, one theological and one practical. Theologically someone in a Lutheran church on Sunday might, by merit of baptism, be a member of the Church imperfectly in communion with the body of Christ due to heresy, and the ultimate nature of this communion will, like for everyone, be settled upon the final judgment. Nonetheless it would be strange for the article to think of this person as a "member" of the Catholic Church. Likewise, a group of priestesses in Germany ought not be described as members of the Catholic Church, baptized or not, even if the call themselves Catholic, exactly because they are under a ban of excommunication and blatantly flaunting any obedience to the Holy See. To "cease to be a member of the Church", theologically, means to be outside the Body of Christ and subject to damnation to Hell upon death lest one repent and subsequently re-enter the Church. Some people in this condition have formally defected, others might identify themselves as Catholic, be baptized, and whatnot. Formal defection seems a technicality not relevant here. Practically, in regards to this article, we cannot count as Catholic someone who was perhaps baptized, maybe even by a Catholic priest, but who now is a fiery Baptist preacher, just because some rector forgot to scratch his name off a baptismal register. It simply doesn't describe what anyone means by "membership". Heresy and apostasy might not constitute formal acts of defection, but an apostate or someone under a full excommunication could not rightly be thought a member in the sense meant here, anymore than a Lutheran (heretic) could. Now, to just be specific, I do not contest what you are trying to do here. I admire an adherence to both official documents and technical terms. But what I do insist on myself is that, firstly, "formally defecting" be understood as an act of apostasy which necessarily places someone under excommunication, i.e. outside the Body of Christ, unless there is some mitigating factor such as personal ignorance, and secondly that the words "heresy", "schism", "apostasy", and "excommunication" should be mentioned and used in relevant sections where they apply, and thirdly that no hint of denominationalism be implied, such as a line which could be misinterpreted in a way that someone would conclude that the Catholic Church considers itself to be just one particular group of Christians alongside all others who are apart of the bigger Christian community. In Catholic theology there is no bigger community, the Catholic Church is it, and outside the Catholic Church there can be no salvation. Lostcaesar 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lutherans are Christians. Are they members of the Roman Catholic Church? Obviously not. And since they are not its members, the Roman Catholic Church does not consider them bound by the rules that it makes for its own members, "merely ecclesiastical laws" as opposed to the laws and commandments of divine origin that apply to all Christians and to all human beings. So canon 11 of the Code says: "Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who were baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it ..." This is what distinguishes Catholics from other Christians.
 * [The Code of Canon Law] explicitly equates "being a member of the Catholic faithful" with canon 11's "were baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it". This commentary certainly does not say that someone baptized into a non-Catholic Church is a member of the Catholic Church.
 * The Church has now made clear how someone formally defects from the Church, and lays down that the fact of the defection must be entered in the baptismal registry. What does "defection from the Church" mean, other than ceasing to be a member of the Church? 


