User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Names of the Catholic Church

Relevant policies and guidelines
Let's look at what the relevant policies say:

From WP:PRIMARY - "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

From WP:SYNTH - "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research."

From |WP:RS

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.

Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

McBrien
Gimmetrow, thank you for your assistance in collecting sources for this page. I am particularly intrigued by the assertions made by McBrien. Can you supply a direct quote? Thanx. --Richard (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For what part? Remember this is a recent book, so we don't want to copy entire pages. Gimmetrow 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard McBrien discusses this In Catholicism (1994), p.4. "Are Catholics who are in communion with Rome, Roman Catholics or just plain Catholics?" Gives arguments It is "evident from the title which the author finds compelling." "To choose one side, however, is not necessarily to reject the other."
 * Ecumenical reasons to add Roman
 * Object to "Roman" on ecclesiastical grounds
 * Strikes some as contradictory
 * Eastern Catholics find the adjective objectionable.

I would like to see what he says on each of the above points.
 * What are the ecumenical reasons to add "Roman"?
 * What are the ecclesiatical grounds for objecting to "Roman"? (Presumably rejection of Branch Theory)
 * Why does it strike some as contradictory?
 * Why do Eastern Catholics find the adjective objectionable? (Presumably, they argue that they are Eastern Catholic but not Roman Catholic)

I am most interested in the text surrounding the final quote "To choose one side, however, is not necessarily to reject the other."

So... in what sense does McBrien "choose" "Catholic" and how does he not reject "Roman Catholic"?

P.S. Would you consider it less of a copyright violation if you put page 4 in a PDF and emailed it to me?

--Richard (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to paraphrase for now based on my notes. The ecumenical reasons are that other groups call themselves Catholics, too. The ecclesiological grounds seem to be the same as "strikes some as contradictory". I'm sure it refers to the idea of "Roman" being particular and "Catholic" being universal. Yes on the EC, and he then lists seven non-Roman traditions within the church. By the way, almost the same content (but somewhat shorter) is in his 2008 book The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism, which is probably recent enough to be in some bookstores. For the last part you're most interested in, I may have to get the book again. According to my notes, it appears he chooses "Catholic" because it doesn't preclude its wider application to Anglicans, Orthodox and Oriental Christians, too. Gimmetrow 01:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * McBriens book Catholicism has been officially censored by the Church for containing inaccuracies see . I am not sure why we consider a book officially labeled as inaccurate by the Church to be an authoritative and scholarly source. This is clear violation of WP:V.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your arguing about. He supports some of your points of view. He's a professor of theology at a Catholic university (and presumably being a named professor of theology at University of Notre Dame (US) is a little more prestigious than "taught theology at Aquinas College in Nashville"). He has published quite a few books about the Church. He would seem to be a significant point of view, no? Gimmetrow 01:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignatius (for example)
I presume you do not necessarily agree with the interpretations you quote as given to various sources. For example, I think the use of "the Church" is misleading in the third paragraph of your collection: "The Greek word 'catholic' means 'universal' and was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century". This gives the idea that Ignatius was referring to a particular "Catholic Church" distinct from "non-Catholic" Churches. If we transpose our understanding of "Catholic Church" as meaning RCC back 1900 years and attribute it to Ignatius, we end up with ridiculous notions. Soidi (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, *EVERYTHING* on the "article" page is up for negotiation. I have reorganized it so that there is a "lead" section, a and a "Sources" section.  It is my hope that the Sources section will be an uncritical compendium of relevant sources.  No source will be excluded even if its reliability is questioned.  Thus, Whitehead and Madrid are included in the Sources section.


 * The "lead" section is what I hope will eventually be molded into a section in Roman Catholic Church or (more likely) a separate article titled something like Naming of the Catholic Church. Such an article must be NPOV and therefore should incorporate all views including those of Whitehead, Madrid and McClintock.


 * Now, moving on to the specific question about Ignatius... I think Ignatius was describing those churches that he accepted as catholic. Were there churches that he did not accept as catholic?  I'm not sure; I haven't read his works so I don't know.  It's clear other Fathers of the Church found some soi-disant Christians to be outside the fold of the "catholic church".  Was the catholic church that St. Ignatius knew one that had a Pope that all bishops accepted as having primacy?  Well, the Catholic Church certainly teaches that it was.  Do we know for sure?  Nah... the truth is shrouded in the mists of history.


 * But where do we go from there? The Catholic Church claims to be the sole legitimate successor the "catholic church" of Ignatius and the other Fathers of the Church.  We can only report that claim.  Other Christian churces (e.g. the Orthodox) dispute that claim and we can report that also.


 * Note that Ignatius did NOT say "Where the bishop is, there is the (Roman) Catholic Church". He said "Where the bishop is, there is the catholic church".  I think the Roman Catholic Church would have no problem asserting that there is a single catholic church to which all Christians belong.  The fact that some members of this "catholic church" do not yet accept the Pope as the rightful leader of the catholic church is a grave failing of Christ's church here on earth.  The recent efforts of Popes to heal the rifts among the various members of the catholic church is testimony to an understanding that there cannot be a "Catholic Church" and "the rest of Christianity".  This is a sin against the Body of Christ.


 * OK... enough with the sermon. Is what you're asking different from the answer I gave above?


