Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 53: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Catholic Church) (bot
Line 87: Line 87:


:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> As I understand it, "thousand million" is still sometimes used to express the figure 1,000,000,000 in [[WP:ENGVAR|certain English-speaking countries]], with the word "billion" reserved for 1,000,000,000,000 (aka a trillion). I think that this usage is now uncommon (see [[Long and short scales]]), but I'd like there to be consensus before making the change. The [[MOS:NUMERAL|manual of style]] doesn't seem to explicitly deprecate "thousand million", so there should be plenty of wiggle room on this. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> As I understand it, "thousand million" is still sometimes used to express the figure 1,000,000,000 in [[WP:ENGVAR|certain English-speaking countries]], with the word "billion" reserved for 1,000,000,000,000 (aka a trillion). I think that this usage is now uncommon (see [[Long and short scales]]), but I'd like there to be consensus before making the change. The [[MOS:NUMERAL|manual of style]] doesn't seem to explicitly deprecate "thousand million", so there should be plenty of wiggle room on this. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

== History Section Expansion ==

Most material I added was originally removed in June 2011. The original can be found here for reference: [[Talk:Catholic_Church/Old_history_section_(June_2011)]]. --[[User:Zfish118|Zfish118]] ([[User_talk:Zfish118|talk)]] 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#List of Roman Catholic XXX==
[[File:Farm-Fresh eye.png|15px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#List of Roman Catholic XXX]]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC){{z48}}

Revision as of 00:14, 19 March 2014

Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56

Church = she or it?

Is it against MOS guidelines to refer to the Church as "she"? This is how she refers to herself but I am unsure if it would comply with Wikipedia standards. I reverted a recent edit by Hazhk in this regard, he changed "she" (referring to the Church) to "the papacy" but should it actually read "it" instead? Elizium23 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there is something in the the MOS specfically about this and other "inhouse" style conventions such as referring to God as "He" (against the MOS except in direct quotations) instead of "he". Anglicanus (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of the following: Pronouns for figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures. but I can't find even an allusion to a rule against my proposition. Can you? Elizium23 (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
As I recall I once saw it some time ago but finding it again is another matter. Anglicanus (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
It can certainly be argued that consistency and current consensus play a large role in the status quo as "it". However, I am slightly offended by this usage, as it reflects a poor understanding of the Church's theology of herself, often held by outsiders, but recently held by even many Catholics due to the faulty English translation of the Mass which was circulated for 40 years. By the provisions of Liturgiam Authenticam the accurate representation of the Church as female was restored in the liturgy, and I feel that this understanding of the Church as Bride of Christ deserves a prominent mention in this particular article, and I am especially dismayed that neither the terms "bride" nor "groom" appear anywhere within it! I would be bold and add it myself but I am essentially a vandalism fighter and not much of a content writer. But this is my plea to content contributors here: if the Church cannot be referred to as "she" in articles then some articles should at least explain how she understands herself in relation to Christ the Bridegroom. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I fear that referring to the Church in Wikipedia articles as "she" would stir up more controversy (about alleged POV) than it is worth. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all Catholics are Roman

