Talk:Catholic Church: Difference between revisions

Catholicism A‑class Top‑importance

Catholic Church is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles A This article has been rated as A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see Draft articles Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page) Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Christianity Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Abortion Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL Template:V0.5

Archives
April 2004 – November 2005 August 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 Name Debate (August/September 2006)

Hello, I would lik to know something about the revenues in US or in other countries of the Roman Catholic Church. --Calgaco 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Catholic Information Project. Scroll down to the section on "Church Finances". The numbers are a few years old, but should give you a pretty good idea. Kylef81 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an official site (possibly within the vatican.va site) that states the doctrines of the RCC? Tim Long 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I am not sure what exactly you are looking for, but the best authoritative presentation of Catholic teaching is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Vatican website has a copy, but you may want to try others which have better search engines. There are many copies of the CCC online. Here is the Vatican's web link.[1] Vaquero100 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The portion of the article describing criticisms of the church seems to suffer from slight POV problems due to its defensive nature. Generally, it describes the criticism, then quotes a Catholic clergyperson's refutation of it. Sometimes the refutation is given through facts that lack detail, or even narrative describing why the charge is inaccurate. The following is one example of a statement in the article which a nuetral would consider lacking in perspective.

The article says that "Throughout the centuries, the Church has had to respond to many criticisms, some of which are now considered outright heresies." Most of the subsequent criticisms are charges which are usually made most strongly by non-catholics, who probably don't consider it relevant whether their criticisms are called heresy. Indeed, many of them belong to groups whose official beliefs would also be called heresy. --Todemo

I've seen the same thing happen in the Ordination of women article. What I've tried to do there was to move the refutations to another section where they would be more appropriate. -- Cat Whisperer 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“Roman” Catholic recapitulates old Reformation fighting points. It stirs up defensive behaviors, natch. It would be great to put an end to that here and let each group call itself what it wants. I don't care what anybody calls me. There's always somebody to hate, and always somebody to hate you back. I've been called a lot worse than "Roman" - the rednecks I grew up with in the backwaters of the USA thought my name was Jewish (not my Wikipedia name, which is Olompalian). When they found out I was "Roman" Catholic, well - that was worse! The Associated Press stylebook in the US recommends "Roman" Catholic, as does the Chicago Manual of Style, perhaps under the influence of the national curriculum set by the Ivy League colleges, themselves descended from Protestant divinity schools formed in the period shortly after the English Reformation. --Olompali 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that institutions which dropped their religious affiliations centuries ago make this style recommendation as a prejudicial stereotype? While your expression appears to be heartfelt, this stretches the limits of my imagination. Durova 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The institutions themselves don't make this recommendation: the "Roman Catholic" meme is a part of the culture, and was pushed just as much by unintellectual Catholic-baiters as it was by Anglophiles in the intelligentsia. In both cases, it stigmatizes the Catholic Church as being foreign to the speaker and the (English-speaking) audience and evokes various black legends and historical rivalries (e.g., England-Spain). Chonak 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The OED disagrees. The distancing term is Romanist or Romish. "For conciliatory reasons, it [Roman Catholic] was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this, printed by Rushworth (1659), I. 85-89. After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term, and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary usage Catholic alone is often employed."

Do we need to be more scrupulous than the Court of Spain, the Most Catholic Kings? Septentrionalis 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even the King of Spain does not have the perogative of changing the name of the Catholic Church. The OED, published in Oxford, (Hello? OXFORD!). If you dont understand the significance of this fact, please educate yourself here. It is precisely this kind of reference (and Encl. Britannica) which gave credance to the Anglican position on the Catholic Church. If not for that movement, we would not be having this conversation. If you look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the matter[2], you find that the OED intentially left out many known references to the term which were hostile in tone. It most definitely does not come from the era of the Spanish Match! Vaquero100 21:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful, if instead of quoting dated polemics from 1917, Vaquero had consulted the current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which says:

This qulaification of the name Catholic seems to have been introduced by those reformers who resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of Catholicity In England, many of the reformers thought of themselves as catholic. So the term Roman Catholic became accepted as a useful designation of those who owed allegiance to the pope, and it passed into legal usage. English Catholics resented the appelation Roman Catholic insofar as it implied that they were but a part of the one true catholic church which also included the Anglo-Catholic and the Orthodox.

On the other hand, Roman is an apt designation of the true Church. Peter was given the primacy over the church by Christ... [much, much more, covering the association with Rome; and then another paragraph on the special senses of the Roman Rite and the local Church of Rome, the Roman See.]

In short, RCC is an acceptable term for Catholic use; it is only derogatory if used with an implication which this article does not (and should not) make; and that sense hasn't been the primary one in centuries. [Option 2 might be read as having that implication, and is therefore rightly opposed.] Septentrionalis 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English is spoken in Oxford and the OED is a citable source on the origins and usage of terms in English. If the above assertion is correct that the "Anglican position" has influenced English usage, then we should note that fact somewhere (citing sources of course), but that is hardly a reason not to follow the most common unambiguous English usage. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia found a few uses before 1605; one appears to be from 1601; the earliest from 1588, IIRC. Most are from pamphlets which prefer Romish or Popish Catholic, but once or twice use the literal translation of Sancta Romana Ecclesia catholica for irony. I'm underwhelmed; so is the second edition of the OED.