 * --Richard (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No, I was not asking for anything more.  It is just that I do not think it is appropriate for me to tinker with what you wrote on this page, except perhaps to add a source or two.  I just wanted to indicate that, when and if it becomes appropriate, some tinkering will be necessary.
 * There is evidence, in the same letter by Ignatius, that he excluded from communion (with harsh words, too) the Gnostics/Docetists, who he said were not really Christians. So he would certainly not have looked on them as part of the Christian Church, whether local or universal ("catholic").  And it was only later that Christians began to use "catholic" to mean not just "universal" but "orthodox".  See what Lightfoot says about Ignatius's phrase, "catholic Church" on page 97 of  Early Christian Writings.
 * I have found that my memory of the passage was false. Since, however, you have not commented on my false semi-quotation above, I have boldly removed it, instead of using strike-out. I hope you don't mind.  Soidi (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing the page associated with this Talk Page
I intend over time to transform the "lead" section of the associated page (User:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church) into either a section of Roman Catholic Church or an article titled something like Naming of the Catholic Church

I am happy for Soidi and any other Wikipedia editor to edit the associated page with the following provisos:


 * 1) No sources should be removed from the "Sources" section. If you dispute the validity of what a source says, provide a counter-argument or, better yet, provide a source who states the counter-argument.


 * 1) The lead section currently contains "cut-and-paste" snippets of text written either for the Roman Catholic Church article or for its associated Talk Page. Please do not remove the sense of what is written.  You can improve it if it is poorly written or you can offer alternative or even opposing perspectives.  Deleting material, however, will tend to result in the text having a lopsided POV which is to be avoided.


 * 1) Please do not turn the associated page into a discussion forum. If you wish to discuss the validity of arguments made on the page, do it here just as you would if the associated page were a live Wikipedia article.

--Richard (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you wish to do with edits like ? Because frankly, if it's true that EWTN and OSV dispute something attested as simple narration by multiple other sources, then one should be open to question the credibility of EWTN and OSV. Gimmetrow 03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to keep the page associated with this Talk Page limited to either proposed article text (in the lead section) or sources (in the "Sources" section). If you can provide a source which challenges the credibility or another source, by all means, put it in the "Sources" section.  However, if you wish to make a syllogistic argument about the credibility of a source, please do it here on this Talk Page.
 * I think it would be counter-productive to turn the associated page into a discussion page because the entire purpose of that page is to divorce the sources I found on the archives of Talk:Roman Catholic Church from the discussion that surrounded them.
 * --Richard (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what Nancy is doing, though. Gimmetrow 04:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Richard, there are numerous inaccuracies with the lead and I can not support it in its present form. However I think it is a terrific feat that you have placed all sources on a single page. This is very helpful to the debate. All that is really needed is a discussion about which ones are considered more scholarly and to consider a section revealing that there is some ambiguity of when a source is discussing the official name as given by the Church to herself as opposed to the name required for her to use in official documents of some Protestant states like England. It seems to me that some editors here have mistaken the accepted Church use of the term "Roman Catholic" that speaks of the Roman rite to be referring to the entire Church. We need to let Reader know that distinction to help eliminate confusion. I have tried to improve the text and provide links to help make the information more accurate. The links to the documents between the Church and other countries was especially in need of correction because the documents never refer to the Church as "Roman Catholic Church" but simply "Catholic Church" and the way it was worded it appeared to give the opposite impression. The error was easily seen when you go to the original documents.  Nancy Heise    talk  04:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Nancy,
 * While some small portion of the current lead was written by me, all of it was cut-and-paste from either from Note 1 of Roman Catholic Church, from Talk:Roman Catholic Church or from Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. In other words, the lead of the associated page is an attempt to gather what has been written on this topic by various Wikipedia editors and assemble it in one place without the restrictions of being on a live Wikipedia article and without the restrictions of wanting Notes to be short.


 * The approach taken by both sides of this dispute has been to assert the validity some sources and dismiss the validity of others. I would like to suggest a different approach.  Why not admit all sources and then document what they say and provide information to the reader to let him/her decide which sources to believe and which sources not to believe?


 * My take on this is:
 * Primary sources provide evidence that both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are used in the church's official documents.
 * Primary sources provide evidence that both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are used in official documents between the Church and external parties.
 * Primary sources (e.g. websites) indicate that many U.S. Catholic Churches and dioceses use "Roman Catholic" as part of their name.
 * Most Catholic secondary sources seem to assert that "Catholic Church" is the proper and official name.
 * Secondary sources assert that "Roman Catholic" is used to differentiate "Latin-rite" from other Catholic Churches of other rites
 * Secondary sources assert that Eastern Catholics object to being labelled "Roman Catholic"
 * Richard Faber, a Catholic secondary source, offers information regarding the debate over "Roman Catholic" at Vatican I.
 * Some non-Catholic secondary sources assert that "Catholic Church" is the official name.
 * Some non-Catholic secondary sources assert that "Roman" is part of the official name.


 * I think the path to compromise is to simply lay out the above facts for readers to consider and let them draw their own conclusions.


 * --Richard (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to Gimmetrows insertion of a non-scholarly person named Ferrera who criticized EWTN. He is an attorney who writes for a newspaper that is not part of SIGNIS. How does that reflect on EWTN whose board includes members of the Catholic Church hierarchy and is a member of SIGNIS, part of the Roman Curia. Gimmetrow, do you really think that this man's criticism wipes away the fact that this source is approved by the Catholic Church? His criticism does not come from the Church, it comes from a fringe group critical of the Church and says nothing about the use of Whitehead as a source for the Churches name. The criticism is directed at other issues they disagree with. They may not like Donovan but that does not eliminate the fact that he is a scholar, an expert on Catholic Church and former professor of Theology at a Catholic University. What does that have to do with the validity of this source? You don't seem to want reliable sources but you want us to use fringe non-experts. I can't work with that.  Nancy Heise    talk  08:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed violations of WP:BLP.
 * Does Donovan have a doctorate in theology, or not, Nancy? Does Whitehead have a doctorate in theology or canon law? Does Whitehead have any doctorate? Has his view ever been published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal?
 * And please stop removing content and changing exact quotes from sources, Nancy. I can no longer trust anything on this page. Gimmetrow 15:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, Nancy, stop treating EWTN as an organ of the Church's magisterium. Its membership of SIGNIS doesn't mean Vatican approval of what it says and does. Does certain Catholic universities' membership of ICFU mean Vatican approval of their hosting of events promoting sexual license, cross-dressing and homosexual ideologies? Did the Vatican approve EWTN's changing its bylaws for the purpose of avoiding Vatican inspection? By all means quote Whitehead for Whitehead's view, but don't demand that, because he says "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself", we must believe that all the documents in which the Church seems to use that term are forgeries!  Soidi (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, all...

