| Revision as of 23:31, 24 November 2006 editKeltik31 (talk | contribs)366 edits →based on what?← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:45, 24 November 2006 edit undoIrishguy (talk | contribs)45,851 edits →based on what?Next edit → | ||
| Line 318: | Line 318: | ||
| no. never heard of it. just wondering where catholics get some of their practices from. if it isnt in the bible, then it isnt legit in my book. you just cant make it up as you go. ] 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | no. never heard of it. just wondering where catholics get some of their practices from. if it isnt in the bible, then it isnt legit in my book. you just cant make it up as you go. ] 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Sola Scriptura means "scripture alone". It is the belief that only the Bible is relevant...which is what you are espousing. Catholics believe in the Bible as well as tradition, just as the followers of Judaism have scripture ''and'' tradition. If you have a legitimate desire to learn more about Catholicism, there are many articles here and many editors who might be able to help you. If you are trolling in an attempt to cause problems, I would suggest you find somewhere else to go. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:45, 24 November 2006
..
 | Anglicanism Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
- Talk:Catholicism/Archive1
- Talk:Catholicism/Archive2
- Talk:Catholicism/Archive3
- Talk:Catholicism/Archive4
Merge from "Catholic" & "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"
I suggest a major merge from "Catholic" & "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" to "Catholicism." (the latter is referenced from the "Christianity Template") These ought not to be merged with "Roman Catholic Church" but ought to point out that not all Catholics are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but that the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Catholic Church today. It ought to talk about the history of the words catholic and apostolic, discuss breifly the use of the words as they apply to a survey of the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation (both the Magisterial Reformation and the Radical Reformation - the former considered itself to be Catholic while the latter rejected this), and contemporary usage among modern Protestants (i.e. Neo-Lutheans and Reforming Catholics: I find the term Neo-Lutheran to be misleading, all the Reformers including Luther took seriously the charge of schism and innovation and maintained the position that they were Catholic).
It ought to thus talk about how Christians from Eastern Christianity, Western Christianity, and Protestantism (as well as non-Christian) think of the words "Catholic" and "Catholicism" in context and in a NPOV manner, rather from an exclusively Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox POV.
These three articles are essentially the same except that "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" discusses the word "Apostolic" in relation to Catholicity. "Catholicism" is rather long and and so much of the content that is rather specific to either of the afore mentioned Christian Catholic Groups ought to be moved to their own respective articles to focus the article. (Information about Roman Catholicism specifically ought to be moved under the "Roman Catholic Church" article for example.)
The "Catholic (disambiguation)" ought to remain to redirect people to the correct article.
- I don't believe that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church should be merged with Catholocism seeing as the article itself talks about how the Orthodox churches also claim this title. To merge it would be in ignorance of the other groups who claim this title.
Hodijah 15:09, 04 October 2006
- To me it seems obvious that it would be nonsense to merge with "Catholicism" One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which deals with more than the "Catholic" adjective. Lima 05:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC) One could, of course, put in the latter article a reference directing the reader to Catholic or to Catholicism. Lima 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Propose merging with Roman Catholic Church
I'm sure this proposal will raise a ruckus. I just don't see the point of having both articles.
Yes, I know that this has been proposed before and the claim is that there IS a difference between Roman Catholic Church and Catholicism. If you read the INTRO to this article, it sounds like there is a plausible distinction between this article and that one. However, if you read the CONTENT of this article, you will find that 75% or more of the content in this article is duplicated in the Roman Catholic Church. So again, what's the point?
--69.236.189.158 06:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems rather foolish to have the two separate entries, but I think we're probably better off relegating all the turf war stuff about who should call themselves 'Catholic' to this post while talking about the Catholic Church as a historical entity under the Catholic Church/Roman Catholic Church.
Given the communal nature of the Misplaced Pages, and in order not to have to spend half the Catholic Church article discussing who might possibly claim to be part of the Catholic Church, I vote that we keep the articles separate as a peacekeeping measure.Brendanhodge 06:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
We have greeco catolics, asirian catholics, so it's not the same.