Depicting this as an Anglican plot does require an explanation of why a Dundee Scot would throw away his reputation for it, and why a pious Catholic would agree to work on such heretical pravity. Septentrionalis 02:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vaquero100 seems to indicate above that it is specically what he calls the "Anglican" position on the use of the word "Catholic" which he is defending. I belong to both the Anglican and Catholic projects here, although I have closer ties to Catholicism than Anglicism. However, it seems to me obvious that citing the OXFORD English Dictionary, which is published from one of the few counties on the planet where Anglicans have more influence than Catholics, is in no way a credible defense of his position. The fact that C. S. Lewis and others also were at Oxford is at best tangential and probably irrelevant to the editorial policies of the OED itself, barring direct citation of such reference. J.R.R. Tolkien working for it is also somewhat irrelevant, given it is may well be the best English philological encylopedia out there, regardless of any possible religious bias. Personally, I would like to see this issue hashed out by some larger entity whose decision, when made, would be binding. My personal opinion, as stated above, is that the church of the pope which is involved in the (note the lack of the word "Roman", by the way) Catholic Almanac and Catholic Encyclopedia clearly has a right to have itself referred to in the way which it is most readily and unambiguously named in these publications. However, as stated, I would be more than happy to try to have this matter referred to an outside body which would be able to render a final decision. If such a body could be found, and if the terms of the argument could be agreed to by all interested parties, would both sides be willing to accept the decision reached by such a body? Please indicate yes or no below. Badbilltucker 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond here to make clear the flow of thought. The above suggestion proposes a binding decision, which is against policy, and an abdication of responsibility to an outside body, which strikes me as craven. Even if we could agree on such a body, which is unlikely, we cannot constrain the next group of editors from reconsidering the decision. The only larger body that would be remotely relevant would be a larger group of the editors of the English-language Wikipedia. The proper avenue for that is to open an article RfC. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume for purposes of discussion that this line of reasoning is true - up to the point of foreign branding - I'm not at all confident with the conclusion that this constitutes any slur against the religion. Oxford and the Ivy League universities are among the places in the English speaking world that most revere the Western classical heritage. Durova 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Robert A. West, there is one extreme and admittedly possibly unworkable option which has to the best of my knowledge not yet been tried. We are currently going through an election of a new member to the Wikipedia Foundation Board of Trustees. It might be possible to, upon the conclusion of this election, hold a referendum vote among all those who voted in the election regarding the matter of naming the page for the Catholic Church headed by the pope, the similar pages for the Eastern Rite Catholics, the Old Catholic Church, and any other pages whose subject contains the words "Catholic" and "Church" in close proximity. This is one of the articles of top importance to wikipedia, and on that basis such extreme action might (I emphasize might) be acceptable. If we were to do this, we might then have a true and verifiable decision of the wikipedia on an article, possibly(?) for the first time in the existence of the wikipedia. It might be possible to give each position some space to put forward their specific positions, their responses to the positions of others, and the various alternatives available to resolve the dispute. I think we would all agree that those individuals who took part in the Board election, regardless of their religious affiliation (if any), would have demonstrated sufficient interest and knowledge regarding the wikipedia to be informed about wikipedia matters and be capable of making reasonable decisions most in keeping with the policies and procedures of the wikipedia. I acknowledge a regular RfC would work as well, but I do think that in a matter as controversial as this one, some individuals might feel more comfortable with the kind of secret ballot which is available in an election. I also acknowledge that even a decision made by such a means would be at least potentially reversible by subsequent developments, but that the clear opinion of the wikipedia itself regarding the current dispute would be available, which should be sufficient to constitute a final decision on the current dispute. Again, I would welcome an indication from the rest of you whether any of you would find such a proposal acceptable or not. Badbilltucker 13:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't think an elaborate mediation process is needed here. Although I am not 100% comfortable with the title "Catholic Church", upper case C, redirecting to the "Roman Catholic Church", I can understand the sincere effort to make the topic navigable in Wikipedia. While some may regard the label "Roman" as some kind of slur or foreign branding, I think they realize that others don't feel that way. If we are to navigate this topic at all we have to be able to distinguish between the "Catholic Church" that has allegiance to the Pope and the plethora of other Catholic Churches which do not. If we try to lump all Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church centered in Rome into one homogenous group despite their clear differences in hierarchy, liturgy, theology, canon, etc., this topic will be unintelligible. Despite the context of bitter religious wars in the past, and to some extent today, visitors need these distinctions to find the exact topic they are looking for. If someone wants to cast aspersion on the Roman Catholic Church today, there are much more effective ways than merely referring to it as "Roman". In all the interaction I have these days the term "Roman Catholic" carries no derogatory connotation. I really don't think this rises to the level of "edit war" or administrative intervention. I think the current configuration is quite workable and any differences can be worked out by dialogue.claimman75 04:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I observe the survey to be no consensus, which should mean no action. Would there be any interest in a dab header, noting that Roman Catholic Church can also be used for Churches of the Latin Rite? Septentrionalis 17:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. Latin Rite seems like the most like canidate to link to, something like For the Western particular church, see Latin Rite. To complicate things, we have Roman Rite, which is one of the Latin liturgical rites, however this term probably isn't common enough to belong in a dab header, no? (or we could make a Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) page as well, though personally I find that unnecessary).--Andrew c 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"'Roman Catholic Church' can be used" or "... may be used" - no. These phrases would indicate adoption of a non-neutral position of declaring legitimate use of "Roman Catholic" in a sense contrary to the Holy See's usage, a sense few attribute to it. "... is used by some" - perhaps. But that would be inviting questions: "By whom?"; "Is it correct usage?" etc. Is the point really important enough for a header? Why not leave it for "Terminology"?

"For the Western particular Church, see Latin Rite" - "... and for the Eastern particular Churches see Eastern Rite Catholic Churches"? And why put so technical a term as "particular Churches" right at the beginning? Lima 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason for this header would be to acknowledge the argument for Option 1, which is quite valid as far as it goes (there is disagreement about how far that is): that the Eastern Rite Churches are not, in one sense, Roman Catholic; if no supporter of Option 1 thinks this point worth making, then it need not be made. Septentrionalis 01:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Eastern Catholics do not consider themselves 'Eastern Rite Roman Catholics', but rather 'Eastern Catholics'. Being a supporter of Option 1, I think this point really is worth making. Please remember that while Eastern Catholics make up only 3% of the Catholic Church at present, our Rites, Traditions and 22 Churches are of equal dignity with the Roman Church, and numerically speaking, will always be outnumbered in votes by Romans who neither know nor care about issues that affect us. InfernoXV 10:24 9 Sept 2006 (GMT+8)

In response to InfernoXV, I would like to note that I had earlier created a rather small number of pages and/or categories regarding various bishoporics and archbishoporics with the name "Melkite Catholic...", "Maronite Catholic...", etc. I think that, if we could ever resolve the matter of whether the church of the pope is called "Catholic..." or "Roman Catholic...", designating all the Eastern churches in communion with Rome by names such as the above might be acceptable to all sides. However, if we were to be forced to label the entire papal church as "Roman Catholic," there might be problems with the designations, if there were Churches out of the Roman communion which also used similar names. "Maronite Roman Catholic..." for example, seems, at best, a tortured naming. However, I would ask InfernoXV if he would have any specific naming preferences for these Eastern Catholic churches, taking into account whether this page is called "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic." Badbilltucker 17:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badbilltucker, thanks for the thought! Easterns absolutely and vehemently object to being called 'Roman Catholics', and you were quite right in naming those pages "Melkite Catholic", "Maronite Catholic" and so on. The whole dispute about whether the Church in communion with the Pope of Rome is to be called "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" is due to a historical confusion between the two rôles of the Bishop of Rome. First, he is Pope of the entire Catholic Church. Second, he is Patriarch of Rome and the West, an office where his Patriarchal powers are limited to the Church of the West (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, one of the particular Churches that make up the Catholic Church). Due to the numerical superiority of the RCC in the last millennium, it has been confused with the larger concept of the CC. Easterns are part of the Catholic Church, but not the Roman Catholic Church. I hope I have not made myself entirely obscure. InfernoXV 07:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those who have read through all the discussion that led up to this recent poll will have observed that one of the commonest complaints about the name "Roman Catholic Church" for this article is that the term "Roman Catholic Church" is taken by many to exclude the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, whereas this article's text clearly includes them within its scope. For those readers then there is a confusing mismatch between the article's title and the article's contents. To say that the term "Roman Catholic Church" is also used to refer to the Latin Rite particular church in opposition to the Eastern Rite particular churches is merely an observation regarding language usage - it makes no claims about the "correctness" of this usage. I think in light of the dispute surrounding the naming of this article, a slightly longer (but not too bloated!) disambiguation link is warranted. Would others consider this excessive?:

"Catholic Church" redirects here. For the broader theological concept, see Catholicism; for the Western particular Church, see Latin Rite; for other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation).