 * Sorry, I seem to have missed this page again yesterday evening.
 * LC rightly says that "it would be strange for the article to think of (someone who would qualify according to LC's ideas) as a 'member' of the Catholic Church." Yes, for the article is not about some invisible entity but about the concrete visible Church "which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him", into which already baptized persons can be received (making it obvious that previously they were not members), in which (the word is "in", not "into") people can be baptized (implicitly saying that they could also be baptized "in" another Church: otherwise the phrase "in the Catholic Church" would be otiose, since "baptized" alone would be enough), and which it takes more than a private act of heresy, schism or apostasy to leave. (However, as the text states, it is on the basis of a judgement on the genuineness of a person's act of heresy, schism or apostasy that the ecclesiastical authority makes a declaration that that person has in fact defected from the Church.)
 * LC also uses the word "excommunication" in the sense of "lack of communion". The only sense in which it is used in the Code of Canon Law is with regard to the medicinal penalty or "censure" (cf. canon 1312 §1) that in the Middle Ages was seen as exclusion from the Church but that in present-day canon law does not, listing its present-day effects in canon 1331.
 * I am no canon lawyer, unlike, it seems, CW. I am just someone who reads: books, including that very important part, the index, documents (which can largely be found on the Internet), ... Lima 08:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears I need to show that some excommunications do indeed place someone outside the Church. It seems I need only find one to prove my point, so I choose, from the many, this one (for no particular reason).  A papal decree of 1059:
 * "if any one, contrary to this our decree promulgated by a synodal vote, shall, through sedition or presumption or any wile, be elected or even ordained and enthroned: by the authority of God and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul he shall be subjected, as Antichrist and invader and destroyer of all Christianity, to a perpetual anathema, being cast out from the threshold of the holy church of God..."
 * Hence some excommunnications do indeed place the sunject outside the Church, and it is safe to say that he is "no longer a member" (unless the antichrist is a member). Lostcaesar 11:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That was the past. Discipline has changed.  Even the 1917 rules have changed: there is no longer a distinction between shunned and tolerated excommunicates.  We live in the present day, not the past.  While what occasions an excommunication may sometimes be considered valid grounds for a declaration of defection rather than for an excommunication, nowadays the excommunication does not in itself expel.  That is at least my reading of the present Code.
 * I have been trying to remember what was the phrase used mistakenly by the bishop who read a solemn decree of excommunication at the execution of Savonarola. Something like "I cut you off from the Church on earth and the Church in heaven."  Savonarola retorted with something like "From the Church on earth, yes; but not from the Church in heaven.  That is not under your jurisdiction."  Can you perhaps find out what exactly the bishop and Savonarola said?  Lima 13:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is where I find a problem. Excommunications come in degrees, some might not exclude the subject from the Church, some might.  Perhaps in the past such a distinction was not made (though perhaps they were), or perhaps pontiffs were less reluctant to use the full force of their Petrine gift.  Nonetheless the power of binding and loosing has not changed, at least not its nature, and as such there can still be excommunications given which are full.  The code of canon law says nothing against this to my knowledge.  This may be 2006, but it is the same Church, same power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and I know of no change in the potential execution of this power.  The Church has the authority to dispense the merits of Christ's sacrifice, to forgive or remit sins, to forgive or remit temporal punishment due for sin, and to bind or loose on earth in such a way that it will be bound or loosed in heaven – ergo, the Church's jurisdiction does not stop at the boarders of the afterlife.  I respect what you do here, and I think we are on the same side.  I am puzzled as to why you would specially wish to remove mention that an excommunication might place someone outside the Church, but that aside I will not revert the text today anymore, and will await your reply here.  I trust your judgement and knowledge, but on this matter I am simply unable to fully understand your position.  Lostcaesar 13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if we both let the question wait until tomorrow, the explanation will become clearer to one or other or both of us. At present, all I can say is that I think it is a question of terminology.  The same action that in the past might have been termed an excommunication would, I suggest, now be called a declaration of defection from the Catholic Church, and can certainly be carried out.  The distinction, in the Byzantine Churches, between "excommunication" and "anathema" (see Excommunication) may help in understanding the distinction.  I suppose that discipline was once identical or almost in both East and West, and that the word "excommunication" may, just perhaps, once have had exactly the same meaning that ἀφορισμός has in Greek: exclusion from Holy Communion.  Lima 14:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps indeed, my main interest here is that of terminology. I simply wish to ensure that no sentence could be interpreted as playing down the ramification of "formally renouncing membership".  In my experience in the English speaking world ecclesiology is generally so misunderstood that many would that this sentence in the wrong sense, namely that someone could "formally renounce membership" from the Catholic Church and instead go to another (because the coffee after service was fresher) without any effect on that person's status as a Christian.  Hence we need, I think, to use words like apostasy and excommunication to make clear that denominationalist ecclesiology is not implied.  Lostcaesar 22:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Being a member of the Catholic faithful" is precisely equal to "baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it". This is absolutely correct, and is what the Wikipedia article should say. However, what the article says is that "being a member of the Catholic faithful" equates to "baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, and did not (subsequently) defect from it by a formal act". This modification to the correct definition is what makes it wrong.

You quoted yourself that "In principle, Catholics who later abandoned the Church are not excluded from subjection to it, regardless of their possible good faith." This phrase "later abandoned the Church" covers not only schism, heresy, and apostasy, but also formal defection. The second English edition of the Navarra commentary (2004) also says, "Consequently, it is reasonable to establish in principle an objective obligation to adhere to laws; this obligation does not disappear by reason of the mere fact that one has abandoned the faith or broken the hierarchical communion." Defecting from the Church by a formal act is one way to abandon the faith, and it does not make the obligations of being a Catholic disappear, with the small exception of three specific canons in the Latin Rite code where "defection by a formal act" is specifically mentioned. The first paragraph of the PCILT letter identifies these canons explicitly: canons 1086.1, 1117, 1124. The Eastern Rite code has no such concept of "defection from the Church by a formal act", and thus Eastern Rite Catholics are still bound to marry in the Catholic Church even after they defect from it by a formal act.

The latest CLSA commentary (2000, not 1985) contains a nice explanation of "Once Catholic, always Catholic" in its discussion of canon 11, if you have (or have access to) a copy of that commentary. -- Cat Whisperer 17:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I again fail to understand CW, but I think CW's complaint is that the article mentions defection from the Catholic Church. But the Code of Canon Law clearly states that defection is possible.  Defection from the Church means leaving it, and that surely is relevant to the Church's membership.  Has CW forgotten the circumstances that led to the sending of the 13 March 2006 circular?  To avoid paying the Kirchensteuer (the tax that Germans pay to the state for transfer to the Church to which they declare they belong) German Catholics (and Protestants too) removed their "name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences", to quote the circular.  The Church in Germany took note of that and accordingly refused to such people the rights or privileges that members of the Church enjoy, and did not allow them to receive Communion, to be married in a Catholic church, to have their children baptized in the Catholic Church ...  The Pontifical Council's circular declared that this was wrong, that for defecting from the Church more was required than removing one's name from the registry, that the ecclesiastical authority itself had to pass judgement on whether someone really had cut himself or herself off "from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church".  Then the effects about receiving Communion etc. (not just the "three specific canons" to which CW refers) would come into force.  The only Internet article I can now find on the matter was on the French-language La Croix.  I hope CW finds it helpful.  Lima 08:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You correctly understand my complaint/problem with the article.