The two articles should be merged with the appropriate redirects, while distinguishing the Roman Rite from the other Rites of the Catholic Church. JBogdan 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Object. This is a point that has been made before: large numbers of people outside the Roman church use the word catholicism to refer to beliefs they hold (the members of Affirming Catholicism, for example). This is a neutral encylopedia and so should record the fact. I think the article makes this clear already. Perhaps what is necessary is a separate page on Catholic doctrine on which all the repeated material can go. MAG1 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I also object. Not all Catholics are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Fishhead64 06:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
"Catholicism" and the "Roman Catholic Church" are clearly two different things. "isms" are descriptions of the collections of practices, and sometimes the motivations behind them, as they have influenced or are influencing action, and may vary depending on which branch or aspect of the "ism" you are talking about, and the meaning of which is often largely open to debate, whereas the Church is an "entity". No credible encyclopedia would fail to have an entry for the "Roman Catholic Church". This would really be an attempt to merge two separate topics, with the consquent loss of a substantial amount of information which could not rightly be placed in an article about the Roman Catholic Church. pat8722 14:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Merging thefollowing articles would be benificial: "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" "Catholic" and "Catholicism" Butwe aught not to merge these with "Roman Catholic Church" because there are other churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Neo-Lutherans, and Calvinists who emphasis a "Reformed Catholicity." (The Protestant Reformers took seriously the charge of schism and inovation claiming the mideval church had left them and they were simply reforming the Catholic church. But to be sure there are anti-catholic churches. The word Protestant has come to indicate these churches almost exclusivly promting many Protestants with high church leanings to prefer designations like "Reformed" "Evangelical" and even "Reformed/Reforming Catholic.")
I object to merging "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" with "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholicism." Although most of the material does have to do with Roman Catholicism, I think it should be re-written in a more NPOV manner and/or merged with ecumenism. Confiteordeo 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sacraments
I boldly removed the sacraments section; on the basis that a) It largely contains material also contained in Catholic sacraments, and b) Churches that consider themselves Catholic do not all have the same beliefs about sacraments, and the section largely documents Roman Catholic beliefs.
It was reverted with the comment "rv: not all Christian churches believe in them all, therefore the sacraments section is needed".
I accept that it is valid and useful to mention sacraments; but is there any reason to do so in full when several articles exist already containing largely this content?
It might be useful to have a section explaining the different beliefs about sacraments of different churches calling themselves Catholic (for example, Anglican churches often only recognise baptism and eucharist as sacraments, and administer chrismation and confirmation, if both are used, separately); but this section doesn't really do that.
Thoughts? TSP 16:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Being that I was the reverter, I think I should handle this. First, the fact than the Catholic sacraments page exists doesn't affect this article. A user going to looking up information on Catholic sacraments will most likely not go to that page, but a generic page. Secondly, yes, it is very valid to mention sacraments, for the aformentioned reason. Third, making a new section explaining differences between sections doesn't belone in this page. If you want to create a page describing the differences between churches, go ahead- but that doesn't belong in this page. History of the Protestant breakoff from the Catholic church should be included, but Protestant/Eastern beliefs that don't directly corrolate with the RCC's teaching don't go in this article, I believe. True Sora 17:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm? But this article isn't about the Roman Catholic Church. It's about all churches that call themselves Catholic, and what they mean by that. Therefore surely the beliefs of the Orthodox Churches, and Churches such as the Church of England which while often classified as Protestant consider themselves fully Catholic, belong in this article just as much as those of the RCC? The RC beliefs on sacraments would be in Roman Catholic Church... except that over there, the concensus has been that it's better to leave it to the article Catholic sacraments rather than duplicate content and thereby make the main article longer and harder to navigate. TSP 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- As a result of the debate over "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic", there was an agreement (perhaps not implemented) a couple months ago to create a series of articles titled "Roman Catholic Church and X" (e.g. Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church) which would presumably contain the contents of the Catholic sacraments article. This series of articles would then contain only the "Roman Catholic" view of various doctrinal topics. See my message below for an example of why talking about "catholic sacraments" is a brain-twister.