(Actually I still think it would be worthwhile to turn that last disambiguation page into a full blown article called Catholic Church (term), and in that case the disambiguation link could be reduced to pointing to just that and Latin Rite.) Thylacoleo 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Bishop of Rome. Septentrionalis 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the "For the broader theological concept.." part, as it supposes that it's a different concept than the subject of this article. 2nd Piston Honda 02:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is. The subject of this article is an actual organisation which has its name "Catholic Church" (or according to some, "Roman Catholic Church"). The "theological concept" is something which theologians dispute over, and is based on varying interpretations of the word "Catholic" and historical continuity and so on. It might be the case that the organisation called "Catholic Church" considers itself to exclusively manifest the theological concept "Catholic Church" (and hence calls itself "Catholic Church"), but that doesn't mean the actual organisation and the theological concept are the same (except in the theology of the organisation called "Catholic Church"). Perhaps we could omit the word "broader" from the disambiguation link to avoid any misinterpretations here. Thylacoleo 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thylacoleo. CC (organization) and CC (theological concept) are not the same thing for encyclopedic purposes.--Leinad ¬ »saudações! 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the word "broader" and it would be fine. 2nd Piston Honda 08:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's try it. We should probably add something about Church of Rome too, since the New Catholic Encyclopedia does. Septentrionalis 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the setup on the Catholic Church (disambiguation) page. The only thing I would add is a grouping, on perhaps the bottom of the contents, indicating all the other groups who place a claim on the use of the word. This could include the Anglicans as well as the Old Catholics and all the other bodies who use that word as a part of their name. I think that there's even an "American Catholic" church, having heard it's name mentioned in a local controversy, although I know regret to say that I know nothing of the details about it. Badbilltucker 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict...)
If we are going toward an extended dab link on the top of the article, I think we should distinguish between subjects that are discussed inside the article and the ones that don’t. We could say, for example:

"Catholic Church" redirects here. For the theological concept, see Catholicism; for other uses, see Catholic Church (disambiguation).

On subjects that are part of the institution described in this article, see Bishop of Rome, for the diocese of Rome; see Latin Rite for information on the Western particular Church; see Eastern Rite Catholic Churches for information on the various Eastern particular Churches.

--Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to have an extended dab link, and only have the first paragraph of Leinad's text. Lima 18:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tend to agree with Lima. To give many links on the top of the article without much explanation may have more potential to confuse than to resolve ambiguity problems. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 18:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, reading all that seems very dense just for dab. It introduces jargon and issues that I feel is better covered in the body text, and shouldn't start crowding the top of the article before the article even starts.--Andrew c 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid Leinad that that was the kind of bloating of the disambiguation link I was hoping we could avoid. I agree with Lima that the first paragraph is probably sufficient, and I think it's actually an improvement on the current minimalist version in at least one way - it allows those who favour the term "Catholic Church" to be used in the larger sense to get to the appropriate article (i.e. Catholicism) in just one click, rather than being diverted through the somewhat confusing Catholic Church (disambiguation) page.

Of course this dab wording would still do nothing whatsoever to mitigate the problem with the alternative interpretation of "Roman Catholic Church" as implying exclusion of the Eastern Rite Churches. Seeing as this article won't be moving names any time soon, I was wondering if someone could explain to me what the objections are to reversing the order of the two terms in the intro sentence (so it reads "The Catholic Church, often called the Roman Catholic Church, ..." instead). I know it's been tried before and reverted, but I'm not sure why. There's no rule on Wikipedia (that I'm aware of) disallowing the first bolded headword of an article text not being identical to the article name (cf. United States for an example), and it seems if the terms are reversed we would no longer be giving the misleading impression that "Roman Catholic Church" is more "preferred" or "formal" than "Catholic Church". Thylacoleo 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Considering that the first bolded word is usually (or should be) the subject's preferred official name, and that this side of the debate won the most recent poll, i think it would be a good compromise. 2nd Piston Honda 02:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say the "Catholic Church" side of the article naming debate "won" the most recent poll, but I don't think anyone on either side has disputed that the organisation in question prefers to use the term "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church" when referring to itself. Thylacoleo 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article should stay where it is. Belly Flop Patrol 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this:

While Protestants were the first to use the term Roman Catholic to distinguish this Church from theirs, Catholics themselves employed it as early as the seventeenth century, both in English and in Latin ("Ecclesia catholica romana") and French ("Église catholique romaine"),[8] to profess their faith in the importance of communion with the see of Rome.

To this:

One of the earliest documents in which the terms Roman and catholic were associated with the church at Rome was the Decree of Gelasius in 495. The terms Roman church and Roman catholic appear throughout, while phrases such as catholic Roman church and Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church appear only once.[7] During the reformation, Protestants began using the term Roman Catholic to distinguish this Church from theirs. In the seventeenth century, both in English and in Latin ("Ecclesia catholica romana") and French ("Église catholique romaine"),[8] Catholics again employed this ancient term to profess their faith in the importance of communion with the see of Rome.

My edit was then promply removed by 2nd Piston Honda, who said it was off topic. But in what way? How does documenting the falsity of the statements that "Protestants were the first to use the term Roman Catholic," and that "Catholics themselves employed it as early as the seventeenth century" qualify as off topic? Could someone please explain to me what it is I'm missing? Here is the footnote ref. I provided: [3]. And, for what it's worth, her is an interesting letter to the editor of the Nov. 1996 issue of Catholic Answers's "This Rock" magazine along these same lines. The letter is entitled "A Mere 1,000 Years Off." [4] Delta x 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is "the first to use the term Roman Catholic to distinguish this Church from theirs". Your additions were about use of "Roman Catholic" apart from the intent to make a distinction between two churches, and that's not what the section is about. 2nd Piston Honda 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. But something is still not right with this section. And granting that these statements are perhaps not altogether false, they are in fact, still somewhat misleading. Therefore, I offer the following revised version of my edit, which I believe, not only does not trespass on the of the sense of the original, but indeed, lends an important historical perspective to it. Here is my proposed change:

The Church at Rome, at least as early as the fifth century, was the first to use the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish itself from the various heretical groups existing at that time. During the reformation, the term was adopted by Protestants, who wished to distinguish themselves, and the reformed churches, from that of the Roman church. In the seventeenth century, both in English and in Latin ("Ecclesia catholica romana") and French ("Église catholique romaine"),[8] Catholics once again employed this ancient terminology to profess their faith in the importance of communion with the see of Rome.