Sources are sources. Some may be more reliable than others. Some may ultimately be considered so unreliable as to not be included in any article that evolves from the associated page.

It is not my intent to include the current "Sources" section in any future article in its current form. My intent is that some of the sources in the "Sources" section will become the footnotes section for the text in the lead. What the article says and which sources become footnotes is a topic for debate here on this Talk Page.

In the context of the above paragraph, please DO NOT remove sources because you object to their reliability. If you object to a source, please indicate why here on this Talk Page. Also, please do not change the text of a quoted source unless it is clearly misquoted (provide a source that indicates the correct wording).

I may eventually propose a mechanism for us to insert comments on the reliability of the sources but, for now, please leave them intact even if you object to their reliability.

--Richard (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I fear that synthesis is taking place here. Richard's first two points above are presented in a manner that would mislead readers into thinking that Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church have roughly equivalent status in the Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. Saying that both are used by the church is a bit like the wartime Horse and rabbit pie. "What percentage is it?" asked the shopper. "Fifty-fifty," said the pie-maker. "One horse, one rabbit." Saying both are used by the Church is spin of an even greater magnitude - since the balance is about 100 - 1 if not greater. And there are many reliable sources which state that the Church deprecates and avoids the use of RCC. Any article on this subject has to acknowledge that the proper usage is Catholic Church.  Xan  dar  22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Xandar, you have a valid point. I'm looking for some NPOV compromise that stops short of saying that "Roman Catholic" is "rejected" or "never used" by the Church.  We have primary sources that indicate that "Roman Catholic" is sometimes used.  We are willing to concede that it is used less, even far less often than "Catholic Church".  Maybe even 100-1.  But can you document 100-1 without engaging in OR counting of instances?  This is part of our problem.
 * When we have proposed "Catholic Church is the most frequently used" or "usually" or some such locution, Nancy has demanded sources for those locutions.
 * We can see in the primary sources uses of other names but we can't provide a secondary source that states specifically how much more often "Catholic" is used over "Roman Catholic". And yet the "existence proof" that "Roman Catholic" is, in fact, used to mean something other than the Diocese of Rome or the Latin Rite leads us to doubt the credibility of authors such as Whitehead and Madrid.
 * I think a good compromise would be "most frequently used in official documents" or "usually used in official documents". Nancy thinks we will get pounded at FAR on the sourcing for these statements.  I fear we will never get to FAR if we cannot resolve this dispute amicably.  --Richard (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the solution is simple. Something along the lines of "'Roman Catholic Church' has occasionally been used in ecumenical situations, and locally by some congregations in English-speaking countries." For the main article I suggested "in normal official usage," but this was objected to. In this article Nineteenth century use of "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" could also be mentioned. I don't however agree that occasional localised and ecumenical use of RCC lessens the credibility of Whitehead and madrid.  Xan  dar  00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So what was abnormal or localised or ecumenical about Divini Illius Magistri and Humani Generis? If it were true that the Church "deprecates" and "avoids" the use of RCC, how could we explain the fact that it uses RCC in these and other official documents with no obvious need to choose that form rather than another? Soidi (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we are on the wrong track here. Perhaps the problem is that we have been looking for a single phrase that characterizes the usage of "CC" and "RCC" in both the past and present.  In fact, I would suggest that the usage of "CC" and "RCC" has changed over time.  If we look at the sources as a historical trend (per my "flight of OR and SYNTH" below), we might see that both sides have valid points.


 * "Roman Catholic Church" has definitely been used in the past but its use appears to have been more frequent prior to 1960. In particular, prior to 1870, I suspect that there was relatively little objection to the phrase until the English bishops brought up at Vatican I the problem posed by Branch Theory which was only proposed in 1838.  I'm sure there was objection to "Romish" but not necessarily to "Roman Catholic".
 * Even so, "RCC" continued to be used in official documents (encyclicals, treaties, concordats) until the 1960s, after which there seem to be no official uses of the phrase. Now this is OR because I'm working solely off the sources presented on the associated page.  However, if we can believe that there has been a quiet, informal shift towards using "Catholic Church" exclusively, we can possibly moderate our stance so as to accept two ideas (1) RCC has, in fact, been used officially in the past (2) over the past 100 years, CC has come to be the predominant form.


