Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 2 June 2012

Agape feast and redlinks

Esoglou, there is nothing wrong with a redlink, unless it's a typo. Links to disambiguation pages, however, must always be fixed. So, either write an article, create a relevant redirect at the redlink (to a closely related article), or leave the redlink. Redlinks are fine. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

On this seemingly remediable redlink we disagree, but I will not again blue something on which you put so much store and I don't. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's an article to send it to, either leave it red or not have a link at all (you know, no link at all might be the right solution, actually). Just don't link to disambiguation pages. Also, redlines are a significant source of new articles, so it's good to have them in general (tho I can't say in this specific case) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on this specific case does not attract me. Esoglou (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

All Saints Sisters of the Poor

In this edit, you completely blanked an article, with the edit summary Roman Catholic only since 20th century. Did you simply intend to remove or modify a category here? Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A bad inadvertent mistake by me. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Order vs. Institute

I note that you have changed the category for several entries about religious groups from that of Order to Institute. I have no objection, given that it is the current canonical title. There are now two parallel categories, however, for them. Have you considered merging them or transfering the entries from one to another? Having both seems confusing. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest? All Catholic religious orders are religious institutes but, as you know, not all religious institutes are religious orders. It is certainly wrong to call the institutes that were founded as congregations orders. I have therefore started to remove from the heading "orders" the institutes that are not orders. It would seem logical to use the more inclusive term ("religious institute") for all, even for the orders, and someone could propose - would you propose? - that the heading "Roman Catholic religious orders" be changed to "Roman Catholic religious institutes". Those listed at present under the heading "Roman Catholic religious orders founded in ..." include a few associations that are not religious institutes, such as societies of apostolic life. These should be weeded out, but I have been leaving them partly untouched. There is another category that, as it stands, has a title so all-encompassing that it would include any Catholic association whatsoever, religious or lay: . This heading would include not only religious institutes and other institutes of consecrated life but also orders of chivalry and all sorts of societies, even political ones, involving Catholics. That category perhaps requires attention even more.

I shall make no further changes in this field at least for several days, to allow us both more time to reflect on the question. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Audio Tutorial

Esoglou

Could you please let me know what is wrong with the link I posted? I thought it would be very helpful to people? Why would you mark it spam?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristide1811 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the addition of that link served not to provide information on the subject of the articles but only to advertise the link, in line with WP:BOOKSPAM and WP:REFSPAM. (The insertion in Latin Mass was doubly inappropriate, since, as the article itself states, "Latin Mass" does not necessarily mean "Tridentine Mass".) If you disagree, I suggest that you raise the question on the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can see what others think. Esoglou (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am new to writing on Misplaced Pages. I think the link helpful to people who are interested in both. Could you reccomend a place for the link? Thank you.Aristide1811 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I really should have given you this advice unasked. So I apologize. The place for such links is in the Media subsection of the External links section towards the end of the Tridentine Mass article, where there are several such links. I don't think it appropriate to insert it anywhere in the Latin Mass article. Esoglou (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

thank you. I agree with you. If you want to place the link in the media section that would be great. Do you want some photos off the website? I would be happy to contribute them. --Aristide1811 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would much prefer that you yourself chose where to put it, high up or lower down among the items already there. Esoglou (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

St Patrick's Missionary Society

Hello Esoglou

I have just reversed an edit on the page <St Patrick's Missionary Society> which you had made. I had tried to find out how to contact you first but was unsuccessful. Only later found out how to contact you through online help.

You refer to Fr Kevin Reynolds. Fr Kevin is a member of the Mill Hill Missionaries. He is not a member of St Patrick's Missionary Society.

I am sorry for changing the article before speaking to you. I am new to this and could not find any way, from your contributions page, to initiate a conversation with you.

Tim Redmond St Patrick's Missionary Society Docxrkt (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You did right to correct the article. The inclusion of the Alan Shatter quotation in the article on your society made me think Reynolds was a member. I am sorry to learn that Shatter was referring not only to non-member Reynolds, the accusations against whom have been proved unfounded, but also to actual members of your society. Esoglou (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Matthew 5:17-48

Hi, any comments on Talk:Expounding_of_the_Law#AfD.3F? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of concern to you

You may like to know about the conversation happening at Talk:Catholic Church#Order of Sacraments. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion

Hi, I have looked at God in Christianity and I think it can at best be described as "neglected". Although that has the fortunate implication that there is no contention or debate, the page seems to be suffering from pure neglect - images and templates thrown around at random, unsourced sections - and it is anyone's guess how correct the content may be.