Baptism
I think that the phrase "even in infants who have committed no actual sins" should be rephrased as the word actual suggests that the doctrine of original sin is optional, and is just generally misleading. im going to substitute "who have not personally comitted and sins" but that isnt a very elegant turn of phrse. Ill try to come up with something better. --Phil 20686 18:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh, I'm getting a serious headache trying to wrap my brain around this one. My knowledge of theological doctrines across various Christian denominations is too meager to grapple with this question.
- The problem is that I know how to think about baptism from a Roman Catholic POV and, with a little research, I could probably figure out how to think about it from the POV of any single Protestant denomination but I don't know how to think about it from a "catholic" perspective (i.e. across the spectrum of Christians that consider themselves "catholic" as part of their confession of faith via the Nicene creed).
- Here's an exposition of the problem as I sse it. Having been educated a long time ago as a Roman Catholic, I understand that baptism remits original sin (and any other actual sins committed by the individual being baptized). What do other catholic Christian denominations think of this? Many other Protestant denominations accept infant baptism. Do they generally accept the doctrine of original sin?
- Do Protestant denominations believe that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven? Do Roman Catholics believe that?
- Do Protestant denominations believe that unbaptized adults cannot enter heaven? Do Roman Catholics believe that?
- I believe that many Protestant denominations would accept a profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior to be sufficient for salvation. Do any Protestant denominations insist on baptism as a prerequisite for salvation? Do the Roman Catholics?
- Please enlighten me
Mass Merge Discussion
Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Mass_Merging Dominick 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Apostolic Succession does not mean Catholic
Add reference demonstrating that the Church of England asserts apostolic succession This reference does not say that. I can't see WP:V Dominick 18:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, actually you're right; it's not as explicit as I had read it as being. I've replaced the link with one which includes: "We reaffirm our own commitment to the apostolic succession of the Church and to the interrelationship between the historic episcopal succession and the continuity of the whole Church in faithfulness to the original witness and teaching of the apostles."; which seems a pretty clear assertion. Note that we are not attempting to demonstrate that anyone has a valid apostolic succession; only to mention which ones assert episcopal descent from the historic church. The word claim needs changing back to something else, as it is on the list of words to avoid; I'm not sure what the best way to express this is, though. TSP 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sui Juris (or Iuris)
Eastern Orthodox Church is not recognized, mutually or otherwise, as a sui iuris Catholic Church The claims that Orthodoxy is Sui Juris are pretty well know Lima. Any expansion? Dominick 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Ancient Church of the East, which has split from the last, are all more than sui iuris, and might even consider it an insult to be compared with the autonomous Churches within the the Catholic Church. But they are not acknowledged as Catholic by the Catholic Church. They do not recognize each other mutually as Catholic. Each recognizes only itself as Catholic. But I think I now understand the quite valid distinction Dominick wishes to place in the text, and I have tried to express it in my latest editing. Lima 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Those psychic vibrations pay off, thanks Lima. Always a pleasure. Dominick 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Vatican I reference
Reference to Vatican I as an instance of the Church calling herself the "Roman Catholic Church" is absurd.
What is at issue here in all of these naming debates is simple: There are qualities of a church and there are names. These are two different things. Credal and consiliar statements (credal formulae are consiliar statements) are discussions of qualities, not names.
The Catholic Church has always been called by the same name with very minor and rare exceptions. These exceptions should be stated, but Vatican I is not an example of naming.
There is not other institution by the name "Catholic Church." Every other institution which claims to be "catholic" or "Catholic" in the adjectival sense has a name. And non of them is named "The Catholic Church." There is no ambiguity.