 * This is what goes wrong in the above reasoning: "Defection from the Church means leaving it, and that surely is relevant to the Church's membership". Abandoning the faith also means leaving it, and as the Navarra commentary explains, it is not relevant to Church membership.  Any other good commentary will explain the same thing.


 * As for "Then the effects about receiving Communion etc. (not just the 'three specific canons' to which CW refers) would come into force.": I was talking about the three specific obligations that are removed upon defection by a formal act, not the many rights and benefits which are lost upon abandoning the faith, whether by a formal act, or by a "notorious" and/or "public" act (see the rest of the first paragraph of the PCILT letter).


 * Anyway, good luck with your editing here. If you don't have any more questions, I'll be leaving this discussion. -- Cat Whisperer 12:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In the course of seeing what the Kirchensteuer was, I found this document online. Originally the blogger pictures of documents that were the supporting facts for what used to be in the "Membership" section would not have encyclopedic verifiability, but the canon law society document is. Thank You to whoever added it.

Some points:


 * The "Roman Catholic Church" and the "Catholic Church" are common names for the Church founded by Christ. Any properly baptized person becomes a member of the Church which Christ founded.


 * The indelible (?) mark of Baptism:
 * Baptism is permanent and irrevocable. A person cannot be "unbaptized," we might say. A baptized person who was once in full communion with the Church but later apostasizes or enters into heresy or schism may enter into full communion again with the Church through proper reception of the Sacrament of Penance and, usually, the lifting of the automatic excommunication that is usually imposed on account of an act of apostasy, schism, or heresy. A properly baptized person usually enters into full communion with the Church by a proper and formal profession of faith.


 * Statistics on the Church's population are for calculating the Roman Pontiff's and Episcopate's sphere of influence and very possibly the number of persons who are in full communion with the Church (unless "full communion" excludes those in mortal sin and/or under automatic excommunication in which case the statistics are probably quite inaccurate), but NOT the membership in the Church itself, which is much higher.

Maybe we need to make the distinction between "membership" in the Church and "full communion" with the Church. JBogdan 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still following these discussions, so here is two more cents. The distinction is between membership in the "visible structure" of the Catholic Church and membership in the "Mystical Body of Christ" outside its visible structure. Lumen Gentium 8 says: Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body. This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. -- Cat Whisperer 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Bogdan and CW for interesting remarks.
 * Bogdan's point 1 has, I think, been dealt with in the discussion with Lost Caesar above: Not every properly baptized person becomes a member of the concrete visible (Roman) Catholic Church that this article is about. If someone baptized in another Church wishes to be a member, he must be "received" into it, an indication that previously he was not a member.
 * Point 2. The March 2006 document says that an act of apostasy, heresy or schism (which can be forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance) is not in itself defection from the Church.  And someone who apostasizes or becomes a heretic or schismatic as an act of formal defection, as envisaged in the same document, would, I suppose, have to be received back into the Church in the same way as a baptized person who had never been a member is received.
 * Point 3.  The Church is composed of sinners, as it confesses at the start of every Mass.  Some particularly great sinners may perhaps value all the more their belonging to (their membership of) the Church and may all the more reject any idea of "rupture of those bonds of communion - faith, sacraments and pastoral governance - that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church", to quote once again the March 2006 circular.  The same can happen also for someone who has also incurred excommunication, say a woman who has procured an abortion.   Lima 20:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point I was trying to get across in the article is that any properly baptized person is a member of the Church Christ founded, although they may not be in full communion with the Church (or should we say the Roman Pontiff?), and that a person, although they may fully will to leave it, will never be able to cease being a Christian in God's eyes. JBogdan 22:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as to the idea. But in an article that most will interpret as being about the concrete visible Church, would it not confuse readers, especially those who do not belong to the Church?  The membership question arose here originally because of editors who, wishing to diminish the statistics of membership, put forward the (contrary) idea that only those who attend church regularly should be counted as members.  I think we should limit the account of membership to the juridical membership defined by the Church itself as "baptized in or received into", a juridical membership that, as the Church recognizes, can be renounced, though the sacramental bond remains.  As someone said, we know who is in the Church, we do not know who is not in the Church.  We should limit our statements to what is known.  Lima 05:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholocism is not Christian
This is believed by many people, including other Christians, and I plan to add a section on this at some point in the future. I'll either create a new subsection called "Criticisms" or put it within the existing "Perspectives" section. Is there a Wiki article somewhere about this? If so please tell me where it is. Then it may not be necessary to go into it in great detail but just refer readers to the main article. Thank you.