 * This suggests using a lead like "The Catholic Church, sometimes called the Roman Catholic Church" or, if we must, "The Roman Catholic Church, usually called the Catholic Church". We could add something like "especially in official contexts".  I wouldn't mind adding "officially" except that "usually officially" sounds stilted.
 * --Richard (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not at all believe that RCC was used more frequently before 1960. Two series of examples of its use by Popes since then has been given already. Do you want me to search them out for you again?  One was based on www.vatican.va, the other on another collection of Vatican documents.  RCC has certainly not been banned, and is still in official use.   Surely you don't think, for instance, that a declaration signed jointly by a pope and the head of another Christian group is not an official document?  Such documents did not exist before 1960.
 * The Branch Theory will have seemed important to nineteenth-century English speakers, but at the First Vatican Council their difficulty in getting across to others why they thought it important surely indicates that it did not impinge much on the consciousness of the then much more numerous bishops who spoke Italian, French, Spanish, and who even at the end insisted on keeping the word "Roman". These non-English-speakers usually used "Catholic", but rightly saw absolutely no contradiction between that and calling the Church "Roman" also.  In their languages the distinction between "Romish" and "Roman" did not exist, and is, I think, irrelevant when considering what the Church (which isn't merely English-speaking) calls itself.  What the Church actually uses today is the important thing to consider when deciding what names it treats as official.  What it used in the past, though less important, is still of the highest importance, unless it can be shown that the Church has made a deliberate change since then, something for which there seems to be absolutely no evidence.  Soidi (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So... you seem to be asserting that there has been no change in the Church's attitude towards the phrase "Roman Catholic"? That it was just as likely to call itself the "Catholic Church" in 1870 as it is now?
 * Can you point to a post-1960 encyclical that uses "Roman Catholic"? Can you point to a post-1980 treaty or concordat that uses "Roman Catholic"?
 * Do you think that the sources are completely wrong when they assert that the Church dislikes being called the "Roman Catholic Church" and prefers the "Catholic Church"?
 * I tend to see an element of truth in what reliable sources say. Sometimes, it is the truth colored by bias but the trick is seeing what part is bias and what part is truth.  I think Whitehead and Madrid go overboard in presenting a one-sided view of the past but, at the base, they are describing a real phenomenon in the Church today.  I like to think my "flight of OR and SYNTH" is a more nuanced view of the debate in the Church.
 * That is, I think most sources describe the attitude of the Church more or less accurately but, by omitting or distorting various details, they over-simplify how the Church got there and why.
 * --Richard (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read what I wrote about your "flight of OR and SYNTH"? There I have already (equivalently) countered your challenge to cite a post-1960 encyclical with RCC by asking you to cite a pre-1929 encyclical with RCC.  I have no difficulty in accepting that the Church prefers RCC to CC or that English-speaking Catholics in general (not all of them) dislike RCC.  I strongly doubt that there is evidence for saying that the Church dislikes RCC.  But I do believe that the sources you refer to do reflect the general attitude  of English-speaking Catholics.  But they are not the Church.  And the Popes, in particular, do not seem to share that dislike of "Roman Catholic".  So, if we make the necessary distinctions, we may find that we are in total agreement.  Soidi (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You can find people arguing about nomenclature thoughout much of the 19th century. We've generally only cited post-Vatican I sources, but there are earlier ones, eg. writings by Orestes Brownson. This was a warm topic of discussion for a while. The debates seem to have largely died out around 1915. Now, a hundred years later, we might argue about what the majority of English-speaking laity seem to think. I do think we can observe some cultural change on this point in 150 years. Nevertheless, we have no decree from the hierarchy confirming or even supporting any of the sides. Gimmetrow 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gimmetrow is right: we have no clear evidence that the majority of English-speaking Catholics dislike using RCC. But the cited English-language sources are evidence of an at least widespread dislike of that name. Is it just because I do not live in an English-speaking country that I find it peculiar that so much time is being spent here on questions of when RCC began to be used in English?  That has nothing to do with the Church's use of "Roman Catholic /catholica romana /romana catholica /cattolica romana /romana cattolica /católica romana /romana católica /catholique romaine ... /Römisch-katholische /Rooms-katholieke /Римокатолическа ...  By all means devote a section to the quarrel among Anglophones, but why give so much importance and space to that historical question in the lead?  Soidi (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We are talking about the whole universal Catholic Church and thus we cannot restrict ourselves to questions like "when RCC began to be used in English". If you have sources showing that RCC was used in any language prior to 1838 (the introduction of Branch Theory), it would be useful to see those.


 * It would be also good to see quotes from some of the pre-Vatican I discussions about nomenclature. I didn't mean to suggest that there was no discussion of Branch Theory until Vatican I.  I'm sure there was plenty.  I suspect that the issue didn't bubble up to the level of the Church having to confront the use of "Roman Catholic" until there was an Ecumenical Council for which official documents had to be drawn up.  And even then, the official documents might well have used "Sancta Romana catholica Ecclesia" had the English bishops not raised an objection to the phrase.


 * We wouldn't be as wrapped up in understanding and describing this debate if it were simply a "quarrel among Anglophones". It seems that the Anglophones have pressed and are pressing the case to the whole Church and attempting to shift the whole Church away from using "Roman Catholic". Although Whitehead, Madrid and McClintock are Anglophones, I don't think they are restricting their remarks to the name of the Church in English but to the name of the Church in any language.  (NB: I'm not saying they're right.  All I'm saying is that the scope of their argument is not restricted to the name of the Church in English.)