So unless someone objects, I'll add this change to the article (footnoted of course). Delta x 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Little trouble maker. You've chosen the right time to stir things up. --WikiCats 12:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current translation puts Rome in the genitive case (the Church of Rome), but it is an adjective and would properly be translated Roman Church; it could refer to the empire of Rome rather than the city, since the Byzantines in Constantinople identified themselves as Roman, hence it may have nothing to do with the city of Rome. Lostcaesar 13:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just change "seventeenth century" to "fifth century" in the original version (w/ accomodating edits)? 2nd Piston Honda 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is of some interest to everyone:[5] It comes from a 28 page booklet entitled The Roman Catholic Church: A Divine Institution or a Human Invention? by Adam S. Miller. And although no longer online ( hard copy available here ), I did happen to find, as you can see, a cached version of the appendix to Mr. Miller's original (1997) booklet (a copy of which I have) while trying to do some follow-up on several of the quotes he gives. And so I thought would just throw another scrap of information into the mix here for anyone who might be interested. Delta x 05:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop having this argument in the text of the article. If this is not an example of "Roman Catholic Church" being used to refer to the entire Church in communion with the Pope, it is not relevant to the article - it should be removed, not left in but surrounded by arguments as to why it isn't relevant. If it is an early example of this usage, it is relevant; but either case, a reputable source for the opinion on its meaning needs to be cited, not just arguments made by Wikipedians in the text of the artcle. TSP 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have come to another turning point in the conversation--a quite predictable but sad one. The term "Roman" is well established in its origins in the bigotry of 16th Century England and is 450 year-long project of Anglicans to deprive the Catholic Church of its name. As an emblem of anti-Catholicism (an irrational hatred or disdain for Catholicim) it is not at all surprising that Anglicans and other who hold the Anglican position lose ground in the face of rational arguments, they have become even more desperate in their insistance that the Catholic position on the issue be obliterated from the WP record. Article after article from "Catholic " to "Catholicism" the Anglican position is smeared all over WP. However, no reportage of the Catholic Church's position is permitted even on the this page. This is an intellectual atrocity.

In practice at the moment the debate is not about the name of this article but whether the Catholic position on the very name of the Catholic Church will be able to find space anywhere on WP! In March there was a vote on the name of this article argued mostly on theological grounds. This allowed people to simply vote their own biases. The vote was something like 17 to 7 in favor of "Roman." Now that there is a slight majority that favors CC because the issue has been argued on WP policy, the stridency of the anti-Catholics on WP has become all the more shrill.

I am a busy man, but as I get the time, I will redouble my efforts to set the record straight.

Lima's point that the Catholic Church most often calls itself "the Church" is an example of a clear absurdity. These references are a linguistic shorthand common in the English language. "America" is not the name of the nation where I live. The "proper name" of this country is the United States of America. However, in common parlance "America" is a shorter reference to the nation. "America" is by far the more common use in English, but no one honestly confuses this reference with the proper name of the country. Lima is grabbing at straws and is utterly desperate to hold on to this mental delusion.

This is to be expected when rational argument fails to uphold a position based upon irrational predispositions/prejudices especially those which belong in 16th Century England. An examination of conscience is in order. Vaquero100 07:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your current post Vaquero, borders on the abusive. There's nothing shrill or delusional or even anti-Catholic on the part of those who prefer the correct and descriptive name of the church: Roman Catholic. I wish there could be more grace extended, because many of those who call themselves Catholic simply refer to themselves as a part of Christ's Church, and are quite willing and happy to include Roman Catholics, English Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, etc, as fellow members of the Catholic Church. It is the persistent claim of the Roman Catholics to exclusivity - the refusal to accept other Catholics of slightly different doctrinal pursuasions as fellow Christians. To thus label the article "Catholic Church" is to adopt a POV endorsing this claim to exclusivity, which is not acceptable to at least half the Christians in the world. This is the heart and core of the issue, and those who are politicking for the change are simply trying to require the rest of the world to acknowledge the exclusivity claim. Pollinator 06:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg those who are not members of the Church that considers itself to be truly one, holy, catholic, apostolic, Roman, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth, the Church that Jesus built in the way he promised in Matthew 16:18, etc. not to be offended by what follows. I am only saying how the Church sees itself, not asking them to accept the Church's point of view.

Bodies that broke away have felt the need to adopt a name (a "denomination") to indicate their separate identity. The Church sees itself simply as the Church, not as a body that needs to adopt a distinguishing name. It has thus always continued to describe itself as before, using terms such as "apostolic", "one", "catholic", "Roman", "the Church", etc. as descriptions, not as names, still less as "linguistic shorthand" for a name or names that it is alleged to have adopted. Only when it is being contrasted with one or more other bodies does the practical need arise to refer to it in some distinguishing way. Internally, it may use for this purpose phrases such as "the true Church", "the historic Church", "the original Church", etc. But in direct relations with the other bodies, it has found that the descriptions acceptable to both sides are, as far as I know, only two: "the Catholic Church", and "the Roman Catholic Church". Of these two, the Church prefers the first, but does not insist on it in its relations with those who object: it then accepts the second description as a way to refer to it, and thus as a name. It does not consider either term to be the name for the Church, which continues to see itself simply as the Church: not this kind or that kind of Church, but simply the Church.

I repeat, I am not asking those who do not belong to the Church as thus understood to accept the Church's point of view. On the other hand, it is somewhat surprising that a priest of the Church adopts their point of view. Lima 08:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the years, I've noticed that the persons who hold the visible offices in a hierarchy are not always the one who actually hold the power that supposedly goes with the office. There is frequently an invisible hierarchy that one must know and respect, if one is to survive in that organization. If this is true of human structures, it certainly is more likely to be true of a spiritual structure that depends on graces and activities that are contrary to human nature and the expectations of the world. I doubt that *any* physical structure (including my own denomination) is "the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth, the Church that Jesus built." Whatever the body, I see far too many failings to consider that to be possible. The genuine church can be found within a great variety of denominations, and quite likely also outside them too. Whatever the true Church is, it is primarily God's perogative to establish, uphold, or judge. It's time for us to stop insulting other members of that church with our claims of exclusivity. Pollinator 06:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am behind Vaquero's efforts 100% to call this article by its correct name. I can see the tide turning in that direction. --WikiCats 12:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that running around to find supporters of a position is called internal spamming and is not an acceptable Wikipedia means of editing. Campaigning to influence a vote may change the outcome on one occasion, but won't bring about a more NPOV Wikipedia, nor will it be a permanent change. Pollinator 06:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaq: People who voted for RCC are not by default anti-Catholic. Accusing people of bigoty and being party to some Anglican conspiracy is NOT helping your position. Calling a fellow editor's thoughts a "mental delusion" is NOT helping your position. Claiming your position is the only rational position is NOT helping your position. I understand that this is a very close and dear and theologically important issue for you. But I would urge you NOT to redouble your efforts on this topic. Wikipedia has spent years arguing over this debate, and it isn't going to be settled, and no-consensus is the best we have ever got. I hate to say it this way, but we should all just suck it up and accept that both RCC and CC are acceptable on wikipedia, and all vow never ever again to edit pages for the sole purpose of adding or removing the word "Roman". Seriously, I'd suggest not bringing up this topic again until this article has reached FA or at least GA status. It wastes SO MUCH time that could be used to actually focus on improving content, not arguing over a single word that only is a matter of dire importance to POV-warriors. Seriously, think what is more important to everyone personally: correcting the wrong names across wikipedia, or bringing articles up to FA status? If you answered the former, I'd ask you to seriously reconsider your motives for contributing to wikipedia.--Andrew c 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what frustrates alot of people on WP is that liberal or politically correct changes can be made at someone's whim or just after a discussion with no vote (or no 'consensus'), and then reverting it back is treated as out of the question and requires a super-majority vote. It's a double standard and shows the general liberal bias at WP. 2nd Piston Honda 23:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such double standard. Perhaps you could give an example? It is the case that people who act out of process often find it easier than those who follow the rules, which is perhaps a problem, but it cuts both ways (most of Vaquero's RCC->CC changes have been without concensus, and many of them have stuck). In this case, the article was at this location by clear concensus (over 2:1) 6 months ago; this time there has been no clear concensus. TSP 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Vaquero's efforts in having this page moved to its correct title are entirely justified. Vaquero did a lot of work in explaining the reason for moving this article based solely on the guidelines. The vote was 29 to move the article and 24 against. We have to say that this is the best outcome we have had to date. Vaquero should be encouraged for his perseverance in this matter. --WikiCats 04:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't especially a criticism; but 2nd Piston Honda seemed to be presenting a world in which one side was persevering with votes and concensus and the other (making "liberal or politically correct changes") acting without discussion. I just haven't seen that. TSP 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't noticed that it's harder to change something from liberal-favored to conservative-favored than vice versa on WP? 2nd Piston Honda 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, but the two terms are so broad as to be almost meaningless. In a well-written article the 'liberal' and 'conservative' points of view should be presented together, proportional to their support, without endorsing either. It should be easiest to change something to whatever is best supported by independent sources; but people from all points of view are guilty of trying to bend Wikipedia to their personal opinions rather than to the neutral point of view. TSP 13:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Catholic. My church has a big sign out front indicating it is "Roman Catholic". I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostoltic church, but also happen to believe we aren't going to get there by taking offense over the difference between being called Roman Catholic or Catholic or disparaging other denomination's interest in sharing that Catholicism - good for those Anglicans in having the interest in being Catholic, now let's talk together about what it means! Ultimately, those of us with an interest all need to get over denominationalist self-righteousness to build that common Catholic church. I would suggest that we set aside the labeling issue and worry about more fundamental things. Sam 17:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines make it clear the name the article should be titled. --WikiCats 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Sam's comments above. I would like to state how sad I am, as a Catholic, of being accused of anti-Catholicism, something which shocks me and I deeply resent. It is easy for me to see now why every Mass includes so many invocations to unity, when members of God's Church are so easily provoked into recrimination and name-calling. Slac speak up! 01:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from all the polemical and rhetorical happenings here, we have a matter that needs attention. The following paragraph has various problems:

The probably sixth-century Decretum Gelasianum speaks of books by certain heretics and schismatics as rejected and banished from "omni Romana catholica et apostolica ecclesia",^[1] a phrase which probably means "the whole catholic and apostolic Church of Rome" (i.e. the see of Rome), but which, in a version^[2] that also mistranslates "repudiata .. eliminata" not as "(the books) have been rejected ... banished"^[3] but as "is to be rejected ... eliminated", has also been interpreted as meaning "the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church."

There is no source for the assertion that the Latin "probably means" the Church of Rome. The Latin itself doesn't say that. Also, why does this text quote a translation, only to the discredit that translation? Besides, I don't think "to be rejected… banished" is a mistranslation; the passage says:

We profess these [heresies] to be things not only having been rejected by the entire roman catholic and apostolic church but also to be things having been banished with their following authors under the unbreakable chains of anathema and to be things having been damned into eternity.

What is wrong with saying "to be damned" rather than "to be things having been damned"? Sounds fine to me; actually, it sounds like a better English translation. Look, I am Roman Catholic and I voted that the name should be Catholic Church; but the text above says what it says. Lostcaesar 10:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mistranslation?

"rejected ... banished": a perfectly good translation that has not been questioned.

"is to be" (the words italicized in the previous text): wrong tense; the text has the past tense; also, but less important for the meaning, the verb should be plural, to agree with the subject.

However, the observation about mistranslation may perfectly well be omitted. The English translation in question was quoted, since it seemed (wrongly? I think not) to be the basis upon which the claim was made that "Roman Catholic" was at that time a name for the whole Church, East and West, not just for the see of Rome.

The translation in question did not use the wrong tense; it used the past tense: "we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but..."; the article said it was a mistranslation because it used the simple "rejected" rather than the perfect participle "having been rejected" - if the article is going to argue for a genitive noun rather than an adjective to translate Romana, then it cannot get upset about this perfectly fine translation. Lostcaesar 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reread what the observation in the article did say. Rather, don't bother: nobody is putting that observation back. So why fuss? Lima 13:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Does "Romana catholica et apostolica Ecclesia" mean "the Apostolic Roman-Catholic Church"?

In the Decretum Gelasianum, "Romana catholica et apostolica Ecclesia" appears once with the words in that order. Surely this is the same Church that the document also calls "catholica et apostolica Romana Ecclesia", i.e. "the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church (or Church of Rome)" - the same words in another order. If the order mattered, perhaps we'd have to say two different Churches are also meant when the document speaks, as it does several times in both cases, of "sancta Romana Ecclesia" and of "sancta Ecclesia Romana"!

• Does "Romana ecclesia" mean "Church of Rome", or must it always be translated as "Roman Church", implying that it is something different from the Church of Rome?

When Bosnia Herzegovina was part of Yugoslavia, the bridge in Sarajevo now called the Latin Bridge was called the Principov Most in the Serbo-Croat language, in which "most" means "bridge" and "principov" is an adjective referring to Princip, the man who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914. Would Lostcaesar insist that in translating "Principov" an adjective ("Principan"?) be used in English, calling the bridge the Principan Bridge?