Lusitano Transmontano 17:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that Catholicism predates every single Protestant denomination and Protestants broke away from the Catholic faith, I'm not sure on what grounds this statement would be made. IrishGuy talk 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This sounds more like a theological argument between Protestants and Catholics. If I understand it properly, perhaps it should be developed in greater detail in the article on Protestantism, as this would be a major justification behind Luther's break with the Pope. -- Todeswalzer | Talk 18:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church. -- Cat Whisperer 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And even that section is factually questionable. It states that most Protestants consider Catholics apostate, when that position is regarded by most protestants as extreme.  The minority that holds it is very vocal, but it is a minority.  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticism of the Catholic Church is not a very good article overall. It's mostly unsourced speculation, and receives much less examination as a result of being split off from this article.  It's at least close to violation a the Content Forking guideline, and would probably be better merged back into this article.  TSP 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Most secular historians reguard Catholicism as Cristian. I can think of a few definitions of a Christian, I'm not sure which is correct, but these to me seem to be the most convincing: 1. To be Christian is to be a believer in the resurection of Christ. 2. someone who tries to live the teachings of Christ. In both cases Catholics classify as Christians, however some Protestants may not classify in the second definition, as many Protestants believe that morality changes with society and culture, in which case the teachings of Christ are out of date. Thebike 01:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The view exists - the Criticism of the Catholic Church article even gives one of its rare citations for it. It should be mentioned; along with its prevalence and those who dispute it.  We don't need to analyse here all our personal reasons for thinking it isn't true; under the neutral point of view policy, we simply need to document the existence of the view, not decide whether Wikipedia believes it's accurate or not. TSP 03:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was responsible for laying out much of the structure of the Criticism of the Catholic Church article although it has changed a bit in the 4-5 months since I edited it. For one thing, I hadn't seen the "most Protestants who make public pronouncements... call Catholics apostate Christians" until today.  I think that is a bit over the top.  So, please don't hold me responsible for everything in the Criticism article.


 * There was discussion 4-5 months ago about whether the Criticism article should be merged into this one. There are two problems: first, discussing the topic adequately would make this article to long.  Second, there are a number of Catholic editors of this article that would insist on rebutting every criticism thus either gutting the treatment of the topic "Criticism" or turning this article into an unending POV debate.


 * Yes, I understand that the second argument suggests that the Criticism article has some of the characteristics of a POV fork. On the other hand, there are articles on Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Judaism so there is at least an existing model for organizing things this way.


 * Finally, there was some discussion 4-5 months ago about breaking this article up into a series of articles titled Catholicism and X. It was suggested that the various criticisms could be treated in each of those subarticles.  The effort to split this article up into subarticles seems to have gotten backburnered and thus the splitting of the Criticism article has likewise been backburnered.


 * --Richard 04:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems a bit strange to me. Should we go on every page for a protestant church and add a section of quotes of papal and council's decrees expressing that groups various heresies, and concluding with the view that the church may be in anathema? I guess we could. Maybe we should, but it doesn't seem to encyclopedic. Maybe there is a way to include that very fringe view here, but I am not sure if it really has a place or not. Whatever the case, far more people in the world think that Catholic and Christian are synonymous, and anyone not Catholic is a schismatic or heretical Christian, that that that view would be more relevant and pertinent than this one. Lostcaesar 07:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If those comments have been made specifically about that church, yes. For example, Anglicanism includes mention of Roman Catholic views on Anglican orders. TSP 11:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because there is a belief out there, it doesn't mean it has to be included on WP. There's a threshhold of popularity it must meet. And on a personal note, i find this belief to be a hilarious example of backwards thinking, and if the view were to become commonplace i would have to say that protestantism had finally reached its ultimate goal. 2nd Piston Honda 13:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Abuse
It should be noted, in some context, the sex abuse scandals. It is never mentioned that an underlying anti-Catholic sentiment exists in particular in the United States where much of the accusations have occured. For comparison, a Hare Krishna school not so long ago was charged in a massive sex scandal which was not alleged as were many in the Catholic Church, but rather proven, as well as two recent Episcopalean cases with amount in the hundreds of millions in single deals. There is little mention of this and the "other side" should be mentioned as well. Also, the statute of limitations for these types of acts was ignored when prosecuting Catholic clergy for cases 30-40 years old. Most of these priests were dissisent priests during the 1960s, I might add. There should be more of this information. I wish to add these points in some form, but I wanted to announce these beforehand so that others may contribute also. --24.91.40.69 02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you are proposing sounds on the surface dangerously close to both POV and OR. There is no doubt a good deal of anti-Catholic sentiment, particularly in the USA, but that fact needs to have a valid reason for reference to it &mdash; say public pronouncements, with sources, by bishops claiming such a sentiment motivates some or all of the cases.  Info about those other abuse cases just do not belong in this article, period, as they are off topic.  Details of individual cases (e.g., statute of limitation issues, dissident status, etc.) should probably be omitted altogether here, especially since there is a separate article about the abuse scandal; that type of discussion would be fine there.


 * That said, so long as you keep in mind WP principles, go ahead and make your contributions if you like. I would think a better way than more "rebuttals" (which incites "rebuttals to rebuttals", etc) to improve the section is to tone down the current language somewhat (e.g., "wealth", "furor", "revelations"; there are others) and source better (the Ireland claim, summarize rather than quote the Catholic News content, etc.). But be bold.