Of course God's page gets viewed only 12,000 times a month (compared to over 600,000 for Johnny Depp) but that is still a key page for WikiProject Christianity and should be in much better shape. I have started a discussion on the talk page there, and your comments will be appreciated. I have also asked Jpacobb and StAnselm to comment so if you could discuss the issues together and suggest improvements, or even better improve the page that would be great. Thanks History2007 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The traditional manuals of theology had a volume of a couple of hundred pages de Deo uno et trino, half of it on God as one in nature, the other half on God as three in persons. This treatise was only on God considered apart from relationships outside of God. Another treatise was de Deo creatore: on God in relation to creatures, including human beings, on whom he bestowed a supernatural status. A third was de Deo reparatore or redemptore, mainly but by no means exclusively about Christ. A fourth section was de Deo sanctificatore, concerning the application of redemption to individuals, a matter that took up several volumes: on grace and on the sacraments, collectively and individually. A fifth was de Deo consummatore, on "the last things" or eschatology. I certainly do not feel up to even attempting to summarize all that in a single Misplaced Pages article. Esoglou (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the article can/should summarize all of that. But I do feel that it deserves to be at least a little better than the neglected cobweb stricken item that it is now, given that Depp's page looks so much better... History2007 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shortened form is what it means

It's simply a fact that "Praise ye Jah" is a shortened form of "Praise ye Jehovah". (Or "praise ye Yahweh".) That's not really a debatable issue, per se. (Though for some reason you always tend to think it is.) And it seems necessary to clearly indicate somewhere in the article (especially the lede) just what actually "Jah" is referring to. And it would seem incomplete to leave that out. And it's what the refs there (by the way), as well as a number of other sources in general many times indicate. No valid reason to remove that. Better to stick to what the refs say, and not push an anti-Jehovah name bias either. Praise Jah does NOT literally mean "praise God" or "praise the Lord". "Jah" is NOT a shortened form of "Lord", but of "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") and that's simply a linguistic fact, not a conjecture or POV. And refs do support it. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM

Per your comment and point, I included the "more than one view"...of "praise ye Yahweh"...for sourced balance... Hashem sfarim (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never even remotely questioned that יה is a short form of יהוה - this is in fact part of the reason why "Yahweh" is generally believed to be the original pronunciation - but I am not convinced that the Yahweh/Jehovah question needs to be mentioned in the Alleluia article. However, if you want it in, so be it. Esoglou (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church and human reproduction

Please take a look at this draft article that I am working on and give me your feedback and suggestions from improvement. Thanx! --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for amplifying the text on the position of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. The text that you amplified was taken from here. I think you would want to make the same clarification to that text.

The current draft consists of copy-paste extracts from other Misplaced Pages articles. I was surprised that Misplaced Pages really doesn't address this topic at all well. It's really only covered in fragments in articles such as [[

Christian views on contraception]] and Catholic Church and abortion. There's not enough emphasis on the fact that these various teachings are part of an overall teaching for the respect of life and the sanctitity of marriage. I'm looking for suggestions on how to present the overall topic of the Church's teaching on human reproduction in the context of this overarching theme.

I want to say something along the lines of "The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative." However, I think a fuller exposition is needed than that. I think the article needs text that grounds the Church's teaching by making references to the various encyclicals that have been issued on this topic such as Humanae Vitae. Unfortunately, my knowledge in this area is sorely lacking. Can you help provide a framework for me to research? If you have time to actually write text, that would be much appreciated. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You have already more or less stated and documented that CCC declares that "sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes" (CCC 2351). It has a perhaps not unimportant clause, "when sought for itself". A point that should perhaps come first in your exposition is: "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose ... (i.e., when) sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved" (CCC 2352). Would this be of any use to you? Or this? Or this? Or this with its reference to the encyclical Evangelium vitae? I am not knowledgeable enough to "provide a framework". All I can do is to look at some point or other that is brought up, as I did with the mention of the Winnipeg Declaration. I did see where you had taken that from, but I hoped that any modification of that article would be done by you and done more effectively than if done by me. I am avoiding actions that might be taken as indications of the battleground mentality that I am supposed to have. However, if you do not touch it, I may get around some time to modifying it myself. Esoglou (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Women at the crucifixion/ Three Marys

Hi Esoglou. Mark 16:1 separates "Mary, mother of James and Salome" so evidently something has gone amiss in copying into this article. Can you help with a good Catholic source in the Three Marys section above Adam Clarke?

The supposed "Roman Catholic tradition" is perhaps baseless. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church and women

Please look at the section titled "Religious vocations" in the article on Catholic Church and women. Someone put a {{citation needed}} tag on this sentence: "In the Catholic Church, a nun is a woman who has taken solemn vows (the male equivalent is often called a "monk" or "friar", although the positions actually entail very different religious origins and constitute very different duties of the church". Could you evaluate the sentence in question and give me your opinion on whether it is (1) accurate and (2) helpful to the flow of the section? Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Made some changes. Esoglou (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Pope Gregory I

Thank you for your assistance and understanding. I will attempt to bring further information on this historical Pope Gregory I and Papal matter. Your efforts are certainly and most greatly appreciated. Thank you so much. All Worlds (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Esoglou, your repeated insertion of original research in order to further your political positions was the primary cause of your several-month topic ban from abortion under arbitration enforcement. Your recent edit, in which you state that news organizations refer to CFC as Catholic in spite of its violations of canon law, clearly demonstrates that you learned absolutely nothing about NOR and NPOV from this sanction. How many more preventative measures must be taken to get you to stop disrupting the encyclopedia? Don't do this again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Roman Catholic orders and societies