That "Roman Church" meant Church of Rome (the see of Rome) is obvious from other documents of the same period. Take the c. 401 reference to some bishops, the first mentioned being the bishop of the Church of Rome: "Ecclesiae Romanae Liberius episcopus, Eusebius quoque a Vercellis, Hilarius de Gallis" (Denzinger 209). Or the 11 March 422 letter in which Pope Boniface told Rufus to examine, if he wished, what sees the canons put next after the Church of Rome: "Recensete canonum sanctiones, repperietis, quae sit post Ecclesiam Romanam secunda sedes, quaeve sit tertia" (Denzinger 235). Or the 435-442 text, possibly by St Prosper, in which the author speaks of research he had done into the decisions of the successive heads of the Church of Rome about the heresies of their times: "inquirere quid rectores Romanae Ecclesiae de haeresi, quae eorum temporibus exorta fuerat, iudicarint" (Denzinger 238). Lima 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All we need to do, then, is source this; but it doesn't seem appropriate to me to say, basically, that it is wrong to translate the text as "Roman Church" - its not wrong; what does Roman mean? Well, lets just source it out (or perhaps omit it alltogether) rather than engage in a debate style interpretation where we involke and then repudiate a translation which happens to (correctly) read "Roman Church". Lostcaesar 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source what out? That a "Church" can mean a see? If it makes Lostcaesar happy, of course we can use the more obscure "Roman Church". So I have already inserted "Roman" before "Church" in the article. Lima 13:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would make me happy is getting rid of the entire ridiculous argument. Lostcaesar 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God, it's done. Lima 13:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there must be something here that I missed. Lostcaesar 13:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! Why not try Wikipedia:Mediation? It works you know. Check out Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, you'll see how Wiki fixes things. Tis simple. Tis objective. No frills. Try it. It works. And if not, then to Wikipedia:Arbitration you go! If you are proWiki policy you win. ;) Ndss 11:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall we already went down the DR route, which is how we ended up with the current title. Guy 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the number of votes, "we" now is not the same as "we" then, whenever then was. Chonak`

Show the link to the mediation and I'll check. Do you know JASpencer is with Arbritationcom and he voted for "Catholic Church." This has a chance at arbcom! Ndss 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've been through the vote with no consensus resulting, would the interested editors be willing to entertain a proposal for one more vote: an up-or-down consideration of some version of Option 2? E.g., "Catholic Church (organisation)" and "Catholic Church (concept)" Chonak 07:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Perhaps in the future, when feelings have cooled down. Not now. We've (rather, I've?) already wasted too much time on the dispute. Lima 07:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Catholics believe that God sends people there? Or does the Bible? Or both? Or neither? TommyBoy76 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics, like the majority of other Christians, believe that there are at least a few individuals who choose to go to Hell rather than accepting Heaven. "Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven", to quote Milton. If I remember correctly, modern theology indicates that upon their deaths these individuals descend into Hell, to be brought back out for the Final Judgement before everybody, receiving their public "final" sentence, and then returning to Hell. Seemingly, they do all this at least in part on their own. Their motivation seems to be that something not related to Heaven is so important that they choose Hell if that is the only way of retaining this physical attachment. The exact nature of the afterlife is somewhat unclear in the Old Testament, although you might look at Sheol for the relevant details on it. The nature of hell was made a bit clearer in the New Testament. Gehenna and Hell in Christian beliefs might be useful too. I'm not an expert theologian, but if you have any other similar questions please feel free to contact me at my user page if you prefer. I might (emphasis might) be able to help you out a little. Badbilltucker 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it can be some peoples' choice? TommyBoy76 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a choice. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Christ said that many will go to Hell and wide is its path. Catholics believe that those who die in a state of mortal sin go to Hell. Mortal sin is grievous sin which deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace. The things necessary to make a sin mortal are 1) a grevious matter, 2) sufficient reflection, and 3) full consent of the will. That is, it has to be a serious offense, you have to think about it before you do it (knowing it's a serious offense), and then you have to do it of your own will. Confession is the sacrament by which mortal sin can be forgiven and absolved, along with all venial (lesser) sins. 2nd Piston Honda 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The things necessary to make a sin mortal are ... full consent of the will. Right. Therefore, committing a mortal sin is a choice. Not repenting of it and not confessing it are also choices. Therefore, hell is a choice. Why did you say "that's not correct"? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My post was in response to Badbilltucker. And it's not exactly right to say it's our choice. It's God's choice, based on our deeds. 2nd Piston Honda 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to ask it? We've all heard it before. "If God has so much love, then why does He send people to hell?" I personally don't think He does. TommyBoy76 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-1037. Lima 04:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:TommyBoy76, I have thought about this question on similar occassions. I am a Catholic teenager, probably much like yourself. I have even thought of becoming a priest. This doesn't make my following remarks and more credible than the above statements, but I just want to show we are on a similar plane.

All of the above statements do contain some degree of truth. This is the explanation I like to take from the catechism, and if any other clerics or laity want to criticize my understanding, they are free to do so.

God is love. "Deus caritas est". God loves humanity so much that he was willing to give them a great gift: free will. When humans committed original sin, they fell from God's grace, and were only redeemed through Christ's death on the cross. The promise of the afterlife is through Christ's Ressurection. For Christians, original sin is erased from the soul by the sacrament of Baptism. Only those without original sin can go to heaven. The church also believes if one didn't accept God in their life time, the could recieve this sanctifying grace through God's great mercy. This is why the Pope is considering abolishing the doctrine on limbo, because of developments in abortion.

Now, when humans sin, they choose to disobey God. If a sin is commited with full knowing, it is a mortal sin. Venial sins are very serious offenses, as well, but are done in full contempt of God.

Remember that God has given humanity free-will, so it is man and woman's choice to choose God. He can not force one to love him in this life or the next. So by sinning, one is expressing their decision to turn away from God. They themselves are choosing not to be with God, and if they don't seek repentence at death, they may go to Hell. (I am not the judge, so I can't say for sure). By our actions, we choose to go where we want. We won't be able to tell God we didn't "mean it" after our mortal life is over.

I hope I didn't insult your intelligence, but since we are all children of God, sometimes it is easier to explain things like one would a child. If you have any questions just aks. (P.S. If you are a Catholic youth interested in Church questions, but can't understand all the "mumbo jumbo," read "Did Adam and Eve Have Bellybuttons?" by Matthew J. Pinto.) Trevor 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. Though I am keeping my opinion, I leave the computer knowing more than I did. Trevor, you didn't insult my intelligence. I have been Catholic all 16 years of my life so I know all the 'mumbo jumbo' and everything after. Feel free to use any termonology you wish and explain in whatever way you think will get the point across. Only the same thing, with better grammar. :) TommyBoy76 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very common misconseption that we belive that those with mortal sin go directly to hell. Roman Catholics belive only those thatm wish to go to hell go to hell. Anyone "unclean" or unforgiven at time of death goes to purgatory. Here, people must witness and be sorry for all sins they commited before they died. If someone is not Roman Catholic, they still do not go to hell, but also go to purgatory. However, since they are not Roman Catholic and never were prperly forgive, they basicly have to watch every sin they ever commited in life. Once the person has expressed remorse, they go to heaven. If not, they stay in purgatory untill they do feel remorse.--68.192.188.142 01:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are section in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica on this. It is available via Project Gutenberg if anyone is interested. Here is my understanding on the matter:

If you commit a mortal sin, that is a manifestation of hatred for God. This will probably manifested through an abuse of human nature, which was made in the image and likeness of God. You may not think you hate God at the time, but that's probably because you have misunderstood God.

When you die in a state of mortal sin, you will condemn yourself to hell, as hell is merely being without God, once you have seen him face to face. This will occur as a necessary result of your hatred for God. Once you are dead you no longer have the ability to change your mind about these things, as you exist outside of earthly time (but there must be some sort of time considering purgatory). In this way, yes only someone who wants to go to hell will go to hell, but whoever dies in a state of mortal sin will want to go to hell (as an act of aversion towards God). This does not mean that someone could possibly enjoy hell, anyone in hell suffers increadible both physical and other types of 'pain' (whatever that means in this context).

Confession obviously clenses you from Mortal sin. It is possible to have your sins forgiven by an 'act of perfect contrition' before death, which means a person is sorry for their sins because of the offense they have caused God. This is actually very difficult, and any act of perfect contrition should be followed be sacramental confession wherever possible.

Purgatory is for those who have died in a state of grace, but not a state of perfection. This includes if you have venial sins which have not been forgiven or mortal sins which have not been properly atoned for.

I would appreciate any question on this topic on my talk page. Thebike 08:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting unwieldy. Chonak 05:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Let's archive. --WikiCats 11:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved most of the name debate entries into /Archive7. I didn't move all of them since some of them still appear to be active. Those can also be moved to the same archive when it's time. Kylef81 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this comes up a lot on Wikipedia. The article currently uses a mix of American and British spellings. According to Manual of Style - National varieties of English we need to standardize on one form. This is to avoid "jarring" the reader when two different forms are used. Here are the key guidelines from that article:

• Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
• If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
• Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both.
• If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.

I think we can agree that the Church doesn't have a strong tie to any specific region or dialect. We could try to avoid any words that differ in spelling, but that's hard to do. So, that leaves us with the last item, making it match what the first significant contributor used. This edit, 3267007, appears to be the first significant contribution. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much either, since it uses both British and American spelling (organization vs. organisation). So, since I'm a technical person and don't have anything better to do with my time (sad), here's a table that calculates the occurrences of American vs. British spelling in the previously mentioned edit and in the current article. Hopefully that will provide enough support for one version over the other. The words used are from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). I removed entries that had zero results for both forms in both versions of the article.

Updated based on Lima's comments.

*our refers to words such as "behaviour", "favour", "honour", etc. *or refers to the alternate version of those examples: "behavior", "favor", "honor", etc.

Numbers in parenthesis: Acceptable in both Non-US and US. Not counted in total.

Summary

Total British: 4 and 5

Total American: 19 5 and 20 5

Conclusion

The majority of the article (both the first significant edit and the current version) uses American spelling. In order to follow the Wikipedia guideline of using the same dialect throughout the article, I think it is clear that it should be standardized on the American spelling. I'm not trying to impose this version, merely trying to follow the guidelines.

The US version has a very slight edge in the first edit and is a tie with the Non-US version in the current article.

Since my previous edit was reverted, I'm going to hold off for a while on making these changes, to give others the chance to comment (if necessary) and/or make any adjustments to my analysis (I was just doing a find and counting, so it's possible my numbers could be off, but not by much). I also don't know all of the words that are spelled differently, so maybe I've just missed a bunch of the British words. If so, those would need to be added to the table.

Comments? Anyone? (Sorry that these changes won't do a lot to improve the actual content of the article, but this is how I'm able to contribute.)

Kylef81 15:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let Kylef81 redo his calculations. But he should take into account:

• Non-US spelling - by the way, I am not British - accepts both "-ise" and "-ize". I use non-US spelling, but also always use "-ize". UN documents, in general, do the same.
• The same holds for "-ization"
• Has Kylef81 distinguished between "practice" (the noun) and "to practise" (the verb), or has he counted the nouns as exclusively US spelling?

Lima 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks Lima. I knew I had probably missed something. Updates:

• Removed "practice" vs. "practise." All instances were nouns, no verbs.
• No longer count -ize and -ization words in the US total. But still count -ise and -isation in the Non-US total.

Those updates now make it a virtual "tie" with regards to US vs. Non-US. Now it isn't as clear what needs to be done. A change needs to be made, in order for the article to be consistent. But I don't know which one. (No, I'm not going to suggest a vote.) Maybe there are some more US or Non-US words that haven't been counted that will tip the scales one way or the other, to make it more obvious which version needs to be used.

Kylef81 16:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I solve the problem. I might like to recommend the UN practice (which is also mine), but that is not Wikipedia policy. Sorry, I cannot help in any way. Lima 17:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a website that has a list of words that are spelled differently between US and Non-US: British, Canadian and American Spelling. I took that list and did a search on both the first edit and the current article, as described above.

I made one exception: In the case of -ize/-ise and -ization/-isation, those differences were ignored. I did that because of what Lima noted above, the -ize/-ization form is acceptable. That's also mentioned on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) (see Oxford spelling). Since that form is (I assume) acceptable to all, I think (hope) we can agree on using -ize/-ization for consistency. Also, the -isation form was use in the first edit, but isn't used in the current article. So, no changes need to be made for that.

With that in mind, here is the updated table:

First Significant Edit				Current Article
Non-US	Count	US	Count	Non-US	Count	US	Count
behaviour	1	behavior	0	behaviour	0	behavior	0
centre	1	center	3	centre	0	center	2
endeavour	0	endeavor	0	endeavour	1	endeavor	0
favour	0	favor	0	favour	2	favor	0
honour	0	honor	0	honour	0	honor	1
judgement	0	judgment	2	judgement	1	judgment	2
neighbour	1	neighbor	0	neighbour	0	neighbor	0
vigour	0	vigor	0	vigour	1	vigor	0
Total Non-US	3	Total US	5	Total Non-US	5	Total US	5

Summary

Total Non-US: 3 and 5

Total US: 5 and 5

Conclusion

Again, it's not obvious what the right answer is. Going strictly by the numbers, the US version would be selected. But I'd like more input from other editors before a change is made. To put things in perspective, we're only talking about changing 3 or 4 words, depending on which version is selected.

Kylef81 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in again: both "judgment" and "judgement" are perfectly acceptable as non-US spellings, with, I believe, "judgment" being perhaps slightly more common. I personally prefer "judgement", but I accepted instructions to use "judgment" when I worked in an office preparing texts in English (not a UN office). Now I am free to do as I like.

So it seems to be a 3-3 tie for First Significant Edit, and a very slight 4-3 non-US advantage for Current Article. Only four -our/-or words and a single -re/-er word are concerned. Do we absolutely need uniformity?

Lima 19:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. I just like things to be consistent. But, since no one else has ever brought this up, it must not be that big of a deal. I'll let it go, and just have to remember not to change them the next time my spell checker says one of the non-US spellings is wrong. Kylef81 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things I'd like to mention. First of all, I think it is important to standardize the article. Second of all, because of the crazy history of this article, with name changes, and cut and paste moves (and I think at one time it was at Catholicism), I fear that the "earliest significant contribution" being used isn't necessarily that (which may explain the mixed usages so far back in the history). Looking at the tables above, it seems like it is just a matter of changing 5 words, so either way it shouldn't be that big of a deal. We just need to make sure that no one is going to cry foul if we make the move. So which one is it, US or non-US? I think removing the extra 'u's in the '-our' words would be less intrusive, even if I personally prefer non-US spellings.--Andrew c 11:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever about -our/-or, my personal reaction to "center" (someone or something that "cents"?!) is quite negative. Perhaps because, not only in the (more?) widespread form of English, but also in the other languages that I know, "tr" stays together: French centre, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Esperanto centro, Dutch centrum, German Zentrum, Ancient Greek κέντρον, modern Greek κέντρο. Lima 12:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Come to think of it, even in US English spelling, "tr" stays united in words like "central". Lima 13:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) And furthermore again, Andrew's argument could perhaps be extended to all or almost all articles, and so might come to: "Use US spelling throughout Wikipedia." Lima 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments: Centre is extremely jarring to writers of U.S. English; whoever put that in can hardly be an American; whereas judgment/judgement falls within the normal range of typoes (by analogy with appeasement and others, where the e is kept.) Similarly, favour and vigour have been inserted by a distinctly Commonwealth editor. If you're going to go by this standard, BE seems clear; but a mid-Atlantic style, avoiding all usages exclusive either to BE or AE, may be a better idea. Septentrionalis 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound stupid, but shouldn't the bible citation for footnote 21 (The Church is, as scripture states, "the body of Christ") be COLOSSIANS 1:24 or EPHESIANS 5:30 or something other than the current one (Romans 12:4-5)?

Ephesians 5:30 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Romans 12:4-5 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswcheng (talk • contribs) 17:51, September 16, 2006 (UTC).

Agree. Might also suggest:

Ephesians 1:22-23 And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Kylef81 19:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed it to Ephesians 1:22–23. Kylef81 00:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include Romans as well? It's pretty clear here that "we who are many" is the Christian ekklesia. Slac speak up! 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Added back Romans 12:4-5 as a cf. The reason I agreed with Jameswcheng was that the Romans verse isn't as "obvious" in its meaning. Kylef81 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is the right place to make this request (I am still relatively new), but the Roman Catholic section at Christian views on contraception#Roman_Catholic_Church needs attention from someone more knowledgable than myself. Can someone help? CyberAnth 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what we can do about it. I'll get some quotes from the early fathers. why don't you try the Catechism? Thebike 11:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of God Section:

'born' of the Virgin Mary.

There needs to be ade the distinction between being 'born' and 'begotten'. To my knowledge the Church stresses this point, that he was 'Begotten not made'. 'Born' implies being made through conception, not the immaculate conception...

Just my thoughts,

161.253.29.204 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)James Stephenson Oct 10, 2006[reply]

No changes should be made. "Born of the Virgin Mary" comes from both the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. "Begotten not made" refers to the belief that Christ was not created; "born of the Virgin Mary" refers to the belief that in the Incarnation, he was born to a mother like any other human since Adam and Eve. It does not refer to his conception, only his birth. Also, the term Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Jesus, but to his mother's: the Catholic belief is that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised when I could not find a template for citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So I created one: {{ccc1}}. This version works only for a single paragraph. This is my first template (not counting userboxes), so improvements and comments are welcome. I hope other editors find it useful. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a second template for citing whole articles of the CCC: {{ccc2}}. This can also be used for paragraph ranges. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the page be moved to Holy Roman Catholic Church. --WikiCats 20:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and I oppose. Let's not make the title more complicated than it has to be. Gentgeen 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message about the RCC disambig page. I think I agree with Gentgeen though. However, would you like to explain yourself further? Why change the name? What are the pro's and con's? What would we do with the RCC disambig page? etc. -Andrew c 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose, on two grounds. First, the official name of the Church isn't "Holy Roman Catholic Church". It's simply the "Catholic Church". Full stop. However, in everyday parlance -- outside of Vatican City, that is -- the Church is known as the "Roman Catholic Church," to distinguish it from the other "Catholic" churches. So, unless I've missed something here, I see this proposal as having only drawbacks and no advantages. --Todeswalzer 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Church's name is simply "the Church", or "the Christian Church", and in everyday parlance, it is most commonly refered to as the "Catholic Church". 2nd Piston Honda 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have been over the name thing before. I see the current name as an inconsistency on wikipedia's part, but one I am willing to live with as a modus vivendi, at least for now, since there doesn't seem to be too much harm from it. Lostcaesar 07:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Andrew* and Honda. The reason I am proposing that title is to strike a concession. What do you think of that Andrew? Where would you put your disambig.? --WikiCats 09:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Todeswalzer I would say,"Yes you are right." --WikiCats 09:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar, you are Anglican. --WikiCats 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In considering the matter, I turn to the advice of Father Vaquero. --WikiCats 10:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Caesar, you are Anglican" - could you elaborate? Lostcaesar 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth? Is this proposal flamebait or what? Slac speak up! 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks like baiting now, particularly since the person who made the original proposition claims to agree with my counter-arguments. --Todeswalzer 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some changes to the intro recently. I feel they are for the worse. The sentence is not clunky, hard to read, and possibly gramatically incorrect. I felt the previous version (or one of the earlier edits with a much simpler wording) was better. What exactly are we trying to say here? And how is the most elegant way to say it? Perhaps the long reference could be moved to another section? References are generally not supposed to be in intro text. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the article content, so there should be a section describing membership and leaving the church somewhere else in the article. This discussion seems better someplace other than the intro, and I feel that we can find a much more simple yet elegant way to describe what needs to be said. --Andrew c 14:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the right column is covering the main article. I don't know how to fix it, so can someone do it? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.215.189 (talk • contribs) .

I don't see this... perhaps your system has a display problem? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]