 * Also, try getting an account so it is easier to communicate with you. Baccyak4H 04:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We may also want to mention that a large proportion of the accusations have actually been proven to be false by secular authorities. The most famous example of that here in Oz is the 2002 case when Cardinal George Pell was falsely accused by a man with a long criminal record of having abused him when he was 12. Thebike 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Possible, but be neutral and concise. Perhaps, "Some cases have been determined to be without merit[citation], while most others are moving through their respective legal systems".  But again, probably better still in the main article about the abuse allegations proper.   Baccyak4H 04:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Baptism of Desire
Salvation for those outside the church is possible through the "baptism of desire" "Baptism of desire" is a good term, but I wonder if this new paragraph could be integrated into the preceding one, which essentially says the same thing... Freder1ck 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

Excommunication
I had a question about this passage:
 * In particular, excommunication no longer constitutes expulsion from membership in the Church. The present Code of Canon Law, which in canon 1331 lists the effects of excommunication, makes no mention of the word "Anathema", which the earlier (1917) Code of Canon Law had already made synonymous with excommunication, abolishing degrees of excommunication (minor, major and anathema).

Is this passage saying that the 1917 code abloished the degrees of excommunication, or that the more recent code does, and if it is the more recent one, where in the code is this explicitly stated? Lostcaesar 09:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is covered under the article excommunication with the citation,
 * "Excommunicants lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty." New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed. by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 63 (commentary on canon 11).
 * I have not read this myself, but you may wish to check it. If so, the recent deletion is an OR reversion of a sourced statement.  Robert A.West (Talk) 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Robert, I will have a look (ps. I did not delete anything). Lostcaesar 13:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you didn't. I should have been clearer. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Honda has deleted the paragraph on excommunication on the basis of his own-authority declaration: "An excommunication is by its very nature an official breaking or expulsion from the church." I have no objection whatever to omitting all mention of excommunication, provided nobody inserts this idea of Honda's in the article.  If they do, I must insist that they prove their assertion ("An excommunication is ...) on the basis of the present canon law of the Catholic Church, not just past canon law.  They may indeed be right, but, if they want this statement to be in Wikipedia, they must show that it is verifiable.  The present Code of Canon Law, which lists the consequences of excommunication without mentioning this effect, seems to contradict Honda's statement.  Lima 13:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems then a revert is appropriate. I do hold the opinion though that once done the transition could be cleaner; seems to be setting off the issue about excommunication with weight I think somewhat undue.  I may get back to addressing it if no one else does first.  Baccyak4H 15:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the new canon law omits things, that doesn't mean it denies them or retracts them. All old laws that have not been changed by the new laws are still in effect. If you insist on adding your theory that excommunicants are still members of the Church, then if i find an old law that contradicts this, i'll have to add it and make clear that the church has recently changed its teaching. 2nd Piston Honda 06:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Piston Honda: Please learn something about Canon Law before pronouncing upon it. The promulgation of the New Code in fact replaced the old code, hence, yes, if it isn't mentioned in the New Code or some legislation in connection with it, then it has in fact ceased to exist. You're comment also seems to completely misapprehend the very purpose of excommunication: it is not a vindictive penalty to be used by the perfect against the imperfect, it is a medicinal penalty to be used in the process of perfecting the imperfect - hence, it loses its canonical purpose had it ever meant what you are suggesting.HarvardOxon 06:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

When did i describe it as vindictive and not in the best interest of the one receiving the excommunication? If what you say is true about the new canon law replacing the old, then it is by that law that anything omitted from the new law is no longer in effect, so my point stands that old laws don't lose effect but by another law. 2nd Piston Honda 06:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Canon 6, paragraph 1, section 1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law abolishes the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Gentgeen 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you read my post? I wasn't disputing that. But thanks for the reference. 2nd Piston Honda 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As assistance to Honda, I quote from canon 6 of the present Code: "When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated: ... All penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, unless they are resumed in this Code itself ..."

Canon 6 of the 1917 Code said much the same: "With regard to penalties, spiritual or temporal, medicinal or so-called vindictive, latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae, that are not mentioned in this Code, they are to be regarded as abrogated."

Accordingly, all preceding laws on excommunication not mentioned in the 1917 Code were "retracted" by it; and in 1983 the Church "retracted" the 1917 laws and any later pre-1983 laws on excommunication that were not taken up in the present Code. Lima 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lima, why would you quote that right after what my last post said? Is anyone even reading the discussion? 2nd Piston Honda 14:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Honda, I did read your post. As I understand it, it said that old laws concerning excommunication still hold.  I hope you weren't offended by my pointing out that both Codes of Canon Law say the opposite.  I am grateful for the corrections of my ideas that I receive from my Wikipedia colleagues.


 * As for inserting a statement that excommunication does not now exclude from membership of the Church, in my own first posting in this section I declared, I think clearly, that I have no objection to complete omission of such a statement, but that I would object to a contradictory statement being inserted.