The Universal Catholic Church is made up of 23 autonomous Churches, the Roman Catholic Church (Latin Catholic) being the largest, with 22 other Eastern Churches in Communion with it (see Eastern Catholic Churches). Therefore the first title of the article "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church" is erroneous. It would be more appropriate to write "Catholic Church is a Communion of 23 Churches, the largest of which being the Roman Catholic Church." Julianhayda (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Julianhayda 6:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect. As has been explained numerous times before now the (Roman) Catholic Church consists of the Latin church and the various Eastern Catholic churches. The eastern churches are also "Roman Catholic" churches. There is a very good article on all of this at Roman Catholic (term). Anglicanus (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
And you can also stop incorrectly removing sourced and factually accurate information from that article as well as incorrectly redirecting other articles to Latin Church. Eastern Catholics are also members of the Roman Catholic Church. Anglicanus (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Here are just some sources I have found offhand, though I know for sure of sources by the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, the Pontifical Oriental Institute, and my father's library (Pavlo Hayda) among others which beg to differ. A Church is labeled by the Tradition which it follows, i.e. Roman Catholics follow the Tradition of Rome, Byzantine Catholics follow the Tradition of Byzantium, Antiochians Antioch, and Alexandirans Alexandria, etc. Just because the First among equals is seated in Rome does not man everybody who aknowledges him is Roman, much like Roman Catholics aren't and weren't before 1054, Greek-Catholics. [1] [2] [3][4][5] Julianhayda (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)julianhayda
Your sources only prove that usage varies. Yes, it is common for Eastern Catholics to use it this way. In fact it is common for Latin Catholics to use the term to refer to the whole communion of Churches. Elizium23 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll give it to you that most members of the Latin Church are unaware of what that term means, and as such usage varies. But since there is disagreement (possibly due to ignorance), why even have it in the very first line of the article? Wouldn't it be beneficial for most Catholics to know that there are 23 Catholic Churches, and perhaps the usage of that term does not apply to everybody? Are you suggesting that institutions such as the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, the Pontifical Oriental Institute, St. Basil Seminary, and the Ukrainian Catholic University which insist on their non-Romaness, all-the-while recognizing the Pope of Rome as the successor of Peter, have no idea what they're talking about? How about the first line of the Eastern Catholic Code of Canons, which states that the Eastern Churches are separate from the Latin Church? "Canon 1 - The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise."[6] Is not Latin and Roman synonymous? I know there's a consensus on this on the Roman Catholic (term) talk page. Julianhayda (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Is not Latin and Roman synonymous?". No. Again, 'Catholic Church' and 'Roman Catholic Church' are synonymous. This has already been discussed extensively and doesn't need to be tested again. -- Hazhk Talk to me 23:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I will add, since I don't mean to be rude by being blunt, that I don't think any clarification is needed in the lead. Some of the Eastern Churches may choose to ignore their Roman aspect, but we shouldn't involve misconceptions in the lead. The fact is the Catholic hierarchy always take 'Roman Catholic' to mean the whole Church. Again, all of this has been discussed (I've just read the archives) and debated and there's a consensus to use 'Roman Catholic', not as an official name (for the reasons you mention), but as a synonymous name in the lead. -- Hazhk Talk to me 23:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide a link to the archives? Like I said, I have known my entire life, from my studies, articles, books, my father, family friends (among which, bishops and professors), etc., that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not synonymous, and I have provided at least five links above to demonstrate that and another twenty if you'd like. I will use an example. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was signed into union with the Roman See at the Union of Brest in 1596. The text of the union [7] in the opening line is described as "Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church." That's **Union, not acquisition. Now, when an institution, ecclesial or civil, enters into a union, say, the European Union; simply because France recognizes Belgium as an ally, there exist no borders between the two countries, the countries coexist with different cultures and different governments, yet the union's capital is in Brussels does not mean that every Frenchman is automatically Belgian. I see no difference in this case.Julianhayda (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's complicated, Julian. Eastern Catholics like me don't refer to ourselves as Roman Catholics unless we're speaking in Arabic, when the term "Rum" (Roman) implies "Byzantine". For some Westerners, however, the term "Roman Catholic Church" is used synonymously with "Catholic Church". If you scan through the archives for this talk page you will find plenty of debate back and forth on the title and lead sentence. Most of us would rather not open up that debate again; it's not a productive use of our editing time. Majoreditor (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia article on Roman Catholic (term) and the several different senses in which the term "Roman Catholic" is used. Julian's comment "A Church is labeled by the Tradition which it follows, i.e. Roman Catholics follow the Tradition of Rome, Byzantine Catholics follow the Tradition of Byzantium, Antiochians Antioch, and Alexandirans Alexandria, etc." corresponds to the meaning covered in that article's section on "Roman Catholic" and "Roman-Rite Catholic". In that sense, Milanese/Ambrosian Catholics are not Roman Catholics. However, since they recognize the See of Rome as the centre of reference for the whole Catholic Church, themselves included, they are also and quite normally referred to as Roman Catholics. Esoglou (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


Just because a custom is common and may be found in some publications doesn't make it correct. Although it is a common custom for Eastern Catholics to refer to the Latin Church as the "Roman Catholic Church" it is still an incorrect use regardless of who does it ~ even eminent Eastern Catholic bishops. Instead of calling them "Roman Catholics" they should correctly either call them Latin Catholics or Latin Rite Catholics or even Western Catholics (although many Anglicans and others also claim this description). Anglicanus (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You, I am sure, know that there is more to a Church than simply thr rite it follows and the rites within it; but I digress and realize I am fighting a futile battle.