 * --Richard (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Roman Catholic" tends to be more of an issue in the English-speaking world, since it was a term extensively pushed in the English-speaking world. Calling the Church "Roman Catholic" and pressuring the Church in the UK, the Empire and the USA to use that designation was based on branch theory. Elsewhere in the Catholic world, "Roman Catholic" rarely if ever appeared. Catholic Church was the form used, as it had been pre-Reformation. Variations of "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" had been accepted and used, not so much as a formal name for the Church, but as a descriptive that included all the principal qualities of the Catholic Church. Such non-anglophones were initially less concerned if the order of descriptives was occaionally changed to one where the word Roman came directly before Catholic. Once they were made aware of the agenda behind this formulation, however, it was largely rejected. At the time of the 1st Vatican Council attempts seem to have been made in some quarters to make "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" the formal name of the Church, but these were unsuccessful. By Vatican 2, Catholic Church was the only standard usage.  Xan  dar  23:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thurston's article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia says the phrase was used even in English in the sixteenth century, and that, with regard to the use of "Catholique Romane Church" in an English tract of 1575, "this was simply a translation of the phraseology common (emphasis added by me) both in Latin and in the Romance languages 'Ecclesia Catholica Romana', or in French 'l'Eglise catholique romaine'." You may be right that there was plenty of discussion about the Branch Theory before the First Vatican Council, but I wonder if it really impinged much on the consciousness of Catholic theologians and bishops outside the English-speaking (as so largely Anglican-dominated) areas. Avery Dulles wrote that "some nineteenth-century Catholics in effect treated romanitas as a fifth mark of the Church", tending to reduce all four attributes or marks to apostolicity, "in the sense of obedience to the bishops who were in union with the pope, and thus ultimately to obedience to the pope himself as supreme vicar of Christ".  But I know of no reference to debates on the continent of Europe about the name "Roman". Maybe, just maybe, there are some odd members of the Church who hold that "Roman" and "Catholic" must be put one after another to form the proper name for the Church, and Xandar seems to be setting up that straw man to attack; but I feel sure that for the authorities of the Church the fact is rather that both "Roman" and "Catholic" belong properly to the Church and to no other group, and that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Apostolic Church" and "Apostolic Roman Church" and "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" and "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church" and other combinations like these are all good, proper and official names of the Church. The Church has never laid down that it was to be known by one name alone.  Or even by two alone.  Soidi (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is pretty much right. Like Soidi says, there are a bunch of adjectives, "One", "Holy", "Catholic", "Apostolic", "Roman", all of which the church claims that it, and only it, can properly use. I doubt we'll ever find anything from the church itself expressing that one of these adjectives is "more official" than another. If the church has any "official name", simply "the Church" seems to me a more likely candidate than the two that seem to dominate these discussions. Gimmetrow 19:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A wild flight of OR and SYNTH (please indulge me)
A few months ago, I put forth a theory which Nancy stepped on but, after reviewing the sources especially the treaties and concordats, I think a variant of my theory is not too far from the truth. My original theory was based on scant understanding and I hope this variant is better informed.

I think Whitehead is not too far from the truth when he says that the Church claimed "the Catholic Church" as its name. Was there an official document or event that designated this as "the official name" of the Church? I rather doubt it. However, it seems reasonable to believe that over a period of time, this became the name of the Church. When? Probably around the 4th or 5th century. That is to say, long before the East-West Schism or the Protestant Reformation.

However, other names have also been in use since time immemorial. Names such as "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church". Was "Roman Catholic Church" ever a name of the Church in those early years? I haven't seen sources to prove it yet but perhaps they are out there. But being "Roman" was clearly a descriptor of the Church.

Did the church care prior to the East-West Schism which of these names was used? There seems to be little discussion about "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" prior to the Protestant Reformation. I assert that nobody really cared.

We have a source that asserts that, after the East-West Schism, the Church claimed "Catholic" as a name to distinguish itself from the Eastern Orthodox (who nonetheless claim to be catholic as well). Does this make "Catholic Church" the official name of the Church? Well, there's still no official document or event but I think we can trust the source when it asserts that the Church started making more of an effort to call itself "Catholic" to draw a distinction from the "Orthodox".

OK, now we come to the Protestant Reformation. Specifically, the English Reformation. The Church of England doesn't really want to jump on the bandwagon with the Lutherans, Calvinists (and even worse the Baptists, Methodists and Puritans). It really wants to stay "catholic". But, like other Protestants, it doesn't want to be subjugated to Rome. So, like other Protestants, they malign "Romish" practices and dominance.

Move to the end of the European wars of religion. Over time, Catholic and Protestant states reach a peaceful coexistence (in that wars are no longer waged on the pretext of religion but over other casus belli). Catholics are somewhat rehabilitated but the maligning of "Romish" practices remains. "Romish" is considered derogatory so "Roman Catholic" is used instead of "Catholic".

In 1838, William Palmer proposes Branch Theory which is really an attempt at ecumenism. Here's what the Wikipedia article on Branch Theory says:
 * The Roman Catholic Church rejects the Branch Theory as an invalid ecclesiological model but does accept the theory's two fundamental premises, namely that maintaining the teachings of the ancient Christian Church and the apostolic succession are sufficient for valid orders of another Church despite being in a state of schism. However, it deems that Anglican orders are mostly invalid, the apostolic sucession broken in most cases and many Anglicans have not maintained the fulness of ancient Christian teachings, most notably on the sacraments.


 * John Paul II used the "two-lungs" metaphor, holding that the Roman Catholic Church needs the spiritual support of the Churches of the Orient, in the same way that the mystical body of Christ would need two lungs to survive.

OK, now we come to 1870 and Vatican I. We have a source that tells us "The First Vatican Council at first began its explanation of the faith with the formula "The Holy Roman Catholic Church believes...".  Regardless of what you believe was decided at Vatican I about the name of the Catholic Church, step back and reflect on why the formula was proposed in the first place.

My OR opinion is that it was because the drafters of the document believed that this was the best and most appropriate way to start the beginning of this all important document. Now, some like Nancy want to dismiss these drafters as low-level clerics but, if you think about it, these must have been fairly senior clerics in the Curia. Who do you imagine is asked to draft such a document? Surely, not a "low-level cleric". What a career-limiting move it would be to propose something doctrinally incorrect to the first council of bishops in hundreds of years! No, this document had to be entrusted to the most doctrinally correct clerics.

And what happened? A group of 35 English bishops raised a ruckus and explained what a problem would be caused in England if the documents of Vatican I used the name "Holy Roman Catholic Church". (The phrase was proposed in Latin, of course, but the problem would arise when the phrase was translated to English.) So they try to get it changed and then what? The bishops have a debate about this. Now, if "Roman Catholic" was not acceptable prior to 1870, no one would have proposed it to be in the beginning of this important document and the bishops would not have bothered to debate it at all. Instead, the bishops steadfastly endorse "Roman" as a proper descriptor of the Church. They're willing to change the order of words in the name but they refuse to drop "Roman" as a proper descriptor of the Church.

But, in the end, a compromise was reached because the bishops at Vatican I understood what the English bishops were saying. It would not be good to suggest that the Catholic Church countenanced, accepted or endorsed Branch Theory.

But look what happens over the next century. For almost 100 years, variations of "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic" remain in use by Popes and in treaties and concordats. However, after 1966, treaties seem to uniformly use "Catholic Church". When did this change occur? We don't know. There doesn't seem to have been an official pronouncement. Apparently, something happened sometime between 1966 (the last uses we know of right now are the 1966 agreements with Haiti and Argentina) and 1984. After 1984, treaties and concordats seem to uniformly use "Catholic Church".

How about encyclicals? Well up to Humani Generis in 1950, "Roman Catholic Church" is used at least a few times. Do we have evidence of "Roman Catholic Church" being used in any encyclicals after that?

Now consider Lumen Gentium, one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. It uses "Catholic Church" uniformly.

This is OR in the extreme but this suggests that something happened between 1950 and 1984 to shift away from using "Roman Catholic Church".

I would love to know if the 1870, 1950 and 1984 versions of the Annuario Pontifico also use "Catholic Diocese" uniformly.

I sincerely believe that the above is a pretty good guess at what happened. Yes, yes, I know there's a lot of OR and SYNTH but I think it's the truth and the problem is neither side of this dispute seems to be willing to accept it. So, we go round and round in circles forever.

--Richard (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nothing whatever against Original Research on a Talk page. On the contrary, it is very helpful.  Among other things it sheds light on the proper understanding of cited sources.  I find your argument about the situation before the First Vatican Council  persuasive.  But not what you say about more recent times.
 * The First Vatican Council did not accept that CC was the only name for the Church. On the contrary, it used other names too.
 * Of course the Church claims CC as its name. After all, its critics point to that very claim as an unjust appropriation. But that does not mean that it claims no other name.  It positively claims several other names as its proper names and as not properly used of others.
 * Of course treaties use "CC".  It is the most common name even outside of treaties.  But that doesn't mean that no other name is official.  As for the idea that something must have happened after 1966, one might as well say, which I don't, that something happened before 1966  that caused "Roman Catholic Church" (which I think was not used earlier in treaties, though "Roman Catholic religion" was) to be used in the 1966 treaty with Argentina, a treaty that specifically mentioned the just concluded Second Vatican Council!
 * Do we have evidence of RCC being used in any encyclical before Divini Illius Magistri? That does not mean that RCC began to be an official name in 1929 .  Nor does the absence of an encyclical with RCC after 1950 mean that RCC then ceased to be an official name.  We do have documents after 1950 in which the Popes used "Roman Catholic Church" as an official name for the Church that they headed.
 * Lumen Gentium does not use "Catholic Church" uniformly; on the contrary, the phrase "Catholic Church" appears in it only a very few times, less than some other names.
 * I have the 1984 Annuario Pontificio. Where in the 2008 edition (which I also have) does the phrase "Catholic diocese" appear, so that I can tell you if it appears also in the 1984 edition? Even if it does appear, which I strongly doubt, would that mean that no other form is acceptable? The Greek Orthodox always put the word "sacred" (ἱερά) before the name of their dioceses, but that does not mean that the official name of that Church is "Sacred Church".
 * You surely don't agree with Xandar's argument that, since CC is used officially more often than RCC is used officially, CC is the only official name.
 * Some people's dislike of the RCC name is due to their interpreting it as a denial that CC is also a good and proper name. That is groundless: the Church uses both names (and others), so the use of either does not deny the legitimacy of the other.  Is it possible that that misinterpretation is also the only reason why Nancy and Xandar dislike the RCC name and deny, against the evidence of the Church's own documents, that it is ever used by the Church officially? Soidi (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Soidi,

You wrote:


 * "We do have documents after 1950 in which the Popes used "Roman Catholic Church" as an official name for the Church that they headed."


 * What sorts of documents? Other than treaties and concordats for which the most recent example is the 1976 agreement with Spain?

Re the 1984 Annuario Pontificio: I think Nancy's argument is that, in the latest Annuario Pontificio, every conference of bishops is either named "Catholic Bishops' Conference" or just "Bishops' Conference" but never "Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference". I'm not sure how probative looking at the 1984 Annuario Pontificio would be (partly because it's fairly recent on our timescale and partly because this is only a side point from the main line of argument).

You wrote:


 * "You surely don't agree with Xandar's argument that, since CC is used officially more often than RCC is used officially, CC is the only official name."


 * No, I don't. I am looking for a way to say "CC is used officially more often than RCC is used officially" without saying or implying that CC is the only name that is used officially.

You asked:
 * "Do we have evidence of RCC being used in any encyclical before Divini Illius Magistri? That does not mean that RCC began to be an official name in 1929."


 * I don't know if the absence of any sources before Divini Illius Magistri is lack of research or simply that there aren't any. It would be enlightening to have more evidence of RCC being used in official contexts prior to 1929.

At the end of the day, I think the fact is that the Church has made no official pronouncement or decision on this question but individual Catholics in the laity and the Church hierarchy have positions which they implement within the range of their power and influence.

Going back to my original point in creating this section... I'm suggesting that things may have changed over the last 50 years and that Xandar and Nancy have a point when they assert that the sources that use RCC are somewhat dated (pre-1960). If you disagree with my theory that things have changed over the last 50 years, perhaps you could provide some more sources where RCC is used in an official context post-1960, especially post-1980.

--Richard (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting speculations. As I say in the section directly above, I don't think there is evidence that the Formulation "Roman Catholic" was ever much used by the Church outside areas where it had to operate under English or other protestant law. The "Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" formula was sometimes used in addition to CC, and the word order occasionally varied. (Some English translators seem also to have changed the order to conform to the "Roman Catholic" usage they were familiar with.) No doubt there has been occasional "seepage" of Anglophone usage of Roman Catholic to other areas locally. (The French Canadian church was under British rule for 150 years.) However I do not think it has ever amounted to Roman Catholic becoming an official or proper name of the Church. There was no reason for it to do so, and good reasons why not. As with "Mormon Church" for LDS, RCC has become attached to the Church and occasionally slipped in to the usage of some individual Catholics. To compare; there is a Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but the church is not properly named the Mormon Church. Since the 1940s I think usage of "Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" (the only real potential alternative to Catholic Church IMO) has been increasingly frowned on.  Xan  dar  00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To Richard: The idea that the Church has, since 1966, dropped the use of "Roman Catholic Church" is quite baseless. To get rid of that false idea, I have inserted in your collection of sources some examples of post-1966 use of "RCC" by the Popes, even the present Pope. I think that agreements with other Christian leaders are more significant than agreements with governments. Maybe you don't. As for the bishops conferences (not "dioceses", as by an oversight you first wrote), I think none of the names that these used in 1984 have been changed, except to take account of the break-up or change of name of some countries, and some new conferences have been added. Your idea of comparing the latest edition of the Annuario Pontificio with the names used before 1966 will draw a blank: bishops conferences became a recognized institution only with the Second Vatican Council. If a minority of bishops conferences use the word "Catholic" in their names (the great majority add no qualification whatever) that does not mean that other qualifications would have been wrong; still less does it mean anything whatever about the official name, not of these few bishops conferences, but of the Church as a whole. For a way of saying "CC is used officially more often than RCC is used officially", may I, with a smile, suggest: "The Roman Catholic Church, more usually called, both informally and in the Church's official usage, the Catholic Church"! Soidi (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To Xandar: The sources about papal use that I have added show how unfounded is the idea that "Roman Catholic Church" is little used outside "areas where the Church had to operate under English or other Protestant Law". The "Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" form (the order of the adjectives is insignificant, as can be seen by comparing the official names in English and French of some international organizations) is very common in Latin America, and was used by Pope John Paul II on his 1991 visit to Brazil (the last year for which I have ready documentation for such talks). There is no documentary source whatever for the idea that the Church has, since 1940, begun to "frown upon" the use of any of the names that it has long used in its official documents. Soidi (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A new approach
My original intent in starting this page was to create an article which would be an expanded version of Note 1 in Roman Catholic Church. I hoped ito include many of the details that other editors kept saying did not belong in Note 1 of that article because notes are supposed to be short.

This is still my intent. I admit that I hoped that working on this article would help resolve the dispute over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. However, I am starting to feel that the "official name of the Church" discussion may go on for some time without resolution and that progress on this article will be hindered to the extent that it relies on resolution of the question being mediated.

I'm now thinking that the way to get this article into mainspace with a minimum of controversy is to avoid the "official name" question altogether. If we simply say that "the Catholic Church has used a number of names to refer to itself" and never mention whether a single "official name" exists or not, the reader can draw his/her own conclusions from the facts and sources presented.

Comments?

--Richard (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If only all would accept this! Soidi (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems obvious that various writers make different and conflicting arguments about "name". In most unrelated articles with comparable conflicts, the resolution is normally either to say nothing, or to list every major view. The main article, in fact, formerly had a section discussing names. It got removed a long time ago, and I wonder if its presence in the article wouldn't have helped avoid some of this drama. Right now, I don't think anything like this particular page would have a hope of stability in main space. Gimmetrow 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought. The argument is really about the propriety of the names CC and RCC, and not about "official". (I think "official" is just an argument some apologetics writers try to use to address propriety.) We have McBrien and Walsh, contemporary authors with moderate but opposing views on the propriety of using one term or the other. Both conveniently refer to the opposing views, too. They note some dislike RCC. They note that many non-RC use C. McBrien's book, titled "Catholicism", prefers one way, and Walsh's book, titled "Roman Catholicism", prefers the other. Since Walsh is actually used in the article and has been for months, Nancy shouldn't object to it. McBrien's section ends with a paragraph that may be a nice sound-bite to summarize or conclude it:
 * "It should be evident from the title of this book (Catholicism rather than Roman Catholicism) which argument the author finds more compelling. To choose one side, however, is not necessarily to reject the other. One can apply the term Catholic to the community of churches in union with Rome without precluding its wider application to Anglicans, Orthodox, Protestants, and Oriental Christians. At the same time, Catholics can reject the adjective Roman without lapsing into ecclesiastical triumphalism. What is important is that each side explain and support the reasons for the position taken." (McBrien (1994), Catholicism, p.6)