 * It is a fact so evident that it called for no comment from anybody, that, if someone else inserts a statement that excommunication does not now exclude from membership, you are quite free to say the law has been changed. Nobody will object to your doing so, provided, of course, that you document what you say with a trustworthy source.  If you have difficulty in finding such a source, I will gladly help you search for one.  Lima 16:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue was over a long time ago. Read ALL of the posts. 2nd Piston Honda 01:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, I want to point out that the two excommunications enacted by the 1884 Third Plenary Council of Baltimore were not abrogated by the 1917 Code, since those excommications were from particular law and not from universal law. -- Cat Whisperer 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Series on the Roman Catholic Church
I'd like it if anyone could make a series for the Roman Catholic Church, don't ya think? Falconleaf 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Diocese / Archdiocese
I am wondering about the introduction, where it says "the basic administrative unit is the diocese". Aren't there also archdioceses? Have never really understood the distinction, but during most of the time I was a Catholic, I lived in an archdiocese. Perhaps someone could clarify? Thanks.rich 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * other than the diocese is headed by a bishop while archdiocese is headed by an archbishop? i dont think theres really any difference other than that, but maybe the more knowledged people on this subject know more subtle differences than that --Blckavnger 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "diocese" is often used to cover more than those jurisdictions that are dioceses in a narrow sense. Just as "bishop" also covers archbishops - after all, they too are members of a "bishops" (episcopal) conference - and nuncios and ...  In any case, the mention here is of the basic unit: that's all we can talk about in the introduction, where it would be silly to elaborate on variations such as archdiocese, metropolitan archdiocese, apostolic vicariate, territorial prelature, etc. etc. Lima 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI Rrrich7: The basic unit of the Church is the diocese, a group of Catholics headed by a bishop -- in fact, the sacrament of Holy Orders in the order of bishop is there to create men to hold this leadership position. A diocese may be defined by geography (a particular place) or quality (all of the Catholics, regardless of place, who serve in the military of a particular country, for instance). Other things (territorial abbacies, apostolic vicariates, etc.) are "like" diocese, but don't quite follow the regular rules to account for some specific circumstances. Some men ordained as bishops do not have diocese to head -- they are "titular bishops," fully ordained, but given the name of a now-nonexistent diocese as a sort of honorary position to acknowledge that a bishop is really there to head a diocese (these non-existent diocese usually existed long ago, but disappeared for any of several reasons). These bishops, with their honorary titles to diocese, are assigned to assist bishops who really do head diocese (they become "auxiliary bishops" to the bishop of the diocese) or to other administrative jobs in the church.

All bishops, by being ordained bishops, are equal, in that sense. They just have different jobs.

An "arch-diocese" is just a big diocese. The bishop who heads it gets to be called "archbishop."

Diocese are normally grouped together into provinces of several diocese and one archdiocese. The archbishop of that archdiocese has certain supervisory duties and ceremonial precedence within the province. That archbishop is known as "metropolitan" of the province. He is the equal of all other bishops by ordination, and each bishop runs his own diocese, but the metropolitan-archbishop has limited supervisory powers.

Groups of provinces may, in the Eastern Rites (see that article), come under a "patriarch" or a "major archbishop." Again, this is simply an ordained bishop who has been given a supervisory role over the provinces, and thuse the diocese, in a territory or belonging to a particular ethnic/language/historical traditioon within the Catholic Church.

So, for instance, the Diocese of Baton Rouge is made up of a whole bunch of parishes and answers to a bishop. The Archdiocese of New Orleans is also made up of a bunch of parishes, and answers to an ordained bishop who gets the title "archbishop." The two bishops are equal by their ordination, and each runs his own diocese, but the bishop of Baton Rouge owes a certain respect and deference to the archbishop as head of the province.HarvardOxon 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholics Still In Charge Here
I've been away for at least 3 months. I needed a break. And, I can see that the same old bitter anti-Catholic hounds still have their teeth sunk into this article. It's wicked, really. It is clear that the Catholic Church prefers to call itself the "Catholic Church" yet, one would hardly know that from the evidence presented in the terminology section. Of course the battle over the terminology section is really a battle over the name of this article, so the anti-Catholics have no concern for facts or for representing the full weight of all sides of the argument. Their interest is only in cementing their bias against a Church they despise. I would encourage Catholics involved in WP to pull themselves together and settle this thing once and for all. WP really should not be the playground of bigotry. Unfortunately, it is.

Why is it that all reference to the preference for CC in the most authoritative documents of the Church has been forbidden? Council Documents and over 50 years of papal encyclicals which are the highest authorities among Church documents is uttlerly ignored, which several exceptions over 50 years old are notably highlighted. There is something at work here that is utterly committed against the TRUTH. Vaquero100 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vaquero, if you insist on referring to people such as Lima and me as "anti-Catholic", which I find personally offensive, I will be prompted to seek community sanction. Slac speak up! 23:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vaquero, one day the world will pass away, and these matters with it. Until then, there are graver things that trouble us than this.  Zeal is a virtue only when well-placed.  I agree with the essence of your point, but the problem is small, and overshadowed by much greater woes.  Lose the battle; win the war.  Lostcaesar 23:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Slack, as much as relish a power-play, I mentioned no one by name. This issue is a dynamic of hate and untruth. Deal with it. Vaquero100 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How dare you blast your way onto this talk-page, ranting wild-eyed about "hate and untruth," viciously denouncing "wicked" people who "despise" the Church, and then tell me and others to "deal with it". The bilious name-calling is emanating only from one partisan in this debate.  Wholly unbecoming behaviour from a man of the cloth. Slac speak up! 03:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested in a legitimate argument on the name of this article based on WP policies and not on blatant distortions would do well to read: User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC  Vaquero100 02:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmm, instead of trying to blast the histrionics of this into Grand Opera and a titanic, apocalyptic struggle between the Forces of Light and Goodness and the nefarious powers of Satanic evil, it might be useful to be something less egomaniacal - Vaquero is not the last, Nietzschistic hero of Christianity.