When I come home, I will change the signage in front of my church, remove the "Ukrainian-Greek" from its title, and just wait for "Latin" Catholics to walk in and say, "wait a minute, this isn't a ''real Catholic Church," as has happened in the past. Julianhayda (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edict of Thessalonica

Why there is nothing about the Edict of Thessalonica? It was essential for the establishment of the State Chruch of the Roman Empire. This edict of 380 AC made the Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and was the beginning of the Roman State Church.

"We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches." Edict of Thessalonica, by Roman Emperors

--178.190.181.180 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It was already there, but hidden in a link titled "decree of the Emperor". I have exposed the true name of the link. Thank you for pointing it out. Elizium23 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

History from 1870 to the Second Vatican Council?

I am a relatively new Wikipedian, I have not seen the need to edit a locked page before, but there was a lot that happened in this missing period. What is the process of editing a locked article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Name Omitted (talkcontribs) 03:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

History of the Catholic Church has plenty on it. If you would like to expand on that, please feel free to do so. This large article is for a concise summary of the Catholic Church and exhaustive history is outside its scope. Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Murders committed by the Catholic Church.

Between the inquisitions and crusades innumerable innocent people have lost their lives under the authority of the Catholic Church. Why is Wikipedia so biased in not stating directly numbers of those whom have died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.113.128 (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Because the numbers have been greatly exaggerated through time and legend and there are sub-articles that address all the details through valid reliable sources.Marauder40 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2013

In this article the first sentence states that RC population is 1.2 billion and there is a citation. The citation states that it is 1.214 MILLION. The word 'million' in the source needs to be changed to 'billion.'

67.168.147.85 (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The note says 1,214 million. One thousand million is a billion, which lines up with 1.2 billion in the article lede. RudolfRed (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The confusion is entirely understandable: the comma is used as a decimal mark in many countries and locales. However, this article is written in British English, where a period is used as decimal mark and a comma is a thousands separator. In fact, MOS:DECIMAL forbids the use of comma as decimal mark. Elizium23 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2013

Under membership statistics article states number of Catholics as 1,214 million. True enough, but it sure is confusing. Using a the term "thousand million" to refer to a billion is weird. Thanks for considering change. 74.192.32.24 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As I understand it, "thousand million" is still sometimes used to express the figure 1,000,000,000 in certain English-speaking countries, with the word "billion" reserved for 1,000,000,000,000 (aka a trillion). I think that this usage is now uncommon (see Long and short scales), but I'd like there to be consensus before making the change. The manual of style doesn't seem to explicitly deprecate "thousand million", so there should be plenty of wiggle room on this. Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

History Section Expansion

Most material I added was originally removed in June 2011. The original can be found here for reference: Talk:Catholic_Church/Old_history_section_(June_2011). --Zfish118 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#List of Roman Catholic XXX

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#List of Roman Catholic XXX. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

  1. ^ "About". St. Joseph Institute. Retrieved 29 August 2013.
  2. ^ Brian Singer-Towns, 2003, The Catholic Faith Handbook for Youth. Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 0-88489-759-1, page 105.
  3. ^ Fran Colie, Roman or Melkite, What's the Difference?
  4. ^ Descy, Serge (1993). The Melkite Church. Boston: Sophia Press. pp. 92–93. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ Faulk, Edward (2007). 101 Questions and Answers on Eastern Catholic Churches. New York: Paulist Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-8091-4441-9.
  6. ^ "Code of Canons of Oriental Churches". jgray.org. Retrieved 29 August 2013.
  7. ^ Rohoza, Michael. "Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church". Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham University. Retrieved 30 August 2013.