Gimmetrow 20:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard, as I have said before, to say that "the Catholic Church has used a number of names to refer to itself" is problematic.
 * To quote your proposed start paragraph overleaf:
 * The terms "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are used as alternative names for the entire church that describes itself as "governed by the successor of Saint Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." Although the Catholic Church uses and accepts the use of a number of names in official documents and contexts, some argue that the only proper name for the Church is "the Catholic Church"(cite Whitehead). In particular, the use of the name "Roman Catholic Church" is controversial due to the fact that it is sometimes used by those outside the Church to suggest the Branch Theory, which is not accepted outside of Anglicanism. However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used by popes, bishops, other clergy and laity, who do not see it as opprobrious or having the suggested overtone.
 * I would find the following more accurate:
 * The terms "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are used as alternative names for the entire church that describes itself as "governed by the successor of Saint Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." In its formal documents and pronouncements the church normally refers to itself as the Catholic Church, although in some contexts, particularly ecumenical ones, it sometimes uses and accepts the use of other names. Some argue that the only proper name for the Church is "the Catholic Church"(cite Whitehead). In particular, the use of the name "Roman Catholic Church" is controversial due to the fact that it is sometimes used by those outside the Church to suggest the Branch Theory, (ie that the Church in communion with the Pope is only one part of a divided Catholic church). However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" has occasionally been used by popes, bishops, other clergy and laity, many of whom do not see it as opprobrious or having the suggested overtone.
 * The original wording tends in my view to give the false impression of some equality within the church of CC and RCC, and of far greater use of RCC than actually exists.  Xan  dar  23:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Xandar's second version seems close to acceptable, although I would prefer to bring in some views other than Whitehead, too.
 * The terms "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are used as alternative names for the entire church that describes itself as "governed by the successor of Saint Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." Some argue that the only proper name for the Church is "the Catholic Church"(cite Whitehead). In particular, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is controversial due to the fact that it is sometimes used by those outside the Church to suggest the Branch Theory, (ie that the Church in communion with the Pope is only one part of a divided Catholic church). However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" has occasionally been used, even outside ecumenical contexts, by popes, bishops, other clergy and laity, many of whom do not see it as opprobrious or having the suggested overtone.
 * Statements like "the church normally refers to itself as the Catholic Church" (or Soidi's "more usually called") would need to be phrased strictly about the two terms CC and RCC only ("The church refers to itself as CC more often than RCC"), since other terms appear at least as frequently, and some more frequently. Gimmetrow 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... I almost hesitate to add more to this stew but this proposed article is about Names of the Catholic Church; all the names, not just "CC" and "RCC". If we allow that "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" is a name of the Church (according to some, the official name of the Church), then should we not add it and other names to this article? It is this line of thinking that led me to write "the Catholic Church has used a number of names to refer to itself". I think that Gimmetrow was thinking along these lines when he said "other terms appear at least as frequently, and some more frequently".

At the end of the day, we need to come to grips with the "name vs. descriptor" dichotomy. There are those who argue that the name of the Church is "Catholic Church" and "holy", "catholic", "apostolic" and "Roman" are just descriptors of the Church. There is at least one source that asserts that the official name of the church is "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church". To be NPOV, we should present both sides of this and let the reader decide for himself.

--Richard (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, I have tried to help you create a useful page but I see that the effort is futile because Gimmetrow and Soidi have to place all kinds of unreferenced and unallowable stuff on the page to support their radical POV that is only supported by the most fringe of sources. I would like to continue to support your efforts in this endeavor but have not desire to waste my time further with Soidi and Gimmetrow. I will place a disputed tag on the page if it ever makes it to the main level unless some effort is made to require actual references for their assertions, especially Soidi's. Also, there is a problem with WP:Undue where Gimmetrow and Soidi have placed a huge amount of info on the page that is not a summary of the reference but a complete recreation of it. This seems to be done only for sources that support "Roman Catholic" but not for those more authoritative sources that support only "Catholic". This makes the page blatantly POV.  Nancy Heise    talk  17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, this is a collection of sources and quotes, not an article. It's essentially a sandbox. How can you possibly accuse a sandbox page of being POV when you support POV in a highly-visible article in mainspace? Gimmetrow 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Placing a statement in the article that completely changes what the reference is saying is one example like what Soidi did to what he calls the opposing opinion published by EWTN. I can not spend my time trying to create a decent article when someone is persistent about inserting blatant lies and then referencing them to articles that do not say what they claim. I have changed several of Soidi's insertions to reflect what the source states and placed citation needed tags in those areas of OR like his expose on Catholic Universities which is WP:OR. No source compares SIGNIS membership of EWTN to Catholic Universities. BTW, While there are hundreds of universities around the world there are only about 15 Catholic media outlets that are members of SIGNIS and only one of those is "the world's largest religious media organization" - EWTN.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, we are not allowed to use extremist sources for references like the Ferrera source supporting the gossip about EWTN. Ferrera is a writer for the Catholic Family News and The Remnant Newspaper both are classified as hate groups by Southern Poverty Law Center I added this info that section rather than delete it. I find it curious to see that you and Soidi persistently support use of strange sources that are either officially condemned as inaccurate by the Catholic Church (McBriens Catholicism) or are put forth by a hate groups. What are we trying to acheive with these sources? They do not meet WP:V so why do you propose them?    Nancy Heise    talk  20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, if you can't respond on the merits, why bother attacking the convenience link? You can get this all from other sources. Donovan's credentials are listed on EWTN and they don't include a doctorate. The story of EWTN can be found in various places, like Arroyo's book on Mother Angelica. McBrien I will discuss on the mediation page. Gimmetrow 01:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the info can be found in acceptable sources then why don't you use those sources as references? Why do you use unacceptable sources like books officially declared inaccurate by the Church and those put forth by hate groups? What does Mother Angelica's dealings with the board of EWTN have to do with the name of the Church? The current board of EWTN includes members of the Catholic hierarchy and we have a large list of PhD's and other experts on its editorial staff. What is your problem with using a source that many PhD's have agreed upon? A source that has been out there for quite some time and for which there are ZERO negative reviews or opposing opinions by anyone including scholars. Nancy Heise    talk  16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Gimmetrow is only responding to Nancy's attempt to build up EWTN as endowing with immense authority whatever articles it chooses to republish. What gives authority to articles for or against some theory published on a respected newspaper (New York Times?) is not the fact that the newspaper included it as of interest to its readers, but the competence and prestige of the writer and the scholarship and reasonableness of the article itself.  Same here.  Soidi (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)