The truth is this: the term "catholic" (small C) was used from early days, starting with Ignatius of Antioch in the earliest 2nd Century. We all know this. We all know it means "universal," and he was using it as a descriptive adjective, not as a name. So, the problem is this: the institution that is loyal to the Pope (not to be denigrating at all, but to use alternative language for a moment) calls itself The Catholic Church, because that group belives it has kept, unchanged, all the truths and traditions of the apostles. In 1054 (yes, more complicated that that date, but just bear with me), that group and another group parted company - those who call themselves Orthodox by their very name claim to be The True Church which has maintained its orthodoxy from the time of the apostles. Indeed, they have used the term "Orthodox Catholic" in history, yet the Pope-Catholics also believe themselves to be orthodox and the Orthodox schismastics. Then the 1517-plus separation created folks like what we call Anglicans who, in fact, claim to have preserved the unchanged faith and yet acknowledge all Christians with certain base beliefs to be part of catholic (small C) Christianity.

In other words, Catholic Church (big C) means the Pope-people, who consider themselves orthodox (small o). Orthodox and some Anglicans (even "Anglo-Catholics") consider themselves to be catholic (small C) and the Catholics (big C) to be heterodox (at least on some level -- let's not get etchnical about this). Other Anglicans consider everybody to be both catholic and orthodox (small c and small o), each in their own branch.

Catholics have not objected to being called Roman Catholics (indeed, many American parishes are "Our Lady of So-and-so RC Church"; Brit Catholics are known as "RC," and the military has always used "RC" as the abbreviation for soldiers' faith preference on dog tags), but then again few Anglicans or Orthodox have rioted in the streets to demand that they call themselves "Roman" Catholics, particularly when it is clear that there is a distinction between big C and little c catholic.

What should have been a very easily handled one sentence solution (by making the initial sentence of the article something like, "The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church are the names used by the Christian church which believes that it is the continuation of the institution they say that Jesus Christ founded with the apostles as leaders, and which acknowledges the Pope as its head on earth.") has this been "wikified," as so many things are on wikipedia, into the ultimate struggle between the God-hating vicious abominators and Holy Mother Church, or between the Romish Papists of priestcraft and the Remnant of the Elect and Predestined, or something.

The main article should be "Catholic Church" with alternative "Roman Catholic Church," and a disambiguation page to "catholic church" to explain the "branch theory" of Christianity.HarvardOxon 02:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

One should not use ad hominem attacks in order to decry such.

Before launching off into a lecture on the history of "catholic" and "Catholic," you would do well to review the policies of WP which are quite clear. Arguments over who is theologically or historically correct are beside the point. WP sets out very clear procedures for determining which forms of a name to be used for self-naming entities. It clearly states that self naming entities should be called on WP by their preferred name. This preference is to be determined by a variety of tests. For a clear presentation on the matter rather than a diatribe, please see User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC. If you propose that the matter has nothing to do with anti-Catholicism, you might want to note that the Anglican Church has been on a 400 year campaign to change the name of the Catholic Church. This is well documented here:. Mr. Harvard, you seem to be impressed with youself on this topic. Why dont you look at some resources that do not just confirm your own bias?

Also, you should know that when Latin Rite churches in England and the US call themselves RC, they are correct because this is a reference to the Western Rite of the Church. You will never find an Eastern Rite Church anywhere in the world calling itself "Roman." There is no such thing as a Ukrainian "Roman" Catholic parish or anything else. Such a moniker simply does not exist.

I agree with your assessment that this article should be at CC rather than RCC, but lets not be mistaken about the origins of this dispute. The majority of English speakers are non-Catholics which is why RCC is supported by votes on WP. It is an ingrained anti-Catholic bias which even clear WP policies cannot shake. Anti-Catholicism is alive and well. Note that there is a new book on the subject: "Anti-Catholicism: The last acceptible prejudice." The author, Philip Jenkins point is that there is a rising bigotry against the Church particularly among gays and lesbians and particularly among other Christian Churches which are pro-gay. Ironically, it is the same denomination which invented the moniker, "Roman Catholic" which now ordains gay and lesbian bishops. It is, therefore, only be deceit that this anti-Catholicism is not brought into the open but played out in proxy battles on WP which seek to mis-direct readers away from this article if they look it up using the term, "Catholic." All evidence suggests that this is the mostly likely search term someone would use to find this page, and the readers efforts are thwarted by the ideologies of the few in order to distort information and misdirect the common WP user. This is sick and wrong.

