Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Reggio Calabria-Bova

First name: Antonio or Matteo Ricci?
In the new Matteo Ricci (archbishop) article, David M. Cheney is referenced for the idea that the first name of Ricci was Matteo. In Cheney's article on Matteo Ricci, he references Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica II, p. 222, but Eubel gives the name as 'Antonius de Rizzis', not Matteo. Cheney therefore seems to contradict his own source.

Gabriel Chow, GCatholic, also names 'Matteo' Ricci, but provides no reference.

Both of these authors are self-published.

The only place where I can find 'Matteo Ricci' is on the archdiocesan website: Diocese of Reggio Calabria: "CRONOTASSI DEI VESCOVI DI REGGIO CALABRIA", but the list is unreferenced, and no author takes responsibility. It appears to be self-published.

The published and editorially peer reviewed material should take precedence: Eubel, who uses the name Antonio. Other published sources also use the name Antonio. Consider, for example the tradition of the Chancellery of Aragon, which used the name Antonio Ricci (letter of Ferdinand I): The Catholic Encyclopedia uses Antonio Ricci.

Ricci's own funeral monument in Naples uses the name Antonio Ricci: Ferdinando Ughelli, U. Coleti, Italia sacra 2nd edition Tomus IX, p. 532.

--Vicedomino (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" in article
Since seems rather interested in the preservation of the term "Roman Catholic" within the article, I figured I would raise the issue on the talk page in order to elicit conversation. Vicedomino's position appears to stem from the consensus-developed convention of entitling Latin Church ecclesiastical territory articles as "Roman Catholic." While that consensus is rather well-established and not in question here (even if debate can be found elsewhere), I have recently been improving ecclesiastical territory articles for the purpose of clarifying which sui iuris church and ecclesiastical provinces that they are party to, along with other minor alterations as needed. The term "Roman Catholic" has been steadily removed from the text of other articles regarding the Catholic Church–including the article on the church itself–for its unofficial and imprecise character. "Roman" can mean a number of things in the context of Catholicism, including mere union with Rome (allowing description of Maronites as "Roman Catholic"), membership of the Latin Church (such as this archdiocese is), or usage of the Roman Rite (again, as this archdiocese does). A more clear and explicit description of what this archdiocese is can be found in describing it as a "Latin Church ecclesiastical territory or diocese of the Catholic Church." There is no universal consensus (or at least no standing consensus) on using "Roman Catholic" within the text of articles, so why not defer to official terminology that contains better detail? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pbritti looks at things from an entirely Roman Catholic viewpoint, attempting to arrogate the term "Catholic" to refer only to his catholic church. There are other catholic churches, hence the possibility of confusion in the minds, not of the zealots, but of the ordinary uninformed user who is looking for neutral unbiased information. Other Catholic Churches include (but are not limited to the Old Catholic Church (Utrecht), the Armenian Catholic Church, and the American Catholic Church (1915). Pvbritti's attempt to clarify "Roman Catholic" is tendentious; his examples all refer to internal distinctions within the Roman Catholic Church.  I repeat that there has beern a steady effort to rename articles of the form "diocese of...." to "Roman Catholic Diocese of...". Hence the claim that the term "Roman Catholic" has been steadily removed from the text of other articles is true only for his fussing about.


 * In England, by the way, "The Church" is always the Church as established by law, of which Queen Elizabeth is the Supreme Governor. It considers itself to be a catholic church. They almost always speak of "Papists" or "Roman Catholics", not just plain "Catholics". Until 1829, Roman Catholics could not have churches, and when they could, they had to be called "chapels", not "churches" (this applied to all non-juring congregations), because "church" referred to the Church as established by law. Terminology is a very sensitive matter. RC bishops were not allowed to display coats-of-arms, since such frippery implied nobility, and they were NOT conferred by the monarch, the fount of all honors, but by a foreign potentate. Same applied to RC dioceses, which were not allowed to use the names of already established dioceses, which were part of the Church as established by law. Hence no RC bishop of Durham, or York, or London.


 * --Vicedomino (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You are either intentionally attempting to mischaracterize me or misunderstand me immensely. I am painfully aware of the interpretation of the term "Catholic" that necessitates clarification–my focus of study at university was the history of Anglicanism and Eastern Christianity. In other discussions, you can see me argue against such zealous editorializing that you suggest I am guilty of–without evidence.


 * You seem to be arguing that refusing to include the term "Roman Catholic" whenever discussing the Church in communion with Bishop of Rome is going to lead to confusion. However, your argument would be significantly stronger if the title of the church in question was not simply "Catholic Church". Indeed, your position and argumentation that the inclusion of "Roman Catholic" in the body of text and not just in the title is suggestive of an anglocentric perspective of the Catholic Church. (As an aside: you note the Armenian Catholic Church as a separate catholic church, though it would be included in your definition of "Roman Catholic"–precisely the sort of confusion I am attempting to avoid!)


 * I would suggest you do a number of things: 1. do not assume someone who disagrees with you is a religious extremist attempting to sully the hard academic work you've put forward on this site 2. consider the purpose of a good faith edit as exactly that: good faith and 3. respond to the argument in question. The utility of discussing internal Catholic Church organization on an article on an internal Catholic Church organization is anything but "tendentious." Instead, it's a practical consideration for the sake of the reader, be they Polish National Catholic, Sunni Muslim, or–Heaven forbid–Canadian. As the article on the Catholic Church eschews with the term within its text (as does more recently constructed articles I've had no hand in), I will be reverting back to edits I made unless you can point to a consensus on this talk page or a similar diocesan talk page by the end of the week (16th or 17th, depending on where you are) ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I neither said nor meant most of the things that your interpretation claims I meant. As to "anglocentric", you infer motives that are not there. I merely provided an example demonstrating a situation in which "catholic" does not accept the equation of Catholic and Roman Catholic. As to consensus, you claimed consensus to justify your tinkering, not I.


 * Consider this: When many churches recite the Nicene Creed, and they come to, "And I believe in the Holy Spirit... the Holy Catholic Church... etc.." a large number of the parishoners most specifically do NOT think of the church of Rome. That includes nearly all of the Greek Orthodox churches."  --Vicedomino (talk) 18ac:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)o


 * It seems like you lack reference any consensus made on this Wiki, even if your quotation of the Creed is a welcome change from discussion of this subject elsewhere. Your reference to the Orthodox is fascinating, but lacks real power, as in the English-speaking world since the 1940s, Greek and Oriental alike invariably refer to themselves primarily as "Orthodox." If I were to refer to something as "Russian Orthodox," I would be using an official and academic term that no less challenges those who profess that the Russian Greek Catholic Church is "Russian" and "Orthodox." Until such a point as you can muster such a consensus that demonstrates reference to an entity as the "Catholic Church" could be reasonably construed as either reference to a broader assemblage of Christian denominations or an implicit endorsement of the Church of Rome's exclusive claim to the title–such a consensus being opposed to the general consensus to abrogate the term "Roman Catholic" in text not dealing with traditionally Protestant regions or concepts–my edits ought stand.


 * In any case, your implications were quite clear in your response. To quote the first sentence of your response: "Pbritti looks at things from an entirely Roman Catholic viewpoint, attempting to arrogate the term "Catholic" to refer only to his catholic church." If a Wikipedian who is Catholic is not expected to reasonably introduce standards that are present on other pages of this Wiki to pages relevant to his faith, then there is a clear fault in your thinking. Also, I did take offense to your presumption that I look at matters from "an entirely Roman Catholic standpoint." Despite what 2,000 years of ecclesiastical (mis)administration might suggest, I am entirely capable of critical thinking and have only undertaken my most recent project after consulting numerous sources from both outside this website and from within it. This is the same process I can see in your excellent additions to innumerable articles of medieval interest. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are expected to be neutral in tone. This argument has gone far beyond its original purpose, and is becoming excessively personal, which is a violation of Wikipedia. Let's end this, and leave commenting to others. - Preceding unsigned comment left by User:Vicedomino, 19:54 UTC, 15 July 2021


 * Not entirely sure what Vicedomino means regarding the last comment. Considering that this is the sole objection to the elimination of "Roman Catholic" across every diocesan article, the edits I made to this page will be reintroduced at the end of the week unless further objections are raised. Additionally, I will be appending a talk page notice to each article I adjust in such a manner to permit further development of a community consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)