Anglicans and others may take offense. But they cannot take the name of the Catholic Church. When they do so, they imply that the Catholic Church only began with the Reformation, which is ridiculous in the extreme. --Vaquero100 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- It does not matter how we want the world to be: if there are significant groups of people who sy they are in a catholic church that is not the Roman variety, then this should be recorded. The point is not that Anglicans and others claim the catholic church came into being in the reformation, but that they have continuity with the pre-reformation catholic church and so remain part of it. MAG1 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the paragraph before this. If this was just a personal opnion: "The point is not that Anglicans and others claim the catholic church came into being in the reformation, but that they have continuity with the pre-reformation catholic church and so remain part of it" then I would have no qualms but this is a statement with theological significance and thus it would be best not to manifest such a view unless it can be backed up with plenty of historical as well as theological verifiable data. No other church in the world has more history about the Christian Religion than then Roman Catholic Church (Example Document of the RCC Vatican Archives ] ). In conclusion, all statements must be made in light of verifiable data and the most accepted interpretation according to its context, and for that statement above it would be theological in context.
The controversy of Child Molesters in the catholic church
The catholic church is often ridiculed for having priests who are paedophiles.
This has nothing to do with the articleMAG1 22:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The See Also list
Thanks to whoever edited it, it brought my attention to it. (Gimmetrow 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
- It seems very long to the point of being useless
- Liturgical Year, Lapsed Catholic, and Santeria? Not sure they are major "see also" items
- If denominations are a category, shouldn't RC be there?
- Instead of Ruthenian, perhaps link to Eastern Rites (name likely to change soon)
- NPoV order is probably alphabetical
Merge Roman Catholicism With Catholicism Instead of the Other Way Around
Very well, and accurately, put.
I suggest that we merge the article Roman Catholicism with Catholicism instead of merging Catholicism with Roman Catholicism. The reason is that Roman Catholicism refers to one rite of Catholicism which is the Latin/Western rite. Catholicism, on the other hand refers to all the rites. Another reason is that there are many pseduo-Catholic groups such as the SSPX that would do well to go under an article titled "Catholicism" instead of "Roman Catholicism" as once again "Roman Catholicism", often refers to Catholicism which is in communion with the Vatican/Holy See. --PaladinWriter 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Anglicanism
A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge
At the moment Catholicism, Catholic and Catholic Church (disambiguation) seem to be doing essentially the same thing: describing the different meanings attached to the term 'Catholic' in a theological context.
Catholic Church (disambiguation) obviously sets out to do this in the form of a disambiguation page, but it doesn't do it all that well, so this page probably fulfils that role just as well as that one does (essentially, the reader either wants Roman Catholic Church, in which case they will find the link prominently at the head of the article; or they mean something more theoretical, in which they need something a bit more extensive than a simple (and very long, but still incomplete) list of churches claiming in one way or another to be 'Catholic').
Catholic and Catholicism, meanwhile, seem to cover pretty much exactly the same ground - unsurprisingly, as one is just the noun form of the other; and Misplaced Pages policy tells us that the adjective should be redirected to the noun.
If you don't agree that these pages should all be merged, could someone at least explain what the distinct roles of these three pages are meant to be, so that they can be rewritten to fulfil different roles, rather than the same role? TSP 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- This has been debated ad nausaum on WP. Catholic has a set of meanings, not all of which are religious. Catholicism has a purely religious meaning. They are not the same. Please don't restart this same infernal argument about merging. Whenever it crops up the result is always the same: a resounding 'no'. FearÉIREANN
\ 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- But the Catholic page begins:
- Catholic when used as a specifically Christian religious term, can have a number of meanings:
- It then goes on to be entirely about those meanings. There is no mention anywhere in the Catholic article, as far as I can see, of any meaning outside that "purely religious meaning"; which is covered by Catholicism.
- At the very least, we have at least one two many articles. If Catholic is not trying to serve the same purpose as Catholicism, it's trying to serve the same purpose as Catholic Church (disambiguation) (and serving it rather better than that page does). We should at least be able to get rid of one of these pages. TSP 22:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- But the Catholic page begins:
In answer to your (FearÉIREANN's) edit comment:
- This has been debated to death for years here. The answer is always the same: no merge. Don't put us through yet another rerun with yet another guaranteed outcome
I really can't see where it has been debated in any of the talk page archives. A few times it's been proposed by one person; another single person has disagreed; it's been dropped. There never seems to have been a debate, or any proper consensus sought. If, as you say, Catholic is meant to examine non-religious meanings, what is meant to be the content of that article? What is there that is worthy of an encyclopedia, rather than a dictionary, to say about the word "Catholic" which is not the religious meanings? What encyclopedic content is covered by "Catholic" and not by "Catholicism"? Can't we leave on the tags and see if anyone can actually explain what these two (three, indeed) separate pages are meant to be about? TSP 22:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This whole discussion strikes me as disingenuous. The noun term "Roman Catholic Church" is clearly not identical to the adjective "Catholic," which is clearly not identical to the noun "Catholicism." That there is a common grounding with respect to the meaning of the Koine Greek term "Catholic" is pretty much all that these subjects have in common. Is this somehow not obvious...? Merging is clearly not called for. --66.69.219.9 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, for a start, I haven't proposed merging with "Roman Catholic Church" - that's an entirely different matter.
- Catholic and Catholicism are different words, yes, but are they different concepts? Misplaced Pages's page on merging and moving pages lists among its "good reasons to merge a page":
- There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
- That seems to be exactly the situation here. Even if there are subtle variations in meaning between Catholic and Catholicism, that still doesn't mean that they need separate encyclopedia articles. Misplaced Pages needs one article per topic, not one article per word. Catholic and Catholicism represent essentially the same topic; as demonstrated by the fact that the two pages currently have extremely similar content.
- It's a shame to merge in a way, because both pages are well-written; but nevertheless, they do cover the same subject, and Misplaced Pages is supposed to have have one page on each subject, not one on each word. TSP 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Catholic Church (disambiguation) was created for a specific purpose. It was created as a compromise to an ongoing debate. It is a disambiguation page not an article. It is not suitable for a merge into an article. I feel that to merge this page would start the whole debate again. --WikiCats 04:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- True, it was; but, on the other hand, the same purpose had earlier been served by Catholicism for quite some time without significant controversy. It just so happened that this link had been lost in the heated debate over where Catholic Church should redirect to shortly before you proposed the new page.
- I was interested to see where Catholic Church (disambiguation) went, in case it turned into a useful page, but I don't think it has. Catholic at least, and possibly also Catholicism fulfils its role better than it does, and it suffers from constant low-level edit warring between people who disagree on what its purpose should be.
- In any case, compromise between editors isn't usually a particularly good reason for a page to exist: if we work that way we end up not with an encyclopedia, but with an eternal record of what arguments we've had. TSP 11:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There has to be a disambiguation page for the term "Catholic Church". What do you propose we use for that, if not this page? --WikiCats 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- There only has to be a disambiguation page if there are more than two or three distinct possible meanings of the term. In this case, there seem to be basically two meanings - the specific (Roman Catholic Church) and the general (Catholicism), this could be covered - as it used to be - by '"Catholic Church" redirects here. For other uses of the term, see Catholicism at the top of the Roman Catholic Church page. TSP 18:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Catholic Church" refers specifically to the body or bodies of Catholic Christians. "Catholicism" refers to an ecclesiological and theological ideology. I think the two categories are sufficently dissimilar to warrant two separate pages. However, Catholic and Catholicism is another matter. Fishhead64 00:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Your going to have to convince a lot of people for this to happen. At this point you have no support. --WikiCats 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- True. Not helped by the fact that two of my merge labels were reverted within a few minutes of being put there, meaning that most people probably don't know the proposal has been made.
- I think something needs to be done, though; at the moment Catholic and Catholicism are near-duplicates, while Catholic Church (disambiguation) is an article (and intermittent battleground) covering largely the same topic less well.
- As I've said, I don't mind losing this proposal; if only someone would tell me what the distinct purposes of these three pages are, so we can make them into different pages rather than pages covering more or less the same topic with varying degrees of quality. TSP 13:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I concur that Catholic and Catholicism cover roughly the same ground, and I believe the former could be merged into the latter with a redirect without any violence being done to the concept. As I said above, Catholicism represents an ecclesiological and theological perspective, and to be Catholic is to be characteristic of or to subscribe to that perspective.
- OTOH, Catholic Church (disambiguation) is useful as a stand-alone page insofar as it helps mediate the ongoing debates over what constitutes the Catholic Church and the degree to which it is synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church. It thus not only disambiguates, it explicates. If I had my druthers, this would not be a disambiguation page, but what one would get if one types in Catholic Church, but I lost that argument some months ago. Fishhead64 23:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was do not merge.--WikiCats 04:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that the merge was only signalled on one of the three pages involved; so if anyone wants to announce and have this debate properly, I'm not sure they should feel constrained by this decision. TSP 12:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge of Catholic in to Catholicism
You may wish to take up Fishhead's suggestion and propose a merge of Catholic in to Catholicism. If that's the case, someone should put the appropriate merge notices on those pages. --WikiCats 04:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I did. They were removed after a few minutes. I could have put them back, but I assumed that the removing editor would go on to explain the difference between the two pages; however, no-one ever really did. TSP 12:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think they should be put back up. If they're removed again, the offending editor should be rebuked. Fishhead64 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)I just checked - I don't see the editorial history of these tags being placed at Catholic and Catholicism. I'll put them up. There was one at Catholic Church (disambiguation), but that wasn't one of the articles in question. Fishhead64 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- They were added here with this edit and at Catholic with this edit. The removing editor DID provide some thoughts on what he saw as the difference between the two pages; but it didn't seem to match up to the reality of their current content. TSP 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I would support a merge of Catholic in to Catholicism. They are about the same subject, so there should not be two articles. --WikiCats 11:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There are three in agreement on this merge and no one against. The first thing to do is move all the unique content from Catholic over to Catholicism. --WikiCats 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm coming here thanks to WikiCats' note at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Quickly looking through the articles, they seem to largely duplicate each other, and therefore I support this merger. —Mira 08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Having read the articles and looked how another encyclopedia handles this, I think a content merger to Catholic is reasonable. Nevertheless while the content is similar, the articles are written differently, and any merger will not be simple. Gimmetrow 11:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "Catholicism" and "Catholic" aught to be merged and keeping this new merged article seperate from "Roman Catholic Church" for reasons stated above, and we aught to keep the disambiguation page to help direct people to the correct article.--208.191.143.197 16:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that Catholicism should be used primarily to designate a reduction of Catholic belief to a system. The term is late and despite authors like De Lubac does not fully do justice to the rediscovery of the patristic heritage in the twentieth century, e.g. at Vatican II. Catholic Chuch/faith/belief should normally be used as substitutes. Catholicity also is deserving of an entry----Clive Sweeting
neutrality disputed
The external links provided fail NPOV standards. Not alone does the list exclude criticism, the list contains unambiguously supportive spin all the way through. External links, like reading lists, should provide a broad range of analyses, not promotional material for one viewpoint. FearÉIREANN
\ 14:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Amen. I say, get rid of them all since they all have a particular "take" on Catholicism and none are the total picture. Misplaced Pages is not a directory!
"Catholic"
The subject term has been drafted to read as follows:
Catholic (from Greek Template:Polytonic, from Template:Polytonic, in general: Template:Polytonic, according to, in keeping with + Template:Polytonic, neuter genitive of Template:Polytonic, whole), from Greek katholikos, from phrase "kath' holou," from kata "about" + genitive of holos "whole"...
Some have taken the route of an interpretive translation of Catholic to be "universal," which means literally "one verse." This, again, is an interpretive and not literal translation, as "one verse" does not come close to "about whole" in the conveyance of meaning. An interlinear, direct translation is the only way to avoid the destruction of meaning...which is quite profound with respect to "about whole", which implies a touch of humility along with a profound embracement of the powerful concepts underlying the word "whole" (holy, holistic, integral, integrity, etc.) --66.69.219.9 15:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Rather than the anonymous (66.69.219.9) user's idea of "universal" - or rather "universe" - as meaning "one verse", surely most people will prefer the derivation in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language:
- from Latin universum, neuter of universus, whole, entire, "turned into one": uni- + versus, past participle of vertere, to turn
Κατά (kata) does not mean "about" in any form of Greek - can Anonymous quote even one passage where it is used in that sense? The Greek for "about" (both in the sense of "concerning" and in that of "around") is περί (peri), as in Matthew 2:8, 3:4, 4:6, 6:28, 8:18 etc. etc.
See the online etymology dictionary entry for Catholic; there "kata" is being defined as meaning "about." In any case, I think we may be converging on violent agreement that some form of "whole" is a vastly better translation of Catholic than "universal" -- in particular because "whole" simply carries more appropriate meaning in today's vernacular, but also because the first meaningful definition of universal which you've quoted above in fact refers to "whole" as well. Clearly, "universal" (notably, BTW, an adjective...not an action-verb such as you describe above) and "universe" both miss the mark in terms of translating "Catholic." Whenever possible, a good translator will retain similar or identical phonetics of the original word.
Also notably, even the Catholic Church refers to itself as "one, holy (very clearly derived from the Greek holos, "whole")...Church" -- not a "universal" one.
There are reasons that Latin is a dead language. Latin has nothing to do with the original Scriptures, and the Church has abandoned it accordingly. --66.69.219.9 22:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. "Anonymous" is a vastly more appropriate term when applied to Misplaced Pages profile-names, as you should be well aware; i.e., IP addresses on Misplaced Pages are vastly less anonymous than a profile name. --66.69.219.9 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the anonymous editor does not like to be referred to as "Anonymous", I shall call him "66" (only two sixes). I am glad to see that what 66 said about the meaning of κατά is not his own imagination, but due to a mistake in on online source (though 66's statement that κατά means "about" in Koine Greek does seem to be his imagination). Since TSP is absolutely right in his comment on the Catholic Talk page, I now indicate in the article the meaning given to the Greek word καθολικός in the authoritative Greek-English lexicon of Liddell and Scott. Lima 04:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the dictionary definition, not as a ploy to push certain books or types of language, but becuase I think the OED definition is fuller and makes clearer the sorts of issues discussed in the article, and in these talk pages (sometimes ad nauseam).
Bravo Lima. MAG1 20:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And, of course, the thing about "holy" being derived from "holos" is completely of the mark - that might be the correct etymology but only concerns the English translation. In Latin it would be "Sancta", "Hagia" in Greek and "Kedosh" (or something like this) in Hebrew. Originally it means "set apart from other things for a special purpose" The name the church calls herself by is, in line with the Nicene creed, "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" - every epithet denoting a different aspect - the Catholic denoting the "Universality" as opposed being restricted to time, place, class, occupation. Str1977 12:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Women as theological figures
Can someone add the date of John Paul ii's statements about women Catholic priests - and addd some information on the general subject please? Jackiespeel 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Criticism(sp)
Why is there no criticism setion, alot of ppl have bad things to say about how dumb they think catholics are.
"Four Groups"
Many Christians (and denominations) are commonly considered "catholic". They fall into four groups:
- 1) the Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Churches of the Roman Catholic Church, understand "catholic" to mean Communion with Rome as well as Apostolic Succession, following the teaching of Sts. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Ireneus, second century Church Fathers.
- 2) those that, like the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Old Catholics who have recognized Apostolic Succession from the early Church; and
- 3) Anglican Churches, Lutheran Churches and others who have denied the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), and may have followed confessions or movements condemned by the Catholic Church during the reformation or afterwards; and
- 4) those who claim to be spiritual descendants of the Apostles but have no discernable institutional descent from the historic Church, and normally do not refer to themselves as catholic.
I'm not happy about these "four groups"; mostly because they seem to be considered from a Roman Catholic point of view, not from a neutral point of view. "Recognized Apostolic Succession" is used to mean "recognized by the Roman Catholic Church"; "condemned by the Catholic Church" is used to mean "condemned by the Roman Catholic Church".
Can anyone suggest a more neutral phrasing? Except from a Roman Catholic point of view, I'm not sure that the groupings currently make sense. The Orthodox churches consider themselves to alone constitute a Catholic Church, which the Old Catholics do not. Not all Lutherans hold that they maintain an apostolic succession, whereas Anglicans do. 1 and 4 make sense (though I'm not sure that the characterisation of the teachings of the three saints mentioned in 1 is accurate), but 2 and 3 seem distinctly blurred when considered from anything other than a Roman Catholic point of view. TSP 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
They are classified this way here because this is the most common way of classifying them. This happens to agree to certain extant with a RC outlook, though not completely (or the OCC would have to be moved to Protestantism or have a group of its own). Str1977 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Why Catholic should be inserted into the Catholicism column
Since Catholic refers to a person who is part of Catholicism itself, it should be merged into there right this very second.
You are right. In Misplaced Pages Buddists are listed under Buddisism. By the way latter day saints should also be changed to mormonism.
"Roman Catholic Church"
I've restored "Roman" to the page. I know this is a controversial issue, and it has been extremely extensively discussed over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Two things seem clear, however. First, the church in communion with the Pope uses, including in official documents, "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the entire church in communion with the Pope; never, as far as anyone could establish, to mean 'the Latin Rite church'. Secondly, it is hopeless, in a discussion about different meanings of the term "Catholic Church", to call one of the bodies referred to "Catholic Church". It would be like the Ireland page saying, "The term 'Ireland' can be used to mean two different things - Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland". It presupposes the correctness of one of the views described, which is hopeless both for clarity and NPOV, and makes a sensible and neutral terminology discussion impossible. TSP 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Roman might be called for for clarity's sake but I would be surprise if you could provide a document with the term "Roman Catholic Church" referring to the entire Catholic Church. Str1977 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- In the papal encyclicals Divini illius Magistri and Humani generis, the term "Roman Catholic Church" has been used to refer to the whole Church in communion with the see of Rome. It is repeatedly used in this sense in official documents concerning dialogue between the Church as a whole and groups outside her fold. Several examples of such documents can be found at the links on the Vatican website under the heading Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Lima 09:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
based on what?
maybe someone can help me. i read all of the new testament with the exception of the book of acts and revalations. i am not a catholic, but 1/2 of my family is. they pray the rosery, the take communion and go to confession. can someone tell me where going the act of going to confession is in the holy bible becuase i couldnt find it. and if it isnt in the bible then is it really a holy practice or something that was just made up. also, praying to mary? where is this in the holy bible? and also, where is the rank structure of the catholic church in the bible? biships? cardinals? i dont remember reading about these things either. can someone help me? Keltik31 23:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Confession: John 20:22-23, Matthew 9:2-8, and 1 Corinthians 11:27
- Mary: Catholics don't pray to Mary per se, but through Mary. Her assistance is asked to intercede with God on behalf of the person praying. IrishGuy
i dont remember confession in those books telling the sinner to go tell a priest anything. and where does it say to ask mary for assistance? Keltik31 23:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I take it you are a follower of Sola Scriptura? IrishGuy 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
no. never heard of it. just wondering where catholics get some of their practices from. if it isnt in the bible, then it isnt legit in my book. you just cant make it up as you go. Keltik31 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sola Scriptura means "scripture alone". It is the belief that only the Bible is relevant...which is what you are espousing. Catholics believe in the Bible as well as tradition, just as the followers of Judaism have scripture and tradition. If you have a legitimate desire to learn more about Catholicism, there are many articles here and many editors who might be able to help you. If you are trolling in an attempt to cause problems, I would suggest you find somewhere else to go. IrishGuy 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)