Vaquero100 04:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

One should not use ad hominem attacks? Vaquero, you're the one screaming about the "sickness" of those who disagree. And since I wind up actually supporting your position about the name of the article, who is the "sick and wrong" one? Me? Or the alleged clergyman who has nothing in his heart but a paranoid, freaked out persecution complex? You make me embarrassed to be Catholic, and your self-aggrandizing, hate-spewing screeds of fear and terror make you come across less as a priest and more as a pharisee. Its no wonder so many people who love Christianity can't stand the company of its clergy. Cool it, Vaquero - you make Luther's argument for him. Your only contribution to Wiki seems to have been wild shrieking about the use of the word Roman. If that's an indication of the myopic, limited approach to your ministry, its no wonder to some of us Catholics why the church is bleeding members so heavily to the Protestants and Unitarians.HarvardOxon 05:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me say that I think Vaquero, despite swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, is right. Let me briefly articulate an argument.  The Church far more frequently, and historically, calls itself the Catholic Church.  The only reason not to use that name is that some other groups think that they are the real Catholic Church, or at the least that the RCC isn't the real CC (this argument is subtly applied whenever the word "denomination" is used).  But look these wikipedia pages: Churches of Christ, United Church of Christ, and Church of God.  Obviously, other Christian communities consider themselves the Church of God, and the RCC likewise calls itself the Church of Christ, i.e. the Church that Christ founded.  But those pages are not changed to a disembogues page.  Yes, some Christian groups do not think the Catholic Church is really the Catholic Church, and they likewise don't think that the Church of Christ is the Church of Christ; but if one types in the latter it directs to that page (even at the expense of the "United" Church of Christ), and one must follow a dab header there to get to the theological concept of "Church of Christ".  Now, all that said, I think this is a point not worth throwing things over, and I don't think someone can object to the title Roman Catholic &mdash; indeed I'm rather proud of that adj. myself (there is something universal about the word "roman" as well).  But, if we just look at the argument, I think Vaquero has a reason to be in angst.  Lostcaesar 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Church is not a democracy...
...so will all the ecclesioloigically ill-informed malcontents please stop contributing. Particularly whoever keeps inserting the usage of Roman Catholic as a reference to the whole Catholic Church, and claiming that the Holy See never uses Catholic CHurch for reference to the whole. In fact, the opposite is true. So please, simply wanting it to be and voting that way does not change the facts.

The only time you will find "Roman Catholic" used to refer to the whole Catholic Church is in informal context, or in ecumenical dialogues where the non-Catholic partner is either dialoguing directly with the Latin Rite church, or prefers use of "Roman Catholic". This isn't advanced ecclesiology either, its the pre-reading to 101. I have two degrees in this field, including one from a pontifical institute, so i feel confident i know this better than someone who gets their formation from EWTN's Q&A page or some blog somewhere. The name of the Church is Catholic; Roman refers generally and exclusively to the Latin Rite. But if you want to get real technical, "Roman Catholic" can refer only to the diocese or province of Rome... It is not used officially for the universal church, certainly not since Vatican II.

Protoclete 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In the article, Protoclete also claimed:
 * "When refering to itself, the Church uses the name "Catholic Church" most often.
 * Most ecclesiolgists (theologians who specialize in the nature of the church) apply the term Roman Catholic Church only to the Western or Latin Church."

Now for some of his other claims above:
 * "The only time you will find 'Roman Catholic' used to refer to the whole Catholic Church is in informal context, or in ecumenical dialogues where the non-Catholic partner ... prefers use of 'Roman Catholic'." What about the two papal encyclicals referenced (references he deleted)?  And, if "Roman Catholic Church" is used in ecumenical dialogues, doesn't that show that the Church accepts this designation, even if it prefers others.
 * Who does he think claims that the Holy See never uses "Catholic Church" to refer to the whole of the Church? The text and references that he deleted show that editors in general recognize that it does call itself the Catholic Church, that it actually prefers "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church", but that its most common way of referring to itself is simply as "the Church", since it feels no more need today to specify which Church it is than it needed when there was as yet no other Church to distinguish itself from.
 * "i feel confident i know this better than someone who gets their formation from EWTN's Q&A page." Protoclete's original research, apparently: I don't think he can produce any citation in support of this. Lima 20:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A.S.R.I. What do these letters stand for?
I have seen them in pictures of the cruxifiction of Jesus and I am wondering what they stand for and what language.


 * Perhaps you're thinking of INRI? TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Traces
Just reverted a bit from the page due to grammatical issues (claims is an Intransitive verb and so cannot take a direct object (its institution). The verb traces communicates that this is a claim of the Catholic Church, but also conveys the idea that this claim is more or less documented (not necessarily definitive). Reverted bit follows: The Catholic Church claims its institution to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, in particular Saint Peter, the leader of the Apostles, who is regarded as the first Pope. (called the Petrine Theory) Freder1ck 03:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck