User talk:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC

RCC vs. CC and due process
I understand this is a very dear issue to you. Comparing me to anti-Catholic's who vandalized the Cathedral in Richmond is disgusting. I just feel you are on a campaign that is avoiding due process. I can see that since at least late April you have been working on this issue, and it is discouraging that a consensus has yet to be reached. But please keep trying to hammer things out on the Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name page. Just because the process is slow and isn't favorable to your position does not mean you can avoid that discussion and change articles as you want. Currently the main article is titled Roman Catholic Church whether you and I like that or not. Going around changing article to reflect something NOT reached in consensus (by purging the word "Roman") is NOT helpful to the community. Please be patient and let things resolve themselves on the talk page BEFORE making these bold edits that are obviously controversial. Please. I am not anti-Catholic. The reason I reverted you was because you were going against consensus. Please wait for the name of the main article to be changed before sidestepping. I hate to be repeating myself, but my motivations do not come out of religious hatred, but out of respect for wikipedia policy and due process. I hope you understand. Just be patient and hold off on your edits. Ok?--Andrew c 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reviewing this, I find some problems. First of all, you write off the use of RCC in ecumenical documents as being "diplomatic". Another view would be that when addressing non-Catholic audiences, the church feels the need to be less ambiguous, or more formal, and that the "Roman" is understood when used in internal documents (as the use of "The Church" implies a longer, more specific term). Next, your chart gives CC 3 and RCC 0. I feel the numbers should be CC 2 and RCC 1. The RCC gets a point for self-identity. You even cited yourself places were RCC is used. While it is used less, it is still used in self-identity, as are a number of other terms. And CC should loose a point for the "official" name. No one has provided a reliable source of the Church claiming CC is the official, proper name. The best anyone has done is conjecture based on common usage. And this leads me to the conclusion that CC is the more commonly used phrase (and self-identity isn't as important as some users have been pushing). However, it's not unheard of to use a minority usage, per the guidelines, althought there has to be a good reason to choose a minority usage over a majority one. The questions that remain in my mind are why do media and reference works use RCC at all. Why does the church in question use RCC when addressing non-catholic audiences. The term CC has at least 4 different meanings, so is using CC ambiguous? And are there any other churches that identify as CC that are not in communion with the pope? --Andrew c 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think the chart is wrong, as noted above (0 to 3 vs 1 to 2). Maybe the internet has changed since your last search, but checking on your results for google, the first "Roman" shows up on link 20, not link 30 (link 21 and 28 are also "Roman", 22 is "Ukraninian", 25 is "Anglican", and 30 is "Polish National" oh and link 15 refers to a "Catholic Church" that isn't the RCC) as for CNN, the search now yields 5 RCC vs. 5 CC on the first page alone. Going on to page 2, there are 6 CC vs 4 RCC, so still, almost half of the top hits include the word "Roman". But this form of statistical analysis is flawed anyway. Don't get me wrong,  top hits are significant, but total hits should also be considered. Searching Guardian Unlimited, I got 797 hits for "-'Roman Catholic' 'Catholic Church" vs. 679 for "Roman Catholic Church". For google CNN, I got 4,110 for "'Catholic Church' -'Roman Catholic' site:cnn.com" vs. 2,920 for "'Roman Catholic Church' site:cnn.com". For BBC, I got 201 pages for "'Catholic Church' -roman" vs. 142 pages for "Roman Catholic Church". While this still shows that CC is more common, it is clear that the statistics shown in the analysis on the main page are wrong/misleading. I still think the arguments against the Church's own use of the phrase RCC is very weak. They use it "diplomatically"; they use it when communicating to non-Catholic audiences. Sure, internally, the most common term used to refer to the church is probably "The Church" followed by "the Catholic Church", but externally and when working with various non-catholic sects, RCC is used. Wikipedia is not an internal Catholic document, but an external, secular 'document'. Just some thoughts I've had going around.--Andrew c 02:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"The points you make, replete with the claims of injustice and oppression (despite the fact that there are several Roman Catholic editors who support the current name or don't care about the issue one way or the other) have all been made before, as Archive 7 above will reveal in all its prolix glory. I invite you to read it if, for nothing else, the strange sense of deja vu it will likely inspire in you, as it does in me. Cheers."

This it the type of patronizing rhetoric I've received from what I consider at this point, outwardly Anti-Catholic editors in this site. I know there is a good faith policy, sure, but the repeated disrespect and blatantly forward condescending attitude is just too obvious to conclude anything less.

I am aware you have supported the change of the article for the proper name "Catholic Church" in the past. I am determined to have our voice heard again and have this issue reviewed and hopefully repealed. However, there is no way I can do this myself, I need you help and anyone else that may assist us. (by the way where the due process ?)

My most significant points for change are found in the one of my latest post as follows:


 * "1)Using a geographic description in addition to the title of a Church has to be one of the poorest excuses. What is not understood is that regardless of additional descriptive properties "Catholic" Church IS the common title of the Petrine Church in the equivalent manner as "Anglican" Church is the common title of the Church of England...regardless of any descriptive meanings of the words "Catholic or Anglican". If anything it proves how inappropriate it is to impose an extrinsic adjective upon an institution that is not titled in such a manner. If that is allowed then where does it end. Why not add to the Greek the Athenian Orthodox Church, or say London Anglican Church since the symbolic head of the Anglican communion resides there.


 * 2)Since "Catholic Church" is NOT a description, but the title of the lone Church titled as such, by far, historically, in the present and by the world at large it deserves to be title as such. It is not ambiguous, Anglicans do not say they are going to the Catholic Church, do they? Thus, no point in pulling out the ambiguity alibi Also, the article describes one Church, it is not a comparative study of several churches, no confusion to be entertained.


 * 3)The personal ignorance of a Catholic which refers to himself as Roman Catholic is not an excuse to go by such a term. Many of these same Catholics are the same ignorant Catholics that think Catholics of other rites are not real Catholics. Thus, ignorance is no reason, if any a reason for proper education.


 * 4)The listing of a Parish as Roman Catholic is reference to the Rite not the Church at large(albeit slang, where "Roman" is interchanged for "Latin") just as Byzantine Catholic churches are frequently listed as Greek Catholic Church. Since this article is discussing the Church at large and not the Rite, the usage within the church by the "listing" excuse does not apply to this article.


 * 5)The Church in the few instances where it does add the descriptive adjective "Roman" it is used in reference to its Petrine primacy and only when describing or comparing the Church with other schimatic churches. This fact, is perfectly exemplified in Pope Pius XII's encylical Humani Generis where he mearly mentions "Roman Catholic Church" as he speaks of churches not in  full communion. Because, in that entire encyclical Puis referrs to the Church as simply "The Church" vs RCC 46 times to 1.


 * 6)Since, this article is NOT from within the Church there is no way to confirm that it is not mentioned pejoratively, thus the additional push to disregard this disrespectful term. Face it, the only way to prove an article's description is not meant pejoratively is only if it comes from within the Church. (Wikipedia should not pretend that anti-Catholicism does not exist)


 * Lastly,Wikipedia is not a Protestant or Anglican outlet. I mean really how many Protestants, Anglicans, or Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic", yet that article is presented from the non-Catholic POV(as well as Catholicism). Yet, the Catholic is supposed to shut up and take it - fine, I'll take that for the terms "Catholic and Catholicism". However, we are not allowed the common title of our Church in the name of outlandish excuses, instead the Catholic is supposed to swallow a term imposed by others outside the church, Anti-Catholicism, as is the preferred connotation of those against the Petrine Church.[9] [10] Where are the concessions coming from the non-Catholics?


 * The injustice is truly preposterous! "

Additionally, and possibly the strongest point is historical. (What do you think about this?..) How did the initial author of the term "Catholic Church" describe that church as and does it still exist? Yes,, and there is documented proof that leaves no doubt that it is the present day Petrine Church and its 23 churches in full communion. (I am presently researching the material, it is facinating!) If anyone or any group has the right to be named by such a term it should be the actual institution which the original author and his companions were referring to.

Thank you very much for your support.

Micael 11:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please do not troll your fellow Catholics.

I accept the term "Roman Catholic ",as an alturnate to catholic as it implies the humility Christ calls for. So do at least 90% of my fellow Catholics. The term no longer carries any perjorative. So do not presume, in your pride, to speak for all 'Roman' Catholics. We are not ignorant of our Faith. (Heck, since Galdiator hit the screens I'm pretty happy being called 'Roman' :') & as Christians, don't we have bigger fish to fry? whatever happened to the love of Christ in these religious discussions?> oh tempore! oh Mores!

Opuscalgary 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Catholic vs. Chatholic
I'm not sure whether you meant to use Chatholic in this article. Typing "chatholic" into google results in a link asking, "Did you mean catholic?" and I've never seen that word used outside of here.